Time is a bit cramped this week with Thanksgiving upon us, so I’ll be tackling one mailbag question below this week. Also, I need to wallow a bit in my misery about Derrick Rose being out for the rest of season with a torn meniscus in his right knee after having just been out for 18 months for a torn ACL in his left knee. If you were following my Twitter feed on Friday night when the injury occurred, you probably were hoping that I didn’t have access to any sharp metal objects – it was a dark, dark evening. As a 35-year old Chicago sports and Illini fan, I’ve seen more than my fair share of debilitating sports moments, but nothing has been as bad as these back-to-back Derrick Rose injuries. I had dreamed of the Bulls somehow landing D-Rose in the draft back when he was still not even halfway done with his high school career at Simeon and the night that the franchise won the 2008 NBA lottery with a 1.7% chance was the greatest off-the-field sports moment that I had ever witnessed (if that makes sense). By the end of his rookie season, he had quickly vaulted to one of my 5 favorite athletes of all-time (the others being Michael Jordan, Walter Payton, Frank Thomas and Illini era Deron Williams). So, this has been an excruciating process to witness and there’s a palpable feeling here that Rose may end up on the list of “What might have been?” athletic enigmas such as Gale Sayers, Bill Walton and Bo Jackson. From an overall Bulls team perspective, the franchise is now in the “basketball hell” danger zone where they’re not good enough to win a championship yet not bad enough (even with Rose being out and presumably trading Luol Deng and his expiring contract) to realistically tank to get a legit shot at a top 5 lottery pick in next summer’s loaded draft. (Granted, I’ll keep praying for the sports gods to throw us the bone of Rose’s fellow Simeon alum Jabari Parker ending up in a Bulls uniform.) In summary, thank goodness for the Blackhawks!
Now for our mini-mailbag question for the week (with a full-blown mailbag coming after Thanksgiving):
Yes, I believe that it’s inevitable for the playoff system to go to 8 just as it was only a matter of time that we went from 2 teams playing for the championship to a 4-team playoff. I would never have said that 2 years ago, but the tea leaves are there for further playoff expansion. Now, as I had intimated in playoff system proposals posts previously (such as this one about a hypothetical 4-team playoff system 3 years ago that actually turned out to be fairly close to what the CFP will look like), the critical question is, “Does this make sense for the Big Ten and SEC?” Anyone can slap together a playoff system that he or she personally would like to see, but the challenge is always about whether the power conferences would ever agree to it.
In this case, there’s a fairly heavy incentive for the power conferences to eventually expand the playoff to 8 teams if they can do the following: all 5 power conference champs would receive an auto-bid. That provides a host of benefits for the power conferences compared to the 4-team system, such as (a) a guaranteed playoff slot annually and all of the money that comes with that, (b) guaranteeing that their respective conference championship games become de facto annual playoff games under their complete control and all of the money that comes with that and (c) making each divisional race within each of those power conferences have national title implications in a way that would increase the competitive and media value of the regular season and all of the money that comes with that.*
(* Yes, I know that the Big 12 can’t take advantage of (b) and (c) as of now. We’ll see how long that lasts, as noted in my last post.)
Going one step further, there’s also an easy and logical framework to get that in place by using the bowls and their traditional bowl tie-ins:
Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange/Peach Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
Fiesta/Cotton Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large
If that looks familiar, it’s because I proposed that system in one of the earliest posts on this blog over 7 years ago. The irony is that this playoff system could expand the number of participants to 8 yet the bowls would actually revert back to their traditional roots more compared to the current 4-team system (i.e. there is truly a traditional Rose Bowl every year no matter what). In essence, it’s both progressive and traditionalist. Just imagine what a TV network would pay for those 4 games split up on New Years Eve and New Years Day, 2 semifinal games a week or two later, and then the national championship game on the open Sunday between the NFL’s conference championship games and the Super Bowl.* The Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 are all already receiving $40 million per year for their top non-playoff bowl contracts above and beyond what they’re receiving for the 4-team playoff, so there really isn’t any cap for how high those rights fees can go if those games are converted to single elimination playoff games. That’s going to be really difficult to resist.
(* Yes, these games are getting played in January as opposed to the common fan request of playoff games during December. Note that December TV ratings are materially lower than January TV ratings, the bowls are a contractual mechanism that allow the power conferences to maintain control over the postseason, and the platitudes that university presidents, conference commissioners and athletic directors have given about the length of the football season are mind-bogglingly disingenuous considering how much they have all whored themselves for the almighty dollar in almost every other conceivable way. Drawing a line in the sand about 2 or 4 teams at the most playing beyond New Years Day is completely arbitrary, especially considering that the other revenue sport of men’s basketball has a season that runs from Midnight Madness in October to the national championship game in April.)
Access for the non-power conferences would likely be a hot topic, although I’d have a hard time seeing the power conferences automatically giving them a national championship playoff slot every year.* There might be some type of provision similar what is with the current BCS system, where a top 12 non-AQ champ or top 16 non-AQ champ that ranks higher than an AQ champ would get a bid.
(* Yes, I know that’s not necessarily fair when the power conferences automatically get their own slots while the non-power conferences don’t receive automatic access. Like I’ve said, what matters in reality is what the Big Ten and SEC would agree to.)
I also have a difficult time seeing a playoff ever going beyond 8 teams (and an NCAA Tournament-style system that provides an auto-bid for every conference would be a non-starter for the powers that be), so any traditionalist arguments about further “bracket creep” are tougher to take seriously at that level. The power conferences can get favored access status for their conference champs and preserve or even enhance the financial values of their respective regular seasons, conference championship games and bowl tie-ins under an 8-team system that wouldn’t be possible in a 16-team scenario. The facts that (a) the 8-team playoff that I described above is such low hanging fruit financially with relatively little disruption to the current setup and (b) there will inevitably be controversies arising from who gets in and who gets shut out of the 4-team playoff are going to be driving forces behind an eventual expansion of the playoff system. The powers that be can state all that they want that the current CFP deal will go the full 12 years, but there will surely be an assessment in a few years about what an 8-team playoff would be worth in the marketplace that will open their eyes to change once again.
We’ll get to some other mailbag questions about the state of college sports and conference realignment soon. Until then, Happy Thanksgiving!
(Image from Wikipedia)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawks going bowling.
LikeLike
Spartans > Gophers
LikeLike
Gobble Gobble!
LikeLike
If there is an 8 team playoff (and I hope there is not one), I could see an opening for the first round of games on Christmas Day ( day the NFL avoids at all costs), the Semi’s on New Years (natural fit), and the Title Game a week later (Probably on Friday night to avoid the NFL playoffs while allowing fans to travel easier and miss less work than a Monday night game). Otherwise, the season stretches too long into January, and will lead to conflict with NFL playoffs on Saturdays and Sundays, fans not travelling to random sites on random, non-holiday weekends, and middling ratings vs. holiday time.
I mean, a neutral site semi final on the second Monday in January is not going to be the ratings generator TV will want, and good luck getting out of town fans to skip work to travel. If such games did work, there would not be the present effort to bring more meaning to New Years, to move title games closer to New Years, and avoid random night games in January with half-empty stands (as those who can afford tickets work hard to make money, and working hard means not taking random vacations to travel to football games).
LikeLike
Nobody travels around Christmas Day. That would be a non-starter. You either have to do as Frank suggests or have the first round a week after the conference championship games at home sites. Then you have to figure out if the 4 losers are done or if you try to “reward” them with a bowl.
LikeLike
I left out that in this plan, the first round would be home games for the higher seed. Under any date arrangement, you cannot have 3 neutral site games. I hope the leaders that be aren’t that stupid.
As for having it a week after conf title games, that’s hard core finals time for colleges, so I don’t see the Presidents allowing games then.
LikeLike
Final game is a different animal. It will be more of a corporate event than a bowl game type event. A New Year’s game nearly a month after the conference championship game will work.
It will be neutral site semi-finals that will be a challenge. I think they will be a big enough event that it will work. A lot of these schools draw 70-100k fans. They will only have ticket allotments of 20-30k or so.
How well those semi-finals work may be a function of where they are at.
Atlanta is pretty easy to reach for most of the eastern teams. But it gets cold and isn’t as appealing a spot as Miami. So what’s the strategy? Have the Peach be the January 1 bowl when its not quite as cold (of course, we’re expecting snow tomorrow in Atlanta) and is easy for the ACC schools and their opponents to reach so they might be more likely to make the trip to Miami for the next round? Or do the reverse and make the 2nd round easier to reach and have Atlanta as a quick trip with Miami being the New Year’s vacation?
Same thought process with the Fiesta and Cotton. Or do you rotate and hope for the best? Also, the Big 10 might prefer the Cotton as a semi-final to avoid 2 long trips if they get to the semis.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – The NFL actually has long been fine with having games on Christmas Day. In 2011 (the last time that Christmas Day fell on a Sunday), they had a nationally-televised prime time Bears-Packers game (unfortunately won by the evil Cheeseheads). Other games were shifted to Christmas Eve on Saturday (along with the normal Monday night game on the 26th). Plus, I just see the playoffs being inextricably linked to the bowls, which makes home sites untenable. Remember about thinking like a university president: the big dollars are made from (a) TV rights and (b) high revenue corporate suites as opposed to most of us plebeian fans in the stands. Home sites might not affect the TV rights that much, but those corporate suites would absolutely be affected. Even the most posh college stadium environments (like at Ohio State and Alabama) can’t compare to what’s in most NFL stadiums and, more importantly, those suites can’t be sold months or even years in advance in the way that they can with neutral sites. Now, I think the powers that be care about traveling fans at some level (they’d prefer filled up seats compared to empty seats), but I don’t think that they care enough to forgo the much more lucrative locked-in suite revenue that would come from neutral sites.
LikeLike
Frank, you are incorrect in that the NFL does not like games on Christmas. For example, in 2011, all games but SNF were moved to Saturday to explicitly avoid playing on Christmas. SNF was the only game on Christmas Day that year.
As for thinking like a President, I believe I am in thinking that the ratings of Christmas day games would far exceed ratings on other days due to the lack of competition (except from the NBA). I also think Presidents know that three different neutral site games cannot be filled up.
Moreover, TV loves showing passionate fan bases. TV would much rather show Alabama vs. Baylor at Bryant-Denny than at a neutral site like Nashville. (TV would really love northern games where snow falls–ratings are higher because its more dramatic. I linked to articles on a past posts).
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, I noted that most NFL games in 2011 were shifted to Christmas Eve on Saturday. However, the point is that the NFL doesn’t avoid the day entirely (and what’s more important is what they’ve been doing recently television-wise as opposed to the 1970s/1980s when holidays were more sacrosanct – 9 of those 18 games that you listed occurred over the past 9 years). Plus, the NBA isn’t competition that can be easily dismissed – those Christmas Day matchups that always feature the highest profile teams and superstars are actually much more formidable TV ratings competition compared to, say, the NHL Winter Classic on January 1st.
Most importantly, I don’t think we can underestimate why the bowls are financially and legally important here: they are the contractual mechanism that allow the 5 power conferences to receive their own auto-bids (via their respective bowl tie-ins) without having to grant the non-power conferences the same type of access. It looks a bit different if you just put those same schools into a playoff pool and have them play matchups at home sites. I’m not saying that’s necessarily fair, but it’s important logistically in selling an 8-team playoff to the leaders of the power conferences.
LikeLike
In the 90+ year history of the NFL, only 17 games have been on Dec 25th.:
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.aspx?story_id=634
LikeLike
@Frank:
1) NBA gets good ratings because it puts on good matchups and because it has no competition. The Packers-Bears game crushed the NBA in the ratings in 2011. The NBA also goes through phases of good players and bad. This is the most marketable the NBA has been (this being 2010-now) since your boy Jordan hung ’em up in 1998. As for me, I’d sooner watch the Yule Log than suffer through the NBA on ABC, and I know I’m not alone.
2) In my proposal, the semi finals would be on New Years, like how it is in the 4 team playoff. None of that would change, so I don’t see major bowl opposition.
3) I actually think on campus games is a big selling point of conference leaders, as presumably it would keep at least some of the revenue from the game, or at least, get concessions and the like out of it. A nice little perk.
4) I agree that the holidays are less sacrosanct now (or in Thanksgiving’s case, an orgy of consumerism on the National Football Holiday), which is why I believe that CFB could cement a new tradition with three high profile games on Christmas. It could own the holiday.
LikeLike
“Plus, I just see the playoffs being inextricably linked to the bowls, which makes home sites untenable. Remember about thinking like a university president: the big dollars are made from (a) TV rights and (b) high revenue corporate suites as opposed to most of us plebeian fans in the stands. Home sites might not affect the TV rights that much, but those corporate suites would absolutely be affected. Even the most posh college stadium environments (like at Ohio State and Alabama) can’t compare to what’s in most NFL stadiums and, more importantly, those suites can’t be sold months or even years in advance in the way that they can with neutral sites. Now, I think the powers that be care about traveling fans at some level (they’d prefer filled up seats compared to empty seats), but I don’t think that they care enough to forgo the much more lucrative locked-in suite revenue that would come from neutral sites.”
Frank,
I get your point, but the law of diminishing returns has to come into effect at some point when teams if teams are playing four neutral site games in a row: (1) CCG, (2) quarterfinals, (3) semifinals, (4) NCG. No working adult could have both the time and the money to go to all four games. Fans would have to pick and choose which games they would attend, and the seats would thin out. If your plan actually came to fruition, college presidents would EXPECT far below sellout crowds.
Now, I agree that television revenue would offset the lesser revenue from fans. But I think that the corporate suites for all those games would not be able to sell for as much, especially in CCG’s. For instance (and this just a hypothetical), if Coca-Cola, an Atlanta-based company, is willing to pay, say, $400,000 for a suite each year at the SEC championship, it probably would be less willing to spend that much if the crowds reduce down by 40%, especially if there is a more valuable Atlanta-based playoff game worth investing in. Corporations want to put big bucks into big events, and if there is such an increase in big events, that makes the events, well, not quite as big.
As it is, starting next year, teams that advance to the NCG will finish the season with three straight neutral site games. Let’s see what kind of effect there is on attendance and on corporate spending on suites. Heck, in the ACC, they have a hard time fulling selling bowl tickets and CCG tickets, and that’s with fans being asked to attend two neutral site games, not three. Even the more popular Big Ten has had trouble selling out tickets to the game in centrally located Indianapolis. The SEC has not had such trouble, but starting next year, there will be three straight games, and your proposal would have four.
LikeLike
@Michael
That’s why I like the idea of a home game the week after the ccgs for the first round. There’s no more expense than a normal home game. There shouldn’t be any trouble (although its true in FCS, some schools have had better attendance in regular season than playoffs) getting fans to show up.
They will have time to plan for the bowl trip during the Christmas Holidays when many people have time off.
Then there will be a little time for the title game.
I don’t share your concern about the title game at all. It will be more corporate and less fans so it will sell out. But will the semi-final in 3 straight weeks in January work? That’s a risk.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Even the more popular Big Ten has had trouble selling out tickets to the game in centrally located Indianapolis.”
Just as a note, you can blame WI (or the lack of OSU/MI) for that. They were in both CCG’s and neither one sold out. This year’s is almost sold out (roughly 300 singles plus some suites are all that’s left) already.
LikeLike
Why not just use the current CFP EXACLTY – not a modified version? Just add an earlier Round 1 that feeds into the current structure?
The only questions would be:
1) Are there autobids for anyone?
2) What are the selection committee guidelines? Weigh in favor of conference champions? Strength of schedule? Sexiness?
Round 1 would be at the home sites of highest-seeded conference champions in the December 20-23 time frame. There are plenty of bowl games played in this window and travel would not be a significant concern because of the localized fan bases.
Winners move on to the semi-finals at the already existing, pre-determined CFP semi-final sites. Losers would be among the conference candidates to fill out Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowl slots and other bowl tie ins. Group of Five would still get an Access Bowl bid – but no one would have an automatic CFP playoff bid.
2013 Example – assuming higher ranked teams win this weekend and selection committee favors conference champions in seeding and no auto bids.
ROUND 1 – Friday, December 20 and Saturday, December 21
#8 N. Illinois at #1 Florida St., at Tallahassee, Florida
#7 Baylor at #2 Ohio St., at Columbus, Ohio
#6 Stanford at #3 Auburn, at Auburn, Alabama
#5 Alabama at #4 Oklahoma St., at Stillwater, Oklahoma
Selection committee picks: PAC 12 champ Stanford, despite 2 losses and undefeated MAC Champ N. Illinois and one-loss Baylor….ahead of 1-loss AAC and MWC champs UCF and Fresno St. and 2-loss Missouri, South Carolina, Oregon, and Clemson.
ROUND 2 – Semi-Finals – December 31, 2013
Chik-Fil-A Bowl: #1 Florida St. v. #5 Alabama
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio St. v. #3 Auburn
Consolation: January 1, 2014
Rose Bowl: Stanford v. Michigan St. (Ohio St. replacement)
Sugar Bowl: Missouri (Auburn replacement) v. Oklahoma St.
Orange Bowl: Clemson v. LSU
Cotton Bowl: Baylor v. Oregon
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP – January 10, 2014
?? = Amazing!!
LikeLike
And unless you move the season up a week, that first round in December does impinge on finals. But having home sites limits the impact. FCS, Division II and Division III are doing games the first 3 weeks in December so it would be hard for FBS to use that as a legitimate argument.
LikeLike
FBS does use that argument that games must not conflict with finals.
Now, I’m not debating the merits of having games then, only stating what I feel FBS presidents will say/do/argue. I understand the FBS argument and I agree it seems to fail because of what FCS does. Nevertheless, it is made, and the presidents ultimately run the show.
Christmas is by and large a wasted TV day, CFB could own the day/night if it wanted–a day and night where everyone is home watching tv anyways.
LikeLike
I have yet to see a conference realignment or playoff proposal that legitimately considered the impact on the study habits of the students, whether it be for finals, mid terms, or just plain old homework.
Where was the cry from Oliver Luck stating that WVU javelin throwers are getting totally screwed? Or that the women’s basketball team spends more time during the semester in Texas than it does in Morgantown? Nowhere. They will not even throw it out there as a argument. In fact, they tout the benefits to their “student athletes” of competing against the best rather than the impact on their GPA.
LikeLike
Actually Oliver Luck has complained to the Big 12 office. The office has relaxed some rules that meant some late night travel for some of the non-rev WVU athletes. There were some having to get in at 3 am and go to class the next day.
LikeLike
Just to reiterate, FCS will have 8 teams playing next weekend – December 13 and 14.
LikeLike
Yes, the other slant for an incremental approach to take is to keep the existing CFP but have play-in games for the semi-finals. If too many schools balk at playing an extra week in December, that requires pushing the start of the football season back a week, playing the Conference playoffs the week of Thanksgiving, then the quarterfinal play-in games hosted by the higher ranked team what is presently the conference championship game weekend.
With that, the 12 “Big Bowl” slots go to the four semi-finalists (as at present), the four losers from the play-in games, and four additional picks, with the same mix of conference replacements for semi-finalists and at-large picks as at present. That allows the twelve schools for the big bowls to be picked the Sunday of CCG weekend, to allow the smaller bowls to make their picks, and then the line-up for the big bowls are set the Sunday after National Quarterfinal Weekend.
LikeLike
All,
I do believe there is enough time between the last conference play-off game and New Year’s to “Squeeze In” a quarter final or first round game for the schools that will be participating and it doesn’t have to be on “Christmas” or interfere with “Finals” (Again, I laugh out loud when I type this). With the exception of once every 7 years, Christmas falls on a Monday thru Saturday, opening up a time where you would have the opportunity to play the Saturday right before Christmas and presumably after finals (When Christmas falls on Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs) or the Saturday right After Christmas (If it fell on Friday.) That would still leave a week before the January 1st Bowls on Saturday to get a week of practice in. When the Christmas holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, things get trickier. But I believe the above would hold for a Sunday Christmas (Play Christmas Eve on Saturday, like normal) and then play on Chrismas Eve on Friday before a Saturday Christmas.
Going into January is just a non-starter for me. I want college football over by the 1st week in January and I can’t imagine travelling to see my team play after the holidays.
Otherwise…It’s all good.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
RTR
LikeLike
Love the 8-team concept with five automatic bids for the simple reason it takes much of the “beauty pageant” concept out of the playoff process; if you win the title in one of the power conferences, you deserve to play for the national championship, and that is that — you can’t be denied just because you’re not a “king” or don’t draw big TV ratings. Just make sure the three other teams are the three highest through a sort of BCS rating, and I doubt you would have many years when a team ranked in the top 5 wouldn’t qualify.
LikeLike
Good in theory. Bad when an unranked Texas beats #3 Nebraska in the first B12 title game in 1996.
LikeLike
Bad? For the ranked team maybe. But no, that’s why you play the games.
LikeLike
Bad in the sense that the entire regular season is devalued if an unranked team is in the same playoff system with top-ranked teams based on a season worth of success. I don’t think Nebraska would merit inclusion for losing to Texas, but that doesn’t mean Texas should get a crack at, say, Alabama, because it won one game.
LikeLike
I don’t see why Nebraska WOULDN’T merit inclusion if its one of the two best remaining schools ~ even after the loss ~ once the five conference champions are slotted in.
The inclusion of the at-large schools allows the quality of season to be recognized.
And if its not among the best two remaining schools after losing to Texas (or, in some future strong Huskers team, losing to a fluke Big Ten East representative after the top two schools are both ineligible due to NCAA infractions), then it shouldn’t have lost to an unranked Texas (or future equivalent). Good is as good does.
LikeLike
(Even as a Nebraska fan) Texas won. If that were the rule at the time, then UT should be in the play-offs.
If you really want to have a guard against such a scenario, then you could have a qualifier “Conference champion ranked in the top 12/16/whatever” but I don’t think any power conference would ever want a rule that would keep their champion out of the playoffs.
LikeLike
This is why you have the selection committee. Say NO to auto bids. The selection committee can be instructed to weigh heavily conference championships, but it wouldn’t pick Duke or Arizona St. to go to the playoff over Alabama.
LikeLike
If Texas won the conference championship with that win, then they’d already be in before attention turned to which at-large school to pick. And in either case, if Nebraska is still considered to be a top four team even after the loss, then they’ll get in.
The job of an eight team playoff is to try to ensure that the top four from the season are in the mix. If it includes the top four, and a team isn’t a top four team is left out in favor of some “less deserving” school that is also not a top four team … well, those are the breaks.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/30370/what-do-we-call-ucla
Had UCLA defeated Oregon in that game, it would be in a playoff with guaranteed spots for power conf champions. And that would have been simply absurd.
LikeLike
No, it shows rankings are a poor way to set up a “playoff”. On field results trump rankings.
LikeLike
I agree on field results trump rankings, But a guaranteed slot to a title game winner is not necessarily rewarding on field results. Its rewarding one specific on-field result. That’s a big difference. I’m all for rewarding a full body of on field results over one game.
LikeLike
“Its rewarding one specific on-field result.”
No, they weren’t invited to the CCG, they earned it on the field.
LikeLike
I would argue that a .500 record is not “earning it on the field,” especially when compared to other, more deserving teams that would get left out as a result.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_UCLA_Bruins_football_team
2011 UCLA would not have earned squat. Going 5-4 in conference play should not allow for any opportunity to compete for a national title.
LikeLike
Don’t dis on UCLA, etc. because others were ineligible. They won their division, and had they won the CCG I’d suggest its the presumption of superiority (that is manifest in polls) in certain teams/divisions/conferences that should be questioned.
LikeLike
Of course, a big chunk of that was actual division champ USC being ineligible. Had that not occurred, it would have been a very good CCG of USC against Oregon.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
I’m not dissing on UCLA as much as a .500 team in a power conference. That it was UCLA is merely incidental.
But it goes to the very point and purpose of the playoff system: If the point is to conclusively determine the best team, then there should not be any guaranteed spots for any conference. If its to reward power conference teams with a shot at the title, then yes, there should be guaranteed spots. But the two are not necessarily the same thing.
LikeLike
“If the point is to conclusively determine the best team, then there should not be any guaranteed spots” period.
Agreed, but why sanctify rankings/projections? Rankings are an abstraction usefull only because a full round robin of D1 is impossible. Using reg season as preliminary elimination rounds shouldn’t ever exclude #1 (barring upsets, but then were they actually #1?). We aren’t trying to decide #2, and we shouldn’t crown #1 prior to the competition.
LikeLike
Rankings are very flawed, and only a round robin would truly determine the top. But its the best practical way to sort through the teams. And by the end of the year, they tend to be fairly accurate (at least at the very top–there is always room to argue once you get below 4 or so. One of the other problems with the playoff system is that sorting through the jumble of equally worthy teams will cause some to get slighted.
Take this year for example. Ala and FSU are uniformly considered #1 and #2. OSU is generally considered #3. You could make excellent arguments from 4-10, but in an 8 team playoff, at least 2 (likely more because of guaranteed slots) are going home. A Playoff just redistributes the controversy from #2 vs #3 to #8 vs #9.
LikeLike
And I don’t care what some team that feels slighted thinks if they didn’t win their conference. And I don’t care if it is the result of the biggest upset of all time. They didn’t earn the guaranteed spot.
LikeLike
I don’t think the rankings are accurate at all. They are based on a lot of irrelevant factors: brand name, who was thought higher of in preseason, who the pollster has seen, who lost last, who was in a big game and looked good. The coaches don’t even watch the games and sometimes don’t fill out their own ballots. Writers are often lazy and not very bright.
Giving an automatic bid serves 2 important purposes;
1) It gets representatives from around the country; and
2) It mostly eliminates the poll biases (at least with regard to the P5, who realistically, are going to have the best team every year).
LikeLike
But you’ll still need rankings, if for no other reason than to set up playoff brackets and select at-large teams.
LikeLike
Yes, but under what you propose, a conference that was not respected that year could have its 2 loss champion get left out. For example, Stanford this year.
LikeLike
Possibly, but not likely. Depends on the other schools. Obviously, in an 8 team playoff, you will have non-conf champs in the playoff. Its more if the schools are reasonably close. A 2 loss Stanford is not odious to me as much as, say, a 4 loss Stanford would be.
LikeLike
The point is, where does Nebraska stand AFTER losing to an unranked Texas? If after taking the SEC, BigTen, PAC-12 and ACC champions, it is not in the top 2 at-large schools, is it really one of the top four teams in the country?
Its impossible for any system with “X” teams to ensure that “the Best X” teams are in the playoff, leading to interminable arguments over “the right” way to pick them, but who said the job of an eight team playoff is to ensure that the best eight are in the mix? That seems to me to be a false premise.
Instead, if the best four teams in the country end up in the playoff, the system has done its job. Two of the top four are almost certainly going to be found among the P5 champions, so two at-large picks will almost certainly ensure the top four are in the mix.
The Go5 is going to want to keep their spot in a big money bowl, but if there are two other big money bowls in the system, then a guaranteed spot for the best Go5 champion in a big money bowl and a spot in the playoff if they are ranked 16 or better might be enough to bring them onside.
LikeLike
“Its impossible for any system with “X” teams to ensure that “the Best X” teams are in the playoff”
It’s impossible to know who the best teams are, especially if we don’t count losses that “shouldn’t” have happened. I don’t have a problem if Neb was left out. They lost – to an unranked team – in the most important game of the season to that point.
LikeLike
Off-point, but in fairness to Nebraska, that was an under-performing Texas team. Ricky Williams, future Heisman winner and NFL rushing champion was the #2 running back. Priest Holmes, future NFL rushing champion was #3. Shon Mitchell, a sophomore, who later injured his knee and was never the same was the #1 running back. James Brown, the QB not the singer, did play in NFL Europe and the Arena League for a number of years. Defense was a little suspect, but the offense didn’t perform up to potential very often that year.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I agree, but that’s the point. Shouldn’t a #2 team take care of business against a team that just wasn’t what could be? Do they get a pass? Was, for one game, UT the #1 team and we accomidate based on that one particular game?
LikeLike
Moreover, if that were the case, then Ohio State, who has clinched a B1G title game berth, would be better off resting starters vs Michigan and rest up for Michigan State, knowing that beating MSU guarantees them a slot in the playoffs.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I think an 8-team playoff is still limited enough where that issue is unlikely to arise. Any national title competitor would still want to protect itself by being highly-ranked enough to garner an at-large bid in the event that it loses its conference championship game, so that’s a disincentive for any team to take a game off. That’s very different from the NFL or NBA.
LikeLike
Fair point, and I wonder how the committee would treat a school that did that when considering an at-large slot vs how it would treat a major injury.
This scenario though is a big reason why a 16 team playoff would kill everything unique and special about CFB vs. the NFL professional model.
LikeLike
The collapse of the WAC and concurrent growth of superconferences, as well as the success Northern Illinois has had recently, has made me much more skeptical about what would now be a 10/6 system compared to what was once an 11/5 system, but one reason I liked it was the one element of the NCAA Tournament that never gets any respect: precisely the fact the bottom few teams on the bracket would never, ever, ever get in if we just took the best 64, 65, or 68 teams. People always say that the regular season doesn’t matter in college basketball, but when you consider how fast the difficulty level in the first round ramps down for the top four seeds, it’s clear seeding does matter in a way that isn’t so much the case for lower seeds and wouldn’t be the case if we just took the 64-68 best teams. By the same token, in an 11/5 system there’s a lot of incentive to grab one of the top few seeds above and beyond simply getting the auto bid or qualifying for an at-large, and thus get a glorified guarantee game against whatever schlub C-USA or the Sun Belt sacrifices to the altar; as such, I don’t think it would destroy the regular season as much as the purists fear. Of course, that would require the university presidents to grant equal access to the champions of every conference, and we know they’d never do that.
LikeLike
If such bids weren’t automatic, you can be sure a non-“name” team that wins a conference title, such as Wake Forest in 2006 or Washington State in 1997, wouldn’t be considered for an 8-team playoff simply because of name value (or lack thereof). If you win a championship in one of the “big five” conferences, you’ve earned your way to the playoffs — and that should be true whether you’re Alabama or Iowa State. If not, why should ISU, Wake or WSU even bother to compete?
LikeLike
Those are fair points, but any such guarantee would have to come with a minimum ranking to avoid unworthy teams having one good game and getting an equal shot at a championship as undefeated or one loss power conf teams.
I don’t agree that simply winning a conf title means you earned your way into the playoffs if the division winner is merely the least bad team in a particular division. A 6-6 UCLA would not have earned a shot at a national title because USC was ineligible and it upset Oregon simply because it happens to be in the Pac 12. Otherwise, why would schools in non-power conferences compete?
Plus, the 1997 WSU Huskies were ranked #11 pre-Rose Bowl. 2006 Wake was #15 pre-Orange Bowl. Not quite the same level of injustice vs. unranked Texas or 6-6 UCLA, who only qualified for any bowl at all after losing to Oregon because it played in a conf title game, as they were 6-7 post conf title game.
LikeLike
I guess it’s all about what is more bothersome. In legal ethics, there’s the old adage that justice is better served by letting 100 guilty people go free than to send 1 innocent person to prison. The corollary here is that it’s better to let a lower-ranked team that wins its conference championship game into the playoff than to continuously shut out other deserving teams from the playoff altogether (which has occurred multiple times over the life of the BCS). Last year’s Wisconsin team that won the Big Ten championship might not have been an exemplary playoff team, but they at least controlled what they did on the field in a high stakes game. At least for me, that’s easier to wrap my head around as justifiable than 2009, where there were 5 undefeated teams that won their respective conference championships and multiple power conference teams with the same record. On balance, a deserving team getting shut out from an opportunity for a title shot is worse than a supposedly undeserving team being let in (IMHO).
LikeLike
@ Wainscott. No, I disagree.
If some 8-team playoff travesty is actually agreed upon by the PTB, then the Conference Champs get in no matter their record, no matter how putrid their season.
THAT is the key component that keeps the regular season nail-biting and viable. And THAT is what is important; keeping the importance of each and every game.
Let’s take Wiscy last year as an example. If you say that Wiscy has to meet some threshhold, then assuming only 3 losses is the threshhold, why would Wiscy fight to win that game in Indianapolis?
Further, that gives Nebraska an easy path to the playoffs (that is. they play a team with no hope). That is bad for Nebraska’s chances in the playoff.
Put another way, the CCGs are devalued by some rule that excludes certain Conference champions. If Wiscy has has a chance, no matter its record, then the CCG will be hard fought.
Further, if Nebraska cannot beat a 7-5 Wiscy, then Nebraska doesn’t deserve to be in the playoff.
Further, why punish ‘Bama? In this scenario, ‘Bama would have gotten the 8th seed Badgers in the first round. Woot Woot!!! (for ‘Bama). You might hate that for ‘Bama; but you’d love that for YOUR team.
Finally, stop thinking like a fan and remember to think like a Pres and a Commissioner. The point is the $$. The B1G gets the $$ even if pathetic 8-5 Wiscy is the B1G rep. in the 8-team playoff. NO WAY any power 5 conference agrees to any limitation that says their conference champ does not get a slot. Period. End. Of. Discussion.
LikeLike
Why play a championship game then? Upsets don’t count? That is what a playoff is for. You upset a higher seed…you move on. (Except for getting a do over in the BCS 😉 )
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau:
While a conference might not agree, they very easily could be outvoted by the other conferences if it would mean more potential teams for them in the playoffs. Using the old “Think like a President/Commissioner” line doesn’t automatically impact that one bit, as at the end of the day, Presidents/Commissioners are a very selfish/greedy lot. The money will be there for the playoff regardless of automatic bids, since it will feature top teams competing for a title.
Also, you use an example as having a Loss cutoff, which is unexplained. As opposed to an amalgam of rankings that have been used, in combination with whatever the playoff committee will cook up. Just Losses will not be it, though.
Furthermore, Wisky is a perfect example of why an 8 team playoff would be bad. In fact, I’m trying to point out some of the problems that arise with an 8 team playoff, and discussions like these illustrate the point very well.
@Frank: I’ve always thought the push for a playoff was designed to compensate for 2004 Auburn, but the cure might be worse the disease here.
LikeLike
“The money will be there for the playoff regardless of automatic bids, since it will feature top teams competing for a title.”
But it has to compensate for diminishing income for all the reg season games not influencing the playoff. That’s a lot of games and income.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
Within a playoff, upsets happen. The issue is more the universe of teams that should comprise the playoff. If both teams, based on a season-long body of work are determined to belong in a playoff, then upsets are not the issue.
This is also why the forced division set up is a problem that could easily be rectified if conferences were able to plot the two top teams in the conf in a title game, rather than worry about even divisions.
LikeLike
Wainscott – I don’t think you’ll ever see it come to pass that a conference champ from a Power 5 conference would not be admitted to a playoff, no matter how said champion was determined. To prove this point:
-I recall a Nebraska team that lost it’s final regular season game and thus missed the conference title game. Under the 8 team playoff, they probably still get an invite as at-large, so point is moot.
-Everyone remembers Alabama winning the National Title a couple years ago without even winning their conference. Again, they probably get an invite if an 8 team playoff existed that year.
-Everyone remember 2003? That was the year USC and LSU split a national title. In a 8 team playoff, they both are in the dance.
In other words, the best thing you are hoping to do is prevent a “bad” from entering the playoffs. Statistically, it’s very likely that, at a minimum, 3 of the AQ champs will be the best of their conference. So you’ve got 3 deserving champs (probably all ranked in top 10 and 2 of them for sure top 6) and 3 at-large bids that go to the best of the rest according to the beauty pageant. So at worst, a bad conference champ is preventing the #5 or #6 BCS team from entering the playoffs. That’s an acceptable casualty when you’re talking about having a decent playoff.
I’ll say this too, it increases the importance of the regular season for the Power 5 teams. if you’re in a weak power conference division, every one of those games means something.
LikeLike
@Wainscott.
Per my post below, I oppose ANY playoff. So, in that sense, I agree. This is a disease and none of it is good.
But, as also noted below, there is the common cold and there is flesh-eating bacteria. If we are going to be diseased, let’s have the least painful one.
In that regard, FtT’s imagined 8-team playoff is not the worst imaginable disease particularly if the conference champs from the P5 get automatic berths. There are many pluses that appeal to this traditionalist including preserving all the bowls and returning the Rose bowl to a pure B1G vs. PAC with no “losses” to the NCG.
On the other hand, I think more beauty contests, polls and computers is MORE disease. With FtT’s suggested format, 5 teams are ‘selected’ by on-the-field performance (no matter how putrid their records). The beauty contest then is only for the remaining 3. The percentage gets better. now it’s 100% beauty contest; next year again 100%. Booooo!!!!
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“In legal ethics, there’s the old adage that justice is better served by letting 100 guilty people go free than to send 1 innocent person to prison.”
1. Legal and ethics don’t really go together.
2. Many people disagree with that basic tenet of the law. They’d much rather convict all 100 guilty people and a few innocent ones accidentally.
3. The law fails at its adage anyway, based on all the overturned convictions from DNA evidence in the past few years. That just gives more fuel to those who want to convict all the guilty ones anyway.
4. That adage definitely doesn’t apply to many other areas of life, such as national (or even self-) defense or medicine. Who’s to say it does or should apply to CFB?
—
I’ve said this before, but one fundamental problem is that fans fall into different camps. Some fundamental splits:
a. best team all year vs best team in the postseason
b. most deserving team vs best team
c. AQs vs non-AQs
d. bias vs fair
e. home sites vs neutral sites
f. objective (computer rankings, etc) vs subjective (eye test, etc)
g. autobids vs best teams
h. everything that is good and special about CFB vs a playoff
Fans don’t agree on what the postseason should be, who should be in it, how to evaluate teams, where games should be played or anything else. You’ll never please them because they want different things.
LikeLike
a. best team all year vs best team in the postseason
b. most deserving team vs best team
c. AQs vs non-AQs
d. bias vs fair
e. home sites vs neutral sites
f. objective (computer rankings, etc) vs subjective (eye test, etc)
g. autobids vs best teams
h. everything that is good and special about CFB vs a playoff
I think the difference is more evaluating these differences. Everyone wants the best team all year to be the champ. But determining who that is is pretty difficult. Same on your b. I think the most deserving team should get in because the methods of evaluating the “best” team are BS. The AQs vs. non-AQs has to do with strength of schedule and balancing the number of games and health of the student-athletes. Its not “fair” to leave out some champs, but the price is too high for many. Some people have preference for home or neutral, but most just want something that works. Computer rankings aren’t objective. With 12 games you can’t do a meaningful sample. Eye tests are virtually worthless because of the bias of the observers (good defense is better than good offense, AQ better than non-AQ, brand name better than non-name, etc.). Autobids are practical. They also deal with the flaws in “objective” and “subjective” rankings. People disagree on what is good and special. I think bowls have become a greedy, hypocritical manipulation (cue Brian’s comment on schools….) with a lot of meaningless games even the teams and their fans don’t care about.
I don’t think people are so set on their differences, just on their evaluation of the various items.
LikeLike
And I very strongly agree with Frank. If you have a playoff, its not legitimate if a team that might be the best doesn’t even get to play. If “not the best team” wins because you have 8 instead of 4, at least the “best team” had a chance on the field of play instead of being shut out in a committee room.
LikeLike
bullet,
f. objective (computer rankings, etc) vs subjective (eye test, etc)
g. autobids vs best teams
h. everything that is good and special about CFB vs a playoff
“Everyone wants the best team all year to be the champ.”
No, they don’t. I’ve seen people say they want the best team at the end of the year no matter if they lost a few games early.
“But determining who that is is pretty difficult.”
It’s literally impossible. There isn’t enough data.
“Same on your b. I think the most deserving team should get in because the methods of evaluating the “best” team are BS.”
But many people prefer to reward the highest SOS and/or best wins rather than try to evaluate which team is actually best. See this year’s narrative comparing teams based on their SOS, not how they’ve actually played (and I’m not saying OSU would be top 2 if the narrative changed).
“Computer rankings aren’t objective. With 12 games you can’t do a meaningful sample. Eye tests are virtually worthless because of the bias of the observers (good defense is better than good offense, AQ better than non-AQ, brand name better than non-name, etc.).”
It depends who you ask. Many people swear by stats/computers and think any human input is a crime. Others think the numbers are bunk and shouldn’t be considered at all.
“Autobids are practical.”
They are? How so? They stirred up a long argument on here already.
“I think bowls have become a greedy, hypocritical manipulation”
I think they always were. Why does everyone suddenly care about it now? It’s been over 100 years.
“with a lot of meaningless games even the teams and their fans don’t care about.”
In general, player interviews disagree with you. Most players really enjoy their bowl experiences, even if they are crappy bowls.
Fans grow more cynical all the time. If their team isn’t in the BCS/playoff anymore, they don’t care. That’s a fan problem, not a bowl problem.
“I don’t think people are so set on their differences, just on their evaluation of the various items.”
I think they are. I think some people would physically fight over it given the chance.
LikeLike
bullet,
“And I very strongly agree with Frank. If you have a playoff, its not legitimate if a team that might be the best doesn’t even get to play.”
That’s a lovely sentiment, but completely useless. What does “might be the best” actually mean? Any team with a 1% chance of winning the playoff? The hottest teams in December? The best records over the season? The top teams in the polls?
I’d suggest that a lot more than 8 teams could claim that they might be the best team in any given year.
LikeLike
@Brian
Autobids are practical in that they are a practical solution to the problem of evaluating teams accurately.
There ARE people who swear by computers. I’m guessing very few of those are math people. If you understand statistics you know that with 12 games you just don’t have a reasonably sized sample. Computers are more valid with basketball where there is a bigger sample size. And ultimately, computer rankings are a subjective evaluation of what is important. Garbage in, garbage out.
LikeLike
“I’d suggest that a lot more than 8 teams could claim that they might be the best team in any given year.”
I’d like to see you make that argument on any given year. 2007 maybe. I can’t think of any others.
LikeLike
There ARE people who swear by computers. I’m guessing very few of those are math people. If you understand statistics you know that with 12 games you just don’t have a reasonably sized sample.
Actually, computer rankings/projections in CFB have proven to be amongst the most accurate of any sport in spite of the small sample size (at least when they aren’t banned from considering MOV). The extreme disparity and incredible year to year stability of the sport are the primary causes.
The disparity causes teams to very quickly establish how good they really are and the low volatility makes it easy to test various systems.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Autobids are practical in that they are a practical solution to the problem of evaluating teams accurately.”
To you, maybe. Lots of other people clearly disagree.
“There ARE people who swear by computers. I’m guessing very few of those are math people. If you understand statistics you know that with 12 games you just don’t have a reasonably sized sample. Computers are more valid with basketball where there is a bigger sample size. And ultimately, computer rankings are a subjective evaluation of what is important. Garbage in, garbage out.”
But human polls or committees are completely subjective. They have clear biases built in and do nothing to really prevent them from influencing the result. The computer people swear by them because they treat each team equally in the math, not adjusting for brand name, conference reputation, personal relationships with the coaches, etc.
You can easily apply GIGO to human polls and the committee, too.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’d like to see you make that argument on any given year. 2007 maybe. I can’t think of any others”
It’s trivial. Every undefeated team can claim that, and frankly so can almost any 1 loss team. Even a 2 loss team with extenuating circumstance could make the claim. There is so little crossover in schedules that all those claims have some validity.
2013
Obvious cases:
AL, FSU, OSU, NIU, Fresno – undefeated
Decent cases:
OkSU – 1 fluke loss
Baylor – 1 road loss to a great team on a bad night/matchup
Clemson – 1 loss to a great team on a bad night/matchup
UCF – 1 close road loss to really good team
MSU – 1 road loss due to bad calls
WI – 1 road loss to great team on a bad night/matchup and 1 loss due to bad refs
Auburn – 1 road loss to a really good team on a bad night/matchup
MO – 1 OT loss to a really good team on a bad night/matchup
That’s 13 teams with an easy case right now, and most of them legitimately could win an 8 team playoff. A few of them will lose, but I think it makes my point. It depends what you consider a valid case.
LikeLike
What happens when the MWC or AAC (miraculously), on the whole, has a better year than the PAC 12 or Big Ten? The PAC 12 and Big Ten champions get an automatic bid merely because they are part of a “big five” conference? The MWC and AAC champ do not get an auto bid because they are not?
Say NO to auto bids. They are lame and perpetuate the myths and flaws of the system. The “big five” have their bowl-ties and contracts – and they can and should still have that. But keep automatic bids out of the playoff.
LikeLike
Brad Smith,
“What happens when the MWC or AAC (miraculously), on the whole, has a better year than the PAC 12 or Big Ten?”
Hell freezes over? Dogs and cats living together?
Seriously, feel free to point out any season for which you could make the case for that happening. The middles and bottoms of those conferences are terrible every year.
“The PAC 12 and Big Ten champions get an automatic bid merely because they are part of a “big five” conference? The MWC and AAC champ do not get an auto bid because they are not?”
Exactly.
LikeLike
All I know is that MSU gets f’d year after year in the BCS system. There needs to be a 100% do this on the field and you are in rule. Anything less than that is BS.
LikeLike
jj,
“All I know is that MSU gets f’d year after year in the BCS system.”
No, they screw themselves.
2011 – A dumb penalty likely cost them the CCG, then they fell out of the BCS top 14. How is that anyone else’s fault? They lost their chance on the field and were ineligible to be picked for the BCS.
2010 – They shared the B10 title but WI won the tiebreakers, following objective rules based on the W/L results of games played. OSU was ranked higher and got chosen by the BCS for an at-large spot because MSU got crushed by IA. How is that anyone else’s fault?
1998-2009, 2012 – They lost too many games to be a BCS option. How is that anyone else’s fault?
LikeLike
Don’t care to rehash it a billion times.
Obviously, an OSU guy is going to like the beauty contests.
You and i know full well that “deserves” has got nothing to do with bowl selection.
LikeLike
JJ,
“Obviously, an OSU guy is going to like the beauty contests.
You and i know full well that “deserves” has got nothing to do with bowl selection.”
I never claimed “deserves” has anything to do with it. But you claimed MSU got f’d year after year by the BCS. They were only BCS worthy in at most 2 of the previous 15 years, which makes the “year after year” part of your claim questionable. Of those 2 years, they weren’t even technically eligible in one of them.
So where is the getting f’d year after year by the BCS?
LikeLike
Two random thoughts:
1) You really didn’t get that many comments back in 2006.
2) Two and a half Men is STILL on the air.
LikeLike
That show jumped the shark with Kutcher, even if it did so because Sheen is a total whack job.
LikeLike
On the road to 68, too many in basketball too many in football.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Regarding the unreasonable expectation of fans in the previous post, I’m a fan of Bill Moss:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/washington-state-ad-bill-moos-keeps-no-bowl-160420180–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
I think that’s a bad attitude by an AD. Now President Powers at Texas referred to some of those who respond like those nasty e-mails as people who go home and kick their dog when the team loses. He doesn’t listen to those people. But a blackball list is not a good idea for your customers.
LikeLike
Bill Moos stood firm with Phil Knight while building a university program at U of O. He got bought out and the ducks had an AD with no degree (see: problems with compliance, administration, T9, etc), but who did get the corporate foothold entrenched at the U of Swoosh. Moos gave up 1/4 mill per year to become AD at WSU. His separation agreement gave him that if he didn’t take an AD position west of the misisiippi.
While I probably would take Powers position I understand and admire a competitor (former all coast OL for the Cougars) building a team that pulls in the same direction, and has reasonable expectations and/or can reasonably articulate disagreement. Buying a ticket and professing support (while expressing the opposite?) does not bestow ownership rights.
LikeLike
I think most know where I stand on all this. Even though I applaud B1G expansion, I am, at heart, a traditionalist. I oppose this current soon-to-be four team playoff. I hate the BCS system. The old Bowl system was fine. I have no problem with more than one team claiming a national championship. I think people who insist that there be only one national champion and only one method of determining the NC are the equivalent of overly-indulged self-entitled children.
Yes, I realize that is at odds with 95% of this Board and 99.9% of CFB fans. I know this makes me a dinosaur and I don’t care. You are all wrong. GET OFF MY LAWN.
That being said, I must sadly concur that, for the reasons set forth by FtT, an 8-team playoff, as set out by FtT, actually has more compelling logic than the current 4-team playoff. As Frank says, it has a tremendous traditionalist component that will be mesmerizing. Plus all the $$.
Makes me a bit nauseous, but I don’t see how the PTB can possibly resist (particularly if done as FtT describes).
All the bowls protected. The only thing needed is a couple of neutral-site semi-finals.
If it has to happen, here is my wish: the B1G only goes along by insisting that one semifinal must ALWAYS be in the North.
It is somewhat of a consolation prize that a 16-team playoff has no such compelling logic. So, maybe 8 and we’re finally done?
LikeLike
Ironically, the fiction of “no games during December finals” is likely the only thing preventing a 16 team playoff (let alone the 32-team FCS playoffs, where there are still debates about teams who got slighted and left outside the field of 32).
I actually agree with you. I would be content with old bowls, with the twist of then matching up 1 vs 2 afterwards. CFB is unique because of its ad hoc post-season structure. If you need a professional style, neat and easy playoffs, that’s what the NFL is for. But talk to me when the #1 seed sits everyone in the last week of the season to rest up for the playoffs–especially after you’ve paid full price for your ticket to see a glorified pre-season game.
LikeLike
@Wainscott. That’s why I love this board. I know at least 5% of the people on here would be perfectly happy to return to the old bowl system. Can’t find that anywhere else.
Btw, I understand your dislike of “undeserving” teams with putrid records. But, in fairness to Wiscy, UCLA and Ga. Tech, it’s not their fault they ended up playing the CCGs. In all cases, NCAA sanctions prevented a better team from that division making the CCG.
Any 8-team playoff needs to take that into account. No P5 conference should suffer just because 1, 2 or more of its teams are on probation.
okay okay. I’m laughing …. barely got that written before I started laughing.
I withdraw the point. But stand by my view that Conf. Champs go regardless of how pathetic they are (like Wiscy was last year).
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau:
And admittedly, UCLA in 2011 is an extreme example, like Texas over Nebraska in 1996. But also, those teams did not exactly tear it up non-conference either. Certainly some conferences and divisions will have off years, and non-conference schedules will be strong or weak, but its not like any of them took care of business. OSU this year doesn’t have the best schedule, but they are getting it done (and hardcore-style in the last few weeks).
Likely, there will be guaranteed slots, but those guarantees might make the playoff look more foolish than comprehensive in some years.
Now, I’m surprised though that you’re not more upset with the possibility of Frank’s system stretching 3 or 4 weeks into January. I would think that would be unacceptable to a traditionalist such as yourself.
LikeLike
You make a good point about the season stretching into January. I had neglected that aspect.
But FtT proposed that the quarterfinals were done in the traditional big bowls. “Just imagine what a TV network would pay for those 4 games split up on New Years Eve and New Years Day.”
I think, for me, it’s a “choose-your-battle” decision.
If we must end up with some sort of 8-team playoff, at least keep the bowls in place, keep the Rose Bowl, et. al., on Jan 1st and keep the whole of CFB looking like it has looked for a century plus. Then tack on semis the following weekend and the NCG on January 14th.
The extra week for the semifinals has basically become tradition. This year there are what? like 8 bowls post-Jan. 1st. Basically, I am resigned to bowls post Jan. 1st. My guess is that will continue even in the Playoff Era.
So, the only real addition here is the second extra week that takes the last two teams to a NCG in the second week of January.
I’m not a fan; but I don’t abhor it. Having the NCG in mid-January is better than pushing the traditional bowls backwards into December.
Assuming the Rose Bowl must remain on January 1st, the only other alternative is bad too: having the quarterfinals in the mid-december bowls or in mid-december game at stadiums on campus. That won’t fly. Too many teams/students playing during finals. With a mid-January NCG, that’s only two teams playing that late. All the rest are back to classes. That is probably a compromise the Presidents/Chancellors are willing to make.
LikeLike
“I have no problem with more than one team claiming a national championship. I think people who insist that there be only one national champion and only one method of determining the NC are the equivalent of overly-indulged self-entitled children.”
You aren’t as alone as you may think. The media echo chamber makes it seem more so, and they have no reason/incentive to not promote centralizing the attention on one, controlled event.
LikeLike
@ccrider55. Thank you. Appreciate the thought. And agreed, media hype and the annual “narrative” to build to some climax is definitely a factor.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more.
The funny thing is the media opposes the present system, which is far better tailored to the media’s desire for controversy and debate.
LikeLike
Here’s a fun one: Imagine the ESPN reaction for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_college_football_season
Check out those Big Ten standings. A situation like this would probably call for a playoff, but the chaos here is too much fun for a neat and tidy playoff.
LikeLike
wow, interesting Wiki page. That was back when Minny and Duke were good at Football !! LOL. I wonder why LSU only came in #2 even though they had a 9-1-1 record vs. Minny at 7-1-1?
LikeLike
beau – because we were robbed in 1936 and are still mad about it!
LikeLike
And Minny didn’t even win its conference!
LikeLike
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1936-standings.html
FWIW, SRS says Minny was indeed the best team in the country that year thanks to a higher SOS than LSU. They also had a better win% than the Tigers (Minny was 7-1-0, not 7-1-1).
LikeLike
@Frug:
Having lots of fun with that link. The list of schools in the Rocky Mountain Conference is hilarious. I don’t think they had enough Colorado schools. Only 7 in a 12 team conference.
LikeLike
You aren’t a 5% minority. Its much more than that. But insisting on tradition when every other NCAA sport has a champion could qualify you as an “overly-indulged self-entitled child.”
LikeLike
My symbol didn’t post on that last!
LikeLike
I guess nothing in those brackets post. There’s a grin after that “self-entitled child” comment.
LikeLike
bullet,
“But insisting on tradition when every other NCAA sport has a champion”
That’s only because they can’t play bowls.
LikeLike
Change is bad !!! 🙂
LikeLike
College football has been taken over by a lot of Johnny-come-lately general sports fans who have no real connection to any of the colleges and thus absolutely no idea what to make of it or, at this point, even what it was like before ESPN and the NCAA v. Board of Regents decision de-regionalized it.
Since it HAS been de-regionalized, though, that “ad hoc postseason structure” is out of date (unless you want to somehow put the genie back in the bottle). College football is now a national sport, and it makes no sense for it not to be decided on a truly national basis. You just need to do it in a way that protects what can be protected.
LikeLike
My god, that’s just so reasonable. How dare you challenge my emotion-laden rant with calm rationality !!! Booooooo!!!!! 🙂
LikeLike
Mr. Beau,
IMHO, we are where we are because the traditional system often had split titles, without the “top” teams playing one another on the field…
Once Cable TV arrived and grew into 24/7 OVER-coverage of everything—some form of a “playoff” in D1A was inevitable. We have been in an experimentation stage led by the power conferences and the power media (largely E%^N). Thankfully, the BCS in it’s current form is going away. IMHO, the powers that be have seriously diminished the value of all the bowls not titled “BCS championship”. This is due largely to way too much focus on who will play in, or become the (mythical) national champion (read: biggest beauty queen). TPTB turned the BCS into a weekly pageant based on idiot math (i.e. computers), and idiot (biased) voters (whether media or coaches). As a college football fan, this BS cannot be pushed out the door soon enough—imagine FSU and/or tOSU losing this weekend… see absolute BcS chaos. It’s bad enough when you have a potential felon that may be playing a game against another team (beauty queen) that gladly slithers in (by a whisker).
A lot of the beauty queen BS inherent with this system will remain with the new 4 team “playoff”, especially considering all the hoopla with this “committee” (aka–pageant voters).
Hence…eventually, there will be an outcry (the rumblings have already started) to expand to a more legimate number—8.
IF the “power 5” conference champs are in—that removes 5 from the beauty pageant—meaning that only the last 3 are in a beauty contest… Unfortunately, I do not know a way around the contest, unless you stop at 5, or only consider conference champions across the board (doubt that’ll happen– read: Notre Dame).
I dunno… 5 champs, 3 wildcards— as a fan, I can live with it. Field a mini-tourney to determine a champion on the field, and retain a little more value in the other bowls, ’cause the focus will be less on one or two teams, but on several—as there is more opportunity.
Use the pageantry to seed 1 through 8. Higher seeds get first round at home. Bid out semi-finals and finals to bowls and/or individual cities/stadiums… Seems to me that it could work without entirely diminishing the value of the season.
LikeLike
Two big problems with your proposal jump at me immediately
1) It’s unseeded. I’d be shocked if they agreed to that, especially since they have said that the 4 team playoff will be seeded.
2) You break up the SEC and Big XII. The only way those conferences are going to be make as much as Big 10 and PAC will make from the Rose Bowl is by playing each other. Remember, the SEC and Big XII had agreed to have their champs meet even before the playoff deal was in place.
LikeLike
“Remember, the SEC and Big XII had agreed to have their champs meet even before the playoff deal was in place.”
A preemptive move? Had/if we reach four super conferences the CCG’s would be qtr finals, rose/whatever the semis, but no room for selections.
LikeLike
I just assumed the 8 would be seeded. But now that you mention it, I guess it would not be seeded since the Rose would be B1G vs. Pac, etc.
Maybe you only seed for the semis?
I assume some sort of selection committee would be used to select the other 3 teams. So, the Committee picks the other three and then meets to seed for the semis?
As for the other point, you might be right. All five P5 conferences would have to agree. My guess is the $$ would be pooled in some way, so all 8 teams got some sort of equal share of some pot (maybe above a certain dollar line per first round bowl game).
As noted, I don’t want this, but if we have to have it, I have no problem with an unseeded first round and I have no idea why the conferences would strongly resist no-seeding.
LikeLike
As for the other point, you might be right. All five P5 conferences would have to agree. My guess is the $$ would be pooled in some way, so all 8 teams got some sort of equal share of some pot (maybe above a certain dollar line per first round bowl game).
I wouldn’t go quite that far; the ACC already makes less than the other 4 so I don’t think they would be in much of a position to demand an equal split*, but I don’t foresee the SEC or Big XII agreeing to split up unless they are guaranteed the same amount they could make by staying together (which isn’t really feasible) or the Big 10 and PAC agreed to split also (which isn’t going to happen).
*This brings up another issue; I’m not sure the Orange Bowl would accept Frank’s proposal either. They only agreed to continue their current tie in with the ACC after the SEC, Big 10 and ND agreed to team up to ensure the OB a strong second team every year and even then the ACC had to agree to take less than the other major conferences are getting for their top tie in.
LikeLike
The Sugar is an issue. I think the Orange would be just fine with a playoff game regardless of who the 2nd team was.
LikeLike
I don’t think Orange Bowl would have a problem with serving as a playoff game; I think that without a strong guaranteed second tie in they would insist on just going At-Large vs. At-Large. They have tried the ACC vs. AL over the past 8 years and it has been a disaster.
LikeLike
Yes, but this at-large would be one of the top 8 teams in the nation. And probably top 5 as there are usually a couple of conferences with somewhat lower ranked champs.
The Sugar Bowl is a complication because:
1) the money;
2) the attention it gets; and
3) if you keep the Big 12 and SEC together, based on history, it makes it a really tough road for those two conference champs.
LikeLike
Stanford was ranked #4 in the country a couple years ago and that game featured record low attendance…
But I do agree that the Sugar Bowl would be the bigger issue.
LikeLike
The Orange is in a weaker position than the Rose, Sugar, and whatever bowl the B12 decides to back. If they start threatening to match at-large with at-large, the power conferences would just say “sure, you can do that . . . outside of the 8-team playoff. We’ll just have the Atlanta bowl match ACC with at-large and leave you out in the cold.”
The P5 conferences hold the power here. The bowls (particularly those without a strong relationship to a power conference to stand up for them) are left to say “yes sir, may I please have another” . . .
LikeLike
@Richard
If the SEC and Big XII stick together then at least 1 bowl is going to have to be AL vs. AL no matter what.
LikeLike
“If the SEC and Big XII stick together”
Big “if”, IMO.
I foresee all the power conferences getting the same base amount. Those that get extra teams in will get a little bit more. If that’s the case, I doubt the B12 and SEC would want to match their champs up on each other.
In fact, the biggest question mark to Frank’s plan is whether the B10 would be willing to start their quarterfinal game on hostile turf every year. Especially with 3 eastern teams now with little attachment to the Rose & much closer to other bowls.
LikeLike
“If the SEC and Big XII stick together”
Big “if”, IMO.
I disagree. Inertia is the natural state of things and in 12 years it will be tough to pry them apart, especially since they can make more money together.
I foresee all the power conferences getting the same base amount.
Why would they agree to that? From the moment the playoff was announced the Big 10, PAC, SEC and Big XII made clear they didn’t want any form of equal revenue sharing in the bowls. Hell, at one point a PAC official said that the Big 10 and PAC should be reimbursed for the money they left on the table by agreeing to equal revenue sharing in the BCS (which capped the Rose Bowl payout even though it was far and away the most profitable bowl game).
LikeLike
@Richard – “In fact, the biggest question mark to Frank’s plan is whether the B10 would be willing to start their quarterfinal game on hostile turf every year. Especially with 3 eastern teams now with little attachment to the Rose & much closer to other bowls.”
————————–
To guarantee a spot in the Rose Bowl every year? Are you kidding? Do kids like candy?
I personally have no problem with the conferences uses traditional bowl tie-ins to kick start the playoff if that’s what they want to do. I doubt it ends up being that easy though. I imagine the SEC, Big 12, and ACC like having a shot at getting in the Rose Bowl even if it is an outside chance most year. It will be nearly impossible to put that genie back in the bottle now.
LikeLike
frug:
“Why would they agree to that? From the moment the playoff was announced the Big 10, PAC, SEC and Big XII made clear they didn’t want any form of equal revenue sharing in the bowls.”
Except that they agreed to split the playoff money equally, so that’s not really true.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
So for ranking purposes, would the bowls choose the At-Large teams (wildcards really), or would the At-Large teams choose the bowls?
For instance, the Sugar Bowl would love to have a southern team, so they may want to pick a team like Clemson to play a top ranked Florida. But what if Clemson is ranked as the highest At-Large team? Would both a top ranked Florida and a top At-Large ranked both be punished to make the Sugar bowl happy? Or would the At-Large spots be auto-filled by ranking (the highest rated At-Large being matched with the lowest rated P5 Conference Champion) regardless of geography?
LikeLike
I disagree on several points.
1. I strongly believe the presidents will hold the line on the CFP staying at 4 teams through the 12 year contract. They resisted the lure of playoff money for a very long time, so waiting a few years for a contract to end would be trivial for them.
2. I’m not convinced your bowl alignment would be adopted. People fought for seeded playoffs and the SEC and B12 paired up to match the B10/P12 combo in bowl money. Why would they drop their new Sugar Bowl deal? Why would the ACC agree to be stuck on the outside? Why would the Orange and Fiesta agree to always get an at large and not a champ? Why would the Peach agree to be demoted?
3. People fought to not honor championships and suddenly they’ll reverse course and give autobids? It’s possible, with a shift from 4 to 8 meaning all the AQs can get an autobid, but seems unlikely to me.
4. If they agree to AQ autobids for the ACC, B10, B12, P12 and SEC, then they’d have to give one to the top non-AQ champ. There’s also the question of how ND gets treated. Are they lumped in with the non-AQs for that spot? Is there a special rule for them?
5. Traditionalists might favor your plan, but that’s generally the kiss of death for an idea.
—
As a traditionalist, I think they are better off cutting ties to the bowls and starting from scratch for a playoff. That’s especially true with an 8 team playoff. Pick other neutral sites for playoff games and restore the old ties to the bowls with the best remaining teams. I don’t think they’ll do this, but they should.
I agree the games should all be in January. 12/31 or 1/1 for the quarterfinals, semifinals that second Monday and Tuesday, and then the finals 2 weeks later. All games at neutral sites, but the quarters could be at bowl type sites while the others are regional domes. The semis and finals would be true neutral sites like the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
1. I agree they aren’t likely to change in the 12 year cycle.
2. Did the Cotton agree to be demoted? The Big 12 and SEC took over the Sugar Bowl. What the Orange, Peach and Fiesta want is not irrelevant, but its not their call. The fact that they had so much say in the past is one of the flaws in the old system.
3. They fought auto-bids for 2 reasons that aren’t as relevant. One was the non-AQs. The gap is bigger now and the non-AQs have a better shot in an 8 team than a 4 team. The second was that 4 wasn’t enough for all the best teams. With 8 you still get 3 wildcards and a team like Alabama 2011 gets in.’
4. Realignment gutted the MWC and BE. They aren’t as relevant. They can buy the non-AQs out with the possibility of getting in the 8 team playoff (better than the 4) and $ and a slot in a 6 bowl system like now.
The biggest obstacles IMO are:
1. The Sugar deal with the Big 12 and SEC;
2. The logistics of filling stadiums for 3 weeks of games; and
3. Fear of the unknown by the Presidents who don’t want to harm the regular season.
LikeLike
bullet,
“2. Did the Cotton agree to be demoted? The Big 12 and SEC took over the Sugar Bowl. What the Orange, Peach and Fiesta want is not irrelevant, but its not their call. The fact that they had so much say in the past is one of the flaws in the old system.”
No, it’s not their call. But they have a lot of money/influence to use to try to help themselves, and those bowls have allies in the conferences.
“3. They fought auto-bids for 2 reasons that aren’t as relevant. One was the non-AQs. The gap is bigger now and the non-AQs have a better shot in an 8 team than a 4 team. The second was that 4 wasn’t enough for all the best teams. With 8 you still get 3 wildcards and a team like Alabama 2011 gets in.’”
The SEC would want the chance to get 8 of 8 spots because they think they deserve it. They have no reason to support anyone else getting a guaranteed spot. If they draw a line in the sand, the others will cave again.
“4. Realignment gutted the MWC and BE. They aren’t as relevant. They can buy the non-AQs out with the possibility of getting in the 8 team playoff (better than the 4) and $ and a slot in a 6 bowl system like now.”
Nope. The instant they give autobids to others but not the non-AQs, they get sued. That’s why they gave them a spot this time, and they can’t reverse course now.
“The biggest obstacles IMO are:
1. The Sugar deal with the Big 12 and SEC;
2. The logistics of filling stadiums for 3 weeks of games; and
3. Fear of the unknown by the Presidents who don’t want to harm the regular season.”
Those are 3 of the biggest ones, sure.
LikeLike
But they didn’t GIVE the best Go5 champion a playoff autobid, they gave the best Go5 champion an automatic big bowl spot. Status quo would be to guarantee the best Go5 champion an automatic big bowl spot, the Go5 ambit claim would be a guaranteed playoff spot, and negotiations over a guaranteed or qualified playoff spot starts with that negotiating range.
LikeLike
They gave them a top 7 game spot, on par with the other top teams. The top 7 would all be in the playoff now. Would they settle for a top 6 bowl when the top 4 are quarterfinals? Would the other major bowls shift to become the semifinals instead of bowls (no double hosting in the playoffs)?
LikeLike
1. I strongly believe the presidents will hold the line on the CFP staying at 4 teams through the 12 year contract. They resisted the lure of playoff money for a very long time, so waiting a few years for a contract to end would be trivial for them.
Agree. Anyhow, it took decades for them to agree to a 4-team playoff, long after the point when most fans and sportswriters were agitating for it, so I can’t imagine them jumping to 8 anytime soon.
But where there is money to be made, the presidents usually cave in eventually.
2. I’m not convinced your bowl alignment would be adopted. People fought for seeded playoffs and the SEC and B12 paired up to match the B10/P12 combo in bowl money.
I am not convinced either. I think Frank is right that the bowls would be the quarter-finals. The other popular suggestion is to hold the quarter-finals in early/mid-December. But that means half of the top teams would come into their bowl game on the heels of a loss, not a very attractive idea.
If the quarters are in December, there is also the issue of the players missing finals, but they’d probably find a way around that if it made sense financially, which it doesn’t. Assuming you expand the playoff at all, it just makes so much more sense to leverage the bowls, which already exist and are proven money machines.
Yes, I think they would seed the quarter-finals. If you buy the notion of a playoff, it just doesn’t make sense to set up the possibility that #1 vs. #2 will play in the Rose Bowl, and the winner still has two games left to play if it wants to win a championship.
3. People fought to not honor championships and suddenly they’ll reverse course and give autobids? It’s possible, with a shift from 4 to 8 meaning all the AQs can get an autobid, but seems unlikely to me.
The reason they “fought not to honor championships” was because there’s five power leagues and only four playoff spots. They also had to provide a way for Notre Dame to qualify, and despite what some fans want, there is no appetite among the college presidents to “force” ND into a conference.
Well, if you’re going to let ND in without forcing them to win a conference, it’s hard to come up for a rational argument for categorically excluding a very strong team that came in second in its league, if that team is clearly better than a hypothetical UCLA that could’ve won the Pac-12 with a 7-6 record.
With an 8-team playoff, you can auto-bid the P5 champions, and still have three slots left over for ND (in the years when they’re good enough), deserving #2’s, and strong mid-majors. In that scenario, I think the auto-bid crowd would get their wish.
LikeLike
“despite what some fans want, there is no appetite among the college presidents to “force” ND into a conference”
… or to be more precise about why that’s a dominant solution to the game, there’s no appetite among four P5 conferences to “force” ND into the fifth.
LikeLike
This is why you simply take the current CFP system, with rotating semi-finals and the contracts between the conferences and bowls. All you do is add a Round 1 in December, before Christmas. In 2014-15, the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl have contracted to host the semi-finals and not host the SEC-Big 12 and PAC 12-B1G matchups. The system is in place. But in 2015-16, the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl would host those matchups, while the semi-finals are hosted by the Orange and Cotton Bowls. The system is already in place.
Just add an extra round to determine who plays in the semi-finals.
And, keep the selection committee. No auto bids, but a preference towards conference championship in the selection process.
Easy.
LikeLike
“Uh, oh” for MM.
LikeLike
I think 4 teams is plenty. 8 would cheapen the playoffs. If you’re not in the top 4 at the end of the year then you probably don’t deserve a national title.
LikeLike
But how do you know the top 4 is right?
LikeLike
…by advancing through your conference first? To qualify for a final “X” number of playoff spots?
🙂
LikeLike
Agree with Andy, which makes me nervous.
As to “how do you know who the top 4 are”, if you’re only boderline top 4/5, you shouldn’t have the chance to play for a championship anyway.
My choices would be: 1. old bowl system; 2. single game championship game for teams chosen after the bowl games.; 3. BCS; 4. 4 game playoff.
LikeLike
2007 and 2008 the gap from #1 to #6 or #8 was pretty narrow. All those schools had arguments. You could pretty much put any of them #2. And in both those years, the BCS #1 lost to #2.
LikeLike
That’s why an eight team playoff … even if it ends up top-six and two lower ranked conference champions, its still highly likely to include the four strongest teams.
LikeLike
As long as conference OoC scheduling varies widely (e.g. – Pac-12 v. Big-12 and much of the SEC) and conferences do not play the same number of conference games (plus a CCG), it will remain very difficult to determine which are the top 4 or 5 teams.
For example, Alabama played a pathetic 4-game OOC schedule (only 1 “real” team and it is mediocre) and the two teams it played outside its division are also pathetic. So, the Tide played 6 divisions games, of which 4 could be characterized as challenging, and 5 weaklings, and 1 mediocre team. How can we judge Bama on that basis?
FSU demolished the one other good ACC team, and played nobody OoC, except a very down Florida. It is pretty easy to see that FSU has a great offense, but what do we really know about its defense? That said, they are my #1 right now.
tOSU played nobody OoC, and has struggled against its so-called challengers in the BiG. Even against teams like Illinois, their defense looks pathetic.
Baylor got to #5 without playing ANYBODY, then advanced to #3 just by beating a not-that-good Oklahoma.
Meanwhile, the Pac-12 played the strongest OoC schedules and an extra conference game, basically putting themselves at risk for 1-2 more losses than any other conference. Yet now the consensus is that the conference does not have a top-4 team. How does that make sense?
IMO, the only team right now that has a clear claim to the NCG is FSU. If Alabama wins its next 2, they will also. Beyond that, no team has a very strong argument.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“tOSU played nobody OoC, and has struggled against its so-called challengers in the BiG.”
1. OSU was up 31-14 on WI in the 4th quarter. WI is #14 and probably underrated since the ASU loss was questionable. OSU held WI’s top 10 rushing attack to 104 yards, almost 200 yards below their average.
2. Braxton Miller’s knee was injured against WI and NW.
3. OSU’s defensive captain and starting safety broke his ankle against WI and couldn’t play against NW or since.
4. ESPN Stats and Info blog recently wrote about how much better Miller has been running lately.
“Even against teams like Illinois, their defense looks pathetic.”
OSU defense isn’t that bad.
NCAA stats:
ppga – #8
rushing ypga – #6
total ypga – #12
Advanced stats:
D FEI – #20
D S&P+ – #18
DNP – #6 (difference in net points)
D F/+ – #17
“Meanwhile, the Pac-12 played the strongest OoC schedules and an extra conference game, basically putting themselves at risk for 1-2 more losses than any other conference. Yet now the consensus is that the conference does not have a top-4 team. How does that make sense?”
Playing a tough schedule doesn’t make you good. OR and Stanford both have 2 losses. OR got blown out by AZ. Stanford lost to USC and Utah. Why should either be considered a top 4 team? OR was #2 until they lost. Stanford was top 5 before they lost.
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10042813/decision-possible-charges-jameis-winston-delayed
The Jameis Winston decision is more than 2 weeks away. If he’s charged with a felony, then the FSU administration has to decide whether or not extraordinary circumstances exist that would allow them to waive his automatic suspension.
In other words, the BCS NCG will be set before we know if Winston will be playing in the postseason. OSU could get passed over for an FSU team missing their starting QB again (1998).
LikeLike
IF he was charged, the political correctness police would NEVER let the administration allow him to play in that game….football is powerful but not THAT powerful…..see what happened in the PSU situation….and unlike what happened in the PSU situation that would also be the correct moral call……
Imagine the pressure on that prosecutor…..so much so that it will probably be some type of group decision….
So….what do you guys think the odds are he’s charged??? I’ll go with 20%.
LikeLike
If that letter from the FSU professor is real about the stuff that goes on in classes, I’m not certain. They may make the innocent until proven guilty argument.
LikeLike
I really, really hope that he is innocent, but it’s impossible to make a judgment. If he’s not, I of course want him behind bars for a long time. Likewise, I would be extremely embarrassed as a Florida State fan if FSU made a special exception for him if he’s charged. “We want to win the national championship” is not cause for an exception.
Given the way that many, many athletes can be shady characters, I shouldn’t be shocked by anything these days, but the news about Winston floored me. He had quickly become my favorite FSU athlete in years. Obviously I’ve enjoyed his athletic accomplishments, but I have also enjoyed watching his confidence and his unusual maturity for his age, leading teammates who are older and more experienced than he is.
@mushroomgod,
I know as much as you know about the case, but I think it’s pretty unlikely he’s charged. 20%, as you said, sounds accurate. He can’t be convicted on her word versus his word alone, and he supposedly has witnesses who corroborate his story. But who knows what the investigators may find.
I will say that it is pretty disturbing that there was not a more thorough investigation last December. People’s memories get hazier as time passes, so piecing together a timeline has to be a lot more difficult now than it would have been back then.
LikeLike
Brian, for OSU to get passed over they’d need to beat MSU, which is far from certain.
LikeLike
What part of “could” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
OK, sure. Don’t really understand a #3 ranked team whining about maybe being “passed over” by a #2 ranked team though…
I doubt it will come to that anyway. MSU has been looking pretty good lately.
LikeLike
The argument would be whether the voters would have put FSU #2, if they knew in advance that FSU would be missing Jameis Winston.
I reckon enough would have to keep FSU 2nd, since by algorith, the computer rankings don’t care.
LikeLike
FtT
Agree with your thinking that an 8 team playoff would actually help regular season interest.
A good example is in this year’s ACC Coastal competition. Duke, VT, Miami and GT are all still competing for the Division title and a chance at being ACC champs. Schedulers must be happy that UVa (VT), Pitt (Miami) and UNC (Duke) are hosting meaningful games. However small their chances of being ACC champions, fans can hold to their fantasy. In an 8 team playoff, with P5 champs auto qualifying, all these teams and games have national championship implications.
LikeLike
Great comments everyone. A few follow-up thoughts:
(1) Auto-bids – As others have noted, the main impetus behind the auto-bids is to remove as much use of polls/computers/committees as possible in qualifying for the playoff. I was very much a supporter not having any conference championship requirement in the new top 4 playoff, but moving to 8 is a different story. The larger the field gets, there’s both greater flexibility and desirability to have objective on-the-field qualifiers.
(2) At-larges – Still, there’s the reality that there are 2nd (or even 3rd) place teams in power conferences, independents and non-power conference schools could very well be good enough in a given year to justifiably play for the playoff, so there needs to be room for at-larges (and I think 5 auto-bids/3 at-larges is a good balance as a whole).
