Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

On By Frank the TankIn College Football, Sports

I’ve been meaning to write a brand new mailbag post prior to the holidays, but unfortunately life in all of its forms has been intervening over the past month. I promise that I’ll get a new post up quickly up after the new year. Until then, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite Christmas clips from my childhood featuring John Denver and The Muppets. Thank you to all of my readers for making this the best place for college sports discussion on the web (and you can keep the talk going on my last post). Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and enjoy the bowls!

(Video from YouTube)

1,180 thoughts on “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!”

  5. Wainscott

    Silent Night, people. No posting for 24 hours.

    Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Happy Kwanza/Happy Chinese Food & Movie Day/Happy Boxing Day Eve to all!!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Los Angeles readies its siren call (probably meaning the new Rams site would be adjacent to Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine), meaning it’s entirely possible that California’s NFL status in 2016 could be back to where it was in 1981. (And St. Louis could receive a consolation prize; doesn’t the Jaguars’ owner have ties to that town?) Divisionally, having LA in the NFC West with Arizona, San Francisco and Seattle, and St. Louis in the AFC South with Houston, Indianapolis and Tennessee, would make things more compact and sensible.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        Also, the Rams owner has extensive ties to LA.

        The Jaguars owner is I believe from East St. Louis, so he has deep ties to the area. But it has been reported the Jags have an airtight lease shackling them to J’ville until at least 2027.

        Totally agree about the divisional benefits of a Rams move back to LA and a Jags move to STL. But I doubt Khan will want to move the Jags to a city that, if it loses the Rams, will have lost 2 football teams in less than 30 years (and one of those was named Cardinals!)

        If the Jags do look to move in a decade, besides the obvious overseas candidate (London), I could potentially see a Portland/San Antonio/San Francisco (if the Raiders move to LA, too, since the 49ers are moving an hour south of SF) shift. Not too many cities plausible for the Jags east of the Mississippi, and it would make divisions a bit difficult, but such matters can be finessed.

        Like

        Reply

        2. I hail from a market that lost two baseball teams in 11 years, but the third time has been the charm (the Nationals are better financed and more intelligently run than either the original or expansion Senators). St. Louis is a smaller, less affluent market than D.C., but you can’t fault that town for 28 years of the Bidwills (who never got it right until less than a decade ago), and while the Rams won a Super Bowl (the one with perhaps the best finish of all) and played in another, unstable ownership has sank the franchise in recent years. Perhaps come 2030, if that area remains a corporate hub (Anheuser-Busch, Monsanto), the St. Louis Jaguars could succeed where the Cardinals and Rams either have failed or appear destined to fail.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            A-B isn’t run from StL any more, and unlike the Buschs, the Brazilians who run InBev have a fetish for efficiency and cost-cutting.

            St. Louisans have a long and deep attachment to the Cardinals, but I seriously doubt that few people would care if the Rams (or even the Blues) moved elsewhere.

            St. Louis has long been known as a baseball town and was probably the soccer capital of the US back in mid last century (so the irony is that there is still no MLS franchise in StL). Even hoops would probably have a bigger following than football or hockey if there was an NBA franchise here.

            Like

          2. Wainscott

            DC is also undergoing a massive growth in population and regional wealth. I believe that 6 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US are DC suburbs. A big difference from St. Louis.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/04/25/americas-richest-counties/

            DC is a Redskins town first and foremost. The Nats are liked, but by equal parts DC fans and other team fans living in town excited they get to see the Cubs/Mets/Cards come to town. DC is now certainly able to sustain a baseball team, but the Nats are never going to rival more established teams in the game as far as regional fan penetration/support (like Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Dodgers/Cubs/Reds/Cardinals/Giants. (or even the Redskins).

            For example, the Nats have never finished in the top 10 in attendance since moving to DC. It twice was 11th, (2005 and 2013). http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2012

            I also agree with Richard. From what I understand, StL is a Cardinals town, first, second, and third.

            Like

          3. Wainscott

            Further, while the Bidwells have not exactly been model owners over the years (to say the least), its telling that the NFL when it expanded in 1993, it bypassed StL, which everyone presumed to be a favorite, partly because of the same stadium concerns that the Bidwells had (and to also grow in the southeast).

            The main reason the Rams moved to StL was that Georgia Frontiere was from StL and wanted to move the team to her home city (and of course, a nice, new stadium with luxury boxes).

            A good overview of the 1993 expansion: http://articles.courant.com/1993-09-12/sports/0000004819_1_nfl-s-expansion-and-finance-patriots-owner-james-orthwein-ownership-groups

            Like

  13. Arch Stanton

    Anyone read “League of Denial”? Just finished it this morning. I now have zero interest in the NFL this weekend or beyond. Curious to hear what others thought who have read it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Wainscott

      I watched the documentary, but did not read the book.

      Not defending the NFL, but the same fingers must be pointed at CFB, high school, Pop Warner, etc, as well as the long term harm inflicted by steroids on football players who later had CTE. Its not as simple a picture as the documentary made it out to be.

      The NFL’s chief failings stem more from the use of a lesser doctor to head the league’s research into concussions. But, today, even with more knowledge about concussions, its quite difficult to change the culture of an inherently violent sport. Players still lead with their heads, and still complain about the crackdown on hitting implemented by the league. Short of banning tackling and lineman play as we currently know it, there is only so much the NFL can do with education when 22 guys are awaiting the snap on 4th and Goal from the 1.

      As for the players mentioned in the documentary, like Mike Webster, there was little discussion on the role of anabolic steroids and the long term effects from use, including violent, destructive behavior and changes to the brain.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Arch Stanton

        I agree it is a problem at all levels of the game. I just especially hate how the NFL was Big Tobacco-Like in response. First with their hand in the sand, then attempting to discredit the initial reports, and still trying to control the process and influence with their $$$. The reforms they have made (moving the kickoff 5 yards) seem like window dressing when the NFL was also trying to extent the regular season by 2 games for every team just last year.

        Read the book, you get a lot more information on the whole process and the more information you get, the worse the NFL comes off.

        Not sure what the solution is. Not sure there is a solution. But, I can’t go back to ignorance of the problem and cheer for my guys to bash into their guys.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Wainscott

          The NFL is certainly the biggest dog on the block, both now and back in the 1990’s. But since the average NFL career is about 3 seasons, the average NFL player will have spent more years playing in both high school and college. Blaming the NFL is simply not sufficient.

          As for the reforms, I completely agree. The kickoff rule basically removed kick returns from the game. I read that Mike Westhoff, former Dolphins and Jets special team coach, recommended making kickoffs more like punts in terms of lining up before the snap, arguing it will retain excitement while making it “safer”.

          But all the talk about making football “safer” is ridiculous while the means of stopping an offensive player is to ram your body