(3) Selection and Seeding – I now realize that I didn’t address this in the post, but I’d still have a committee or BCS-type ranking system to choose the at-larges and seed all of the participants. Now, the bowls would be locked with their respective conference champ tie-ins, so the at-larges would be slotted based on the optimal high/low seed matchups (with flexibility to make switches based on avoiding rematches or intraconference games). The semifinal matchups would then be based on straight seeding.
(4) Sugar Bowl/SEC/Big 12 Relationship – I’ve seen this come up and I agree that it’s an issue. My thinking (and I acknowledge that it could be faulty) is that when push comes to shove, the SEC cares more about getting an optimal matchup to allow it to advance the national championship and would cry bloody murder if a #1 SEC team had to face a #2 or #3 Big 12 team in a Sugar Bowl quarterfinal, whereas the Big Ten and Pac-12 don’t sweat having a #1 vs. #2 Rose Bowl quarterfinal matchup at all because the relationship and branding with the Tournament of Roses and each other as conference partners is so much deeper. I’m not saying that’s necessarily smart of the Big Ten and Pac-12 if they’re looking to maximize their national titles, but the SEC has certainly shown to care much more about seeding. At the same time, the money could certainly be worked out where all of the power conferences would receive equal shares for their respective champs just as it has been done under the BCS system and will be done for how the actual CFP playoff money (which is distinguished from the contract bowl money).
In putting together hypothetical matchups since 2006 using the setup that I proposed (I picked that date since that was when the ACC and Big East realignments centered around Miami took effect), the 8-team playoff generally looks very good in terms of distributing the teams well and avoiding “too good” of a quarterfinal game. However, having the SEC and Big 12 champs face off in the Sugar Bowl on top of the Big Ten/Pac-12 Rose Bowl, would have really made this type of playoff setup look a lot worse in several seasons.
(5) Non-Power Conferences – Personally, I don’t have much of an issue with allowing one slot to be taken up by the top non-power conference champ. It would have made the playoff look a little bit worse over the last couple of years, but not so much that including that access ought to kill the 8-team playoff altogether. I do think the power conferences are going to be more forceful in protecting its turf when it comes to national championship access, though. It’s one thing to provide a high profile bowl slot (which could still be done in this proposed system on top of the playoff bowls), but national title access is another matter.
LikeLike
My thinking (and I acknowledge that it could be faulty) is that when push comes to shove, the SEC cares more about getting an optimal matchup to allow it to advance the national championship and would cry bloody murder if a #1 SEC team had to face a #2 or #3 Big 12 team in a Sugar Bowl quarterfinal
But wouldn’t that be countered by the years a #4 SEC team got to face a #10 Big XII champ?
At the same time, the money could certainly be worked out where all of the power conferences would receive equal shares for their respective champs just as it has been done under the BCS system and will be done for how the actual CFP playoff money (which is distinguished from the contract bowl money).
As I said above, why would they all agree to this? The Big 10, PAC, SEC and Big XII all made clear as soon as the playoff was announced they were done with equal revenue sharing which simply put an artificial cap on the Rose Bowl payout and would have done the same to new Sugar Bowl?
LikeLike
@frug – On the first point, the SEC is so full of themselves (somewhat justifiably based on the past 7 years) that they believe that the scenario you’ve outlined would happen so rarely (i.e. that the SEC champ wouldn’t be a top 2 team) that they’re not interested in any chance of handcuffing themselves. They’re the ones that pushed pure seeding and not having any conference champ requirement in the 4-team playoff more than anyone. The SEC’s position has been driven by the belief that not only is their champ automatically national title-worthy, but that they should have 2, 3 or even 4 teams per year that can compete in a playoff.
On the second point, the 5 power conferences did agree to share the *playoff* money equally (an average of around $250 million per year, so about $50 million for each power conference). That hasn’t been emphasized in a lot of the news articles about the playoff with all of the focus on how the contract bowls would work, but the power conferences absolutely colluded and agreed to split that equally. Once again, that’s separate from the non-playoff contract bowl money from the non-playoff Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls. So, for example, the Big Ten would receive a $50 million playoff share and then $40 million for each non-playoff Rose Bowl game on top of that. The non-power conferences are the ones that are going to end up splitting their collective playoff share unequally amongst themselves using a ranking system.
LikeLike
the 5 power conferences did agree to share the *playoff* money equally (an average of around $250 million per year, so about $50 million for each power conference). That hasn’t been emphasized in a lot of the news articles about the playoff with all of the focus on how the contract bowls would work, but the power conferences absolutely colluded and agreed to split that equally. Once again, that’s separate from the non-playoff contract bowl money from the non-playoff Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls.
But that’s exactly my point; right now the B1G, PAC, SEC and XII can split their playoff money evenly and still bring home a huge check from the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl that they don’t have to share at all, and the B1G and SEC also get a big Orange Bowl check they don’t have to share at least 1/3 of the time one top of that. Under your proposal they wouldn’t.
As to your first point, that still doesn’t make much sense to me. There is no reason to believe that the Big XII champ is going to consistently be better than whatever AL they would slotted against. Also, Jim Delany’s original proposal (on campus semi-finals) called for the games to be seeded 1-4 and 2-3.
LikeLike
You might still see side deals for the non-playoff bowls (like the current Orange deal, but involving other bowls), but I very much doubt that the playoff money won’t be shared equally. Stiffing the ACC just doesn’t garner that much more extra money when it has to be shared 4 ways.
LikeLike
You might still see side deals for the non-playoff bowls (like the current Orange deal, but involving other bowls), but I very much doubt that the playoff money won’t be shared equally.
I tend to agree, which is why I think Frank’s proposal is unlikely.
LikeLike
I doubt that the major conferences feel this way, but I think that the more access you allow to the national championship the better it is for the sport as a whole. I personally prefer a conference champions only model for any playoff because I hate the subjectivity of picking the “best” at larges. (Though I know that’s not going to happen) But assuming that they do go to eight teams (and I agree with you that eight at least is inevitable), I think they would be best served by including the top one or preferably two conference champions of the 5 non-power conferences. The more schools have access to the title, the more interested their fan-bases will be. While most of the group of five schools don’t have the fan and alumni bases of the power five schools, most of those schools are growing in terms of student and alumni population much faster than most power five schools are. Since alumni tend to be the most interested fans anyway, the more access you provide, the more interested parties/viewers you will have and the more valuable your playoff will be. One of the reasons that March Madness is so popular in the college football wasteland of the Northeast is that the smaller private schools which have a larger alumni/fan base there than anywhere else in the country still have a place in the tourney (though few make it past the first weekend.)
LikeLike
Most of those small private schools in the northeast are actually basketball powerhouses in a major basketball conference, so the comparison doesn’t really hold up.
LikeLike
I wasn’t exclusively referring to Big East schools, although those are the best examples.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“(1) Auto-bids”
I still don’t see why the SEC would cave on this. They believe they deserve at least 4 spots every year and want the chance to take all 8.
Part of their argument will be that if they give auto-bids, they’ll have to fight about criteria. What if the ACC or B12 lose 2 or more teams? Do they keep their spot? If there are locked bids, why won’t the G5 demand one as well? How is ND accommodated under this plan?
“(2) At-larges – Still, there’s the reality that there are 2nd (or even 3rd) place teams in power conferences, independents and non-power conference schools could very well be good enough in a given year to justifiably play for the playoff, so there needs to be room for at-larges (and I think 5 auto-bids/3 at-larges is a good balance as a whole).”
If you aren’t the best in your conference, how can you be the best in the nation?
“(3) Selection and Seeding – I now realize that I didn’t address this in the post, but I’d still have a committee or BCS-type ranking system to choose the at-larges and seed all of the participants.”
Why add so much bias and controversy?
“(5) Non-Power Conferences – Personally, I don’t have much of an issue with allowing one slot to be taken up by the top non-power conference champ. It would have made the playoff look a little bit worse over the last couple of years, but not so much that including that access ought to kill the 8-team playoff altogether. I do think the power conferences are going to be more forceful in protecting its turf when it comes to national championship access, though. It’s one thing to provide a high profile bowl slot (which could still be done in this proposed system on top of the playoff bowls), but national title access is another matter.”
The genie is out of the bottle. They can’t reduce access in the next iteration without getting sued. The top 7 games will all be in the playoff. They won’t deny the G5 access that they had before.
LikeLike
5 autobids for the P5 champions
1 autobid for highest ranked G5 champion
2 at large bid for the top 2 remaining teams
LikeLike
Some dedicated playoff access for the Go5 would be ABOUT the P5 protecting their turf ~ in that case, against anti-trust challenges and political interference.
LikeLike
BTW, the non-power conferences can still be appeased by guaranteeing them a spot in a “top 6” bowl. If the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton are the quarterfinal bowls (and I’m sure the B12 would choose to tie-in with the Cotton), the Fiesta and Atlanta bowl could alternate one of the semifinal spots between them. The other year, one of them would take the leftovers: highest-ranked non-power conference champ that doesn’t make the playoffs + whoever else they want (the “whoever else” part could be split by the Fiesta & Atlanta bowl in deals with conferences just like the Orange does now).
As the only league without a semifinal spot in it’s territory (or AZ or AtL), the Big10 could very well demand that the other semifinal has to be in or close to B10 territory. They could get some support from the SEC and ACC as well if they choose a rotation of StL, Indy (both in or close to SEC territory) as well as DC and NYC (both in or close to ACC territory). If the rotation is limited to StL & DC, that could get even more buy-in from the SEC and ACC.
LikeLike
Richard,
“BTW, the non-power conferences can still be appeased by guaranteeing them a spot in a “top 6″ bowl.”
1. You can offer it, but that doesn’t mean they actually will be appeased by the offer. They get a top 6 bowl spot now, but the playoff would have the top 7 games. The #8 game will be less than it is now.
“If the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton are the quarterfinal bowls (and I’m sure the B12 would choose to tie-in with the Cotton), the Fiesta and Atlanta bowl could alternate one of the semifinal spots between them. The other year, one of them would take the leftovers: highest-ranked non-power conference champ that doesn’t make the playoffs + whoever else they want (the “whoever else” part could be split by the Fiesta & Atlanta bowl in deals with conferences just like the Orange does now).”
Why would they agree to potentially have to take the 2nd best G5 champ?
LikeLike
Did I word it badly? I meant the best G5 champ if they don’t make the playoffs.
As for the G5, they don’t really hold the leverage. They hold their breathe long enough and the P5 could just break away.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Did I word it badly? I meant the best G5 champ if they don’t make the playoffs.”
As I read it, they had to take the best G5 champ available. So if one made the playoff, they had to take the 2nd best champ. Thus my confusion.
“As for the G5, they don’t really hold the leverage. They hold their breathe long enough and the P5 could just break away.”
Their leverage is a law suit. The NCAA has enough legal issues now, plus congress has that proposed bill to protect student-athletes. They don’t need an anti-trust suit on top of it all. It’s easier to just have 6 autobids or none.
LikeLike
“The NCAA has enough legal issues now…”
The D1 football championship isn’t an NCAA event.
Not that legal concerns wouldn’t be taken into account by the current organizing body, but the NCAA is involved only obliquely.
LikeLike
Not guaranteeing a spot among eight is why the Go5 would NEED appeasing … but IMV its easier to appease a group if you offer them “forward progress”. Moving from the “big six bowl for the best Go5 champion if they are top-12 or top-16 and better than an AQ champion” … to “guaranteed access in a big six bowl for the best Go5 school, independent of ranking”, to “guaranteed access a big six bowl for the best Go5 school, a playoff spot if they are a top-16 school” would constitute “forward progress”.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Not guaranteeing a spot among eight is why the Go5 would NEED appeasing … but IMV its easier to appease a group if you offer them “forward progress”. Moving from the “big six bowl for the best Go5 champion if they are top-12 or top-16 and better than an AQ champion” … to “guaranteed access in a big six bowl for the best Go5 school, independent of ranking”, to “guaranteed access a big six bowl for the best Go5 school, a playoff spot if they are a top-16 school” would constitute “forward progress”.”
1. You’re adding the top 16 autobid provision. That wasn’t in Richard’s proposal.
2. Top 16 how? I thought they were using a committee. Would anyone trust a committee to not be biased in deciding whether a non-AQ champ was #16 or #17? Are we reverting to the BCS? Seeing as how Sagrin has NIU #3 right now, I doubt the power 5 want to see computer polls in use any more.
3. I think you mis-view the bowls. The top 6 are all likely to be part of the playoff (quarters and semis). They aren’t allowing double hosting now, so they probably wouldn’t for the semis in the future. So if the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton and Peach are part of the playoff, what are they offering that G5 champ? What next-tier bowl would step up knowing they’d be stuck with a G5 team that often?
LikeLike
Oh, and my suggestion is to fit all the quarterfinal games in on NYD.
1. That makes it more fair to the teams (no team has the advantage of an extra day of rest for the next round).
2. NYE is a poor day for football.
(all times Eastern)
11AM: Orange
2:30PM: Cotton
6PM (3PM local): Rose
9:30PM: Sugar
LikeLike
But they can probably make more money the other way, and not risk overlapping games when they can show pre-game and post-game crap instead.
Maybe a 1/3 split, but probably 2/2.
LikeLike
A lot of people work on NYE.
Also, a lot of people party. I think the NYE games will be a dud compared to even the early NYD games of the same caliber.
LikeLike
They seem to believe they can change habits. Not sure they can.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They seem to believe they can change habits. Not sure they can.”
I don’t know. Lots of people don’t go to parties, or go to the kind of parties where they could watch the games anyway. Many people don’t work on NYE, especially in the demographics that are CFB fans. You also have many general sports fans with nothing much better to do than watch major CFB games. If sports can do well on Christmas and Thanksgiving, I think they’ll do fine on NYE.
LikeLike
But lots of the casual fans they need to get good ratings do go to parties. Most people do work New Year’s Eve. Usually offices knock off early, but people aren’t at home at noon. I don’t think they will do well with the noon and 4 pm New Year’s Day bowls. I don’t think the late bowl will change people’s habits either. This isn’t the NFL.
LikeLike
“This isn’t the NFL.”
Thank goodness it’s not.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think they will do well with the noon and 4 pm New Year’s Day bowls.”
Why not? Those games already do well.
“I don’t think the late bowl will change people’s habits either. This isn’t the NFL.”
People have said that about a lot of things, but it turns out that sports fans love to watch games. I think plenty of people will manage to find a TV at their party or bar.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I think the NYE games will be a dud compared to even the early NYD games of the same caliber.”
But TPTB in CFB and their media consultants disagree. They’re betting on NYE being successful. Until they’re proven wrong, I have to assume they’ll maintain that plan in the future.
LikeLike
Well, with 6 bowls, they don’t have enough slots in one day (and while other bowls can move around, the Rose, with it’s conferences backing it, will not move off its traditional time slot; same with the Sugar now).
It is, however, possible to fit 4 games in to one day.
LikeLike
Kentucky announced a $110 million renovation to Commonwealth Stadium yesterday. They plan to be ready for the 2015 season.
http://www.thenewcws.com/2013/11/25/new-kentucky-home-cws-designs-reveal-vision-for-uk-footballs-future/
Capacity will drop from 67,606 to 61,000, but add 20 new suites and 2,300 club seats. Also, they will build a new press box and add a 200 seat “recruit suite” in the middle of the UK student section.
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, is the capacity reduction stem from replacement of bench seating with individual seats or something else?
LikeLike
Strike that, as the picture I saw looked like individual seats, but were actually bench seat cushions.
LikeLike
That’s really interesting. With expansion at the Mississippi schools, UK will drop to 13th in SEC capacity. 11 of the last 14 years, UK has exceeded 62,000 in average attendance. 2 years they’ve been over 69, another over 68, once over 67, once over 66, once over 65, 4 times 64k-65k, once over 62. The only years lower were 2006 with 57,330 and the last two years when the team has been pitiful and even lost to Western Kentucky-60,007 in 2011 and 49,691 in 2012.
So they are clearly taking the major league baseball approach. Reduce capacity and raise ticket prices. IMO that approach is a long term disaster for the schools. The main purpose of college football is to connect the alumni. The trend for on campus stadiums is to bring alumni back to campus.
Maybe they are saying they only want to connect with rich alumni. But not too many students leave college already rich. You aren’t going to re-connect if you wait until they are in their 40s.
LikeLike
Its hard to tell from the design, but is there easy expansion if UK finds that demand outpaces supply to warrant future expansion?
LikeLike
“…but is there easy expansion if UK finds that demand outpaces supply…”
They can price according to demand until it reaches an equilibrium?
LikeLike
The trend seems to be for schools making their stadia smaller, at least in some regions of the country. UC Berkeley, Stanford, and Washington all reduced their stadium sizes in recent years.
LikeLike
How about use the format used by the 2 most popular leagues in Australia, the Australian Football League (AFL) and the National Rugby League (NRL). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_finals_system
LikeLike
For getting a playoff out of a single round robin conference in a professional sport, I like it (OTOH, having lived in Oz for a decade, I’m used to it). The problem is that it’s a four round playoff system, when even stretching from two to three round in NCAA FBS Football is going to require a push.
LikeLike
Americans also aren’t big on giving teams second chances in a playoff. I think it would be almost impossible to sell it to the public. With as few games as CFB plays, why should a playoff loser get a second chance at the title?
LikeLike
Its just a form of double elimination like baseball.
LikeLike
Baseball and football are completely different. Baseball fans are used to series and wouldn’t mind an 11-8 postseason record for the champ. College baseball does double elimination, but not most sports. Football uses single games and fans expect the loser to be eliminated.
LikeLike
In his weekly Mailbag, Stewart Mandel notes, as an aside, that BCS bowls do not like taking conference game losers in part because of concerns that the fanbase recently paid to travel to a neutral site for a title game:
“Thus, if facing a choice between a 10-2 Wisconsin team riding a seven-game winning streak and an 11-2 Michigan State squad fresh off a loss (and with a fan base that just spent travel dollars going to Indianapolis), I’d expect the Orange Bowl to select the Badgers.”
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131127/auburn-ohio-state-bcs-mailbag/#ixzz2lrc0Q28y
(The question deals with Wisky vs. MSU getting a BCS bid).
Even the BCS bowls consider the willingness of fans to travel to a SECOND neutral site game 3-4 weeks after a conference title game. Certainly implies that the PTB are cognizant that even the most die-hard fans have limits on the means/ability/desire to travel to multiple neutral site games in a short amount of time.
Also, for Andy, Mandel notes (100% correctly, in my view) that Mizzou is ranked so high partly because its record came in the SEC, and would have been penalized by 4-5 slots in the polls if it had an identical record in the B1G. He also nails that identical success in the B1G would be lead to stories that are less positive as to Mizzou’s success/program and more negative in the “See, even new, non-traditional powers can come into the B1G and have success–see how bad the conference is” way. Which is fair, since the SEC is home to the last 6 BCS champs.
LikeLike
I think the key is a disappointed fan base. They want conference ccg winners. They don’t want the losers. Its the same with schools that had fewer than expected wins. Fans don’t turn out as well.
LikeLike
Agree completely, but as we’ve seen (and has been pointed out by others above) there is only so many neutral site games that fans will travel to in a, say, 6 week period, regardless of winning the conf title game.
LikeLike
Wainscott the Kansas Fan:
Missouri won at Indiana by 17 pts. Won at Vanderbilt by 23 points. Won at Georgia by 15 pts. Beat Florida by 19 pts. Lost to South Carolina in double overtime by 3 pts. Beat Tennessee by 28 pts. Beat Kentucky by 21 pts. Won at Ole Miss by 14 pts. And in several of those games they were missing their star QB and some key defensive players.
Missouri has nothing to apologize for.
Missouri would likely be ranked higher if they were in the B1G because they’d likely be 11-0 instead of 10-1.
LikeLike
@Andy: I am not a Kansas fan. You only make yourself look dumber by falsely stating otherwise, and by attempting to discern other posters supposed fan allegiances as if we are all in one big conspiracy against you/Mizzou. So stop.
Also, please re-read what I wrote: I said ” if it had an identical record in the B1G.” I don’t care to spend my time debating what some team’s record would be if it played in another conference. All I know that I am in agreement with a noted CFB writer who wrote that a 1-loss Mizzou in the SEC would be higher ranked than a 1-loss Mizzou in the B1G, because of the esteem the SEC is held in vs. the B1G.
I mean, I pay Mizzou a complement and you still go off the rails. Lesson learned. Sheesh.
LikeLike
1) I only assumed you were a Kansas fan because you were a strong proponent of Kansas joining the B1G. I’m not sure why a non-Kansas fan would want that. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
2) If Mizzou was 10-1 in the B1G they would deserve to be ranked lower than the #5 ranking that they have now because it would mean that they would have a loss to a B1G team. There’s only one B1G team ranked higher than either Missouri or their one loss, South Carolina, and that’s Ohio State. If Missouri were in the B1G then they would have gotten Nebraska’s spot, and would have Nebraska’s schedule. Nebraska doesn’t play Ohio State this year. That means Missouri would have either a worse loss than the one they have now, or they would be undefeated. Also, judging by the number of quarterback injuries in both leagues, if Missouri were in the B1G odds are James Franklin wouldn’t have missed 4 and a half games with an injury. The SEC is just more physical and violent. So that would also bolster Missouri’s chances of being undefeated in the B1G, as Missouri’s only loss, a narrow defeat in double OT, came when they were missing their starting QB and where the backup had a mediocre to poor game.
3) I’m not sure how stating that Missouri is ranked higher because of their conference affiliation is supposed to be a compliment. Maybe I just don’t understand what you’re getting at. It seemed to me that you were saying that Missouri is somehow getting the benefit of the doubt that isn’t necessarily because of their performance but rather the brand their associated with. Was that not what you were getting at?
LikeLike
I believe he was just pointing out a current example of a SEC team getting the benefit of the doubt, because of conference affiliation. The same thing we were saying when six SEC teams get into the top five preseason. 😉
LikeLike
The benefit of the doubt for the SEC was earned in the last several bowl seasons, and the doubt of the B1G was earned there as well. We’ll see if history repeats this year…
LikeLike
1) Apology accepted. But don’t confuse proponent of school with being fan of school, as they are not necessarily the same. I’m not a particular fan of Maryland, for example, but I feel UMd was an excellent choice for expansion. And for KU, I feel the basketball program has tremendous value. But that’s neither here nor there.
2) Strictly comparing 10-1 in B1G vs 10-1 in SEC. I have no idea what a prospective schedule would be, as I don’t know if divisions would have been different with Mizzou instead of Nebraska.
3) Not benefit of the doubt as much as benefit of playing in a conference both widely perceived to be and actually tougher. As such, a 10-1 record in SEC is considered better than a 10-1 record in the B1G, and the holders of such records are rewarded (SEC) or docked (B1G) accordingly. Most, myself included, consider a one loss team in the SEC as having accomplished more and more deserving of a higher ranking than a 1-loss team in the B1G. That’s due to the overall success of the SEC, including regularly beating the B1G in bowl games and having the last 7 national champs.
In short, its both brand and performance. Which is true throughout college football. (Ex. Undefeated MAC teams behind multiple 1 and 2 loss power conference teams).
Nor is it Mizzou specific. Auburn is getting the same treatment, even through they beat GA with one of the more insane/flukeish plays in recent times. But the SEC has earned on the field such extra points/respect.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I do think schedule matters, though.
A team that had beaten Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Penn State but had lost to Ohio State would have a pretty decent schedule.
A team that had beaten Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, and Indiana but lost to Michigan would not be so good.
There’s really no easy road in the SEC. Even in a year where the East is clearly down, Missouri’s going to end up playing 5 conference opponents that will end up with 8 or more wins, plus potentially another one in the conference title game. Ohio State will play one in the regular season, and a second one in the conference title game.
As for your support of Kansas in the B1G, I really don’t get it. They’re marginal AAU in academics. Their state has maybe 2M people. They have one of the worst football programs in the country. I guess there’s basketball, but the B1G is already really good at basketball so I’m not sure how much that moves the needle. But whatever. If you just need to expand for expansion’s sake I guess they’re about as good as you can do without trying to poach a conference with some actual strength.
LikeLike
Andy, if you weren’t blinded by the rivalry, you’d recognize that a fan of a Big Ten school might favor adding Kansas because (1) they are a college basketball fan or (2) is a fan of a Big Ten East school who wants more than a few actual Big Ten schools in their division, so they prefer two western adds to balance the Rutgers/MD adds. So there’s two reasons aside from cheering for Kansas.
And congrats on Mizzou getting to Atlanta, that’s a great year to year turn-around story. And I’ll be cheering for the Tigers to beat the Tigers. The Other Tigers (TOT) are “Roll Tigers”, so what does one yell to support the Mizzou Tigers?
LikeLike
BruceMcF says:
December 1, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Andy, if you weren’t blinded by the rivalry, you’d recognize that a fan of a Big Ten school might favor adding Kansas because (1) they are a college basketball fan or (2) is a fan of a Big Ten East school who wants more than a few actual Big Ten schools in their division, so they prefer two western adds to balance the Rutgers/MD adds. So there’s two reasons aside from cheering for Kansas.
As a basketball fan I would love Kansas in the B1G. As KU is also an AAU school, a flagship, and has B1G history they would be an easy team to add. In the earliest threads on here I supported adding both Missouri and Kansas to the B1G along with Nebraska and Maryland because Rutgers did not have football or basketball power. It was an eyeball grab so Rutgers got the nod.
LikeLike
I don’t think Mo. is as good as you do. For example, compare what Wisky and OSU did to IU, v. what Mo. did.
I think MSU-Mo and Wis.-Mo would be very good games.
I don’t think Mo. is as good as OSU.
LikeLike
Mizzou got Indiana on the road early. OSU and Wisconsin got Indiana at home late. Indiana has regressed over the course of the year. In the game following their game with Missouri, Indiana beat Penn State by 20 pts, and then had close losses to Michigan State and Michigan. Since then they’ve fallen into a free fall. I don’t follow them close enough to know why, but they seem to not be the team that they started out as.
That said, Missouri’s 45-28 win in Bloomington wasn’t as close as the score indicates. Missouri had over 600 yards of offense in that game and could have easily scored over 60 pts if not for committing several turnovers.
We may well find out how Missouri will do against one of those teams you listed as most are projecting Missouri will be in the Capital One Bowl on New Year’s Day. Possible opponents, in order of likelihood, are probably Michigan State, Wisconsin, or Ohio State.
LikeLike
IU got beat by Navy the 2nd game of the year. It’s the same team it’s been all year. I do follow them closely.
LikeLike
How many teams have they beat that are ranked?
LikeLike
What is impressive about beating an 8-win SEC team when 4 wins come against a pathetic OoC schedule and at least 1 more comes against a Kentucky or Arkansas? I mean, really, if you want to cite records as an indicator, you must consider SoS. The SEC is pulling a con, because they don’t actually play each other that much. Alabama did not play Mizzou, S. Carolina, Georgia, Florida, or Vandy. In other words they did not play the 5 best teams in the opposite division!!
And while Mizzou did beat some decent SEC teams, they were all injury-plagued at the time – including South Carolina. I think Mizzou should be great next season, but it really is tough to determine how good they are right now.
LikeLike
Just look at computer rankings that take into account margin of victory, strength of schedule, etc. Missouri is top 5. Show me more than 5 teams with better resumes than Missouri. Missouri has 10 wins by 14 or more points each, and a double overtime loss to a top 10 team while missing their starting QB and best defensive player.
LikeLike
Interesting take on sports channels:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotwon/la-et-ct-time-warner-cable-lakers-dodgers-20131126,0,5269761.story#.axzz21sEadfRk
LikeLike
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-time-warner-cable-lakers-dodgers-20131126,0,5269761.story#axzz2lsEadfRk
Try this link.
LikeLike
Single team networks have no backup (except talking heads, coaches, and drunk fan call in filler shows) when the team is under performing. The LHN at least has multiple sports/events that can help draw local interest. Conference networks will always be able to offer more interest yearly. No matter who is down someone else has risen up.
LikeLike
I really recommend this whole article.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/astros-regional-sports-network-awash-in-losses-and-lawsuits/
…what the Astros were scheduled to be paid for the broadcast rights to their games differs significantly from what they received. Forbes reported that the CSN Houston deal called for the Astros to be paid $56 million this year, but the network paid only $25 million because it didn’t have the revenue to meet its obligations.
There are several factors contributing to CSN Houston’s bleak financial situation, but biggest is the network’s inability to reach agreement on carriage fees with the non-Comcast cable and satellite operators in the viewing area. AT&T-Uverse, Time Warner Cable and DISH Network have, thus far, refused to pay the $3.40 per-subscriber-per-month fee that CSN Houston demanded to carry the network… Overall, 60% of the homes in the viewing area don’t have CSN Houston.
…
The question for Major League Baseball and the teams that have TV deals set to expire in the next few years — including the Phillies, Rockies and Diamondbacks — is whether the situation in Houston is particular to those teams (Astros and Rockets) and that market (Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arkansas) or a sign that the sports-rights fees bubble is losing air. Howard Megdal reported on Oct, 21 for Sports on Earth that a new, lucrative Phillies TV deal was expected to be announced within 30 days. We’re now five days past that window, and there’s been no such announcement. It’s a holiday week and all, so an announcement just before baseball’s Winter Meetings is still possible. It’s also possible the situation in Houston has given several parties pause.
[Em. mine]
LikeLike
I would guess its a little of both. The Astros have been terrible. The Rockets have been frustrating with all their injuries and 3 straight years as #9 in the west prior to this year and Houston is just a tough market. But everyone is complaining about fees.
LikeLike
And remember, they asked $3.40 per month. That’s almost ESPN money, with (almost) no other channels significantly above $1.
LikeLike
However, RSN’s usually can charge far more than other channels in their local areas. Evidently, people in Boston want to watch the Red Sox; people in StL really want to watch the Cardinals, etc.
LikeLike
If the Big 5 don’t want to give the other conferences an auto-bid in an 8-team playoff, then they should form their own football division. So long as MAC, MWC, et al are part of Div 1-A/FBS/Whatever, then they should be part of an expanded post season. I’d like to see the champions of the “Mid-Major” conferences and the top independent team have a playoff play-in to determine one Mid-Major representative in the 8-team playoff. Two of them get byes. Two others host games whose winners play at the teams that got byes. (If no independent team is worthy, then three teams get byes with one “first round” game.) The final two winners play in the Texas Bowl or Gator Bowl or wherever to determine the team that gets in the playoff. The home games, btw, because these schools have very little tradition of fans traveling to bowl games. I doubt bowls would want these games especially when they could get teams from larger conferences that are not in the playoff.
As far as payouts, The Big 5 should split evenly between them 83%. Everybody else, including Notre Dame & the service academies splits 17%. This is probably more than equitable based on value each entity brings. The Big 5 should split their portion evenly regardless of teams in the playoff. This way, nobody can complain too much if both at-large spots are taken by the same conference. Let’s face it, some seasons will produce 3 worthy teams from the same conference. It won’t always be the SEC either. The old Big 8 had the top 3 ranked teams at the end of one season, I think it was 1971. In these circumstances a team should not be left out arbitrarily because of concerns over a conference getting three shares instead of two.
LikeLike
In an 8 team playoff, you might see one auto bid for an AQ champion (not likely) or a scenario where the top 5 conference champions (including the MAC, Sun Belt, America, MWC, CUSA) etc. receiving auto bids, so a Northern Illinois or Fresno could go ahead of a weak Power 5 champion… That might help solve the occasional 8-4 team winning its CCG. IMO it’s unlikely though as the Power 5 would rather a weak Power 5 champion is much, much preferable and the Power 5 are the deciders.
LikeLike
Trouble is, a “weak” Power 5 champion almost certainly would be one that’s not a brand name, and there’s something wrong about depriving them of a once-in-a-lifetime playoff opportunity.
LikeLike
A non brand P5 champ = weak?
Really?
Let the beauty contest continue…
LikeLike
If these proposed guidelines had been in effect in 2006, do you think Wake would have been assured a playoff spot in an 8-team tourney if it weren’t guaranteed?
LikeLike
If Wake wins a P5 conference in an 8 team playoff scenario they absolutely should be in. What’s the point of a power conference if it isn’t to assure all its members basically equal treatment? Would you keep Vandy out if they won the SEC? It obviously can’t be good, it’s not a FB brand. And the SEC must be really down.
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving WE everybody…………..
What a football WE…..IU-Purdue; OSU-UM; Iowa-Neb; Minn-MSU; Wis-PSU; NW-ILL; ND-Stanford; A&M-Mo; Aub-Bama; USC-UCLA; Clemson-SC; Va-VT; Georgia-GT……not bad….
LikeLike
Remember, Thanksgiving has been a football holiday since at least the early 1890’s. So you are properly observing the day and weekend by watching the blessed game in all forms.
LikeLike
Duke’s AD compares conferences to fast-food chains. Why? Find out at http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-kevin-white,0,1385903.post
LikeLike
Way to bury the lead.
“Should we realize the objective in 2016, should we realize the channel objective, we’re going to be in an incredibly strong position for the next 15-20 years,” he said. “In my opinion, I think it will happen, and I think it will be wildly successful.”
…
The Big Ten “clearly became McDonald’s in our industry, and anyone that would argue with that doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” White said. “I think unfortunately there was a time 3-4 years ago where, I don’t know who we were. We weren’t Whataburger, but we were between Whataburger and Wendy’s. We had fallen into that position. And I think the SEC was clearly Burger King.
“And I think we’re kind of snuggling back up into the Burger King position with the grant of rights [the ACC’s 15 schools signed one in April] everybody’s renewed solidarity and our new market position. It’s amazing how quickly we’ve regained what had been our historic position. We were in a bit of a free fall, but we’re right back, and … I attribute all of it and more to John’s leadership.
…
Since White mentioned basketball, and the ACC’s broader footprint, I asked him about taking the basketball tournament north of the Mason-Dixon Line for the first time, to New York. The event is scheduled for Greensboro, N.C., in 2014 and ’15, Washington, D.C., in 2016.
“We have a great history and tradition here,” White said, “particularly in Greensboro. That’s been the heart and soul of the ACC. So I think there’s a whole bunch of folks within our league that would like the tournament to retain some kind of association with Greensboro.
“But at the same time, there’s a whole bunch of us that would love it, I don’t know how it all plays out, but I would like the ACC to have a very strong relationship with New York City. I’d be much less than honest if I didn’t say that. That’s the biggest media market in the world, great opportunity, and every one of our schools does LOTS of business up there, and I use that in the broadest context. … It’s right in the midst of our footprint, so to do something up there with some level of frequency is important. But to retain our historical roots in Greensboro is also important to me.”
He’s the first to put a timeline on an ACCN. If they do start an ACCN in 2016, that’ll be right as the B10 is signing their new TV deal. The deal the ACC gets could be really important for determining if any future expansion losses hit the ACC.
LikeLike
We were really agreeing way too much recently. I’ll differ with this as well. What matters is the deal the ACC gets when their GOR expires. They’ve tied themselves to their current deal.
LikeLike
If an ACCN works well their next primary deal will be of less impact when the GOR expires. It might even provide for easier renewal.
LikeLike
bullet,
“We were really agreeing way too much recently.”
How dare we?
“What matters is the deal the ACC gets when their GOR expires. They’ve tied themselves to their current deal.”
My thinking was that this will start a ticking clock with the ACC and B10 on new deals. The ACC teams will have 7 years to see how much more UMD makes than they do. If it’s not much, the ACC is safe. If it’s huge, the tensions will really build. The ACC will have a hard time selling their schools that they’ll catch up on a big gap with their next TV deal if such a large gap exists.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Maryland, or the B1G is the measuring stick. They will compare with what the average of the B12 (not what their top two or three earners get) is, and what it projects to be.
LikeLike
I think the schools will compare to the conferences where they might go. The new deal for the B10 coming at the same time as the ACCN just makes for an easier comparison.
LikeLike
FTT’s scenario is the best solution to disputed football national championships available. The main political problem I see is that an 8-team playoff with autobids for the P5 conferences would force Notre Dame’s hand over time (or give them immediate cover for something they’ve already decided to do). I get the sense most conferences other than the ACC don’t want to accelerate Notre Dame’s full membership in any conference, and that the ACC doesn’t want to be perceived by Notre Dame fans as the driver in forcing them into a conference. So we’ll have a four team playoff for awhile.
LikeLike
It doesn’t force ND to do anything. There are still at-large spots. True, they don’t have a shot at an automatic conference bid, but they also don’t run the risk of being upset in a CCG, and I think the Domers think they’re good enough to be top 5 (which would almost certainly garner an at-large bid).
LikeLike
Why should there be an automatic conference bid? I don’t understand the reasons for this stance other than narcissim — as in “egotistic admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.”
LikeLike
With the “beauty contest” of non-automatic bids, schools that aren’t “brand names” are at a distinct disadvantage, all things being equal, for reasons that have nothing to do with their record or quality of play, and a “Cinderella season” for winning the ACC, B1G, Big 12, Pac or SEC doesn’t get its reward.
LikeLike
SJSU beat Fresno 62-52 today, knocking out one more undefeated team. Now we just need BGSU to beat NIU in the MAC CG and there won’t be a BCS buster stealing a BCS slot from a worthwhile team.
NCG – AL vs FSU
LikeLike
Oops. Let me finish that:
Right now:
NCG – AL vs FSU
Rose – OSU vs Stanford
Orange – Clemson vs WI
Sugar – AU vs UCF
Fiesta – OkSU vs NIU
If AU loses, someone else might go to the Sugar.
If Clemson loses, it hurts FSU.
If OSU makes the NCG, MSU makes the Rose (if eligible) over WI
LikeLike
” a BCS buster stealing a BCS slot from a worthwhile team”
An example of why every conference champion needs to be in the playoff for it to have any validity at all.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“An example of why every conference champion needs to be in the playoff for it to have any validity at all.”
Can you really say with a straight face that NIU deserves to be in the BCS this year? The versions of Sagarin’s ratings that use MOV have NIU as #25 and #47.and he has NIU with the #110 SOS. Their best win was @ IA, and IA has lost to all 4 top 25 teams they played. There are clearly at least 10 better teams this year.
And note, I’m all for a rule that says every undefeated team should make the playoff over any 1-loss team.
LikeLike
Schedule as weak as possible? Sounds exciting…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Schedule as weak as possible? Sounds exciting…”
I’d consider adding a requirement for a win over a top 25 team, but that favors the AQs. The G5 have limited games where they can schedule such a team.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/11/all-time_big_ten_standings_and.html
A fun little database of all the B10 season standings. You can search by year or by team. It also gives the records (B10 only and overall) for all teams over 4 periods – all-time, since 1953 (MSU), since 1993 (PSU) and since 2011 (NE).
LikeLike
One autobid rule that definitely should be part of any 8 team playoff – all undefeated teams get a spot. I don’t care if the committee and the polls and the stats don’t think they’re a top 8 team, any 12-0 or 13-0 team deserves a spot. They don’t need to be a high seed, but they have to get in.
It should be a rule with 4 teams, too, but they won’t do it.
LikeLike
So is it still too early to congratulate UCF on winning the first ever AAC football championship?
LikeLike
They have a share now and only need to beat SMU to win it outright. SMU is pretty bad. They got shut out 34-0 by UH Friday.
LikeLike
Starting QB was out and he might be back vs. UCF. Backup QB looked like starter Garret Gilbert over the past 4 years-3 interceptions. But Gilbert was leading the nation in total offense prior to getting injured last week.
LikeLike
How does this proposal expand revenue for the B1G and SEC? The 4 slot playoff and not sharing the Rose and Sugar bowls works better for 4 of the 5 P5 conferences versus putting the Orange and Fiesta on the same level as the Rose and Sugar (all quarter-finals). if the Go5 is given one of the 8 slots that is a reduction to what the P5 have now. The key to the 4 slot proposal was reducing the Go5 from up to 20% (2 of 10 last year, and this year if NIU beats BGU) of the slots to 8.3%. This was possible because the AAC took the hit, with the other 4 better off. To pull that magic again, it will need to become the Go6 with another power conference demoted.
LikeLike
This was possible because the AAC took the hit, with the other 4 better off. To pull that magic again, it will need to become the Go6 with another power conference demoted.
I think it is interesting to note that the last two major changes to CFB postseason (the BCS in ’98 and CFB playoff ’14) were preceded by the collapse of a major conference (SWC in ’96 and Big East in ’13). (For that matter, the addition of a fifth BCS bowl in 2006 followed the near decapitation of the Big East).
Probably a coincidence but I guess it could be an indication that the B1G, SEC and PAC might just sit back and wait for the Big XII and/or ACC to crumble before deciding what to do next (creating a de facto 8 team playoff by simply pitting the winners of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl against each other and using the CCG’s as the first round?)
LikeLike
And yes, I am aware that the last scenario I described is a real long shot even in the medium term, but it was the first thing that came to mind and would certainly be the simplest way to achieve an 8 team playoff if another power conference bites the dust.
LikeLike
Woody and Bo must be turning over in their graves. What happened to 3 yards and a cloud of dust?!
LikeLike
What happened to defense?
LikeLike
Interesting call at the end. 2 pt conversions are about a 1 in 3 shot. Did he really feel his OT chances were that bad? Neither team seemed to be able to stop the other. Just who made the first mistake.
LikeLike
Normally the home team should play for OT, but they couldn’t stop Hyde and OSU has a huge advantage at FG kicker. They were moving so easily and had the momentum, so I think it was the right call. The players said Hoke asked the seniors during the TO and they all said to go for it. The OSU DB said the coaches told them during the TO that MI would run 1 of 2 plays and they were right, so he jumped the route.
LikeLike
Going for 2 was the right call. Several of the Michigan media homers were already suggesting it, even before they scored the TD. On talk radio afterward, most of the media seemed to agree with the decision.
On the Michigan fan boards, which usually call any coach’s decision that fails “bone-headed,” quite a few people disagreed with the call and its execution, but I haven’t seen much second-guessing of the decision itself.
The way Michigan’s defense was playing, and with their starting FG kicker out, it felt like the best bet was to try to win it in one play. I believe the percentages are a bit better than you’re saying. I think the 2-point conversion succeeds around 45+% of the time, not merely 1 in 3.
LikeLike
The overwhelming consensus (blogs etc.) seems to be that Hoke made the right call. Everyone I watched the game with agreed it was the right call.
LikeLike
Rice beats Tulane in the Southern Nerd Bowl. Losers have to do the winners’ homework?
LikeLike
Rice and Duke won division championships today.
Southern Miss broke a 2 year losing streak.
LikeLike
Winners get to do the losers homework (they’re nerds).
LikeLike
It does not look like anyone wants to go to a BCS bowl today. OSU barely won, MSU did not look good, WI lost, AL lost on a missed FG run back 100 yds+ for a TD (another amazing finish for Auburn), Baylor looked bad but won by 3. Will need to see what Clemson & Missouri do tonight.
LikeLike
Don’t forget OR struggling with OrSU last night. Or Fresno losing to SJSU.
LikeLike
Florida State is still looking good. I hope Sparty beats OSU, and Auburn has a chance to win The National Championship. Great win for the Nittany Lions over Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Northern Illinois looks like they want to go to a BCS bowl … there’s also this midwestern school in a southern conference I’m watching on TV right now that seems like they want to go, not sure if they are going to succeed.
LikeLike
Wow, Auburn. Just wow.
We might possibly get a NCG without the SEC and end the tyranny.
Or voters will move the SEC champ past OSU and the state of Ohio will burn.
Or OSU will lose the B10 CCG.
LikeLike
Auburn/Alabama was one of the greatest (if not the greatest game) in College Football History. The ending even surpassed the Cal/Stanford Band ending.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Auburn/Alabama was one of the greatest (if not the greatest game) in College Football History.”
Maybe a touch hyperbolic. It was a really good game, but not that great. AL was 0-4 on FGs and 3/14 on 3rd downs despite gaining 495 yards (meaning it wasn’t just elite AU defense). Auburn gave up that 99 yard pass with bad tackling.
LikeLike
I have long looked at the Miami over Nebraska Game as Number One, but if you look at that ending AND a 99 yard Touchdown pass in the same game, and the fact it is Alabama/Auburn (the greatest rivalry in College Sports (except Michigan/Ohio State (Football), and Duke/North Carolina (Hoops)). I put it as my Number One.
LikeLike
Not even close for me. I’d put it below those great FSU/Miami games as well as all the traditional elite games (NC bowls like NE/Miami, OSU/Miami, USC/UT; Game of the Century, etc).
LikeLike
Hail Flutie, Stanford band, etc.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with you.
Nebraska/OU 71, Texas/USC 2005. It was an interesting finish but not Number one or even close.
Lots of great finishes this weekend. OR/OR St., UM/tOSU, UGA/GT, AL/AU. I think Duke/UNC and WF/Vandy were last minute games as well. And the Duke game mattered.
LikeLike
For hype in the pre-ESPN era, its hard to match Texas/Arkansas 1969. Horns, Hogs and Nixon’s coming. Great finish in that one but not as back and forth as Nebraska/OU or UT/USC.
LikeLike
Nothing can top The Play if no other reason than the play by play guys reaction
THE BAND IS OUT ON THE FIELD
LikeLike
Not to mention that all those laterals had to be done properly; it wasn’t simply running back a missed kick 109 yards.
LikeLike
I think that when you combine the way it ended with the stakes involved, Auburn/Alabama was arguably the #1 fantastic finish of all time. The Cal/Stanford finish with the band was much wilder, but there was nowhere near as much at stake in that game.
“Hail Flutie” was remarkable, but it is merely one of many games that ended on a long pass. There is usually at least one of those every year. I’ve never seen a game winning FG return for a TD on the final play of a tie game, much less a game in which #4 knocked off #1 for a place in a league championship game.
LikeLike
Marc – you’re right. Returning a missed field goal 100 yards for a touchdown has only happened four times in the history of college football. Earlier this season, when LSU’s Odell Beckham returned a missed Kent State field goal 109 yards for a touchdown, the NCAA statistical program had no way to account for those yards, so they created a new category entitled “miscellaneous yards.”
For #4 Auburn to return a missed field goal by #1 Alabama (and two-time defending national champion) 100 yards for a touchdown after Saban argued with the referees to put one second on the clock, and not be recognized as the greatest ending in CFB history is just crazy talk.
Cal/Stanford’s band play and even the LSU/Kentucky “Bluegrass Miracle” pale in comparison the play we witnessed this afternoon.
LikeLike
It depends what you mean by “greatest ending,” doesn’t it?
Most unusual game-winning play in an important game might be a more accurate description here.
LikeLike
I slightly disagree. I find it more net resting that it hasn’t happened more. The rule change to possession at the point of a missed kick is disincentive to returning long misses, unless its on the last play of a half/game. Field goal units aren’t the same personnel as kickoff coverage teams. Add to that a review adding a second making over thinking the percentages instead of just going to OT.
I’m not saying it wasn’t amazing, but kick returning against field goal unit as the most amazing play ever? How about Boise with hook and ladder, and statute of liberty on the same game deciding drive in a big bowl game? Johnny Rogers?
LikeLike
We’d have to distinguish “best game overall” with “most memorable ending”. From what I’ve personally witnessed in my lifetime, the Texas-USC Rose Bowl was the best game overall, but the Alabama-Auburn game was the most memorable ending. That missed field goal return will be shown in replays for a looooong time. The one that Devin Hester had against the Giants on Sunday Night Football a few years ago was nutty enough and the stakes weren’t nearly as high. That was as crazy of an ending that I’ve ever seen live in sports (and my wife can tell you that I watch a *lot* of sports).
Having said that, for pure visuals, it’s really hard to top The Play with the Stanford band on the field. It doesn’t matter that the game didn’t have any national championship implications – that play will live on forever as a combo of both a miraculous football play and overall chaos on-the-field. You don’t need to know anything about football or the context of that particular game to know that The Play was as bats**t insane of an ending as you could possibly get (just as the Laetner play in Duke-Kentucky is an amazing visual even if you have no idea of the stakes involved). Today’s Auburn-Alabama game was crazy because we’re hyper aware of the context and the stakes of the game, but it will be interesting to see how it lives on 5 or 10 years from now. The Play has proven to be timeless because its context is irrelevant – it’s simply a nutty play no matter what era or what the score is.
LikeLike
I don’t know about greatest, but that was certainly the most unbelievable ending to watch in real time that I’ve ever seen.
On a side note, Florida State is going to slaughter Ohio State.
LikeLike
“On a side note, Florida State is going to slaughter Ohio State.”
If they can keep Jameis.
LikeLike
Agreed, Frank — Alabama-Auburn yesterday was a miraculous ending in a game with a lot more on the line, but Stanford-Cal ’82 bordered on the surreal.
LikeLike
@ Frank
I think we are seeing the equivalent of the Duke vs Kentucky game in basketball.
* Both games had teams with history
* Both teams were late in the season with a NC game clearly on the line
* Both games had underdog vs team of destiny
* Both games relied on coaching error for coaches not know for errors
* Both had all kinds of underlying storyline’s
While the Stanford vs Cal has the visual elements that makes “America’s Funniest Home Video’s” popular with the general public, this ending will resonate with sports fans the same way 92′ Duke does. UCLA owned the 60’s and Indiana / Kentucky owned the post Wooden era. UNLV cleaned Duke’s clock in 1990 winning 103-73. In 1991 neither Indiana or Kentucky made the Final Four and Duke got their first NCAA banner. In 1992 if Kentucky had upset Duke in the regional they would have advanced to play Indiana in the Final Four. Indiana had (5) NCAA banners that year and Kentucky had (5) NCAA banners as well. This would have meant IU or UK would have faced the Fab 5 and Duke would have been relegated to obscurity.
Pre 92 Duke
(22) = IU / UK (5) + UL / KU / UC (2) + MSU / UM / OSU / Wisc / Mq / Loy-C (1)
(05) = UNC / NCST (2) + Duke (1) + MD (0)
Post 92 Duke
(06) = UK (3) + UL / KU / MSU (1) + IU / UC / UM / OSU / Wisconsin / My / Loy-C (0)
(07) = UNC / Duke (3) + MD (1) + NCST (0)
If Auburn beats Missouri in the SEC CCG and somehow vaults them into the last BCS MNC game over the undefeated 2, it may mean more SEC dominance. The problem with Alabama losing is they may view the Iron Bowl as the MNC game for this season the same way they said the SEC CCG was the real MNC last year since the BCS MNC game was a blowout. Perception can become reality and all those folks who wanted Florida State vs Alabama will have to settle for Florida State vs Ohio State.
They may show the Cal vs Stanford clip, but look how much free airplay the Duke shot got over Kentucky. I can easily see them replaying that Auburn TD the same way for years to come. With that last second Georgia win and now the last second Alabama win folks are already talking about how exciting Auburn is to watch on TV. In this age it is all about who drives eyeballs and Auburn is the star right now.
LikeLike
Are they calling for Sabin’s scalp yet? 😉
LikeLike
They wouldn’t dare. Sabanbot would come to their houses and crush them.
There are Twitter death threats for the kicker, though.
LikeLike
The Baylor/UNLV 1999 game qualifies for very unusual and dramatic. Baylor got a first down at the UNLV 8 with 28 seconds left. Instead of taking a knee with a 3 point lead and ending the game-Baylor runs a play, snapping with 8 seconds left on the clock. The runner gets to the 1 yard line, fumbles into the end zone and UNLV runs it back 100 yards for a TD as time expires. That game wasn’t televised, so its not as well known.
LikeLike
In refreshing my memory on that game, Baylor (for a short time) HC Kevin Steele was also Clemson’s defensive coach in their 70-33 debacle vs. WV in the Orange bowl. He’s an administrative assistant at Alabama now. (Wonder if that involves planning defense against returns of missed FGs?).
LikeLike
With Saban’s luck, Mizzou will lose tonight, South Carolina will beat Auburn next week, and MSU will beat Ohio State, and Bama will back into another championship game.
LikeLike
Assuming no more chaos (bad assumption), a BCS guess:
NCG – OSU / FSU
Rose – MSU / Stanford
Orange – Clemson / AL
Sugar – AU / UCF
Fiesta – OkSU / NIU
A loss for MSU might make them ineligible, though. If so:
NCG – OSU / FSU
Rose – AL / Stanford
Orange – Clemson / Baylor
Sugar – AU / UCF
Fiesta – OkSU / NIU
Of course MSU could win the B10:
NCG – FSU / AU
Rose – MSU / Stanford
Orange – Clemson / OSU
Sugar – AL / UCF
Fiesta – OkSU / NIU
LikeLike
Imagine Florida State and Ohio State lose, and Northern Illinois ends up undefeated?
LikeLike
And they still wouldn’t get a NCG slot. It’d be an AU/AL rematch before NIU would get a shot.
LikeLike
NIU will still be in the Fiesta Bowl if it wins its CCG. ESPiN is already promoting Auburn jumping an undefeated OSU. Alabama could still get in the NCG if any two of Auburn, tOSU, or FSU loses its CCG. For any other team to get in the NCG, it will require the extremely unlikely event that all 3 lose. The other one loss teams, even if they become conference champions (MO, oSu, Baylor) just do not get the respect that Alabama gets.
LikeLike
Found that Auburn comment annoying. Especially since its just not going to happen. Maybe in the AP Poll. Never in the coaches.
LikeLike
Hey Brian, you left out SEC East champs Mizzou. They’ve got a decent shot of beating Auburn I’d say.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that if FSU is ranked #1 the Orange Bowl would get the first overall selection and would almost certainly take 11-1 Alabama.
LikeLike
Assuming no upsets and SEC champ doesn’t jump tOSU or FSU (which are admittedly big assumptions) here is my guess
NCG: FSU vs. tOSU
Orange: ‘Bama vs. Clemson (Maybe Baylor if they beat Texas or Clemson falls out of top 14)
Rose Bowl: MSU vs. Stanford/ASU
Sugar: Auburn/Mizzou vs. UCF
Fiesta: OSU vs. NIU
(At large selection order is Orange, Sugar, Fiesta this year)
I will say that if MSU falls out of the top 14 it will be very interesting to see what the Rose Bowl does. The Orange Bowl will almost certainly take Alabama so they would likely be stuck choosing between Clemson and Baylor.
LikeLike
I do not think Baylor are going to make a BCS Bowl (I am picking Texas to upset the Bears in Waco). As a Penn State fan, my picks (Hopefully?)
National Championship: Auburn/Florida State
Rose: Arizona State/Michigan State
Sugar: Alabama/Central Florida
Orange: Clemson/Ohio State
Fiesta: Northern Illinois/Oklahoma State
LikeLike
They do, but they don’t want to offend the ACC. If MSU is ineligible, the Rose has pick #2 and no obvious choice. I could see them telling the Orange that if the Orange selects AL, the Rose will take Clemson (might be a bluff – Baylor may be more appealing). The Orange might prefer to get Clemson and keep good relations with the ACC. At least, that was my train of thought. They might also say screw the ACC and take AL instead.
If so:
NCG – OSU / FSU
Rose – Clemson / Stanford
Orange – AL / Baylor
Sugar – AU / UCF
Fiesta – OkSU / NIU
BTW, after looking at the rankings I think MSU would survive a loss to OSU and still be top 14 (barely).
LikeLike
I get what you are saying, but this isn’t like the Rose Bowl with the PAC and B1G or even the Sugar Bowl with the SEC. The Orange Bowl hates its ACC tie in and couldn’t care less about hurting the conference’s feelings.
But, I do agree if MSU is ineligible that the scenario above is the most likely.
LikeLike
Brian, if the Orange Bowl did that, it would risk the wrath of the ACC…even if, in the above scenario, Clemson came out smelling like a Rose. (I’m not necessarily sure it would undermine the conference’s future, since the alternatives you listed are financially the most attractive.)
LikeLike
There it is, folks! The Battle of the Tigers is on for next Saturday.
Anyone think Baylor is now fuming over the lost chance to really bust things up?
LikeLike
More like Oklahoma St.’s inexplicable loss at West Virginia.
LikeLike
Not at all, they were exposed badly, thus not worthy. OkSt would beat them 7 of 10. Hell, they nearly lost to TCU today.
LikeLike
The fix is in.
Brad Edward’s BCS analysis, veiled in objectivity, albeit not objective, was horrendous & ESPN is running the interview, over and over and over.
When interviewed, Edwards made a handful of strikingly biased statements while at the same time pushing a Southeastern voting bloc that clearly seeks FSU and the SEC CG winner for the BCSNG He repeatedly makes a guess that computers, therefore some voters will put Auburn over OSU in tomorrow’s BCS rankings.
Bear in mind, Edwards is a NC native who graduated from South Carolina. Secondly, ESPN clearly has an interest in the SEC (football) and the ACC (basketball).
Edwards pointed out that the BIG is probably having it’s worst regular season – ever. My God, why? Because teams like Minnesota and Iowa are playing good football again and MSU has become consistently very good. There’s a very good chance 4 BIG teams will be ranked tomorrow, 2 in the top 10: OSU, MSU, Wisconsin and maybe Iowa.
Edwards fails to point out FSU’s rather weak ACC schedule. Edwards also doesn’t mention the fact that the ACC only has 3 Top 25 teams: Duke, Clemson and FSU – and that’s all they will have come tomorrow. Clemson is not a top 10 team, esp after the SC whooping & 6 TOs. Furthermore, Edwards and the ESPN machine, fail to point out that Winston’s off field issues would likely become 3x more negative if he was the QB at any big brand school in the BIG, SEC (yes the SEC), Big 12 or Pac12.
Edwards goes out of his way to note PSU’s upset of Wisconsin was the biggest of the day, which may be true, but in my opinion, he’s playing the above vote (Southeastern pollsters) to further downplay OSU’s schedule even more. Never mind FSU.
He does all of the above, of course, to lobby the SEC’s CG winner for the last spot in the BCSNCG.
How FSU continues to get a pass is genuinely unethical and reeks of ESPN collusion. We all know that CBS Sports won’t endorse OSU over a 1 loss SEC team.
OSU needs a big win next week, and a Mizzou win, then I think they are in. Btw, I’m rooting for MSU. Mizzou shares a common opponent with OSU and other BIG teams: IU. Clearly OSU and Wisky surpassed, Mizzou’s performance against IU. Even MSU and Michigan somewhat matched Mizzou’s performance against IU. Hell, Minnesota had a huge lead on IU in the second half, only to see it melt away.
Auburn, on the other hand, despite a close game with WSU (at most a mid level Pac12 team) and LSU loss, will still glow favorably across the landscape. Beating Bama and winning the Iron Bowl in dramatic fashion is hard to overlook, esp if the Tigers win the SEC CG. Moreover, the Iron Bowl has crowned the last 4 NC’s & the SEC streak is undeniable.
Feel bad for the Bucks, which is hard to admit. But, the BIG continues to lose the perception war. Until the BIG starts winning bowl and marquee OOC games, the negative “perception” will continue. PSU, Michigan and Neb need to get back to business as usual as well, or OSU will be fighting a lonely, uphill battle.
LikeLike
OSU doesn’t have any good wins. There’s a legit argument to be made that the SEC champ is the better choice for the title game.
LikeLike
Andy, I so often disagree with you, but I got to say Mizzou is having a great season and proof that most programs are capable of turning it around and having great seasons. SEC fans, in general, were outright nasty towards Mizzou to the SEC. Have a drink and laugh your ass off, you deserve to.
I think Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty good football teams & MSU is a fine football team, thus your argument is invalid. The BIG is underrated right now because of PSU, Mi and Neb being down, but at least Iowa and Minny are playing well this year and MSU and Wiksy have become perennial top 25 programs.
Wisconsin beat IU 51-7, your Tigers didn’t even come close to such annihilation. OSU gets the bigger score differential as well, plus they didn’t let IU score as many points as Mizzou. Of course, OSU has to beat MSU to make their case stronger.
The SEC is what it is, 7 straight BCS titles and powerful – it helps to have the best hs football in right in your footprint & no other region is close – thus I’m less impressed by the SEC’s reign, they do what they should do. I’m more troubled by FSU’s free pass throughout all of this (<– bold here).
But I don't buy Mizzou passing OSU if they win the SEC CG, don't think you'll get the votes nor the computer bump. You lost to SCar, at your your place – granted you were w/o Franklin, but SC had some injuries as well, and Connor missed some games before coming to Columbia. You got to protect your home turf, plain and simple. Auburn, well they have a recent BCS title and they did the job with Bama, something most of the SEC hasn't been able to do over the past few years. If OSU and Auburn win close games next week, I won't be shocked if Auburn passes OSU.
If OSU beats MSU big and Auburn barely sneaks past you guys, OSU will go to the CG.
LikeLike
OSU hasn’t beaten MSU yet and I don’t think that they will.
I thought Wisconsin was good until today. Now I’m not so sure.
Iowa is okay I guess. They did lose to Northern Illinois.
Point is OSU’s SOS will probably end up being ranked in the 60s and the SEC champ’s will be ranked in the 20s.
Had OSU played Missouri or Auburn’s schedule they would not be undefeated.
They almost lost today to a bad Michigan team.
LikeLike
As for comparing Indiana scores… yeah, Missouri had several turnovers in that game vs Indiana at the start of the season and only beat them 45-28 in Bloomington. I don’t know what happened between then and now but Indiana has seemingly gotten worse. They beat Penn State by 20 in the game after the Missouri game, and now Penn State just beat Wisconsin by a touchdown in Madison. So I don’t know what to think of that.
I think in the end voters should look at what the computers say. Computers are an objective measurement of how teams have performed over the season.
I have little doubt that Missouri would be 12-0 if they had Ohio State’s schedule.
LikeLike
As for your remark “Mizzou is having a great season and proof that most programs are capable of turning it around and having great seasons,” I suppose maybe that’s true but it’s not like this if a fluke year for Mizzou. This is Mizou’s fourth 10+ win season in the last 7 years, their fourth division title, and their second season with 11 regular season wins. Over the last 7 years Missouri has 64 wins, Nebraska has 61.
LikeLike
I could expand that back a little farther: Over the last 9 years Missouri has 79 wins, Nebraska has 78 wins. Yeah I know over the long term Nebraska is the better program. But Missouri’s program has been better for quite a while now. This season is just a continuation of that trend.
LikeLike
I looked at it a bit more and added it up. Actually 10 years is as far as I can take it back. 10 year totals: Missouri 84, Nebraska 83. Go back 11 and it’s Nebraska 93, Missouri 92.
LikeLike
Dayum, five consecutive replies to a single comment. Good thing that gfunk said some nice things about Mizzou, or I’m guessing it would have been the consecutive replies would have been in double digits.
LikeLike
I was responding to different parts of his longish post, and two of them were just adding additional stats to one of my own points. If this forum had an edit feature I would have done it that way.
LikeLike
Didn’t say Mizzou’s season was a fluke, but this year’s 10 win season is in the SEC, a conference who has won the past 7 BCS titles. Moreover, Mizzou already has 11 wins which exceeds 3 of those 4 seasons at this point. Btw, one of those 10 win seasons ended in a loss to a lower-unranked Iowa team, who after beating you, only reached 8 wins for year Over the past 10 years, the Big 12 is no SEC & the SEC fans slighting Mizzou are now eating crow but likely chanting SEC for you come bowl season. So please don’t downplay Mizzou’s great year, you’re feeling good right now.
Mizzou is in it’s best era of football right now. But hold off on the Neb comparisons, not there yet. You got to win multiple NC’s and over a period of a few decades, then your comparison holds greater substance. Bama’s 3 year run is over & it likely doesn’t equal Neb between 94-97 – that might be the best run over the past 30 years. Moreover, Neb appeared in two consecutive Big12 title games before joining the BIG & they also beat you 6 of the last 10 games played. As for the all time series, well that’s just a gap Mizzou will never close, including 24-25 losses in a row from 1979-2002.
I disagree with you that IU has regressed, it’s simply different when it comes to in-conference games – so much history and familiarity. Don’t forget, IU had already lost a home game to Navy by the time you played them.
At the end of the day I hope MSU wins, Mizzou as well. If such happens, you guys should get FSU unless Bama jumps ahead of you, an injustice that could happen – they are the SEC’s darlings.
I generally root for underdogs. However, I think CF FBS does a miserable job of crowning a NC – it’s never been a remotely fair system & there is way too much politics.
LikeLike
I don’t think voters would vote Alabama over Mizzou if Mizzou won the SEC title while Alabama sat at home. The computers might but I don’t think it would be enough.
Yes, this is, as of now, the 2nd best season in Missouri’s modern era. Win one more and it’ll be the best season of the modern era. Win two more and it’ll be the best season in school history.
I didn’t mean to compare 2000s Missouri to 90s Nebraska. 2000s Missouri isn’t even close. But 2000s Missouri has surpassed 2000s Nebraska at this point.
Missouri is not “elite” at this point, but they’re definitely in that tier of solid programs that averages 9 wins a season and often goes for 10+ wins.
The SEC is strong, yes, but Missouri was playing tough teams in the Big 12 too. Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas State, etc. I’d say the SEC is somewhat tougher than the original Big 12, but the original Big 12 was pretty tough too. The new Big 12-2 I’m not so sure about.
LikeLike
Andy, I wish I could trust your thoughts, but if the old guard SEC has a razor thin margin to determine a one loss Bama or a one loss Mizzou, I wouldn’t be shocked if Mizzou got screwed.
We’ll see soon enough. The 4 Team Playoff couldn’t come soon enough, and even at that, it’s still not the 8 Team format which is not only doable, but the best system to implement at this point.
I mean look at aTm last year, sure they lost to LSU head-to-head, but they did beat Bama and their other loss, Florida, also beat LSU. So a similar record (both with 2 losses) but clearly aTm was playing better football than LSU as the season came to an end. Who go the SEC’s other BCS bid? LSU, & they lost to Clemson while aTm destroyed OU.
LikeLike
gfunk – without watching the games and knowing the context of the schedules, I can see how you came to your conclusion about A&M and LSU last season, although in my opinion it is incorrect.
A&M defeated Bama the week after the LSU/Bama game. If you watched the LSU/Bama game last season, you would recall that LSU physically dominated Bama and needed one more first down or a defensive stop in the last 2 minutes of the game to secure the win. Over the last 7 years, both LSU and Bama suffer a let down the week after that physically and emotionally draining game. A&M caught Bama at the right time last season.
LSU lost by one score to and 11-1 Florida team in the swamp, by one score to the eventual national champs, and soundly defeated A&M at Kyle Field.
After the Bama game, LSU lost its BCS NCG hopes and played uninspired football in securing wins over a ranked Miss State team, an up-and-coming Ole Miss team, and an inspired Arkansas team that always plays LSU tough (in spite of being a dumpster fire last season).
Despite being ranked higher than A&M, LSU got jilted in the bowl pairings and was sent to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. The team was very disappointed, as were the fans. Remember, the Chick-Fil-A bowl pairs the #2 ACC team against the #5 SEC team. The Chick-Fil-A Bowl was as good as Clemson could have hoped for outside of the Orange Bowl. Clemson was excited to be there, while LSU wasn’t. Clemson won by one score on the last play of the game.
LSU wanted to go to the Cotton Bowl. If LSU isn’t in a BCS Bowl, the Cotton is its preferred destination over the Cap One, Outback, and Chick-Fil-A bowls. Prior to the announcement of the bowl pairings, it was believed that the Cap One would take A&M due to fan enthusiasm and Johnny Football, while the Outback would take Georgia, the Cotton would take LSU, and the Chick-Fil-A would take South Carolina. After such a close loss in the SEC CG, the SEC office pressured the Cap One to take Georgia even though it wanted to pick A&M and A&M wanted to go to a Florida bowl. The Cotton couldn’t pass up A&M with a Heisman trophy winner. The Outback has a clear preference for SEC East teams. So LSU, who was 11 points away from being undefeated dropped to the Chick-Fil-A bowl. While its only speculation, I think that LSU would have being excited about playing Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl and would have won that game.
LikeLike
Alan, I watched most of LSU’s games last year, they are by far my favorite SEC team & one of my 5 favorites, period. I rooted for you against OSU in 07, and I’m a BIG fan. I also like SCar as well, & quite a bit.
LSU, under Miles, always has the talent to beat anyone & I won’t disagree with you that at times you look unbeatable. La, imo, has the best damn hs football, pound for pound, inch for inch – a great football culture. But a Miles led LSU simply slips up in boneheaded fashion too often, mainly because of Les being so damn Bo Shembechler like – he lets certain emotions get in the way of his coaching.
You did not soundly beat aTm last year, but you did take control in the 4th. I think aTm finished their season stronger, which was evident after bowl season. Let’s not forget that last year was aTm’s first SEC season, that’a a damn hard road to travel.
I’m not sold on Ole Miss and MissSt, last season. Ole Miss had some late season slip ups, lost 3 of their last 4 SEC games, but were rewarded with a very favorable bowl game against Pitt. MissSt lost to NW on Jan 1.
LikeLike
@Alan – LSU soundly deafeted A&M last year? No, not really. A&M had the ball with a chance to win in the last minutes of the game, which LSU one by 5. A&M missed a two field goals and an extra point plus had a td called back on a penalty. LSU won but it was easily a game that could have gone either way.
LikeLike
ugg. Won not one…smh
LikeLike
gfunk and Frank the Ag – I guess we have different definitions of the term “soundly defeated”. LSU took the lead late in the second quarter and never relinquished it. Until a few weeks ago when the Aggies played LSU again, the 2012 A&M/LSU game was Johnny Football’s worst performance. After spotting A&M 12 points in the first half, LSU scored 24 unanswered points. A&M went over 36 minutes without scoring. LSU was up by 12 with less than 2 minutes to play in the game. I consider that a sound defeat. IMO, A&M was not dump-trucked, or skull-drug, but they were soundly defeated.
LikeLike
Alan,
Sorry to hear about Mettenburger’s ACL. That has to be a real downer for the fans. Is the backup any good?
LikeLike
Brian – Mettenburger’s backup is Anthony Jennings. He’s a four-star true freshman from Marietta, Georgia. According to Rivals, Jennings was the the #6 dual threat QB in last year’s recruiting class. He was an early enrollee last spring and beat out the 2012 back-up, Steven Rivers (the 6’8” little brother of Stephen Rivers), former Penn State starter Rob Boldon, and another four-star early enrollee, Hayden Rettig.
Here’s Jennings bio.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=27812&SPID=2164&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=205999671&Q_SEASON=2013
Until he was pressed into duty during the Arkansas game, Jennings has only played mop-up. During the Arkansas game last week, Jennings led LSU on a 99 and a half yard drive for the game-winning touchdown.
Everyone feels terrible for Mett. If he could have played in the bowl game, Mett would have likely eclipsed the all-time single season passing yardage record at LSU. Mett is only the third QB in LSU history to pass for over 3,000 yards in a season.
LikeLike
As a Penn State fan, I really dislike Ohio State and I am certainly rooting for Sparty, but if Ohio State wins say 21-20, and Auburn wins say 31-14, because the Buckeyes went Undefeated, they should still play for the National Championship, its only fair. If OSU wins, and so does Auburn, the “Perfect Storm” scenario would be: Arizona State over Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, Auburn over Florida State for the National Championship, and Northern Illinois over Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl. That would give Auburn the “National Championship” that really should belong in De Kalb, Illinois, because they Huskies alone went Undefeated and won a Major Bowl Game over a one loss Oklahoma State Team (I wonder how ESPN would like that?).
LikeLike
If OSU beats the Spartans Up North, the alternative would be to have OSU play in the Rose Bowl, where if they win as they’d be favored to do, they could well be the only undefeated P5 team in the nation (and for two years straight, to boot) and yet not national champs. Which is the kind of thing the NCC was established to avoid.
LikeLike
Btw, the ACC has the worst, and it’s not even close, BCS record.
LikeLike
yeah, FSU’s SOS isn’t too good either. It’s only slightly better than OSU’s. Their margins of victory have been better though.
LikeLike
I don’t think FSU is getting a pass because of collusion. I think FSU is getting a pass because they have utterly obliterated all of their opponents while Ohio State has really struggled against every above average team they’ve played against. If Ohio State had beaten every team they played as badly as FSU has, Ohio State would never have gotten jumped in the rankings to begin with.
Although for what it’s worth, I think that FSU’s schedule has been somewhat more difficult than Ohio State’s though they are comparable. I’ll rank each team’s wins (my own opinion) and compare (again, my own opinion).
FSU Ohio State
Clemson Wisconsin Advantage FSU
Miami Iowa Advantage FSU
Maryland Michigan Advantage Tie
Boston College Penn State Advantage Tie
Syracuse Buffalo Advantage FSU
Pitt San Diego State Advantage Tie
Florida Indiana Advantage OSU
Wake Forest Northwestern Advantage Tie
N.C. State Illinois Advantage Tie
Nevada Cal Advantage FSU
Idaho Purdue Advantage OSU
Bethune-Cookman Florida-A&M Advantage Tie
Duke (Unplayed) Michigan State (Unplayed) Advantage Tie
LikeLike
How about Clemson-MSU? advantage OSU. I really don’t think a much improved Duke can beat MSU head to head, nice try. My God, are you smoking crack?
MSU will be ranked 10th tomorrow. Clemson will deservedly fall out of the top 10 & had no business being in the top 10 for the last few weeks. So OSU gets a shot at beating a top 10 team to end the season. Btw, I’d love to see Wisky and Clemson head-to-head, Clemson and MSU as well. Clemson beat one ranked opponent all year, but Georgia is no longer ranked. Btw OSU clobbered PSU & PSU beat Syracuse. Who won between Syracuse and BC? And you were saying? Also, Iowa may be ranked tomorrow so take your Miami advantage line and file under bs as well. Miami hasn’t done much since losing to OSU in 2002. They’ve been a blown out by so many teams over the past decade. They are a shell of their glory days, no more and maybe certainly less.
These schedule comparisons, admittedly, can get messy and confusing due to conference rivalries and familiarity so I’m not putting much stock in my above statements, and very little to none in your less than objective comparisons. For God’s sake, SCar lost to Tenn who got pummeled by Oregon who got destroyed by Az who got smashed by ASU who lost to ND who lost to Pitt who lost to Miami who lost to VTech who lost to Md who lost to Clemson who lost to SCar – having fun yet? The circle has been made. Ultimately, I put more stock in how teams finish the season and the BIG may have 4 ranked teams to 3 for the ACC later today. Moreover, teams can become better over the weeks leading up to their bowl games.
Ultimately, just give me a GD 8 team playoff and a bowl system that reseeds these 8, a bowl system that is regionally inclusive and not just Sun Belt oriented. In other words, a meaningful bowl season where the players and coached overshadow the pollsters and computers to determine the playoffs, a bowl season that isn’t about cold weather folks looking for an excuse to get warm for a few days while watching a relatively unimportant bowl games, most cases. Without a relevant, fair bowl system and 8 team playoff, this just all becomes meaningless, unfair chest puffing at the end of the day. CF is rigged for the Southeast, Southwest and AZ-CA. It’s a terrible system filled with politics and regional homerism.
LikeLike
According to Sagarin (as of last week):
Wisconsin > Clemson
Iowa > Miami (seriously, Jeff, this one’s a joke and shows your bias through and through; the only power conference team with a winning record that Miami has beaten this year is GTech at 7-5)
Michigan > Maryland
PSU Syracuse
SDSU < Pitt
IU WF (this one isn’t even close; Wake is 90th by Sagarin, behind several FCS schools)
Illinois > NCSU
Cal Idaho (PU is terrible this year, but you really have no idea how putrid Idaho is; look at some of the schools that they lost to)
FCS = FCS (who cares)
MSU > Duke (Sagarin has MSU handily beating Duke by 10 on a neutral field).
Schedule’s 8-4 in favor of OSU over FSU.
LikeLike
Great. The formatting took out my signs and some teams.
Sagarin has
Wisconsin over Clemson
Iowa over Miami
Michigan over UMD
PSU losing to BC
Buffalo over Syracuse
SDSU losing to Pitt
IU losing to UF
Northwestern over Wake
Illinois over NCSU
Cal losing to Nevada
Purdue over Idaho
MSU over Duke
LikeLike
Thank you Richard, I sincerely mean that. I have no idea how Juergens came up with his “fair and balanced” reporting. But I do agree with him on one major point: FSU did destroy everyone in their path, minus BC.
CF is a good ole Sun Belt boy’s club at this point. The best teams from the Southeast, Southwest and West will simply win the perception battle, most cases.
I was watching that God awful mock court gimmick that ESPN does with Mark May, Lou Holtz and God forbid Brad Edwards last night. Edwards went on to reiterate that the BIG is amid it’s worst season likely ever (and he emended his argument to the degree that the BIG is awful in comparison to other BCS conferences) and he again didn’t mention any number of arguments against FSU or the very weak ACC, top to bottom – no mention. It’s collusion and there is no other way to put it.
Players and coaches need to truly start determining these outcomes soon enough – but such a system seems so far away.
Don’t be surprised if Auburn jumps OSU today or they will be so close in the BCS standings that it won’t matter if OSU beats MSU, so long as Auburn beats Mizzou. The Iron Bowl, which is certainly the best rivalry game in CF right now, must have a berth in the NCG or bust for CBS-ESPN.
LikeLike
Big Ten, “worst season ever”? Doesn’t anyone remember the time in the late ’60s-early ’70s when Big Eight teams beat Big Ten teams something like 29 times in a row (and this was before Iowa State and Iowa played each other, although the Cyclones won 48-20 at Illinois in 1969 to be part of the streak)?
LikeLike
VP there are a lot of bad BIG seasons that top this year, which I think was actually a great campaign for the BIG (in conference). 8 BIG teams finished the season with a winning record. There’s simply a lot of parity in the conference right now.
I think the BIG’s top half can play with anyone else’s top half. I also think OSU, a couple of SEC teams, a couple of Pac12 teams, and maybe OkSt would all give FSU a much tougher game than any so far. FSU is beatable when matched against the above teams, though some have better odds than others.
Internal cannibalism: When I was watching MSU players in their post-game pressers, they went out of their way to say how horrible they played, but they failed to realize that Minnesota is a lot better than advertised & outside of Michigan (the game where Coach Kill was in the hospital), they played every higher ranked team tough & even had moments to jump ahead. BIG teams don’t congratulate each other in defeat. That Lewan kid, Michigan, went out of his way to diss OSU’s win yesterday, which ultimately hurts conference perception. Perhaps, Mr. Lewan, you guys finally played up to your recruit rankings and historical tradition. But, the in-game fight likely soured and post-game love : ).
I don’t even want to talk about the frustrations of typical PSU or Neb fans, esp how they feel about OSU in general, which leads to my bigger point. It’s unprecedented for a conference to have so many of their big brands playing below expectations. Michigan, Neb, & PSU. These teams did not perform with consistency this year & none seemed to embrace the fact that every game counts in CF. Too many ugly wins and losses: Michigan (Akron & UConn), PSU (IU), Neb (choked a 21 pt lead on UCLA at home, throw in 2 more home losses). Throw in MSU’s loss to ND, a game they could have won had they not publicly toiled in a QB controversy for the first 3-4 games of the year. Wisky and ASU, we don’t need to go there at this point – the Badgers all had laxatives up their behinds yesterday. I do give PSU a break, they’re dealing with major sanctions and depth issues, but ultimately the scandal was their fault as an institution. But Michigan’s issues are inexcusable, OSU has dealt with actual NCAA sanctions over the past decade and more off field issues, yet they rebound. The Michigan ADept is in the stone ages, football wise & their fans are incredibly arrogant.
LikeLike
@vp
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/big-ten/
According to the SRS, this year’s Big Ten is the strongest the conference has been since 2005 by a sizable margin.
In addition, Sagarin and CFR both rank the Big Ten as the third best conference in the country (though admittedly the Big 10, Big XII and ACC are all bunched together pretty tightly.)
LikeLike
frug,
“According to the SRS, this year’s Big Ten is the strongest the conference has been since 2005 by a sizable margin.
In addition, Sagarin and CFR both rank the Big Ten as the third best conference in the country (though admittedly the Big 10, Big XII and ACC are all bunched together pretty tightly.)”
How dare you let facts interfere with the narrative?!? The B10 is worse than most HS football conferences and should be forced to drop the sport.
Also, ESPN has the B10 a very close 4th to the B12 at 3rd (before this weekend) – 73.7 to 73.5.
LikeLike
I think you guys are misreading VP’s post & he may have misread my paraphrased quote from Brad Edwards, the ESPN analyst made the claim that this is the worst BIG season, possibly ever.
LikeLike
I was just backing up what you and VP were saying.
Clearly Edwards (a ‘Bama grad by the way) is full of crap.
LikeLike
Taylor Lewan is a CLASS A “momma’s boy”… He’s a dirty mo-fo, he’ll get “learned” in THE league…
LikeLike
As I said, everything was my own opinion. I don’t care about Sagarin ratings, only the eye test. But how is a 10 win Clemson whose only two losses to top 10 teams not as good as a Wisconsin team with nine wins, one of which is an unranked Penn State at home? If you want to claim Iowa is better than Miami, go ahead, but I think you’re wrong. If they played on a neutral field, I’d take Miami by at least two touchdowns. I’ve watched both teams play, Miami is a lot more talented. As for the rest, they’re pretty much a toss up.
LikeLike
I meant that one of Wisconsin’s losses was to Penn State.
LikeLike
Also, I am not biased towards FSU. I am a Florida fan. If anything, I am biased against FSU. Besides, I put my own team as WORSE than INDIANA.
LikeLike
Nonsense. Iowa is damn near playing Ferentz ball again: smart football, excellent tackling, a balanced run and pass game – the kind of football that has given Miami fits this year. When Kirk’s got his team rolling, they can beat almost anyone.
As I said in a previous post, which you clearly did not read, the circle of scheduling, common opponents and conference rivalries can get nonsensical. These are young, fickle men, home venues matter, match ups matter, injuries matter, coaching adjustments matter. Here’s another circular example: you guys handily beat GT who clubbed Duke who clubbed you. Btw, VT, who came into your mostly empty stadium and beat you, lost a home game to Md. So anyways, we’ll never know unless the teams play head to head. You’re a homer, I’m a homer – we defend our so-called conferences. Bottom line, as a BIG fan, the odds are always stacked when it comes to FBS CF – it has increasingly become a southern sport, you know where most of the good recruits are.
LikeLike
Yeah ok Juergens. I think Fl fans ultimately root for their in-state schools and then their region if the current season is a bust. That’s how most people roll, esp down South.
LikeLike
@gfunk AFAIR, few Vol fans cheer for Vandy to succeed, even if the Vols are stinking up their season. Though that may in part be lack of opportunity to practice doing it.
LikeLike
The problem with the eye test (at least when done by a regular fan) is that, while speed and athleticism can be picked up by anyone, unless they have played or coached football at a high level, the fan doing the eye test is almost certainly a poor judge of football skills like smarts, discipline, and line play.
Case in point: in 2009, Miami certainly had faster and more athletic players than Wisconsin, and the ‘Canes were higher ranked than Bucky at the end of the regular season, but when they played in the Champ Sports Bowl, Wisconsin rolled up 430 yards vs. 249 for Miami and nearly doubled the ‘Canes’ time of possession in the victory.
LikeLike
For another example of how the eye test is a poor way to measure even individual talent, to people who have seen both players play, which player in their prime looks more talented: Jevon Kearse or JJ Watt? To my naked eye, it’s the speedier Kearse.
Yet, despite being in the NFL less than 3 full years, JJ Watt’s best season already blows away the Freak’s best season in terms of production (which I’m measuring by sacks and tackles). He just needs 2 more sacks in 5 games this year for his second-best season to be better than Kearse’s 2nd best season.
However’s Watt’s talent was so unnoticed that he was rated a 2-star recruit out of HS and didn’t receive an offer from any top-level program.
All he does is get to the QB and tackle the guy with the ball more often than a bunch of guys who do better in the eye test than him.
LikeLike
@ Richard,
Great points. Speed and athleticism really kill at the college level because tackling, discipline, high IQ, power and experience are still in their infancy. We can insert Chip Kelly’s evolution to pocket passer here, suddenly Philly is a hot team. Where is Vince Young? How about the savior: RGIII? Moreover, CF, and I all repeat this ad nauseam, does not have high stakes cold weather football like the NFL. Nearly all bowl games are hosted in the Sun Belt, BCS games as well.
It’s not a shock that so many BIG players, as well as other cold-weather alum from different conferences succeed at the next level, and many of these players are drafted post-first round.
Let’s see now: Pittsburgh, Green Bay, New England, Baltimore, NY teams, KC, Chicago, Denver, Washington, and perhaps at least one other cold weather team, have how many SB’s between them? I count at least 28. Never mind the other teams who host at least 3 cold weather games in Nov & Dec: Buffalo, Cincy, Cleveland, Philly & Minnesota during the 60s to 70s – the history of the above hosting playoff games below 40 degrees is voluminous. Moreover, it’s not that warm in SF during Nov and Dec – so maybe etch in the 49ers. You can argue that the SB is typically played in warm weather or inside, but for these teams to get there, say a Pittsburgh or New England, may they have to play at least 6, high stake cold weather games, which is atypical in CF.
You got to play a different style in the cold & there are recruits down south who realize that playing CF up north helps them with a prospective NFL career – you never know if you’ll get drafted to Buffalo. Too bad more of them don’t recognize this fact.
LikeLike
Right. Talent is talent even at the college level, though. My point is that few fans are a good judge of talent outside of speed. So if Mike Mayock says Miami is better than Iowa by the eye test, I’d listen to him. The average fan, not so much.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
The others covered several of the points, so I’ll just cover some other areas.
“If Ohio State had beaten every team they played as badly as FSU has, Ohio State would never have gotten jumped in the rankings to begin with.”
We’ll be sure to tell our starting QB not to get injured next time. He was nowhere near 100% against WI and NW and it showed.
You do realize that OSU not dominating is NOT a reason to ignore FSU’s SOS, right? You can make the same complaint about multiple teams, not just one.
“Although for what it’s worth, I think that FSU’s schedule has been somewhat more difficult than Ohio State’s though they are comparable.”
I don’t know how many objective sources agree with you. I think most say they are pretty similar.
Sagarin – 61/66 – advantage OSU
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree that three out of four of your FSU Advantages are suspect:
Clemson / Wisconsin ~ that’s advantage Whiskey even without the factor of Whiskey getting up for big games and Clemson choking.
Miami / Iowa ~ Iowa kills Miami
Buffalo / Syracuse ~ that’s a tie at best for FSU.
All three of those only go to FSU if you include long term brand value … if you could take away the names and look at the pairs of teams playing in grey uniforms vs black and white uniforms, there’s no way are any of those are three advantage FSU.
I wonder whether FSU is a better match-up for OSU than Auburn this year, since OSU’s defense has had its secondary covering for the relative weakness of its linebackers all season long, and if OSU plays Auburn, I would not be surprised if the safeties rack up more tackles than the linebackers.
LikeLike
No, I think OSU would rather play Auburn. OSU can play decent run defense (see the WI game and others) and Shazier would get approximately 732 tackles. The problem for OSU is the pass defense, and Winston is a much bigger threat there.
LikeLike
Shows how these things go. Other than Purdue over Idaho, those were the 3 of his 12 I was most inclined to agree with him on. I thought all the rest of his evaluations were wrong.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/m-hockey-standings.html
That’s not a mirage, folks, that’s the first official Big Ten hockey standings with games kicking off on Friday.
LikeLike
Go #1 Golden Gophers… 🙂
LikeLike
It’s just a nice bowl held in LA, but if it’s not B1G/PAC it’s not the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
The 100th Rose Bowl could well feature a matchup of Clemson/Baylor vs. Arizona St.
How much you wanna bet the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association members are shoving pins into the shoulders of their Braxton Miller voodoo dolls?
LikeLike
Note to all those folks forecasting that the Orange would pick the Tide:
Keep in mind that the Crimson faithful descended on Miami last year to see a much more important game. I could definitely see the Orange Bowl taking a different SEC team because of that. Picking SCarolina over ‘Bama would be controversial, but if Auburn loses the SEC title game, they could justify an Auburn selection with head-to-head results. Then again, if the Orange picks Clemson, SCarolina would be out, so the SEC team would be Auburn or ‘Bama.
LikeLike
If Alabama finishes in the top 4 (virtual certainty) they are guaranteed a BCS slot. By rule the Orange Bowl couldn’t take another SEC team.
LikeLike
Good point. However, if OSU beats MSU and MSU falls out of the top 14, the Rose would probably choose ‘Bama (Orange could take ‘Bama with their first pick, but I think they’ll go with Clemson).
LikeLike
I cannot imagine the fire that will rage out of Ohio if tOSU manages to go unbeaten but be on the outside of the NCG. Auburn has a loss. They’re supposed to be out until all unbeatens from major conferences have lost. They are in the SEC West, not the NFC West!
LikeLike
“…if tOSU manages to go unbeaten but be on the outside of the NCG.”
Unbeaten for two consecutive years.
LikeLike
I’ll worry about getting to 25-0 first. If that happens, then I’ll worry about OSU’s bowl destination. I’d be disappointed and upset if OSU got passed over, but there is a case to be made for a 1-loss Auburn. They’ll have a significantly higher SOS, although beating MSU would boost OSU’s. I believe the past pattern should be applied, with any P5 undefeated champ getting priority, but I may be biased.
This sort of debate is why people wanted a committee for the playoff, right?
Until and unless OSU beats MSU, this is a moot point so I refuse to get too excited about it for now.
LikeLike
My position is (assuming a win over MichSt), Ohio State will be playing for a NC regardless of the date of our game in the Rose Bowl. If we go 13-0, but FSU loses we are the only zero-loss team. I say that is deserving of an AP NC.
LikeLike
New Coaches poll is out.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/12/01/usa-today-sports-coaches-poll-week-14/3796135/
1. Florida State
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn (25 points behind the Buckeyes)
4. Bama
5. Mizzou
LikeLike
Here is what the Coaches Poll means: Unless Michigan State beats Ohio State and Duke beats Florida State ( 10 Turnovers might be necessary for that to happen), Alabama cannot win the National Championship. Here is why: Either Auburn or Missouri will end up ahead of Alabama ( obviously Auburn is ahead, but since Missouri is only 25 Points behind them, a win over Auburn should allow them to leapfrog Alabama), meaning BOTH FSU and OSU must lose. I really believe any win will put Ohio State in the National Championship Game, no matter what the SEC team does. But for the B10 the ideal scenario is say a 27-24 OSU win coupled with a close SEC Game to send Michigan State to the Rose Bowl. One more point, As a Penn State fan I remember the infamous back to back Undefeated teams and Nixon picking Texas National Champion, and the writers going along. For that reason alone, Ohio State must play in the National Championship Game if they beat Sparty. That would only be the fair thing to do.
LikeLike
/large
This is how you know it’s a big rivalry.
Q: What does OSU need to do to deserve a spot in the NCG?
A1: Beat MSU – 39% and most of the states
A2: Beat MSU soundly – 24% and no states
A3: Doesn’t deserve it no matter what – 34% and the SEC footprint + DE and MI
LikeLike
If you look at the various polls that ESPN puts up that concern SEC teams, NC tends to vote with the SEC states while VA tends to vote with the B10/rest-of-the-country states.
LikeLike
I have noticed that as well
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/polls/
Coaches’ Poll:
1. FSU (58) – 1546
2. OSU (4) – 1462
3. Auburn – 1437
4. AL – 1333
5. MO – 1315
…
9. MSU – 1037
10. Stanford – 1034
11. Clemson – 853
…
21. WI
RV. IA 13, MN 4
Notes:
1. Who voted OSU #1 other than Meyer? If it isn’t because of the Winston issue, it makes no sense.
2. Auburn is uncomfortably close to OSU. The computers favor AU slightly (Jerry Palm estimates AU = 2.00, OSU = 2.75). The question is what another top 10 win for each team would do. I think the computers would stay about the same and so would the human polls.
3. I don’t see any way a team other than AU could jump a 13-0 OSU.
4. MSU should be safely in the top 14 with a CCG loss. That basically guarantees them a Rose Bowl win or lose (unless OSU gets jumped).
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/12/ohio_state_auburn_coaches_poll.html
A breakdown of the coaches ballots.
1. Ohio State (4) Auburn (0)
2. Ohio State (42) Auburn (16)
3. Ohio State (7) Auburn (41)
4. Ohio State (5) Auburn (5)
5. Ohio State (3) Auburn (0)
6. Ohio State (1) Auburn (0)
LikeLike
Interesting to see if those 4 are SEC coaches or have ties to Malzahn.
6th is pretty ridiculous. That person should lose their ballot.
LikeLike
I think at least 8 of them should be in fear of losing their votes. Anyone other than Meyer putting OSU #1 right now is questionable. Anyone putting OSU below #3 is biased but below #4 is ridiculous.
LikeLike
I disagree. Where you rank the Buckeyes depends on whether you vote on who deserves a ranking more or on who you think is actually the better team. I think that Ohio State should probably be ranked at either one or two based on what they deserve. And I think it would be grievously unfair to put a one-loss team in the Championship over them because they are undefeated and only FSU (and for that matter NIU) are also undefeated. As for who is the better team, I think that Ohio State is probably around fifth. I would pick FSU, Bama, Auburn, and Mizzou on a neutral field over Ohio State.
LikeLike
And you’re biased and should lose your vote.
LikeLike
If people lost their vote based on bias, no one would ever be allowed to vote on anything ever. Every single person is biased, and no one is capable of making a decision without bias. If you deliberately vote against your bias, you are still voting with bias.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between being biased and being absurd. Ohio St. in 6th is absurd. There were some Harris pollsters in that first year that were absurd. I remember one in particular who was like 85 years old who just gave a ridiculous reason for his votes.
LikeLike
I don’t think ranking Ohio State sixth is absurd. There are valid arguments for putting Ohio State anywhere in the top ten or so. For example, you could argue that Oklahoma State, Baylor, or South Carolina are just as good as Ohio State or even better. I would not personally buy those arguments, but I don’t think they would be absurd. Nobody seems to be arguing that Northern Illinois is a top five team, but they have a better record than all but two teams. Ohio State has beaten every team they’ve faced, but Northern Illinois has too. Personally, I don’t think Northern Illinois is better than fifteen or sixteen, but that admittedly is based entirely on bias rather than any real evidence. Everyone votes for different reasons, and they’re not necessarily absurd.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“I don’t think ranking Ohio State sixth is absurd. There are valid arguments for putting Ohio State anywhere in the top ten or so.”
No, there really aren’t. But even if there were, that would only work if the voter used that same logic all season long. They can’t suddenly change their approach now that AL has a loss.
LikeLike
What if you watched Ohio State struggle at Michigan and saw Auburn and Mizzouri win and changed your mind?
LikeLike
I’d say you were being absurd. Missouri didn’t look that impressive. A&M’s defense has been swiss cheese all year. Manziel was off even when he wasn’t hurried. Michigan can score. And Ohio St.’s defense has been soft cheddar all season. To get Ohio St. 6th, you have to rank them behind FSU, Auburn, Alabama, Missouri and one other school. 5th is a stretch and indicates poor judgement IMO (using eyeballs instead of on the field results), but 6th is ridiculous. Oklahoma St. and Baylor have exhibited the same inconsistency. South Carolina has been whipped twice and really hasn’t looked that impressive the rest of the time. And they HAVE lost twice. Stanford lost to Utah.
LikeLike
Person who voted them 6th is probably a Michigan fan and voting them 11th would have been to obvious. 😉
LikeLike
4. Likely, but no guarantee. They were #11 in BCS last week. Oregon and NIU probably pass them if they lose. If Arizona St. beats Stanford and Oklahoma beats Oklahoma St., I think they fall to #15. LSU might even pass them if they lose badly. Don’t think there’s any risk of them falling behind UCF or Louisville.
With their defense, I don’t think its likely they lose badly.
LikeLike
bullet,
“4. Likely, but no guarantee.”
There are no guarantees in CFB. But their gap in the poll to #11 gives them a lot of cushion.
“They were #11 in BCS last week.”
And should be #10 this week.
“Oregon and NIU probably pass them if they lose.”
NIU is 500 points behind them. Beating BGSU won’t boost them much.
“If Arizona St. beats Stanford and Oklahoma beats Oklahoma St., I think they fall to #15.”
The winner of that game would pass MSU, but I think the loser would stay behind MSU. Losing to #2 is better than losing to #13. I agree OU might jump them while OkSU stays ahead.
“LSU might even pass them if they lose badly. Don’t think there’s any risk of them falling behind UCF or Louisville.
With their defense, I don’t think its likely they lose badly.”
There’s almost no chance of an OSU blowout.
LikeLike
Stanford and Oklahoma St. are ahead of Michigan St. in the BCS. If all 3 lose, their order doesn’t likely change. NIU isn’t far behind MSU in the BCS. The computers like them. Sagarin had them 3rd last week.
LikeLike
Who you lose to has a sizable impact on how far you fall. Losing to #2 is a lot better than losing to #12 or #18. That could easily shuffle their order.
Also, NIU was 0.116 behind MSU last week (0.578 to 0.462). That’s a huge gap. It’s larger than the gap from MSU to Stanford was.
LikeLike
If precedence means anything, a win by OSU should clinch it. The fact that Auburn’s only lose is to a very good LSU team certainly gives them a strong case (in regard to SOS) but then you have to consider whether FSU should get the nod ahead of OSU or Auburn. In the end I think the SEC and their minions in the sports media will have to settle for blathering on about how the SEC are still the REAL Champions until someone beats them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/category/_/name/ncf
ESPN’s Stats and Info blog had some interesting articles this week, including one that undermines the narrative the rest of ESPN is spinning.
1. 11/25 – Does OSU have a case for #2 over FSU?
The answer is yes, but not a great one. But if they’re close to FSU, then AU shouldn’t have a case for #2 now.
2. 11/27 – A look at how Braxton Miller’s running has improved as his knee has healed.
He, and thus the OSU offense, wasn’t the same for OSU’s toughest games.
3. Some good analyses of the AU/AL and MO/TAMU games
LikeLike
For those who said things couldn’t get any worse for Illini FB
LikeLike
Wait until next year. At NE, at WI, at NW, at OSU, vs PSU.
IA seems to have the easiest schedule in the West, getting NE, WI and NW at home plus IN and UMD from the East. WI’s isn’t too bad either.
In the east, the schedules are more balanced for the top teams but MSU does get OSU and MI at home. They also get NE, though.
I wish OSU’s 2 byes didn’t come so early.
LikeLike
Wait until next year. At NE, at WI, at NW, at OSU, vs PSU.
Not to mention our thrilling home schedule of Youngstown St, Western Kentucky, Texas St., Purdue, Minnesota, Iowa and Penn St.
LikeLike
At least 4 of those are winnable.
LikeLike
All the contenders in the west get patsy cross-overs next year except Northwestern.
Oh wait, UNL gets MSU.
Still, here are the other cross-overs for the contenders:
Wisconsin-UMD
Wisconsin-RU
Iowa-IU
Iowa-UMD
UNL-RU
The schedule isn’t going to help Northwestern in terms of winning the division in the next 2 years (we get Michigan and @PSU in 2014).
After this year, though, folks will probably ecstatic about 8-4, and the NU conference schedules will be easier than this year.
LikeLike
Be interesting to see what happens next year… and the year after that… … …
Minnesota is improving… AND young… Wiscy is losing some key players, as is Iowa… The Gophers already pounded Nebraska’s ‘D’ this year–unless something there changes…
Kill and his staff have done wonders to return some respectability, and more importantly, some confidence–learning to win–back to Minneapolis… Look out for the Gopher’s as a darkhorse…
LikeLike
Minny gets the toughest cross-over slate of all. Both OSU and Michigan. No other Western school has that.
LikeLike
Frank,
I feel bad for you as a fan, but Trestman got what he deserved. I hate coaches that stop playing for a TD and kick a FG for no apparent reason. It was 2nd and 7 and he went for a 47 yard FG. I know NFL kickers are really good, but they do miss at that distance plus teams can block it. Why not run 2 more conservative plays and at least make it a little easier?
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with the situation at hand in the 2013 football season, but FWIW, Florida State’s football schedule will be significantly more difficult next year.
Idaho and Nevada will be replaced in the non-conference schedule with a game against Oklahoma State in Dallas and a home game against Notre Dame. Bethune Cookman will be replaced with some other FCS team; does it even matter which one? Florida will be at home since it’s an even-numbered year, as will the Clemson game, but Miami will be on the road. The home game against Maryland will also be replaced with a much tougher road game against Louisville. The road game against Pitt will be replaced with a home game against Virginia.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10064394/urban-meyer-ban-ohio-state-buckeyes-players-marcus-hall-dontre-wilson-fight
Shockingly, noted disciplinarian Urban Meyer won’t be suspending anyone for the biggest game since he arrived in Columbus.
LikeLike
Your narrative would be better if he hadn’t been so tough on players at the start of the season. He suspended players that weren’t charged with crimes but screwed up by getting in bad situations.
Besides:
“I’ve already met with the players involved, and the rule is very clear that if you get in a fight, you lose a game,” Meyer said. “They lost a game, they didn’t play from that point forward, they were ejected from the game. It’s a tough penalty in a rivalry game, but it’s one that I agree with.”
LikeLike
You can make a case that Wilson has already been punished enough, but Hall deserves additional action for flipping off the crowd.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that they are getting internal discipline as well, just not a suspension. I’m pretty sure Hall won’t start, for example, in addition to whatever physical punishment they got.
LikeLike
If I were Delaney, I’d suspend Hall for the 1st half against MSU……you have to do something….and I think that would be enough.
LikeLike
I don’t think Hall will be playing against MSU next week, and that cringe worthy, photo-op will be the reason (even more so than his sucker punch of Keith Heitzman). Wilson, having had his helmet ripped off to start the scrum will be given a pass.
LikeLike
As a side note, I’m surprised Meyer didn’t proactively suspend Hall for the first half of the BTC game to take the pressure off the Big Ten to act.
LikeLike
I think he doesn’t see the fingers as worthy of suspension and sees the ejections as sufficient for the punches. The internal discipline is enough for the fingers as far as he’s concerned. I think it’s in part because he doesn’t want to punish the team for Hall’s mistake.
Also, I think OSU feels like MI really instigated that whole thing.
LikeLike
…naturally, Delaney did nothing — the downward spiral continues. “What would Slive do”? is not the standard against which the Big 10 should compare itself. There is no business like show business.
LikeLike
If the favorites all win this weekend, my bowl projections are as follows:
Rose: Michigan State v. Stanford
Fiesta: Oklahoma State v. NIU
Sugar: Auburn v. UCF
Orange: Clemson v. Alabama
BCS NCG: Florida State v. Ohio State
If Mizzou and tOSU win, just replace Auburn w/ Mizzou in the Sugar. If Auburn and Michigan State win, put Auburn in the NCG, tOSU in the Orange v. Clemson, and Alabama in the Sugar v. UCF.
I think Clemson gets in the Orange provided it gets in the top 12. Other at-large spots go to NIU (non-AQ), Michigan State/Ohio State loser (B1G), and Alabam (SEC). The American obviously will not get a second team. Oregon is too far to garner a bid to the OB, the only BCS bowl they’d have a shot attending since the Sugar has to take UCF and the Fiesta has to take NIU. And Baylor is not going to go to the OB over a similarly ranked team from the ACC, which has a 12-year contract with the ACC commencing next year.
LikeLike
Being a “three yards and a cloud of dust” guy, I think MSU-Stanford would be a great game to watch. I’m sure 90% of the coubtry would disagree……….
Clemson needs to stay away from Alabama at all costs. That would be very ugly.
LikeLike
Heck, man, it’s the Rose Bowl. It’s inherently a great game to watch. Even if 100% of college football fans may said they disagree that MSU-Stanford would be a great game to watch, 90% of them would watch anyway.
Totally agree with you about Clemson vs. Alabama. Bama will be out for blood against whichever team they play.
LikeLike
There would be some very sore bodies after that Rose Bowl.
Clemson would lose by 40+ and be crying before the end of the game.
LikeLike
Seems like sound logic.
But there’s a lot of football to be played. The biggest upset would be if all the favorites won this weekend.
LikeLike
WI drops to #21. MSU up to #10. OSU squeaks into #2. NIU ahead of UCF.
LikeLike
OSU is #2 in both human polls and the computers.
Coaches – 1462 to 1437
Harris – 2488 to 2422
Computers – 2.00 to 3.00 (OSU leads in 5 of 6 computers)
MSU has a 0.23 lead over #15.
LikeLike
Still looks like what I said earlier. Favorites win and they fall to #13. If two upsets happen-Arizona St. beats Stanford and OU beats Oklahoma St.-they probably fall to #15. Clemson dropped 7 spots with the voters with their loss. Michigan St. will drop quite a bit in the polls with a loss as well.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Still looks like what I said earlier. Favorites win and they fall to #13. If two upsets happen-Arizona St. beats Stanford and OU beats Oklahoma St.-they probably fall to #15. Clemson dropped 7 spots with the voters with their loss. Michigan St. will drop quite a bit in the polls with a loss as well.”
Many people still thought Clemson was a good team. MSU has gotten zero respect all year. I don’t think they get punished much unless they get blown out.
ASU would jump them with a win and stay behind them if they both lose. The same is true for OU. But Baylor could lose and drop behind them. The humans might keep them ahead of NIU, too.
LikeLike
“MSU has gotten zero respect all year. I don’t think they get punished much unless they get blown out.”
Part of the reason I think they REALLY drop if they lose. They are only so high because they only have 1 loss. If they lose again, it confirms what people think about them. People thought Clemson was good, but the bad FSU loss left some doubts. Another loss confirmed them.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Well, the computers likely would not drop MSU much at all, so the voters would have to put Sparty close to 20th.
LikeLike
You lose a game and you drop in the computers. You don’t stay the same or go up no matter who you play, at least not this late in the season.
LikeLike
Its possible OU doesn’t move up enough to pass MSU in that scenario (ASU over Stanford and OU over OSU), but it seems more likely than not. ASU definitely passes them in that scenario and it would take a really bad performance by any of the losers to drop below MSU.
LikeLike
Updated standings
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
LikeLike
Not enough fuss is being made over how poorly the rankings are done below the top ten. Ever since UCF’s win AT Louisville, UCF has remained behind the Cardinals in the Coaches’ poll. (I haven’t kept track of the Harris poll, but it, too, has Louisville ranked ahead of UCF this week.) They have the same record, so logic should dictate that the tiebreaker would go to the head-to-head winner, especially if the winner won on the road. Additionally, UCF has a win at Penn State and a close loss at home to #8 South Carolina, whereas Louisville’s non-conference schedule was a soft as any you’ll ever see. Moreover, the computers favor UCF by a large margin; UCF’s average is #16, while Louisville’s is #28.
I do hope that the CFP committee is made to answer questions about why it would choose to place one team ahead of another. Nothing can be perfect, but a huge flaw with the BCS is that coaches could rank however they please without being required to explain their rankings team by team.
LikeLike
As much as I dislike Notre Dame, its ridiculous when you look at the schedules that other 4 loss teams get in and they hardly get any votes at all. Tied for 28th in AP. 35th with 3 points in coaches (Marshall 9-3 got 13 points!). Better sign than any that coaches favor conference mates.
With wins over Michigan St., Arizona St., USC and BYU, there aren’t a lot of schools with 4 better wins. Stanford and OU aren’t slouches for losses. And Oklahoma St. lost to WVU, so you can’t hold Pitt too much against a team ranked in the 20s. Michigan was their 4th loss and they nearly beat the #2 team in the country this past weekend. Contrast that with A&M who is 0-4 vs. ranked teams and whose 4 best wins are Ole Miss, Rice, Vanderbilt and Miss. St. UGA is 2-3 vs. ranked teams (S.Car.,LSU W and Clemson, MU, AU L) with another loss to Vandy. Florida/Tennessee and Georgia Tech are their candidates for their 3rd and 4th best wins-all 3 nail biters.
LikeLike
Nail hit on the head, bullet. I’m no Notre Dame fan, either, but it has really struck me how little benefit of the doubt they get they get these days, in stark contrast to decades past, when Notre Dame would be ranked in the top 25 for getting out of bed. Coaches’ voting for fellow conference members would leave Notre Dame out. I agree that it is not only plausible; it’s likely THE explanation for ND’s low rankings of late. Heck, going back to last year, ND wasn’t ranked #1 until ALL unbeaten teams had lost. These included not just fellow traditional powers like Alabama, but also Oregon and even Kansas State.
LikeLike
Heck, going back to last year, ND wasn’t ranked #1 until ALL unbeaten teams had lost. These included not just fellow traditional powers like Alabama, but also Oregon and even Kansas State.
To be fair, that is because most people (rightly as it turned out) believed ND was smoke and mirrors and didn’t want to put a team as weak as last year’s Irish at #1 unless they had absolutely no other choice.
LikeLike
@frug,
Yeah, I agree with that, too, but ten or fifteen years earlier, that smoke would have blinded voters into voting ND #1 prematurely because, after all, it was an undefeated Notre Dame. That, and coaches wouldn’t have been quite as concerned about voting other members of their conferences favorably. Last year, ND was ranked appropriately. Times have changed.
LikeLike
As awful as the coaches’ poll is (and it is quite possibly the worst way to determine a national champ imaginable) ND does appear to be one case where the coaches (or more accurately their graduate assistants) have learned from their mistakes.
LikeLike
Within a couple of years ND will realize what a mistake they made hitching their wagon to the ACC. A Big Ten ND would always be Bowl Gold.
LikeLike
of course A&M’s losses are to #2, #3 and #4 (all came down to the last series of the game) and to LSU. No great wins (though Ole Miss has been ranked much of the year and beat LSU and Texas) but no bad losses.
LikeLike
While looking through Sagarin, I found out that the Illini are evidently the 4th best college football team in IL this year.
LikeLike
They’re still better than NCSU, however.
LikeLike
I was at the NCSU game yesterday. It doesn’t take much to be better than this year’s NC State team. They were pretty sad to watch. Someone said on Mike and Mike a few weeks ago that when losses start piling up, teams start to play worse, making mistakes they’d never make had they not been in a spiral of losses. “That’s what losing does to you.” Case in point w/ NC State. Dropped easy passes, snap over the punter’s head, runs directly into tackler’s arms when open space was available, missed assignments galore on defense, etc.
Dave Doeren, formerly of Northern Illinois, is hoped to turn it around once he gets the players for his run-heavy offense in place. It didn’t help losing Mike Glennon (Tampa Bay’s starting rookie QB) to the NFL with no quality recruits in place to take over. Still, 3-9 was pretty awful.
I know very little about Illinois, but maybe the slightly softer west division will give them a chance to be more competitive in the Big Ten, especially if the team is young. (BTW, they were fourth behind NIU, Northwestern, and, which one, Southern Ill. or Eastern Ill.? App State played SIU in the FCS playoffs about 8 years back, so I know they’ve had good teams in the past…)
LikeLike
I bet Dave Doeren is kicking himself for not stalling on taking NCSU’s offer for another 48 hours (maybe tell them he wanted to wait until after the BCS bowls were announced). If he had he would probably be the head coach at Wisconsin right now.
LikeLike
Oh, and to answer your question, EIU is 11-1 and Sagarin has them ranked #29 in country between BYU and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
@frug,
You think Doeren would have gotten hired over Gary Andersen?
LikeLike
But why would he tell NCSU to cool their heels? He had no inkling at the Biels was leaving, right? Nobody did.
LikeLike
Also, December is a key recruiting time, so telling NCSU to wait would be a no go.
LikeLike
@Michael
No question (at least in my mind).
Not only did Doeren go 33-4 in two year at NIU, prior to that, he had served as defensive coordinator at Wisconsin for 4 years. Given that he had coached and/or recruited most of the roster he probably could have coached them in the Rose Bowl.
Throw in the fact that Doeren had recruiting ties and experience in the Midwest (dating back to his days with Kansas) I just can envision any scenario where he doesn’t get offered the Wisconsin job.
@Richard
I agree, Doeren had no reason to believe the Wisconsin job was going to become available, this was just a “What if?”
As for a theoretical stalling tactic, like I said, Doeren could have just said he wanted to wait until after the bowls were announced so his exit didn’t risk overshadowing NIU’s Orange Bowl birth.
LikeLike
Interesting that the 3 most pursued ACC schools-Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, are 3 of the 5 members of the ACC 12 never to have won a division title. NCSU and Miami are the other two.
Perfect example whenever anyone makes the mistake of claiming some school should get an invite because they have a good football program.
LikeLike
Brand, academics, and/or markets.
LikeLike
And over those nine years, Maryland and UNC made multiple bowl appearances, albeit none in top-tier bowls.
LikeLike
NFL officials want to create nostalgia for the replacement refs…
LikeLike
“Expert” B10 bowl projections:
NCG – OSU vs FSU
Rose – MSU vs ASU (they get the CCG at home)
Cap 1 – WI vs SC
Outback – IA vs MO
BWW – NE vs Texas
Gator – MI vs UGA
Texas – MN vs TT
Others unfilled.
It’d be a shame if MN dropped that far in the pecking order.
LikeLike
So whoever is projecting that Texas would drop farther than OU? Shame. UNL vs. OU would be cool.
Iowa-Mizzou as well. Hawkeyes would get the chance to avenge racist behavior.
LikeLike
BTW, Minny would at least get a shot at winning a bowl game if they drop that far. I do not like their chances vs. UGa.
LikeLike
there are a ton of different opinions on bowls at this point. I’ve seen Missouri projected in the Sugar, the Capital One, the Outback, and the Cotton. Looks like it could be any of those four plus Pasadena for the championship game.
Seems Wisconsin is a lock for Capital One, but Outback, BWW,,Gator and Texas look to be a tossup between Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan, and Minnesota. I’ve seen it predicted various ways.
The Big 12 bowls are very unsettled to. Some have Texas as high as Cotton or as low as Buffalo Wild Wings.
LikeLike
I’m with you on the bowl thing, Andy… The dust has to be entirely shaken off, prior to knowing what’s going to happen—unfortunately, for schools like Mizzou and Minnesota, we are currently not considered beauty queens in this whole contest (regardless of records)—so, the chips likely won’t fall in favor of those… ‘Course Mizzou can still control destiny with win in SEC title game…
Auburn’s last two wins… poorly defensed (by ‘Bama) last second field goal return for TD, poorly defensed (by Georgia) “tipped-prayer pass” in last minute win… Gotta give-em some credit, but is pretty crazy…
LikeLike
I think the B10 bowl order is fairly set. I would say that those who predict an order other than what Brian posted don’t know what they’re talking about.
I’d like OU to fall to the Wings bowl to set up OU-UNL, but that’s not likely to happen.
LikeLike
According to emails obtained by the Baltimore Sun Maryland basketball coaches Mark Turgeon and Brenda Frese at first opposed the move to the Big Ten, and the Board of Regents chairman wrote the conference shift might improve the “toxic” fan culture in College Park: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-big-ten-1201-20131130,0,2267282,full.story
LikeLike
yeah, thought that was interesting. made me wonder if we wanted Maryland if they have a fan base that stoops to those levels. But on the other hand, I guess I need more information. Is this “toxic” atmosphere something just done in College Park or is it something that the fans travel with?
and is it based on active dislike (eg. against Duke and UNC) or is it a reaction to indifference? If the latter, that might be a problem since most B1G fanbases will start off pretty indifferent.
LikeLike
Interesting article in NYT. Nothing particularly new, but some frank discussion about goals:
LikeLike
““Our footprint is Colorado to the mid-Atlantic, Canada to the mid-South,” he said.”
Hmm. Colorado + UK + Tennessee + ?
UToronto, come on down!
🙂
LikeLike
Good luck with that.
I suppose he included Colorado because of Nebraska fans in the eastern part of that state (and maybe Denver, too, I suppose). The mid-South = Illinois fans living in Kentucky and Missouri; Purdue & Indiana fans living in the Louisville TV market; and Ohio State fans living in the Cincinnati/northern Kentucky market. Canada = Michigan & Michigan State fans living in Windsor?
LikeLike
He was just referring to the boundaries; not including those regions.
LikeLike
I still say Toronto would have been the best addition after Nebraska
LikeLike
this is the very last sentence:
“Ms. Hermann, the athletic director at Rutgers, knows her objective. “We have to make our contribution to the Big Ten,” she said, “and get cable companies to pay for the Big Ten Network out here.” ”
I hope that is just the writer’s ignorance. I hope Ms. Hermann knows that she has many objectives.
Btw, not impressed at all with Hermann.
LikeLike
Hey BukeyeBeau,
I totally agree with you regarding Hermann. How are you feeling after that crazy game on Sunday? How do you feel about the Auburn AD trying to create a narrative for Auburn to jump over OSU? Finally, if it’s FSU, how do you think OSU matches up with them? I believe the OSU offense can score, the question becomes can the defense slow down Mr. Winston (assuming he can play)?
Anthony
LikeLike
Hey Anthony. The Auburn win was one for the ages as they say. I actually missed it, since I was driving back home from the day of football. I figured once ‘Bama went up by 7 in the 3Q, Saban would have it locked down from there. Boy did my phone light up just as I got home. LOL
As for the Auburn AD, I think he does a disservice to his University, to the SEC and CFB in general with his politicing. Although I am not in favor of an 8-team CFB playoff, I really like the idea of conference champs getting in automatically since there is no room for politicing. You get in because of on-field performance, not whining by your AD in the press.
As for playing FSU? Ugh. I love my team, but our secondary is a giant sieve and Winston seems like a good passer. LOL That was a giant understatement.
I think we can score on them. Andre Williams DID rush for 149 yards and the BC QB threw for another 197 (not all that great for the QB, but still …)
Will be interesting for sure. The homer in me says the team crushes them and wins by at least 2 TDs. The more rational me is worried.
LikeLike
I would be worried too.
The Big 10 homer in me wants OSU to win……..even when coached by someone like Urbal Liar. The rest of the league just doesn’t care enough to go to SEC-lengths to win big….no problem with OSU. But FSU looks damn good. Is OSU going to implode and go thuggish again, like they did in the Michigan game….all discipline out the window? It could get ugly if things don’t go their way at the start…..we both know that.
LikeLike
Frank, I know I’m late on this but I wanted to say that your bowl plan makes a ton of sense.
What do you think about the possibility of moving the (post-bowl) National Semifinals back to campus? There are a few reasons:
1. I really like the idea of rewarding the very best teams with home field advantage in these national semifinals. Think about Alabama v. Auburn, in a 4 team or even the 8 team playoff that you’ve outlined, there is very little impact on Alabama from that loss. However, if the system was set-up such that #3 and #4 had to go on the road then it retains some of the current value of these big regular season matchups.
2. The atmosphere matters to the quality of the TV product.
3. Weather conditions add to the context of the games. I was at a T-Day party and one of the topics was the Fog Bowl. We didn’t talk about The Fridge’s TD or Hester’s return, we talked about our memories of the Fog Bowl.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac: I don’t think the schools from temperate-weather leagues would tolerate the possibility of a southern team playing a semi-final game in a January blizzard in Ohio. Whether you agree with them or not, those leagues have enough votes to block such a proposal.
LikeLike
agree with MS about not enough votes. And even some folks up here in the north don’t want outdoor games in December. Delany clearly wants the B1G CG to be played in a dome like Lucas Oil.
LikeLike
I wonder if DC would be warm enough.
Too bad KC and NYC don’t have domes; those locales would get support from the B12 and ACC, respectively, while still being close to the B10.
Otherwise, you’re left with StL and Indy. Maybe Detroit, but that’s far from any other league.
LikeLike
Probably correct Marc. I wonder about declining attendance though.
If the ADs see an advantage in including the potential National Semifinal as part of the season ticket offering, that might be enough to offset the weather concern. This benefit would be most helpful to the fans at the margin which is exactly where the ticket declines come from.
LikeLike
I don’t see how any school can include a potential semifinal as a season ticket offering (except maybe ‘Bama). You can’t include something that you won’t get to play in most years (almost any year for most schools).
LikeLike
A certain level required to have first rights/opportunity to purchase semi tickets, should the occasion arise?
LikeLike
I guess you can do that, but unless you’re ‘Bama, how much extra money would you get? I daresay the fans of most college teams don’t expect their team to get to the semi’s most years.
However, you do give up the sure thing of suite sales at locations that people can plan for ahead of time.
LikeLike
Whether semi’s are on campus or not, the BCS 2.x will own marketing rights, sell seats/suites/game memorabilia, etc. The participating schools will receive an allotment of tickets while corporate and filthy rich will purchase majority (and probably most/all suites). If at a school they probably receive a base payment plus a percentage in lieu of rent. The logistics of selling a semi location nationally (which would be a requirement) in only a week would make it unlikely.
LikeLike
Except that most college stadiums don’t have suites. Also, the stadium sizes and suites that do exist vary widely, so you can’t plan with a set revenue figure.
Essential, as much as I dislike having to make fans travel all over the country to see all 3 rounds of playoffs, on-campus playoff sites are impractical.
LikeLike
I agree with your conclusion, but many retrofits/rebuilds are taking part in what might be considered manufacturing scarcity but increasing income. Many are building or expanding suites in college stadiums without expanding, and in some cases contracting capacity. TV is taking the place of a significant number of former paying customers. Entry level to fandom is now the cable bill, not the general admission end zone seat.
LikeLike
Well, according to Frank, TPtB what the suite money, which college stadiums generally don’t have.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how it works but I suspect it is the host stadium that directly benefits from the suite money. The ADs would benefit indirectly but they would also benefit evenly.
Moving the national semifinals to a campus means the most powerful brands are going to benefit disproportionately because the value of their own suites/season tickets goes up with the potential for that game to be played in their home stadium.
If I’m the USC AD I love the idea of having a chance to sell a CCG and National Semifinal as part of my season ticket offering.
The other benefit here accrues to the Bowls. An 8 team playoff sounds good on paper but seeding is going to be FUBAR if the Pac/B1G champs play each other in the Rose Bowl. Waiting to seed until after these Bowls would solve this problem, it would also add a ton of intrigue to the bowl selection process overall.
LikeLike
Well, the way it works now, the suite money from the bowls goes in to the pot that gets split up. I doubt the conferences would be OK with individual schools keeping that money for themselves rather than sharing.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“What do you think about the possibility of moving the (post-bowl) National Semifinals back to campus? There are a few reasons:
…
3. Weather conditions add to the context of the games.”
Don’t forget, many northern stadiums aren’t equipped to have playable fields in January. The Vikings are paying to install a field heating system for MN since they need to borrow their stadium while the new one is built. Who would pay to make the other fields playable when it only can be used for semifinal games? You do not want people playing on a truly frozen field. The injuries could be really bad.
LikeLike
Wow. Surprised at the Big Ten’s lack of action on The Game’tagon melee. And I’m not the only one. Big Ten blogger (and pretty fair apologist) A. Rittenberg at ESPN is even more surprised.
‘Unortunately, the Big Ten is following the SEC’s lead in another area: handing out discipline.
A league that considers itself a cut above in every area, including player conduct, had an opportunity to make a statement in the wake of Saturday’s fight in the Ohio State-Michigan game. Instead, the league went soft, ensuring that its championship game, and Ohio State’s national title hopes, would be unaffected by the ugly and embarrassing incident.’
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten
LikeLike
Why is anyone surprised by this? Look at the lengths to which Delany went to get the Buckeye Five eligible for the Sugar Bowl a couple years ago.
LikeLike
Frug, I don’t think it’s necessarily favoring OSU as much as Delany just being an ultra-competitive, amoral individual…..OSU happened to be in position, then as now, to win a big game….a game that is very important to the Big 10’s credibility as a football conference going forward. I think he’d do the same for Michigan or Nebraska in the same situations.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
Please. This is just another example of a double-standard being applied to tOSU and the B1G in general. Rittenberg (who I generally like) is a fussy old woman.
Michigan started the fight by surrounding Wilson and when Wilson got out of the circle, Michigan players surrounded him again and then the fight ensued. Ohio State players should not be overly punished for something Michigan started. Ejection was plenty.
As an aside, in the next couple of years, I suspect that Mr. Wilson will be plenty motivated in to give lots of payback to Michigan for what they did.
As for giving the a two handed bird to the Big House, what’s the big deal? My goodness, we are all becoming a bunch of delicate flowers if we are so offended by football players using cuss words and flipping people off. Better switch the channel and watch some figure skating.
LikeLike
Wow…not the way I saw it at all. The OSU players were far more thuggish then the Michigan players……not even close, in my view.
LikeLike
…..And yet, excessive celebration is penalized. Justifying his behavior by claiming anyone with behavioral standards is a wuss is no winning argument.
LikeLike
I rewatched the fight a couple of times.
The Michigan guys surrounded the ball carrier and were woofing at him….but #8 of OSU threw the first punch.
#s 1,8, and 83 of OSU were the biggest thugs on the field.
As the commentator noted, Hall (#79) wasn’t involved in the play, which was a special teams play. He got in the mifddle of things and got his ass tossed. He then went to the sidelines and slammed his helmit down and kicked a bench, followed by the tw0-finger salute.
LikeLike
Yet another fantastic move by Delany – no suspensions. The BIG is already dequestioning wonderin Pellini’s fine, a coach most of them wanted dismissed, while no additional suspensions for these OSU and Mi players. Btw, I agree with the fines against Pellini. In other words, even though a lot of Neb fans don’t like Pellini, they still don’t get the hypocrisy and are now buying into the Big 2 and little 10 theories – hell I’m buying into it now. Ridiculous these players aren’t getting at least a half game suspension. Does the BIG really want to create another PSU fan base out of Neb? Does the BIG really need anymore national ridicule?
The in-fighting in this conference is higher than I’ve ever seen it & the latest round of expansion was not greeted with much fanfare from most BIG & Md fans – Rutgers, of course, loves the pending membership & damn if their AD has not been a train wreck the past year.
LikeLike
^Correction on the second sentence, should read: A lot of Neb fans are questioning Pellini’s fine, a coach . . .
LikeLike
@ gfunk:
really?
Pelini (well, Nebraska) gets fined $10,000 and you think this is going to turn the Nebraska fanbase against the B1G?
First, that’s couch cushion money.
Second, half the Nebraska fanbase probably cheered.
Third, fining coaches for blasting referees is time-honored and is in a completely different category than what the conference does vis a vis some player extra punishment. No one in Nebraska is thinking the B1G is out to get Nebraska because they fined Pelini but didn’t suspend Hall and Wilson. Those are apples and oranges. Tempest in a teapot.
As for everyone “…. now buying into the Big 2 and little 10 theories …” Please. Show me another fight were the B1G handled it differently? IMO, Gholston’s head twist was nearly a criminal assault and literally could have killed the player. More punishment was beyond deserved. (oh, and btw, it is a Big 1 and soon-to-be little 13. 🙂 )
LikeLike
Has there ever been a situation in the Big 10 when a guy got booted for ‘roid-rage type behavior, and gave the crowd a two-fingered salute on national TV, in the biggest game of the year? Didn’t think so……Delany was definately a pussy for not suspending him for a half. Very weak, imo…..
As for Bo…that’s the minimum he should have expected….Along with the ridiculous PC, where he made an ass of himself over and above just criticizing the officiating, he nearly struck an official on the sideline.
LikeLike
Sorry BuckeyeBeau,
Absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree with you & I do think certain Michigan players deserve suspensions as well & I think they triggered the fight, esp the helmet removal, which was absurdly bad judgement. Hall should miss the entire CCG, the others (both Michigan & OSU players) should miss at least a half of their next games. That was an ugly brawl, devoid of any class and sportsmanship & no sincere repentance now that Delany hasn’t done next to nothing. What this lack of action tells me is that OSU is scared shvtless of playing without these players.
I do feel bad for OSU when it comes to national perception, the rest of the BIG as well – there’s a lot of unfair media bias based on past performance. If history holds course, man it will just be another bad loss for OSU and the BIG in general. This lack of national respect definitely got a boost from OSU’s back-to-back duds in NCGs and the media hype machine that surrounded OSU-Mi in 2006, both ended up getting pounded in their BCS games. Delany handled your loss to Fl with low class. Remember the academic slights against the SEC? True or not, it was poor pr on his part. Delany continues to overmatch the BIG in bowl games for money reasons, esp all the years he sent 6 win teams to bowl games. Delany doesn’t seem to work hard enough on doing what is likely best for CF: contracting FBS teams, an 8 team playoff, and implementing a bowl system that is not regionally biased while at the same time making such a system important enough to reseed the 8 teams slotted for the playoff based on conference performance. Delany, and too many BIG fans, administrators are money oriented. Quality, esp winning teams, matter most at the end of the days, not teams, esp in football, that get blown out, more often than not, in bowl games. Two sports really help the brand: football & m. basketball. Yet the BIG has clearly underperformed in football, esp the past decade & basketball continues to choke in NCGs. Btw, it is in fact true, the BIG has 1.5 AP actual membership titles over the past 40 plus years & don’t remind me of the BIG’s Rose Bowl record since 1970 – it’s quite awful.
I said I agree with Pelini’s fines. I agreed with Gholston’s punishment as well.
The Big 2 & Little 10 is what it is, negative perception for the conference and almost entirely based on football, which clearly gets too much press amongst college athletics. Is it overstated? Yes, but it is what it is, esp when the commissioner doesn’t have the balls to hand out obvious suspensions after “The Game”, which is so far behind the Iron Bowl right now in terms of prestige. I can live with the fact that neither OSU nor Michigan come close to dominating other sports like M. Basketball & Ice Hockey & I’d never live in either state for countless reasons : ). Michigan may have more NCs than Minnesota in hockey, but we have plenty & own the all-time head-to-head series, and our storied program has simply done more for the sport & by a country mile. OSU can pretend they have a hockey program, albeit usually second or third best in Ohio : ).
LikeLike
@gfunk.
fair enough on many points. really can’t argue with a lot of them. we’ll have to disagree about extra penalties. I see no reason for the B1G to hold itself to some higher standard of punishment. No other league would have issued any extra punishment, certainly not the SEC.
as for hockey, yeah, again no arguments. Not really sure why OSU can’t have a good hockey team. as for Minnesota, at least they are the best at something in the conference. 🙂
LikeLike
gfunk,
“That was an ugly brawl, devoid of any class and sportsmanship & no sincere repentance now that Delany hasn’t done next to nothing. What this lack of action tells me is that OSU is scared shvtless of playing without these players.”
Delany’s lack of action tells you that OSU is scared? Nice logic. Is MI scared of losing their back-up LB who threw the punch?
“Delany doesn’t seem to work hard enough on doing what is likely best for CF:”
His job is to do what’s best for the B10, nothing else. It certainly isn’t to enact gfunk’s personal preferences.
“contracting FBS teams,”
How is that best for CFB? It hurts those schools. It prevents players from getting a chance to compete at the highest level. The big boys will still play them because they need 7 home games.
“an 8 team playoff,”
You complain about him being too focused on money but want him to expand the playoff? How is that best for CFB without using money as the basis? More injury risk for players. More expensive travel for fans.
“and implementing a bowl system that is not regionally biased”
The whole point of the bowl system is to be regionally biased. They’re tourist attractions. Thus, the need to be held in desirable locations to attract fans. In addition, they need to be profitable and thus generally need 1 local team (butts in seats) to pair with another from farther away (butts in hotels and restaurants). They aren’t just football games.
“while at the same time making such a system important enough to reseed the 8 teams slotted for the playoff based on conference performance.”
Nobody can make the bowls more important while implementing a playoff. The existence of the playoff diminishes the bowls by definition. The top bowls used to be the playoff games. Now they are early rounds. The lower bowls are diminished as well since they get lesser teams and are now officially second-class games. With the long layoff between the end of the season and the bowls, teams never play their best anyway. That’s why nobody considers lower bowls important when comparing conference performance. Most fans don’t care about anything but the top 1-3 teams per conference anyway.
LikeLike
Yeah, there is no anti-Big Ten bias in Lincoln. If there has been, it has been mighty discreet about it.
LikeLike
gfunk: It was a move out of the blue for Maryland fans (unlike Rutgers, which had yearned for the Big Ten for years), which is why it caused such controversy at first. Most Terrapin fans with any knowledge of college athletics now are firmly in favor of the decision.
LikeLike
VP,
Sure the Terp base has shifted, but it was poorly executed move by both parties & quite different than PSU or Neb. Had the BIG sought Md along similar lines to the Neb addition, I don’t think they join the BIG – tradition would outweigh other factors. Neb fans, overwhelmingly wanted out of the Big 12 (Rutgers = similar situation). PSU was independent & tried to get into the Big East foremost, and oh how alignment history changes had they been voted in – I think the Big East exists today & on an even more formidable level than the days of Miami, WVa & VT, who don’t leave the Big East with a PSU membership & perhaps ND is a full-fledge member as well. On the other hand, there remains a loud contingent of PSU fans who don’t like the BIG, too many reasons being rooted in delusion, but it it what it is.
I’m not excusing the ACC’s various, unprecedented expansions, they did more to destroy the Big East than any other conference. The SWC killed itself and the SEC has quietly gotten away with plenty of expansions of their own, getting to 12 long before the BIG and even to 14 before the BIG. The Big12 has countless issues of their own and the Pac12 seems to be so far west, geographically spread out & isolated that most people don’t care what they do.
But, the BIG (I speak in the context of the the administrators and power brokers here) does itself no favors when controversy after controversy follows their expansion moves and quality of play on the gridiron, especially, doesn’t succeed, which is statistical fact. And the BIG, many fans as well, need to stop thinking they can go out and add certain members at will, esp from the ACC. On the other hand, I think the BIG realized within the past year they couldn’t get anymore ACC teams. At this point, I need to ask why doesn’t the BIG just work on its current footprint & do more to foster overall quality and greater competitive performance.
If the BIG was thinking all sports, esp performance, up and coming academics, truer eastern exposure, esp the NYC market, they’d add UConn yesterday. UConn has the best 1-2 punch in basketball, and it isn’t even close. They also have strong Olympic sports, which includes potentially budding hockey programs that could take off in the right conference, a wealthy state, better quality public education than most states, and in this day and age of diminishing investment into state schools, CT taxpayers believe in UConn. But here comes the football-centric, yesteryear, money minded, AAU bent BIG folks. How dare you suggest UConn, they don’t even have 45k seats in their football stadium, they aren’t AAU, they don’t add a worthy football recruiting base. Prove they have more value than Rutgers in the NYC market. And so it goes.
LikeLike
Hang around the self-righteous Connecticut fan base for a while, and you’ll understand why the Big Ten chose Rutgers. And I haven’t even brought up academics. Perhaps 20 years from now UConn will be Big Ten material, but not right now, not even close.
LikeLike
Presumably, if UConn did in fact provide “truer eastern exposure, especially in the NYC market”, then either the ACC or the B1G would have added them. Both conferences did their homework and both found UConn wanting.
LikeLike
Ohio State’s Nike contract extension:
http://thelantern.com/2013/12/ohio-state-extend-contract-nike-18-5m/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ohio-state-extend-contract-nike-18-5m
LikeLike
Marshall fans are in an uproar over the CUSA decision that Rice will host the conference championship game. The final tie-breaker is BCS rankings. Apparently, once you get past the top 25 there can be several ways to interpret that.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/marshall/x1926356839/Herd-focused-on-winning-title-not-location
LikeLike
@ Frank
While I appreciate and understand your arguments for 8 in a playoff scenario, it is still just a money grab and will create travel issues and crappy secondary games. Let’s say Alabama played Northern Illinois is such a scenario, who would go? More importantly, who would watch?
Some years there is no need for a MNC game (LSU 2 years ago) and most years it can be resolved with just a championship game. The few time it is more than 2 teams it can easily be solved with 3 or 4. If you have undefeated or 1 loss teams THERE IS NO REASON ANY 2 LOSS TEAM should get a shot at a MNC. NONE, NADA, ZIP!
8 teams is nothing but a money grab and the first step to rewarding the mediocre.
LikeLike
100% right duffer. The college presidents seem completely unwilling to turn down ANY significant $ in consideration of the interests of the “student-athlete”….these guys act like robber barons, not educators………
LikeLike
Duffman & Mushroom God,
BS to both of you. Think FBS contraction, think a revamped, higher stakes bowl system that re-seeds the so-called 8 teams because such a bowl system would also mean more bowl games throughout the country, not just in the Sun Belt, and think how a conference performs in bowl games, that victories per conference play a part in the “re-seeding” process.
How about folks in the Sun Belt do some longer traveling for a change?. They are more likely to do it if the bowl games mean more, esp re-seeding an 8 team playoff. And who’s doing most of the traveling anyways? Fans from colder states. FBS contraction esp translates into higher stake OOC games that thin the herd & better assure the right 8 teams, who will be potentially re-seeded due to conference-based bowl performances, make the field.
There are way too many FBS teams, the thought of more of them, which continues to happen on an annual basis, is absurd & “money minded”. If FBS was 80 teams, you could still chop that list down to 20 to equal the number of schools who have won the vast majority of NCs the past 50 years. FBS would have plenty of high quality competition @ 80 schools. And who’s to say a network like ESPN can’t do more to promote FCS?
LikeLike
@gfunk – I obviously like the idea of an 8-team playoff (as evidenced by the post here), although that’s really separate from the size of FBS. Does the size of FBS really matter once you get beyond the 5 power conferences, particularly if the 8-team playoff looks something like what I’ve proposed? I don’t think that the actual contraction of FBS would have much impact on the competitiveness since there’s already been de facto contraction in the delineation between the power and non-power conferences (just as the number of Division I basketball teams at the low end has little impact on the on-the-court competitiveness of the top hoops leagues). Now, if you’re saying that the bottom end of Division I is holding back the top end of Division I from making structural rule changes within the NCAA, then that’s another matter, although all of the FBS leagues have largely been aligned on the most talked about “Division 4” issues like covering the cost of attendance.
LikeLike
A smaller FBS reduces pressure to expand to 16 and gives better access to whoever is left of the G5. Will also tend to reduce mismatches. If TV is pressuring P5 to schedule better along with the 9 conference games, there could be a lot of financial pressure on the schools that rely on the money games (see especially Sun Belt and MAC).
LikeLike
gfunk,
saying you can have 2 losses and you still get a chance is the worst mockery of all. Show me an 8 team playoff with this season using only undefeated or 1 loss teams? Show me the brackets.
LikeLike
How do we know Stanford and Oregon aren’t really the best two teams in the country but have two losses because they play in the toughest conference this year (we don’t know who the strongest conference is, but it could be the Pac).
LikeLike
That is the “everybody gets a ribbon” argument. If Oregon or Stanford were better, they should have a better record. Look at the losses :
Oregon
@ Stanford, acceptable loss
@ Arizona, unacceptable loss
Stanford
@ Utah (next to last in the South), lost 21-27 : are you really arguing for Utah?
@ Southern Cal (middle of South), lost 17-20 : acceptable but not great
Nobody is going to fault the losses to the California schools but getting whipped by Arizona or getting beat by Utah means neither should get consideration for a playoff spot. Again, NO (2) LOSS TEAMS ARE ACCEPTABLE! If they are, then why bother winning in the regular season.
LikeLike
Stanford, assuming they beat ASU, will be the Pac 12 champ. That’s not everyone getting a ribbon. They will have an accomplishment that exceeds Alabama’s in 2011 or 2013.
LikeLike
How would you possibly contract the FBS? How could you fairly pick which teams would stay in and which teams wouldn’t? How could you do that legally? (The Power Five making new rules and leaving is VERY different from a legal standpoint than kicking teams out of an organization that they already belong to.) More importantly, isn’t there something inherently morally wrong with that? If Appalachian State and Georgia Southern want to increase their national exposure and academic reputations through athletics and they are willing to invest millions of dollars that they will struggle to come up with to do so, why shouldn’t they be afforded the opportunity? Just because some other schools did the exact same thing, only a whole lot earlier and they don’t want extra competition?
On a side note, I’m a big believer that more schools competing at the highest level is better for college football from a purely economic standpoint. More schools = more alumni and more fans = more eyeballs and more donors = more money for everybody. Do you think that
LikeLike
Meant to end it with, fans of the five non-power conferences are going to keep watching if they don’t have a dog in the race at all?
LikeLike
@Jeffrey
Eastern Michigan averages about 5,000 fans a game. A lot of those schools don’t have very many fans.
You contract 1 of 3 ways-a) raise the cost through stipends, scholarships or sports sponsorship; b) bump up the attendance requirement; or c) leave and invite who you want.
Reality is that some of the lower FBS schools spend less than a number of FCS schools and a fraction of what P5 schools spend. They’re doing the bare minimum.
LikeLike
But how does a schools spending the minimum or having fewer fans impact anyone else? If anything it benefits them by providing a greater competitive disadvantage.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Think FBS contraction, think a revamped, higher stakes bowl system that re-seeds the so-called 8 teams because such a bowl system would also mean more bowl games throughout the country, not just in the Sun Belt, and think how a conference performs in bowl games, that victories per conference play a part in the “re-seeding” process.”
What an illogical and implausible plan. Feel free to lay out any conceivable pathway to your proposal. How will you make people want to visit the midwest in winter for a bowl game? People are already worried about fans traveling with a CCG and 2 games. I’m sure adding a third game in a terrible location will help with that.
Why on earth should how other teams in a conference perform in their postseason exhibition games impact the seeding for the best teams? Does MN losing to TT in a TX bowl make OSU a worse team suddenly? Does KY winning a mediocre bowl over WKU make AL better?
LikeLike
Saw an Atlanta paper article by Jeff Schultz, “Sorry SEC, you have no case for BCS game” (note that its Auburn who’s raising the stink, not so much the newcomer Missouri even though they were chanting SEC, SEC Saturday for some weird reason). http://www.ajc.com (looks like its a subscription article). Nice to see some reality in SEC country.
Some excerpts:
“During this run of SEC supremacy over college football — seven consecutive national championships, nine of 15 BCS titles overall — the conference has had two things going for it: No. 1) Tremendous strength; No. 2) Good fortune.
Funny how everybody forgets No. 2.
There is a good chance an SEC team will be left out of the BCS championship game for the first time since 2005. So, of course, torch-carrying villagers from SEC territories are reacting like George Washington was just voted off Mount Rushmore.
Welcome to the center of the selective memory universe.”
Points out how #1USC was left out in 2003 in favor of LSU. After some other similar examples he follows with:
“The problem is that Jacobs and SEC fans have selective memory. They forget how Auburn got here.
The Tigers lost to LSU by two touchdowns. They barely won two early season games over a pair of 6-6 teams: Washington State (31-24, with two late opponent drives ending at the Auburn 8 and 27) and Mississippi State (24-20 on a late touchdown). They were blessed with that deflected touchdown pass against Georgia — an improbable ending surpassed only by the 100-plus-yard return of the missed field goal against Alabama (which blew several other makeable field goals). The Tigers’ non-conference schedule: Washington State, Arkansas State, Western Carolina, Florida Atlantic.
See? We can play that game with every team.”
LikeLike
Another funny thing. Missouri is being ignored. Everyone is talking about Auburn. I think Auburn has to be emotionally spent and will probably get crushed Saturday.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s not like we don’t have two games this Saturday that may very well settle this discussion easily.
Missouri looks like a better team than Auburn to me, and Michigan State has a pretty good shot at taking down Ohio State if Ohio State plays like it did against Michigan.
It’s humorous to see so much talk wasted on this #2/#3 debate when we still have another week.
This is just as foolish as the hyperventilating about 4 undefeated teams just 3 weeks ago…
LikeLike
I think Mizzou wins too. Auburn has lived a very charmed life this year.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Another funny thing. Missouri is being ignored. Everyone is talking about Auburn. I think Auburn has to be emotionally spent and will probably get crushed Saturday.”
They aren’t being ignored, they just have no case for jumping OSU for #2. Auburn has the AL win and wants to ride that. Also, MO isn’t flapping it’s gums about belonging in the NCG. They seem content to focus on winning the SEC CG first. Maybe then they’ll start talking, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
Nice dig. We could also point out how bad FSU’s competition has been in the ACC. Never mind that BC was within 2 Tds, end score, a BC team that got blown out by a Kiffin-coached USC team – 35-7. And just how potent was that Clemson victory? They lost to Spurrier and company again, and GD Tenn, who was blitzed by Tenn, beat SCar. Granted, conference games breed familiarity and different levels of motivation, and injuries matter as well. But I’m just pointing out more of the realities these SEC homers overlook, or any homers for that matter.
LikeLike
They were chanting “SEC SEC” for “some weird reason” if you think Missouri winning the SEC East is “weird”, but then you probably do.
LikeLike
I guess belonging to a sport dominating conference is great, but chanting the conference name IS pure weirdness. I would have been chanting ‘Mizzou, Mizzou’!
By the way, MOAndy, I have been rooting for Missouri all year. Nothing would feel better than to have a good old midwestern school win the SEC. I also am rooting for the Spartans which should get MO to the NCG. Good luck!
LikeLike
Seems to be a fair amount of questioning the hiring of “Sarkiffin” around USC. Don’t know why. Had Kiffin lasted the season Sark would have been a leading name, and was in the pre-firing discussions.
LikeLike
Reasons:
1. He’s connected to Kiffin and that’s toxic to fans.
2. He hasn’t won big at UW.
3. USC fans wanted a big name (Del Rio, Gruden, Sumlin, etc) like with Saban being mentioned for UT.
4. Fans are creatures of the moment and many are currently in love with Orgeron. In a few weeks, they’ll remember how poorly he did at Ole Miss and be less disappointed.
LikeLike
Also:
5. Familiarity breeds contempt. That already know Sark enough to know his downsides. Other coaches are all positive for them.
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 14 run with SoS rank mid season point +7 :
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
002 003 002 001 001 001 001 Florida State 42 / 68 / 54 / 62 / 58 / 76 / 66
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 012 012 010 013 015 Clemson 45 / 39 / 42 / 53 / 45 / 57 / 53
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 064 060 057 056 058 Boston College 26 / 22 / 20 / 30 / 46 / 47 / 47
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 069 065 068 068 066 Syracuse 39 / 38 / 53 / 56 / 44 / 46 / 51
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 065 080 074 072 071 Maryland 94 / 83 / 85 / 90 / 74 / 73 / 72
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 079 090 087 090 082 Wake Forest 102 / 85 / 71 / 57 / 56 / 51 / 49
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 083 104 106 100 109 North Carolina State 117 / 87 / 80 / 60 / 49 / 48 / 57
ACC – Costal
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 033 025 027 028 030 Georgia Tech 29 / 35 / 40 / 31 / 25 / 40 / 40
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 039 027 031 031 031 Virginia Tech 37 / 37 / 35 / 17 / 27 / 31 / 38
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 049 041 039 040 040 Duke 92 / 80 / 84 / 82 / 69 / 69 / 65
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 029 032 044 042 041 Miami (FL) 75 / 82 / 56 / 47 / 42 / 52 / 55
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 052 048 048 045 048 North Carolina 4 / 18 / 26 / 32 / 33 / 44 / 45
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 060 047 054 054 059 Pittsburgh 57 / 42 / 32 / 24 / 28 / 28 / 30
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 089 099 097 097 099 Virginia 35 / 31 / 23 / 15 / 17 / 15 / 21
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 005 007 008 006 007 Ohio State 76 / 69 / 81 / 81 / 72 / 67 / 61
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 006 006 005 004 010 Wisconsin 83 / 90 / 59 / 44 / 52 / 45 / 46
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 048 066 067 063 052 Penn State 63 / 36 / 49 / 46 / 61 / 56 / 50
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 054 058 062 058 057 Indiana 27 / 33 / 36 / 52 / 37 / 19 / 24
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 077 077 077 073 073 Illinois 40 / 34 / 27 / 29 / 18 / 21 / 29
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 146 168 169 157 149 Purdue 21 / 20 / 11 / 23 / 19 / 16 / 16 Best B1G SoS : Sagarin
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 015 020 019 015 013 Michigan State 104 / 92 / 86 / 91 / 78 / 63 / 60
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 042 040 041 035 025 Iowa 47 / 43 / 34 / 49 / 48 / 42 / 37
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 038 054 049 046 039 Michigan 85 / 84 / 66 / 68 / 59 / 49 / 39
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 044 050 052 048 049 Nebraska 119 / 110 / 101 / 98 / 83 / 64 / 56
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 057 056 056 055 051 Minnesota 103 / 89 / 75 / 77 / 79 / 60 / 44
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 053 059 066 067 065 Northwestern 81 / 59 / 39 / 37 / 43 / 34 / 33
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 004 003 003 005 006 Baylor 100 / 96 / 93 / 96 / 85 / 65 / 62
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 013 017 013 010 009 Oklahoma State 54 / 52 / 38 / 59 / 51 / 41 / 43
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 021 035 030 023 023 Oklahoma 56 / 44 / 48 / 58 / 62 / 50 / 58
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 028 022 023 027 026 Kansas State 12 / 19 / 29 / 27 / 34 / 33 / 42
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 023 031 035 036 032 Texas 18 / 13 / 24 / 33 / 30 / 32 / 34
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 030 044 045 044 050 Texas Tech 87 / 79 / 67 / 78 / 55 / 53 / 54
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 045 068 061 057 056 Texas Christian 8 / 10 / 17 / 34 / 29 / 29 / 22
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 080 098 101 081 075 Iowa State 15 / 7 / 5 / 18 / 11 / 20 / 23
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 059 071 076 075 079 West Virginia 14 / 8 / 8 / 19 / 23 / 26 / 36
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 106 130 112 123 125 Kansas 36 / 24 / 18 / 25 / 31 / 36 / 35
.
PAC – North = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 003 004 004 003 004 Oregon 68 / 54 / 62 / 39 / 35 / 25 / 25
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 010 005 007 009 008 Stanford 11 / 9 / 12 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 5 Top 10 SoS
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 018 010 012 011 012 Washington 3 / 16 / 14 / 28 / 13 / 11 / 15
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 051 045 034 030 034 Washington State 16 / 15 / 7 / 6 / 3 / 4 / 2 Top 10 SoS
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 040 034 032 038 036 Oregon State 74 / 60 / 52 / 43 / 26 / 17 / 12
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 108 114 118 117 121 California 10 / 3 / 6 / 5 / 8 / 3 / 3 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South = 4 of 10 Top 10 SoS
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 008 009 006 007 003 Arizona State 13 / 12 / 10 / 7 / 6 / 2 / 4 Top 10 SoS
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 020 014 014 014 014 UCLA 50 / 28 / 41 / 26 / 15 / 6 / 6 Top 10 SoS
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 025 021 018 017 020 Southern Cal 22 / 23 / 19 / 21 / 12 / 14 / 13
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 032 024 028 019 021 Arizona 55 / 55 / 60 / 38 / 39 / 24 / 18
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9
035 039 037 029 026 026 033 Utah 5 / 4 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 Top 10 SoS
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 086 085 081 080 076 Colorado 31 / 26 / 13 / 4 / 10 / 8 / 7 Top 10 SoS
.
SEC – East = 1 of 10 Top 10 SoS
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 007 008 009 008 005 Missouri 30 / 29 / 30 / 36 / 40 / 39 / 41
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 014 016 017 018 016 South Carolina 20 / 11 / 16 / 16 / 21 / 35 / 28
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 017 023 020 020 018 Georgia 2 / 1 / 1 / 8 / 5 / 10 / 8 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 043 037 037 041 045 Vanderbilt 46 / 25 / 22 / 14 / 32 / 37 / 52
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 022 036 036 050 054 Florida 7 / 14 / 9 / 13 / 9 / 22 / 14
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 047 063 064 066 063 Tennessee 25 / 5 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 7 / 11
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 082 093 099 103 111 Kentucky 6 / 6 / 25 / 20 / 14 / 12 / 20
SEC – West = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 001 002 002 002 002 Alabama 43 / 41 / 47 / 42 / 41 / 55 / 48
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 019 013 015 016 011 Auburn 33 / 51 / 50 / 41 / 38 / 38 / 26
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 009 011 011 012 017 Louisiana State 9 / 30 / 28 / 22 / 22 / 18 / 27
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 011 015 016 021 019 Texas A&M 28 / 32 / 46 / 51 / 47 / 43 / 31
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 026 028 025 029 035 Mississippi 1 / 2 / 3 / 9 / 20 / 13 / 10 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 055 055 051 052 044 Mississippi State 34 / 58 / 33 / 12 / 7 / 9 / 9 Top 10 SoS
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 074 079 084 092 083 Arkansas 17 / 17 / 15 / 11 / 16 / 27 / 17
LikeLike
Would not have expected this regarding Mizzou’s STL TV ratings this year trailing ratings in 2007.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/other/media-views-spirit-for-mizzou-not-seen-in-tv-ratings/article_26682f69-c3ec-544d-856f-eef4c0526735.html
@Andy: Genuine question: Any insight why this is the case? It can’t all be Cardinals playoff games, can it?
LikeLike
The MU/KU game in 2007 was between #2 and #4 after #s 1 and 3 had already lost. It was for the #1 ranking in the last game of the regular season. It was between two arch rivals who had played over 120 games against each other. It was at a neutral location in Kansas City. Neither team had won a conference title in decades. It was a national over-the-air ABC broadcast. It was the perfect storm. That game got ridiculously good ratings.
This year Missouri hasn’t had any games like that. That’s not to say Missouri’s ratings have been bad, but they haven’t been up in the rarified air of that 2007 game. Their best game this year, the one against South Carolina, was on ESPN2 and was played at the same time the Cardinals were playing in the world series. Since then they played a couple teams with losing records in Tennessee and Kentucky, a lesser brand opponent in Ole Miss, and a now struggling A&M team. All were on cable. Mizzou didn’t have any over the air broadcasts this season.
A game that would be comparable to the MU/KU matchup in 2007 would maybe be this game between #5 Missouri and #3 Auburn down in Atlanta. It will be an over-the-air broadcast on CBS. We might just see huge ratings for this one in St. Louis.
LikeLike
In the important games, Mizzou had these ratings:
Oct. 12 at Georgia ESPN 8.3
Oct. 19 Florida KPLR 8.3
Oct. 26 South Carolina ESPN2 5.3
Nov. 2 Tennessee ESPN 7.8
Nov. 9 at Kentucky ESPNU 5.0
Nov. 23 at Mississippi ESPN 9.3
Are those good number? I can’t seem to find much information by googling.
This article seems very suspect since there is no detail. Here is the telling paragraph: “At this point in 2007, seven MU regular-season games had been televised and drew an average rating of 7.1 in St. Louis, with five pulling a figure of 7.9 or better. This year there have been nine MU games shown on widely-available outlets (the others were either on pay-per-view or Charter cable) and just three have had a rating of at least 7.9, with the overall average at 6.0.”
First, that is 7 games vs. 9. What teams are the extra two and are they pulling down the average? We don’t know because no details provided for 2007.
For this year, the low rating is for the Indiana game that got a 1.3 rating on the BTN and the next was the Toledo game at 3.4. Throw those out and you get a 7.04 average rating which is close to the 2007 average.
Seems like the author decided to spin a negative article about Mizzou. He could have easily written “Mizzou Interest in Football Near Historical Records!!!”
LikeLike
Don’t compare with the Cardinals (then again, probably nothing does in StL).
Cardinals pulled a 8.83 average across _162_ regular season games on FSMidwest.
World Series averaged a 40.6 rating in StL.
NLCS averaged a 28.9 rating in StL.
Game 5 of the Divisional Series pulled a 33.6 rating in StL.
LikeLike
yes, agreed. the tv ratings numbers show St. Louis is a pro-town (just based on ratings). That is why I asked if the 8.3 rating for Mizzou was “good.” And I meant “good” by historical standards. It is not “good” based on football crazy markets like C-bus and B-ham. C-bus usually hits a 40.0 rating for conference games and we all know folks in B-ham will watch any football any time. LOL.
Just thought the author of the article mailed it in. Using Cardinal’s tv ratings (and even Rams’ ratings) would have been a better way of arguing that Mizzou’s support is tepid. Or comparing across markets like C-bus compared to St. Louis.
But, whatever ….
LikeLike
The article was poorly written and deceiving. There’s nothing bad about Missouri’s ratings this year. What hurt them most was that they never got any games on CBS and a lot of the games were on networks like BTN, ESPNU, and ESPN2. When they got on ESPN their numbers were solid.
LikeLike
Even with the games spread out among a variety of platforms, the Missouri Tigers are still a top ratings draw.
Seriously, knowing that college football ratings decline is far less than the the rest of television BEFORE accounting for lowered accessibility makes me wonder if college sports are accurately valued and not in an economic bubble.
LikeLike
@Andy,
I’m sure you realize this, but Mizzou was assigned second-tier TV assignments like ESPN2 and ESPNU rather than ESPN or CBS because of last year’s underwhelming performance and low preseason expectations. Next year, I’m sure they’ll be on ESPN a lot more and have a game or two on CBS.
Someone else will have to take the time to look it up, but I bet South Carolina didn’t start getting TV slots on ESPN or CBS until several years into Spurrier’s tenure. I imagine they had to get a good season or two under their belts before the premier networks were willing to risk airing their games; no point in putting on a team typically 4-8, 5-7, or 6-6 when options include LSU, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee (who used to be good), and Auburn.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh:
While you are correct about next season, there is more flexibility for ESPN to move games around its networks on shorter notice than you would let on. It could easily move a team from the Deuce to ESPN 2 weeks out (or vice versa). Its not set in stone.
LikeLike
“James Andrew Miller @ESPNBook 30 Nov
Could do book w/stories behind these realignments, but those who believe @espn is puppeteer would be disappointed. http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/11/30/football-conferences/ …”
I would love to hear the stories Miller (co-author of “These Guys Have All The Fun”) has on realignment.
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (3 teams) after Week #14 : 3 of 125 = 2.40% of total :
Big 5 schools : 2 of 62 = 3.23% of population : 2 of 125 = 1.60% 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 = 0 of 14 => 0.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
B 12 = 0 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
PAC = 0 of 12 => 0.00% : North -> NONE \\\\//// South -> NONE
Non Big 5 schools : 1 of 63 = 1.59% of population : 1 of 125 = 0.80% of total
MAC = 1 of 13 => 7.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
MWC = 0 of 12 => 0.00% : West -> NONE \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
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 : 12 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : NONE
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 12 – 0 Ohio State
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 12 – 0 Northern Illinois
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #15 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs ACC : 12-0 Florida State vs 10-2 Duke | Saturday 8:00 pm | ABC
B1G vs B1G : 12-0 Ohio State vs 11-1 Michigan State | Saturday 8:17 pm | FOX
MAC vs MAC : 12-0 Northern Illinois vs 9-3 Bowling Green | Friday 8:00pm | ESPN2
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #14 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #14 ********
Alabama lost to Auburn
Fresno State lost to San Jose State
.
…
.
******** 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
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#14) ********
ACC : 6-6 Syracuse
CUSA : 6-6 Florida Atlantic
MWC : 6-6 San Jose State
SEC : 6-6 Mississippi State
SunB : 6-6 Troy / 6-6 LA – Monroe
.
…
.
******** Teams who can get to 6 in week #15 ********
AAC SMU and Rutgers
SunB South Alabama
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 14 according to Sagarin ************
(7) PAC / (3) SEC / (0) ACC / (0) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 Utah (PAC) 5-7, 2-7 : done
Utah St (MWC) + Weber St (FCS) + Oregon St + @ BYU (IND) + BYE + UCLA + Stanford
@ Arizona + @ Southern Cal + BYE + Arizona St + @ Oregon @ Washington St + Colorado
02 Washington State (PAC) 6-6, 4-5 : done
@ Auburn (SEC) + @ Southern Cal + Southern Utah (FCS) + Idaho (IND) + Stanford + @ Cal
Oregon St + @ Oregon + BYE + Arizona St + BYE + @ Arizona + Utah + @ Washington
03 California (PAC) 1-11, 0-9 : done
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland St (FCS) + Ohio St (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon + Washington St
@ UCLA + Oregon St + @ Washington + Arizona + USC + @ Colorado + @ Stanford + BYE
04 Arizona State (PAC) 10-2, 8-1 : vs Stanford in PAC CCG
BYE + Sacramento St (FCS) + Wisc (B1G) + @ Stanford + USC + N Dame (IND) + Colorado
Washington + BYE + @ Washington St + @ Utah + Oregon St + @ UCLA + Arizona
05 Stanford (PAC) 10-2, 7-2 : @ Arizona State in PAC CCG
BYE + San Jose St (MWC) + @ Army (IND) Arizona St + @ Washington St + Washington
@ Utah + UCLA + @ Oregon St + BYE + Oregon + @ Southern Cal + @ Cal + Notre Dame
06 UCLA (PAC) 9-3, 6-3 : done
Nevada (MWC) + BYE + @ Neb + N Mexico St (IND) + BYE + @ Utah + Cal + @ Stanford
@ Oregon + Colorado + @ Arizona + Washington + Arizona St + @ Southern Cal
07 Colorado (PAC) 4-8, 1-8 : done
Colorado St (MWC) + C Arkansas (FCS) + Fresno St (MWC) + BYE + @ Oregon St + Oregon
@ Arizona St + BYE + Arizona + @ UCLA + @ Washington + California + USC + @ Utah
08 Georgia (SEC) 8-4, 5-3 : done
@ Clemson (ACC) + S Carolina + BYE + N Texas (CUSA) + LSU + @ Tennessee + Missouri
@ Vanderbilt + BYE + Florida + Appalachian St (FCS) + @ Auburn + Kentucky + @ Ga Tech
09 Mississippi State (SEC) 6-6, 3-5 : done
Ok St (TX) (B12) + Alcorn St (FCS) + @ Auburn + Troy (S B) + BYE + LSU + BGSU (MAC)
BYE + Kentucky + @ South Carolina + @ Texas A&M + Alabama + @ Arkansas + Ole Miss
10 Mississippi (SEC) 7-5, 3-5 : done
@ Vanderbilt + SEMO (FCS) + @ Texas (B12) + BYE + @ Alabama + @ Auburn + TAMU
LSU + Idaho + BYE + Arkansas + Troy (SunB) + Missouri + @ Mississippi State
LikeLike
hey bullet or any other Big 12 guys, any word on who’s going to represent the Big 12 in the Cotton Bowl this year?
From what I’m hearing Mizzou will be in the Cotton Bowl if they lose in the SEC title game.
Does Texas have a good shot at it? It would be fun to play them again.
LikeLike
Texas’ only chance to make the Cotton Bowl is if they beat Baylor and Okie St. beats the Sooners and then the Cotton Bowl decides that a 9-3 UT is a better draw than a 10-2 Baylor on account of the head to head win and size of the fanbase. That’s certainly possible, but not exactly likely in my opinion.
LikeLike
Now that I think about it, there is one other slim possibility for Texas to make the Cotton Bowl. If OSU and Baylor both win and go to BCS bowls the Cotton Bowl might take an 8-4 UT over a 9-3 Oklahoma simply because Oklahoma played in the Cotton Bowl last year.
Obviously the odds of this scenario are tiny, but they are non-zero.
LikeLike
I don’t think the odds of that one are tiny at all.
OSU is favored over OU. BU is favored over UT. Bowling Green is decent. If they win over NIU then another spot opens up. Then the Sugar would just need to pick Baylor over Oregon (not impossible) and the Cotton is down to OU or UT. OU went there last year, so…
Not sure how likely it is but none of those individual requirements by themselves are all that unlikely.
LikeLike
I dunno. Bowl selection is pretty loose in the Big 12. If Texas can make any kind of argument they might just get it.
But yeah, I agree they’d probably need to beat Baylor.
I suppose Baylor could get an at-large BCS bid if Bowling Green beats NIU.
Oklahoma went there last year, so I’m not sure they’d get picked again.
Really, I don’t know. Which is why I asked.
LikeLike
don’t forget that Nebraska is in the equation with the BWW game. TX-Neb would be good for ratings. Assuming BWW wanted that matchup, I bet they try and pull some favors with the Cotton Bowl guys if they have any favors to pull. Same true (to a lesser extent) with OKLA.
LikeLike
Sorry, probably didn’t make my point very clearly. If another game really really wants Texas and it’s a decent game, then the Cotton Bowl guys have a reason to not try and shoe-horn them in.
LikeLike
Nebraska-OU would probably be an even more attractive matchup. That was a long-standing Big 8 rivalry, and I’m sure both fanbases would be excited to play again.
LikeLike
I’m hearing Texas and Phoenix, one way or the other. Either Buffalo Wild Wings or the Fiesta if they win the conference. Baylor/LSU is the most common Cotton thought. OU was there last year so they probably do the Alamo.
LikeLike
One line of thinking is that Texas played OU in Dallas and TCU in Ft. Worth and will play OU and UCLA in Dallas next year, so it wouldn’t work well for the bowl or Texas.
LikeLike
I see. I’ve been hearing that they’re moving LSU to Tampa for the Outback vs. Iowa for some reason.
So you’re hearing Baylor is most likely for the Cotton. I guess unless they end up in the Fiesta or Sugar.
LikeLike
LSU vs. Iowa? Not exactly appointment viewing.
LikeLike
LSU played Iowa in the 2005 Capitol One Bowl and we got this:
LikeLike
@greg – Yeah, I was about to say that the LSU-Iowa game was probably the best Capital One Bowl that I could remember. It’s not necessarily the sexiest TV matchup, but it’s excellent for the traveling fan/ticket sales side of the equation.
LikeLike
The 2005 Cap One Bowl against Iowa was Saban’s last game as the LSU coach. He announced his move to Dolphins a week earlier and had already checked out.
LikeLike
The 2013 version will be far less compelling.
LikeLike
More compelling than whatever bowl Nebraska is in.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Mount Pelini can blow at any moment.
LikeLike
Andy – after the 2005 season, the SEC instituted a rule that the loser of the SEC CG could not fall below the Cotton/Cap One/Outback Bowls, if the team is not selected as a BCS at large. This year, the Cotton Bowl is required to take the loser if the team is not already selected.
The Outback & Cotton choose after the Cap One, with the Outback getting preference with an Eastern Division team, while the Cotton gets a preference for the West.
Everything that I have heard until this afternoon has been LSU to the Cotton. There are a few message board rumors about an Outback/Cotton swap. The Outback has only chosen Auburn and Alabama from the West since this bowl arrangement has been instituted, but since LSU is more southern and more eastern than SEC East member Mizzou, its possible.
LikeLike
Sources at Mizzou are saying Cotton is by far the most likely if Missouri loses to Auburn. They are saying LSU would go to the Outback. They may turn out to be wrong, I don’t know.
LikeLike
2010 SEC championship game loser went to the Chick-fil-a Bowl, where Steve Spurrier lost to Florida State again. 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah, and they made a rule to prevent that. By rule this year if the Sugar and Capital One bowls pass on the SEC CG loser then the Cotton has to take them.
LikeLike
Andy,
If that’s the case, it must have been put in place in the past two years. Alan implied that the rule was put into effect after 2005, but the SEC CG loser played in the Chick-fil-a Bowl much more recently than that.
BTW, does the Cotton have to take them, or could the Outback instead? Hypothetically, I would imagine that Georgia, Florida, or South Carolina would make much more sense in the Outback Bowl than the Cotton, even though the Cotton is considered more prestigious.
LikeLike
The rule was made to prevent the championship loser from falling below the once and future Peach Bowl in the order, not from falling to it. From last season:
“SEC spokesman Charles Bloom confirmed to the AJC Monday that “the loser of the SEC Championship Game has protection not to fall below the Chick-fil-A Bowl in the SEC selection order.”
http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog/2012/11/26/bowl-options-not-great-for-sec-championship-game-loser/
It’s a big game with bigger money, which is why it’ll be in the playoff rotation. That said, I think there’s no way a losing Missouri ends up in the Peach, especially if there’s any desire for a Missouri-Nebraska bowl in Florida.
LikeLike
@Aaron – One would think that the Peach Bowl is the worst destination for the SEC Championship Game loser for everyone involved (the team, the bowl organizers trying to sell tickets, etc.) since they’d be going back to the exact same location of Atlanta. From my glance at the Peach Bowl history, the only 2 SEC championship game losers that they’ve taken are 1997 Auburn and 2010 South Carolina.
LikeLike
Frank – during the 2005 (Hurricanes Katrina & Rita) season and Les Miles’ first with the Tigers, LSU lost the SEC CG and played in the Peach Bowl. The Sugar Bowl was also played in Atlanta that season.
LikeLike
+1 to all of you for calling it the Peach Bowl.
LikeLike
Michael – the local newspapers reported that the rule change was in response to LSU losing the 2005 SEC CG returning to Atlanta less than a month later to play in the Peach. I guess it took effect after the 2010 season. Nonetheless, its still a conference rule now. The Cotton is required to take the loser of the SEC CG this season, if it is passed over by the BCS, Cap One, and Outback bowls.
LikeLike
Results of week #14
AP – #23 Southern California and #25 Notre Dame dropped out
AP – #23 Texas and #25 Georgia moved in
(7) SEC : #3 Auburn, #4 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #8 SCarolina, #14 LSU, #22 TAMU, #25 UGA
(4) B12 : #6 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #18 Oklahoma, #23 Texas
(4) PAC : #7 Stanford, #11 Arizona State, #12 Oregon, #17 UCLA
(3) ACC : #1 Florida State, #13 Clemson, #20 Duke
(3) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #10 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #15 Central Florida, #19 Louisville
(1) MAC : #16 Northern Illinois
(1) MWC : #24 Fresno State
Cincinnati (45) / SouthernCal (28) / NotreDame (26) / Miami (26) / Iowa (23) / Vanderbilt (16)
.
…
.
USA – #23 Southern Cal dropped out
USA – #24 Texas moved in
(6) SEC : #3 Auburn, #4 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #7 South Carolina, #14 LSU, #25 Texas A&M
(4) B12 : #6 Oklahoma State, #7 Baylor, #15 Oklahoma, #24 Texas
(4) PAC : #10 Stanford, #12 Oregon, #13 Arizona State, #19 UCLA
(3) ACC : #1 Florida State, #11 Clemson, #20 Duke
(3) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #9 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(3) AAC : #16 Louisville, #17 Central Florida, #23 Cincinnati
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
(1) MWC : #22 Fresno State
Miami (47) / Georgia (41) / Vanderbilt (18) / Iowa (13) / Marshall (13) / Southern Cal (10)
.
…
.
Harris – #23 Southern Cal and #25 Notre Dame dropped out
Harris – #24 Texas and #25 Georgia moved in
(7) SEC : #3 Auburn, #4 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #8 SCarolina, #14 LSU, #23 TAMU, #25 UGA
(4) B12 : #6 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #16 Oklahoma, #24 Texas
(4) PAC : #7 Stanford, #12 Oregon, #13 Arizona State, #19 UCLA
(3) ACC : #1 Florida State, #11 Clemson, #20 Duke
(3) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #10 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #17 Louisville, #18 Central Florida
(1) MAC : #15 Northern Illinois
(1) MWC : #22 Fresno State
Cincinnati (142) / Miami (88) / Southern Cal (51) / Notre Dame (19) / Ball State (17)
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 07
(7) SEC : #3 Auburn, #4 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #8 SCarolina, #15 LSU, #22 UGA, #24 TAMU
(4) B12 : #6 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #17 Oklahoma, #25 Texas
(4) PAC : #7 Stanford, #11 Arizona State, #12 Oregon, #18 UCLA
(3) ACC : #1 Florida State, #13 Clemson, #20 Duke
(3) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #10 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #16 Central Florida, #19 Louisville
(1) MAC : #14 Northern Illinois
(1) MWC : #23 Fresno State
Dropped out : #23 Southern Cal and #25 Notre Dame
Moved in : #22 Georgia and #25 Texas
.
…
.
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 = 6-8 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = FLORIDA STATE
ACC (5-5) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (1-3) :::::::: 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 = NONE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (4-4) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
PAC : B5 = 6-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = NONE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (5-5) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (1-0) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC : B5 = 8-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 2-1 : OFF = NONE :: U = NONE
ACC (3-1) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (5-5) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
Most scheduled pretty well except for the B12, 20% of their conference took the week off.
LikeLike
BCS MNC hopefuls by conferences :
AAC – No real hope
Louisville (10-1) lost to Central Florida 35-38
Central Florida (10-1) lost to South Carolina 25-28
ACC – Florida State is a favorite to make it
Florida State (12-0)
B12 – Both are now probably long shots
Oklahoma State (10-1) lost to West Virginia 21-30
Baylor (10-1) lost to Oklahoma State 17-49
B1G – Both win to the B1G CCG, only winner has a chance
Ohio State (12-0)
Michigan State (11-1) lost to Notre Dame 13 – 17
CUSA – no hope
IND = no hope
MAC – No real hope
Northern Illinois (12-0)
MWC – No real hope
PAC – Everybody has at least 2 losses, so no real hope
SEC – Winner of SEC CCG favorite especially if they won the Iron Bowl to get there
Alabama (11-1) lost to Auburn 28-34
Auburn (11-1) lost to LSU 21-35
Missouri (11-1) 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
Apparently, there will be TARP covering both upper-deck endzones at the ACC Title Game this weekend.
FSU- Duke! CATCH THE FEVER!!
LikeLike
IMO, the league championship games are one of the worst developments in college football over the last 20 years or so…….a complete $$ grab
LikeLike
IMO, the league championship games are one of the worst developments in college football over the last 20 years or so…….a complete $$ grab
I am shocked — shocked — to hear that there is money in college sports. It’s the very first I’ve heard of it.
LikeLike
I, for one, refuse to believe that money has sullied the purity of amateur collegiate athletics.
Seriously though, can’t some Dookies buy some tickets to a Sat night game in Charlotte? Study for finals in the stands.
LikeLike
I thought I was the only one who realized that the Auburn-Alabama classic would be almost meaningless to fans of other teams in the playoff system until Rece Davis made that very point on ESPN. No one is going to get excited over seeding. I hope college football fans enjoyed the suspense and drama of this regular season, because they clearly didn’t know what they had when they ditched it for a playoff.
— J.D. Bolick, Lincolton, N.C.
That’s a bit melodramatic. In next year’s system, the Iron Bowl would have been far from meaningless and the ending no less exciting. But there’s no question the stakes would have been lower. Auburn would have kept itself alive in the playoff hunt, while Alabama would have hurt its chances, though it would still be very much in the mix. That’s the tradeoff we’re making with the new system. It creates an opportunity to settle the Ohio State/SEC champion debate on the field rather than over the airwaves. Selection controversy moves a couple of rungs down the ladder, where the excluded teams aren’t as deserving in the first place. In turn, however, if that same exact game ended in the same exact fashion in 2014, the single biggest reason it was so significant — the season-long favorite Crimson Tide were eliminated from national title contention (barring the Armageddon scenario detailed above) in the span of 14 seconds — would no longer be an element.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131204/college-football-mailbag-bcs-armageddon/#ixzz2mXh9Na9Q
LikeLike
Overall, the playoff means that the number of relevant late-season games goes up. However, there clearly will be cases where games are less meaningful, and this is one of them.
Of course, an ending like that would never be forgotten, much like the Stanford Band ending, which had nothing at stake whatsoever.
LikeLike
Saw this on another board, pretty sure it’s accurate:
Here are the TV share and viewer numbers from this season.
UT-BYU …………. 0.8 ….. 1,290,000
UT-Ole Miss …….. 0.1 ….. 130,000 (LHN)
UT-ISU …………. 1.5 ….. 2,400,000
UT-OU ………….. 3.0, …. 4,710,000
UT-TCU………. … 0.4, …. 676,000 (What an upgrade!)
UT-KU ………….. 0.1 ….. 130,000 (LHN)
UT-WVU …………. 1.5 ….. 2,650,000
UT-OSU …………. 1.4 ….. 2,190,000
UT-Tech ………… 0.7 ….. 1,050,000 (Same as N. Illinois-Toledo)
A&M-Rice ……….. 2.7 ….. 4,200,000
A&M-‘Bama ………. 8.5 … 13,590,000
A&M-SMU ………… 0.5 ….. 809,000
A&M-Arky ……….. 1.7 ….. 2,760,000
A&M-Ole Miss ……. 3.2 ….. 5,110,000
A&M-Auburn ……… 4.2 ….. 6,730,000
A&M-UTEP ……….. 0.7 ….. 1,120,000
A&M-MSU ………… 2.9 ….. 4,530,000
A&M-LSU ………… 4.8 ….. 8,140,000
A&M-Mizzou ……… 3.6 ….. 5,730,000
Average share:
A&M …… 3.28
UT …… 1.06
Total viewers:
A&M …… 52,719,000
UT …… 15,181,000
LikeLike
only complaint I’ve seen is that UT’s numbers are missing Baylor and KSU, and A&M is missing Vanderbilt. But still. Probably still looking at least a 30,000,000 gap.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see the ratings next Thanksgiving night with A&M plays LSU and Texas plays TCU.
LikeLike
Ha!
LikeLike
Wow. Those numbers are shocking.
A&M had five more games with greater viewership than the Red River Rivalry?
This can’t be going over well in Austin.
LikeLike
Is this Aggie math? Ask someone other than Rick Perry to help you add those again.
LikeLike
Huh?
A&M’s games against Bama, Ole Miss, Missouri, Auburn, and LSU all had viewership higher than the 4,710,000 in the RRR.
Do you actually disagree or are you just trying to be an ass?
LikeLike
Jokes on me. My eyes are going with age and missed either that Auburn or Mizzou game with the formatting.
LikeLike
Bullet, care to comment on aTm/UT/Texas politics in light of Powers battles and the exodus at aTm (Missouri is the promised land?)?
LikeLike
Texas and Texas A&M have traditionally worked very well together on academic issues. They both have a piece of the Permanent University Fund and have tried to protect that and their own growth against attacks on that to ease the budget pressures. On various other issues, they have pretty consistently worked together on things that impact the flagship campuses.
That changed in the last couple of years with Loftin. Loftin gave in to Perry’s demands. Powers publically fought him without any help from A&M. The Texas-exes mobilized the alumni. John Sharp is the A&M chancellor (first one to defend Johnny Autograph) and former Democratic governor candidate and Texas State Comptroller (statewide elected office). Maybe Loftin felt he couldn’t fight Sharp and Perry-two Aggies, two leading politicans from two different parties. I don’t really know what Loftin has been thinking as he hasn’t publically opposed Perry’s plans at all, to the extent A&M got a warning letter from the AAU. He has also followed Perry’s plans and increased A&M’s enrollment to over 53,000. A&M had held at 45,000 since the mid-90s as they felt that getting larger would compromise educational quality, much as Texas has held at 50k since around 1980. Texas has a member of the board suggesting going to 70,000.
LikeLike
Here is a link on what Perry is trying to do:http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2011/08/29/what-are-texas-seven-college-solutions/
Jeff Sandefer, who was teaching entrepeneurship at UT, is the one who generated these 7 solutions. He saw waste, tenured professors who no longer produced, professors not interested in teaching and lots of liberal arts major who couldn’t get jobs.
But his solutions gut research, gut liberal arts and strikes at the tenure system which is there to protect freedom of thought. He’s trying to put a cost-benefit on research which also strikes at freedom of thought. And it turns research universities into diploma mills.
If you look anywhere in the country, economic development is strongly supported by these research universities. Austin is a high-tech mecca along with Boston and the Silicon Valley because of UT. A&M is developing a bioresearch corridor from Houston to College Station. Perry, very conservative, oddly thinks government can determine what should best be researched. Or he doesn’t value it at all.
And Perry is appointing regents who support these 7 solutions and they are trying to force out Powers who is trying to defend a half century of progress. Perry has 4 of the 9 supporting him.
At the moment one of those regents (the one who contacted Saban last January-but not because of that) is under investigation by the legislature. The legislature is solidly behind President Powers. Both of the main Republican candidates to replace Perry next year are expected to be on Powers side. The belief is that Powers is merely trying to wait out Perry before retiring.
LikeLike
Here are the complete CFB TV ratings through November 23.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Here’s all the games with a ratings 4.0 and over.
8.5 Bama/A&M – week 3 (CBS)
6.9 LSU/Bama – week 11 (CBS)
5.3 ND/Michigan – week 2 (ESPN)
5.1 Miami/FSU – week 10 (ABC)
4.8 UGA/Clemson – week 1 (ABC)
4.7 A&M/LSU – week 13 (CBS)
4.6 LSU/UGA – week 5 (CBS)
4.4 tOSU/N’western – week 6 (ABC)
4.3 SCar/UGA – week 2 (ESPN)
4.2 Auburn/A&M – week 8 (CBS)
4.0 Wisc/tOSU – week 5 (ABC)
4.0 Baylor/OK State – week 13 (ABC)
LikeLike
Hmmm.
Looking at those numbers it is interesting to see how dramatic the effect of playing for a championship can really have.
Notre Dame’s NBC ratings dropped 28.44% compared to last year 2012, but are still up 36.25% compared to 2011’s record low.
LikeLike
frug – its also interesting to see just how horrible the FOX and FS1 ratings are.
LikeLike
Well, when you could only air the occasional B12 and PAC game involving middle to lower tier teams, plus C-USA, you get the ratings you get. That’s why Fox Sports has to go hard for the B1G.
LikeLike
No, the lesson is that the Big 10 shouldn’t completely sever its ties with ESPN. Fox hasn’t caught hold and FS1 doesn’t have enough carriage.
LikeLike
Good discussion of the SEC’s great year in ratings.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/12/sec_on_cbs_football_ratings_in.html
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Here are the complete CFB TV ratings through November 23.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Here’s all the games with a ratings 4.0 and over.
8.5 Bama/A&M – week 3 (CBS)
6.9 LSU/Bama – week 11 (CBS)
5.3 ND/Michigan – week 2 (ESPN)
5.1 Miami/FSU – week 10 (ABC)
4.8 UGA/Clemson – week 1 (ABC)
4.7 A&M/LSU – week 13 (CBS)
4.6 LSU/UGA – week 5 (CBS)
4.4 tOSU/N’western – week 6 (ABC)
4.3 SCar/UGA – week 2 (ESPN)
4.2 Auburn/A&M – week 8 (CBS)
4.0 Wisc/tOSU – week 5 (ABC)
4.0 Baylor/OK State – week 13 (ABC)”
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/12/04/epic-iron-bowl-delivers-most-watched-college-football-game-to-date-of-2013-season/220234/
Well, the Iron Bowl is the new #2. It drew an 8.2 rating, but more total viewers than AL/TAMU.
CBS has the top 3 games so far and averaged a 4.2 for the season. That’s the highest they’ve ever been (started in 2001).
LikeLike
Alabama will have the top 3 ratings and not another in the top 25.
It really shows the influence of the casual viewer. Big games sell. Mismatches don’t.
LikeLike
And those B12 homers think they can bring Arky and LSU into the fold.
LikeLike
@ Frank
Back to your 8 team playoff scenario. Here are the schools with 0 or 1 losses :
AAC : 10-1 Central Florida @ SMU beat 10-1 Louisville @ UC
At best both win their final games so only Central Florida would have a claim
ACC : 12-0 Florida State is the only school with a claim
B12 : 10-1 Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma beat 10-1 Baylor vs Texas
At best both win their final games so only Oklahoma State would have a claim
B1G : 12-0 Ohio State vs 11-1 Michigan State
Only winner will have a claim
MAC : 12-0 Northern Illinois vs 9-3 Bowling Green
Only if Northern Illinois wins would they have a claim
MWC : 10-1 Fresno State
– only played 11 games because Colorado game was cancelled
– lost to a 6-6 San Jose State
– played not even 1 Big 5 school, and very weak schedule
No way Fresno State has a claim
PAC : Has no teams with 0 or 1 loss
– Stanford loss @ Utah eliminates the Cardinal
– Oregon loss @ Arizona 16-42 eliminates the Ducks
– Arizona had 2 losses including 28-42 to Cardinal eliminates the Sun Devils
SEC : 11-1 Auburn vs 11-1 Missouri and 11-1 Alabama
– eliminate 2 loss South Carolina
– eliminate loser of SEC CCG
SEC CCG winner has best claim and 1 loss Alabama follows behind that
.
…
.
Under an 8 team scenario that leave you the following teams
playoff game #1
#1 12-0 Florida State
#8 11-1 Fresno State if they beat Utah State or 11-1 Baylor if they beat Texas
playoff game #2
#3 12-1 SEC CCG winner
#6 10-1 Central Florida if it beats SMU
playoff game #3
#4 11-1 Alabama
#5 10-1 Oklahoma State if they beat Oklahoma
playoff game #4
#2 B1G CCG winner
#7 12-0 Northern Illinois if they beat Bowling Green
Keep in mind that happy advertisers are the #1 objective – because they write the checks to put on the show – and how happy will they be if FSU vs Fresno State and B1G vs NIU are snoozers after the first quarter?
After that there is too many loopholes to cause discontent past a 4 team playoff
#1 The 2 loss teams will piss and moan but they lost the second game
#2 The teams that must play a CCG will piss and moan to the teams that do not (B12)
#3 The Big 5 schools will piss and moan about non Big 5 conference schedule inequality
#4 You could have early blowouts and unhappy fans and advertisers
Frank,
Show me your 8 and I can show you a better system with only 4 pretty much every time.
LikeLike
@duffman – Whether a team is undefeated or has only 1 loss wouldn’t be outcome determinative in my system. It would simply be (a) the 5 power conference champs plus the next 3 best at-larges or, alternatively for “political correctness”, (b) the 5 power conference champs, the best Gang of Five champ and the next 2 best at larges.
Under (a), the playoff would look like this (assuming that the highest ranked team in BCS standings will be the conference champ):
Rose: #2 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #7 Stanford (Pac-12 champ)
Sugar: #3 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. #5 Missouri (at-large)
Orange: #1 Florida State (ACC champ) vs. #8 South Carolina (at-large)
Fiesta: #6 Oklahoma State (Big 12 champ) vs. #4 Alabama (at-large)
Obviously, this is going to look different after Saturday since the rankings for Auburn and Missouri will change at the very least and there wouldn’t be a rematch in the Sugar Bowl in reality, but we’re just using the current standings for simplicity.
Under (b) with a slot for the best Gang of Five champ, it would look like this:
Rose: #2 Ohio State (Big Ten) vs. #7 Stanford (Pac-12)
Sugar: #3 Auburn (SEC) vs. #5 Missouri (at-large)
Orange: #1 Florida State (ACC) vs. #14 Northern Illinois (Gang of Five)
Fiesta: #6 Oklahoma State (Big 12) vs. #4 Alabama (at-large)
Personally, I think the matchups in both systems are great (albeit I don’t think the human committee will end up being as SEC-heavy on the at-large picks as the BCS computations), but that’s just me.
LikeLike
Gee, only 4 SEC schools. Why not give them 6 or 7 spots just to make sure the best team is in there?
I’m so glad I wouldn’t be watching your playoff.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
The problem is you are glossing over the 2 loss (or more) issue inherent in conference champs who are champions in name only. Playing 12 games and losing one may be a mulligan but losing 2 or more games is just enabling mediocracy. Suppose a 8-4 or even 6-6 ACC team wins the ACC CCG, should they be allowed a playoff spot? How can you defend the 2 loss teams? It is not like Stanford, Oregon, or South Carolina should be rewarded for losing to Utah, Arizona, and Tennessee respectively. While I appreciate trying to keep the Rose Bowl as a B1G vs PAC game it is just not possible if part of that equation has a weak sister (in this year the PAC is roost for the 2 loss teams) in a given year.
(a), the playoff would look like this :
Rose: #2 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #7 Stanford (Pac-12 champ)
+ Ohio State will finish undefeated or with 1 loss, they deserve a space
– Stanford’s 2nd loss to Utah costs them a space even if they won the PAC CCG
Sugar: #3 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. #5 Missouri (at-large)
+ SEC CCG winner (12-1) deserves a space
– SEC CCG loser (11-2) does not deserve a space
Orange: #1 Florida State (ACC champ) vs. #8 South Carolina (at-large)
+ Florida State will finish undefeated or with 1 loss, they deserve a space
– South Carolina’s 2nd loss cost them a spot
Fiesta: #6 Oklahoma State (Big 12 champ) vs. #4 Alabama (at-large)
+/- Oklahoma State (with no extra CCG) would be on the bubble
+/- Alabama (with no extra CCG) would be on the bubble
Under your (a) a simpler and better playoff would be :
Rose Bowl = Ohio State vs Alabama or Oklahoma State
Sugar Bowl = Florida State vs Auburn / Missouri winner
I still think the “Gang of Five” should have their own Tier II playoff just because they do not, nor will they, play equivalent schedules to the Big 5. Here is who Northern Illinois beat this season (teams in BOLD finished the season below .500 for the season) :
08.31 @ 8-4 Iowa (B1G) W 30-27
09.07 BYE
09.14 @ 1-11 Idaho (IND) W 45-35
09.21 vs 11-1 Eastern Illinois (FCS) W 43-39
09.28 @ 1-11 Purdue (B1G) W 55-24
10.05 @ 4-8 Kent State W 38-24
10.12 vs 5-7 Akron W 27-20
10.19 @ 6-6 Cent Michigan W 38-17
10.26 vs 2 -10 Eastern Michigan W 59-20
11.02 @ 1-11 Massachusetts W 63-19
11.09 BYE
11.13 vs 10-2 Ball State W 48-27
11.20 @ 7-5 Toledo W 35-17
11.26 vs 1-11 Western Michigan W 33-14
12.06 vs 9-3 Bowling Green
The best game the NIU folks played was Iowa, here they are relative to the other 3 teams that beat Iowa this season by margin of victory.
+19 Wisconsin
+12 Michigan State
+10 Ohio State
+ 3 Northern Illinois
.
…
.
The downside to playing a CCG at the end of the season is that you have no sorting mechanism for CCG’s. This season only the B1G and SEC had viable CCG’s – where both teams were either undefeated or had 1 loss – to send a team to a MNC game. The ACC had only 1 viable team and the PAC had no viable teams. Being the Champion means you should be the best of the best, not the best of the pretty good.
LikeLike
duffman, how often are those “champions in name only” teams that aren’t brands, or schools that would almost never get a chance to take part in such a playoff? Denying a Texas or Michigan with two or more losses is arguable; denying Iowa State or Indiana in a similar situation is simply wrong.
LikeLike
Sooo… If the PAC played fewer conference games, say only in division, and a bunch more cupcakes would their increased number of undefeated and one loss teams now bestow the label of undeniably best conference?
LikeLike
Right. We don’t know that Stanford isn’t the best team this year. Maybe the Pac 12 is a lot tougher than the SEC overall this year. Its certainly comparable. And a 1 loss Big 10 or ACC team is better than a 2 loss Pac 12 team this year? To use a more extreme example, is a no loss NIU better than a 2 loss Pac 12 team?
LikeLike
Guys, I was cutting the Ducks and Cardinal slack for their good loos, but penalizing them for their bad loss. Remember Oklahoma State lost the shot at the brass ring not just for losing, but for losing to a bad Iowa State team. Having a good loss is more acceptable than having a loss to a team you should have beaten in the first place. Playing for a championship should mean playing like one all season. You keep addressing the PAC may be the best, which we do not know for sure, but losing to a bad team in a good conference is still losing to a bad team.
Alabama lost to Auburn but suppose that loss had been to Kentucky or Arkansas this season. Would anybody on here be defending them yet the Stanford loss to Utah and the Oregon loss to Arizona (and barely missed losing to Oregon State) get them a pass? Seems like a double standard.
Again, if you want a shot at the brass ring, do not lose 2 games to get there!!
This is not a complex concept to understand.
I went to school when they did not grade on the curve. You either knew the material and passed or you did not and you failed. I had a class where the professor failed over half the class and I was happy to pull the C. I learned more in that class than almost any other I took and I respected the professor for actually expecting us to learn.
LikeLike
Utah had the toughest schedule in country this year. They weren’t as bad as their record indicated.
LikeLike
Utah was 10th in the PAC12, and 1-3 against P12 teams with losing conference records (lost to OrSt, WaSt, AZ; beat CO). Utah’s only other conference win was the upset of Stanford. Utah did go 3-0 against Utah schools (Weber St, Utah St, BYU). The only thing strong about Utah’s schedule vs. other PAC12 schools is they did not play CA, by far the worst team in the conference. So Stanford’s loss to Utah is on par with OkSt loss to WV and worse than Oregon’s loss to AZ.
LikeLike
But they play nine conference games. Shouldn’t they be allowed to drop one from their record (played in leu of an extra Florida international house of pancakes)? 😉
I’d say Stanford plays better “SEC defense” than the SEC this year. What was the over/under for the SEC CCG?
LikeLike
This weeks games and any impact remaining on the BCS MNC slots
Thursday, December 5
7:30 PM : #19 Louisville @ Cincinnati : no real impact but a Card loss cements no chance
Friday, December 6
8:00 PM : #14 Northern Illinois vs Bowling Green : no real impact but NIU win = 13-0
Saturday, December 7
12:00 PM : #6 Oklahoma State vs #17 Oklahoma : Cowboy loss kills their claim
12:00 PM : #16 Central Florida @ Southern Methodist : Knights loss kills their claim
3:30 PM : #9 Baylor vs #25 Texas : Bear loss kills their claim
4:00 PM : #3 Auburn vs #5 Missouri vs. No. 3 Auburn : Loser forfeits their claim
8:00 PM : #1 Florida State vs #20 Duke : Seminole loss cripples their claim
8:17 PM : #2 Ohio State vs #10 Michigan State : Loser forfeits their claim
10:00 PM : #23 Fresno State vs Utah State : Bulldog loss cements no chance
LikeLike
um, duff… what is this stuff?
The only teams with any shot at the MNC at this point are FSU, Ohio State, Auburn, Missouri, and Alabama. That’s it. And even Alabama really doesn’t have a shot considering it would require FSU to lose to Duke, which isn’t going to happen. So we’re talking about 4 teams total. Not Louisville or Fresno State or whoever else you’re talking about.
LikeLike
I think Oklahoma State would have a better shot at a National title than Alabama if they beat Oklahoma convincingly. There’s quite a bit of SEC fatigue, and Oklahoma State would have at least won the conference championship. I don’t think either team has much of a shot.
LikeLike
The computers and current poll numbers would suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
Poll numbers will change some (enough? I don’t know) if OSU and FSU lose and Auburn wins and we are looking at an Alabama-Auburn rematch. There will be some sentiment that way even with a Missouri-Alabama game.
LikeLike
The only teams with any shot at the MNC at this point are FSU, Ohio State, Auburn, Missouri, and Alabama.
Florida State loses to Duke
Ohio State loses to Michigan State
Auburn loses to Missouri
By your thinking that means Missouri would play Alabama for the BCS MNC?
Since they will not allow another SEC vs SEC MNC game and big money brand names carry the most weight then Alabama vs Ohio State or Alabama vs Florida State seems most likely. However, politics may enter the fray to squeeze Michigan State or Oklahoma State into the game. While you may not feel either have a chance, I feel just the opposite.
While you see 4 candidates I see 6. The reason the others (Northern Illinois, Central Florida, and Fresno State) are included is their secondary effect on the primary teams. The non Big 5 block – the same folks who voted the Boise State and TCU teams in the past – will have some effect based on how they vote.
LikeLike
@duffman – Whether it’s the right thing or not, if both FSU and Ohio State lose on Saturday, I definitely believe that the national championship game will be the SEC champ vs. Alabama. I don’t see any forces in play that will “not allow” an all-SEC national title game in that scenario. Just looking at the BCS rankings, Alabama is very solidly lodged into 4th place across both the human and computer numbers. Frankly, the stronger force by comparison is that bloc of Southern voters that believe the SEC champ should be playing in the national championship game no matter what and they’d also be happy to vote for Bama. I’m not saying that I’d personally want to see that, but I don’t believe for a second that there would be a push to see Oklahoma State or Michigan State in the national title game at all over a Bama team whose lone loss was on one of the craziest plays anyone has ever seen.
LikeLike
I think if Auburn is the SEC champ, there will definitely be a push by voters. I don’t know if it will be enough.
LikeLike
The prosecutor investigating Jameis Winston said they’ll release results tomorrow at 2pm.
I’m guessing that means there probably won’t be charges. Do you announce a press conference if you are going to make charges?
LikeLike
They did with Zimmerman. But I agree it *probably* means no charges.
LikeLike
@Eric- Yes, that would be my guess, too. If they were going to press charges, they’d just arrest him.
LikeLike
In a bit of a coup, I’m hearing Missouri is hiring away Texas A&M President R Bowen Loftin to replace retiring Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton. Apparently Loftin was unhappy with Governor Perry’s meddlings at A&M and found a new home at Mizzou. He’ll have to switch to black and gold bow ties.
A&M raised some kind of enormous amount of money last year, like maybe $800M? And I think Loftin was a part of that. Seems like a good hire.
LikeLike
Sounds like a pretty big coup to me.
LikeLike
I want to expand on this:
Texas higher education looks completely dysfunctional with what’s going on at UT and A&M. Loftin seems to have been forced out, and obviously everyone knows what’s going on with Powers at Texas.
It just seems crazy that the two university systems are seeing so much strife among their top brass.
I’m sure bullet or Hopkins Horn or someone in Texas can comment more on that.
LikeLike
From what I heard Loftin wasn’t forced out. He resigned due to differences with Governor Perry. Also, I’ve heard a lot of people down at A&M were surprised and unhappy about him stepping down.
LikeLike
Funny he didn’t try to outlast Perry, who is not running for re-election in 2014.
LikeLike
But will anything really change down there in Texas when the next guy takes over for Perry?
LikeLike
Andy – while unlikely, it may be a girl that takes over for Perry.
http://www.wendydavistexas.com/
LikeLike
Perry is an outlier. Likely candidates will not support Perry’s changes.
LikeLike
Joe Jamail’s opinion on it (DKR Stadium at Joe Jamail Field) from Texas Monthly:
He’d been more eager to talk about the forces coming to bear on his beloved UT when I’d met with him earlier in the week at his Houston office. “Perry wants to make a trade school out of UT,” he complained. “He got some regents to go along with that to kiss his ass, but Powers resisted it. And he resisted Perry’s plan to decrease tuition. Perry didn’t like any of it. One thing Perry’s got to understand is, we impeached one goddam governor for fooling with the University of Texas.”
According to Jamail, Powers’s job is safe. “As I understand it, Perry can’t get the five votes he needs to get rid of him.” But that hardly tempered Jamail’s distaste for Perry loyalists. “I think Wallace Hall is an imbecile,” he said, referring to the UT regent who personally launched an investigation of Powers and the UT Law School Foundation’s controversial loan program with a series of massive open-records requests—for which he is now himself being investigated by the state House for misuse of office. Just as irksome to Jamail, Hall also reached out to Alabama coach Nick Saban’s agent to gauge Saban’s interest in replacing Brown. “Mack called me when that happened, and everybody saw my statement: You want to f— with his contract? Get ready to be sued.
“If Mack decides to leave,” he continued, “I’m sure Saban will look at the job. But right now Mack has no intention of leaving. The regents have said they’ve no intention of firing him. Powers has said it. DeLoss has said it. The ex-students’ association is totally behind him, and that’s the alumni. Red McCombs and I are behind him, and that’s a lot of money. There’s a vocal minority of fans who’ve booed him here recently, but hell, I’ve heard them boo when we’re winning. They used to boo Chris Simms when we were thirty points ahead. Mack’s contract runs through 2020. I know; I drew it up. If he feels like he’s played his string out before that, he’ll quit. But Mack will go out on his terms. The rest of this is bull$#@!.”
LikeLike
I don’t know the details but that seems like a huge hire for Mizzou. Loftin has always been highly regarded at A&M and around the country.
LikeLike
Confirmed:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/next-mizzou-chancellor-is-coming-from-texas-a-m/article_64075ff9-b176-5740-ba5a-4ba104b01b10.html
LikeLike
Andy,
Congrats… That is a huge win for Mizzou.
I know quite a few engineers that graduated from UT and A&M, and to a person, they are very concerned about what’s going on at their respective schools.
What is going on in Texas? I love college athletics, but these are institutions of higher learning. Why are you getting rid of presidents that have managed to run these schools well?
AL
LikeLike
Rick Perry. He thinks he knows everything about higher education. He was a C student at A&M when it wasn’t as good a school as it is now. On Shaggy Bevo someone posted what is supposedly his transcript (you never know whether these things are real or not) and he got 2 As in college-Improvement of Learning (not that it took) and something like Military hardware.
Basically he wants to turn everything into a community college and ignore liberal arts. There actually is some theory behind it, but like everything Perry tackles, he takes a concept and won’t let go even if a lot of it doesn’t make sense.
At Texas the head of the system is a guy who gives a lot of money to Baylor (although there are UT-exes doing his dirty work as well).
,
The legislature has created a Tier I fund to try to create more research universities (Houston and Texas Tech have qualified, UT Dallas and UT Arlington are close, UTSA, UTEP and UNT have a little further to go). Perry is going in the opposite direction and trying to undo that with the two we do have.
I don’t know ANYONE who likes Perry. And the majority of my friends are Republicans.
LikeLike
Huge news. Really good “get” for Mizzou.
LikeLike
So the Big Ten-ACC Challenge ends in a draw for the second straight year.
This may be the best the Big Ten does for a while after next year’s realignment.
LikeLike
Frug,
Not so sure because Md is solid & the ACC has to drop a team & one of these years the BIG will start a decent cycle of retaining all the incredible talent in it’s footprint which will include Jersey and Md, great hs basketball states.
The BIG also has upside with younger coaches.
I can’t see The Rushmore coaches of the ACC around much longer: Pitino, Williams, K, Boeheim, some are bound to retire soon.
But as I said below, the past two challenges were truly winnable.
LikeLike
MD is solid, but Louisville is quite a bit better. Meanwhile Rutgers is, well Rutgers
As for dropping a team, that actually benefits the ACC because they have already said they will simply leave behind the worst team based on the previous year’s RPI.
LikeLike
Well plenty of BIG fans don’t want UConn or KU because football, insert cliche here: “drives the bus”.
Those schools would join in a heart beat. UConn, alone, would offset Syracuse, ND and Pitt and KU has and edge on Lville – same number of NCs, but KU wins the all-time wins and tourney success sweepstakes, and by a sizable margin.
The BIG could at least want to be the best basketball conference. Football, I can’t see it happening, the recruits aren’t in the footprint like the basketball side.
LikeLike
That may all be true, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
LikeLike
As much as I love the thought of Kansas and U Conn for basketball, it would just do too much damage to the football brand…and this is coming from an IU fan……it’s not a matter of trying to overtake the SEC….it’s a matter of retaining football credibility…….especially in light of the troubles Rutgers is now experiencing in football…..although I really like Rutgers as a long-term middle of the road football program in the Big 10, they really appear to have the wrong coach at present. When he gets fired, you’ve got a 2-3 year rebuilding project going on.
LikeLike
Because I’m a BIG basketball fan, and would truly love tp elevate the brand with fantastic quality: UConn and KU are great basketball schools and good enough universities for the BIG. You just wrote a post predicting the BIG wouldn’t win a challenge for a while due to Lville’s forthcoming ACC membership, well I gave you a solution.
So my post is pretty obvious to someone like me, but not someone like you, which is beyond predictable, your history on here and all. I’ve seen plenty of your expansion wishes, sometimes practical and often utter fantasy and purely financial. If you don’t think the ACC expanded on basketball terms as well, then perhaps you’re short-sighted. And they didn’t let AAU status get in the way of adding a school like Louisville. Interestingly, the ACC now has a more diverse footprint than the BIG: Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast. They are more national, well they have been more national for a while because of their basketball dominance. The BIG does not dominate either of the big two sports.
LikeLike
No Mushroom, schools like Neb, PSU and Michigan need to start playing better and stay out of trouble. Really, all BIG programs have no choice but to recruit nationally and elevate their coaching staffs.
Mi, PSU, Neb, OSU, Wisky, MSU = plenty of football firepower as long as they are consistent on an annual basis. OSU is doing their thing. MSU and Wisky are pretty much there right now, Neb is on the cusp & Michigan, I believe, will turn it around next year & may have a nice bowl season to build on. If PSU becomes bowl eligible next year, which is apparently in the works, then the BIG isn’t far from being on at least 1990s – to early 2000s level again.
Sneak in solid seasons from the others each year, then the BIG is fine. Iowa and Minnesota are pretty good teams right now. Minnesota’s team is young, they could be very good next year.
Btw, Illinois, situated in one of the most populated states and enough good in-state recruits to field a consistently good team – well they are a GD frustrating mystery to me.
Everyone’s chasing the SEC. Their reign, most years, won’t end until an 8 team playoff and bowl system that hosts throughout the nation, not just in warm states, is in stone. Plenty of great domes in the Midwest, and one on the way (Minnesota). How people don’t understand the obvious built in advantages that Sun Belt schools have with CF is beyond me. Btw, I’ve watched BIG football for a long time, the current decade is not much different than the 80s when we won a grand total of 2 Rose Bowls while Miami pretty much dominated the decade. Hell, you do realize the BIG won only 1 Rose Bowl in the 70s, much during the 10 year war? It is what it, BIG football will chase the top teams throughout the Sun Belt because CF is a Sun Belt-biased sport.
LikeLike
You just wrote a post predicting the BIG wouldn’t win a challenge for a while due to Lville’s forthcoming ACC membership, well I gave you a solution.
I suppose, but it doesn’t change the fact that as presently constructed, the ACC is likely to dominate this thing for a while which was point.
If you don’t think the ACC expanded on basketball terms as well, then perhaps you’re short-sighted.
I agree they expanded for BB reasons and look at how well it worked out for them; they were forced to reverse a 60 year policy that they had reiterated they would never break as recently as last year by adding ND as a partial member. And in spite of that the ACC is still a distant fifth in revenue race (and perhaps in the stability game as well).
—
Also, per your previous post, Kansas wouldn’t “join in a heartbeat”. They would like to, but
A) They are bound by a GOR
and
B) So long as the Big XII remains viable they are stuck with K-State
LikeLike
I think the ACC’s expansion with UL, SYR, Pitt and 1/2 of ND saved the day in the short-term, and on the face of it looks strong, esp. in basketball, but I do see some LT issues–
1. Football-oriented schools like Clemson, Miami and FSU can’t be too thrilled with adding football-challenged, yankee schools Pitt and SYR….
2, ND’s special treatment will ultimately be resented…it was in the BE, it will be in the ACC
3. The Tobacco road schools + VA are culturally still a seperate block from the football-oriented deep south schools and the yankee schools of BC, Pitt, ND, and Syracuse.
If the ACC can ultimately convince ND to become a full member, it will become permanently stable…….ND might just do it some day, to piss in the Big 10’s soup as much as anything……
LikeLike
At least Kansas is a Big Ten-style school academically. Connecticut isn’t…yet, which is why the Big Ten wants nothing to do with Storrs. You can scream “basketball” till the cows come home, and that won’t change things.
LikeLike
1. Football-oriented schools like Clemson, Miami and FSU can’t be too thrilled with adding football-challenged, yankee schools Pitt and SYR….
Pitt and Syr were clearly net pluses for the ACC. It’s not as if there were football schools they passed over, in order to get those schools. Besides that, it doesn’t matter what Clemson, Miami and FSU think, unless they have a better conference to go to. As of now, they don’t.
2, ND’s special treatment will ultimately be resented…it was in the BE, it will be in the ACC
Anyone with an on ounce of sense knew the BE was better off with ND, even with its special privileges, than they were with out it.
If the ACC can ultimately convince ND to become a full member, it will become permanently stable…….ND might just do it some day, to piss in the Big 10′s soup as much as anything……
ND isn’t going to join permanently to spite the Big Ten. It will join if it no longer wants to be independent, or can no longer be. Right now, they’re getting everything they want, so why should they change?
LikeLike
Mushroom,
I don’t know if the ACC will have long-term issues yet, esp if FSU wins the NC this year, which is quite possible. If FSU wins it all, the ACC will have last year’s strong bowl season to build off of and of course the last BCS NC. ND may play a partial schedule, but if they remain consistent under Kelly it’s enough fire power perception to add to the ACC’s overall brand. Let’s face it, ND will always play a national schedule & in years they are successful out of conference, the ACC can build on it, esp if the full members upset them on the gridiron.
Remember as well, the ACC has one advantage that they share with the SEC – recruiting footprint, albeit they don’t have any schools in Al, Miss, Ark, Tenn or Tx. The question is: Can their Southeastern schools chip away at the SEC?
It also helps that the ACC has plenty of ESPN support.
Honestly, I prefer a strong ACC because of the partially shared footprint with the SEC, they have an opportunity to beat them often enough: annual games between Clemson-SCar, GT-UGa, WF – Tenn, FSU & Miami – UFA. But I’m not exactly happy that they are clearly in the Midwest & Rust Belt now: Pitt, Syracuse & ND. And who knows if Pitt-PSU finally get their series going again and on a consistent basis. ACC basketball already plucks plenty of players from the Midwest-Rust Belt-Northeast.
LikeLike
VP,
I don’t think UConn, as an academic institution, is remotely average. It may not have the research status of a typical BIG school, but it’s a nicely ranked undergraduate school, often higher than many BIG schools & not just US News holds this opinion.
UConn is the flagship of CT, a state filled with strong education, in fact right on par with & sometimes higher than Md. It’s a wealthy state as well, albeit slow to no growth. The state continues to invest in UConn, which is rare in this slash and burn age of public schools.
I think one problem with expansion is that the powers & kings in a given sport feel threatened by a candidate who may steal some of their thunder. Duke and Coach K were initially pissed at ACC expansion & K cited tradition lost, esp the home and homes. But he changed his tune because, well, he’s a competitor at the end of the day. I like coaches and programs who say: “Bring it on, we’ll take your best shot”.
VP, I know smaller Olympic sports don’t have much of a voice, but UConn just won the field hockey NC, a sport Md dominates – it went into a final four field with 3 ACC schools & did it! They also have a great men’s soccer program, hell they just beat UCLA in this year’s most thrilling College Cup game @ UCLA. In fact, UConn may win it all & that would tie them with Md in NCs. We know where UConn stands on the hardwood.
I embrace competition & an even more diverse footprint. UConn will carry their weight and provide Md with instant rivalries in sports you all value, minus lacrosse, albeit they could get there someday since Long Island prep lacrosse is right in their backyard. I think UConn solidifies the BIG’s Northeast presence & from there the conference can address the Western edge from that point on.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“UConn and KU are great basketball schools and good enough universities for the BIG.”
That second part may be your opinion, but it is clearly not one shared by the COP/C in regards to UConn. KU is probably borderline for them, but likely acceptable since they are AAU.
LikeLike
@Marc
Pitt and Syr were clearly net pluses for the ACC.
On their on, probably not. The new TV deal the ACC negotiated after their addition (which was the primary reason they were added) wasn’t a substantial improvement over the old one, and given that it required the league to tack on an additional 4 years to the underwhelming deal and give ESPN even more media rights (like sponsorship rights to the MBB tourney) may have been even worse than just riding out the old deal.
It’s not as if there were football schools they passed over, in order to get those schools.
West Virginia begs to differ.
Anyone with an on ounce of sense knew the BE was better off with ND, even with its special privileges, than they were with out it.
I have never understood this argument. ND brought nothing. Their MBB program, while competitive, has limited TV value and loses money every year (the only major conference team to do so).
LikeLike
funk, I agree with most of what you’re saying above concerning the perception of Big 10 football………problem is, as a society anymore, we don’t have a collective memory that
goes back much longer than 2 years……as an example,3-4 years ago everyone said, (and they were correct then), that the Pac10/12 “sucked”….USC was on probation, Oregon was just getting going, Washington and UCLA were down.
As another example, the ACC really sucked bad this year, but they are in large part getting a pass because FSU really looks like a great team…..whereas OSU at least looks like something of a pretender. I think that overall the Big 10 is MUCH better than the ACC this year, but you wouldn’t know it from constantly reading about how much the Big 10 sucks.
What concerns me about the Big 10 now is that perception may turn into reality, as it kinda has to the ACC with FSU and Miami being down so long………and adding U Conn and Kansas when UM, PSU, and NEB are still down, and Rutgers is off the tracks, may be a PR nightmare.
LikeLike
The BIG-ACC Challenge ends in yet another 6-6 draw where BIG teams had the momentum and choked away winnable games, Illinois and esp MSU. I mean I’m beyond pissed at MSU, esp Izzo right now. I’ve been a fan since 79 & one thing is for certain: Izzo is outright horrible, head-to-head, with Roy Williams and Coach K. They own us.
This was such a beatable UNC team, but the heart, execution, effort, preparation, in-game adjustments were terrible & even worse, I’ve never seen Izzo throw the towel in towards the end of a close game like this one. He pulled the starters, granted some were injured, but he literally gave up and started fouling with just under 4 minutes to play. Btw, injuries have been a pattern with Izzo teams the past few years – perhaps its time to tweak the practices and stress more time in the gym & preventative training.
Illinois fans, I don’t even want to talk about that melt down yesterday, I’m sure there’s been plenty to say – but Egwu truly needs to be singled out for the loss – reckless play at the end of the game.
Interestingly, a Challenge win came down to MSU and Izzo, the most experienced and successful coach in the BIG, ranked first & playing one of the weaker UNC teams I”ve seen since the Doherty days, chokes on Roy’s fist again. Neb & Purdue held serve at home and Wisky got a big win on the road.
LikeLike
@gfunk – That Illinois game was beyond frustrating. The offense went into a coma for the last 9 minutes of the game. Granted, we’ve been living on the edge the last couple of games. We could have easily lost to both UNLV and, even worse, IPFW, but we pulled those out.
Roy Williams has some kind of hex over Michigan State. It’s completely lopsided (6-0 record for him vs. Sparty since he’s been at UNC).
LikeLike
We have nearly the same problem with Duke if not for a 2005 Sweet Sixteen beat down – I think they were the 1 seed that year.
I feel your pain with Illinois, I’ve secretly rooted to you guys, most games since the Henson days.
My jaw dropped when Egwu made an entry pass into traffic just as his wide open guard swung around his backside & called for the ball. Then the guy who stole the pass comes down and nearly breaks Egwu’s ankles, despite being a really slow player, and scores. To me that was the game, the other miscues are forgettable if Egwu simply protects the ball and stays focused because you win. It would be wise for Groce to truly spend some time on the inside game, and really mentor Egwu.
LikeLike
Tonight was obviously something of an aberation, due to all the injuries, but I’ve seen MSU play several times this year, and just don’t see them as NC material….Izzo really needed to recruit a stud freshman for some depth in the front court. The big guys other than Payne just don’t cut it. And Dawson continues to be something of an egnima….seems like he lacks the necessary fire…….Trice is no better than average….It’s too bad because MSU’s big 3 players are probably the best 3 any college team has, when healthy.
I really see MSU trending down in the next few years…..Izzo just doesn’t have the recrujiting fire in his belly….ihe reminds me of Knight at IU his last 5 yrears….t’s a young man’s game anymore and MSU just doesn’t quite sell itself to the same extent as UNC, Duke, UK, and Kansas.
LikeLike
Right now it looks like MSU and OSU are in the 5-10 range nationally, Wisky’s probably top 15 or so….Michigan’s struggling but would appear to be a top 5-10 team eventually if they avoid injury. I would say that MSU, OSU, and UM all will have a shot at the FF, barring continuing injury issues……but none truly look like NC material….I know UM isn’t there yet but they have tons of potential….how good they eventually get depends on health and how comfortable Walton gets
As far as the Big 10 goes overall, the league might have it’s most depth of any time since the ’80s. The only team I see that is truly crappy is NW. Everybody else at least has a couple of decent players and/or some depth….
LikeLike
I think Iowa is incredibly fun to watch at times and if they learn to play D, watch ou,t and don’t sleep on them. I’ve watched many of their games thus far, and at times they are simply dominate, athletic and deceptively quick and certainly lengthy – their defensive ineptitude killed them against Villanova & kept others too close for comfort, esp ND.
Michigan is truly not healthy and Walton-LaVert still need time to learn PG.
I fear MSU is now on the injury wagon.
IU has incredible upside, but a coach who doesn’t seem intelligent enough to adjust his players in game, thus I’m not sure Crean will ever return to the FF, but he can sure recruit the talent necessary for a FF.
I live in Minnesota, so I’m quietly impressed with Pitino. I was at yesterday’s game, near the bench, and something tells me Pitino is a star in the making, but he needs a strong recruiting class to get going.
LikeLike
I was VERY impressed with Pitino in that win over FSU. I gotta wonder how long he will be at Minneosta. Minny’s due for some good fortune in bball and fball so I hope he’ll be there awhile.
I”m constantly amazed by how bad a game coach Crean is. He’s so articulate and so energetic…and half the time he doesn’t have a fricking clue what he’s doing….other times you’d swear he was the best coach around—when the players match his “energy”. I think a good shrink is necessary,but my thought is teams always take on the characteristics of their coach, and “manic” is the #1 Crean trait…so his teams are always going to be up and down. He values energy over precision, so they often be careless. When they are on the + side of the manic phase they will run teams out olf the gym….when they are in the – phase, they will be listless and careless.
As for Iowa, I’m not going to be politically correct…..when I say that their white guys are just much better players on the offensive end than on the defensive end……guys like Gessell(sp?), White, McCabe, Woodbury just lack the necessary quickness to be great defensive players, especially when they’re all playing at the same time….they actually look like a poor man’s 2012-13 IU Hoosier team to me……….hello Jordy, Will, Cody, and Derek. .
LikeLike
Mushroom, I could truly add a biblical level rant to your Izzo observations – spot on.
He’s trending down and it’s not going to be pretty unless he reinvents himself and stops controlling his players, especially, so much. His voice has been shot by December the past two seasons. He just doesn’t let his guards breath and develop, all players really. His overly physical style has really taken a toll on players over the years. Injuries are so common with Izzo teams.
But I’ve said the above before, only to postpone to a later date because Izzo goes on some crazy run in Mar-Apr. But I’m no longer content with a FF then abrupt exit. Izzo aspires to reach king status, yet doesn’t recruit or coach like a king. He generally recruits football style players and preaches uptempo, but doesn’t run it enough. Kind of sad considering “Showtime” got it’s start at MSU.
I have a feeling Izzo will be the first coach to reach 7 FFs and not win his second NC. Every other coach who has reached at least 7 FFs has a second NC to show for it – the most recent additions: Pitino and Williams. Izzo is currently 1 for 6, which would have shocked me 10 years ago because he won his first title in just 2 tries.
LikeLike
What’s really tough is they appear to only 1 player away from being REALLY good……if Izzo had gotten the Noah V.L. kid at IU, for example, I think they’d be the favorie to win it all……
I do think it’s really easy as a fan to get really pissed at a Knight or an Izzo for not having the fire….but I understand their point of view……they’ve worked their asses off for 25 years and gotten to the top of their profession and feel like they should be able to coast a little on their fame…..that might have been true 20 years ago, but the young punks today need to feel constant “love” from the coaches recruiting them………guys like Groce and Crean feed that with their relentless recruiting, esp. with the social media tools…….
LikeLike
For some reason Izzo has not had a good recruiting year. He can’t seen to close the deal in this class.
LikeLike
So much of these comments on Izzo remind me of Gary Williams post-2002…although Izzo probably has a better relationship with AAU coaches than Williams did. Mark Turgeon seems to have revived Maryland’s recruiting, if word of his upcoming class is indicative, and the pending move to the Big Ten hasn’t appeared to have any negative effect.
LikeLike
“But I’m no longer content with a FF then abrupt exit.”
Be careful what you wish for. You might have to be content with 1st round exits after Izzo leaves. MSU wasn’t exactly a bball powerhouse before Izzo, and they’re more likely to be like PU than IU after Izzo.
Izzo has taken MSU to almost twice as many NCAA tournament appearances as all coaches at MSU combined before him (17 vs. 10) & 3 times as many FF’s as all coaches before him (6 vs. 2).
Also, Izzo has never been able to get top stud recruits, yet he’s managed to take under-talented teams to an FF at least once within every 4 year span because he prepares like a football coach, so his record in the second game of the weekend in an NCAA tournament is unsurpassed (18-4).
LikeLike
I am not a Michigan State fan. I am a Syracuse guy. As a Syracuse guy, I thought it was absurd that MSU got to play Syracuse in Detroit the national championship year… and if you go watch the game, the refs bowed to the “home” crowd miserably.
But Tom Izzo is truly one of the best coaches and human beings in the game. Having lived in Lansing, the guy is the real deal. Any MSU fan would be crazy to wish for a regime change. The level of play for that program has been unsustainably good… with the current trend merely an anomaly (IMO). It might be a tough few years, but that “tough” is so much better than most programs. It just happens that some kids do not develop. They think they can handle it, but cannot. And a program will fail to meet expectations. But it is rarely the system’s fault.
Seriously… Tom Izzo should have a lifetime deal with MSU a la Paterno/Bowden/Coach K/Boeheim. There are a lot of NBA teams that would take Izzo in a heartbeat. There are only a few colleges that would NOT take him in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
There are 335-ish division I schools (out of 351 schools) who would hire Izzo in 30 minutes or less after his termination from MSU.
Definitely a case of be careful what your wish for.
LikeLike
right on wainscott.
izzo is still my main man. i don’t want some scumbag coach chasing 1 year ego maniacs. MSU has had 2 coaches since 1976 and they are both among the best in show as far as i’m concerned.
LikeLike
UNC also beat UL. They’ve been a Jekyll and Hyde team this season, but the good UNC is really good. And UNC brings out the worst in MSU every time (7 straight wins). But I don’t see how MSU ever “had the momentum and choked away [a] winnable game.” UNC took the early lead, MSU fought back to tie it at the half, then UNC pulled away again.
IL crapped themselves. No excuses.
On the bright side, MN did well to beat FSU.
After the ACC won day 1 4-2, here’s an excerpt from ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/90727/hawkeyes-gophers-big-tens-lone-bulwarks
But there’s no way of getting around: The Big Ten-ACC Challenge is a macro competition, too. Right now, after one night, the Big Ten trails 4-2, and its Wednesday schedule offers little in the way of obvious advantages. No. 1 Michigan State gets North Carolina at home, sure, and Ohio State’s insanely tough defense should make quick work of Maryland in Value City Arena. But other than that? Wisconsin is hardly a guarantee to knock off stylistic comrades Virginia in Charlottesville. Northwestern won’t be a favorite at NC State. Purdue-Boston College and Miami-Nebraska are, well, your guess is as good as mine. Which means for the first time in three years, the ACC should — repeat: should — take back the Challenge it so ruthlessly dominated for the competition’s first decade.
At the very least, something funky has to happen.
People were expecting the ACC to win it but the B10 salvaged the tie. Considering the ACC didn’t have to play their 3 worst teams from last year, I think the B10 did OK overall.
LikeLike
Don’t know who the ESPN spinner is, but he knows squat about college basketball. Going into tonight I thought 5/6 match-ups favored the Big 10….given that NW was a sure loser, and 1/4 of the remaining games was likely to go to an underdog, I thought 6-6 was the most likely outcome……I just thought the “loser” might be Purdue or Wisky, not MSU….that one did shock me……
LikeLike
ACC hosted 4 of 6 on the first night, B1G hosted 4 of 6 on the second night. The way the games went was not a surprise to anyone with a clue. The biggest surprise was MSU choking at home to end up in a tie.
I’m just glad Iowa is good enough to be talked about again.
LikeLike
The Wisconsin-UVa game was a defensive tactician’s delight, and an offensive aesthete’s nightmare. It’s as if ESPN and its scheduling minions said, “No one wants to watch either of these defensively-oriented teams, so let’s have them play each other and hide it on the schedule.” Which they did, for the second straight year (last season, the Cavs won in Madison).
LikeLike
ND trying to shift one of their scheduled games against ACC opponents to 2015 from 2014. It makes you wonder how a school whose fans claim can schedule whoever they want can claim to have their hands tied over scheduling, unless some alums are giving the administration a hard time over some of the ACC teams.
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/64190/irish-acc-seek-scheduling-flexibility
“I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”— Darth Vader.
LikeLike
Switching 5 games at short notice isn’t easy. I guess they already had Pitt scheduled, but rest were probably new. ACC shouldn’t have a problem with it. It sounds like it’s a Notre Dame home game that is the one being moved, not a road game so doesn’t effect their TV games.
LikeLike
A Syracuse fan’s perspective:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/12/4/5174508/notre-dame-begins-trying-to-weasel-its-way-out-of-acc-schedule
LikeLike
Oh man, those SU fans are hilarious.
“We can bully them into what we want, and have just as much leverage in this situation as they do.”
Thinking that they can force ND football to join the ACC.
And none of them seem to have bothered to look at the 2014 games that ND has already committed to. No doubt ND thought that they could “weasel” out of contracts that they had already signed for 2014, but the Rice and Northwestern contracts must have been unbreakable.
LikeLike
“We can bully them into what we want, and have just as much leverage in this situation as they do.”
I read that comment, and to be fair he never said they could force ND to actually join as a full member.
His point was if ND starts violating the agreement the ACC could toss them out which force ND to give up its independence.
LikeLike
If they toss ND out, ND will just go along its way (probably to a similar arrangement with the B12). The ACC is still the weakest of the top 5. They would not be stronger without ND.
LikeLike
A. Big XII won’t give them a deal. They have no reason.
B. I never said they would be stronger without ND.
LikeLike
Let me rephrase; no but Texas has anything to gain.
LikeLike
frug:
I’m confident that the B12 would offer ND a similar deal.
What would the B12 schools gain? At 5 games a year, HaH games with ND half the time. It’s not as if schools like KU, KSU, ISU or even WVU, TCU, OkSt, TTech, and Baylor could schedule HaH’s with ND otherwise.
LikeLike
UT would require the same deal once the precedent has been agreed to by the rest, so no, the rest of the B12 has a lot to lose.
LikeLike
Texas replaced by a combination of ND/Texas isn’t exactly a loss.
Plus, Texas doesn’t need ND to join for such a deal; they can get such a deal now from the ACC or demand one from the B12.
LikeLike
Thinking outside the box, the B12 could entice FSU (& possible Clemson & Miami) with such a deal as well.
Looking down the road, that could be what happens, with the Pac taking OU, OkSt., TTech, and Houston, the B10 taking UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech, and the SEC taking VTech and NCSU.
The rump conference of KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor, TCU, Memphis, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, & UNM (in the west) +
‘Cuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Uconn, UCF, USF, WVU, Louisville, & Cincy (in the east) would have scheduling arrangements with ND, Texas, FSU, Clemson, BYU, and Miami. Play each of those teams 3 times in 2 years.
4 team playoff. B10 vs. Pac in the Rose. SEC vs. the best of that mess in the Sugar.
LikeLike
You think the ACC would repeat a mistake? 🙂
This all was considered and didn’t happen only a couple years ago.
“Texas replaced by a combination of ND/Texas isn’t exactly a loss.”
It’s not a gain except for maybe OU.
Serving two semi independent kings rather than one who is a conference member? Are the Indiana recruiting grounds a replacement for Texas?
If ND can make 5 games in the ACC there isn’t a problem. If they can’t, why would the B12 have any more luck?
LikeLike
This might not happen soon, but once the B12 and ACC break apart, we’ll see all sorts of wacky arrangements.
LikeLike
I’m confident that the B12 would offer ND a similar deal.
And as someone who follows the Big XII very closely, I can tell you I am confident you are wrong.
What would the B12 schools gain? At 5 games a year, HaH games with ND half the time. It’s not as if schools like KU, KSU, ISU or even WVU, TCU, OkSt, TTech, and Baylor could schedule HaH’s with ND otherwise.
A million dollars and 2-3 home games a decade against ND is nice, but not when the cost is Texas going indy. Plus, its not like those schools are desperate for cash. Thanks to equal revenue sharing, the new TV deal and the playoff and Sugar Bowl deals all those schools but KU are going to be making (at least) $25 million more next year than they did last year.
In addition, Okie St. is self sufficient, K-State has the most profitable athletic department in the country by a huge margin and WVU typically operates in the black as well (though they did have take money from the school to finance their exit penalties), so extra money is even less motivation for them.
Texas replaced by a combination of ND/Texas isn’t exactly a loss.
Yes it is. It is a massive loss. And even in the sunny scenario (a revenue neutral move) is wouldn’t happen, since conferences to expand in order to make the same amount of money.
Plus, Texas doesn’t need ND to join for such a deal; they can get such a deal now from the ACC or demand one from the B12.
If they could demand one from the Big XII they would already have done so, and the ACC already told Texas no.
And if you are so hellbent on believing this idea, then can you please explain why the only Big XII sources that have ever linked ND to the Big XII either worked for Texas or were Texas mouthpieces like Chip Brown?
Seriously, if everyone has so much to gain why has Texas and Texas alone expressed interest in the idea?
Thinking outside the box, the B12 could entice FSU (& possible Clemson & Miami) with such a deal as well.
Looking down the road, that could be what happens, with the Pac taking OU, OkSt., TTech, and Houston, the B10 taking UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech, and the SEC taking VTech and NCSU.
The rump conference of KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor, TCU, Memphis, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, & UNM (in the west) +
‘Cuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Uconn, UCF, USF, WVU, Louisville, & Cincy (in the east) would have scheduling arrangements with ND, Texas, FSU, Clemson, BYU, and Miami. Play each of those teams 3 times in 2 years.
That’s even nuttier. One there is no way the PAC take 2 Texas schools without taking UT (seriously if they couldn’t live with just OU and OSU what makes you think they would want Tech and Houston also?). Two, Miami doesn’t have anything close to the fanbase to sustain anything close to independence. For that matter, Clemson probably doesn’t either.
Plus, the likelihood of the ACC and Big XII collapsing simultaneously is extremely remote. More likely, one gets picked apart and the other absorbs the best of whatever is leftover.
Hell, even in this laughable scenario, I still think the most likely case is a conference made up of BC, UConn, ‘Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, FSU, Clemson, and Miami simply inviting WVU, Cincinnati, KU and someone else to form (essentially) a new ACC.
Texas and ND will have to go find conferences to join.
LikeLike
Also, if if the ACC were to toss out ND for refusing to comply with the terms of their agreement with conference, what makes you think the Big XII would turn around and do the exact same thing.
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
“Plus, the likelihood of the ACC and Big XII collapsing simultaneously is extremely remote. More likely, one gets picked apart and the other absorbs the best of whatever is leftover.”
That’s what I call “collapsing” when both conferences get picked apart. And it doesn’t have to be simultaneous.
I’ll grant that Miami going independent was the wrong call. However, this idea that anyone can “force” ND to join a conference is simply fantasy.
As for why the Pac would take 2 TX teams without Texas when they turned down the OK schools, it’s because TX is a massive state that has several times the population of OK.
LikeLike
As for why the Pac would take 2 TX teams without Texas when they turned down the OK schools, it’s because TX is a massive state that has several times the population of OK.
Well they could have added OU, OSU, Tech and Houston in 2010 and chose not to.
Also, if Texas, BYU, ND, Clemson and FSU all went independent, why do you assume that OU would head west?
LikeLike
“Well they could have added OU, OSU, Tech and Houston in 2010 and chose not to.”
There is no indication that TTech was willing to leave Texas in 2010.
LikeLike
“Also, if Texas, BYU, ND, Clemson and FSU all went independent, why do you assume that OU would head west?”
I believe that political forces in OK will keep OK St. with OU. So far, we have not yet seen a big brother break free from a little brother. I don’t expect that to change.
LikeLike
“Well they could have added OU, OSU, Tech and Houston in 2010 and chose not to.”
There is no indication that TTech was willing to leave Texas in 2010.
There is no indication that the PAC would have any interest in TTech without UT either.
I believe that political forces in OK will keep OK St. with OU. So far, we have not yet seen a big brother break free from a little brother. I don’t expect that to change.
And yet you are predicting that UT will dump TTU?
LikeLike
TTech would head to the Pac under my scenario. That’s not “being dumped”. If OU goes independent, OKSt. would head in to the morass of also-rans (the “Greater AAC” or GAAC?) as no other major conference would pick them up.
LikeLike
TT cannot go to the PAC, they need an invite. That only comes with UT, and perhaps OU also. My understanding is that as the SWC disolved UT was PAC bound, but was denied because of their TT too requirement.
LikeLike
Okie St. would give the PAC more value than Texas Tech would. Oklahoma may be small, but so is Utah and the Cowboys are likely to be top 15 programs in both revenue sports for the foreseeable future thanks to T. Boone. And while
And, for what it’s worth, Oklahoma St is also strong in the non-revenue sports that the PAC loves to rack up NCAA titles in (the Cowboy’s teams rank fourth all time in total NCAA championships behind UCLA, Stanford and USC).
LikeLike
My guess is that both Rice and Northwestern objected vehemently to being dropped from the 2014 ND schedule.
So ND may be able to schedule whoever they want, but they may have trouble dropping (or want to maintain good relationships with) schools they have already agreed to a contract with.
LikeLike
Dear ACC,
Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Signed,
Big East
LikeLike
Seriously though, it takes some major chutzpah on ND’s part to try and start altering the deal they made right after the ACC did them a major favor by their non-FB sports join a year early.
LikeLike
Eh. Sometimes, you can’t get out of existing contracts. I know everyone’s paranoid about ND cheating their way out of their deal with the ACC, but I would be shocked if the Domers don’t play ACC schools 15 times over the next 3 years.
LikeLike
Eh. Sometimes, you can’t get out of existing contracts.
There’s a solution to that; don’t make scheduling agreements before checking your existing contracts.
LikeLike
That is an assumption that this is news to the ACC. They might have known all along that 2014 would be dicey.
LikeLike
Frank–I’m really surprised Beckman is back for ’14, even thjough he’s only had 2 years….,.did you think he’d be canned? What kind of record does he need to get to 4 years?
LikeLike
Speaking of the Big Ten-ACC challenge, the Maryland women conquered Ohio State at Comcast (weird that both the men and women played the same opponent on the same night) to remain unbeaten in the challenge, the only team of either gender to do so. (Of course, the women’s challenge is only seven years old, six years younger than its male counterpart.) We’ll see how long the Terps stay perfect once they switch conferences; many Maryland fans think that in women’s hoops, the Big Ten will be substantially easier than the ACC, though I’d tend to disagree.
LikeLike
Md will instantly become a king in women’s basketball. The BIG is weaker in this sport. Incoming Rutgers is decent as well, 2 FFs under Stringer, but she has to be close to retirement & right now the Rutgers ADept is truly in a tailspin.
Speaking of UConn, yet another reason to consider them – Md needs an Interstate rivalry, one that can boost their schedule, esp if you win. You want to be the best, you got to beat the best.
LikeLike
Md will instantly become a king in women’s basketball.
Er, wouldn’t that be a queen? 🙂
Anyway, Purdue, Michigan State, Penn State and Nebraska are all solid programs. As long as Frese is coaching and recruiting, the Terps should at least hold their own with the top of the Big Ten, but they’re not going to perennially dominate.
And as the AAC weakens (losing Rutgers and Louisville next year), Connecticut won’t be in as attractive a conference. It will remain a power, but could come back to the rest of the pack a bit, just as what happened to Old Dominion and Louisiana Tech some years back.
LikeLike
@vp19, gfunk
Interesting details on how and why the move by Maryland transpired in Chronicles of Higher Education revealed by emails under the FOIA….
https://chronicle.com/article/Maryland-Emails-Reveal/143455/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
LikeLike
This is the first time I’ve seen a anti-BIG thread by OSU (see below link). There’s plenty of entertainment in the thread. I’ve seen plenty anti-BIG threads on PSU boards: BWI is filled with trashy, old time fans who blame the BIG for all of its woes. I just LMAO when PSU fans talk about 94-95 being BIG collusion, when the entire landscape, even the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast went overwhelmingly for Neb. PSU had two ridiculously close games that year against unranked IU & Ill & the Rose Bowl tie meant Oregon – not exactly a top 5 team, whereas Neb played number 3 Miami, you know the team that dominated much of the 80s & beat them in the Orange Bowl, a virtual home game for the Hurricanes. Interestingly, my dad had an AP vote that year – he went for PSU, but not for competitive reasons. Our house was pretty pro-PSU and ND football growing up. We were a good Catholic house : ).
I can’t imagine the below scenario happening, but for fictional reasons, let’s say it happens, then what? When the BIG chose not to hand out suspensions to OSU-Mi players after last Saturday’s eyesore bench brawl, I honestly thought to myself that OSU & Michigan have to much influence to counter BIG suspensions & I even thought OSU might pull the “we don’t need the BIG” card in private – though we’ll never know:
If this link doesn’t work, the post is entitled: “I think it’s for OSU to consider moving out of BIG” @ Scout.com, under the Hineygate board – it’s 13 pages of, well, you be the judge:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=145&f=3154&t=12410916&p=1
LikeLike
‘I think it’s for OSU to consider moving out of B1G….’
Notice he left out the word ‘time’. That’s because that time is never going to come.
LikeLike
Listen, this could have been written about Maryland 5 years ago. If the ACC were to approach, say, PSU, Mich, OSU, and one other school (Indiana), and demonstrate a path to significantly more money than they could make in the B1G, then who knows what could happen.
While I do not want to say Never, I agree the likelihood of this is truly infinitesimal.
LikeLike
Penn State was up big against Indiana before they put in their 2nd and 3rd strings and Indiana made a comeback. Paterno was not one to run up the score. The vote that year was a sympathy vote for Osbourne more than a conspiracy. PSU was a way more talented team as the NFL draft proved with 3 top 10 1st rd picks and 2 more 1sts and a 2nd the following year. What angers some Penn State fans is it should have been a split championship much like it was just two years later for Michigan.
LikeLike
Penn State people need to look at the big picture, and consider not only the entire athletic program — the NCAA titles won in men’s and women’s volleyball and wrestling, the Bryce Jordan Center — but all the research parks that have popped up around State College over the past two decades. PSU fans can be as ridiculously one-dimensional and ignorant over football as my Maryland cohorts are over men’s basketball.
LikeLike
PSUHockey,
There may have been a little sympathy for Osbourne, throw in the fact that a truly terrible lack of proper officiating hijacked Neb’s NC berth in 82, I believe, you know the game against PSU. The PSU receiver was clearly out of bounds on that ruled catch.
Bottom line, & I clearly said such in my post, Neb had less close calls than PSU and they beat Miami at the Orange Bowl, who was ranked 3rd in that game – Neb number 1. The Rose Bowl tie-in did nothing to help PSU & I remember that game required PSU to earn some style points – they didn’t exactly blow out Oregon in a way that impressed the voters, as history has clearly proven. This was a year where if a BCS system, then PSU matches up with Neb.
Moreover, the many PSU fans who hold the BIG and region accountable for the AP vote is beyond ridiculous & certainly sour grapes with a gaping lack of objectivity. It persists to this day, 2013. These folks need to get the F over it & grow up.
LikeLike
Brian,
I don’t think I you need to remind me of the idiocy on message boards. But then I don’t need to remind you that such can help shape perception & lead to other more legitimate forms of action.
Frank put that post up a couple months ago about UNC’s position in expansion, or lack of at first, & Swofford feeling ambushed by Delany grabbing Md, thus the process that led to the ACCs current GOR. A ton of UNC fans bombed the administrators with emails that overwhelmingly rejected the idea of being in the BIG, a much smaller amount opposing any departure, even the SEC. I wasn’t surprised because I noticed this email campaign partially got its legs on those “news flash idiot message boards” – I mean there were some seriously grounded logistical message board posts that helped mobilize these emails & official letters as well: official POCs, who, where, how, when, etc. I could dig these up if not for being blacklisted & from what I hear, some UNC boards have completely wiped out any expansion related threads-posts.
I often wrestle with the reality of the Internet because at times it can be quite useful and effective in shaping public discourse and action, while at times, more often than not, it just propagates utter BS.
I do think these OSU fans are just venting due to national perception, much brought on by OSU’s inability to close the biggest games in the past decade & the other BIG teams haven’t helped because 1, they may not play OSU due to scheduling, 2, when they play OSU, they lose and 3, if they may happen to beat OSU, they in turn lose a game they shouldn’t, perhaps OOC or an in-conferenece upset. Of course there are other reasons to add here.
Bottom line, I would be exceptionally disappointed if OSU did actually leave the BIG, I’d feel the same about any current or future member leaving.
LikeLike
Brian,
One other thing I’ve noticed: between the ACC, Pac12, SEC and BIG, only the BIG has a pair of king brands who seem to produce such posts (PSU and now OSU). OU and Tx, to some degree have fans that have done similar, but we know the Big12 is on shaky ground & the Big East is no longer a football conference.
So goes the theory that the BIG is the most stable conference, riches, yes. But money doesn’t solve everything.
LikeLike
@gfunk – If you go by message boards, FSU in particular certainly has its share of fans that are continually dissatisfied with the ACC. In fact, the only reason that FSU’s president even had to address realignment as an issue last year was almost entirely based on message board fan-driven heat. I also can’t tell you how many hits this site has received from angry OU message board threads about the status of the Big 12 over the past couple of years – it has actually probably been the most out of any fan base besides the schools that actually moved. I don’t really the see complaints within the Big Ten to be particularly heated or unique compared to anyone else.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I agree on FSU, didn’t mention them above & have been watching OU fans due to my expansion wishes of adding them to the BIG. But you’re citing your board’s stats. The PSU boards, esp BWI @ Rivals, have a whacko base of anti-BIG fans, and they’ve been around for many years, throw in Audibles @ Scout as well. In fact, part of why I cancelled my Rivals membership, couple years back, was due to these folks at BWI. I mean I use to really follow PSU football, but I can’t anymore. It’s a disgusting fan base via the Internet. In all, I’ve had good-to-great experiences at Beaver, but compared to other BIG and SEC venues I’ve attended, they’re pretty damn ruthless in Happy Valley – they are nowhere near Neb fans in terms of kindness and sportsmanship.
I don’t know if it’s a Pa thing because Eagle’s, Steeler’s and Flyer’s fans are pretty nasty as well. But, I have enjoyed Penn basketball games @ the Palestra, & PSU fans at volleyball and wrestling matches.
My good friend is engaged to one of David Joyner’s nieces, the horror stories are almost implausible, esp post-Sandusky. My friend and his fiancé recently told me they will never visit University Park again & Uncle Dave is unhappy with certain alum being opposed to the BIG. Evidently, Delany has done a lot of work behind the scenes to help PSU, yet these fans continue to bitch.
LikeLike
NEWSFLASH! Message boards are full of idiotic fans. The first post was 90% rubbish with a few kernels of truth.
Let’s face it. 99% of the rest of the conference despises OSU. They despise us because we simply dominate football and have been dominating basketball the past 10 years. We frequently dominate opponents’ home stadiums and that pisses everyone off.
When we had NCAA trouble, the conference did absolutely nothing to come to our support. The fans and even conference owned BTN threw us under the bus at every turn.
What I saw out there today with the Wilson fight was pure thuggery being tolerated for one side and not the other. The B1G could have reviewed the fight and thrown out about 4 more Wolverines.
The BTN has taken shots at OSU, their ONE AND ONLY elite program that would make ESPN proud.
Now the BTN is actually promoting the idea of suspending the players that threw punches today. Absolutely crap.
We get dragged down nationally because THOSE other programs can’t keep from sucking.
We could join the SEC tomorrow and raise the bar so that nobody in the B1G could ever compete against us again.
F the entire BigTen except OSU
A lot of other B10 fans do seem to hate OSU and that’s unfortunate. Some/much of that has been brought on by the wingnut faction of the OSU fan base. I do wish more B10 fans would support OSU OOC and in bowls, but nobody is leaving the B10 over fan reactions. It’s just fuel for the Buckeyes to beat those teams some more in the future.
The next few paragraphs are garbage.
There is some truth that the other schools aren’t helping OSU in football at all, but OSU’s NCG losses started the ball rolling for the current perception of the B10. MI, PSU and NE winning some BCS games and major OOC games would be nice, though. WI winning a bowl and MSU not getting Alabama’d again would also help.
The BTN isn’t supposed to blindly support teams beyond the reality of that team’s success. I’m sure there are times BTN has been too negative about OSU, but they’ve probably also been too pro-OSU many times. The media not agreeing with a fan is no reason to leave the B10.
We actually couldn’t leave tomorrow (GoR and such), and besides there is zero chance the president and BoT of OSU would ever choose to leave the B10 for the SEC. Zero. Zip. None. Nada. In addition, there’s nothing that joining the SEC would really do for OSU that they can’t already do in the B10.
LikeLike
Correction above “the Rose Bowl tie-in meant an Oregon opponent for PSU”
LikeLike
Final TV ratings are in for the regular season.
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/4/5173376/sec-college-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri
Conference TV Ratings.
SEC 2.2
B1G 1.7
ACC 1.2
P-12 1.1
B-12 1.0
Top 25 teams by TV ratings.
SEC (12) 1. Bama, 3. A&M, 4. UGA, 5. LSU, 7. Auburn, 9. Florida, 10. Tenn, 11. S Car, 20. Miss State, 21. Mizzou, 23. Ole Miss, 24. Arkansasa
B1G (7) 2. Michigan, 6. Ohio State, 12. Nebraska, 16. Northwestern, 18. Wisconsin, 19. Penn State, 22. Mich State
ACC (2) 13. Florida State, 15. Clemson
Pac-12 (2) 14. Stanford, 25. Oregon
Ind. 8. Notre Dame
Big 12. 17. Oklahoma
“Note that ratings from certain networks are unavailable (e.g., Big Ten Network, Pac-12 Network, ESPNEWS, Longhorn Network), and this boosts averages for teams playing on those networks since ratings are generally low (see Longhorn Network). Teams like Northwestern benefit from having a low number of rated games since only their most attractive matchups with opponents like Ohio State are picked up by top TV stations.”
That means the SEC’s lead over the B1G is probably even bigger. The SEC had 114 games rated, while the B1G only had 80 games rated.
LikeLike
We’re #2! We’re #2!
LikeLike
OSU actually did well to come in #6 considering their weak schedule. They still were televised a bunch, bringing down their average.
UB 1.1, 1.89M
SDSU 2.6, 4.08M*
Cal 2.0, 3.25M
WI 4.0, 6.75M
NW 4.4, 7.36M
IA 3.4, 5.34M*
PSU 2.5, 4.06M
IL 2.1, 2.89M
IN 2.7, 4.03M**
MI 6.4***
Games missing – FAMU, PU
* Game was on ABC/ESPN2. ESPN2 pulled 0.6, 0.92M
** Game was on ABC/ESPN2. ESPN2 pulled 0.5, 0.80M
*** Easy #2 game of the weekend. The Iron Bowl got 8.6 for #1 and TAMU/MO got 3.6 for #3.
Average = 3.12 (2.77 if you average national and reverse mirror ratings); 4.41M (3.80M) without the MI game viewers. He thus estimated the MI game viewers as roughly 4.78M (10.2M).
In other words, he averaged the national and reverse mirror numbers for ABC/ESPN2 splits without mentioning it. I’m not saying that’s incorrect, although a simple average assumes that half of the country saw it each way which isn’t accurate. It probably returns a slightly low value, however.
LikeLike
UW thought it was going to get Gary Pinkel? LOL.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10082360/gary-pinkel-says-remains-committed-missouri-tigers
I mean, UW is a nice gig and all, in a major (and gorgeous) city, beautiful stadium, great resources, and so forth, but its not Notre Dame, where you could lure a coach on the cusp of winning it all somewhere to rebuild somewhere else.
Of course, if UW were to, say, double Pinkel’s salary, then who knows? Or, if Pinkel has some Roy Williams-esque attachment to UW that would cause him to bolt Mizzou like Roy did KU, but I’ve never seen that reported anywhere.
Absent something extreme, I can’t see it.
LikeLike
Pinkel was an assistant at Washington under Don James, so there is the connection.
LikeLike
This. Pinkel was an assistant at Washington for 12 years under Don James. But he makes around $3M per year at Mizzou and that will probably go up, and he’s doing well there, and he’s around 61 years old, he just tied Don Faurot’s record for winningest all time coach at Missouri, he may as well close out his career there over the next 5 years or so.
LikeLike
I knew that Pinkel was a UW assistant. I didn’t clarify with the Roy Williams comparison that I meant a coach leaving one top-level team/program to go back to a school where said coach has significant ties to rebuild it.
LikeLike
Hard to imagine but apparently Petersen was USC’s first choice and has also drawn interest from Texas but has told both “Not interested.” The one job he hasn’t closed the door on? Washington.
LikeLike
If Petersen really dislikes the media spotlight as much as people say he does, Washington is a far better fit for him than either USC and especially Texas. He also might just like living in the Pacific Northwest. He seems like a guy that prefers personal comfort over money. He could have left Boise for pretty much any job that has come open in the last seven years, but he didn’t. It’s not like Washington is a bad job. Historically, it’s probably either the second or third best job in the Pac, depending on what you feel about UCLA.
LikeLike
Plus, Petersen is likely aware of what happened to his 2 predecessors at Boise who left for greener pasture. At Boise, Petersen is as close to being a coach for life an any coach in college football today. At USC or Texas, he’d be on the hot seat if he misses a bowl game in his second or third season.
LikeLike
His son and his medical necessities that were being completely being fulfilled may now allow for a transition. I’ve heard that the u of Nike MIGHT be place he’d consider. Region seems to be important still.
http://tracking.si.com/2013/12/05/chris-petersen-washington-interview/
LikeLike
More Rose Bowl apearences the anyone but USC. An almost king that has been in (deep) hibernation.
Probably a good move, but he’ll need to be the first BSU coach to really succeed after leaving.
LikeLike
More PAC Rose apearences…
LikeLike
Ivan Maisel at ESPN:
“Petersen seems as if he would fit at Washington. If that gets serious, I hope he takes it.”
LikeLike
Living in the Northwest seems to be a top priority along with proximity to his sons Docs.
LikeLike
Looks like he’s going to Seattle
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10088337/washington-huskies-hire-chris-petersen-boise-state-broncos
LikeLike
Great move for UW.
LikeLike
Congrats to UW AD Scott Woodward (Baton Rouge native and my former across-the-street neighbor) on landing the white whale of college coaching searches.
LikeLike
Also had his worst year in Boise in a while. He might realize its now or never to go to greener pastures, and had the opportunity to while staying in his preferred region of the country.
In the coming set up, unless BSU can get to another conference, its likely already maxed out its ability to consistently be in the top 15, with lesser resources then power conference schools.
LikeLike
Actual realignment?
LikeLike
When they left the Summit for the Southland, my reaction was “why?”
And it’s the same reaction I find myself having now they are moving in the reverse direction.
LikeLike
I had the same reaction when UMKC and Denver traded spots in the WAC
LikeLike
Sources tell MetroNews E. Gordon Gee WVU interim president
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/12/05/wvu-bog-decides-on-interim-president-name-not-released/
Well, this is interesting. Notice the “interim” tag.
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Article/We-look-at-recent-recruiting-classes-for-the-top-five-BCS-teams-164517
A look at how recruiting impacted the success of the current BCS top 5 and selected others over the past 5 years. They averaged the national rank for each recruiting class since 2009 as well as looking at the results on the field.
1. FSU – 7.2, 50-16
2. OSU – 7.4, 53-10
3. AU – 12.0, 44-20
4. AL – 2.0, 60-6
5. MO – 37.6, 42-21
Underachievers:
UF – 5.4, 43-22
USC – 6.0, 43-21 – doesn’t allow for the NCAA sanctions
UT – 6.2, 43-20
LSU – 6.8, 52-13 – I would say this is just a slightly down year, not LSU underachieving much overall
UGA – 8.2, 44-22
OU – 10.8, 49-15 – again, I don’t think this record is much below expectations
Honorable Mentions:
MI and TN
The point is that recruiting is important to elite success, but it isn’t the only thing. Factors like coaching, luck and injuries are also important. But B10 fans that completely ignore the lack of top 25 recruiting classes by B10 schools do so at their own peril. On the other hand, fans that obsess over recruiting miss the bigger picture.
LikeLike
The point is that recruiting is important to elite success, but it isn’t the only thing. Factors like coaching, luck and injuries are also important.
Given all of the stat geeks who obsess about college football, I am surprised no one has compiled retroactive recruiting rankings.
All of the recruiting services freeze their rankings at signing day. They therefore don’t account for kids who never make it to school; or those who make it but leave the program early (due to academic issues, legal issues, career-ending injuries, or various other reasons). Of course, even the kids who stay may over/under-perform for many reasons. But correcting for kids who aren’t there at all would seem to be a comparatively easy fix.
Of course, it would require tracking the subsequent status of every recruit, but you’d think there was someone sufficiently obsessive to attempt it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“All of the recruiting services freeze their rankings at signing day. They therefore don’t account for kids who never make it to school; or those who make it but leave the program early (due to academic issues, legal issues, career-ending injuries, or various other reasons).”
That’s not entirely true, or at least it didn’t use to be. One of the major services used to go back and rerank the classes in the fall after seeing who actually enrolled. I think they kept the spring rankings in their database, though.
ESPN does rerankings now based on performance on the field, as do several other groups (SI does it and compares to Rivals’s original rankings, etc).
LikeLike
By the way, one BCS spot is official as UCF has clinched the AAC title thanks to UL beating UC. Even if UCF loses their last game, they own the tiebreaker over UL.
LikeLike
RE: 8 team playoffs…
The only major hurdle imo is the logistics of the 2nd round. The current ‘Major’ Bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Peach, Fiesta) are obvious sites for the four first round bowl games. The National Title game is a game that is an easy sell-out for whoever purchases the rights to the game, without even knowing the opponent…
The 2nd round however is in a much tougher spot, I’m not sure any current ‘Major’ bowls want to be in that rotation as the fans to that game won’t know who is playing till a week ahead of time. Would the Citrus, Hall-of-Fame, Gator or Holiday Bowls ‘settle’ for those games? The bowl sites host these games because of the influx of vacationers who spend money in that city to the games host city. If you have less than a week for fans to purchase tickets, purchase airline tickets/hotel reservations then I don’t see how the second round works out very well for those hosting the games… The current bowl games do well because I can plan a vacation every year around New Year’s Day to watch my team, if given a month in advance to plan it.
If you can solve the 2nd round issues, I think we can have an 8-team playoffs. Figuring out who plays in the expanded playoff (teams 5-8) and how money is distributed is imo much less of an issue, which is what more people worry about… Any thoughts, ideas or solutions to the ‘2nd’ round issue?
LikeLike
Hold the semifinals on MLK Day. Problem solved.
LikeLike
Or the quarters in December at home sites.
LikeLike
Of course, the Pac and B1G have a problem with anything changing the Rose Bowl as a December quarterfinal would, much more than the 4 team system.
LikeLike
Hold the semifinals on MLK Day. Problem solved.
I don’t see how that solves the problems the OP listed.
Or the quarters in December at home sites.
There are three reasons this won’t be adopted:
1) The presidents don’t want the quarters to interfere with final exams.
2) The southern schools don’t want the possibility of playing a December game in a cold-weather stadium. If it comes to a vote, the northern schools would lose.
3) The major bowls don’t want to be ‘consolation games’ for top teams that lose their quarter-final game.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – You’ve highlighted the dilemma – there’s going to be a trade-off no matter what scheduling scenario is used. To me, I think there’s going to be significantly less heartburn going further into January than there is about playing games in December when it comes down to those two choices. Playing later in January allows the bowl system to be preserved (which I believe is a major goal of the power conferences whether people like it or not) and they’re already going to be playing the national title game during the second week of January in the new CFP system. Adding a week or 10 days to the season of 2 teams at that point just seems like a lot less to get passed than presenting a December quarterfinal schedule that would upend the bowl system entirely and require 8 teams to be playing games in the middle of final exams and during a low travel period pre-Christmas.
As for ticket sales for the semifinals at neutral sites, I just see that as a secondary issue (just as it’s a secondary issue for NCAA Tournament sites). It’s not that the powers that be don’t entirely care since they certainly want stadiums to be filled, but that still pales in comparison to (a) luxury suites and premium corporate tickets that can be sold months or years in advance when you have a locked-in neutral site and (b) the very large upfront fees that many cities and stadiums are willing to pay to host those games. I’m just not seeing on-campus sites being used at all for an expanded playoff – the powers that be still want the bowls (and in particular, the brand equity that the Big Ten and Pac-12 have with the Rose Bowl is massive) and corporate/TV interests ultimately outweigh the concerns of traveling fans in the stands when push comes to shove. I’m not saying that’s a great thing, but ease of travel for fans has simply been a very low priority for college sports leaders compared to the locked-in guaranteed money that they can get from cities, stadiums and corporations for neutral site games.
LikeLike
If you define the powers that be as the Big 10 and SEC, then you are probably right. And you may be right about them being TPTB. Seems like the Big 10 and SEC had to agree on this last playoff before anything got settled. There’s no love for the bowl system among the other conferences (except the Pac 12 does love the Rose Bowl). It benefits the SEC and Big 10. Big 12 was all for December home sites in the 4 game playoff and seemed to be the lead in the idea to create an SEC/Big 12 bowl game controlled by the conferences, basically taking over the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
“but ease of travel for fans has simply been a very low priority for college sports leaders compared to the locked-in guaranteed money that they can get from cities, stadiums and corporations for neutral site games.”
I would argue that fan travel is a major consideration for CFB leaders, which is why there was much jockeying for better bowl game sites amongst conferences in the last go around, and why the B1G in particular sought better diversity of sites. Moreover, the imposition of title games is relatively new, especially outside the SEC, and all conferences do them at locations convenient for fans (or in Pac 12, at the better record team’s home).
I think CFB folks take these concerns very seriously, as first and foremost, they want fans to have enough money to buy tickets in the home stadiums and also travel well to help the football team get into better bowls. While the 4 team playoff won’t factor in fan travel when picking teams, TV networks like to show full stadiums when broadcasting a game.
To the extent you compare neutral site games in the NCAA tourney and CFB, the two are such different beasts that the cannot really make a useful comparison.
Think of it this way–if any sport could get away with more neutral site games, its the NFL. Lamar Hunt had a goal of making all conference championship games neutral site precisely for the reasons states in opposing cold weather super bowls (weather dictating winners, etc…), and the owners routinely voted his proposal down. Partly because owners want that extra home playoff game if earned. However, fans would likely travel to a neutral site title game in the NFL, because its the NFL. And the NFL probably could make more money pimping out Conf Champ games. But the league has no stated plans of doing so, and I have to imagine the league’s current attendance issues make them skittish about testing the limits of fan passion in this sort of way.
LikeLike
I might be overestimating how important it is to the major bowls to bring in fans from far away to spend big money on tickets, hotels, merchandise and restaurants. I really can’t see how the payout for the new 2nd round games is going to compare to the 1st round games. Maybe the TV money will make up for it.
In the current system, we have 5 BCS bowls and 1 NT game; all payout extremely well. In the hypothetical 8-team playoff, we have 4 first round games (which I expect to do even better than the current system), two ‘2nd’ round games (that the bowl sites might not pay out quite so well, but likely would be made up for by outstanding TV payouts/ratings) and both systems have the NT game which probably doesn’t change in ‘value’ much.
LikeLike
Wolverine:
The 2nd round games don’t have to be at bowl sites, so bringing fans in from far away is less of a concern. In any case, if you schedule the semifinals for MLK day, the fans will have several weeks to make trip plans (as much time as they usually have now to make travel plans to bowls before Christmas, in fact).
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, I agree. I think there’s a lot less consternation about neutral site games among the powers that be than there are among fans mainly because of the money. I see 2 overriding factors:
(1) TV interests will pay more for playoff games in January instead of around Christmas.
(2) There are very likely going to be neutral site stadiums that will be willing to pay up if they miss out on the first round bowls. Jerry World, Reliant Stadium, Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, the new Falcons stadium in Atlanta, the new 49ers stadium in Silicon Valley, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy, etc. Considering what stadiums are paying for much less attractive bowl games, I really don’t see how there aren’t going to be multiple stadiums that will make going to neutral site route worth their while even if they don’t sell a single ticket. All of the concerns about traveling fans will ultimately not matter if Jerry World is willing to pay tens of millions of dollars to host games (and the market out there says that stadiums are willing to do just that).
LikeLike
The 2nd round games don’t have to be at bowl sites, so bringing fans in from far away is less of a concern.
But they’re going to take place somewhere, and wherever it is will be a long trip for one, and possibly both, fan bases, unless a pre-arranged site just happens to be close to one of the participant schools. (I assume they’re not going to do campus games in January.)
In any case, if you schedule the semifinals for MLK day, the fans will have several weeks to make trip plans (as much time as they usually have now to make travel plans to bowls before Christmas, in fact).
The concern is not how much time they have to make plans, but whether they’ll do so twice in a span of 2–3 weeks. Indeed, it could be a third time in 6 weeks, as many of these teams will have played in a CCG as well. And then the winners have to do it one more time, a week or two later, for the NCG.
LikeLike
That’s actually an argument to hold the semifinals somewhere small, like a baseball stadium (Yankee Stadium too cold?)
Most of the money will come from TV anyway.
LikeLike
@Frank
Why would neutral site stadiums engage in a bidding war to host games without concern for attendance? Jerry World, for example, will only make money with fans in attendance, buying tickets, beer, food, etc… Jerry could care less about the TV aspect, because he would not get any of the TV money.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – These stadiums are like all of those cable networks looking for any type of content to fill airtime: they need to fill dates with events to pay down debt/justify their existence to taxpayers/etc. As a result, they have been paying plenty of money for much lower profile events. Just look at the millions that they’re paying for early regular season games. Any round of a college football playoff is going to attract multiple bidders – it’s a seller’s market out there for anyone that controls a high profile stadium event. Plus, as I’ve noted before, the corporate luxury seating and suite money can’t be underestimated – all of those law firms, financial houses, banks and other elite ticket buyers are guaranteed money in a way that “normal” ticket buyers aren’t. I’m not saying that this is a better atmosphere for the playoffs compared to on-campus games, but I don’t think this is really even much of a debate when it comes to the financial side. Jerry World has been scheduling basketball games where only 1/10th of the stadium capacity is being filled just to fill dates – are we seriously thinking that the Cowboys wouldn’t be willing to pay up for any college football playoff game? Reliant Stadium is another on-the-record site that wants to get into the high profile college football event rotation very badly. This stadium money is almost as easy to earn as the TV money from the power conference perspective.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I understand all that, but it doesn’t address the key issue of requiring fans to purchase multiple neutral site tickets in a short amount of time. Early season neutral site games generate buzz and draw well, but I just do not believe that, say, an Oregon vs. Michigan State semi final in Dallas on some weekend in January is going to draw that many fans. Jerry World will have to competitively bid to secure hosting rights, and ticket prices will reflect that. Factor in travel and lodging costs, and we’re talking about, say, $1,000 per person, per trip, if not more. Multiple that by 3 neutral site games? Not gonna happen. And if Jerry World, to compensate, raises ticket prices and concession prices in subsequent years, the death spiral will be upon us.
Plus, at those stadiums, factor in that I assume season ticket or PSL holders will get a crack to buy tickets at a discount.
Moreover, those stadiums, who have pro tenants, probably cannot book a January weekend CFB game without first knowing if their primary tenant is in the NFL playoffs and hosting a home game that year. MLK weekend is Championship weekend in the NFL, and I’m also curious if the NFL would want any other games in those stadiums that weekend, potentially messing up the pretty paint jobs, championship plans, and even messing up the Field Turf. The NFL is the king, and I doubt any of those sites will bid for games without NFL approval that the games will not interfere or jeopardize the NFL in any way.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
1. semi final Key word.
2. My proposal is the semifinals on MLK Day, which would be after any NFL game.
Plus, it doesn’t have to be an NFL stadium. A baseball stadium would do. In fact, if you’re worried about empty seats, baseball stadiums may even make more sense. In any case, the idea that Fieldturf can be messed up is laughable.
LikeLike
1. The presidents let Division III, Division II and Division I-FCS do it. And Division III takes academics more seriously than Division I.
2. Nonsense.
3. That is an issue, but the bowls are losing influence. Indirectly, however, its a very big issue because of the Rose Bowl and the Big 10 and Pac 12 ties to it. And also the control over the revenues the SEC and Big 12 now have over the Sugar.
LikeLike
1. The presidents let Division III, Division II and Division I-FCS do it. And Division III takes academics more seriously than Division I.
Of course, that’s patently untrue. You think the average DIII school is more serious about academics than Stanford or Michigan? The glimmer of truth in your statement, is that if it made sense in every other way, they’d probably find a way around the final exams issue. But it makes sense in no other way.
2. Nonsense.
This was in response to my comment that the warm-weather schools don’t want to face the possibility of a December semi-final in a cold-weather stadium. Exactly what’s “nonsense” about that? (The question is not whether we, as fans, would like it, but whether the schools with voting power would agree.)
3. That is an issue, but the bowls are losing influence. Indirectly, however, its a very big issue because of the Rose Bowl and the Big 10 and Pac 12 ties to it. And also the control over the revenues the SEC and Big 12 now have over the Sugar.
The lower-tier bowls may be losing influence, but the Sugar and the Rose are the two that count.
LikeLike
Marc:
“I don’t see how that solves the problems the OP listed.”
It would solve the problem of fans not having time to plan a trip. MLK weekend is also a long weekend. Don’t always hold it at a bowl site; rotate it. What other problems are listed?
LikeLike
Random thought on the SEC Network: I wonder how it’s going to perform outside of the SEC’s footprint (including all states with SEC schools).
The SEC has done by far the best job of any conference in nationalizing its viewership with non-alumni out of the footprint.
Will they be able to count on a significant number of those viewers tuning into the SEC Network? Or will those viewers only be there for the big CBS/ESPN games when Alabama/LSU/Florida/Georgia, etc. are playing.
The Big Ten’s model isn’t that different at its base, but the Big Ten has way more alumni outside of its footprint than the SEC does outside of its footprint. There’s just no way around that basic fact. In some sense, the Big Ten can more easily count on alumni outside of the footprint to deliver subs/viewers outside the footprint.
Obviously this won’t impact the bottom line that much since we all know that the key driver of subs is going to be the SEC’s footprint, which including Texas is now at 100m+ and won’t really need any support outside of the footprint.
LikeLike
As with the BTN, what’s critical is how successful it is in its footprint which it should be extremely successful. Success outside of its footprint and the revenue from it, is only supplemental.
LikeLike
ESPN’s College Gameday may have founds its biggest rival – and it will be coming from a new ESPN channel.
The SEC Network will be hosting a two-hour pregame show on Saturday mornings called SEC Nation. Hosted by Joe Tessitore, it will take a road trip to SEC campuses every week, similar to Gameday.
http://collegespun.com/sec/missouri/report-joe-tessitore-to-host-new-sec-nation-show-beginning-in-2014#
LikeLike
@Johnny Utah – In the initial seasons of the BTN, they seemed to have a lot more on-campus Saturday pregame shows, but I don’t recall if they’ve done that at all this year.
LikeLike
Even in a truly miserable year for Michigan football, it is still the second most watched team (on average) in the nation, following Alabama. As you’d expect, the SEC dominates the top ten with OSU showing up at 6th. The Pac-12’s viewing audience is fairly anemic even in a good year.
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/4/5173376/sec-college-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri
LikeLike
That list is as much about networks and timeslots as anything. Teams that got on CBS and ABC more ranked higher on the list. Teams relegated to ESPN2 and ESPNU and BTN ranked lower.
LikeLike
Worth noting that Michigan’s high ratings were heavily influenced by the fact they only had 7 national broadcasts, the lowest of only school in the top 10.
LikeLike
OT – Temple decides to cut 7 varsity sports, effective 7/1/14.
http://temple-news.com/news/2013/12/06/university-eliminate-seven-intercollegiate-sports/
LikeLike
5 men’s and 2 women’s cut (150ish athletes). T9 used to justify a football money grab, in spite of protestation to the contrary.
“The cuts will save the university an estimated $3 million to $3,5 million. In an interview after the announcement, Clark denied that the cuts were made to pump for money into the upstart football program.”
LikeLike
disturbs me that so many schools are cutting men’s track and field. Guess its an easy target since it requires a lot of people. But that is one of the beginnings of intercollegiate athletics.
LikeLike
bullet,
I hear you and agree with you, but we just don’t support the sport enough, especially outside of an Olympic year. it’s really a shame…
LikeLike
Title IX requires that the percentage of male/female student-athletes should closely represent the student body population at the university.
Temple has a ratio of about 51 percent women to 49 percent men. Prior to the cuts, Temple’s athletic programs were made up of about 58 percent men and 42 percent women, an apparent violation of Title IX standards.
Not saying football won’t be a beneficiary, but it seems pretty clear that Temple was on shaking Title IX grounds.
LikeLike
So why cut softball/women’s rowing? Leave those (assuming they are close to compliance after the cuts) and you don’t need to cut baseball/crew (mens track still gets screwed). It’s always about reallocation of money, and they are trying to establish FB. How about require FB fundraisers that will also pay for added women’s opportunities before you start taking from current ones without adding any new opportunities to the remaining?
LikeLike
How about require FB fundraisers that will also pay for added women’s opportunities before you start taking from current ones without adding any new opportunities to the remaining?
If they can’t afford all the sports they sponsor now, they won’t be able to afford even more.
It’s always about reallocation of money, and they are trying to establish FB.
I think it partially about reallocation, but some cuts were inevitable. They can’t afford 24 sports on an AAC paycheck and are were not in compliance with Title IX.
LikeLike
5 men’s and 2 women’s cut (150ish athletes). T9 used to justify a football money grab, in spite of protestation to the contrary.
Well, it’s not exactly news that collegiate athletics has been about money for decades. You write as if this only just happened.
“Money grab” is just a synonym for “a business decision the writer disagrees with.” People for some reason are shocked that a business is actually run like one.
Anyhow, where’s it written that kids have a constitutional right to a free education to play baseball, or any other sport? I feel bad for the kids at Temple, but if they’re good at the sport they’ll get scholarship offers elsewhere. If they’re not good at the sport, they can get financial aid or pay their own way the way the rest of us do.
LikeLike
No, it’s an educational decision, or should I say no educational.
Is it a requirement to abandon the education/athletic relationship because some external forces (TV) have decided they (not necessarily the schools) can make some money? Will the future FB players be giving back to the school an amount that will be lost from 150+ alumnae who would have formed a stronger, deeper relationship to the school through the opportunity given them, and being a public representative of Temple?
LikeLike
Will the future FB players be giving back to the school an amount that will be lost from 150+ alumnae who would have formed a stronger, deeper relationship to the school through the opportunity given them, and being a public representative of Temple?
If the projected donations from those alumnae exceeded the amount of money those sports lose now they wouldn’t have been cut.
LikeLike
““Money grab” is just a synonym for “a business decision the writer disagrees with.””
Obviously. You felt a need to restate it?
“People for some reason are shocked that a business is actually run like one.”
No. There is not only one entity known as “business”, or only one defination of how it should be run. The educational business is being co-opted by private comercial ventures and their goals.
LikeLike
For lack of better words, that sucks.
LikeLike
Can’t former Owl trackster Bill Cosby stage a fundraiser?
LikeLike
Sadly, no.
Clark said the decision on the cuts are final and there won’t be an opportunity for any team to fundraise itself back into the athletic department, which some teams have done at other universities.
LikeLike
Does former Owl football player Bill Cosby care?
LikeLike
Here’s the WPVI report on the cuts:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9351556&cmp=emc-wpvi-The_Big_Stories_on_Action_News-120613-top1-9351556
LikeLike
Seems like a good decision.
The school needed to cut its losses and correct the gender imbalance. Temple is sponsoring 24 D1 sports, the most in their conference…yet their AD budget is near the bottom of the conference. The current scholarship mix is not consistent with their student body.
The Liacouras Center is a very nice facility for basketball. The other on campus facilities are really very bare bones. Temple made an athletic commitment by upgrading to the AAC…now it appears that they are making a commitment to not just field D1 teams, but to actually be competitive with the teams that they sponsor.
LikeLike
At Temple, Spirit of Amateurism Is Abandoned by a River
LikeLike
Cutting sports a growing trend at major colleges
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/cutting-sports-a-growing-trend-at-major-colleges/2013/12/21/0d664f62-6a7c-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html
LikeLike
I’m curious, can anyone remember a major conference championship game between two schools who have met fewer times (1) than Mizzou/Auburn? Or one featuring two schools with a more lopsided series (18-0, avg margin 34+) than Duke/FSU? Or any championship game where one team is a 4 td favorite?
LikeLike
Nebraska was a 20.5 point favorite in the first Big 12 championship game. But the underdog clinched it with “roll left”:
LikeLike
How about a CCG with tarps placed in the upper end zones...even though one of the participating teams is from its own state? Yep, we’re talking Charlotte and the ACC, yet another reason it’s college football’s fifth wheel and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
At the half, BGSU leads the MAC CG 31-13 over NIU. There may not be a BCS buster this year. That’s good news for Clemson or Baylor. It’s probably bad news for UCF.
NCG – OSU/FSU
Rose – MSU/Stanford
Orange – AL/Clemson
Sugar – AU/Baylor
Fiesta – OkSU/UCF
If the Orange wants UCF over AL (AL was in Miami last year):
NCG – OSU/FSU
Rose – MSU/Stanford
Orange – UCF/Clemson
Sugar – AU/AL
Fiesta – OkSU/UCF
LikeLike
@Brian – It would be interesting to see, but my feeling is the chances that Alabama is passed up by the Orange is between slim and none (regardless of the fact that they were there last year). The Orange has been stuck with low profile Big East or non-AQ teams so many times that I have a hard time seeing them passing up any SEC team (much less a marquee one in Bama).
LikeLike
I tend to agree, which is why I went with AL first. But several people have brought up the issue, so I gave an alternate result.
LikeLike
Bad year, if you’re Oregon, for the Fiesta to get the last pick. Otherwise, they’d be going to Orange Bowl and Baylor would probably be headed to the Cotton or Alamo.
LikeLike
If the Sugar does go with Baylor (the Orange is NOT passing on Bama), I suspect it will be because of the bowl’s tie in with the Big 12 and not because Baylor is more attractive. Baylor may or may not be a bigger brand (if it is it’s not by much), but UCF has a lot more alumni than Baylor. UCF has 60,000 students, Baylor has 15,000. The schools had very similar total television rankings this year, despite UCF playing in a significantly weaker league. Tough break for UCF. I think UCF would have drawn very well to the Orange Bowl or the Sugar, but the school will lose a lot of money by going to the Fiesta.
LikeLike
UCF is much bigger, but it’s also new. They don’t have many older alumni. Baylor has fewer alumni, but they may well be richer. Baylor certainly has a much larger endowment.
UCF was founded in 1963 as Florida Tech. It became UCF in 1978. They claim to have over 200,000 alumni (living and dead). Baylor has over 120,000 alumni.
UCF Enrollment:
1963 – <2000
1978 – 11,000
1989 – 18,000
2013 – 60,000
Baylor Enrollment:
1845 – ?
2013 – 15,000
LikeLike
It’s good news for OU, which will likely now head to the Sugar to face the SEC champ.
LikeLike
Oregon would like the Orange Bowl to take UCF, because the Fiesta will not have a B12 rematch. If UCF is gone, the at large teams available are likely to be Baylor and Oregon. However, like Frank, I cannot see the Orange passing on Alabama, so I think Oregon will be in the Alamo Bowl against Oklahoma. Baylor is likely to go to Sugar Bowl with a win, Alamo with a loss putting Oregon in the Sugar.
NIU is now beyond the miracle stage, down 27 points with <2 minutes, so they are out.
LikeLike
OU and Oregon.
LikeLike
Team USA drew the “Group of Death” for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil.
From this link(s):
http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/06/u-s-draws-incredibly-difficult-group-but-one-filled-with-opportunity/?eref=si_soccer
“Well, it couldn’t have gone any more difficult,” (Team USA Coach) Klinsmann confided.
The U.S. had drawn Germany, Portugal and Ghana, the hardest opening-round group the Americans have ever faced in a World Cup. Germany, a three-time world champion, could easily win the tournament. Portugal has Cristiano Ronaldo, who may be about to win the Ballon d’Or as the world player of the year. And Ghana has been the destroyer of U.S. dreams at the last two World Cups, eliminating the Americans both times.
Group G has easily the most difficult average FIFA ranking of any World Cup group: 11.25. Germany is No. 2, Portugal No. 5, the U.S. No. 14 and Ghana No. 24.
… Indeed, if you’re an optimist, the U.S. draw doesn’t have to look so grim. Beating Ghana in the opening game is by no means impossible. Given the lack of a big talent gap between the two teams, it would be surprising for Ghana to beat the U.S. in three straight World Cups. “If we start off there well, it builds even more confidence for the next two big ones,” Klinsmann said.
… The U.S.’s second foe, Portugal, may well come into that contest behind the U.S. in points after an opening game against Germany. And the Germans may already be qualified for the next round and have their guards down by the time they have to face the U.S. in game three.
… We also watch sports to see the best against the best at their best, and all three of these group games will be heavyweight battles. How can you not get excited about the storylines: Klinsmann coaches against his home country! The U.S. tries to stop Cristiano Ronaldo! The Americans try to slay their demons with Ghana!
… If the U.S. were to advance to the Round of 16 from its difficult group, the Americans would face an opponent from Group H (Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea). If there’s one silver lining from today, that might be it (but barely).”
LikeLike
The US will go 3 and out and most people won’t even notice. Until we have a team capable of winning against the top teams when it counts, why even pay attention?
LikeLike
“…a team capable of winning against the top teams when it counts, why even pay attention?”
Really? If I can’t be assured of winning (or coming close) a world competition we should ignore it?
LikeLike
I’m saying that’s the mindset of most Americans, and thus why they won’t even notice. Soccer isn’t a major sport to most Americans, so they’re only going to pay attention to a really good team. That’s why the US women’s team does so much better comparatively in ratings/attention in soccer than women do in other team sports (WNBA vs NBA, for example).
I’ll follow the scores, and would watch a game if I’m at a TV at the time, but I have no emotional investment in the US team. I expect them to lose and they will lose.
LikeLike
The homer in me wants Team USA to win it all. But 3 and out is a realistic scenario.
Group D is also intriguing. Juventus is my team (for professional sports). And I despise the English Premier League in the same way that I despised the Dallas Cowboys of the late 1970’s. So I’ll be cheering for Italy and Uruguay in that group.
LikeLike
So does Oklahoma now have a shot at an at-large bid?
LikeLike
Yes. NIU lost, essentially moving OU to 16. UCF wasn’t impressive at all, so OU should jump them easily (15). They’re only 0.04 behind LSU, so this win could easily move them up another spot (14). #11 ASU could pick up their third loss, dropping them behind OU (13).
If OU is top 14, the Sugar would take them.
NCG – FSU/OSU
Rose – Stanford/MSU
Orange – AL/Clemson
Sugar – AU/OU
Fiesta – Baylor/UCF
LikeLike
Oklahoma has an outside shot at a BCS bid due to brand. Oklahoma (10-2) is likely to finish in the BCS top 14. It has the best chance if MSU gets blown out by OSU and is not in the top 14. If MSU is eligible, the last at large slot is probably a choice between Oregon and Oklahoma, with Alabama and Clemson taking the other 2. Baylor-Texas is now a elimination game for the B12 Fiesta bowl slot.
LikeLike
Congrats to Rice on their CUSA championship. First one in a long time for them. All 30 people at the game must have been thrilled.
More B12 chaos as OU wins bedlam, meaning Baylor/UT is for the B12 championship.
Things still look OK for MSU, though. NIU lost, giving MSU more cushion. History shows a top 10 team doesn’t drop very far for losing a CCG.
LikeLike
congrats to the Owls!
LikeLike
” All 30 people at the game must have been thrilled.”
Do we really have to put up with this shit? Yeah, only 20k showed up for an 11am kickoff at 35 degrees. Color me surprised.
LikeLike
Discussion of the crowd size was all over the internet during and after the game, so apparently you do. It doesn’t diminish the win or the title, does it? If anything, it legitimizes it because it was a neutral site.
LikeLike
SEC title game is like video game football right now.
LikeLike
Rice 41
Marshall 24
First outright conference title for the Owls since some on us were much younger and others were not even born. Congrats Loki!
🙂
LikeLike
It was a cold day in the stands. But the Owls came ready to play. Off to Memphis and a chance to put the wood to some SEC patsy!
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Good luck tonight!!! I’m hoping for a competitive game, which should improve the current standing of the conference (at least I think it will, but who knows).
This SEC CG is crazy….
What happened to Mizzou’s defense? And, Auburn’s for that matter?
LikeLike
There is no “d” in Missou………..
I hope for OSU’s sake they don’t get Alabama in the Orange Bowl. People are speculating Oregon or Clemson…….they can beat either if they can overcome their disappointment and come in with a good attitude. I have serious doubts that that will happen…….
LikeLike
OSU meeting ‘Bama in the Orange is very unlikely to occur.
First, the Orange would have to take ‘Bama (despite ‘Bama fans already having visited Miami last year for a much more important game).
Then the Sugar would have to take Clemson/OU over OSU.
OSU vs. Clemson in the Orange is a much more likely scenario.
LikeLike
If you want a silver lining, at least OSU won’t suffer another beat down in another NCG . . .
LikeLike
@Anthony London.
Thanks for the “good luck” but … as it is now 3:54 am on the Day After … ugh.
But agree with Richard’s “silver lining.”
It’s been a great first 2 years under Coach Meyer, so there is that too.
on the other hand, I need to go back to bed and I cant possibly go to work today!! 🙂
Feel a bit for Sparty cuz, the narrative will be that tOSU is bad, not that Sparty is good.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I hear you, but if the BIG wants to change the current football narrative, then we have to be in those games and play well. I think an Urban Meyer coached team would have held its own, even in a loss.
@BuckeyeBeau,
Tough loss, good game though. If MSU can beat Stanford, that will help build MSU’s case for being a great program.
We will see…
LikeLike
Well they will have a chance. Stanford has respect. Clemson has some. So Michigan St. will play Stanford in a game with a final score of 5-4. Ohio St. will play Clemson in a game with a final score of 72-70.
LikeLike
Feel a bit for Sparty cuz, the narrative will be that tOSU is bad, not that Sparty is good.
When you haven’t been to the Rose Bowl in a quarter-century, any conference title is treasured, no matter how many asterisks are next to it.
I think OSU was over-rated, but they did dominate most of their opponents, and even against a weak schedule you don’t do that without being good.
LikeLike
Anthony:
OSU and Michigan are the only B10 schools recruiting at a high enough level to challenge for a national title.
I feel that the Urbs needs to get at least 3-4 recruiting classes of his guys in to be able to realistically win a national title.
The next 2 years will be big ones.
LikeLike
Given how strong Michigan State’s program has become under Dantonio, the Big 10 needs to give some serious thought about moving the Spartans to the West and Purdue to the East for competitive balance.
LikeLike
Jeffrey,
Wholeheartedly agree. I don’t think MSU will fade, last season was truly unlucky for them – horrible luck. But, I would caution that if Narduzzi leaves for a head coaching gig, they’d be set back a season.
LikeLike
Problem is that everybody wants to play Michigan and OSU as often as possible. No one cares if IU and PU are tied up. Other western schools will care if MSU has an exclusive lock on Michigan.
LikeLike
Michigan would have an issue playing Nebraska, Wisky, Minnesota, Illinois, etc. less often too.
LikeLike
IF they re-aligned, it would have to be for a secular change proven over a period of many years, not for Sparty’s first Rose Bowl in a quarter-century. Whatever you fix by doing that, you probably break something else.
LikeLike
Plus, another point is that if the B10 East is as competitive as the SEC East or either Pac division, Any B10 East winner that wins the conference will pretty much automatically make the playoffs.
LikeLike
Well, if the B1G goes to 16 with two more eastern schools, then MSU is the likely candidate to shift to the B1G West.
LikeLike
Upsets in the MAC, Big XII and Big 10. Crazy 27 hours.
NCG – FSU vs. Auburn
Rose – MSU vs. Stanford
Orange – Alabama vs. Clemson
Sugar – tOSU vs. OU (maybe Oregon)
Fiesta – Baylor vs. UCF
LikeLike
Or if the Sugar Bowl wants a team from the southeastern region (but not conference)
Orange – ‘Bama vs. tOSU
Sugar – Clemson vs. OU/UO
(Others stay the same)
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the Sugar want an SEC team?
LikeLike
They would prefer one, but if the Orange Bowl grabs ‘Bama as FSU’s replacement that won’t be an option.
LikeLike
‘Bama went to Miami last year for a much more important game. Their fans wouldn’t be keen to visit there again. The Orange very well could pick OSU against Clemson.
LikeLike
They’ll take Clemson as FSU’s replacement. OB will be partner with ACc for next twelve years. They’re not going to screw over their business partner like that.
LikeLike
OB will get Clemson regardless of whether they take them first or second as the Sugar almost certainly will take the one out of ‘Bama/OSU that the Orange doesn’t take.
Also, the Orange has relationships with the SEC and B10 as well.
LikeLike
@Michael
The Orange Bowl hates its ACC tie in and couldn’t care less about hurting the ACC’s feelings. They only agreed to continue to hosting their champ after the ACC agreed to take less money than the other conferences are getting and the other conferences stepped in and sweetened the deal by letting the OB take the best available B1G/SEC/ND team available.
Plus, those contracts are signed already so it doesn’t matter what OB does this year.
(That said, I still think Clemson will probably end up in the Orange Bowl, but they won’t be first the pick. Though I wouldn’t be shocked if the Orange Bowl did pass completely on Clemson in favor of a tOSU/’Bama vs. OU/UO)
@Richard
I’ll admit that the presence of a 12-1 Ohio St. team changes the calculus somewhat compared to the scenarios we were talking about earlier in the week (when the discussion was ‘Bama vs. Clemson), but even having gone to Miami last year ‘Bama would still sell its ticket allotment and is the biggest TV draw available amongst the At-Large options.
That said, it is very close so I wouldn’t be particularly surprised if the OB did grab the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
If Frank is right (that the Sugar has dibs on an SEC at-large, regardless of selection order), then ‘Bama is a lock for the Sugar and it’d be very unlikely for anything other than Clemson-OSU in the Orange.
LikeLike
Just checked the actual selection rules and Frank is right.
Guess you learn something new every day.
LikeLike
When the Orange took USC and Iowa, they set up that rule. I knew they discussed that then, but had forgotten they actually changed the rules.
LikeLike
Er, what?
The Sugar will definitely pick ‘Bama against OU/Oregon (a total mismatch).
OSU vs. Clemson in the Orange should be a fun game.
LikeLike
The Sugar will definitely pick ‘Bama against OU/Oregon (a total mismatch).
But the Orange Bowl gets to pick first.
LikeLike
Ok, so Frank just informed us of an obscure rule in the BCS selection criteria that makes it makes it basically impossible for ‘Bama to go to the Orange Bowl so I guess
Orange – tOSU vs. Clemson
Sugar – ‘Bama vs. OU/UO
Others stay the same
—
Only other scenario I could really envision is if the Orange Bowl took Oklahoma over Clemson in which case the Sugar Bowl would almost certainly grab Oregon.
LikeLike
NCG: FSU vs. Auburn
Rose: Michigan State vs. Stanford
Orange: Clemson vs. Ohio State
Sugar: Alabama vs. Oklahoma
Fiesta: Baylor vs. UCF
Maybe Orange goes with Oklahoma and Ohio State ends up in Sugar, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
“Maybe Orange goes with Oklahoma and Ohio State ends up in Sugar, but I doubt it.”
Yeah, I don’t see that happening either.
LikeLike
If it were up to me:
Sugar: Tosu vs Alabama
Orange: Oklahoma vs UCF
Fiesta: Baylor vs Mizzou
LikeLike
SEC isn’t allowed to place more than 2 teams in the BCS bowls (including the championship game).
LikeLike
Of course it will be Clemson and OSU. Too bad Woody Hayes won’t be there to take a swing.
LikeLike
@MZoneBlog: Last time MSU went to the Rose Bowl, the Berlin Wall still stood
So what, last time won the conference it had not even been erected.
LikeLike
-Hard to believe but if the refs hadn’t stolen the ND game from MSU, they would have been playing for a NC.
-To add insult to OSU’s injury, they’ll probably go bowling with ‘Bama now. Yikes. Clemson please.
-I was surprised to see Delany booed so loudly, especially considering what he’s done for the B1G.
Slive would have gotten a standing ovation from SEC fans.
-If I were Nebraska I’d be sending a blank check to Narduzzi. That guy has got to get a HC gig after this.
LikeLike
OSU meeting ‘Bama is an almost impossible scenario.
The first 4 selections will go
Orange
Sugar
Orange
Sugar
For OSU to meet ‘Bama in the Orange, the Sugar would have to pass on one of OSU/’Bama in favor of someone else (OU? Oregon?). Not likely. Then the Orange would have to stiff Clemson.
OSU vs. ‘Bama in the Sugar is even less likely. The Orange would have to take Clemson and then pass on one of OSU/’Bama in favor of OU/Oregon.
LikeLike
You’re right. Alabama is the one that gets bumped not Clemson.
ESPN is predicting OSU/Clemson, Bama/Oklahoma (with outside chance of Oregon)
LikeLike
Remember that the Sugar gets first dibs on any SEC team. So, even though the Orange technically gets the first replacement choice, they cannot take an SEC team with such choice without the Sugar’s permission (and you’d have to pry an SEC team from the Sugar from their cold dead hands). As a result, Alabama is a lock to go to the Sugar.
LikeLike
Taking Auburn’s place.
LikeLike
“Remember that the Sugar gets first dibs on any SEC team.”
Wait, that’s actually part of the selection rules?
LikeLike
Remember that the Sugar gets first dibs on any SEC team. So, even though the Orange technically gets the first replacement choice, they cannot take an SEC team with such choice without the Sugar’s permission (and you’d have to pry an SEC team from the Sugar from their cold dead hands). As a result, Alabama is a lock to go to the Sugar.
Are you sure about that Frank? I have never heard that anywhere else.
LikeLike
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597
If a bowl loses a host team to the NCG, then such bowl shall select a replacement team from among the automatic-qualifying teams and the at-large teams before any other selections are made. If two bowls lose host teams to the NCG, each bowl will get a replacement pick before any other selections are made. In such case, the bowl losing the No. 1 team gets the first replacement pick, and the bowl losing the No. 2 team gets the second replacement pick. If the Rose Bowl loses both the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions to the NCG, it will receive two replacement picks.
A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select:
A. A team in the NCG, or
B. The host team for another BCS Bowl;
Further, when two bowls lose host teams, the bowl losing the No. 1 team may not select a replacement team from the same conference as the No. 2 team, unless the bowl losing the No. 2 team consents.
LikeLike
Unless Sparty has some special beef with Delany, that must be a referendum on the MD and Rutgers additions(??) If so, the powers that be would be wise to go slow on further expansion…….is there any other reason he would have been loudly booed? I mean, I know he’s an arrogant SOB, but he’s been a successful arrogant SOB.
LikeLike
Sparty? Hasn’t it been the OSU fanbase that seems to irrationally think that the B10 is out to get them?
LikeLike
You haven’t dealt with many MSU fans online lately, have you? They call it a conspartacy for a reason.
LikeLike
Every fan base thinks Delany is out to get them. MSU is mad because they wanted to be in the West division. Michigan is mad because, in the new scheduling arrangement, they play both MSU and Northwestern on the road two years in a row; and thereafter, MSU/OSU are home/road in the same year, instead of alternating years as in the past.
LikeLike
No, the MSU fan base tends to be specialists at this (it’s more mainstream for them than the others). 2010 – conspiracy. 2011 – conspiracy. Anything positive happens for OSU or MI – conspiracy. ND wins – conspiracy between the refs and the B10. They hold a grudge like ND fans, too.
LikeLike
But everyone loves a conspiracy.
LikeLike
Yes, there was so much TV attention on the 50th anniversary of November 22, 1963, that I got the idea that a person could make a career as “conspiracy expert”. And then I discovered that Jesse “The Body” Ventura had already beat me to it.
LikeLike
jj,
“But everyone loves a conspiracy.”
That’s true.
LikeLike
My first though was that is was over the latest additions, then I thought It was disgruntled OSU fans after the loss. It was so bad, at one point he even said “Come on now, come on now.”
I actually felt sorry for him.
LikeLike
Could also have been over how he handled the OSU/Michigan melee.
LikeLike
I’d love to know what that was all about. Seemed weird. I felt bad for him too. He was trying to make a nice presentation and a bunch of morons started booing him for no apparent reason. I first thought the MSU fans were booing OSU, but I don’t think so now.
LikeLike
Also, are we sure they weren’t saying “boo-urns?”
LikeLike
I can’t remember the last time that a commissioner (pro or college) *wasn’t* booed by a stadium crowd. There are entire YouTube montages of every Stanley Cup ceremony from the past 2 decades where Gary Bettman gets booed mercilessly at every single one. David Stern gets booed at every NBA Finals and NBA Draft. Roger Goodell gets booed every time he’s in public. Bud Selig would certainly get booed if he made more public appearances. It’s just par for the course if you’re a commissioner these days. Nothing shocking about what happened to Delany.
LikeLike
bettman deserves it though.
LikeLike
Just came across this. Let me know what you think:
Oh, and ND and RU to meet in the Pinstripe Bowl.
LikeLike
If true, it would help explain why FSU agreed to sign the GOR. The conference had recently made some concessions to ‘Noles (dumping the 9 game schedule, changing the way bowl revenues are allocated, making the Irish’s first game as part of the scheduling deal against FSU in Tallahassee and taking Louisville instead of UConn) but this would be the sort of major compromise that could convince FSU to give up the leverage to threaten to leave the conference.
LikeLike
What sort of changes? Straight north/south (kind of hard to do with four NC schools and four to the south of that state)? Swap a few teams (e.g., switch Virginia Tech to the Atlantic and Louisville to the Coastal, then making VT-UVa and L’ville-BC guaranteed crossover games)? Your thoughts?
LikeLike
The VA and Carolina schools vs. everybody else?
It would be pretty balanced (Clemson & VTech on one side; FSU & Miami on the other).
Plus, FSU would finally get an annual game again vs. GTech (which their fanbase had b*tched about not having, as they’re the closest ACC school to FSU). Not sure how happy FSU would be about playing all those outdoors northern schools in November, however (unless there’s a way to keep those games out of November; only ‘Cuse & GTech in November going forward?)
Title game could alternate between Charlotte and FL (the implicit assumption being that none of the 4 northern schools would ever beat out all 3 of FSU/Miami/GTech, but that’s probably a reasonable assumption).
LikeLike
I was personally partial to modified North/South allignment (a.k.a. Big East/ACC divions a.k.a. F*** Wake Forest)
“North”
BC
‘Cuse
Pitt
Louisville
V-Tech
WF
Miami
“South”
UVA
UNC
NC State
Clemson
G-Tech
FSU
Protected rivalries would be FSU-Miami, UVA-VPI and maybe WF-One of the Carolina Schools.
LikeLike
Frug, you forgot Duke. How about:
Atlantic (aka “ACC North-South”): Boston College, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Coastal (aka “ACC Classic”): Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest
Virginia Tech-Virginia would be the one protected rivalry.
Under this format, the North Carolina four would resume full football relations, making UNC-Wake and NCSU-Duke annual games again. It also places FSU among the Big East emigres, who on the whole tend to have stronger football cultures than the ACC originals (with the possible exception of Clemson; Georgia Tech is a quasi-original, having been the conference’s first expansion member). .
LikeLike
VP:
1. You have 3 of the 4 historically most dominant programs in 1 division.
2. I doubt FSU would be happy to not have GTech annually yet have all those northern schools.
Why not switch VTech and GTech (in which case you’d end up with my proposal)?
If you do that, there wouldn’t even be a need for any protected rivalries.
LikeLike
Duke would be in the South in my proposal.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. You have 3 of the 4 historically most dominant programs in 1 division.”
What conference would be dumb enough to that intentionally? Oh, wait.
LikeLike
Brian:
To be fair, of the pairings between VTech, Clemson, Miami, and FSU, only FSU-Miami needs to be annual. The B10 has the problem that UM-OSU has to be annual, and PSU-OSU (depsite your feelings, PSU think OSU is their biggest rivalry game now) also has to be annual.
Plus, it’s easy to split VA from the north as none of the northern schools have any sort of deep rivalry with the VA and Carolina schools, and while Clemson and GTech may like to play each other, I’ve never heard of that as a rivalry game. In the B10 case, Iowa-Northwestern, Iowa-Illinois, & Wisconsin-Illinois are all games that the respective schools want to play fairly often (and Iowa-Northwestern is definitely a rivalry game).
LikeLike
…this would be the sort of major compromise that could convince FSU to give up the leverage to threaten to leave the conference.
I would doubt that. FSU signed the GOR because it had nowhere to go. The B12 isn’t an attractive conference for FSU, and the Big Ten wasn’t going to expand in their direction, at least not in the foreseeable future.
The ACC without a GOR was therefore the worst of all possible worlds for FSU: they had nowhere to go themselves, but would have had to constantly worry that UVA or GT might sign a back-room deal with the Big Ten that leaves the ACC weaker than it was before.
Obviously, Swofford didn’t say to FSU, “Sign this because you have nowhere to go.” Instead, he made vague promises about an ACC Network that might or might not happen. But I think in their internal discussions, FSU figured out that they had no better option than the ACC, so they might as well ensure that the ACC remains as strong as it can be.
I don’t think a divisional re-alignment, altering perhaps 2-3 football games a year (at the most), would have kept FSU in the ACC if they had a realistic option to leave.
LikeLike
The ACC without a GOR was therefore the worst of all possible worlds for FSU: they had nowhere to go themselves, but would have had to constantly worry that UVA or GT might sign a back-room deal with the Big Ten that leaves the ACC weaker than it was before.
That was my first thought, but the problem with that line of reasoning is it raises even more issues. Specifically, if FSU was afraid UVA or GT might leave, then why did those schools agree to sign the GOR?
LikeLike
That was my first thought, but the problem with that line of reasoning is it raises even more issues. Specifically, if FSU was afraid UVA or GT might leave, then why did those schools agree to sign the GOR?
The history of re-alignment is replete with schools who claimed to be 100% committed to their league, only to join another league a very short time later. This means that the GOR calculus is a game of chicken. Everyone says they’re fully committed to the ACC, but no one can be positive how serious that is.
Remember, Pitt and Syracuse voted to substantially increase the Big East exit fee, and left not long afterward. So the fact that UNC and UVA were willing to sign the GOR, does not mean that in the absence of a GOR they were assured of staying. So if you’re FSU and don’t think you’re likely to find a better home in the next 10 years, you might as well do everything to ensure the security of the league you’re in.
It’s fairly widely assumed (though no one knows for sure) that any of the ACC’s AAU schools (except Pitt) could have a Big Ten invite any day they wanted. Without a GOR, the entire league would be under a cloud of speculation for the next decade, and FSU, with nowhere else to go, would be at a comparative disadvantage.
LikeLike
Remember, Pitt and Syracuse voted to substantially increase the Big East exit fee, and left not long afterward.
Pitt and Syracuse did not vote to increase the exit fee; that vote was held in response to their departures.
LikeLike
Pitt and Syracuse did not vote to increase the exit fee; that vote was held in response to their departures.
The exit fee changed a number of times. There was a vote before their departures, too.
LikeLike
@Marc
Pitt and Syracuse voted to reaffirm the $5 million exit fee, but not to raise it.
The other schools voted to raise it to $10 million after Pitt and ‘Cuse provided their notification to withdraw but before they actually left, but the Panthers and Orange abstained.
LikeLike
I don’t like straight North-South or “BE”-“Old”ACC alignments.
FSU already plays Clemson and Miami every year. So why not make it official and put those three in the same division? Add in GT and Louisville and you get a decent football division from just those five programs. You can fill in the rest with NC State and WF to provide the canon fodder.
UNC-UVA is important to both those schools. So is Duke-UNC. VT wants to play in NC and Va as well. So why not put those four in the other division? The 3 northern schools round out that division and you get a more academically elite association of schools. Moreover, the northern schools get to visit Va/NC every year for recruiting purposes (occasionally visiting Ga/Fla every other year). Also remember that Western Pa. (Pitt) still has some good recruiting grounds even more the demographics have shifted over decades.
FSU, CU, GT, NCSU, WF, UL, UM (Cinci)
UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, SU, BC, Pitt (Conn)
Crossovers: UNC-NCSU, WF-Duke, GT-VT, Miami-BC, SU-CU, UL-Pitt, FSU-UVA
If you’ve noticed, that would leave a slightly greater possibility that they can add two more schools at a later date if they want to (though still not that great in the end).
LikeLike
I’ve made a map of what it would look like if it shook out the way I would like:
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zY9YlltZu0-0.kiCCM7QW3pTo
LikeLike
This split is too unbalanced when FSU and Miami headline one division. Switching Pitt for Miami resolves the recruiting and football ability disparity from your proposal.
Also, adding UConn and Cincy makes no sense at this point. To stay relevant, the ACC needs to be financially close to the other conferences. Neither school will add to the ACC per school payouts.
LikeLike
Miami hasn’t yet made the ACC title game (unlike Wake, BC and Duke). It’s still a good program, but its days as a perennial national power are gone. We overrate the Hurricanes because of their past and because they’re in Florida, though they’re currently closer to Central Florida or South Florida than FSU or UF.
LikeLike
I’ve always looked at Miami as a Northern school in terms of culture and student body that just happens to be located in the South. So, there shouldn’t be an issue by putting them in the North (and indeed, the Canes were the ones that pushed for Northeastern schools when they joined the ACC). It seems pretty simple to me for new divisions:
NORTH:
Miami
BC
Syracuse
Pitt
UVA
VT
Louisville
SOUTH:
FSU
GT
UNC
NC State
Wake
Duke
Clemson
Make FSU-Miami and UVA-UNC at the very least into protected rivalries. That gives everyone consistent exposure in Florida for recruiting purposes, spreads the brand names in a relatively balanced manner, and culturally makes the most sense.
LikeLike
And yes, I know that the one school that will likely push back against my proposed setup is UVA. The thing is that with all of the factions within the ACC, this would ultimately cause the least amount of heartburn because UVA is really the only school that I could see not liking it (compared to multiple schools not liking other setups).
LikeLike
@Frank
That setup seems really, really shortsighted. The only thing keeping UVA in the ACC at this point is tradition and with those divisions you deny UVA almost all its traditional rivalries.
You are right that one of the Southern schools is going to have to be stuck in the North so you need to make sure it is the one with the least leverage which means Wake Forest.
Despite your second comment, it wouldn’t piss off anymore schools than sticking UVA in the North but unlike UVA, Wake Forest can’t leave.
LikeLike
I don’t know Frank, that actually looks like a really good set up from UVA’s perspective. UVA would have a natural recruiting and competitive advantage against every single team in that division, except Miami and maybe Pitt. I’m counting UVA and VT as having the same natural recruiting advantage though I know VT has been on top for a while. With the right coach, UVA could consistently compete for a division title with that set up. Plus, UVA has a whole lot of Alumni in northern urban centers, especially compared to other ACC schools.
LikeLike
Frank:
Why would multiple schools not like “VA&Carolinas vs. the rest” as much or more than your set up?
Every rivalry game would be intradivisional.
LikeLike
OK, I took your criticisms into consideration and made this map, instead:
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zY9YlltZu0-0.kU-ufos9eaFU
I wouldn’t mind that set up if everyone understands that neither will get 100% of what they want.
SU-Pitt, UNC-NCSU, FSU-Miami, Wake-Duke, UVA-GT, VT-UL and BC-CU would be the more likely crossover, unless they want to do away with crossovers completely.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree. I was up for that set-up completely when Maryland was still in (replacing Louisville in it). Now it sucks more for Virginia than before, but I think it’s still probably best of what’s available. Try to offer some concession for them in basketball maybe to make up for it.
That said, I bet Virginia Tech might not be trilled either. I am not sure they’d like the idea of being lumped with all the old Big East schools again even though everything feels more natural.
LikeLike
VP,
Completely disagree on your view of Miami. Although they have been a mediocre to good football program in the ACC, Miami still has the fundamentals to reestablish itself as a power school. With Golden they finally found a solid coach. Their recruiting is top 5 material this year. The Shapiro mess hurt them and the NCAA’s incompetence did them no favors. Their TV ratings are resilient, far above their on-field performance. Although the specific circumstances are very different, Miami football is suffering similar to other power programs -like Penn State or Michigan. these schools have unique advantages that allow them to bounce back.
Frank,
A strong cultural trait of the mid-Atlantic states, and especially espoused by UVa, is respect for traditions. Grouping UVa as the sole old-school ACC team with the newbies, would be hard to accept. If the revenue potential is really preferable with a north-south split, then I’d imagine that 2 schools will rotate amongst the core divisions. For example, UVa and Wake could flip amongst the…
ACC North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, VPI, Miami & (UVa or Wake)
ACC South: UNC, Duke, NCSt, Clemson, GT, FSU & (UVa or Wake)
At least this allows both UVa and Wake to play all the traditional schools on HaH every 4 years.
LikeLike
I’ll always believe that Miami will have resiliency. Just because they don’t fit the large fan base in the stands profile of other football powers doesn’t mean that they can’t leverage their greatest asset that can’t be duplicated: the single best pound-for-pound location for football recruiting in the country (both in terms of immediate proximity and a campus and city that lures out-of-state kids on top of that). The city of Miami has crappy fair weather fans at both the pro and college levels, but note the disproportionate number of athletes that choose to live there (even if their pro employers are elsewhere). That place is a powerful lure to those 18-year old egos and it helps that The U’s campus is basically the idealized clean version of Miami with beautiful people walking around that kids dream about. Never underestimate the power of that *specific* location (i.e. FIU ain’t the same thing). Just look at the recruits the program still got even when they were under the threat of sanctions.
LikeLike
Pablo:
VA&Carolina schools vs. everyone else. Traditions preserved.
LikeLike
@Pablo
Why even bother rotating Wake and UVA?
Just stick WF in the North, make UVA-VPI and FSU-Miami locked rivalries and tell the Demon Deacons if they don’t like it they join the AAC.
LikeLike
I could see why B1G fans would like to have UVA relegated to some kind of Big East throwback division, but there would be plenty of votes against that. Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech will insist on playing them every year
Also, it would certainly lessen the pressure on UVA to stay in the ACC, and would represent an unmistakable message from the ACC that their continued membership is not at all important. I think some gaming of potential alignments once the ACC goes to 16 helped push Maryland out the door (they must have known on some level that they had been replaced by the Hokies long before they decided to leave).
I don’t want to criticize someone else’s realignment scenario without offering my own, so here goes:
Coastal — Atlantic
Virginia — Virginia Tech
UNC — State
Duke — Wake
Ga Tech — Clemson
FSU — Miami
Pitt — Louisville
BC — Syracuse
So, I just swapped BC and FSU for Miami and Virginia Tech. It separates Clemson and FSU (if that is a goal), without disturbing any important rivalries that haven’t already been disturbed for ten years anyway.
I think it’s a shame that the Carolina and Virginia schools don’t all play each other (and Georgia Tech) every year, but that’s not a problem caused by divisional alignments, it’s a problem caused by playing in a conference with more than ten teams. The current zipper is pretty smart, but was built around preserving UMd/UVa as an annual matchup — that’s why Virginia Tech is in the Coastal. Now that that is not a problem (by the way, thanks B1G!!!), the ACC could make it a bit cleaner.
For the Pod People, with whom I have some sympathy, you could rotate FSU/Pitt/BC and Miami/Louisville/Syracuse between Atlantic and Coastal every year and everyone in the conference would play each other at least every other year. It works until we get to sixteen.
LikeLike
Presumably, the ACC also cares about competitive balance. Placing 3 of the 4 historically dominant programs (as well as GTech, which is probably historically the 5th best program) all in one division is almost certainly not going to fly.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Presumably, the ACC also cares about competitive balance. Placing 3 of the 4 historically dominant programs (as well as GTech, which is probably historically the 5th best program) all in one division is almost certainly not going to fly.”
Yes, I can’t imagine a power conference making that mistake.
LikeLike
Copied from above:
To be fair, of the pairings between VTech, Clemson, Miami, and FSU, only FSU-Miami needs to be annual. The B10 has the problem that UM-OSU has to be annual, and PSU-OSU (depsite your feelings, PSU think OSU is their biggest rivalry game now) also has to be annual.
Plus, it’s easy to split VA from the north as none of the northern schools have any sort of deep rivalry with the VA and Carolina schools, and while Clemson and GTech may like to play each other, I’ve never heard of that as a rivalry game. In the B10 case, Iowa-Northwestern, Iowa-Illinois, & Wisconsin-Illinois are all games that the respective schools want to play fairly often (and Iowa-Northwestern is definitely a rivalry game).
LikeLike
Assuming that FSU’s interest in an increased southern division is the driving force in an ACC realignment, then a simple flip of Georgia Tech for Boston College solves a lot of problems. The new alignment would be:
Atlantic. Coastal
FSU. Miami
GT. UVa
Clemson. VT
NC St. UNC
WFU. Duke
Louisville. Pitt
Syracuse. BC
The only loser in this change is Syracuse. Currently, they play both Pitt and BC. They would have to give up one of the two rivals.
On the other hand, there are a lot of winners:
1. FSU gets regular games in ATL, a division with a greater southern feel, and never has to play a division foe in the cold North
2. Miami and BC can renew their rivalry
3. Virginia schools get common sense cross-over rivals (UVa-Louisville and VT-BC are completely forced match-ups)
LikeLike
Got to flip Syracuse and Miami in that scenario. I like the north-south with Miami in the north.
Another possibility is N/S with Clemson, UVA, VT, UL, BC, Pitt, SU in north.
LikeLike
Another possibility is N/S with Clemson, UVA, VT, UL, BC, Pitt, SU in north.
If UVa-UNC (still a big deal to Cavs fans) and Clem-GT were protected crossover games, that could work.
LikeLike
Clemson would be too much of a geographic and cultural outlier. One problem with the ACC after the 2005 expansion, was that BC never really fit the conference.
North-south split for the ACC does not make sense. First, the best recruits and teams are in the south. Second, you have too many low value add (in football terms) teams in the state of North Carolina…that really need to be split-up from a revenue generating perspective.
Another option is to flip Pitt & GT for BC & Syracuse. They can then rename the nonsensical Coastal & Atlantic divisions into a conventional East versus West branding. The new divisions:
ACC East: Miami, VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, Syracuse & BC
ACC West: FSU, Clemson, GT, NCSt, WFU, Louisville & Pitt
In this set-up there is only one must keep cross-over rivalry, FSU v Miami, and the competitive balance remains. An 8 game schedule would actually work much better if the cross-overs are eliminated (with the exception of FSU v Miami, which is an essential financial and competitive imperative to the conference).
The only complaint may come from the UNC and NCSt football faithful, but they can easily schedule a non-conference game 2 out of 3 years.
LikeLike
I think their problem is no one can remember who is in which division. And if they want to compete with the Big 10 in the northeast, it works better to have a critical mass with rivalries.
If they played 9 games, it would be easier. With a 6-1-2 you still rotate among the other schools home and away over 6 years.
Having all the N. Carolina schools in the south (the negative of 4 teams in one state) offsets having FSU, GT and either Clemson or Miami. But you could keep it similar to now with NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU + UL, GT and Miami in the south or keep the privates in the south and put NCSU and UNC in the north for more long term balance (but Duke and Wake have been in ACC championship games-UNC and NCSU haven’t).
LikeLike
VA & Carolina schools vs. everyone else.
1. Easy to remember who’s in what division.
2. No need for protected crossovers (NC schools even gets to all play each other, as does Clemson, and the cultural bond between the Carolinas is stronger than the cultural bond between NC and VA or SC and GA; but the VA schools are there as well).
3. Competitively balanced (Clemson & VTech on one side; FSU and Miami on the other).
4. Critical mass in the Northeast. In fact, all regional groupings are kept together (FSU finally gets an annual game against GTech again, the lack of which was a major gripe among their fanbase).
5. Both divisions still get southern exposure (the VA & Carolinas division is completely southern while the other division gets to visit FL and Atlanta regularly).
LikeLike
Richard,
“VA & Carolina schools vs. everyone else.”
Inner vs Outer didn’t exactly get rave reviews the last time someone suggested it. I’m guessing the Outer ACC schools would complain about travel in this case, too.
LikeLike
@Richard
Virginolina-Outer would be good for everyone except for Georgia Tech. They identify with ACC Old Guard than the Big East schools and FSU and their new AD said specifically that Georgia Tech wanted to be associated with UVA, UNC and Duke when he was asked about realignment.
Not saying they could necessarily block it, but the Yellow Jackets would not be happy.
LikeLike
frug:
OK, everyone except GTech would be happy. I think that’s better than most of the arrangements I’ve seen.
LikeLike
@Richard
I think the real difficulty is that in any geographic split at least one of the Southern schools is going to be unhappy. In Frank’s proposal it’s UVA, in mine it’s Wake Forest and in yours it’s GIT.
LikeLike
ACC needs to appeal the NCAA rule about having 2 divisions to play a championship game more than any other conference. It’s impossible to maintain all the important rivalries within divisions & divisions force too many irrelevant games on an annual basis like Clemson/Cuse & Virginia/Lville.
Without divisions, each team plays their 3 rivals annually & plays the other 10 teams every other year with their other 5 conference games. Every team can play a Florida team every year. #1 will play #2 in Charlotte so no more #12 10-2 FSU vs 6-6 Ga Tech (last year) or #1 12-0 FSU vs Duke (this year). FSU would have played #14 10-2 Clemson last year & #13 10-2 Clemson this year. Schedules will have a lot more variety than the current 1 rotating out-of-divisoin game the teams play now.
Miami vs FSU, Pitt, BC
FSU vs Miami, Clemson, Ga Tech
Ga Tech vs Clemson, FSU, Virginia
Clemson vs Ga Tech, Ga Tech, NC State
UNC vs NC State, Duke, Virginia
NC State vs UNC, Wake, Clemson
Duke vs Wake, UNC, Cuse
Wake vs Duke, NC State, BC
Virginia vs Va Tech, UNC, Ga Tech
Va Tech vs Virginia, Pitt, Lville
Lville vs Pitt, Va Tech, Cuse
Pitt vs Lville, Va Tech, Miami
Cuse vs BC, Lville, Duke
BC vs Cuse, Miami, Wake
This could work for the 14-team SEC & B1G too:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2013/11/13/5100648/clemsons-perfect-schedule-in-the-14-team-acc
LikeLike
A lot of people can’t stand Florida State…but I sense everyone outside SEC territory will be rooting for the Seminoles if only to stop a fifth straight year of domination from the state of Alabama and eight straight from the SEC. Jeez, it’s getting boring.
LikeLike
I do like Malzahn’s wizardry.
Compared to other college coaches, he seems like he’s playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers, thinking several plays ahead.
LikeLike
BCS worked again………….another compelling match-up. Only team with a legit bitch is Bama, and I’m definately ok with that……………
So will Missou play Wisky? Mo’s WRs would dominate,but MO can be run on………A&M showed that before the Aub. game. …I thought A&M would have won that game had johnny m.been 100%……so MO may have been overrated………..I know that rush D was ranked #2 in the SEC….not sure how…….
I wonder if Andy is still with us………not only did the fball team go down, but the 34-0 VB team lost to Purdue in the tourney…..in Columbia. BT has 6 teams in the final 16 with MSU to play Sunday….only UM has lost so far……….
LikeLike
I doubt that the Cap One would want 2 Midwestern teams from far away, so Mizzou may slide to the Cotton with the Cap One matching up Wisconsin with SCarolina.
Mizzou-OU would still be an attractive matchup, however, and sure to get the blood of those who remember the Big8 stirring.
LikeLike
Exactly. Mizzou is going to the Cotton Bowl. They’ll end up bringing more fans and playing a higher ranked opponent there anyway. Lots of Mizzou alumni in Dallas.
LikeLike
mushroomgod, yeah, I’m still here. Sucks about the volleyball team. The football team is 11-2 and SEC runner ups, not bad. It will be nice to beat OU or OSU in the Cotton Bowl.
Mizzou’s basketball team had a big win against UCLA today to move to 9-0. The SEC looks ripe for the taking in basketball this year.
LikeLike
Beat UK and you guys make my day. Florida is not what they sometimes are.
I know nothing of Auburn, but they lost to Illinois by….a lot. That seems pretty typical of SEC basketball this year.
On the volleyball front, MSU beat UK, so the Big 10 has 7/last 16 teams.
Haven’t studied the match-ups statistically, but my first impression is that Okie State is a tough draw. I do think Mo. has the psychological edge–they have something to prove, whereas OSU can’t be thrilled about being there.
LikeLike
And as far as being overrated, yeah, Mizzou was probably overrated at #5. I think somewhere in the 8 to 10 range is fair.
LikeLike
Herbstreit still shilling for Auburn today trying to continue the Auburn vs. unbeaten Ohio St. argument.
LikeLike
I’d agree with that Andy. The QB and the 2 tall WRs are exceptional. The lines, LBs, and DBs are above average. MSU and MO would be a very interesting game.
LikeLike
My B10 bowl projections now:
Rose: MSU vs. Stanford (both Sagarin and F/+ have Stanford above MSU)
Orange: OSU vs. Clemson (both Sagarin and F/+ have OSU above Clemson)
Cap One: Wisconsin vs. SCarolina (both Sagarin and F/+ have Wisconsin above SC)
Outback: Iowa vs. LSU (both Sagarin and F/+ have LSU above Iowa)
Wings: UNL vs. Texas/OK St. (both Sagarin and F/+ have Texas a little above UNL and OK St. well above UNL)
Gator: Michigan vs.Vandy/Ole Miss (Sagarin has all 3 schools around each other; F/+ have Michigan & Ole Miss well above Vandy)
Texas: Minny vs. KSU/TTech (both Sagarin and F/+ have KSU above Minny; Sagarin has Minny and TTech about the same while F/+ has Minny about TTech)
So whether the B10 finished above .500 in bowls could well depend on whether the Alamo and Holiday bowls take the better team or the bigger fanbase. If those bowls take the bigger fanbase, the better team will fall in to a bowl against a B10 team, making it tougher sledding for the B10 in bowls this year.
LikeLike
Whoops, I messed up.
Gator: Michigan vs. UGa (both Sagarin and F/+ have UGa above Michigan)
Wings: UNL vs. KSU/TTech (both Sagarin and F/+ have KSU above UNL above TTech; Sagarin barely)
Texas: Minny vs. Someone (Phil Steele says WSU). Sagarin has WSU above Minny. F/+ has the opposite.
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1880430-projected-bcs-rankings-2013-final-top-25-bcs-standings-predictions
BCS Guru has Sparty shooting up all the way to #4.
LikeLike
Just for fun here is what I think the bowls would look like using the new playoff rules assuming that
A. The Peach and Fiesta hosted the playoffs
and
B. The committee seeded the playoffs using the BCS standings (or at least this projection of them)
Peach
FSU vs. MSU
Fiesta
Auburn vs. ‘Bama
Rose
Stanford vs. tOSU
Sugar
Baylor vs. USCe
Orange
Clemson vs. Mizzou
Cotton
Oregon vs. Fresno St.
—
The Fiesta Bowl would be rematch of a recent game and the Cotton Bowl would be a blowout, but overall not a bad slate of games.
LikeLike
Sugar and Cotton would depend on the order of the picks (whoever’s last gets Fresno).
Also, wouldn’t the Sugar always pick before the Orange when it comes to choice of SEC teams?
If the Sugar picks Mizzou and the Orange doesn’t want a Clemson-SC rematch, they could match LSU vs. Clemson and SC falls to the Cap One vs. Wisconsin (which is what will almost certainly happen this year anyway).
LikeLike
Sugar and Cotton would depend on the order of the picks (whoever’s last gets Fresno).
No, next year the Sugar Bowl is Big XII vs. SEC. (Though now that I think about it, UCF would get the last slot not Fresno)
Also, wouldn’t the Sugar always pick before the Orange when it comes to choice of SEC teams?
If the Sugar picks Mizzou and the Orange doesn’t want a Clemson-SC rematch, they could match LSU vs. Clemson and SC falls to the Cap One vs. Wisconsin (which is what will almost certainly happen this year anyway).
According to the new rules, the bowls won’t actually get any say in who they get; it will all be up to the committee and auto-bids. And while the Sugar Bowl’s SEC slot will be filled Orange Bowl’s, the committee has said that (supposedly) they are not going to let potential rematches be a factor and will simply seed them according to who is the best team.
LikeLike
And like I said, for simplicity sake, I was just assuming that they seeded the bowls using these projections of the final BCS standings.
LikeLike
Next year the Sugar is a semifinal, not SEC vs. Big 12. The 2015 and 2016 seasons will be SEC vs. Big 12.
LikeLike
Just for fun here is what I think the bowls would look like using the new playoff rules assuming that
A. The Peach and Fiesta hosted the playoffs
I’m aware that next year the Sugar and Rose Bowls are being used for the playoff games, but since I was doing this at 1:30 AM and it’s a lot easier to seed the bowls when the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls aren’t beings used as semis so, I chose this way.
LikeLike
USAT Coaches’ Top 25 poll is out.
Click to access USAToday.pdf
No surprises.
1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama
4. Michigan State
5. Baylor
LikeLike
AP poll is out.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1/week/16
1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama
4. Michigan State
5. Stanford
LikeLike
Attendance at the CCGs.
SEC: 75,632 – GA Dome capacity is 71,228. (+4,404)
P-12: 69,535 – Sun Devil stadium capacity is 71,706. (-2,171)
ACC: 67,694 – BofA stadium capacity is 73,778 before the tarps. (-6,084)
B1G: 66,002 – Lucas Oil stadium capacity is 63,000. (+3,002)
LikeLike
If the 2014 CFP rules were in effect now using the AP poll as a seeding reference.
Semi (Rose) #1 Florida State v. #4 Alabama – I seeded Bama at #4 to avoid a re-match and to give Sparty credit for a CCG win.
Semi (Sugar) #2 Auburn v. #3 Michigan State – Sparty may get consideration as #4 to go to the Rose instead.
Orange #12 Clemson (ACC slot) v. #7 Ohio State or #8 South Carolina (probably Ohio State here)
Peach #15 UCF (gang of 5 AQ) v. #8 South Carolina or #7 Ohio State (Peach may need nearby Gamecocks to fill up the joint)
Fiesta #5 Stanford v. #9 Mizzou
Cotton #6 Baylor v. #10 Oregon or #11 Oklahoma.
Only Oregon or Oklahoma get left out among the top 12.
LikeLike
So WRONG! The whole purpose of a playoff selection committee is to get rid of the BS coaches’ poll and BCS computers once and for all!! The coaches poll ranks almost entirely on W-L record, with almost no consideration for the fact that conferences play different number of conference games or that teams play widely varying OoC schedules (in terms of quality). Meanwhile, the computers are black boxes.
I predict that we will see the emergence of an RPI-like statistic a la NCAA basketball, that will be used by the committee to justify, for hypothetical example, putting Stanford into the playoff this year in lieu of either Michigan State or Baylor.
LikeLike
Brad Edwards’ projected matchups if the 2014 CFP rules were in effect for this season. I didn’t provide a link as the cut is from a larger ESPN Insider article.
“Here’s how I’d project the bowl matchups shaking out if next year’s system were in place for this season:
• Sugar Bowl: No. 1 Florida State versus No. 4 Michigan State (national semifinal)
• Rose Bowl: No. 2 Auburn versus No. 3 Alabama (national semifinal)
• Orange Bowl: No. 7 Ohio State versus No. 12 Clemson
• Fiesta Bowl: No. 5 Stanford versus No. 15 UCF
• Cotton Bowl: No. 6 Baylor versus No. 8 Missouri
• Chick-fil-A Bowl: No. 9 South Carolina versus No. 10 Oregon”
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brad Edwards’ projected matchups if the 2014 CFP rules were in effect for this season. I didn’t provide a link as the cut is from a larger ESPN Insider article.
“Here’s how I’d project the bowl matchups shaking out if next year’s system were in place for this season:
• Sugar Bowl: No. 1 Florida State versus No. 4 Michigan State (national semifinal)
• Rose Bowl: No. 2 Auburn versus No. 3 Alabama (national semifinal)
• Orange Bowl: No. 7 Ohio State versus No. 12 Clemson
• Fiesta Bowl: No. 5 Stanford versus No. 15 UCF
• Cotton Bowl: No. 6 Baylor versus No. 8 Missouri
• Chick-fil-A Bowl: No. 9 South Carolina versus No. 10 Oregon”
Really? That’s the best the committee would do?
They are supposed to pick the best matchups and consider geography, but the rules handcuff them. Shouldn’t UCF really be in the Orange vs Clemson? Shouldn’t OSU really be playing Stanford in the Fiesta? I’m not saying he’s wrong, but the rules and tie-ins prevent the committee from doing what they are really needed to do.
Also, what about the Iron Bowl rematch? Do people really think they would choose that over splitting the SEC teams? Would fans prefer the rematch as a semi or the chance of a rematch in the NCG?
LikeLike
@Brian – Remember that the Orange Bowl is a contract bowl that the committee doesn’t select where it’s ACC vs. the best available non- playoff team out of the SEC, Big Ten or Notre Dame. So, Ohio State is contractually slotted to go to the Orange. That then trickles down to the rest of the bowls.
I agree that it’s ridiculous that a committee wouldn’t avoid a rematch between Alabama and Auburn. The ability to make that type of switch is exactly the main benefit of using a committee as opposed to rigid rankings. Personally, I think some fans make too large of a deal out of having straight seeding – to me, avoiding a semifinal rematch is more important than pure adherence to seeding, particularly when we’re only talking about 4 teams.
One thing that will be interesting is how well these access bowls will end up doing. On paper, they’re supposedly “better” matchups in terms of rankings, but that doesn’t always correlate with what’s better for the bowls. How happy is the Peach going to be with its committee determined matchups long-term compared with its current contractual tie-ins with the SEC and ACC? Same thing with the Cotton if it’s not getting SEC vs. Big 12 matchups consistently. It makes me wonder if we’ll see a bit of a reversion to more contractual tie-ins or giving back more picking power to the bowls whenever the next iteration of this system is created.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Brian – Remember that the Orange Bowl is a contract bowl that the committee doesn’t select where it’s ACC vs. the best available non- playoff team out of the SEC, Big Ten or Notre Dame. So, Ohio State is contractually slotted to go to the Orange. That then trickles down to the rest of the bowls.”
I know. That’s why I said they were handcuffed by the rules and tie-ins.
“I agree that it’s ridiculous that a committee wouldn’t avoid a rematch between Alabama and Auburn.”
That has always been my impression as well. There is a reason the NCAA avoids conference games in the tourney for as long as possible. I’d assume the same logic applies here. Maybe he felt the ending of the Iron Bowl made it a special case.
“One thing that will be interesting is how well these access bowls will end up doing. On paper, they’re supposedly “better” matchups in terms of rankings, but that doesn’t always correlate with what’s better for the bowls. How happy is the Peach going to be with its committee determined matchups long-term compared with its current contractual tie-ins with the SEC and ACC? Same thing with the Cotton if it’s not getting SEC vs. Big 12 matchups consistently. It makes me wonder if we’ll see a bit of a reversion to more contractual tie-ins or giving back more picking power to the bowls whenever the next iteration of this system is created.”
It will come down to who has the power. I think TV and the conferences have it, so the bowls will have to take what they’re given. Now that the schools are exerting some control, I doubt they’ll ever give it back. They know other bowls would happily replace any of the CFP bowls that have a complaint.
LikeLike
Hmm. The difference in payout between the Orange and CapOne better be more than the additional payout for each extra contract bowl team. . .
LikeLike
Edwards was saying Auburn would pass OSU in all the computer polls after the iron bowl. They didn’t pass them in any. Anything ESPN says has to be taken with a grain of salt. They’re busy selling the SEC Network right now.
LikeLike
Or a salt lick…
LikeLike
Brian – I just posted it. I like my version better, which is a few posts above.
LikeLike
Since the selection is by committee, I doubt the SEC will get 4 of the 12 slots the first year, so its more likely to be Oklahoma in the Fiesta and Mizzou being the school left out.
LikeLike
There isn’t supposed to be a limit on the # of teams per conference anymore. I don’t see why #s 10 and 11 should jump #9.
LikeLike
The gap from 7 to 14 is pretty narrow. Hard to tell how that would factor in. Do
they give BCS #11 OU the benefit of a doubt over the #4 SEC team?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
Final ever BCS standings.
LikeLike
Under my proposed 8-team playoff system, we’d actually have a perfectly seeded playoff using the BCS rankings:
Rose: #4 MSU (B1G champ) vs. #5 Stanford (Pac-12)
Sugar: #2 Auburn (SEC) vs. #7 Ohio State (at-large)
Orange: #1 Florida State (ACC) vs. #8 Missouri (at-large) (or #15 UCF if non-AQ champ gets a slot)
Fiesta: #6 Baylor (Big 12) vs. #3 Alabama (at-large)
LikeLike
rematch central
LikeLike
How can people possibly still oppose something like this?
LikeLike
It’s not the fans that are opposed, or the players, the coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners or television execs. It’s the bowl committees and those who stand to (potentially) lose money if there is change to the current system.
LikeLike
Some fans certainly oppose it (a minority, but not a tiny one).
LikeLike
michael,
“How can people possibly still oppose something like this?”
Because they prefer the season to end on or about 1/1.
Because they prefer every regular season game to really matter.
Because they prefer to reward the best team over the entire season rather than the hottest team in the playoff.
Because they don’t believe there are enough games to truly decide which football team is best.
Because they aren’t obsessed with the notion of determining a definitive national champion.
Because of lots of other reasons potentially.
LikeLike
I appreciated your post on the 8-team playoff, but there are a couple of things I’d like to add to the equation.
The first is that the opening round games should be played at college campuses, not at bowl site. Ideally, I’d like the semi-finals to be at the stadiums of the higher ranked schools as well, but the bowls are so deeply embedded into the conferences that it’s unlikely to happen (plus the SEC would have a hissy fit if the possibility of playing in cold weather were an option). If the quarter finals are on campus, then the bowls could have the two semi-final games plus the championship game (unless the powers that be feel its best played at a non-bowl site).
A few reasons why. The first is that I’d like to see the fans of at least the higher ranked teams be able to enjoy the first round of games at locales near them. It certainly would ease the travel cost burden on them (although you know the tickets are expensive). The second reason is that it gives teams an extra incentive to finish well during the season (and to win your conference championship game). In fact, by extension, you could also put in a rule stating that the top 2, 3 or 4 conference winners would get the top seeds over any of the at-large teams.
Let’s take the BCS standings, put the games at the stadium of the higher ranked team, and let the top 4 conference teams host those game prior to any at large squad. This is what we would get for the games/seeding:
#8 Missouri (Big XII At Large) at #1 Florida State (ACC Champion)
#7 Ohio State (Big Ten At Large) at #2 Auburn (SEC Champion)
#6 Baylor (Big XII Champion) at #3 Michigan State (Big Ten Champion)
#5 Alabama (SEC At Large) at #4 Stanford (Pac 12 Champion)
One of the reasons I like the eight-team playoff is that it means all the major conferences get at least one representative into it. While college football is a national sport in scope, there’s a strong fan identification to region/conference that at least gets recognized in an expanded post-season.
That said, if one of the five major conferences produces a conference champion that isn’t in the top 12 or 14 of the rating system used, that conference gives up its autoberth and a fourth at large team would replace it. That would essentially prevent a 7-5 team from getting into the playoff, even if it won the conference championship game. It might also mean that the loser of that CCG might still get in, but as an at large only (which means it loses the opportunity for home field advantage)–that would mean this conference still gets a representative.
LikeLike
If you don’t want to sit the the Bowl Selection Show, here’s the complete bowl lineup.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9301782/2013-14-bowl-schedule
LikeLike
With exception to LSU/Iowa, I think the B1G has to like these match-ups. For the first time in a long time most of our teams aren’t punching up.
LikeLike
(in regard to talent, not necessarily rank)
LikeLike
What’s in the B10’s favor is that both UGa and LSU lost their starting QB’s. Otherwise, LSU would definitely out-talent Iowa and UGa would definitely out-talent UNL.
As it is, a lot of toss-ups. Those 2 games are now toss-ups (Pelini may keep his “4-losses a season, every season” streak going).
Minny-‘Cuse is a toss-up (slight edge to Minny).
Wiscy-SC is a toss-up (slight edge to Bucky if they remember to keep running the ball).
OSU-Clemson is a toss-up (slight edge to OSU).
Michigan-KSU depends on (as Ted Glover said) whether the UM of the OSU & ND games shows up, or the UM of the rest of the season show up. It’s the one bowl game where the B10 team definitely out-talents their opponent, but as this isn’t a rivalry game, I’m pessimistic about the “good Wolverines” showing up.
MSU-Stanford: MSU is a terrifically coached team, but I think Stanford is slightly better.
LikeLike
I’d say
Stanford over MSU
Ohio State over Clemson
South Carolina over Wisconsin
Georgia over Nebraska
Michigan over K-State
Minnesota over Syracuse
as for LSU and Iowa, I’m really not sure. Iowa has been playing well and LSU lost Mettenberger, but still, LSU is pretty good. Could go either way, and I think that game decides whether the B1G goes 4-3 or 3-4 this year.
LikeLike
I think that the teams in the bowl games are so evenly matched that the B10 could just as easily go 6-1 or 1-6 (and everything in between) with the margin of victory in 6 of the 7 games being one TD or less.
LikeLike
I’d agree with that. The Big 10 has a chance to look good because they will be slight underdogs in the majority of those games and could go 0-7 or 7-0. I’d pick Ohio St., Wisconsin and Minnesota to win. But the only game that would really surprise me if it went differently than I expect is MSU beating Stanford.
LikeLike
I’d guess 2-5, maybe 3-4. B10 teams consistently find ways to lose winnable bowl games.
LikeLike
LSU is very inconsistent. Its one of the better matchups for Iowa even if LSU has better talent.
LikeLike
Never underestimate a Bill Snyder coached team. KSU has improved considerably over the course of the season.
LikeLike
Kind of amazing but there are only 7 bowl games that include two ranked teams:
BCS Title Game #1 FSU vs #2 Auburn
Rose Bowl #4 Michigan State vs #5 Stanford
Sugar #3 Alabama vs #11 Oklahoma
Orange #7 Ohio State vs #12 Clemson
Cotton #8 Missouri vs #13 Oklahoma State
Fiesta #6 Baylor vs #15 Central Florida
Capital One #9 South Carolina vs #19 Wisconsin
That’s it.
And if you ask me that’s a crappy system. With 25 ranked teams you’d think they could scrape together at least 10 or 11 top 25 match-ups.
LikeLike
Interesting. 5 of the 7 are BCS. One is a future BCS and the other is the top non-BCS game.
LikeLike
Andy – you left out the Las Vegas Bowl featuring #20 Fresno State and #25 USC, and the Chick-fil-A bowl with #21 A&M and #24 Duke.
LikeLike
Duke’s still ranked? wow.
LikeLike
Kinda makes sense though. 60 % (aprox) of ranked teams are involved in 20% of the bowl games. The remaining bowls are scrambling to invite as attractive a team as possible, and lack tie ins to power conferences top performers.
LikeLike
Also, roughly half of the Top 25 teams are in the SEC (7) and the Pac-12 (5), who currently have no regularly scheduled bowl match-ups. Given that, nine match-ups out of the maximum twelve isn’t bad.
LikeLike
The BCS clearly worked this time: Why? We have the two teams that deserve it the most playing for the National Championship, and there will be no undeserving teams playing (except Central Florida). 2: There is only one team that really got screwed and that is South Carolina (beating two BCS Teams (Clemson & UCF) and not playing). Of all the BCS teams, I am most happy for Baylor. In the final, and I believe the most important game in the History of Floyd Casey, they (with the help of Oklahoma), had the opportunity to win an outright Conference Championship, by beating Texas, and they did. Congratulations to the Bears, and the most Underrated Coach in College Football, Art Briles.
LikeLike
I would say that UCF is more deserving than Oklahoma, Clemson, or even Alabama. They not only won a BCS conference (The AAC is still a BCS conference this year), they won every conference game, which I believe only Michigan State and Florida State did.
LikeLike
For next year’s playoffs, are we absolutely sure that Alabama would be in?
If you look at how the committee has framed things, they seem to be putting a premium on a team winning their conference.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/story?id=9830895
My hunch is that they will look at teams in this order: Undefeated Power 5 teams, 1 loss Power Champions, 1 loss Power conference teams that are not champions, 2 loss Power conference champions, “group of five” champions.
This would put Florida State, Auburn, MSU and Baylor as the final four.
Then, the outrage (and “playoff creep”) would begin.
LikeLike
It would be VERY interesting to hear what the CFP committee would have done with the four spots this year. But of course they don’t want to provide that kind of transparency about process and what they actually value.
LikeLike
No doubt in my mind FSU, Auburn and Alabama would be 3. I suspect Michigan St. would slip in with the 4th slot. But it would be close with Baylor and Stanford.
LikeLike
Look for the emergence of an RPI-like statistic (used in NCAA basketball) for football to be used to differentiate conference champions, and Alabama-like non-conference champs. This stat will weight SoS heavily, and finally provide some justice to the Pac-12.
Also, I do not believe that the politics of a geographically-distributed committee will permit a non-conference champion to ever make a 4-team playoff. IMO, that is right too. It has already been demonstrated that nobody wants to see a rematch of two division rivals like Alabama-Auburn or Alabama-LSU. Plus, why should these teams get second chances? Nobody else does. The only way a non-conference champ deserves to get into a 4-team playoff is if the conference champs are outliers due to big upsets.
Since the committee has also already publicly stated that CCGs will be weighted heavily, the Big-12 will have a higher hurdle to jump when compared with the other conferences. This means that Big-12 teams better strengthen their OoCs or expand. Baylor’s pathetic OoC schedule, coupled with no CCG would probably cost them if the new system were in place this year.
Therefore, this season, the playoff likely would be: #1 FSU, #2 Auburn, #3 Stanford, and #4 MSU. Stanford would be seeded ahead of MSU due to a higher RPI-like stat (See ESPN power index, where Stanford is ranked #1).
LikeLike
Look for the emergence of an RPI-like statistic (used in NCAA basketball) for football to be used to differentiate conference champions, and Alabama-like non-conference champs.
I’m not so sure about that. The folks on the committee aren’t stat geeks.
Also, I do not believe that the politics of a geographically-distributed committee will permit a non-conference champion to ever make a 4-team playoff.
The Committee needs to work within established parameters. The university presidents considered limiting the playoff to conference champions, and rejected it. The Committee isn’t going to introduce unwritten rules that “veto” what the presidents decided.
It has already been demonstrated that nobody wants to see a rematch of two division rivals like Alabama-Auburn or Alabama-LSU.
Since the presidents voted for rules that explicitly allow for this to happen, you can’t say that nobody wants it. Clearly, somebody does. I’d say that SEC fans definitely want it. If there’d been a playoff in 2006, I am pretty sure that Michigan faans would’ve wanted it.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Yes, I’m befuddled by how much I see both of those arguments. The powers that be ended up choosing the most *subjective* mechanism to select the playoff possible: a small number of people in a room that aren’t required to incorporate any type of objective metrics and won’t release any rankings during the course of the season. The BCS rankings might have been maddening at times, but they were published every week for everyone to see and both the polls and computer rankings were out there.
Plus, people have been asking for some type of RPI metric that was trusted for college football for the past 2 decades. The primary objective of the BCS rankings when they were first created was they were supposed to reduce human bias by using “objective” computer rankings. The problem is that such rankings spit out results that the public thought were bats**t crazy and no one has been able to create a formula that people had any faith in relying upon. So, the BCS started reducing the influence of the computer rankings and now we’re at the point where they’re not part of the selection process at all outside of general guidance. There simply isn’t a computer ranking that anyone trusts and, honestly, it makes sense intuitively. There are so few non-conference games of note these days in college football that the statistical data is extremely flawed compared to basketball (where both the volume of games and, just as importantly, the critical mass of non-conference games provide a much more reliable base of data).
Meanwhile, we have at least a plurality (if not majority) of Big Ten fans here, so the notion that “no one wants to see a conference rematch” in the national championship game is a clouded opinion as opposed to fact. There’s an entire swath of the South that believes that the SEC should be sending 3 or 4 teams to this playoff, much less 2. If anything, the general public seems to be trying to find any way to justify SEC representation no matter what the circumstances (i.e. if Ohio State had won on Saturday, the calls for Auburn to go to the national title game instead would have been deafening). The pro-SEC faction is united and unwavering, while much of the rest of the country acknowledges that it’s the best conference (even if it’s done begrudgingly). The fact that there isn’t any conference championship requirement is a pretty explicit statement that shutting out multiple “deserving” SEC teams from the playoffs is more objectionable to the powers that be than mandating that you win your conference. That’s part of the argument for my 8-team system where you reduce that element and place the emphasis on on-the-field results (with still some flexibility to bring in a couple of elite at-larges). You can argue for that setup much better in an 8-team playoff (and reclaim the “moral merit authority” argument that the SEC has been winning up to this point) that can’t be done in a 4-team playoff (as you’ll have to shut out at least one power conference champ at a minimum and need to provide access to independents and non-power leagues, so reserving any of those playoff spots for conference champs is too limiting).
LikeLike
Frank,
I thought they had talked about some preliminary rankings late in the season. Did they decide not to do that?
LikeLike
@bullet – I’ve seen that the committee might release some groupings or tiers of teams during the season, but they wouldn’t necessarily release specific rankings. To my knowledge, that’s still in flux. Regardless, it doesn’t look to be tracked weekly in the same way as the current BCS rankings.
LikeLike
Frank:
“the notion that “no one wants to see a conference rematch” in the national championship game is a clouded opinion as opposed to fact.”
Well, ESPN’s BCS Championship ratings were lowest for the Alabama-LSU game, with 24.2 million viewers. While Auburn-Oregon’s 27.3M was due in part to the close game, 26.4M watched Alabama blow out Notre Dame.
I agree that a one-loss at-large SEC team gets picked for the playoff over a conference champion with 2 or more losses, but I am far less certain what would happen this year with multiple one-loss major conference champions outside the southeast.
LikeLike
Final ooc records vs. FBS:
1. Pac 12 22-5 81.5%
2. SEC 34-8 81.0%
3. Big 12 16-6 72.7%
4. Big 10 27-11 71.1%
5. ACC 25-15 62.5%
6. AAC 14-17 45.2%
7. Sun Belt 13-17 43.3%
8. Ind. 22-37 37.3%
9. MWC 11-27 29.0%
10. CUSA 14-25 28.6%
11. MAC 10-30 25.0%
LikeLike
Biggest surprise was the Sun Belt. They lost UNT (who did well in CUSA), FAU and FIU and added Georgia State who was one of the worst teams in Division 1, let alone FBS. And they had their best season ever. In 2005 they won 3.7% of their FBS games. 10-20% has been typical for them. They seem to be finally making a full transition to FBS. Not good for recruiting rivals in CUSA and AAC.
MWC did poorly and Pac 12 did very well. But it was mainly due to their games with each other. Instead of MWC picking up a few wins (one year they won most of the games vs. the Pac), the Pac went 10-0 vs. MWC. So is the Pac that good or is the MWC not very good this year?
There were only 25 games among the P5. 8 of those were ACC/SEC matchups which were won by the SEC 5 of 8.
There were a lot of games vs. FCS. FCS went 16-95, their best % since 2000.
LikeLike
MWC is not good. It has replaced BYU, TCU, and Utah with Boise St. and Fresno St and a few other mediocre WAC teams. Boise St. had a down year and the conference championship game included Fresno St. and Utah St. I think I could stop there.
Utah St. is the third program in a smaller state (by population). They had one of their best teams EVER, and they still lost to Utah (5-7), BYU (8-4), USC (9-4), and Boise St. (8-4). Fresno St. is the fifth program, at best, in California. However, there are likely more Oregon, Arizona, or BYU fans in California (each separately) than Fresno St.
The MWC used to be able to compete somewhat with the PAC 12 head-to-head because it had BYU, Utah, and TCU. The MWC’s only hope head-to-head with the PAC 12 is Boise St. (6-2 in MWC) – who was crushed by Washington (5-4 in PAC 12). Actually, Fresno St. (7-1 in MWC) would have beaten Colorado (1-8 in PAC 12) in a close game, had the game not been postponed for flooding, and then ultimately canceled.
LikeLike
“However, there are likely more Oregon, Arizona, or BYU fans in California (each separately) than Fresno St.”
I doubt that. Remember that the San Joaquin Valley by itself has almost 4M people, and Fresno is really the only game in town there.
LikeLike
I would be interested in the cumulative winning percentage of each conference’s non-conference opponents. In other words, it’s a heck of a lot more impressive for the Pac-12 to have the best winning percentage against FBS opponents if those opponents won a lot of games. Is there a way to access that info without going team by team calculating them?
LikeLike
Some site has probably done that, but I’m not aware of it.
LikeLike
That’s the theory behing Sagarin (and probably other) ranking and why until the teams have enough games to be interconnected at multiple levels (how the opponent did against another, and how that next opponent did against a third level down, etc). It should be able (in theory) by the end of a season to reasonably credit a very strong FCS opponent and not over credit a very weak FBS team.
But people object to losing the ability to inject expectations, preconceptions, and prejudices. You know…the eye test.
LikeLike
This literally took me 7 minutes because the PAC 12 only plays 3 OOC games. PAC 12 went 31-5 OOC. This included a 9-1 record against FCS schools (Oregon St. lost to E. Washington) and 22-4 over FBS opponents.
The combined record of FBS opponents was 158-158 (.500 winning PCT). The combined record of FBS opponents that the PAC 12 beat was 121-145 (.458 winning PCT).
The best OOC wins were:
Stanford over Notre Dame (8-4)
ASU over Wisconsin (9-3 – end of the game was joke, though)
Oregon’s over Tennessee (5-7)
UCLA over Nebraska (8-4)
USC’s over Utah St. (8-5).
Washington over Boise St. (8-4)
Oregon St. over San Diego St. (7-5)
Washington St. over Idaho (1-11) – but played at Auburn (12-1) and lost by 7 points.
Utah over BYU (8-4).
California over Portland St. (FCS)
Colorado over Colorado St. (7-6)
LikeLike
TV ratings from championship weekend.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/college-football-title-game-rankings.php
8.7 – SEC CG
8.4 – B1G CG
5.1 – Oklahoma/OK State
4.0 – ACC CG
2.5 – Texas/Baylor
1.1 – P-12 CG
LikeLike
Birmingham is just ridiculous as a CFB market.
LikeLike
17 million viewers! I’m pretty sure that’s an all time record for a Mizzou game. The MU/KU game in 2007 got close to 12 million.
22.1 rating in St. Louis (for those who questioned Mizzou’s ratings in St. Louis earlier in this thread).
LikeLike
18.5 rating in Kansas City
LikeLike
Good news for Fox. They stomped ESPN (Pac 12) and ABC (ACC) in prime time. They’ve struggled all year even with good games. Texas/Baylor did reasonably well for Fox considering it was up against the SEC championship game with MNC implications and #3 and #5.
I imagine ESPN will not try to double up while facing the Big 10 or SEC again. We may see a noon ccg next year.
LikeLike
It helped Fox that the ACC championship game was a blowout whereas the B1G championship had massive swings in momentum. The Pac-12 game, meanwhile, was neither close nor did it have national tile implications.
LikeLike
Ouch on the Pac. Granted, that game didn’t have national title implications, but then, neither did the de facto B12 title game, and the B12 has a much smaller footprint than the Pac (and one that overlaps with another conference who had a title game going on at the same time).
LikeLike
The B1G had approx 14 million viewers vs. the SEC’s 17 million. Pretty good given that there was more competition in the night window.
LikeLike
I wonder how the playoffs will effect the numbers next year? My theory is the BCS has artificially inflated the viewership of certain teams and games based on the fight for two spots. Auburn and Missouri had huge numbers but what if Texas vs Baylor also had serious playoff implications? Same goes with PAC vs BIG vs ACC at 8 (the Duke vs FSU had implications but good luck finding anyone in America including Duke fans who thought Duke had any shot in that game). Does college football go more regional? I don’t think four will have a big impact, probably not even noticeable, but the more diluted the playoffs there could be a more regional distribution of casual fans.
LikeLike
That’s exactly my thought. I’m not sure how big an impact 4 will have, but I have longed felt that once you get to 8 you are making games much more regional. I think that’s a dangerous path because the sport is inherently regional anyway (big instate/cross state rivalries feel like they define it to me) and a lot of the growth has been possible because of the nationalization of the system. If you start to regionalize it, you aren’t really gaining anything new, but you are risking loosing out of region viewers.
Note: I’ll grant that some end of the season stuff might get more overall viewers with a playoff, but I think the September/October games will never see the highs they’ve achieved in recent years again if you go beyond a 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
Eric:
Agreed. They’d be more like pre-season games. Yes, they would matter in terms of at-large bids, but win or lose, you’ll still have a sure path to the title game through the conference championship.
LikeLike
The issue of regionalism will be reduced by adding seeds beyond small numbers such as two or four. The small number of seeds ensures that regionalization will increase as few spots are dominated by particular regions. FSU, Auburn, Alabama are all part of a very small region. Letting teams from other parts of the country outside the deep south (as will necessarily occur with the expansion of seeds and ensuring that the Northern, Western, and Midwestern portions of the country are represented in the finals) will discourage regionalism, not propagate it.
LikeLike
Hmm. I hear the seeding argument all the time, but seeding simply isn’t as important as an actual playoff spot. I will watch a game outside my conference/team if the outcome affects whether my conference/team makes the playoffs, but won’t be nearly as interested if just seeding is at stake.
LikeLike
Seeding hasn’t made the college basketball anymore national. It is true that the tournament is huge to it is not an apples to apples comparison, but #1 seeds are always made into a big deal yet those teams games really don’t draw a lot of casual national viewers.
It really is a tough situation. If you do only conference champions, that could end up regionalizing based on conference preference. If you do it without champions, you could end up with 3 teams from the deal south and alienate whole sections of the country.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – Well, it depends. It’s also not imperative to win your conference in college basketball and the NCAA Tournament field is substantially larger. As a result, the weight of any single regular season game in college basketball is relatively low. In an 8-team college football playoff where each power conference champ receives an auto-bid, though, the regular season game stakes are still high. The 4-team playoff is even more limited. The field is still too small where any team can take any game off.
Like I’ve said before, a lot of the focus that I’ve seen here is consternation about the lower impact of the very top level regular season games (i.e. Auburn-Alabama 2 weeks ago), which I grant may end up lessening a bit. However, those games don’t happen every week, so the flipside is the pushdown effect of making a large number of games much more meaningful than they are now. The Pac-12 championship game this year, for instance, would have had much greater national interest stakes in either the 4-team or 8-team playoff formats.
I honestly don’t see how a playoff that’s limited enough (and to me, limited means no more than 8) would end up regionalizing the game more. To the contrary, it makes conference games that would otherwise be fairly meaningless nationally (i.e. the Pac-12 title game or ACC Coastal Division race this season or the entire Big Ten last year) into important games for determining the postseason field. The NFL is generally masterful at this: every week, there are multiple “very important” games with how the division and wild card races work and that drives national interest in an entire slate of games (as opposed to intense focused interest in a small number of “life or death” games at the expense of the other 99% of games that we see right now in college football). To be sure, you need the right balance and small enough postseason field in order to avoid diluting the regular season like college basketball (and for that matter, MLB, NBA and NHL) have done. IMHO, college football is far from that point, where its main “problem” (to the extent that people actually believe that it’s a problem) is constraining interest at only the very elite level.
LikeLike
Also, I come at this from the perspective of an Illinois fan (an inept football school in a power conference). I may very well never see the Illini ranked in the preseason top 10 for football in my lifetime, much less play for the national title. That’s all fine with me as long as in the event that we ever do have a miracle season (akin to what Baylor did this year in the Big 12), there’s actually an objective on-the-field path to the playoff that isn’t driven by the weekly rankings horse race or, even worse, where you started ranked in the preseason before anyone has ever played. (I know that Auburn wasn’t ranked in the preseason this year, but we’ve seen that the standards that apply to SEC teams don’t necessarily apply to everyone else.)
This is just my anecdotal observation, but fans of traditional football power schools generally seem to be more comfortable with the subjective determination of who is the “best team” largely driven by the rankings since (a) they’re much more used to following that horse race and (b) such rankings tend to favor those biggest brand names, especially in the preseason which can impact how far you can ultimately move up during the course of the season. Those traditional football power schools are accustomed to (and are enhanced by) the laser-like national focus on *their* games when they’re highly-ranked, so they may tend to have the perception that the value of the regular season is diminished if there’s an expanded playoff. In contrast, the schools outside of that group (and I’m not even talking about non-AQ schools, who have an even further axe to grind, but rather 80%-plus of the schools within the power conferences themselves) see the entire regular season as just looking for a decent bowl game as soon as they have a loss, meaning that they’re automatically completely irrelevant in the national picture within the first 3 or 4 weeks of the season with the current system. Don’t forget about that extremely large group of fans (and once again, I’m talking about power conference teams with legit markets and fan bases) that the current system is essentially shutting out by the end of September annually.
LikeLike
Frank, you hit the nail on the head. The perspective from Texas and Ohio State is completely different from that at Iowa State and Maryland.
LikeLike
Hi Frank:
I would not say that MLB has devalued the regular season when teams still have to try to get to 90 wins to get to the playoffs. Sure, you could get lucky, and no 100 win team will be denied a playoff spot again, but pennant races are still meaningful. If anything, since there are now only 6 pure playoff spots (no one wants to go through the WC game lottery), the regular season is more meaningful now.
LikeLike
Richard:
Didn’t an 82-80 St. Louis win a World Series recently?
LikeLike
ccrider:
Note: “Sure, you could get lucky”.
BTW, the 2006 Cardinals finished the regular season at 83-78.
However, the 2005 Cardinals were 100-62 and were bounced in the NLCS, so I don’t think that it’s unfair.
LikeLike
Luck is winning a random chance event. Teams with better seasons were left out. Too many divisions reduce the importance of games, even with each only representing a 162nd of the season.
LikeLike
Lines on all the bowl games.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football-bowls/odds-lines/
Pac-12 is favored in all their bowl games.
B1G is favored in 3 (Minn -4.5, Wisc -2.0, and tOSU -3.0) and the underdog in 4.
SEC is favored in 7 (Ole Miss -3.0, Miss State -7.5, A&M -13.0, UGA -9.5, LSU -7.5, Bama -16.0, and Vandy -1.5) the underdog in 2, and pick’em in 1 (Mizzou).
ACC is favored in 2 (Fla State -8.5 and UNC -2.5) and underdog in 9, including 2 non-AQs.
B-12 is favored in 2 (K-State -3.0 and Baylor -16.5), underdog in 3, and pick’em in 1 (OK State).
AAC is favored in 1 (Louisville -3.0) and the underdog in 4.
IND: ND is favored (-15.5) and BYU is the underdog (-3.0) in its games.
LikeLike
Note to Fox: That digital animation was pretty cutting edge in 2002 but if you’re going to compete with a stylistically perfect ESPN you might want to ditch the Rock-em Sock-em Robots.
Actually the entire Fox presentation (song, studio) has a retro feel I’m not fond of, but I thought the announcers of the BTC game were pretty good. I’m really rooting FS1 but It wouldn’t hurt them to emulate ESPN’s gimmick-free (Lee Corso not withstanding) approach.
I’m sure many disagree.
LikeLike
I think their production is below par. I sent an email to Fox Sports letting them know that their sound production was not good. Fox has super slow mo for an average NFL game but they can’t bring that quality to the B1G CCG? Seems kinda ridiculous. The robots have to go. Just kinda dumb. They also need theme music for college football that is different than the NFL.
On a positive note I think the announcers are great but overall a little improvement is needed if they want to compete with ESPN/ABC and CBS. I am fairly confident FS1 and Fox Sports will succeed in the long run. They just need more inventory. Will be interesting to see how that unfolds over the next few years. I think they will pay big time for the B1G content. Without that inventory they will struggle to become a major cable network.
LikeLike
@Kevin – Yeah, I’m not a fan of how Fox’s college football productions look (and that goes back to when they had the BCS bowl rights) even though I believe their NFL and MLB productions are excellent. Also, for whatever reason, Fox changed *all* of their sports opening themes to their NFL music. MLB has it now and I’m assuming that NASCAR does, too. (Someone let me know because my eyes glaze over just at the thought of watching NASCAR.) You’ll still be hearing that NFL on Fox theme and watching those robots when Fox has the World Cup in 2018.
LikeLike
FWIW, the CBS and ABC/ESPN productions are really the gold standard for college football for me. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’ve always found the surround sound quality of the CBS games (both for the SEC and NFL) to be the best of anyone. I’m also partial to the CBS theme song (with the old school ABC theme with the horns close behind it). I’d still take the NFL on Fox theme over the bastardized version of the Notre Dame fight song that NBC uses in its broadcasts. (That is so disappointing since the old John Tesh NBA on NBC music is my favorite sports theme song of all time.)
LikeLike
Yes! The very Teshian titled ‘Roundball Rock’.
Ten years since they stopped using and I read it’s still the number one request they get from fans.
LikeLike
Since ABC/ESPN now have the NBA, NBC did bring it back form one Olympic game when MJ was visiting in the booth. That proved to be a mistake, rekindling its fans.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – NBC was actually using Roundball Rock quite a bit during their basketball coverage during the last Olympics, which was great. Since I’m a hoops dork and my formative years were the ’90s, one of my favorite activities is looking up old NBA on NBC opening montages on YouTube (usually narrated by Marv Albert). I’ll have to find it, but there’s one from 1991 where the opening montage spent several minutes comparing a then-ringless Michael Jordan with great athletes like Ernie Banks that never won championships. It’s so unbelievably bizarre to watch now considering how history has turned out, but that’s what a lot of people thought of MJ compared to Magic and Bird at the time.
LikeLike
That’s hilarious. Let’s your freak-flag fly!
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Here is that ’91 Jordan montage (and it’s even better than I remembered with opening footage of a certain athlete that has now become more infamous than famous since that year):
This might be the single most dated video of anything on all of YouTube.
LikeLike
Frank – Dated? Yes! OJ was still a good guy in 91.
LikeLike
I love the CBS college football theme music. They’ve had the same one since about ’87. No point in changing what works really well, though all too many companies try too hard and take an attitude of “If it ain’t broke, break it.”
Anyway, I liked Fox’s old MLB theme music just fine. Have no idea what college football had, but I don’t understand why now they’re using NFL music for it.
LikeLike
. . . or perceived to be a good guy.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Absolutely – I’m probably in the last age group that remembers how famous OJ used to be in a positive fashion. I can’t ever watch The Naked Gun in the same way now.
LikeLike
Yes. Fox’s coverage still seems pretty weak in a number of areas. There are fewer camera angles, fewer close-ups, fewer reporters on the sidelines. National broadcasts, except for maybe the B1G title game, are covered, at best, at the same level as an ESPNU game. CBS and ESPN/ABC blow Fox out of the water. It’s just very apparent those networks have been doing it longer, but they also seem to put more manpower and supporting technology into their production. This, IMO, hurts their product. Watching a game on CBS or ESPN/ABC feels like a big, national event, even if the teams involved are well outside the top ten. Big 12 and Pac-12 games on Fox , meanwhile, are presented with far less excitement. It’s almost as if the message is, “Hey, if you’re a die-hard for one of these teams or if you’re just really bored, we’ve got some games for you on our channel.”
And yes, Fox does a good job with NFL coverage, and although the investment in college sports pales comapred to the NFL, I don’t see why Fox cannot put a similar effort into production for college games.
LikeLike
Its not even close. Replays are also far fewer.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Traditionally, the Sugar would be up there with the title game and the Rose. I guess everyone figures that it’ll be a blow-out.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t think people are giving the Sooners much of a shot in that one.
LikeLike
Note to the Wings bowl:
When you get a chance to match up 2 old Big8 teams, you should match up 2 old Big8 teams.
LikeLike
A lot of Mizzou fans were hoping for a different Big 8 match up in the bowl (vs Nebraska) but Nebraska didn’t hold up their end and Okie State did, so here we are.
LikeLike
As I watch the Bears and Cowboys right now in -8 wind chill, as well as yesterday’s cold weather classics: Baltimore-Minny & Philly-Detroit (I didn’t see New England and Cleveland), I’m reminded why so many BIG players, as well as players from other cold weather-based teams, different conferences, succeed at the next level – no warm weather bias. I’m also reminded why I will never be a true CF fan, esp compared to the NFL: CF is rigged for the Sun Belt, esp the bowl system, too many FBS teams, and speed kills more than power, IQ & proper tackling. I am also reminded of all those great Vikings’ game I attended as a 70s child at Metropolitan Stadium, no place was colder, not Lambeau, not Rich – kiss my behind if you think otherwise. It wasn’t enclosed like the other two, a mp stadium that simply let too much brutal, frigid wind come through, & Minnesota gets damn windy like Chicago, albeit more of an Arctic influence, unlucky for us : ).
LikeLike
@gfunk – Somehow, that below zero windchill still allowed for the Bears backup QB to throw for 5 TDs, which hasn’t happened in a game for our franchise since 1949. And I thought the Cowboys run defense (or lack thereof) was what we needed to to exploit coming into tonight!
I generally try to avoid watching ESPN’s NFL postgame crew (poor Suzy Kolber has to deal with those slack-jawed yokels), but one of them did make a great observation that Jerry Jones is turning into Al Davis as an owner, which is sooooooo true.
LikeLike
@gfunk − Yes, there were some great Viking teams of the 1970s, and some great games at Metropolitan Stadium, including the famous “Hail Mary pass” by Roger Staubach in the 1975 playoff game against the Dallas Cowboys. And I found myself cheering for the Vikings in Super Bowl XI hoping that Coach Bud Grant would finally win it all. But Oakland prevailed that day, led by Kenny “The Snake” Stabler at quarterback and Fred Biletnikoff as the wide receiver who ran around with that sticky shit on his socks.
LikeLike
In the “Something I Learned Today” category:
Fred Biletnikoff was the first consensus All-American to play for the Florida State Seminoles.
Read more about this NFL − Hall of Fame − Legend here:
http://www.pyromaniac.com/op_eds/fred-biletnikoff-is-a-legend
“Something I learned today, Black and white is always gray …”
LikeLike
On the idea of ACC divisions, why not do pods right now? For explanation purposes you’d just call them rotating divisions, but pods is what they’d be.
Pod A (Southern)
Florida State
Miami (FL)
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Pod B (Northern)
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Pod C (North Carolina)
Duke
Wake Forest
North Carolina State
Pod D (Virginia/North Carolina)
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Pod A/B would rotate between pods c and d for a division. You’d play all your crossover games against teams in the pod you are never in a division with (A vs B and C vs D). Advantages of this:
1. No one gets greater exposure to the south than anyone else. Everyone outside the southern pods plays the 4 southern teams exactly 50% of the time with an 8 game schedule.
2. All regional/major rivalry games that I can at least see are in pods with one exception and…
3. North Carolina is separated from the other North Carolina schools, but they’d still play 2 of them every year even with an 8 game schedule while the rest of the North Carolina schools average against each other goes up (only missing 1 instate school every 3 years). That doesn’t compare badly at all to the current set-up where they usually play 2 and will play all 3 only 1/6 years now.
4. People might not remember divisions, but they don’t remember them now. This at least balances everything else even with 8 conference games.
LikeLike
As the resident FSU fan, I feel like I have to say something at some point…
I have looked forward to the day when FSU would return to football prominence for years, and I wondered if they would after a while. This season has been amazing to watch. It’s been especially fun watching a few games with my parents and brother, all FSU fans. Our extended family: also FSU fans. I have thought it would be awesome for a “lowly ACC” team to be the one to finally take down those obnoxious s.o.b.’s from the SEC, most especially if it w. I hope that’s what happens.
Yet this feels hollow. FSU’s quarterback is amazing. To start the year, he was a delight to watch. His performances were stellar. Watching and listening to him seemed beyond impressive. I couldn’t believe his leadership abilities. I’ve rarely been that impressed with any athlete at the college level, let alone a freshman, and even better, a freshman on my favorite team since childhood.
But then those allegations arose. I didn’t know what to make of it. One thing was for sure: I was never going to be one of those idiots who would trash the accuser (possibly victim) or someone who blindly supports Winston. Nor did I want to rush to judgment against him, either.
The results Thursday were not that Winston was exonerated or that he was proven not to have done it. They were just that the prosecution didn’t feel they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it.
I want to know a few things: Why has Winston shown so few signs of stress as a result of going through this kind of ordeal? Even resilient, ultra-Type A leaders like CEO’s or political figures would show signs of stress in response to an accusation like this? Is he really just THAT strong of a person and/or THAT protected as the star of a return-to-prominence team? Or could it be, as I fear, that he is a sociopath who isn’t stressed because he knew his legal team would protect him from being charged with something he knows he did? Also, why is Winston himself not speaking out, especially now that charges aren’t being filed, and saying, “Hell, no, I didn’t assault anyone. I have never done that and never will?” I just don’t understand how he would not speak out, freely, proclaiming his innocence if he was anything but. I found the idea of Kobe Bryant’s innocence far more believable, for instance, because he himself (not just his attorney) proclaimed himself innocent of anything other than adultery. Why do FSU fans so blindly give the stamp of approval for him just because he’s winning, with no sympathy for the accuser? Haven’t they ever had a friend who was a victim of sexual assault and how horrifying that can be for the victim?
I, of course, want to believe he didn’t do this. It’s much more pleasant to imagine he was just hooking up with a co-ed like a lot of college students do but not violating anyone against her will. I’ve literally felt sick to my stomach at times, though, because it’s harder for me to imagine this woman making this all up (regardless of her memory issues) than it is for me to believe in his innocence. Go Seminoles. Rah rah.
LikeLike
Social critic and feminist Camille Paglia should be included in this discussion. Her book “Sexual Personae” is recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Personae
From her other book “Sex, Art, and American Culture”:
*Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.
Aggression and eroticism are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality. Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman’s protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carry Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it.
As a fan of football and rock music, I see in the simple, swaggering masculinity of the jock and in the noisy posturing of the heavy-metal guitarist certain fundamental, unchanging truths about sex. Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy. Feminism has got to wake up and look at fire as it is. Sex is a dark and turbulent power that may not be controllable by pat verbal formulas and chirpy hopes.
You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex. You can be overpowered.
So it is woman’s personal responsibility to be aware of the dangers of the world. But these young feminists today are deluded. They come from a protected, white, middle-class world, and they expect everything to be safe. Notice it’s not black or Hispanic women who are making a fuss about this–they come from cultures that are fully sexual and they are really realistic about sex. But these other women are sexually repressed girls, coming out of pampered homes, and when they arrive at these colleges and suddenly hit male lust, they go, “Oh, no!”
These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police–and I–have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”*
LikeLike
The one place I never thought we would see Camille Paglia brought into the mix? FTT.
She has swung much more in the libertarian direction over the past decade and I think she is absolutely brilliant. Her latest book on the pathetic state of modern art is spot on. Basically anyone who battles to save Western Civilization from the scourge of political correctness is good with me.
LikeLike
Actually, now that I think about it , this is the ONLY sports blog where her name could come up.
LikeLike
Ms Paglia’s “Sex, Art and American Culture: Essays” was published in 1992, when date rape was a topic that was still somewhat taboo to talk about on college campuses, and thus student awareness (both male and female) was needed.
LikeLike
Camille Paglia − “Capitalism is an art form, an Apollonian fabrication to rival nature. It is hypocritical for feminists and intellectuals to enjoy the pleasures and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it. Everyone born into capitalism has incurred a debt to it. Give Caesar his due.”
LikeLike
Word
LikeLike
Capitalism sucks until you realize every other system is way way worst.
LikeLike
Ms Paglia’s “Sex, Art and American Culture: Essays” was published in 1992, when date rape was somewhat taboo on college campuses, and thus student awareness was needed.
From Drew Sharp at the Detroit Free Press:
http://www.freep.com/article/20131205/COL08/312050134/jameis-winston-charges-florida-state-football
* … Most important, this was a serious criminal accusation that demanded every ounce of investigative diligence from law enforcement. It will be debated and discussed whether the Tallahassee police fully fulfilled their legal responsibilities. But I thought the most telling moment of Meggs’ news conference came when he wondered why there wasn’t this much media interest in the other criminal cases that come before his office.
Of course, he already knew the answer. *
LikeLike
I think its more likely than not that he did it, but even if he didn’t, coming out and saying something could be viewed as insensitive by those who are suspicious. So I think its best that he says nothing. As for showing no stress, some people can compartmentalize.
A lot of FSU fans made total jerks of themselves on this topic. As much as PSU fans defended Paterno, I never saw anyone attacking the victims.
LikeLike
@bullet,
Yes, a lot of FSU fans have made a bad name out of Florida State with their behavior. What’s far more damaging, though, is what the accuser’s attorney said: the vitriol of fans towards her client is going to dissuade future victims of sexual abuse from coming forward. It’s awful. They don’t know the damage they’re inflicting, and if they do know, they’re sick, sick people. Even if Winston is completely innocent of all allegations, attacking the accuser can onoy hurt people who ARE legitimate victims of rape.
LikeLike
But it’s all about football, right?
Seriously, for a long time I have had a huge problem with the culture of some of the big-name programs but it’s especially more noted in some certain regions of the country. Time was football was something you do on Saturdays or watch with friends and relatives. Now, with some much money involved, the incentive to cut corners is that much greater. As long as the programs are still completely reliant on football to fund other sports, though, there is very little that powerful people will do to tone down the excesses in college sports now.
On a more personal note, I’m just so sick and tired of individuals who come back with “Oh, you just don’t care about football” when responding to criticism about the way a program is run.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s about baby making.
LikeLike
Guilty.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/12/09/Colleges/Bowl-gifts.aspx
A look at each bowl’s swag bag.
LikeLike
Ah, the Helen of Troy hair dryer. Still a Sun Bowl favorite after all these years. I’m sure it inspires players to play hard so that they can get to the Sun Bowl.
LikeLike
@frug – Impressive that the Military Bowl was able to score the new PS4s. At least for this holiday season, that’s the toughest thing to find in any store compared to the other swag being offered.
LikeLike
Since there is no reply icon with your other posts about the playoff selection committee, I will reply here.
First, the committee announced that it will publish full-blown rankings 3-4 times beginning at mid-season, before the final rankings. The purpose of that can only be to try to shape public opinion and lay out criteria.
Second, the #1 criteria mentioned for selection in the “Principles” section is conference champion, and #2 is strength of schedule. You are wrong when you say that the committee will have free reign with no constraints imposed by objective measures. While the committee does not have to choose conference champs, it clearly will differentiate one team from another.
The only data in support of your contention is the “Metrics” section, which states that no single data metric will be identified as paramount over all others. This is also true of RPI in basketball, a useful and fairly transparent metric that is by no means determinative. The problem with the computer rankings is that they have been black boxes. You need transparency to have credibility. RPI is somewhat transparent, and thus has been better-received than computer rankings. Moreover, just as the Basketball committee was forced to be more transparent over time in its choices, this committee will be forced to be transparent.
Third, and most importantly, you need to think about the politics of a 13-member committee that will have an AD from each power conference, a former NCAA Executive who “became synonymous with the NCAA basketball selection committee, former Big East Commissioner, former USA Today reporter (based in Mizzou) who focused on NCAA governance issues, 8 other members who come from different parts of the country (1-2 from the south), former Secretary of State with strong ties to Stanford, Former Air Force Academy Superintendent, Archie Manning, Ty Willingham, and Tom Osborne. Do you really think that there will be sufficient support on this committee for obnoxious southern parochialism? 7 votes will be required to get two members of the same division into a playoff. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
One-on-One with Clemson AD Dan Radakovich about possible ACC conference realignment
http://accfootballnews.net/2013/12/09/one-one-clemson-ad-dan-radakovich-possible-acc-conference-realignment/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10111471/south-carolina-gamecocks-jadeveon-clowney-gets-speeding-ticket-driving-110-mph
Chrysler 300 is a nice car…
LikeLike
Mack Brown out at Texas.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20131210-report-mack-brown-will-step-down-as-texas-longhorns-coach.ece
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – Well, this should be fun.
LikeLike
Oh yes. Longhorn homers are out in full force.
FootballScoop Staff @footballscoop
There is real belief within the profession that Saban will happen. Absolutely fascinating times.
2:21pm · 10 Dec 13
LikeLike
Maybe Patterson can lure Todd Graham again…
LikeLike
Graham: This has always been my dream job. v5.0
LikeLike
I would really be surprised if it’s not Saban. Not only is that the buzz, but it reeks of a perfect ‘Saban opportunity’. Winning it all with a third team places him at the pinnacle of college coaches, proving, yet again, he is bigger than any single school. What better team to do that with than one that should already be winning Championships. He also, no doubt, knows if he doesn’t someone else will.
LikeLike
I’d be really surprised if it were Saban, mostly because I doubt Texas would want to hire a 62 year old when they plenty of other options.
LikeLike
I don’t see a 62 year old Saban wanting to step into it at this point.
Also, believe Mack is leaving only when the source is someone other than a guy charging $9.95 a month. Inside Texas has been saying the same thing for a couple months. They also charge $9.95.
LikeLike
Going to a situation where there is currently a major power struggle between 5 regents & the university president, and 4 regents & the governor does not sound like a situation that Saban (whose biggest pet peeve is clutter and interference) would consider perfect. Not to mention the LHN obligations that the UT coach almost assuredly has to have (Saban doesn’t even like to do the 20 min post game coaches show during the season).
Now I’m not saying that he 100% won’t go, and obviously I’m bias, but even Chip Brown tweeted last night that everyone he has talked to on the Bama side of things would be shocked if Saban left. Not to mention how many times Saban has expressed his regret of how he handled the Miami situation. Him and his wife have stated multiple times recently that he will retire at Bama. Plus he is at this very moment on the recruiting trail, telling recruits that he is staying. Not to mention that most everyone in the mainstream media (i.e. people like Kirk Herbstreet and those in tv and radio that aren’t bloggers or website administrators tweeting unnamed sources) seem to believe he is staying.
Now could Saban be blowing smoke and has every intention to leave, sure. But if that is the case then he will be proving what many claimed he was back when he left Miami, and that he has said was his biggest regret in his career. It would mean that him and his wife are flatout liars at worse, and at best pretty darn nieve on how to answer questions to the media (which I find very hard to believe knowing how well he uses the media to get his messages across).
Again, my views are from the Bama point of view. So take them with a grain of salt. But I figured I’d give it since I’m kind of the resident Bama voice on this board.
LikeLike
Good, insightful comment. Even when he was at MSU he shied away from the spotlight. I still say he goes.
LikeLike
bamatab – I think the only thing Bama has going for it is that Saban is 62 years old. Who the president/chancellor is may have mattered in 2000, when LSU’s Mark Emmert hired Saban away from Michigan State, but if he went to Texas, Nick would be more powerful than the AD, president, and chancellor. He already is at Bama.
If, as a condition of employment, Saban said that he will only commit one hour a week to the LHN, do you think that would be a deal breaker? Saban wouldn’t in quite the fishbowl in Austin, as he is in Tuscaloosa. No income tax in Texas.
What we are hearing in Baton Rouge, is that Saban has lost a lot of money (as in millions) in bad real estate deals in Baton Rouge and Houston, with local developer Tommy Spinosa. If the 10 year $100 million deal, where he gets all the money if he coaches five years, and Texas boosters buy out his interest in the Spinosa deals is true, that would be hard to turn down. I don’t know if Bama could/would match that, if true.
Maybe its wishful thinking that Saban would leave Bama on my part, but when he was at LSU, Saban turned down the Bears, Giants, and Browns until what he thought was the perfect deal in Miami came along. He strung out LSU and announced on Christmas Day that he was leaving. There weren’t a lot of hard feelings (other than for the timing) because LSU couldn’t match the Dolphins’ offer, but he won’t let you know he’s leaving until he leaves.
Maybe this Texas offer is the perfect offer.
LikeLike
Honestly, is Texas that good of a job when factoring all the political BS Saban/another coach would have to put up with?
Obviously, its a premier job for football, facility, and support reasons, but all the extra stuff he would have to deal with in Austin in my view lessens the attractiveness of the position a little bit.
LikeLike
Alan – To say that the political structure at UT (when it’s not in turmoil) can be compared to that at Bama is not very accurate. Bama’s power structure in regards to its football program had been beaten down into submission by over a decade’s worth or mediocrity. By the time Saban came along, the PTB at Bama were more than willing to hand Saban complete control. I think it’s going to a lot harder for the PTB at UT to do the same, especially since whoever comes out in control will have just gotten out of a power struggle for that control. I’m sure they will tell Saban he will have complete control, but he can’t be 100% sure of it, especially since he won’t even know how the landscape will look. Plus big money Texans are a different breed when compared to the boosters at Bama. In regards to the LHN, maybe it can get by with only having limited excess to the football program. But at this point in time it relies heavily on that excess (not just the coaches time, but a lot more overall excess that I’m sure Saban would not like at all).
I also truly believe that he left LSU for Miami because of his need to see if he could win in the NFL, not because of the money. He sure didn’t leave Miami for Bama because of the money. And the rumors about him going into debt because of shady land deal while he was at LSU are just that, rumors. I have not seen anyone provide any kind of proof that the rumor is accurate. If it was, I would think that some reporter somewhere would be on top of it. It’s just like the rumor about Saban’s son and daughter-in-law having a baby in Austin. His son and daughter-in-law live in Tuscaloosa, not Austin.
Here is an article that probably better explains some of my doubts about why Saban would want to move on to UT: http://collegesports.net/blog/2013/12/11/five-reasons-why-nick-saban-is-staying-at-alabama/
LikeLike
Bamatab – here’s a blurb and a link.
http://www.businessreport.com/article/20110405/BUSINESSREPORT0101/304049960
“Beyond that, Spinosa has a track record of more than 30 years in residential, retail and office developments. Many people have had some degree of contact with him or his properties, including former LSU and current Alabama football coach Nick Saban, whose name has surfaced in the Perkins Rowe suit and who also is a 49.5% owner of a Houston apartment complex for which another of Spinosa’s companies has filed for bankruptcy protection. Saban perhaps is the only person who has kept a stricter silence than Spinosa.”
LikeLike
Saban would not be more powerful than the President or Chancellor at Texas. Even DKR wasn’t, let alone the mere mortals who followed. Actually once Dodds got established in the mid-80s, none were as powerful as the AD.
LikeLike
Alan – Good find. That is the first I’ve seen of it being referenced in that kind of detail in an actual article. I’m not sure how much he footed on 49.5% of an apartment complex deal, but I’m sure there is enough money out there within the Bama booster circles to help eleviate that cost if that were the deciding factor.
LikeLike
I’ve assumed the Saban to Texas talk was just the work of his agent using the leverage of the one job that could possibily really scare the PTB at Alabama to shell out some crazy new deal for him.
LikeLike
Sounds like the lawsuit is nearly resolved. Saban is almost certainly a limited partner and has no liability other than his initial investment. He may have lost money, but its doubtful he is at any further risk.
LikeLike
The state of Alabama will either bankrupt itself to keep Saban, or their will be mass suicide if he leaves.
LikeLike
Here is hoping and praying it’s the latter; it can take years to recover from bankruptcy!
LikeLike
Texas denies
http://tracking.si.com/2013/12/10/mack-brown-texas-step-down-coach/
LikeLike
To be sure, I recall Texas vehemently denying that Deloss Dodds was going to step down as AD after a Chip Brown report and he even gave quotes directly to various media members to that effect… and then he ended up announcing his retirement only a couple of weeks later. At least when it comes to this stuff within Texas, whoever Chip knows probably knows.
LikeLike
Mack says he’s recruiting in Florida and ain’t gonna quit.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24371310/report-mack-brown-decision-likely-within-next-48-hours
LikeLike
lol
Bruce Feldman
@BFeldmanCBS
Just got this text from a college coach: “Great quote by Mack ‘killing himself”..That’s what other people call ‘working'”
LikeLike
Shouldn’t someone tell Mack that he is head coach of the most prestigious PUBLIC(How am I doing so far, Loki?) university in Texas, not Florida? Maybe he should be ‘killin himself’ somewhere else? Like, duh, maybe, Texas???
LikeLike
Epic resignation speech,, Mack, just epic.
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2013/12/10/5197040/mack-brown-prepares-his-farewell-speech
LikeLike
Spencer Hall has been comedically and sarcastically brilliant for many years. He’s rarely nice, but almost always funny and often correct. LOL
Funny about T.Boone: “It is amazing what T. Boone Pickens has done with that program. He spent millions of dollars to win one meaningless Fiesta Bowl. West Virginia did the same thing with cup holder change and a copy of Lowrider Magazine, so you tell me which one’s the hillbilly rube.”
Hall is, of course, a Florida homer and takes education SERIOUSLY, doncha know. He’s got elitism down pat !!
Zinger at Bob Stoops: “…have fun realizing you gave your children Oklahoma educations on purpose.”
On Baylor: “Your big moment was removing a tarp, but that makes sense given that most of your graduates go on to work part-time tenting for termites.”
LOL
Anyway, irreverent fun article.
LikeLike
If you have time to read only one thing today, read this! No, not this, but that, that this references. TFF!!!
LikeLike
Andy–What did you think of think of the announcers in the SEC CG? They might has well have had Auburn cheerleading outfits on….I thought it was odd……….
LikeLike
Talking about cheerleading…..that was a heck of a P.C. on Famous’ case…..lots of jokes and hee hees for a rape allegation I thought….the deputy prosecutor claimed he knew nothing about the Heisman race….but allegedly he was FSU undergrad and JD and a booster…..hmmmm
Didn’t Famous’ attorney originally publicly say ‘he wasn’t there’, and switch to the ‘consets’ D after the DNA tests came in? Thought that was the way it went down, but couldn’t find the original quote.
LikeLike
Supposedly Meggs isn’t a booster. I don’t know if he was at one time, but Winston’s attornery said in an interview with Geraldo Rivera that he is not. I’ll believe that at his word; what would be the motive in lying about something that could easily be disproved?
Also, I never saw anything where Winston’s attorney said Winston wasn’t there. If that was what happened, I am certain there would have been a ton more scrutiny from the media on Winston than there has been, and rightfully so. (For the most part, the media has been very hesitant about implying his guilt or innocence.) I do know he (the attorney, not Winston) denied committing an assault, but he never said one way or the other about whether Winston had sexual contact with his accuser (likely victim) until the DNA evidence was released. So technically, he didn’t change his defense strategy. Rather, he chose not to reveal his strategy until, well, he had to.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
Well I’m not Andy(thankyou God), but I felt the same way as you that Gary ‘I know who butters my bread’ Danielson,(I love his analysis and despise his cheerleading) and Verne Lundquist were severely leaning ‘old SEC’ over ‘new SEC’. Just saying they knew how poorly a newcomer from the midwest winning their elite southern conference would look!
LikeLike
No doubt….they were treating Mizzou like the red-headed stepson…………
Concerning your comments on Danielson………I generally watch ND’s broadcasts (hoping they’ll lose), and I’ve thought the announcers have, for the most part, been pretty fair to the non-network teams (the overall production is another matter). I contrast those guys to Danielson, who was a Big 10 guy, who is a disgustiong SEC homer now…..turns out he’s also a disgusting (old boy) SEC homer.
LikeLike
One other thing—-those guys really, really, really like Alabama, and have huge man crushes on Saban…..they were definately rooting for Bama in the Bama-Auburn game.
LikeLike
Not Andy either, but there was a lot of complaining about the announcers on Mizzou message boards and in social media. I believe there was a description of an MU offensive play as “cute” and Gary Danielson using the phrase “our Auburn”. I was at the game (one of the few, driving through a snow storm in Illinois on the way to ATL sucked), so I didn’t hear the commentary myself.
LikeLike
I don’t think it was pervasive throughout the game, but here and there they let slip a decidedly pro-Auburn comment.
They did sound concerned when Mizzou took the lead late in the 3rd and sounded relieved when Auburn finally pulled ahead by 10 with 11 minutes left.
LikeLike
http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/12/9/5192638/ut-regents-to-meet-talk-about-the-fate-of-president-powers
In more important Texas news, UT BOT will meet on Thursday to discuss the fate of Bill Powers.
LikeLike
Specifically, the agenda calls for “discussion and appropriate action related to recommendation by Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Chancellor concerning employment of William C. Powers, Jr., as President of The University of Texas at Austin.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/09/ut-regents-discuss-employment-bill-powers/
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1354927.html
A BCS Bowl Era fact sheet. Lots of interesting stuff.
LikeLike
Very interesting. The two biggest take-aways are that the BiG got way too many at-large bids, and if past is prologue the ACC should generally be excluded from a 4-team playoff.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“The two biggest take-aways are that the BiG got way too many at-large bids,”
Based on what? The B10 was 3-1 in each of the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls. The Rose and the NCG were the bad games for the B10, and those were generally the B10 champs losing. The only really bad pick was IL.
“and if past is prologue the ACC should generally be excluded from a 4-team playoff.”
They really did stink up the BCS.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this link, Brian.
I thought this part was interesting:
One-time conference/team matchups:
SEC d. Pac-12; Big Ten d. Big East; Pac-12 d. ACC; Big Ten d. Notre Dame; Pac-12 d. Notre Dame; SEC (Alabama) d. SEC (LSU), 2012 BCS National Championship Game; Mountain West d. Big East; Mountain West d. Big Ten; Mountain West d. SEC; ACC d. MAC; WAC d. Big 12; SEC d. WAC; WAC d. Mountain West.
In 21 BCS bowl games, including this year’s Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 will have faced the Big Ten 12 times, the Big 12 6 times, and the ACC and SEC only once each. It never faced the Big East, and it is the only one of the Power 6 (including Big East) that never faced a non-AQ conference team. Obviously, the frequent Big Ten matchups are as high as 12 because of the Rose Bowl tie-in, but also as low as 12 because of the BCS’ disruption of that tradition.
I understand why the Pac-12 has not had more frequent matchups against the other major conferences, but it’s too bad that league doesn’t get paired with more. The vast amount of desert, mountains, and plains between most of Pac-12 schools and the remainder of the country make it difficult for many matchups to occur in bowl games or even in regular season games. But it would be nice to see some games between that league and both the SEC and ACC.
– The ACC, on the other hand, has had fairly equal opportunity, well, beatdowns from the other leagues. As noted, there’s been only one game against the Pac-12, but after this year it will have faced a non-AQ once, the Big 12 twice, the Big Ten 4 times, and the SEC and Big East 5 times each.
– The Big Ten had at least four games each against the other five power conferences, except for the Big East, which it faced only once.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 has demonstrated it will do home-and-homes with just about anybody, teams from the south generally have not.
SEC is famous for being unwilling to play the Pac-12 outside of the south. Only LSU and Tennessee have shown any inclination. Auburn did a home-and-home with USC once – nothing before or since. The story goes that the only reason Bama ever played USC back in the day was so the Bear could convince Alabama to allow black players. If the SEC ever played the Pac-12 regularly, I suspect their vaunted “superiority” would take a bit of a hit.
The Pac-12 and ACC do play OoC games. Stanford, in particular, likes to play academically-minded OoC schools such as BC, Duke and WF, and I am sure would be open to UVA, UNC, and GTech as well – if they were willing to do a home-and-home. GTech might have to wait for Paul Johnson to move on. 🙂
LikeLike
GT’s problem is they already have UGA locked into their schedule. That’s a tough OOC game every year and they don’t necessarily want another one. They also have ND every 3 years now. In addition, they play some other SEC schools on occasion (MS, Vandy, etc). Assuming they need 7 home games every year, they don’t have much room to play P12 schools.
LikeLike
SEC is famous for being unwilling to play the Pac-12 outside of the south.
Pretty sure this is not accurate and Alan will probably follow up. Vols played @ Oregon this year and Auburn have a home and home with the Cougars. LSU played Oregon and Washington in the past few years. I think Georgia did a home and home with one of the AZ schools in the past few years. I also think Auburn did home and home with Southern Cal in the past decade. The east schools with ACC rivals are probably the ones who do not play the PAC schools that often.
Florida has Florida State and Miami
South Carolina has Clemson and other ACC schools like UNC
Georgia has Georgia Tech and Clemson
Kentucky has Louisville and had Indiana (historic border game with trophy)
PAC 12 vs SEC – not sure of years or opponents. Also the SEC formed in 1932 and this data base only counts games played as conference members. I think several current or former SEC schools went west early on before the advent of WW II.
1-9-1 Arizona (Auburn and LSU are about half of total)
3-9-0 Arizona State (mostly Missouri)
9-11-1 California (spread across 7 of 14 teams)
40-53-4 Colorado (mostly MU & TAMU but did play LSU 6 times, 7 of 14 teams)
4-7-0 Oregon (spread across 7 of 14 teams, LSU 4 times)
2-11-1 Oregon State (spread across 7 of 14 teams, LSU 4 times)
21-11-1 Southern California (spread across 10 of 14 teams)
4-2-1 Stanford (never played Vanderbilt or in the pre realignment south)
17-14-4 UCLA (about half of total are against Tennessee)
3-9-0 Utah (spread across 6 of 14 teams)
3-9-0 Washington (Mostly Alabama and LSU)
1-9-0 Washington State (half are against Tennessee)
Of the old PAC 10 it looks like Stanford never plays the SEC while both Southern Cal and UCLA played the SEC the most. If anybody seems unwilling to play it looks like it is Stanford – especially if it means a home and home. Has Stanford ever played and SEC team in the SEC home stadium? Even more interesting as Condi Rice grew up a Bama fan and was in a position at Stanford to try and form a home and home series.
LikeLike
duff – off the top of my head, since 2003, LSU has played a home and home series with Arizona and Washington, a neutral site game with Oregon, a home game with Oregon State, and and away game with Arizona State. A home and home series with Arizona State is scheduled for later this decade. I believe Tennessee has played UCLA and Oregon, Arkansas and Auburn have played USC, Georgia and Mizzou have played Arizona State, and Auburn played Washington State this season.
In the early 80s, LSU and USC played a home and home series. Colorado cancelled a home and home series (scheduled way back when they were respectable) with LSU a few years ago. LSU was able to replace them with West Virginia.
LikeLike
Washington State and Oregon State generally play guarantee games at SEC schools, e.g., WSU at Auburn this year, OSU at LSU a few years back. While Washington and Oregon can occasionally get return games, the only SEC members I could see heading to Corvallis or Pullman might be Miss State, Mississippi and Vanderbilt (though it would probably prefer to play a fellow private school such as Stanford).
LikeLike
UGA has fairly recently played Arizona St. as well as Oklahoma St. home and home. Although with the hiring of the Florida asst. AD, they are scheduling buy games instead.
LikeLike
Did you even read my post? I specifically acknowledged that LSU and Tennessee are willing to play the Pac-12. I also called out the Auburn-USC home-and-home. But, Auburn ain’t going to Pullman to play WSU. I forgot about Georgia and ASU – good catch. Still, for a 14-team conference (or even 12 until 2 years ago), this is pretty sparse pickings. And in the SEC West, Alabama, Arkansas, and the Mississippis are having none of it.
If the SEC played 9 conference games, instead of 8, I would buy your argument regarding the eastern schools and their rivalries. But, they don’t. Even with the 4th OoC game, Florida won’t play both of its in-state rivals in the same season. Pac-12 schools generally schedule no more than 2 OoC body-bag games per season. The SEC schools schedule 3-4.
As for Stanford, it should try to play Vandy if it has not previously – especially now that it is competitive. Aside from ND, Stanford tries to schedule an easy game (traditionally San Jose State) and a moderately difficult game against an academically-minded school (Duke and WF recently, Rice and NW in the near future). The other 9 games are in the conference.
LikeLike
Redwood – Just looking at the SEC West since 2000, Bama at UCLA (2000), Auburn at USC (2002), and Arkansas at USC (2005). Alabama also made a couple of trips to Hawaii for probation bowls in the mid-2000s. Ole Miss played a home and home with Fresno State. So other SEC West teams have shown a willingness to travel into Pac land, in addition to LSU.
Rather than schedule more P-12 teams, Arkansas chose series with Texas and Texas A&M (B-12). They’ve also played the likes of Boise State and South Florida. In addition to USC and Washington State, since 2000 Auburn has played GA Tech, Syracuse, K-State, South Florida, West Virginia, and Clemson. While Bama plays mainly neutral site games with Florida State, Clemson, VA Tech, Michigan, and West VA, the Tide has also played at Happy Valley and Norman since 2000. Ole Miss routinely schedules home and homes with Memphis and Tulane, but have travelled a few other times since 2000, to Austin, Lubbock, Wake Forest and Mizzou. Miss State also schedules home and homes with Memphis, Houston, and Tulane, but has visited GA Tech and West VA in the last few years.
Why would Auburn do a home and home with Washington State when they can get buy games with the Cougars?
Yes, three body bag games are the norm with SEC teams, as they are with most teams outside the Pac-12. I do hope the SEC adopts a 9 game schedule in 2016, and dumps one of the body bag games.
LikeLike
Redwood:
Vandy hasn’t been any better than Northwestern. In fact, over the past decade, they’ve been 17 games worse. Why should Stanford seek to play them instead? Northwestern at least is in a metro area where some Stanford grads end up. You seem to have a serious case of ESS-EEE-SEE envy. . . .
LikeLike
Redwood,
I totally disagree that the SEC’s head-to-head strength against the Pac12 would take a hit, minus USC & sometimes UCLA and Oregon, most cases. You are also oblivious to the fact that there have been many SEC-Pac12 match ups over the past decade during OOC play. These conferences seem to play each other as often as the BIG-Pac12, minus bowl games, most recent years. Btw, most OOC road teams lose when going to the Pac12, same goes for them when they go east – chalk it ups as long travel and cultural unfamiliarity.
The SEC does exactly what it should, most cases, it captures its region’s recruits, fills stadiums, produces NFL talent and has tremendous depth. Btw, great to actually see the Pac12 have some quality depth this year.
If you every truly crunched recruiting stats, assuming you haven’t, the SEC has far better per capita talent than any other region – it’s no even close and aTm in the SEC has made the recruiting edge even more significant for the SEC. We always hear about the California players in the NFL being the highest in numbers, but never the “per capita” numbers. Ca is behind several SEC states in per capita NFL talent. Outside of Ca, the rest of the Pac12 recruiting footprint is average to good,but certainly not great. Granted California has a huge population, but you can’t find an SEC state with 4 members like California and the Pac12. Florida is split between 3 BCS conferences, still counting the AAC as one.
Btw, what about the fact that the BIG is nearly 500 with the Pac12 in all-time games and even Rose Bowls, which is hard to believe considering the 70s, 80s, and 2000’s have been awful for the BIG? It’s a tremendous advantage for the Pac12 to host the Rose Bowl – it’s one of their home stadiums (UCLA) and a very short distance from USC. Look at USC’s bowl record outside of the Rose Bowl? I’m pretty sure it’s below 500. Home field and regional familiarity matters, if it didn’t than professional sports wouldn’t play for such an advantage come post season and the overwhelming consensus of winning home records for programs-teams would suggest otherwise.
Btw, no kidding the Pac12 is willing to schedule OOC, out of region. There aren’t as many high quality FBS teams out West (Rockies to Pacific coast). Unfortunately, there’s a huge concentration of FBS schools in the central-eastern time zones & the media bias has supported this reality for decades.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl hosts the Rose Bowl. UCLA contracts to play home games there, like some eastern teams that are denigrated for not having their own stadium. They don’t even have a full size practice field. Do you want to hold the game in Detroit, Chicago, etc. on Jan. 1 ? Give me a SoCal winter reward for winning rather than a Polar Bowl every time. There’s a reason the bowls are predominantly south in number and value, not evenly distributed.
LikeLike
Where to start:
1) You are just wrong about Pac-12 OoC play w/ SEC v. BiG historically. And now, Pac-12 is emphasizing play with BiG even more.
2) Cherry-picking 3 decades out of 10 is not a good way to support a statistical argument. The 70s & 80s are not germane to today, let alone the 20s-60s.
3) It is MUCH harder to travel west to east than east to west, especially to play a 12:30pm game. You LOSE time going east v. gaining it going west. And playing at 12:30pm, which what an eastern host always tries to do with the Pac-12, effectively makes it a 9:30am start for the Pac-12. With respect to the Rose Bowl, the teams arrive almost a week in advance, about half the stadium is filled with the BiG fans, and the gsame starts at 2pm – which is 4pm or 5pm at home. Yes, for USC and UCLA games, BiG is still at a disadvantage for the Rose Bowl, but not for any other team in the conference. Until I came to this site, I had never heard people gripe about the location of the Rose Bowl game relative to the BiG’s ability to win. The rationale is generally preposterous. It probably takes less than 1 extra hour to get from Minnesota, Iowa, or Nebraska to L.A., as it does to get there from Seattle. Penn State has the greatest distance to go, and that’s probably 2+ hours longer than flying from Seattle.
4) I do not question SEC leadership in quality recruits per capita, but fail to understand its relevance.
5) I do not question or fault SEC’s strategy, just its contention that its conference is superior to all others – especially the Pac-12 when the PAC-12 is strong (which given the coaches in the conference now, will be much more often). The SEC case (LSU excepted – as it will play anyone anywhere) generally rests upon its BCS record, which is mostly NCS and Sugar Bowl games. And that is a valid evidential argument. But, the idea that the SEC teams have a tougher road to the BCS than other conferences’ teams is a sick joke. The SEC teams must play all of their division rivals – which this year amounted to 3-4 tough games (depending on division – and I am being generous to the East) , 1-2 not that tough, and 1 cake walk. Then, they play 2 teams in the opposite division, which for Alabama this year (and often) was a cake walk in Kentucky and a not-so-tough against Tennessee. Then they play 3 body bag games and 1 moderately-to-very difficult OoC game. So, out of 12 games, the typical SEC team plays 4-5 tough games, 4-5 cake walks, and 2-4 not-so-tough games. It is hardly a rigorous path to play 1 tough game every 3 weeks or so, and certainly not more difficult than any other conference.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“3) It is MUCH harder to travel west to east than east to west,”
Is it? P12 winning percentages versus other AQ leagues from 1993-2012 don’t really support that.
League – overall W% for P12, home W%, away W%, neutral W%
ACC – 0.500, 0.667, 0.333, 0.500
BE – 0.692, 0.786, 0.562, 0.778
B10 – 0.545, 0.779, 0.363, 0.519
B12 – 0.508, 0.635, 0.432, 0.353
SEC – 0.455, 0.615, 0.375, 0.250
Also, over those years the P12 played the SEC almost exactly as much as the ACC (36 vs 39 times, respectively).
“especially to play a 12:30pm game. You LOSE time going east v. gaining it going west. And playing at 12:30pm, which what an eastern host always tries to do with the Pac-12, effectively makes it a 9:30am start for the Pac-12.”
Yes, and an 8pm PT start feels like 11pm for half of the B10 teams.
“With respect to the Rose Bowl, the teams arrive almost a week in advance, about half the stadium is filled with the BiG fans, and the gsame starts at 2pm – which is 4pm or 5pm at home. Yes, for USC and UCLA games, BiG is still at a disadvantage for the Rose Bowl, but not for any other team in the conference.”
A week doesn’t make up for one team being adapted to cold weather and the other used to the heat. That said, most of the complaints are directed at USC and UCLA since they play in town.
The records back it up, too.
P12 = 47-42-3
USC = 23-9
UCLA = 5-7
P12 – (USC and UCLA) = 19-26-3
Since USC has represented the P12 more than twice as much as any other P12 team, it’s an issue. The B10 never gets that sort of advantage.
LikeLike
Brian beat me to it.
Since 1990 (since you seem to only care about recent history), The B10 is 7-5 vs. non-LA Pac teams in the Rose Bowl. 2-6 vs. LA teams with that giant home field disadvantage.
LikeLike
You long for the day to return when tOSU declined the Rose Bowl invite?
Do you think USC wouldn’t have won most of those matchups had they been at any other site? Would Alabama not likely have won their recent titles if the games had been held in Detroit or Boise?
LikeLike
Look at the entire B10’s history in the Rose Bowl, when they don’t play USC or UCLA, they dominate the Rose. When they play those two, you can pretty much count on a loss. It’s a home game for those two programs.
LikeLike
Compare the rankings of the non LA schools to the others when they get to the Roses.
LikeLike
Let’s take a step back and listen to what’s being said here: we’re complaining about the Big Ten getting paid tens of millions of dollars to go to a perfect weather destination in January in a beautiful historic setting with the most tradition rich bowl game that every other conference would kill to go to and is attached to a parade event that’s watched by tens of millions of people worldwide resulting in even more millions of dollars worth of exposure for the conference beyond the game itself that no other league besides the Pac-12 gets to take advantage of. And we seem to be intimating that we’d be better off playing outside in the middle of winter at Soldier Field or Lambeau Field instead. Are we actually listening to what we’re saying here? This is the very height of complaints about the tip top of first world problems. Is our caviar not fresh enough?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
I’m not sure who you were directing this at, but I’ll respond to it.
“You long for the day to return when tOSU declined the Rose Bowl invite?”
No. I like the Rose Bowl as is, I just acknowledge that the P12 teams have some advantages, especially USC and UCLA.
“Do you think USC wouldn’t have won most of those matchups had they been at any other site?”
Most? Probably. Go 23-9? I doubt it. USC went 10-4 in 1 possession games.
“Would Alabama not likely have won their recent titles if the games had been held in Detroit or Boise?”
A dominant team would likely win anywhere, but a close matchup can be decided by location. OSU beat Miami for the national title in the Fiesta Bowl, but they probably would’ve lost in the Orange Bowl. What would the B8’s legacy look like if they didn’t play Miami and FSU in the Orange Bowl so often? How many titles might Tom Osborne have won?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Compare the rankings of the non LA schools to the others when they get to the Roses.”
AP rankings before the game (P12 team listed first) and result. Upsets are in italics.
Non-LA Schools
2013 – 8 vs NR W
2012 – 6 vs 9 W
2010 – 7 vs 8 L
2001 – 4 vs 14 W
2000 – 22 vs 4 L
1998 – 8 vs 1 L
1997 – 2 vs 4 L
1995 – 12 vs 2 L
1993 – 9 vs 7 L
1992 – 2 vs 4 W
1991 – 8 vs 17 W
1987 – 7 vs 4 W
1982 – 12 vs 13 W
1981 – 16 vs 5 L
1978 – 13 vs 4 W
1972 – 16 vs 3 W
1971 – 12 vs 2 W
4-2 in upsets, 11 of 17 went according to rank
LA Schools
2009 – 5 vs 6 W
2008 – 6 vs 13 W
2007 – 8 vs 3 W
2004 – 1 vs 4 W
1999 – 6 vs 9 L
1996 – 17 vs 3 W
1994 – 14 vs 9 L
1990 – 12 vs 3 W
1989 – 5 vs 11 L
1988 – 16 vs 7 L
1986 – 13 vs 4 W
1985 – 18 vs 6 W
1984 – NR vs 4 W
1983 – 5 vs 19 W
1980 – 3 vs 1 W
1979 – 3 vs 5 W
1977 – 3 vs 2 W
1976 – 11 vs 1 W
1975 – 5 vs 3 W
1974 – 7 vs 2 L
1973 – 1 vs 3 W
1970 – 5 vs 7 W
1969 – 2 vs 1 L
10-2 in upsets, 11 of 23 went according to rank
LikeLike
Frank,
Discussing the facts is different than wanting to change the situation. The Rose Bowl isn’t a level playing field for the B10 versus USC and UCLA. That doesn’t mean I want to change it, but I do want that fact considered when discussing how the B10 performs in the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
That’s completely reasonable.
How dare you be! 🙂
LikeLike
Interesting article on Power 5 seeking more autonomy.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10121476/power-conferences-seeking-more-autonomy-ncaa
Noteworthy that Delany admits that the top 5 schools are asking for a lot from the small schools despite having few concessions of their own to offer.
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Article/Texas-Longhorns-top-recruiting-job-in-college-football-165665
A recruiting “expert” lists the top 20 schools for recruiting purposes.
But what programs are just naturally set up for coaches to get their foot in the door, so to speak? What programs when they have a coaching staff that even in the slightest bit knows what they are doing are a lock to sign elite talent? What programs are “set up” for recruiting success?
We took a look and ranked the top 20 coaching jobs in the country from a recruiting standpoint.
Geography plays the biggest factor in these rankings, simply because talent acquisition for the sport is still very regionally-based. It’s not a coincidence that most of the best programs on an annual basis are located within the borders of talent-producing states. Other factors, like tradition, facilities and fan support/venue were weighed as well. These things serve as a hook for top prospects and can cause initial interest – not the way proximity does – but still can drum up an instant interest.
1. Texas
2. OSU
3. LSU
4. UGA
5. USC
6. UF
7. FSU
8. AL
9. ND
10. PSU
LikeLike
11. TAMU
12. Auburn
13. Miami
14. Oregon
15. Michigan
16. OU
17. Tennessee
18. UNC
19. Stanford
20. UCLA
I agree with him on the top 8 (only quibble there is that UF should be #2; if Texas is #1, there’s no reason for UF not to be #2).
Then I think you’d either have to have the group of kings who’s own state doesn’t have enough talent for them to compete for national titles but who are adjacent to recruiting hotbeds and have the name to recruit nationally (ND, Michigan, OU, PSU, & Tennessee)
The group of princes are are in or close to terrific recruiting grounds but are overshadowed by an in-state king (or 2, in FL) with bigger names (TAMU, Auburn, UCLA & Miami)
Those would be the next 9 (yes, I think UCLA is too low on that list).
Finally, UNL (king, but so far from any good recruiting grounds) and Oregon and OK St. (and maybe Stanford), who don’t have the name or the in-state talent but have sugar daddies to help them compete.
That’s the top 20/21.
After that, the princes: SC, Clemson, VTech, Cal, Washington, MSU, & Wisconsin
If you assign 3 points to the top 8, 2 points to the next 9, 1 point each to the 3 high princes/low king, and 0.5 points to each prince, you’d end up with
SEC: 18.5
B10: 9
Pac: 7
B12: 6
ACC: 6
ND: 2
I expect the playoff and contract bowl slots to be doled out in roughly this proportion.
LikeLike
@Richard – The one advantage that I do see Ohio State having over Florida is that it has a power conference monopoly and near-total lockdown on its home state’s top recruits. The state of Florida has much higher number of sheer recruits than Ohio, but UF’s in-state competition with FSU and Miami (much less out-of-state competition) for recruits is also extremely formidable where the Gator coach legitimately does have to deal with a lot of fierce in-state recruiting battles. In contrast, virtually all top Ohio recruits are earmarked to become Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Hi Frank:
Well, Michigan wins a fair share of top recruits in OH as well. Especially in the northern portion of OH, which is as close to Ann Arbor as to Columbus. In that sense, the situation in akin to TX, Texas, and OU, though with far less talent. There’s no in-state prince like TAMU to contend with, true, but also 2 extra kings in adjacent states to contend with in ND and PSU (while TX only has LSU).
LikeLike
M recruits nationally about as well as anyone other than ND. When they were regularly in the top 10, they could go in to Florida, Texas, California and snatch up elite players regularly. More recently, they’ve refocused their efforts in the mid Atlantic region; New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
Wolverine:
Sure, but that doesn’t compare with having an abundance of talent right in your back yard. Excluding the QB position (which has its own dynamic), kings can recruit anywhere, but when they go up against another king in its home state, they usually lose. UM & ND usually lose recruiting battles vs. UF in FL and Texas in TX.
LikeLike
If Ohio is split into four regions (SE Ohio is low enough population to allow it to be pooled with Central Ohio), NW Ohio, NE Ohio, SW Ohio, Central & SE Ohio, then IMV the hottest competition with TSUN is NW Ohio, then NE Ohio … but the fastest demographic growth is in Central Ohio, which is to the advantage of the Buckeyes. AFAIR, when I was a kid going to a consolidated small town / rural school district in Central Ohio, nine of ten schools in the Licking County League had the OSU fight song as their fight song (our rival Newark Catholic was the hold-out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if theirs was Notre Dame’s).
LikeLike
If the list is accurate, which fan bases have a right to be the most pissed off?
I’d say: 1) UNC; 2) UCLA; 3) Michigan; 4) Georgia; 5) Texas
I put UNC #1, as I believe in the BCS era they have never finished a season ranked in the top 25. If they are indeed in the 18th-best recruiting territory, they ought to have been a top-25 team with some regularity.
UCLA is a similar situation: this article has them at 20th, but they aren’t a perennial top-20 team, nor even close.
Michigan? ’nuff said.
Georgia? Well, if you’re in the #2 recruiting territory in the SEC, and the SEC Championship game is played in your home state, you ought to have more than just two wins and 5 appearances in 20 years.
Likewise Texas: they do have a BCS championship to their name, but since then they’ve grossly underperformed their alleged recruiting advantage.
LikeLike
UCLA has suffered from:
1) Reluctance to keep up with coaches’ pay arms race until recently. This resulted in a series of mediocre coaches (Toledo, Dorrell, and Neuheisel) before Mora was hired. The new Pac-12 TV package has enabled the whole conference to really upgrade coaching pay. And Mora extracted more pay for himself and assistants when Sarkisian was hired by USC due to fear that he might bolt to UW.
2) Difficulty in modernizing facilities due to being a public university in a politically correct and fiscal crisis-laden state. Mora also extracted some promises regarding facilities upgrades AND a private donor reportedly has stepped up to help make the promises come true.
3) Increased emphasis on academic performance of its players over the past two decades. Mora just extracted a promise for more discretion on recruits at the academic margin.
UCLA is likely to live up to its recruiting rankings going forward.
The rankings for Oregon and Stanford surprise me. Oregon’s recruiting success is “man-made”, not due to “natural resources”. The Ducks cleverly built a football brand that makes them more of a magnet for recruits. If they had to rely on the Pac NW for recruiting, they would not be good. In terms of natural resources, Stanford benefits from its proximity to L.A., but its differentiator is its academic prestige – which enables it to successfully recruit academically-minded players out of metro markets across the country.
LikeLike
“The new Pac-12 TV package has enabled the whole conference to really upgrade coaching pay. And Mora extracted more pay for himself and assistants when Sarkisian was hired by USC due to fear that he might bolt to UW.”
UW apparently was willing to pay through the nose:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/12/09/pac-12-football-chris-petersens-contract-and-what-it-means/
LikeLike
In my efforts to increase awareness of the Pac-12 here (ha ha), I thought I would share my assessment of the relative status of the conference teams in the language of this board:
USC = King along the lines of Michigan, tOSU, PSU
UCLA = 1st-tier prince (along the lines of Wisconsin and Nebraska) if it wants to be, and now it seems to want to be. What prevents it from having FSU-like king potential is proximity to USC, being in the same conference as USC, and lack of sufficient fan fervor.
UW = potential 1st-tier prince due to favorable market position and demographics. The only things restraining its potential are current market size and perhaps Seahawks competition for attention. But these fans care.
ASU = potential 1st-tier prince for the same reasons as UW. Upside v. UW = proximity to great recruiting markets: CA and TX. Downside v. UW = fan apathy. Also, while Todd Graham may prove to be the exception that changes ASU sports, this historically has been where successful coaches (in both football and basketball) go to die (career-wise).
Stanford = fleeting prince a la Iowa and Michigan State, but better LT potential. While the athletic department has a strong and unique economic model recently detailed in the WSJ, and the school is by far #1 in its national recruiting niche, success here is dependent upon coaching quality and continuity, fluctuations in admissions policy, and possibly limited competition from other schools competing in the academic-minded niche. The biggest issue is that winning is not THAT important here.
Two facts: First, Stanford has NEVER had a football coach stay more than 9 seasons (John Ralston), with every successful coach using the school as a stepping stone – usually to the NFL. Shaw is unique in being an alum who will probably stay at least until his kids are grown. Second, from 2001-2006, the school had an anti-sports Director of Admissions that further reduced the school’s already limited recruiting universe. Many believe that this caused Men’s Basketball coach Montgomery to leave.
Oregon = fleeting prince. Phil Knight will not live forever and the novelty and effectiveness of their offensive innovation may have peaked with the departure of Chip Kelly. I suppose Oregon could become a Nebraska permanently, but I tend to doubt it.
Colorado = fleeting prince. Insufficient market size and fan fervor, possibly due to NFL competition, will make success coach-dependent. The school does dominate its region, however, a la tOSU, so it is likely to have its occasional days in the sun.
Utah = Middling. Too much competition in too small a market. Great market demographics, however, and being in the PAc-12 helps its market position a lot. So, over time, this could change.
Cal, Arizona, Oregon State, and WSU = Structurally disadvantaged wanna’ be.
Cal’s problem is too much tough competition. NorCal recruits choose Stanford if admitted, almost without exception. The SoCal recruits willing to come north either go to Stanford or are UCLA academic rejects. Not sure if there is such a thing as a USC academic reject (at least for football). And the out-of-state recruits always get the school in trouble with the NCAA and the school’s academic leaders (football graduation rates right now are scandalous). Notice how Cal withered on the vine once Stanford got its act together, and collapsed with the later rebound of UCLA?
Arizona’s market is too small and there is no Nike nearby.
Oregon State and WSU are the “little brother” schools, although if Phil Knight had gone to Oregon State, the Beavers could have been the fleeting prince, since it is actually closer to Portland than Eugene. Problem for the Beavers is that there really is only room for one fleeting prince in the neighborhood. WSU is in a tiny market that is not enticing. The best it can hope to be is Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Notes on UNC and why I’m not even remotely shocked by their lackluster football success. I did live in NC for nearly 2 years and visit at least once a year & have been for close to 20 years now.
Foremost, NC is a basketball state & it will likely remain this way. There’s nothing like Tobacco Road outside of NC. We could argue the Ohio River Valley or Kentuckiana compares, even favorably, but these schools are so split up by different conferences & the proximity, while close, is unlike Tobacco Road’s compact geography. Think about it: Xavier, Cincy, IU, Louisville, and Ky, to name some, covers the ACC, BIG, SEC, AAC and Big East.
Next year there will be 6 FBS schools in NC (Appy State is the latest FBS addition), which isn’t much different than say Ohio. But WF, UNC, Duke and NCSt are all in a major conference. Btw, ECU in a given year is usually top 3, typically better than half the NC ACC schools.
Only OSU is in the BIG. Cincy in the AAC is like ECU in Conference USA. Moreover, Ohio is a football crazed state like NC is a basketball crazed state. Special point here in case you think I’ neglecting the obvious annual football talent in NC and prep basketball in Ohio: NC is not overlooked by football recruiters and and the same goes for Ohio’s basketball talent.
Lastly, we’ve also seen the emergence of professional sports in NC – these teams chip away at collegiate sports, their brand and influence. Some people prefer to spend their money on top shelf athleticism in a respective sport. We all have friends who say something along the lines of “I can’t watch college sports . . . the players are just so raw and undeveloped compared to professionals”. For me, I like them both, and prefer college anything except football – and I’m sure I’ve complained why CF, an increasingly Sun Belt biased sport, doesn’t do it for me on here over the months.
LikeLike
You’ll note I stipulated: IF the article is correct. In a few cases, I have my doubts, and UNC is one of them.
There is ample evidence that over the long term, recruiting rankings are highly correlated with winning. If UNC was indeed the #18 school for football recruiting potential, the odds are very low that it would have ZERO top-25 finishes in the BCS era.
You’ll note that the article was rating schools, not states. Presumably, the writer (if he was competent) was accounting for the amount of competition each school has from other BCS schools in its footprint.
LikeLike
The list is not correct when it comes to UNC. No way the Heels belong in the top 20 in football recruiting. I would say that the fan bases that have a right to be most upset are Texas and UGa, yes, but also PSU. Michigan has actually done as well as you’d expect for a school that’s 15th in recruiting. Yes, the RichRod years were a disaster, but since 2000, even counting the RichRod years, using the Mcube rankings (since I don’t have any other rankings available, but they’re probably similar), they’ve finished in the top 10 3 times and outside the top 20 6 times (barely missing in 2 of those 6 times).
PSU, on the other hand, finished in the top 10 3 times and outside the top 20 9 times. Then again, I say that guy has PSU recruiting ranked a little too high as well. They’re on the same tier as UM (and ND, OU, and Tennessee), in slots 9-17.
LikeLike
I’d argue the midwest is very under-represented by recruiting sites and so are the B10 programs in the above rankings. We see every year that almost all the alleged young talent is in the South, Southeast and California yet the B10 continues to put players in the NFL about as well as anyone other than the SEC.
LikeLike
Wolverine: That could mean that the B10 is better at coaching up talent. Even if that isn’t what is happening, the South and Southeast are the same place and I think that the fact that the SEC dominates on draft day shows that the South has the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country.
Per capita, CA actually isn’t that great for recruiting, and that shows in both his recruiting rankings and mine. We only have USC in the top 8 and while he has Stanford, I only have UCLA (barely) in the top 20.
In fact, I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that the B10 footprint is under-represented by recruiting sites. If that guy can be used as a proxy, he has far more schools in the B10 footprint (4: OSU, UM, PSU, & ND) in his top 15 than any other non-SEC conference (ACC & Pac, tied at 2).
I rank the B10 as the second-best conference in terms of recruiting power as well. However, the gap between the SEC and everyone else is huge.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/12/college-football-playoff-bracket/
Your wildest fantasies fulfilled, playoff fans.
LikeLike
Gag me with a spoon.
LikeLike
One of my biggest concerns is that if you go beyond 4 schools, you really start risking attendance.
How many fans can make it to 3 games if they have to for an 8 team playoff?
I do see an 8 team playoff happening but that’s a major concern of mine. I think everything is aligned to go to a system with 5 guaranteed spots for conference champions + 3 at-large bids.
LikeLike
If they go beyond 8, I think they’ll really start to devalue the regular season too much.
LikeLike
If they go TO 8, I think they’ll really start to devalue the regular season too much.
LikeLike
Yup.
LikeLike
Yup Yup.
LikeLike
One of my biggest concerns is that if you go beyond 4 schools, you really start risking attendance.
How many fans can make it to 3 games if they have to for an 8 team playoff?
FTT’s proposal mitigates that concern, by using the traditional major bowls as the quarter-finals. There is ample evidence that those games can sell out. The final will probably do well the way the Super Bowl does, i.e., it will be a hot ticket practically no matter who was in it.
But that still leaves the question: A) Will the semi-finals reliably sell out; or, B) Will the semi-finals canibalize the bowls? (That is: will fans of the two Fiesta Bowl teams stay away, because they can only afford one road trip, and they decide to wait for the semi-final that they assume/hope their team will be in.)
If they go to 8, I think they’ll really start to devalue the regular season too much.
There’s no logic behind this old chestnut. This is not like the NFL, where a 7-9 team sometimes makes the playoffs. To qualify in an 8-team playoff, you’ll either need to win a power conference, be a VERY strong at-large team.
This season, for instance, the 8-team playoff participants would include the P5 champs and two powerful 1-loss teams, Ohio State and Alabama. To say their regular seasons didn’t matter is complete nonsense. Obviously, you’d be giving three schools a second bite at the apple after they failed to win their own league.
But in the current system you’re giving 1-loss Auburn a shot that 1-loss Michigan State and 1-loss Baylor aren’t getting, based on nothing more than an eye test and a miraculous play that has occurred only 4 times in the recorded history of college football.
LikeLike
Hold the semifinals in baseball stadiums (as I’ve suggested before), if you’re afraid that you won’t be able to fill a football stadium.
LikeLike
Hold the semifinals in baseball stadiums (as I’ve suggested before), if you’re afraid that you won’t be able to fill a football stadium.
Many baseball stadiums are not good football venues, especially if they weren’t built for that. If they don’t think they’ll fill a good football stadium, they’re not going to play the games.
LikeLike
. . . unless the TV money is overwhelming.
LikeLike
Why exactly would college football games be any more compelling if held in warm weather baseball stadiums?
I’ll grant you that semifinal games at Fenway and Wrigley would be very neat to watch (or attend) and would likely generate extra buzz/interest, but 1) both cities are butt-freezing cold in January, so neither has any chance of hosting a semifinal and 2) other baseball stadiums are not unique enough to generate independent interest.
A semifinal held at Petco Park in San Diego/AT&T Park in SF is not all that special vs a semifinal held in a venue designed to host American Football.
Better yet, see this list and tell me which stadiums (other than Fenway or Wrigley) in climates that could plausibly host an outdoor CFB game in January, would create extra buzz by hosting a CFB semifinal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_stadiums
LikeLike
Did I say it would be more compelling?
You were worried about fans not showing up, but at a small baseball stadium, that isn’t so much of an issue. 30K would look more than half-empty in a football stadium but make a baseball stadium look full.
Most of the money would come from TV anyway.
LikeLike
As someone who plans a vacation every NYD to watch my Wolverines around the bowl game. I very likely wouldn’t attend any semifinal or even a National Title game unless it was in my backyard. I’m sure there are many others like me.
My university (Michigan) has a large enough fan base with enough alumni where they hold bowl games (Florida, Texas, Cali, etc.) that they might be able to sell out semifinals without much issue, but ask a smaller fan base like Stanford, Oregon, Michigan State or Clemson to sell out a seminal? Semifinals most certainly will have severe attendance issues which is why bowl committees are the only ones not on-board. Till you can solve the ‘2nd round’ issue, we won’t see an 8-team playoff…
For the schools & conferences the increased TV money will more than make up for it but is this money going to make its way back to the semifinal sites that won’t make as much money as they do now? Those ‘major’ bowl committees pay huge dollars to host these games and they only make money from tickets, sponsors, merchandise, concessions but not from TV. I can’t see these ‘major’ bowls happy with hosting these semifinals unless they can pay much less to host these games that aren’t going to be very well attended.
LikeLike
So don’t have the bowls host semifinals. Hold them in baseball stadiums.
LikeLike
It’s not just a matter of being able to afford the trip twice though I’m sure it is for a lot of people. It’s as much a factor of having less than a weeks notice to plan to attend the ‘2nd round’ game. That is if you even have the luxury to get time-off work to attend both games…
I almost forgot about the giant elephant in the room, the NFL. Those Saturdays are NFL playoff games currently, CFB doesn’t and can’t compete with the NFL postseason and the NFL won’t like it much either…
Someone here is probably smart enough to make it work for the bowl committees, they are probably the only stakeholder that aren’t on-board for an 8-team playoff. FWIW I’m very much in favor of an 8-team playoff, the #5 – #8 teams a lot of times are nearly as deserving as the #2 – #4 teams…
The ‘2nd’ round clearly won’t be as well attended as the first… I think you’ll also have to be creative about working around the NFL’s schedule. For example, you could schedule the National Title game on the week between the NFL’s conference championship game and the Super Bowl and play the semis a week previous, a week that the NFL only has two games that are both played on Sunday. This makes a pretty large gap between the Bowls and the semis, but I think it’s more feasible for the bowl committees (the only ones who would have a problem with most proposed semifinal formats…
Home sites don’t work for the B10 in January, unless the home team gets to select one of Ford Field or Lucas Oil Stadium. I don’t want to see football like we did when the Lions played in Philadelphia, at least not in person. I don’t think you have an issue finding stadiums to host these games but they just won’t pay out near as well as the current ‘major’ bowls do.
LikeLike
Wolverine:
I’ve suggested before to hold the semis on MLK Day and the Frank suggested the title game on the bye week before the Super Bowl.
That leaves as much time between the quarters and semis as there is now between the end of the season and the early bowl games.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
“If they go to 8, I think they’ll really start to devalue the regular season too much.
There’s no logic behind this old chestnut. This is not like the NFL, where a 7-9 team sometimes makes the playoffs. To qualify in an 8-team playoff, you’ll either need to win a power conference, be a VERY strong at-large team.
This season, for instance, the 8-team playoff participants would include the P5 champs and two powerful 1-loss teams, Ohio State and Alabama. To say their regular seasons didn’t matter is complete nonsense. Obviously, you’d be giving three schools a second bite at the apple after they failed to win their own league.
But in the current system you’re giving 1-loss Auburn a shot that 1-loss Michigan State and 1-loss Baylor aren’t getting, based on nothing more than an eye test and a miraculous play that has occurred only 4 times in the recorded history of college football.”
The excitement of the Auburn-Alabama would have been much less with lesser stakes. That an Alabama loss eliminates it from the NC race is far more compelling than “an Alabama loss might cost it home field advantage in the first round”. Moreover, the ending would have a much lesser impact because of the lesser stakes. The NFL is replete with miraculous endings in regular seasons that are largely forgotten in the greater scheme of the game–endings that, if they occurred in Super Bowls, would he hailed as the greatest of all time.
To me, the CFB regular season is a form of the NCAA Tourney, in that you either win or, generally go home. And the 1 loss teams are the ones that generally do deserve a shot once there are not enough unbeatens left. I’m as big a Big Ten homer as anyone else on this board, but if any 1 loss team deserves a shot at the NC, its not MSU, but Auburn. Part of the magic is the higher stakes. With each successive expansion of the playoffs, this magic is undoubtedly lost.
I posted above what Stewart Mandel wrote, and I’ll repost because its spot on:
thought I was the only one who realized that the Auburn-Alabama classic would be almost meaningless to fans of other teams in the playoff system until Rece Davis made that very point on ESPN. No one is going to get excited over seeding. I hope college football fans enjoyed the suspense and drama of this regular season, because they clearly didn’t know what they had when they ditched it for a playoff.
— J.D. Bolick, Lincolton, N.C.
That’s a bit melodramatic. In next year’s system, the Iron Bowl would have been far from meaningless and the ending no less exciting. But there’s no question the stakes would have been lower. Auburn would have kept itself alive in the playoff hunt, while Alabama would have hurt its chances, though it would still be very much in the mix. That’s the tradeoff we’re making with the new system. It creates an opportunity to settle the Ohio State/SEC champion debate on the field rather than over the airwaves. Selection controversy moves a couple of rungs down the ladder, where the excluded teams aren’t as deserving in the first place. In turn, however, if that same exact game ended in the same exact fashion in 2014, the single biggest reason it was so significant — the season-long favorite Crimson Tide were eliminated from national title contention (barring the Armageddon scenario detailed above) in the span of 14 seconds — would no longer be an element.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131204/college-football-mailbag-bcs-armageddon/#ixzz2net1Cd2R
LikeLike
Games with finishes like Alabama-Auburn this year are few and far between; if it lessens the stakes while giving all of the five major conference champions automatic bids (and thus automatically heightening the stakes of the four conferences with CCGs), tough. Too many college football fans cite singular instances such as that above as servants of the status quo.
LikeLike
“How many fans can make it to 3 games if they have to for an 8 team playoff?”
And for those with neutral site conference championhip games, that increases it to potentially 4 games.
I wonder if even the four team playoff will start to eat away at conference title game attendance to the point where we see more conferences moving to on-campus sites of one of the participants.
LikeLike
For a lot of conferences, that makes sense. I daresay that for all except the SEC (and maybe the B10), on-campus CCG’s are the best idea.
LikeLike
The number of seats allocated to the school’s fans for the semi-finals and final is a concession to the participants & for color for the TV broadcast, so its more an issue of rivalry between the quarterfinals and the CCG, especially if some CCG’s are seen as merely deciding the seeding between two schools going either way.
That is, indeed, a commercial argument for Frank’s system, since the time between the CCG’s and the four big bowls substantially reduces the risk of the quarterfinals cannibalizing the CCG’s.
LikeLike
Why give Missouri a 3 seed when they’re #8 in the BCS standings? Wow, Mizzou even gets screwed in the made up fantasy playoffs.
LikeLike
Which of the 2 seeds do you think Missouri should swap spots with?
LikeLike
Well, if you go by BCS standings, which I would think would be the way to do it, then South Carolina is 9 and Missouri is 8.
Missouri is 11-2. South Carolina is 10-2. Yes, South Carolina won head to head, but that was by 3 pts on a missed chip shot field goal while Missouri was missing their starting QB. And besides, South Carolina lost to Georgia, who Missouri beat by 15 pts, and Tennessee, who Missouri beat by 28 pts, and SC didn’t have to play Auburn. Missouri has higher computer rankings and more wins. Also, Missouri won the SEC East outright, and SC finished second.
LikeLike
It’s a fun debate, no doubt. The fake committee of the fake 64 team football playoff might have given South Carolina the nod over the Missouri for a 2 seed due not just to the head-to-head win but to reward the Gamecocks for non-conference victories over UCF and Clemson. The debate might have centered on this question: should we reward quality wins more than we penalize bad losses? Clearly, South Carolina has both more quality wins and more bad losses as compared to Mizzou. Was the fake committee more swayed by the head-to-head victory or the division title? How did injuries, road wins, home losses, margin of victory, etc steer the decision-making process? At the end of the day, I think a justified argument can be made for either Missouri or South Carolina as the last 2 seed in this fake bracket but without better transparency from the fake committee it’s all just speculation on our part. Hypothetically, I like to think that Missouri would have used the seeding snub from the fake committee as motivation to score an upset or two and reach the final four.
LikeLike
I would think winning the East division would be worth something. Also I would think Missouri’s average computer rank of 6 vs SC’s average computer rank of 8 is worth a lot. But I suppose human voters can come up with whatever reasons they want. I’ve seen some voters vote Missouri as high as 3 and as low as 13 in recent polls. People are all over the place.
LikeLike
Powers still running UT Austin.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2013/12/12/powers-remains-university-president-despite-strained-relationship-with-system
LikeLike
It would be interesting to know if Missouri’s success is the SEC effect (playing up to the level of competition) or really that talented, In which case they would have likely won the BIG12 if they’d stayed.
LikeLike
Missouri vs Oklahoma State in the Cotton Bowl will be a great test of this question.
One of the most interesting matchups, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Or maybe Mizzou’s success in the SEC reflects the fat that the SEC is not as tough as everyone claims?
LikeLike
I’ll concede something here, despite the fact that duffman thinks I’m an “extreme homer”.
Missouri is 9-7 in the SEC so far. Here are the records of the teams they’ve beaten and the teams they’ve lost to:
Wins:
2013 Georgia – 8-4
2013 Texas A&M – 8-4
2013 Vanderblit – 8-4
2013 Ole Miss – 7-5
2013 Tennessee – 5-7
2012 Tennessee – 5-7
2013 Florida – 4-8
2013 Kentucky – 2-10
2013 Kentucky – 2-10
Lossess
2012 Alabama – 13-1
2013 Auburn – 12-1
2012 Georgia – 12-2
2012 Florida – 11-2
2012 South Carolina – 11-2
2012 Texas A&M – 11-2
2012 Vanderbilt – 9-4
So… Missouri is 9-0 vs teams with 8 or less wins, and 0-7 vs teams with 9 or more wins.
Now, last year Missouri had TONS of injuries. 6 OLs from the two deep out. Henry Josey, 1st team all Big 12 RB out. James Franklin, honorable mention all Big 12 QB out for much of the year. And a lot more. Given that, they were a play away from beating Vanderbilt and Florida and led Georgia at the end of the 3rd quarter. They were also missing their QB and their All SEC CB vs South Carolina this year. So injuries were a factor in some of those losses.
But the fact remains Missouri had an easier time this year than last year schedule-wise.
Now, would Missouri have had an even easier schedule in the Big 12 this year? Perhaps. I haven’t been all that impressed with any Big 12 team this year.
It will be very interesting to see who wins the Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Also, if Georgia, A&M, and Vandy win as expected then Missouri’s record will then be 3-1 vs 9 win teams, with the only loss being a narrow 4 pt loss to Vandy in 2012 in a turnover filled game involving a shaky freshman backup QB.
But still no SEC wins over 10 win teams. Maybe next year.
LikeLike
As if Cal’s FB team wasn’t having enough problems competing
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24676593/berkeley-bears-football-team-improving-classroom
Confronted with mounting evidence that its football players were failing academically, Cal has raised the academic bar significantly, a new analysis of data requested by this newspaper shows.
Eighty percent of this year’s new recruits met UC’s statewide admission requirements compared with 39 percent in 2011, suggesting a major shift as pressure grew for the prestigious university to require that its football players’ brains match their brawn.
LikeLike
It may help. They may get players who can read the play book, and understand some of it.
LikeLike
Ironically, they just hired a coach who has one of the simplest offenses out there.
LikeLike
If it’s true that Texas is willing to pay 10 million a season for one to two coaches, Saban or Jim Harbaugh, that would be tough for anyone to match. Harbaugh, who refused to sign a contract extension with the 49ers, supposedly because he doesn’t like the owner (or his veto power) and misses the absolute control he had over his college programs may be interested. If true, I guess you can’t blame him. Hard to pass up an offer that doubles your (pro) pay and give you full control.
LikeLike
IMO Jimmy would be the perfect coach for the Longhorns. But he may not be interested to coach in the Big 12.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/why-vegas-doesn-t-believe-auburn-is-nearly-as-good-as-fsu-121213
Vegas isn’t buying the SEC hype this year.
LikeLike
Vegas predicted Auburn would only win 5 or 6 games this year and now they’re 12-1. I don’t know why anybody would care what Vegas has to say about Auburn football at this point.
LikeLike
Did you read the article? They aren’t predicting any particular result. They are attempting to set a level of likelihood for either result.
LikeLike
Vegas wins regardless (they don’t care about the outcome), the spread is based upon who is betting for what team. If a lot more money is taking FSU to cover, the spread increases. If everyone is taking Auburn to cover the spread, the spread decreases.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10135355/nick-saban-agrees-new-deal-stay-alabama-crimson-tide
Alabama and Nick Saban have agreed to a long-term deal that will keep the four-time champion coach in Tuscaloosa, the school confirmed Friday night on Twitter.
LikeLike
Well, time for Plan B, Longhorns.
LikeLike
ESPN’s already on the case:
‘Again, hard to say with confidence that the job wouldn’t appeal to him. The compensation that has been connected to this job is insane. Anyone the school contacts would be silly not to listen. But even if the Longhorns put on the full-court press, I don’t know if Harbaugh would leave.’
The 49’s owner, the article said, is already reaching for his checkbook to put this issue to rest.
LikeLike
The whole political structure at UT right now is a train wreck right now. Their regents are totally divided into different groups. One of which is basically being lead by Perry (who is an Aggie yell leader), that was trying to oust the president (supposedly to turn the academic side into a diploma mill) You have boosters running a muck, trying their best to keep Mack in place. I just don’t why any big name coach would want to get into the middle of that dumpster fire right now.
LikeLike
For that much money and prestige I don’t think they’ll have trouble filling it. I give Saban credit, I really thought he was gone. Funny how he ‘Never considered leaving Alabama’……only after he turned the Crimson Tide Pepto Bismol pink for two weeks while he haggled out a contract extension.
I can’t believe Brown would be stepping down unless Texas already had someone lined up.
LikeLike
UMd beat UVA 2-1 in the NCAA College Cup semi-final. The last game as ACC conference teams in probably the best college soccer rivalry. Obviously, soccer doesn’t merit consideration in realignment but it’s a bummer that this rivalry will be diminished.
The championship match (Notre Dame vs UMD) should be good, but hard to tell who to root for…the team leaving the ACC or the one that doesn’t want to fully join.
LikeLike
The Terps would be happy to schedule the Cavs in the future — it’s UVa who’s ending the rivalry, not Maryland.
LikeLike
It’s possible that it is the ACC that is ending the rivalry, not the University of Virginia.
LikeLike
How naive…seems like a good talking point from a politician, even though anyone who truly follows rivalries knows better.
This year UVA and UMD played three great games
1. A regular season 3-3 tie
2. An ACC Championship game 1-0 victory by the Terps, that was the best game of the series
3. An NCAA Semi-final game 2-1 victory powered by PoY Mullins
I doubt that the Terps will petition to play in future ACC Tournaments (not that they would be allowed to play)…and vice-versa for the ‘Hoos in the B1G. The Terps switching conferences will diminish what has been the best rivalry in college soccer over the last 30 years.
Rivalries require competitiveness and frequency…proximity can add some extra interest. The Terps and Cavaliers have been power soccer programs for a long time. Folks would be better served by being honest about the implications of switching conferences.
I don’t doubt that TV money, and college football, are driving conference alignment. I am merely pointing out that other college sports (soccer, lacrosse, or even basketball) rivalries are being negatively impacted.
LikeLike
The note above is in response to Vincent’s suggestion that it’s actually UVA’s decisions that are actually hurting the rivalry.
LikeLike
If any ACC member wanted to schedule Maryland in just about any sport, I can’t imagine a Terp coach saying no, all things being equal. Heck, Syracuse has agreed to a football series with Maryland at the end of this decade.There’s no reason the Terps and Cavs can’t continue their men’s and women’s rivalries in soccer, lacrosse, basketball, whatever.
LikeLike
Plus, UMD-PSU will become a good rivalry.
LikeLike
From this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Hoosiers_men%27s_soccer
* The (Indiana) Hoosiers have won eight national championships in men’s soccer (1982, 1983, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004 and 2012), second only to St. Louis’ 10. Since the program began in 1973, Indiana owns more wins, has appeared in more College Cups (18) and has a higher winning percentage in both regular season and post-season play than any other school in Division I soccer.
The Hoosiers have also dominated conference play. Since the Big Ten began sponsoring men’s soccer in 1991, Indiana has won 12 Big Ten tournament titles. Indiana has also been crowned regular season champion 14 times, including nine-straight seasons from 1996-2004. A league-record 12 Big Ten Players of the Year come from Indiana.
Indiana players have won six Hermann Trophies (including Ken Snow twice) and three Missouri Athletic Club Player of the Year awards. The Hoosiers have produced 13 United States men’s national soccer team players, six Olympians and six World Cup players. In addition, Hoosier players have earned All-America honors 52 times.
Every year since the NCAA began tracking men’s soccer attendance in 2001, the Indiana program has ranked among the highest in average or total attendance. Indiana led the nation in average attendance in 2004 and 2005 and in total attendance in 2003. *
LikeLike
Maryland-Indiana will become a great men’s soccer rivalry. If the Terps beat Notre Dame, they will gain their third NCAA title in the past nine years (2005 and 2008 were the others).
LikeLike
It’s possible that Indiana v Maryland becomes a great rivalry, but it’ll take a lot time and competitive games.
One factor that makes Virginia v Maryland a great soccer rivalry is that they play similar exciting styles a and recruit the same players. The star Freshman goalkeeper (Steffen) for Maryland grew up competing against the star Virginia striker (Madison)…both were trained in the Philadelphia Union’s camps before heading south to play in college. As a soccer fan, the games between these teams are fun to watch. Even though Maryland beat my beloved Cavaliers, that game was stylistically better and appreciably more entertaining than the semi-final between Notre Dame and New Mexico.
LikeLike
Notre Dame gets a few breaks from officials to win their first soccer championship, over a tired Maryland team. The ref swallowed his whistle on a few penalty box plays.
It was convenient to have the Soccer Cup in PPL Park, but December weather is not ideal in Philly. It was sunny and cold.
LikeLike
What are NCAA regulations for scheduling soccer games during spring & summer semesters?
I understand that a few Big Ten universities have complained about restrictions for scheduling baseball games during spring & summer semesters.
LikeLike
Soccer (unlike baseball) can be played when it’s rainy/snowy and often is played when it’s cold (heck, the Premier League in England doesn’t even have a winter break). Also, there are far few games in soccer than in baseball, so they should all be able to fit in to the fall.
The 2 schools who have won the most NCAA titles are SLU and IU, and neither StL or Bloomington are warm-weather locales, you’ll note.
Last 4 title winners have been ND, IU, UNC and Akron. 3 of 4 are cold weather schools. Cold weather doesn’t seem to inhibit competitiveness in soccer (unlike in football).
LikeLike
Yes, that may be true, but my “Vecchia Signora” recently lost in Istanbul, Turkey, to Galatasaray in the Champions League primarily because of poor field conditions. (Silver lining: Europa League 2014 Final to be played in Juventus Stadium.) (Maybe this comment also answers Brian’s question about Turkish prisons.)
Actually, my question concerns how this restriction affects BTN programming. I understand that the Big Ten only plays a single round-robin for conference play. Extending the season backwards allows a full home/away round-robin while also providing BTN programming inventory during the spring & summer semesters.
LikeLike
Juventus Coach Antonio Conte:
“We are talking about a game played on a mudslide. What made me angry was yesterday the referee suspended play because it was ‘dangerous’ and all of a sudden today it was no longer ‘dangerous’ … I have to praise the lads, as they gave their all in a situation where we were enormously penalized, as the game resorted to a football brawl … I will say our mistake was to get to the last game and play everything here. With a decent pitch, I am sure we would’ve played our game. We couldn’t have predicted these circumstances, so in my view our exit is unfair, but we also made life difficult for ourselves.”
LikeLike
There’s baseball in the spring. Plus which, it’s not as if soccer is a big ratings draw now. Football, basketball, hockey, volleyball (and I believe wrestling) all get better ratings. Lacrosse probably will as well.
LikeLike
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/407708-rupp-attendance-falling-falling-falling?eref=fromSI
Kentucky Bball declining attendance in the last 3-4 years.
Interesting comments to the article. Seems even Kentucky bball is not immune to the effects of TV and the efforts to monetize every aspect of the in-arena/in-stadium event.
LikeLike
I think one and done has a lot more to do with it. Its hard to keep track of who’s on the team.
LikeLike
I think a lot of it is that the SEC sucks at basketball. They packed the house for their games against Florida and Missouri. But there are so many crap teams in the SEC. The SEC was a pretty good league a few years ago. Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, and some of the others really need to step it up.
LikeLike
Also Calipari has turned their ooc into the little sisters of the little sisters of the poor. Big games tend to be neutral site and few.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10138466/mack-brown-resigns-coach-texas-longhorns
Mack has resigned but will coach the Alamo Bowl.
LikeLike
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1587416
Chip Brown says Mack and Bill Powers conspired to sabotage the efforts to bring Saban to UT.
LikeLike
Reading that makes me believe the University of Texas has devolved into the college football equivalent of the Washington Redskins. What a fiasco in Austin. Obviously, a lot of good coaches still would want to succeed Brown, but who could survive in that madhouse?
LikeLike
I know this is treading deep into ‘Dude’ territory, but an Austin real estate agent (who works with UT) says Mrs. Saban was already perusing properties. If this sounds familiar, it’s because Miles wife was supposedly doing the same thing in AA before that deal blew up. This may all be B.S or a ruse, but clearly Alabama took the threat of him leaving seriously.
LikeLike
Chip (Orangebloods) and Kevin (Jesus Shuttlesworth Inside Texas) are deep, deep into Dude territory. Actually I think they’ve drifted into MHVer3 territory (the WV blogger who made up fictional screen names to verify his rumors). Chip’s saying Mack delayed partly to get back at Chip.
LikeLike
“Umbrella Man” Louie Steven Witt – “I think if the Guinness Book of World Records had a category for people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing, I would be No. 1 in that position, without even a close runner-up.”
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put a whole lot of faith in what Chip Brown says. Here is a compilation of a bunch of his past tweets over the years:
http://jizzmop.tumblr.com/
I know he evidently has sources in the UT AD, but they usually don’t give him accurate info. They just use him as a propaganda mouthpiece.
LikeLike
People mistakenly say he is Dodds mouthpiece. From what I understand, Dodds really dislikes Chip. He’s got other sources in the department.
Think about the ego Chip has to claim all this:
Tuesday Chip says Mack is leaving.
Friday when Chip’s time prediction blows up, Mack isn’t leaving because he’s mad at Chip.
Saturday Mack leaves and now its a game to stop Saban and give Chip the finger.
LikeLike
A number of people with more common sense, and who actually seem to have connections, were saying that it was all just taking time because there were a lot of details to be worked out with Mack. But Chip and a bunch of others, when things didn’t fit their predicted time schedule (and there was no reason for their time schedule to be important), suddenly said Mack wasn’t leaving.
I was an agnostic all season as these rumors swirled. Most appeared to be to be either people trying to undermine Mack or wishful thinking. The one key indicator was the the website changed its name from “Mack Brown Texas Football” at the beginning of the season, dropping “Mack Brown.” But this past week when McMurphy reported on it, I figured he really was leaving. And none of the stories from Chip and others made any sense. The President, AD and Mack all had chances to say he would be back and none did.
LikeLike
Chip should have just stayed quiet on Friday and he would have come out of this looking great.
Now he looks like a fool and an egomaniac.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, he’s a total mouthpiece. He has connections, but they use him to push an agenda. There’s generally at least some truth to everything he writes but it needs to be taken with a big ole’ grain of salt.
LikeLike
Someone joked that Texas had become a volleyball school.
Pac 12 had only 3 of the sweet 16, West Coast 2, Big 12 2, ACC 1 and American U. was in there. Big 10 had 7. Guess Big 10 has become a volleyball conference.
And I guess they don’t worry about women athletes and academics. First round was the week of cogs. This weekend was sweet 16. Next week is volleyball final 4. But of course its impossible to have 4 football playoff games this weekend.
LikeLike
The BTN has really helped. The Midwest has always had a surplus of big tall girls, but it didn’t have as developed a volleyball culture as the West Coast. Now, vball recruits have a strong incentive to stay close to home.
As for your second point, we both know that a much smaller fraction of students are involved in a volleyball playoff game than in a football playoff game. Much fewer student athletes, of course, but you’re also not taking the kids in band, a much bigger number of student trainers, and cheerleaders away from their academics. Plus, a big portion of the student body would want to skip class to attend a playoff football game or be distracted from studying. Not so a playoff volleyball game.
LikeLike
Damsels in distress? Have no fear! Umbrella Man is here!!
(with his darts and paralyzing agents)
LikeLike
To back up Richard’ point……..I went to the Illinois-Purdue VB game Friday night in Champaign…..Wisky-FSU was just before. The Wisconsin student section had 6 kids in it. 6. and Wisky is in top 5 each year in VB attendance. So there certainly are obstacles in getting students to attend sporting events this time of year.
LikeLike
Texas had the band in Lincoln (about 25 members) so maybe Texas is becoming a volleyball. school. Nebraska had a second chance at Texas, but the Big Red came up short again.
B1G still has two in semis at Seattle: WI (12) vs. TX (1) and PSU (2) vs. WA (3)
LikeLike
Interesting that Nebraska (depending on who you believe) contacted Brown’s attorney about any possible interest in the Nebraska job. I can’t imagine Brown wouldn’t want to stay involved with UT, but who knows. Also, it seems, if any (top level) pro coach might is willing to make the leap to Texas it could be the Packer’s Mike McCarthy. Apparently they have a house on the current mud puddle known as Lake Travis and the wife loves it there.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131215/sec-fox-nba-ncaa-football/
Interesting summary of TV ratings. Most interesting to me: only one Northern city among the top ten TV markets for CFB.
“3. ESPN released its end of the year ratings for college football and there were some interesting results. Between ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN3, the network broadcast 310 regular-season FBS games exclusively — 217 more than every other national network (CBS, FOX, FS1, NBC, NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports Network) combined. The games involved teams from all 10 conferences, plus independents Notre Dame, BYU, Navy and Army.
3a. Individually, ABC’s college football games averaged 4.777 million viewers, slightly down from its 2012 numbers. ESPN averaged 2.644 million viewers, an increase of three percent over last season. ESPN2 averaged 1.108 million viewers, an eight percent increase, and ESPNU averaged 400,000 viewers, an increase of four percent.
3b. The four most-viewed metered markets for ESPN’s game telecasts in 2013 were the same as in 2012, with Birmingham coming on top for a 13th consecutive season. The Top 10: Birmingham, Greenville, Knoxville, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Columbus, Jacksonville, Louisville and Atlanta.
3c. CBS said its SEC package was up 15 percent over last year in household ratings and was the highest average rating for a full season of SEC football on CBS since the network began airing primarily an SEC-only schedule in 2001.
3d. The SEC Championship game on Dec 7 averaged 14.4 million viewers, making it the most-watched college football game of the 2013 regular-season.
3e. CBS had the top three highest-rated college football telecasts of the 2013 regular-season. The SEC Championship and Alabama-Texas A&M tied for the top with Auburn beating Alabama coming in third.
3f. Fox’s coverage of the Big Ten Championship game drew 13.9 million viewers, a big number for that network and the seventh most-watched CFB on FOX in the network’s history. The network’s most-viewed game remains the 2007 National Championship between Ohio State and Florida, which drew 28.8 million viewers.
3g. ABC’s Saturday Night Football averaged 5,750,000 viewers this season.”
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – It’s not just that there’s only one Northern city (Columbus) in the top 10. More specifically, it’s the only non-SEC market in the top 10.
LikeLike
Does this mean college football interest is regionalizing? Not a good sign, particularly if Auburn pulls an upset and not only gives the SEC yet another title, but the fifth in a row from the same state. Casual fans in the rest of the country may throw up their hands and figuratively say to hell with those backward southerners.
LikeLike
My read is that Southern interest in SEC football has exploded over the past 10 years or so, especially as they rolled up championships. (Interest in the SEC from outside the SEC has also jumped just based on the CBS ratings).
The only team/market that has kept up is Ohio State in Ohio.
I don’t really think it’s a decline in interest outside the SEC, just that the SEC has pulled ahead more or less due to its success on the field, especially in the state of Alabama.
LikeLike
It’s just really hard for other markets to compete given how many more pro-teams there are across other markets (the SEC has the fewest pro-teams across its core markets of any region of the country, and some of them are pro-teams with really weak followings like Jacksonville/Atlanta/Carolina).
LikeLike
@zeek – This is true. The only market listed in the top 10 that truly has a full slate of pro competition and would be considered to be a “major market” is Atlanta and, as you’ve said, that’s a weak pro town compared to the Northern markets. The flip side is that a viewer in Birmingham isn’t necessarily worth the same as a viewer in New York, Chicago or LA when you’re charging for advertising. I’d really like to see how the largest markets outside of the South perform that have a decent-to-good college sports presence on paper (i.e. Chicago with the Big Ten, Dallas and Houston with the Big 12, LA and San Francisco with the Pac-12, etc.). That data has been fairly difficult to find.
LikeLike
It’d be interesting to see the change if the B10/ND rolled up 7 titles in a row. I think the south would still dominate the top 10, but the gap would be smaller.
LikeLike
Yeah Brian.
Only Ohio State has really been holding its weight as a perennial contender in the Big Ten across the BCS era and as a true local/footprint ratings draw.
If Michigan/ND/Nebraska were all pulling their weight like that, we’d really see way better ratings across the Midwest footprint. It matters a lot to local/footprint ratings whether the team that’s visiting is top 5-10 versus top 25.
If say Nebraska was putting down perennial top 10 finishes with a couple 1 loss seasons, they’d probably be pulling down top 10 ratings in Lincoln easily.
Chicago’s ratings would look a lot more like Atlanta if ND and Michigan were really performing at the level of Ohio State as well.
Ratings across the footprint would go up too in the non-contending cities if there were a couple more top 5-10 teams visiting, especially the big names, etc.
And then if you have top 5-10 teams playing each other, the footprint would be able to give comparable ratings just like what we saw with the Big Ten championship game. The interest is there, it’s just that the quality of teams hasn’t been (or perception of quality, i.e. Michigan State wasn’t really a top 10 team until the very last game of the season despite beating everyone in their Big Ten schedule by double digits).
LikeLike
zeek:
Chicago’s ratings will never be like Atlanta’s. The loyalty of non-alums to the pro franchises there are too strong and deep. Detroit would have a chance to be like Atlanta if both MI teams were doing well.
LikeLike
The premise that there is less NFL competition in the SEC footprint does not hold up. The NFL has 10 teams in 6 SEC states, including the 5 largest. LA is the only one among the 6 smallest SEC states with a NFL team. The small states might give the perception of no competition. There are no NFL teams in the same metro areas as the 14 SEC colleges. By comparison, the B1G has 9 pro teams covering the 7 largest states (none in IA or NE), and has local competition in two markets (NW – Bears, MN- Vikings). Not much difference from the SEC. The P12 has more direct competition despite only having 6 NFL teams in the 4 largest of the 6 P12, states. Four schools are in the same local area as a NFL teams (SF-Stanford, Oakland-CA, Seattle-WA, Arizona-ASU).
The least NFL competition for P5 conferences is actually the B12. The B12 has 2 NFL teams in TX, but none in the other 4 states where 6 of its 10 schools are located. Only TCU is in a metro area with a NFL team.
LikeLike
Mack,
“The premise that there is less NFL competition in the SEC footprint does not hold up. The NFL has 10 teams in 6 SEC states, including the 5 largest. LA is the only one among the 6 smallest SEC states with a NFL team.”
I disagree. Having lived in both places, the relative level of fervor for CFB vs NFL is different in the south. There are few places in the north where CFB is on par or bigger than the NFL, but it is in large parts of the southeast.
They had no teams until the 60s, and then they got the terrible Falcons (never had back to back winning seasons until this decade) and the Aints. The Bucs came in the 70s and were even worse somehow. The Jags, Panthers and Titans are all new (the SEC CG has more history). Miami isn’t really SEC territory. TX and MO weren’t SEC territory until last year.
By contrast, most of the midwest franchises have been around since well before WWII and have been NFL powers at some point. The rivalries are strong and generations of tradition have been built around the NFL.
“The small states might give the perception of no competition. There are no NFL teams in the same metro areas as the 14 SEC colleges. By comparison, the B1G has 9 pro teams covering the 7 largest states (none in IA or NE), and has local competition in two markets (NW – Bears, MN- Vikings). Not much difference from the SEC.”
I think you analyze it the wrong way – look for the major cities near the school (biggest collections of alumni and fans) and check the level of competition there. The smaller the CFB brand or larger the NFL brand, the farther the city can be (but crossing a state line is a negative):
MN/Vikings, WI/Packers, NW/Bears, IL/Bears and Rams, IN/Colts, PU/Colts, OSU/Browns and Bengals, MI/Lions, MiSU/Lions, PSU/Steelers and Eagles, (RU/Giants and Jets, UMD/Redskins)
SC/Panthers, UGA/Falcons, UF/Jags, Vandy/Titans, UK/Bengals, LSU/Saints, MO/Rams and Chiefs, TAMU/Texans and Cowboys
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree. The Big Ten footprint is actually the very strongest NFL region overall. Pittsburgh and Milwaukee have switched between being the #1 and #2 local NFL markets for ratings for many years. Note that the NFL uses Milwaukee as the proxy for Packers ratings since it’s the closest Nielsen-rated market to Green Bay. That gets to Brian’s point that saying that only the Bears and Vikings share markets with Big Ten schools is a complete misnomer. The *entire* state of Wisconsin is more of a Packers market than any metro area is a market for any other team anywhere. As most of you know, I’m a big Bears fan, and I can admit that Packers fans take it to another level in terms of looniness and it starts as soon as you cross the Illinois/Wisconsin border when you’re still several hours from Green Bay proper. There’s nothing like picking up a copy of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and finding fairly mundane Packers news on the front page… as in the front page of the entire paper as opposed to the sports section… in the middle of June. Don’t even get me started on the actual town of Green Bay itself.
Chicago and Philadelphia are also the 2nd and 3rd largest NFL markets and they get saturation-level ratings (meaning effectively every single TV set is turned on to the same program) for every single Bears and Eagles game, respectively, which is massive considering how large those markets are. (Note that the NFL and NBC flexed what will be a huge Bears-Eagles game into the Sunday Night Football slot this coming weekend to take advantage of that fact.) Cleveland, Indianapolis and even Detroit with their wonderfully hapless Lions (Bears and Packers fans everywhere thank them for their ineptitude) are among the top-rated NFL markets year-in and year-out. The only Southern market that has approached those numbers for the NFL is New Orleans, but that has been driven more by their Drew Brees-led competitive teams (as those numbers weren’t there before that).
Now, that’s also a testament to the strength of the Big Ten fan bases since their direct pro competition is much stronger than any other power league (even beyond the NFL, as places like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh are strong for all of their pro teams) yet it’s still the clear #2 next to the SEC for football ratings and #1 over the ACC for basketball ratings. It’s why I push back a bit on the notion that a pro market can’t support college sports well. The Big Ten region shows that both can coexist – we in the Midwest have shown to be perfectly capable of being hard core fans of teams on both Saturday and Sunday.
LikeLike
And by the time Atlanta and New Orleans entered the NFL, Georgia Tech and Tulane no longer were SEC members (although both schools’ moves were coincidental and had nothing directly to do with the expansion of pro football).; It’s also been well documented how the arrival of the pros in the Twin Cities, Dallas and Houston in the early ’60s eventually triggered the decline of football at Minnesota, Southern Methodist, Texas Christian and Rice (although the University of Houston rose from obscurity to Southwest Conference membership by the mid-’70s).
LikeLike
Just to echo the comments about the relative popularity of the NFL vs. CFB in SEC states vs. B1G states, the longevity and the success of the NFL franchises is a a huge factor. The Bears, Packers,.Steelers, Giants, Redskins, Eagles, and Lions were around basicalky from the beginning of the NFL’s existence. They were around when the NFL came of age, if you will, which happened arounf the same time that college football was emerging. Really, those NFL franchises feel as though they have been around and have as deep a history in their regions as Michigan, Ohio state, Wisconsin, Penn State, etc. It didn’t hurt, either, that many if those teams piled up NFL titles and early Super Bowl titles, which helped establish generational fans. Meanwhile, all of the NFL teams in SEC states have come around onoy since the 60’s, and onoy the Cowboys have had had success simioar to the older frabchises. Thye have faced an uphill battle establishing fanbases on par with the older, northern franchises because of thir relatively young age, their difficulty sustaining success, as well as the co,petition from CFB.
BTW, I grew up in that No. 2 market for CFB. I knew the sport was huge in that arra, but I had no idea it was THAT big. Aside from the many Clemson and SC fans, there seems to be an abundance of Tennessee and Georgia fans as welo as teams from other teams across the South.
LikeLike
The comment was not about how well college football does versus the NFL, just that the NFL is present and competing in the SEC footprint with a lot of teams. ESPN does not pay the big bucks just for the Birmingham market, so FL, GA, TN, TX and MO are important to the SEC despite winning few titles. It just took a few winning seasons for the ‘aints to become the most popular team in Louisiana, but LSU is still popular and has a campus a couple of hours from the Superdome so if you live in Baton Rouge it is much easier to attend a LSU game.
The SEC area cares more about both college and NFL football than the west coast, but the P12 is the one most impacted by the NFL. Ohio may have two NFL teams, but if you try selling tickets in Columbus you will get more takers for OSU games than both NFL teams combined. All 3 games can usually be watched on TV on a given weekend, but few will attend more than 1 game and locality counts for season tickets and attendance. That is where the P12 gets impacted. Most P12 schools are very close to the NFL, and these teams (unlike Green Bay) have tickets available without a 10+ year waitlist. Current NFL teams have been in the west about the same time as the south (except ’49s), so the weaker overall identification with football may be benefiting the NFL in this region. With expanded local zones Colorado (Denver) and Arizona (Arizona) also get impacted by NFL teams. If Los Angeles ever cared enough about football to support a NFL team, most of the P12 population base will have the NFL within local driving distance.
Now Frank may say that if tickets are sold in Urbana everyone will take the Bears (true). That is more a statement on the current sad state of Illinois football, since few Illini students even attend their football games. The Bears mauling of Dallas was the highest rated MNF game this year.
LikeLike
In speaking with the guys at the506.com (the NFL coverage map guys), I always like defining the TV drawing power of teams as the “NFL Security Council” with 3 tiers of membership:
(1) Lifetime Secretary-General – Team could be winless and still get great TV time slots due to its unparalleled popularity.
(2) Permanent Members – Drawing power is a bit more variable than the Lifetime Secretary General, but they get the benefit of the doubt every year early in the season at the very least because of their fan bases and/or markets and get maximum coverage if they’re anywhere close to good.
(3) Temporary Members – Teams that are temporarily hot for TV purposes due to performance on the field and/or the presence of superstars, but will recede once those attributes disappear. (Think of how ubiquitous the 49ers were on TV during the ’80s and ’90s, but they fell off the map after their Montana/Young/Rice run in a way that the Permanent Members never do no matter how bad they might be.)
This year’s NFL Security Council:
LIFETIME SECRETARY-GENERAL
Cowboys
PERMANENT MEMBERS
Steelers
Giants
Eagles
Redskins
Bears
Packers
TEMPORARY MEMBERS
Patriots (Tom Brady)
Broncos (Peyton Manning)
Saints (Drew Brees)
Colts (Andrew Luck)
Ravens (defending Super Bowl champ)
49ers (defending NFC champ)
Every Sunday Night Football game this season has featured at least one of the teams listed above and 10 of those games featured 2 of them facing each other (and it will almost certainly be 11 by the end since week 17 is practically guaranteed to be either Cowboys-Eagles or Bears-Packers).
The Patriots are close to achieving Permanent Member status, but it still needs to be seen how attractive they will be in the post-Brady years (as anyone that remembers the Pats prior to Brady knows that they were far from a model franchise). The main factor that may prevent a TV descent similar to the 49ers after the 1990s is that the Pats are in the Boston market, which the national media has largely crowned to be the pro market that national audiences are all supposed to care about alongside New York.
LikeLike
@Mack
Yeah, my point was basically what Michael (and Brian/Frank) are saying.
Among historical SEC markets (excluding Texas/Missouri for the moment) only really the NFL franchise in New Orleans has developed strong traditions in the vein of northern pro-teams with comparatively strong fanbases and local interest factors. Miami has as well, but that’s never been a great sports town for anything (way too many folks moving in and out at a rapid pace and bringing their own loyalties).
Compare that to the Big Ten’s region where you can claim that about 10 or so franchises that have been there since the very old days and built up long and established followings.
Ohio State in Columbus is a unique situation and the most SEC-like in terms of how strong a market that is for college football compared to NFL despite having two NFL franchises in-state.
LikeLike
Frank, the AFC East never really had a team that was always relevant is the problem.
Between New England and Miami, they’ve always had a marquee team (Miami from the 70s through 2000 was always good for household names just as the Patriots have been since 2000).
I look at these Patriots as similar to the Shula/Marino teams though (obviously more successful in their domination of the AFC), but that’s where their image is built nationally, on the reputation of Belichick/Brady as a coach/qb combo that’s long-running and nationally very well known.
After those two leave, they could have a situation similar to Miami’s where it’s really hard to stay a permanent “national draw” when your reputation/face is so attached to a single coach/qb figure.
LikeLike
Mack,
“The comment was not about how well college football does versus the NFL, just that the NFL is present and competing in the SEC footprint with a lot of teams.”
Your comment seemed to link quality with quantity, though. You said:
The premise that there is less NFL competition in the SEC footprint does not hold up.
And then you listed the number of teams.
We’re pointing out that the level of competition is highly dependent on the teams in question.
LikeLike
States in B10 territory without an NFL team:
IA
NE
And almost all of the NFL teams in B10 states have looong, deep fan support.
States in SEC territory without an NFL team:
AL
MS
SC
AR
KY
And in TN and GA, the support for the NFL team isn’t nearly as strong as support for the local SEC team or the local NFL team is in B10 country.
Is it so surprising that 7 of the 9 SEC markets that are in the top 10 in CFB ratings are located in AL, KY, SC, TN, & GA?
LikeLike
@FranktheTank:
Regarding your NFL Security Council list, I would not have any teams in the Permanent group, not even the Dallas Cowboys. If they go winless, they would not have a decent primetime game the following season. But they are definitely in the second tier, with the other teams you mentioned.
Though, I’d probably add the Raiders to the second tier, too. No SNF game this year, but was given a game against the Cowboys on Turkey Day and a MNF date, too.
LikeLike
No, the same cities have been in the top 20 year after year. They shuffle around, and only Birmingham and Columbus have made the top 10 every year IIRC, but the same cities tend to be near the top. Obviously local success is a factor for some markets, too.
LikeLike
I’ll followup and agree with Brian, Michael and Frank. NFL fervor is nothing in the SE like it is in the north. And Houston is very much a pro sports town. Dallas as well, but not to the same extent.
LikeLike
If you have a random sports conversation in Atlanta, its most likely about college football. In Houston, its most likely about pro football.
LikeLike
Houston’s institutional memory of the NFL is a lot stronger than perhaps anywhere in the South outside of New Orleans and Miami due to the Oilers long and successful run.
LikeLike
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/12/hundreds-of-millions-of-fans-tune-to-record-setting-coverage-across-espn-networks/
Here’s the ESPN release. Note they rank the markets by rating, not total viewers. That hurts the larger northern markets.
It’s huge that the B10 CCG was Fox’s #7 game all time for viewers. Remember, they had the BCS for 4 years (except the Rose).
LikeLike
Yes, Brian’s point should be repeated:
The only big city on that list is Atlanta.
We all know that ESS-EEE-SEE fans are ardent, but I’m curious to see what the ranking of markets by total viewers in each market would be.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I don’t know the link, but I remember reading on a link from a oast FTT post that the No. market for CFB, in terms of total viewers, was actually New York. The interesting thing was that even though NYC was at or.near the bottom of the list for percentage of viewers watching CFB among top 100 markets, its sheer volume of viewers yielded the highest number of viewers. With over 15M people in the market, it only takes a small percentage to have the most viewers. But No. 2 for most viewers was Birmingham, despite being a far, far smaller market.
LikeLike
I wonder if New York would hold that #1 ranking if Notre Dame games were removed from the equation.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“I don’t know the link, but I remember reading on a link from a oast FTT post that the No. market for CFB, in terms of total viewers, was actually New York. The interesting thing was that even though NYC was at or.near the bottom of the list for percentage of viewers watching CFB among top 100 markets, its sheer volume of viewers yielded the highest number of viewers. With over 15M people in the market, it only takes a small percentage to have the most viewers. But No. 2 for most viewers was Birmingham, despite being a far, far smaller market.”
I think you’re referring to Nate Silver’s work at the NYT.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0
Birmingham wasn’t #2, but #6. Atlanta was #2.
NYC
Atlanta
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Birmingham
Philly
Houston
Tampa
Detroit
LikeLike
Why the B10 was so keen on eastern expansion.
The SEC has 5 of the top 10, but with the east coast (getting a chunk of NYC and solidifying Philly), the B10 could claim 4 of the top 10.
LikeLike
Yes, that is the link. Thank you, Brian.
LikeLike
OT – YES decides it will stop simulcasting Fatcessa’s radio show after January 31. Michael Kay from ESPN Radio is rumored to be his replacement.
http://www.nydailynews.com/francesa-yes-split-10-year-relationship-article-1.1547751
LikeLike
In a mild upset, Glendale get the 2016 CFP CG, and Tampa gets the 2017 CFP CG
LikeLike
Here’s the link.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10147406/arizona-tampa-florida-land-2016-2017-college-football-national-championship-games
LikeLike
The SECU has a new website and it’s pretty nice:
http://www.thesecu.com/
LikeLike
UCF not getting it done tickets wise (unlike Mizzou, which went medieval on the Cotton Bowl’s ticket booth)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24378036/ucf-struggling-to-sell-fiesta-bowl-ticket-allotment
But please, more neutral site playoff games! THE FANS DEMAND IT!
LikeLike
UCF is a poor example since their team is new and UCF used to be small and a commuter school until fairly recently. They don’t have the built up base of rich alumni that grew up rooting for the football team.
UCF is a great example why the tie-ins screw up the process, though. I bet they could sell out 17,500 Orange Bowl tickets.
LikeLike
Syracuse blog Troy Nunes is an Absolute Magician found the right way to sell ticket allotments – if you can’t go, buy a ticket from the school and send local children to the game:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/12/16/5211942/syracuse-texas-bowl-kids-texans-ymca-donate-game-tickets
The response has been overwhelming:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/12/17/5218898/texas-bowl-cusetixforkids-syracuse-football-donation-tniaam
It’s for a great cause and even goes toward the school’s ticket allotment. This ought to be replicated by every fan base.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’m writing to the University of Minnesota to see if they can match Syracuse’s efforts. I told them that I would be the first to donate to the cause. Thanks for sharing, this is a wonderful idea, and kudos to Troy Nunes for kicking this off. I wish more schools would do something like this for all the bowls….
B-I-G!!!!!
AL
LikeLike
Frank,
Thanks for sharing this link. I’ve written to the Univ of Minn to see if they can match the efforts of Syracuse. This is a really good idea….
AL
LikeLike
On the flip side, its also UCF’s singular moment in the CFB sun, so you would think pent up excitement and demand would trump all.
LikeLike
I think with a younger fan base, they will probably use the secondary market heavier. It will be interesting to see how green the Fiesta is.
They will have to think about these things when setting up the bowl match ups under the new system. You don’t want to send a Boston College to Phoenix.
LikeLike
You probably don’t want to send Boston College anywhere, but that’s a separate matter.
LikeLike
Bowl in NYC.
LikeLike
UCF would have had no trouble at all selling out the Orange Bowl, and probably would have sold out the Sugar as well. UCF fans tend to skew very young and really can’t afford the travel in addition to the bowl tickets. Arizona is both extremely far from Florida and just not a destination that appeals to Floridians. It’s colder there than it is here (but not cold enough to provide the snowy holidays that Floridians never experience), and frankly there’s just a whole lot less to do there than here. I know a lot of UCF fans who were really excited about spending New Years in New Orleans (and able to afford the trip), but were neither interested in nor capable of making it to Arizona. Honestly, UCF would have drawn much better to a bowl game Chicago or New York than Arizona. In much the same way that Northerners flock to Florida’s sunny beaches to escape the cold, many Floridians prefer to vacation in the more traditional major cities (DC, New York, Chicago, Boston) that Florida really doesn’t have.
LikeLike
All good points, and all good points why neutral site CFB playoff games in addition to the bowls might not be a great idea.
LikeLike
re: Wainscott saying Mizzou went medieval on the Cotton Bowl’s ticket booth, yes, Missouri sold out their allotment in 10 minutes and then starting buying up Okie State’s allotment. The Cotton Bowl is the 4th most expensive ticket on Stubhub after the BCS title game, the Rose Bowl, and the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
Mizzou fans can get “Party Passes” if the tickets are gone. That is Jerryworld’s standing room only where 98% will not be able to get a glimpse of the field and have to watch the game on the giant monitors.
LikeLike
Ranking tv ratings by team this year
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/17/5216550/college-football-tv-ratings-2013-regular-season-final-sec
Top 10:
1. Alabama
2. Texas A&M
3. Michigan
4. Ohio State
5. Auburn
6. Georgia
7. LSU
8. Missouri
9. Notre Dame
10. Michigan State
Missouri and Michigan State helped out greatly by conference title game ratings.
LikeLike
Expansion schools:
2. Texas A&M
8. Missouri
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
35. Pitt
47. Louisville
48. TCU
52. West Virginia
57. BYU
64. Maryland
73. Utah
76. Rutgers
79. Kansas
80. Cincinnati
Colorado and Syracuse not ranked because they did not have enough nationally televised games to qualify for the list.
Florida State, BYU, Kansas, and Cincinnati included because they’re often mentioned on here as possible expansion targets.
LikeLike
HOW DARE YOU LEAVE OFF BUFFALO! DO YOU NOT KNOW BUFFALO’S DOMINANCE IN THE NEW YORK MEDIA MARKET?!? BUFFALO IS THE PREMIER BIG TEN EXPANSION CANDIDATE, YOU IGNORANT HOMER-CLOWN! GO BACK TO YOUR STATE SCHOOL LOCATED IN AN UNORIGINALLY NAMED CITY!!
Buffalo clocked in at 77.
In all fairness, it is absolutely hysterical that Buffalo is even on this list, but Syracuse is not. Just, wow.
(if its not clear, what appears in all caps is meant entirely in jest.)
LikeLike
Most amazing thing on this list:
Only 5 of the top 25 are not in the B1G, SEC, or named Notre Dame.
Those schools, in order: FSU, Okla, Clemson, Stanford, Okie State.
Or: Stanford AND Northwestern both had better ratings that TEXAS.
LikeLike
Frank – thanks for sending Illinois’ best high school player to LSU. To go along with 4-star OL Ethan Pocic last year, my Tigers are getting a bit of a foothold in the Land of Lincoln.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/7872398-123/five-star-illinois-linebacker-garrett-commits
“Illinois linebacker Clifton Garrett gave a verbal pledge to the Tigers on Tuesday in front of a full auditorium at Illinois-Plainfield South High School, becoming the 16th LSU commit of 2014 and the most heralded one of them all.
Garrett is ranked as a top 3 player at his position nationally and the No. 1 player in the state of Illinois, according to all three major recruiting sites.
He’s rated five stars (out of five) by 24/7 Sports and Scout.com and four stars by Rivals.com.”
LikeLike
In case y’all haven’t seen this video gold, here’s the link to the Southern Illinois coach’s classic post-game meltdown last night.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10156717&categoryid=2378529
LikeLike
Matt’s College Sports Media Blog on the B1G’s upcoming media deal.
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-fox-really-player-for-main-big-ten.html
LikeLike
I see your link, and counter with one Frank tweeted out.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/12/16/Media/Sports-Media.aspx
John Ourand’s 2014 media predictions from Sports Business Daily.
ESPN will pre-emptively renew its Big Ten package earlier than expected. The conference will see a big increase in money, of course, but ESPN will not have as big a package of games. I see the Big Ten putting a better package of football and men’s basketball games on Big Ten Network and shopping the rest to Fox Sports. The conference will wind up making $30 million a school annually from its media deal — a record new TV deal.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, and I tend to agree with John Ourand’s prediction where, even if it doesn’t happen this year, I think ESPN will pay up enough to ensure that they lock up at least the top tier of the Big Ten’s games before they hit the open market. Note that Ourand isn’t just pulling these predictions out of nowhere – he is THE most connected sports media journalist anywhere and he’s likely predicting this because he’s been hearing legit rumblings to that effect. The sports TV market may very well be at the point where it will never be more overheated (the nexus where the relative value of sports versus other types of programming is at its peak and cable subscription numbers that are fueling sports rights fees are at their max), so the benefit of waiting 2 more years to go to the open market isn’t necessarily a no-brainer (especially if the Big Ten can get a massive pay bump 2 years early and immediately upon their expansion to 14 schools).
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: the Big Ten definitely will still have a massive presence on ESPN when all is said and done (and the very top games will still likely reside at ABC/ESPN).
LikeLike
Frank,
I think it makes a lot of sense from the B10’s POV. Of course you want to start the new deal as soon as the expansion happens. I’m just not sure why ESPN would want to do it so early. I understand them wanting to lock up a premier B10 package before a bidding war can start, but they could do that a year or 2 later. Is he talking a deal signed in 2014 to start in 2015 or for the deal to start in 2014? Wouldn’t ESPN prefer to wait until the 9 game schedule starts? I realize they’ll change the value when that happens, but it seems like such a logical starting point.
He threw out $30M, but wasn’t clear if he meant that as year 1, end of the deal or average. I assume he was talking for the ESPN deal only since the B10 was throwing out numbers of $40M+ to UMD for the near future.
LikeLike
1. I would guess the average.
2. Hitting the open market would happen in 2016, so if ESPN wants to lock up the B10, they would have to do the negotiating in either 2014 or 2015. It’s kind of like a player nearing free agency: the closer the B10 gets to the opening bidding period, the less willing they are likely to be to lock in with ESPN.
LikeLike
Wait, is that $30M/school just from the ESPN deal?
I was predicting $30M-40M/school all-in by 2017.
If that $30M is just from the tier 1 ABC/ESPN deal, there’s another $10M+ from the BTN, and I’ve got to believe that whatever’s left over (probably more basketball than football) that gets bid out to Fox would garner at least $10M/school as well. $50M-60M/school could be in reach if that’s the case. Even if the SEC get’s a substantial bump, that would blow away all the other conferences, with only the renegotiated SEC deal possibly even within shouting distance.
LikeLike
What will be interesting is what the B10 will leave for open bidding: The dregs or a possible game-of-the-week deal (but where the lineup is determined pre-season) like what the SEC has with CBS. Fox could take that one and show the B10 game-of-the-week in primetime while ESPN works B10 games in to its schedule in early and late afternoons.
The Fox B12 & Pac games would be early/late afternoon going against the SEC on CBS and ESPN’s games. ESPN would show mostly SEC on primetime while ABC primetime would be the best of Pac/ACC/B12.
Does Fox have primetime cleared for a regular slot? Otherwise, NBC (or even CBS) could jump in as well. If CBS carries both the SEC and B10 game-of-the-week, that would be potent against the best that ABC/ESPN can throw up there.
LikeLike
Pretty sure the B10 is expecting $30-$40mil for Tier 1 & Tier 2 (likely similar ABC/ESPN deal) combined, not including the BTN. Delaney has mentioned they want to keep some ‘better’ games to put on the BTN, e.g. BTN would get 2nd choice after ABC some weeks so they can get the BTN in more houses and at a higher rate.
LikeLike
It looks like the B10 will split up the current combined tier 1 & 2 deal in to tiers 1 and 2. So the total could be $40-$50M/school or possibly even $50-$60M/school.
They could do what the SEC does, saving the game-of-the-week for bidding and renewing with ESPN for tier 2 (which, like the SEC tier 2, would be worth substantially more than the game-of-the-week.
Primetime every week (so as not to go head-to-head with the SEC game-of-the-week) except for the last week, when OSU-Michigan will be on at the traditional noon slot.
LikeLike
You’re sounding like Clay Travis.
The Pac 12 and Big 12 just did their deals for $20-$21 million + Tier 3. The idea that the Big 10 would get $40-50 million on tier I & II is ridiculous. They’re getting roughly $10 million a year now.
It would be the ESPN way to lock up the Big 10 before the bidding. And it would be in the Big 10’s interest to take a big raise 2 years early. They’ll probably do it like they did the Big 12 and give signing bonuses, but not officially raise the payments until the old contract runs out. But its the same effect as raising it now.
LikeLike
John Ourand is sounding like Clay Travis, you mean? He’s saying $30M/school (for either tier 1 or 2, the way I’m reading it).
And if that’s the case, $40-50M/school for everything is actually a conservative estimate.
In any case, the B12 has a much smaller footprint than the B10 and the Pac has a less ardent fanbase than the B10. Add it up, and only the SEC is a more valuable property (and they’re locked up long-term) while the other leagues are behind the B10.
Also, if you haven’t noticed, increasing tier 1 payouts by 4X compared to the last deal is more the norm than the exception in recent years.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Wait, is that $30M/school just from the ESPN deal?”
I think so, but he may be talking the average over the deal and not year 1. Maybe he meant ESPN and Fox combined for tier 1, but that’s not how I read it.
“I was predicting $30M-40M/school all-in by 2017.”
The B10 told UMD $40M+ in that timeframe IIRC.
LikeLike
“I think so, but he may be talking the average over the deal and not year 1.”
Sure, but that would still be considerably above what any other conference takes in in TV money.
LikeLike
But is that media or total payout? B1G is $25 total now. Playoff and bowl deals add $6-$8. $40 + total only requires $26 million in media, about a $9 million increase.
Rutgers and Maryland will be a drag on Tier I. If Missouri and A&M were no value to CBS, imagine RU and UM. Tier I will go up because of general increase in value, but it has to be divided 14 ways now.
LikeLike
He’s talking about the TV deal only.
He’s a media business guy, so wouldn’t be including bowl/playoff payouts.
In the case of CBS, they would be getting one game, regardless, so TAMU and Mizzou does not up the value of that deal. It did up the value of the ESPN deal, however, due to greater inventory.
LikeLike
Further down in the linked article:
Cable carriage deals secured
Time Warner Cable will quietly cut a deal for YES Network in New York without much public rancor. … The Los Angeles Dodgers will have problems persuading DirecTV to carry their new channel. … Speaking of DirecTV, don’t expect deals for Pac-12 Networks, Longhorn Network or CSN Portland this year. CSN Houston will get a deal, but at a much lower rate than the MLB Astros expect. … SEC Network will have little problem persuading cable operators in SEC country to take the network. It’s the areas of the country outside of SEC territory where I foresee some problems. … Fox will begin to renew Fox Sports 1 at big increases, but far short of the 80 cents a subscriber per month it originally was seeking.
LikeLike
bullet,
“But is that media or total payout?”
I think he means media only.
“Rutgers and Maryland will be a drag on Tier I.”
Actually, I doubt that. They increase inventory and add major markets to the footprint. That means a lot of B10 fans on the east coast will now see B10 games rather than ACC games on TV in addition to converting UMD or RU fans to being B10 fans. They won’t be a big bonus, but I don’t think they’ll hurt the deal either.
“If Missouri and A&M were no value to CBS, imagine RU and UM.”
The CBS games were already broadcast nationally and drew solid ratings in TX and MO. CBS didn’t gain any inventory or footprint. That doesn’t mean MO and TAMU didn’t bring value to the SEC’s other deals.
LikeLike
Forbes ranking of the top 20 most valuable CFB teams.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/fihh45egim/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-2013/
SEC (9): #3 Bama, #4 LSU, #6 Florida, #8 Georgia, #11 Auburn, #12 Arkansas, #14 Texas A&M, #18 South Carolina, #20 Tennessee.
B1G (6): #5 Michigan, #9 Ohio State, #10 Nebraska, #15 Penn State, #16 Wisconsin
P-12 (3): #13 USC, #17 Washington, #19 Oregon
B-12 (2): #1 Texas, #7 Oklahoma
Ind: #2 Notre Dame
ACC: none
LikeLike
Florida State must be hampered by the ACC’s payouts I suppose to not make that kind of list.
Rest of that list is as expected. Not a surprise there really except Florida State’s absence.
LikeLike
Gruden sounds pretty interested in that Texas job. That would be quite a get.
LikeLike
Absolutely no way.
LikeLike
AP reporter Gary Fineout apparently got a hold of some internal ACC emails and sent out a series of tweets about them.
Lots of interesting stuff regarding potential divisional realignment, scheduling changes and maybe even ending FSU-Miami as an annual series (can’t see that happening though).
LikeLike
What’s funny is that the Syracuse AD seems to be the most passionate advocate for change, and his school is the new kid on the ACC block. That’s not to say his points are invalid: sometimes the newcomer has the best view of what needs to be fixed.
LikeLike
I’m sure ‘Cuse would like to set up a permanent series with Miami.
Inner-Outer (otherwise known as VA+Carolinas vs. the rest) would allay his concerns, but I’m not sure other schools would go for it.
The current divisions are too screwed up, though.
LikeLike
There is no perfect set up for divisions. If you do VA+Carolinas, GT will be upset about losing the Clemson series and for losing games against Duke, UNC, and UVA, each of which it claims as schools it wants to be associated with. FSU doesn’t want to lose the Clemson series, either, nor does it want to be in a division where the only other southern schools areMiami and GT; Louisville is just barely in the South but really far from Tallahassee.
Other alignments, such as a North/South, with Miami in the North, would put UVA in a separate division from all its historic ACC rivals; the north would essentially be the old Big East plus UVA.
There are no.good answers.
LikeLike
Problem is the current alignment is one of the best choices. It keeps FSU and Miami with good SOS, which is going to be important going forwards, etc.
LikeLike
There isn’t any divisional structure that serves the ACC well. Because of this and for the purposes of conference cohesion and consistently producing attractive championship game match-ups, the ACC should petition the NCAA for permission to stage its championship game w/o divisions. Each school could have 3 protected rivals and still visit and host every other conference school twice every four years.
LikeLike
There isn’t any divisional structure that serves the ACC well. Because of this and for the purposes of conference cohesion and consistently producing attractive championship game match-ups, the ACC should petition the NCAA for permission to stage its championship game w/o divisions. Each school could have 3 protected rivals and still visit and host every other conference school twice every four years.
An even better solution is simply to announce that this is what they are doing, and let the NCAA try to stop it. (Hint: The NCAA can’t and won’t.)
Mind you, I think there’s close to zero chance the ACC will do this, but many supposedly “impossible” things have happened, so one can always hope.
LikeLike
There is no good choice that’s for sure, only less bad options (similar to Big Ten). That said, accepting that there will be some bad parts, I think the current alignment is still far from the best set-up. You miss too many natural games and almost never play half the league. Almost any set-up that reduces those has to be considered an improvement. That means one of the following a) fewer/no locked crossovers, b) rotating divisions, and/or c) more north/south.
My personal preference, assuming 9 conference games is off the table, is rotating divisions. Two pods of 3 and two of 4. A pod of 3 would rotate between the pods of 4 to form a division. All non-division games would be between teams in the pod you never play
Southern Pod (both crossover games vs. Northern Pod)
Florida State
Miami (FL)
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Northern Pod (both crossover games vs. Southern Pod)
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Carolina Pod (both crossover games against Mid-Atlantic Pod)
Duke
Wake Forest
North Carolina State
Mid-Atlantic Pod (both crossover games against Carolina Pod)
North Carolina
Virginia
Virgina Tech
This preserves most rivalries, ends up with more instate North Carolina games than now (only North Carolina losses overall and they play 2 of 3 every year which is only a very slight drop from right now), gives every team in the conference in other regions games in the recruiting rich south and media rich north exactly 50% of the time.
The only big downside I see at all is it wouldn’t be obvious who’s in which division in any given year, but so what? It’s not to most people now anyway.
LikeLike
“An even better solution is simply to announce that this is what they are doing, and let the NCAA try to stop it. (Hint: The NCAA can’t and won’t.)”
The NCAA stopped the B1G, PAC, and B12 by denying their exploration. Is the ACC that much stronger that they can just make up their own rules and the rest of the NCAA will just go along?
You’re just trying to promote the same argument as months ago.
LikeLike
There is no perfect divisional split in any league, but the ACC seems to have the worst of it. I haven’t seen an attractive proposal yet. The problem with @Eric’s pod arrangement is that, in the years that the Southern and Mid-Atlantic pods are aligned, the divisions will be woefully unbalanced, with FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, and VT all in the same division.
You’d have, half the years, a division containing with 14 of the 18 past ACC CG participants, and all of the past winners. That’s not even counting Miami, which has never made it to that game, but would have last year if it hadn’t self-imposed sanctions.
LikeLike
The NCAA stopped the B1G, PAC, and B12 by denying their exploration.
I have never seen a news story that reported this occurred. Do you have links? But anyhow, I am not suggesting that they ask permission. I am suggesting they just do it.
And beyond that, one could make an endless list of things that were approved after they were previously denied. “They considered that before” is never the strongest of arguments.
Is the ACC that much stronger that they can just make up their own rules and the rest of the NCAA will just go along?
I am suggesting that the NCAA is in a weaker, and steadily weakening, state than it was formerly. This seems to me a case where if a league just did it, nothing would happen, because no one who matters, would care.
As you’ve noted, three of the other four power leagues themselves have explored this idea at some point. How agitated would they be? Not very. And even for those who cared, what exactly could they do? I submit: nothing.
This is not to suggest that you can unilaterally change any rule. It has to be a rule most of the members (or at least the powerful ones) no longer care much about, and this is a good example.
You’re just trying to promote the same argument as months ago.
I plead guilty to being consistent, a trait you and I share.
LikeLike
There are plenty of good options. They just require 9 games to be good.
Most fans don’t follow the way we do. You need to KISS. It needs to be understandable (no rotating pods, not splitting down the middle, no random like they are doing now). I have to think long and hard to remember who is in which division (and I don’t know with the 3 new ones).
When limited to 8 games, you do it geographically or you do it new and old and skip fixed rivalries.
Geography-SU, BC, Pitt, UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU (Duke-UNC is not that important in football)
Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UL, Wake, Duke
Only rivalries really split are Duke’s with UVA and UNC-and there’s little value there. Their stadium still only seats 33k. You could play 1 school 4 out of 8 years and the others 2 out of 8. If Duke and UNC really wanted, they could play ooc 4 out of 8.
Old and new
Clemson, Wake, Duke, UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU
Miami, FSU, GT, UL, SU, BC, Pitt
There’s more imbalance in the old and new as Clemson, Wake & Duke get traded for SU, BC and Pitt (even if Wake and Duke have won division titles, they are still the weakest long run).
LikeLike
The other leagues would never tolerate the ACC unilaterally changing rules. Like the NCAA as is or not, they want something with the power to make rules and aren’t just going to sit back and let a conference ignore them blatently. If anything were to change, it would be first with internal rule changes in the NCAA.
All this is comming from someone who would prefer no divisions.
LikeLike
Perhaps as a Maryland fan I shouldn’t care about this, but I do, and here’s a possible solution — four pods, as someone said, but I would set them up like this:
Atlantic Division permanent members
Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Coastal Division permanent members
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
Floating division 1
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami
Floating division 2
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
The three-team groups would float in two-year cycles, but the following games would be guaranteed, even when in opposite divisions:
Virginia-North Carolina (oldest football rivalry in the South)
Georgia Tech-Duke (they have met every season since 1933)
Clemson-N.C. State (the annual “Textile Bowl”)
Florida State-Miami
Things would be a bit easier with a 9-game conference schedule, but this is a good mix of “Big Four”/old Big East rivalries, with powers split by division, albeit rotating.
LikeLike
ACC to review schedule format at league meetings
http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/acc-review-schedule-format-league-meetings
LikeLike
The ACC just rejected a 9 game schedule. I don’t see them changing their minds this soon, especially with the ND games and the locked OOC rivalries for 3+ teams. That’s 8+ teams with 9 set games every year (or 1-2 with 10 and fewer with 9).
I also don’t see them dropping locked rivalries. Too many schools want to keep them, and I don’t think they can agree on new divisions that would eliminate the need for them.
They might shuffle the divisions. They might only lock games for certain teams. They might petition the NCAA to drop the need for divisions.
LikeLike
The New York Times reports on how conference re-alignment has affected non-revenue travel schedules. (Of course, it has affected the revenue sports too, but those teams more often take charter flights, so they lead privileged lives by comparison.)
The focus is on three schools: UConn, Notre Dame, and West Virginia. The article neglects to mention that ND and WVU are in new conferences by active choice, whereas UConn is in the far-flung AAC because it had nowhere else to go.
LikeLike
Yet this is merely similar to what teams out west are regularly use to. Look at how close Gonzaga or BYU are to other WCC schools.
How close are the current WAC schools to most of the rest of that league?
LikeLike
Not to mention, they talk about how much worse it is to fly rather than bus, but they don’t actually mention the difference in total travel time. Buses are slow. You can fly farther distances and not spend any more time traveling.
LikeLike
The New York Times reports on the challenge of bringing winning football back to Army. The difficulties are well known: a grueling academic and military training schedule, strict admission requirements, etc. The article doesn’t mention that the Air Force and Naval academies face the same challenge, and have managed to do better. Army ought at least to be at parity with those institutions, and in recent decades it hasn’t been.
LikeLike
Agreed, Navy especially has been miles ahead, not just on the football field as their record there attests. They’ve worked hard at recruiting good coaches for non-revenue sports too. Look at their women’s lacrosse team for example.
LikeLike
There is a sports reporter (I forgot which one) who tweeted something about Navy and Air Force using their Prep Academies more effectively than Army in terms of recruiting. But I didn’t see if he published a full article about it.
LikeLike
With our wars, being an Army officer is more risky to life and limb than being a Naval or AF officer (other than the Marines, but you don’t have to choose to enter the Marines in the Naval Academy).
Navy and AF can get kids who want to play football, put up with the grueling lifestyle, and are willing to serve our country.
Army can only get kids who want to play football, put up with the grueling lifestyle, and are willing to fight and die for our country.
LikeLike
UFlorida getting $6 million to play Michigan in 2017 at the Big House.
LikeLike
I misspoke- I thought negotiations were for the Big House. The game will be in Arlington.
LikeLike
Here’s a link.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/college-football/story/_/id/10164056/florida-gators-michigan-wolverines-play-2017-cowboys-classic
LikeLike
Hell will freeze over before Florida plays outside of the south, unless the Gators make it to a NC the year it is held in the west.
LikeLike
Oops, I guess now I mean playoff.
LikeLike
This will be the first time UF plays an OOC game outside of FL (in the regular season) since 1991. They still would not have played a real away OOC game outside of FL since that visit to the Carrier Dome (where the then #5 Gators were handily beaten by Syracuse, 38-21),
LikeLike
MI got $4.7M to get their butt’s kicked by AL there. That’s a pretty rapid inflation of the payout.
LikeLike
. . . like anything else tied in with sports on TV.
That’s why, unlike Bullet, the B10 getting an average of $40-50M/school would not surprise me at all. Even $50-60M/school would not surprise me.
LikeLike
From $4.7M in 2012 to $6.0M 2017 is a 5% compounded annual growth in payout.
LikeLike
Yes, or a 27%+ growth in 5 years. That’s fairly rapid growth, especially compared to the economy.
LikeLike
But not compared to sports revenue growth.
For instance, take that dying sport of baseball. In 1992, total MLB revenue was $1.2B. 20 years later, it had grown over 600% to $7.5B.
This growth continued in recent years under current economic conditions as well. In 2007, MLB topped $6B in total revenue. In 2013, they will top $8B in total revenue. A pretty cool 33% increase in 6 years.
LikeLike
But not compared to the medical extortion…err, insurance industry.
LikeLike
Not compared to college tuition, either, ccrider.
LikeLike
Jerryworld is the nickname of the NFL Cowboy’s AT&T Stadium where this game is to be held. The Big House is a nickname for Michigan’s home stadium. I doubt Florida will ever participate in a pay game.
LikeLike
That is participate as the visiting team. Florida will still schedule their bodybag games.
LikeLike
http://www.csnchicago.com/notre-dame/notre-dame-purdue-play-indy-go-five-year-hiatus
Notre Dame will play Purdue in Indianapolis in 2014 in the team’s annual Shamrock Series game, then the two teams won’t play again until 2020.
…
The Notre Dame-Purdue series will return in 2020 in West Lafayette and 2021 in South Bend. The team will take a two-year hiatus and play again in 2024 (at Purdue), 2025 (at Notre Dame) and 2026 (at a neutral site).
LikeLike
Also, Purdue and Missouri finalize home and home series.
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/12/purdue-missouri-virginia-tech-future-football-schedules-notre-dame/
LikeLike
I’ll admit, I did not think the Irish would take a hiatus in the Purdue series. Even with five ACC games, it would have seemed they had room for Purdue, but apparently not. We’ll have to see whom the Irish are negotiating with: they’ve not filled out their schedules for the years they dropped Purdue.
What’s clear is that the Boilermakers are big losers. They’ve set up future home & homes with Missouri and Virginia Tech; but many years their non-conference slate will be like what’s on the docket for 2016: Eastern Kentucky, Cincinnati, and Nevada. Notre Dame was the one game they played that was practically certain to be on national TV. These replacement games will be footnotes on the TV schedule.
LikeLike
I completely agree. This rivalry has always meant more to Purdue than ND. Purdue should frankly get almost as much historical props as Navy from ND fans based on our history and our willingness to always play them. The biggest issue in this series is that it has always been completely lopsided on both sides. Meaning that it was very rare, outside of the late 60s, when both teams were top 15 schools. The few windows where Purdue was strong happened to coincide with lulls in ND performance. That really lowered the passion on a national scale and made it less sexy to Swarbrick. Andy, I am excited for Mizzou. My in-laws are all in the Lou.
LikeLike
BoilerTex,
Another Boiler here….
This sucks!!!! This was the one game that garnered national coverage for us. I realize the games haven’t been competitive, and that’s probably on us, but still, you can’t pay for that kind of coverage.
I would like to see us play other A&M schools out of conference. They won’t be national powers like ND, but I like the message that sends. I guess we will see how the scheduling goes. I can’t take much more of EKU though…
LikeLike
Purdue should frankly get almost as much historical props as Navy from ND fans based on our history and our willingness to always play them.
You write as if Purdue was doing Notre Dame a favor by being “willing” to play them. As Anthony London has noted, Purdue got more out of that game than the Irish did. My guess is that more people nationally watched Purdue vs. ND than Purdue vs. almost any Big Ten opponent. Without ND, Purdue will go many seasons without a single nationally-televised game.
LikeLike
“Without ND, Purdue will go many seasons without a single nationally-televised game.”
That almost certainly will not be true (counting ESPN and ESPN2 as national, and I don’t see why you wouldn’t).
Not counting the ND game, in 2013, NIU@PU was on ESPN2 and PU@Wisconsin was shown on ABC with ESPN2 reverse mirror. They were shown nationally several times in 2011 and made the ABC with ESPN2 reverse mirror in 2012.
LikeLike
By nationally televised, I mean a game that the whole country sees nationally on the same network, a benchmark for the most prominent games. I realize that, in some way, shape, or form, every Purdue game can be seen somehow, somewhere.
LikeLike
So that was true once in 2013 and several times in 2011 for PU even without ND. PU certainly won’t go several years without a nationally televised game even without ND.
LikeLike
Are you sure you’re not counting mirrored games? I never recall multiple non-mirror non-ND nationally televised Purdue games, unless you’re talking about an unusual year when Purdue was actually good.
LikeLike
In 2011:
Minny@PU on ESPN
Illinois@PU on ESPN2
PU@Michigan on ESPN2
Also, PU@Rice on CBSSN
2010:
Minny@PU on ESPN2
PU@Illinois on ESPN2
Feel free to do more research if you want.
BTW, PU has also appeared on ESPNU in recent years (not sure if you count that as national).
Just because you don’t notice PU playing on national TV doesn’t mean that they don’t ever play on national TV.
LikeLike
ESPNU wouldn’t count as a “national broadcast” ~ ESPN/ESPN2 is available on almost every subscription TV systems, and while over-the-air broadcast TV is notionally available in some non-cable households, only a small fraction of those are part of the actual sports media audience, so I reckon ESPN/ESPN2 count as the “moral equivalent” of broadcast TV. That is backed up in actual contract language, such as the MWC bonus to a member (*cough*BoiseSt*cough) that is shown on national TV counting the broadcast networks & ESPN/ESPN2.
ESPNU is more like half of cable households (and never mind that an even smaller fraction have ever turned to the channel), so getting onto ESPNU unmirrored would be a national narrowcast channel, like CBS Sports or NBC Sports.
LikeLike
I figured that the hiatus was on the cards, because five ACC games on top of standing Navy series & USC/Stanford home-away alternation to ensure ND always plays in California, plus the desire to play a “national schedule”, including a Texas-based team, plus the desire to schedule more cupcakes than Navy & the ACC deal alone provides, points toward one BigTen opponent annually.
Before the announcement of the deal with the ACC, ND had a full slate in 2015 and 13 games for 2014, including the 5 ACC games due to starting their ACC agreement a year early. The announcement that the way they would fix the problem of which contract to break in 2014 by having ND play four against the ACC in 2014 and six in 2015 just pushed the 13 game schedule to 2015.
Nine games are locked in there: Navy@ND, USC/Stanford, which guarantees the season-ending trip to California, and the six ACC games. The other four were: Texas@ND season opener, UMass@ND (a prep game before ND@Clemson), ND@Temple but really in the Eagle’s stadium, and ND@Purdue. Pretty heavy tilt to giving up one of the away games, and since the Temple away game is more like an “away neutral site” game, Purdue is the obvious choice.
The ability to put the Purdue game in 2014 in Indianapolis in the Shamrock series pretty much seals the deal.
LikeLike
Yes, with 5 ACC games + Navy + USC & Stanford, ND essentially has as many free OOC game slots as a school in a conference now.
They can afford to play one other true away game each year now (the rest being home or neutral site). That means 2 HaH a year (at most).
In 2014, that away game is @ASU. In 2015, it’s @Temple. In 2016, it’s @Texas.
In 2017, it’s @MSU. In 2018, it’s @Northwestern (if ND doesn’t cancel).
2019 @Texas again. 2020 @PU
My guess is that in the future after 2020, ND will alternate PU and MSU, 2 years on, 2 years off, with the HaH against a B12 or SEC school (usually Texas). PU might also be willing to play neutral site Shamrock Series games vs. ND.
LikeLike
If it holds up as I think it will, then 2015 will be the year that ND plays no Big Ten teams in football (they’ll resume playing Michigan State in 2016). I don’t remember when that has last happened.
That would certainly please the more extremist elements in the ND fanbase.
LikeLike
Last time ND didn’t play any Big Ten teams was 1914.
LikeLike
. . . when they played 2 schools who are still in the top-most division (Army and Syracuse).
LikeLike
This is not a surprise, the AD has been preparing the Purdue faithful for about this for at least six months. Most of it had to do with both Purdue and ND having 7 Home games a year for revenue reasons.
LikeLike
Wisconsin fans not exactly backing up their reputation for traveling well during bowl season….
Badgers have sold only 3,800 of their 12,500 allotment to the Capital One Bowl. Ouch.
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/badgers-football-ticket-sales-for-capital-one-bowl-slow-so/article_c915ec1d-b193-5098-9456-03b2488b416e.html
Sounds like Nebraska and Michigan have also been struggling to sell tickets.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that PSU loss really hurt the fan enthusiasm in WI. MI and NE fans aren’t thrilled with their teams, either.
The secondary ticket market is also a major problem. Thousands of fans go that route and stick their school with unsold tickets.
LikeLike
My guess is most fans buy tickets through the secondary markets. A lot of Wisconsin fans live in Florida and will likely purchase through a different avenue. The Capital One bowl has lost its luster over the years. It use to be a quasi BCS bowl.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“The Capital One bowl has lost its luster over the years. It use to be a quasi BCS bowl.”
It did? When? And to whom? I’ve never heard anyone consider it in the top tier of bowls. It was always at the top of tier 2. With the playoff, it’s still that but the Peach has passed it.
LikeLike
With the B10 and SEC (along with ND) ‘sharing’ the Orange with the ACC, it weakened the Citrus…
LikeLike
People.used to say the Cap One was beter than at least one BCS bowl most years. Frequentkt there woul be an Orange Bowl with a mediocre ACC team and some other team, or a mismatch in the Fi es ta or Sugar, whike the Cap One would feature a pair of teams in the top ten or 12. TV ratings were comparable to some of the BCS bowls, too.
LikeLike
“With the B10 and SEC (along with ND) ‘sharing’ the Orange with the ACC, it weakened the Citrus”
Except that hasn’t started yet.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh has summed it up. The Cap One (Citrus) has typically had better match-ups than some BCS bowls in most years. The ratings are strong but have weakened when they decided to put 3 B1G – SEC matchups at basically the same window.
LikeLike
Few things about the Citrus Bowl.
1. Instead of the #2 B10 and #2 SEC playing head-to-head, often times both if not at least one of these two conferences are playing in BCS Bowls. That’s certainly weakened the Citrus by having a lot of #3 vs #3, #3 vs #2 match-ups.
2. The Orange Bowl access for both those conferences has hurt the Citrus’ Bowls reputation while the Peach & Cotton decided to upgrade it’s status by paying more for their ‘playoff’ match-ups, improving their ‘status’ on a level ahead of the Citrus.
3. B10 & SEC are both rumored to have a tiered bowl system where they the B10 will send their #2, #3, #4 slots to the Citrus, Holiday & Hall-of-Fame Bowls (aka Outback) while the SEC will do something similar. B10 will have most the control over where teams go, taking control from the bowl sites.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“People.used to say the Cap One was beter than at least one BCS bowl most years. Frequentkt there woul be an Orange Bowl with a mediocre ACC team and some other team, or a mismatch in the Fi es ta or Sugar, whike the Cap One would feature a pair of teams in the top ten or 12.”
2013:
Cap 1 – #9 SC vs #19 WI
Fiesta – #6 Baylor vs #15 UCF
That’s pretty close, and that’s with WI underrated since they probably should’ve beaten ASU.
The B10 has no control over the ACC or BE stinking each year to provide a really crappy BCS team.
“TV ratings were comparable to some of the BCS bowls, too.”
Average TV rating since 2002 season:
NCG – 16.0
Rose – 11.9
Fiesta – 8.7
Sugar – 8.1
Orange – 7.6
Cap 1 – 6.0
Peach – 4.6
Cotton – 4.5
Alamo – 4.4
Outback – 4.2
Holiday – 4.0
Yes, the Cap 1 has topped several BCS games. But that’s largely because there have been several crappy BCS games.
LikeLike
I haven’t averaged out the bowl ratings since 2006, which is when the BCS turned to the current 5 bowl format with the national championship game being separate, but I’m fairly certain that every single Capital One Bowl that has been broadcast on ABC has beaten at least one BCS bowl game in the ratings every year (and there have been years where it has beaten two). (If you take bowl averages to that, they are artificially raised because the BCS bowls themselves were the national title game once every 4 years.) In fact, the Capital One Bowl has typically beaten any BCS bowls that didn’t involve the Big Ten or SEC. It’s been pretty consistent in that regard.
The Big Ten vs. SEC matchup typically guarantees two brand name fan bases, so that has shown to have more TV value than a game involving leagues with weaker fan bases even if the bowl has the BCS label.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Michael in Raleigh has summed it up. The Cap One (Citrus) has typically had better match-ups than some BCS bowls in most years. The ratings are strong but have weakened when they decided to put 3 B1G – SEC matchups at basically the same window.”
Last season’s Cap 1 pulled a 6.6, above their average since 2002.
LikeLike
Wolverine – here’s the SEC bowl selection process going forward. The clip below was taken from an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.
“Under the new SEC bowl order, the Capital One Bowl in Orlando Fla., will have first choice of available SEC teams after any conference schools have qualified for the College Football Playoff, the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl. The Capital One Bowl matches the SEC against an opponent from the Big Ten or Atlantic Coast Conference.
From there, the SEC will determine the league representative for six bowl games in consultation with the schools and the bowl games. Those games are the Outback Bowl in Tampa, Fla., (vs. Big Ten), Music City Bowl in Nashville, Tenn., (vs. ACC or Big Ten), Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla., (vs. ACC or Big Ten), Liberty Bowl in Memphis, Tenn. (vs. Big 12), Texas Bowl in Houston (vs. Big 12) and Belk Bowl in Charlotte, N.C. (vs. ACC). The Texas and Belk bowls are new to the SEC lineup.
Once the SEC spots are filled in those six bowls, the Birmingham Bowl will have the first choice of available SEC teams, followed by the newly named Advocare V100 Bowl in Shreveport, La., which was formerly known as the Independence Bowl.”
LikeLike
Wolverine,
“Few things about the Citrus Bowl.
1. Instead of the #2 B10 and #2 SEC playing head-to-head, often times both if not at least one of these two conferences are playing in BCS Bowls. That’s certainly weakened the Citrus by having a lot of #3 vs #3, #3 vs #2 match-ups.”
That’s been happening since 1998, so it can’t explain any loss of luster in recent years.
“2. The Orange Bowl access for both those conferences has hurt the Citrus’ Bowls reputation while the Peach & Cotton decided to upgrade it’s status by paying more for their ‘playoff’ match-ups, improving their ‘status’ on a level ahead of the Citrus.”
Your verb tense is wrong. It hasn’t happened yet, so it hasn’t already hurt the Cap 1. It certainly hasn’t hurt it over the past few years.
“3. B10 & SEC are both rumored to have a tiered bowl system where they the B10 will send their #2, #3, #4 slots to the Citrus, Holiday & Hall-of-Fame Bowls (aka Outback) while the SEC will do something similar. B10 will have most the control over where teams go, taking control from the bowl sites.”
Again, future occurrences can’t have harmed the bowl in the past. I’m not disputing that these factors are all true, just that they don’t apply to Kevin’s original statement.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I haven’t averaged out the bowl ratings since 2006, which is when the BCS turned to the current 5 bowl format with the national championship game being separate, but I’m fairly certain that every single Capital One Bowl that has been broadcast on ABC has beaten at least one BCS bowl game in the ratings every year (and there have been years where it has beaten two). (If you take bowl averages to that, they are artificially raised because the BCS bowls themselves were the national title game once every 4 years.) In fact, the Capital One Bowl has typically beaten any BCS bowls that didn’t involve the Big Ten or SEC. It’s been pretty consistent in that regard.”
To clarify my earlier comment, my averages for the bowls don’t include when they hosted the NCG. I lumped those games in with the actual NCG’s since 2006.
I think you go too far, though, Frank.
2006 – Cap 1 topped 0 BCS games
2007 – Cap 1 topped 3
2008 – Cap 1 topped 1
2009 – Cap 1 topped 1 (barely)
2010 – Cap 1 topped 0
2011 – Cap 1 topped 0
2012 – Cap 1 topped 2
LikeLike
@Brian – One thing to note is that the Outback Bowl (which is actually closer to the on-paper lower tier Big Ten vs. SEC matchup that will be in the Cap One Bowl going forward) was on ABC in 2010 and 2011 instead of the Cap One Bowl, and that game garnered larger ratings that at least one BCS bowl in both of those years, too. So, we still saw a non-BCS bowl with the Big Ten and SEC beat out BCS bowls, but it just happened to be the Outback in those two years.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I don’t track the networks or timeslots since they change so often.
LikeLike
“future occurrences can’t have harmed the bowl in the past. I’m not disputing that these factors are all true, just that they don’t apply to Kevin’s original statement.”
I wasn’t defending Kevin’s statement. I was just following the disucssion here that the Citrus Bowl has been hurt. My reasoning is probably different than Kevin’s, my reasoning still is that the Citrus has been hurt by the B10’s & SEC’s participation in the BCS bowls…
#2 SEC vs #2 B10 would be a terrific bowl game, it’s just never going to happen in the Citrus with the B10 & SEC always getting a 2nd BCS bid. With the tie-ins with the Orange and the new postseason format, Citrus is only going to fall even further behind the other top bowls.
LikeLike
Wolverine,
“I wasn’t defending Kevin’s statement. I was just following the disucssion here that the Citrus Bowl has been hurt.”
I think a lot of the discussion has been about whether it has been hurt or will be hurt by the upcoming changes. I think the Cap1 thrived during the BCS era for the most part. The playoff and new B10 tiered bowl plan will hurt the Cap1 in the future, though.
“My reasoning is probably different than Kevin’s, my reasoning still is that the Citrus has been hurt by the B10′s & SEC’s participation in the BCS bowls…”
The game moved to 1/1 after the 1986 season so let’s define 2 eras:
pre-BCS = 1986-1997, BCS = 1998-2012
2 ranked teams:
Pre-BCS – 11/12
BCS – 15/16
2 top 20 teams:
Pre-BCS – 11/12
BCS – 14/16
2 top 15 teams:
Pre-BCS – 8/12
BCS – 6/16
2 top 10 teams:
Pre-BCS – 2/12
BCS – 1/16
The periods from 1986-1992 and 1998-2012 are very similar in terms of the ranks of teams that made the Cap1. The bowl had a run from 1993-1997 that was a little better. The best one was the 1995 game, #3 vs #4. No other Cap1 had an average rank below 8.5 (#6 vs #11).
Average team rank:
1986-1992 – 13.6
1993-1997 – 8.2
1998-2013 – 13.7
What may be coloring your judgment a little is that the B10/SEC matchup started in 1992, right before the best run the bowl ever had. If that’s your comparison point, then I agree the BCS hurt the Cap1 a little. I was thinking more big picture of the bowl’s history.
“#2 SEC vs #2 B10 would be a terrific bowl game,”
Yes it would.
“it’s just never going to happen in the Citrus with the B10 & SEC always getting a 2nd BCS bid.”
It didn’t happen that often before. It was only 1992-1997. But I agree, it certainly won’t happen again.
“With the tie-ins with the Orange and the new postseason format, Citrus is only going to fall even further behind the other top bowls”
Very true. The Cotton and Peach passed it by making the playoff. Of course, the Cotton used to be above the Cap1 until the late 80s/early 90s anyway.
LikeLike
My frame of reference was basically ’92 – ’97 and the BCS era, so yeah, your numbers support my recollection… Citrus history before my memory (late 80’s) says it was a mediocre bowl which I wasn’t aware of.
I’ve always known the Citrus as a New Years Day Bowl that included a couple top 12 ranked teams pitting the B10 vs the SEC. It’s gotten weaker a bit (not quite as much as I thought), more so on the B10 side and imo the Citrus will weaken much more with the Orange Bowl tie-in & new postseason format.
LikeLike
Wolverine,
“I’ve always known the Citrus as a New Years Day Bowl that included a couple top 12 ranked teams pitting the B10 vs the SEC. It’s gotten weaker a bit (not quite as much as I thought), more so on the B10 side”
I think people have let the past couple of years really skew their view of things.
Higher ranked team in BCS era:
B10 – 2010, 2009, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1999
SEC – 2013, 2012, 2011, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1998
Higher ranked team in pre-BCS era:
SEC – 1992-1997
“and imo the Citrus will weaken much more with the Orange Bowl tie-in & new postseason format.”
I think we all agree that it will weaken more. I don’t think the teams will be much lower ranked than now, but its prestige will be hurt by being a little further down the list and not part of the playoff. Remember, both leagues have expanded and only the top 12 or so teams will be gone before the Cap1 can pick.
LikeLike
A look at the Big Ten’s bowl bid process:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24381243/its-all-politics-behind-the-curtain-for-big-tens-bowl-selection
LikeLike
On Wisconsin…
Congrats to the Badger women’s volleyball team for beating #1 seed Texas.
That was one hell of a match…
Okay PSU, your turn…
LikeLike
B1G wins women’s volleyball title. Wisconsin will get a 3rd crack at Penn State after losing two in the conference.
LikeLike
Terps and Knights will enter a v’ball hornets’ nest next fall.
LikeLike
Rutgers lost 3-0 to IU early in the year. IU went 1-19 in the Big 10. I’d be surprised if RU gets 1 victory in conference.
Surprisingly, MD doesn’t look so good either, but better than RU. I see MD, IU, and Iowa fighting for 11th. RU has 14 sewed up.
MD and RU will have some culture shock in wrestling too….although both are better than in VB….I recall seeing they were ranked 20 and 21 in recruiting this year. Bad thing is 7 of the top 10 classes nationally are in the Big 10….
LikeLike
College Park is looking for a new v’ball coach, as Tim Horsman has stepped down. Some possible candidates to replace him are listed in the comments section of http://www.testudotimes.com/2013/12/18/5223456/tim-horsmon-maryland-head-volleyball-coach.
LikeLike
Not sure why VB has taken off some in the Big 10, but not at all in the ACC…..except that Rose at PSU and the support Nebraska gets has elevated things………..I looked at conference attendance figures for ’12–Big 10 was 1st with 2200/game……ACC was 8th with 731/game. If you take Nebraska out of the equation you’d probably be near the 1700 the PAC 12 averages. After NEB, Wis, ILL, and PSU do pretty well in attendance. Purdue has a smallish gym (2200 or so I’d guess)but is always at olr near capacity..
There’s probably no one in the Big 10 that’s happier to see Rutgers and MD than the IU VB coach. She was 1-19 this year in her 7th year and somehow kept her job.
Rutger’s 1500 seat gym is quite old, MD’s 1500 seat gym is newish, but doesn’t look like anything special. I would expect Rutgers, MD, IU, and Iowa to be at the bottom of the conference the next two years…………..
LikeLike
Mushroom:
Again, the Midwest has a relative abundance of big tall girls (people, in general). The Germans (other than those who ended up in the Texas hill country or later went out west) settled in a swath that stretched from NY to NE, encompassing B10 country. The Scandinavians immigrated almost exclusively to the Upper Midwest (and later spread westward). A group of Dutch originally founded NY, and then a later group populated western MI.
The SEC dominates in football in large part because football talent is more fertile there than most other parts of the country. Same thing for volleyball talent and the B10.
LikeLike
I’m hoping Maryland will move part (or all) of its volleyball (and wrestling) schedules from the Comcast Center Pavilion to the main arena. When the PSU hordes invade for v’ball and grappling, a 1,500-seat arena won’t be enough.
LikeLike
Quite a butt kicking by PSU…….
I think they’ve underachieved a little the last 2 years…….a lack of chenistry…..not this year, they are really focused in…..they were like a machine tonight.
Don’t really see Wisconsin having much of a chance, although they have a lot to be proud of…..that freshman setter is one hell of a player.
I know Wisky beat \#1 Texas, but PSU is playing too well and has too man srs….I see it 3-0 or 3- 1 PSU.
LikeLike
I wonder where that 2020 LSU-PSU neutral site game will take place (I would be shocked if it was somewhere outside of the East Coast).
Also whether the B10 would own TV rights to that game.
LikeLike
ND-BC game in 2015 is rumored to be moved to Fenway Park.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10170179/boston-college-notre-dame-talks-football-game-fenway
Also, there’s still buzz about Charlie Strong to the Texas HC position, even though he has denied it so far.
LikeLike
It’s official: the ACC answers to Notre Dame.
http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detail/ACC-Notre-Dame-Announce-Football-Game-Dates-for-2014-2015-2016_12-20-13_flh921
LikeLike
Awesome.
Only 3 true road games in 2014 and possible in 2016 (if the Navy game is neutral site).
Has any other school been able to schedule only 3 true road games while playing a 12 game schedule?
LikeLike
Good for ND if they can do it
LikeLike
Not sure if only 3, but FSU had a “road” game in the ACC against Wake Forest played in Orlando one year. So they really had 5 of 8 ACC games at home.
LikeLike
If any other school has done it, my bet would be Auburn. I think they’ve had 4 total non-con road games in the last 15 years, or something like that. I bet there was a year or two when the Iron Bowl was a neutral site game that Auburn only had 3 road games.
LikeLike
Checked back on a few years, but it looks like the Iron Bowl moved to the campuses about the same time that the season expanded to 12 games, so I don’t think Auburn every had just 3 road games in a 12 game regular season.
Most likely chance would be a school that has a conference rivalry at a neutral site. So if Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, or Georgia (those are the only two annual neutral site conference games I can think of off the top of my head) ever had all non-con home games, they would have just 3 true road games in a 12 game season. Though now that the Big 12 is a 9 game slate, Texas and OK would only have the chance every other year (and really so would Georgia as they always play home and home with Tech.
LikeLike
ESPN seems to have re-evaluated their stance on the winners and losers of realignment:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10170091/texas-missouri-top-realignment-scorecard-colorado-suffers
LikeLike
@Andy – I normally shy away from the complaints about ESPN’s supposed SEC bias (as news coverage is inherently going to be biased in favor of winners no matter where they’re from, and the SEC has done a whole lot of winning lately), but they really sandbagged Nebraska in that column. Saying that they have mediocre improved visibility off-the-field in the Big Ten compared to the Big 12 is completely bunk, they conveniently ignored the fact that the Huskers still made it to the Big Ten Championship Game last year on-the-field and their reference to Nebraska’s rivalry with Oklahoma forgets about how the Big 12 broke up that rivalry themselves.
Regardless, the top of the list should be all of the schools that went from the Big East or Mountain West to one of the 5 power conferences. It doesn’t matter if they end up 0-12 every season for eternity – they are the biggest winners in this game. Everyone else went from big money to bigger money.
LikeLike
I agree somewhat. Nebraska’s decline doesn’t have much to do with joining the Big Ten. They’ve been declining for years, long before they joined the Big Ten. This is just a continuation of that trend.
Over the last ten years compare Nebraska’s record to Missouri’s, even though Nebraska’s football program is supposedly much stronger than Missouri’s:
Nebraska: 83-46
Missouri: 84-44
LikeLike
Agree Frank,
Mostly bad evaluation and shortsighted work by ESPN, but they got the SEC additions right due to the success of these schools in SEC play. But aTm definitely slipped this year and I don’t see them being better next year – they’ll fall right back into aTm consistency soon enough – underachievers. Did ESPN do this last year when Mizzou had a brutal first year in the SEC and Neb made it to the BIG CCG? (though they got destroyed). I don’t get how Utah got ranked above Neb. Clearly Neb has been far more competitive in the BIG than Utah in the Pac12. Remember, Utah came into the Pac12 with an impressive bowl resume over the past decade, which included a big BCS win over Bama. But at least Ivan Maisel got it right in his video analysis in that he felt Neb was one of the biggest winners.
Moreover, you can’t expect EPSN to look at things long-term, the mere title of this article is present-continous, that is if you’re looking at the “Keeping Score” link.
As for incoming Md, they have a little traction for 2014, but they had no business losing the BC or Syracuse games this season, both winnable, esp BC. They’d of course be in a much higher profile bowl game had they won those games, but they did get decimated by injuries this year & at least they go out beating both Va schools and NCSt (Debbie Yow is the AD). Rutgers blew this season, they underachieved and made rotten personnel decisions – their coaching is brutal as well. You could also say Md, in lesser Olympic sports, choked on opportunities to leave the ACC in dominating style because the lost NCG’s in field hockey and men’s soccer & both losses were to ACC teams.
LikeLike
Utah is above Nebraska solely because Utah went from non-power conference to power conference, whereas Nebraska went from power conference to more powerful conference. The degree to the move is bigger for Utah.
LikeLike
Wow. Those are just really, really bad rankings. TAMU and Mizzou have experienced the most success of schools that moved, but relatively little of that has to do with realignment (the heavy majority of both team’s rosters were recruited when they were in the Big XII). And while they are getting good TV ratings in the SEC, it’s not like they were invisible in the Big XII.
LikeLike
Missouri and A&M have both seen their national profiles raise tremendously. This is Missouri’s 4th division title and 10+ win season in the past 7 seasons, but it is by far the most exposure they’ve ever had. They ranked #8 in the country in TV viewers this season. I’m pretty sure they’ve never even come close to that.
Missouri is also in the middle of a $200M facilities improvement campaign and A&M is in the middle of a $450M campaign. That never happened in the Big 12. SEC money will really start flowing starting in a year or so. Both schools are making more now than ever.
Yes, Utah and TCU are better off, I guess. But in the Mountain West they actually had a higher profile because they won a lot of games. They may get back to that eventually. Or maybe they won’t. We’ll see. At least they get paid more now.
LikeLike
If you have any doubt at all about Utah/TCU being huge winners in realignment, just look at Boise. They’ve suddenly started struggling, and they’re rapidly becoming a national afterthought. The margin for error in terms of national attention is basically zero.
LikeLike
Sad day in IU basketball
40 million gift means Assembly Hall will now have a name and corporate suites.
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/2013/12/19/indiana-university-assembly-hall-basketball/4123963/
Man, I feel like the angry old man now.
LikeLike
I’m more than fine with it….And you ARE sounding like an angry old man.
Michigan just put $80M(?) into their arena. Illinois is putting $160M into theirs I read their literature about that rennovation…..they said EVERY school currently in the BT either has or will be improving their basketball facilities……and so is Rutgers.
I’d rather have “SSAH” than State Farm Center…….at least this broad is a real person, and apparently a hell of a fan as well….Illinois is putting $160M into their arena, blotting out “AH” from the name and losing 1200 seats. That’s a real WTF situation. Meanwhile, at the REAL AH, no present seating is affected….and lets face it, the entrance and ramp areas at AH are and have never been anything special
LikeLike
Probably less the naming rights and more the corporate boxes thing.
I am all for the upgrades, just not sure of the whole corporate takeover of college sports. As for the no loss of seating, I will feel less anxious once it is done and the actual numbers are known. It seems like they say “no lower seats will be lost” then take them from the uppers. I would actually like it if they could squeeze a few more in so they at least get to 18K.
On a semi related note, the IU Women are 12-0 heading into the Xavier game before the conference starts. Seems like it was back in the 70’s the last time they started so well.
LikeLike
I hate women’s BB but maybe I won’t so much now that IU finally has a good coach……I say let Crean recruit for both teams and let this guy coach them………
As far as the corporate boxes at AH………Glass says they will be above the present bleachers on the south side, and that is what the drawings project…….btw, did you see those drawings? They look like you or I drew them up………didn’t see any rendering of what the south entrance will look like ….that’s what I’m interested in seeing…..what I personally would like to see would be two life size statutes out front—-Branch and Bobby…..that would be pretty cool..
LikeLike
http://scoop.hoosiershq.com/2013/12/renderings-of-assembly-hall-renovations/
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2013/12/07/ius-assembly-hall-its-origin-and-its-future/3906225/
The renovations don’t seem too bad. $40 mil much cheaper than a whole new charmless arena, one that would have far more luxury amenities than Assembly Hall post renovation.
LikeLike
Sarah Baumgartner hired as new senior assistant AD at RU:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/12/rutgers_to_bring_on_sarah_baumgartner_as_new_senior_associate_ad.html#incart_river
LikeLike
She’s a good one. Mizzou is sorry to see her go. It’s a promotion though so we can’t blame her.
LikeLike
I’m sure it’s been said already, but damn did the Pac12 get a mostly chump easy bowl schedule. Sure they’ve been a great conference this year, depth wise, but none of their top third teams suggest FSU or Auburn status. Those teams aren’t far behind, but I didn’t anything this season that reminds me of USC during the Carrol years.
LikeLike
Their location and lack of reputation for traveling well does that. Lots of WAC, MWC and B12 games because they are neighbors, and a few with the ACC. No second BCS team really makes it easier. If OR was in the BCS instead of OU, things would be quite different.
OR/UT – edge P12
UCLA/VT – edge P12
ASU/TT – edge P12
WSU/CSU – edge P12
Stanford/MSU – even
AZ/BC – even
UW/BYU – even
OrSU/Boise – even
USC/Fresno – even
LikeLike
I don’t know about some of your “even” lines Brian. Fresno is incredibly weak on D & has nowhere near the paper talent of USC & this year’s Boise State is average at best, got buried by the Huskies early on. I’ll agree with the other 3 “even” match ups. We all know Oregon did themselves a disservice with a BCS bid when players openly said the Rose Bowl is meaningless unless for a NC. Btw, UT could win that game, a lot to play for with Mack going out (he’s been a pretty successful bowl coach as well) and they have more talent & tradition than Oregon.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I don’t know about some of your “even” lines Brian.”
I based it on rankings and/or records, with AQ conferences getting a bonus.
“Fresno is incredibly weak on D & has nowhere near the paper talent of USC”
Fresno was #20 and USC #25 in the BCS.
“& this year’s Boise State is average at best, got buried by the Huskies early on.”
Boise is 8-4, OrSU is 6-6 (and lost to EWU).
LikeLike
Sure,I realized you were pulling from rankings and other official lines. I’m going by what I’ve seen. I paid close attention to Fresno’s games this year and common opponents, esp SJSU who also played my Gophers.
But Fresno’s schedule results give away their glaring weaknesses, esp on D. I agree that OreSt lost to EWU early on, just as Boise St lost to Wash early on, but the former gets a Pac12 slate to evolve from as a team. See Fresno vs Rutgers, a game they barely won at home and SJSU, where they got beat soundly beat.
OreSt and Boise St should be a good one.
LikeLike
Btw,
Brian if you didn’t see the end of CSU-WashSt, my God. The Rams pulled it off in dramatic, gut wrenching fashion.
LikeLike
Apparently Leach never learned the victory formation. After WSU got the first fumble reversed they could have almost run out the clock but instead chose to snap it with 20 seconds left on the play clock, get it stripped again and hand the win to CSU.
Fresno does not look to be anywhere near USC in talent. Since, Fresno could barely beat Rutgers, no surprise. Typical BCS overrating of zero – 1 loss Go5 school.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that Fresno is overrated, but I decided to go with the wisdom of the crowd over my personal opinion.
LikeLike
Stanford -6 = “Even” ?
LikeLike
Frank,
Illinois is a handful of boneheaded TOs from being undefeated (GT and Oregon & I remember who these TOs were on: Ekey and Egwu). They finally clamped down the nerves, late game, and got a big win. Good for them.
LikeLike
Frank, congrats on the Braggin’ Rights victory tonight. We all knew Missouri’s win streak in the series had to end eventually. Sucks that the game had to end on a ticky tack foul call with almost no time left on the clock. Also sucks that the refs missed an obvious double dribble and then an obvious travel by Illinois right before making that ticky tack foul call. But then Missouri got plenty of calls throughout the game as well. Seems like the refs are inserting themselves into the game more than ever this season. Makes it difficult to watch sometimes. Best of luck to the Illini this season.
LikeLike
Way to stay classy Andy…..
Haven’t seen a replay regarding your DD and travel, so can’t speak to that….but it sure as hell was no ticky tack foul. The shooter was slapped across the arm…and it was very obvious on replay.
LikeLike
Never said it wasn’t a foul. It was. But it sucks to have the game decided by a meaningless reach in foul with barely any time left. Yeah it was legit but it’s a crappy way for a game to end. Illinois deserved the win, didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Just wish it had ended in a more meaningful way.
LikeLike
What I don’t like is refs swallowing their whistle at the end. A lot do and teams know it and mug the shooter. They ought to call it consistently all game long. But a late foul is a lousy way to end the game.
LikeLike
Missouri is top 20 in the country in drawing fouls. Illinois is below 300. Missouri drove the ball all night. Illinois shot jump shots all night. 12k Illinois fans loudly booed every call against them. Somehow the fouls for the game magically came out even. I suspect the refs were going for perceived “fairness”, but sometimes style of play dictates that one team gets more fouls than the other. That did not happen in this game. What we got instead were no calls on lots of hacks by Illinois during Missouri driving plays, and then immediate calls on any and every reach in by Missouri. I can’t even say that sort of thing is unusual. Crowds affect refs to an inordinate degree in heated games like these. That said Missouri had plenty of chances to win. Lost by 1 point after missing a lot of free throws and turning the ball over 14 times (of course they got hacked badly on a lot of those turnovers and there were no calls but whatever). Yeah I’m being classless by bringing up the officiating. So what? It’s true.
LikeLike
BTW, if you want to know how you as a fan can most affect the outcome of a game, just go to a college basketball game with 10-15k of your friends and boo the hell out of the refs every time they make a call that goes against your team, no matter how blatantly obvious and egregious the foul was. After a while the refs will become so brow beaten by your constant booing that they will swallow their whistles for most of the rest of the game. Works every time.
LikeLike
Yep. That’s the biggest reason why there is a home-field advantage. Also why home field advantage is low in baseball and high in soccer and college basketball (in the the first, the fans can be quite intimidating and in the second, the fans are right on top of you).
BTW, I didn’t see the game, but Illinois brought more fans to the Braggin’ Rights game? Interesting that they outnumber Mizzou (or at least are even) for the basketball rivalry game but are handily outnumbered in the football rivalry game in StL. Then again, illinois is known as a bball school (and southern Illinois, just like neighboring IN and KY, is a bball-crazy region).
LikeLike
Weather was kind of bad for the game so *maybe* that was part of it but I don’t really know. I was disappointed with Mizzou’s showing on Saturday. I didn’t make the game this year (I’m in California) but I was there last year and MIssouri showed great then. This year the crowd noise was decidedly pro-Illinois. And I think it ended up making the difference in the game. Credit to Illinois for showing up so well.
LikeLike
Er, the Mizzou fans, if anything, live closer to downtown StL, on average.
Maybe they’d already splurged for the SEC CCG & Cotton Bowl trips & their minds were still on football.
I know that my thoughts don’t turn to basketball until my football team’s out of it.
LikeLike
Meaningless reach? They raked his arm, causing the ball to fly out of his possession.
Missouri moves to 12-21 in the series.
LikeLike
Williams barely grabbed him for half a second. There was some acting involved there. Illinois completely hacked Missouri players worse than that at least a dozen times during the game before that and got no calls. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen fouls way worse than that during the close of games that haven’t been called as fouls.
That said, Williams is a true freshman and shouldn’t have reached in. Yes, he got some arm there. Yes, it was a foul.
And no, Missouri shouldn’t have had only a 1 point lead there. Way too many missed free throws and turnovers in that game.
LikeLike
What’s that river in Africa? Oh yes, De Nial.
LikeLike
So you dispute that a 1 point game could be decided by one call, one turnover one free throw? Sounds like you’re the one that’s in denial. Go over to ESPN3 and watch a replay of that game. See if you can see the obvious double dribble and travel right before the foul. It’s not hard.
But then you’re just trolling so whatever.
LikeLike
Wow! Did anyone catch the OSU-ND basketball game? I thought I was watching the Celtics-Pistons game from 87. What a melt down. But, OSU played like absolute garbage for much of the second half. The Ross kid has incredible upside, but his defense is too often terrible. He got torched all game long – big learning game for him.
LikeLike
That Gotham Classic is a pretty interesting setup. I guess it’s a way for the Northeastern conference (which has a bunch of schools nobody has ever heard of) to get one of its teams 2 games against a couple of high-profile teams who are willing to play neutral site in NYC.
LikeLike
All in all, a pretty good night for Big Ten basketball.
LikeLike
Against PAC 12, ACC, SEC, BIG 12, The new Big East, and AAC, the Big 10 was, by my count, only 23-22 in preseason play, so all-in-all the league doesn’t look as good as I thought it might be
Teams to whom BIG TEN teams have lost: Syracuse x2; Arkansas; U Conn; Pitt; UNC; Stanford; MO; UCLA; Iowa St x2; Duke; AZ; OK St.; Villanova; Butler; GT; Oregon; Ole Miss; NC State; Wash St; ND
Teams BIG TEN teams have beaten: FSU x2; MO; UK; TX; VT; Marquette x2; Maryland; ND x2; Florida; Virginia; Stanford; OK; Washington; Auburn; Georgia; Miami; St. Johns x2; West VA x2;
5 games they could have won:Ill over GT; IU over U CONN: UM over AZ; Iowa over Villanova; Iowa over ISU. 3 games they could have lost: ND over OSU; Stanford over UM; MO over Illinois.
Positive surprises: Wisconsin
Negative surprises: MSU; UM; NW…….MSU and UM mostluy because of injuries, except where is Dawson for MSU….and Walton doesn’t appear to be ready for UM
Surprises: Wi
;
LikeLike
Best coach: Ryan….you gotta give it up to the mad Turtleface.
Worst coach: Crean…..hey Tommy Boy……lets have Yogi retire the power drive, leaping out-of-bounds, wrap-around pass……….please, just for me?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10180138/bill-obrien-nfl-buyout-penn-state-nittany-lions-reduced
Looks like BOB isn’t staying at PSU for long.
Penn State coach Bill O’Brien amended his contract last summer with the intent to lower the buyout any NFL team would have to pay the school and make it easier for him to jump to the pros, per a review of the Nittany Lions coach’s contract, and there already have been conversations to reduce the NFL buyout even further.
The restated contract shows O’Brien changed the formula for his buyout and reduced the price of an NFL buyout from $19.33 million last year to $6.48 million for this year, per the contract, whereas the buyout another school would have to pay Penn State for O’Brien is $11.08 million.
One Penn State official said O’Brien’s representatives recently approached the school about potentially reducing the NFL buyout even further, a source said, though it’s unclear why the school would be willing to make it even easier for its head coach to leave.
LikeLike
Why did Penn State agree to lower the buyout last year? Just out of good faith because BOB was hired before the heavy sanctions were announced?
LikeLike
I don’t know why they did it. Presumably as a reward for how well he did. Maybe it’s also that they’d rather lose him to the pros than another college for PR reasons.
Here’s an article from the summer that discusses it in more depth.
http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2013/06/breaking_down_bill_obriens_new.html
LikeLike
It appears that just the amendment that tacked on probation years (unknown at the time) to the contract extending it from 5 to 9 years was deleted. The buyout is based on years left on the contract. So salary * 7 years became salary * 3 years. PSU lawyers probably thought the amendment would be hard to enforce if challenged.
LikeLike
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/20131222_Like_Temple__Houston_strives_for_athletic_relevance.html
Good article in the Philly Inquirer comparing the athletic departments of Temple to the University of Houston. Both are commuter, inner city, public universities of comparable size who recently joined the AAC. This paints a very optimistic and focussed approach for the Cougars.
Temple’s decision to cut 7 NCAA sports created a stir. Now the PTB are explaining the choices.
LikeLike
So Temple will have the same number of sports as UH. Seems like a clear case of the endowment effect in Philly.
LikeLike
Anyone else interested to see what kind of ratings the upcoming ND-Rutgers bowl game gets? Should be solid ratings regardless due to the presence of ND, but I wonder if there will be a synergistic effect in the NYC market.
LikeLike
One store in NYC was giving out free tickets a few weeks ago. Forgot which one.
LikeLike
I dunno about ratings, as I worry more about the Rutgers athletic department’s math skills.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/12/rutgers_pinstripe_bowl_tickets_notre_dame.html#incart_river
On the bright side, overwhelming demand for tickets.
LikeLike
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-business-of-baseball-in-2013/
TV deals, stadium fights and Jay Z; a snapshot of the business of baseball in 2013.
LikeLike
Rutgers And Syracuse Marching Bands To Perform Before Super Bowl XLVIII At MetLife Stadium
http://nflcommunications.com/2013/12/23/rutgers-and-syracuse-marching-bands-to-perform-before-super-bowl-xlviii-at-metlife-stadium/
LikeLike
As the world turns in Bellmont
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source–mack-brown-forced-out-as-texas-coach-after-president-withdrew-support-005700558.html
LikeLike
Lots of nonsense has come out. I don’t believe the bit about the regents calling Powers and threatening to fire him. The 5 who bucked Perry knew Powers was more important than that.
Possible he got a lot of flack from boosters. Possible Mack was going to resign all along. Take anything you read on this with a grain of salt. Its like reading the Dude. Except it is getting in relatively mainstream press.
LikeLike
Pingback: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Thomas Martello tries to follow the lessons of a man he barely knew
http://www.app.com/article/20131225/NJCOLUMNIST09/312250001/Thomas-Martello-tries-follow-lessons-man-he-barely-knew?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
Anybody know where to find bowl tv ratings? I’ve been curious about how those went.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Summer Mailbag: Power 5 Conference Autonomy, Conference Realignment, Playoffs and More | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Shake it Off: Random Thoughts about the College Football Playoffs, Big 12 Expansion and TV Contracts | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Shake it Off: Random Thoughts about the College Football Playoffs, Big 12 Expansion and TV Contracts - Sports - You + Dallas
Pingback: College Football Playoff and Big 12 Expansion Rumors: Cincinnati and… Memphis? | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT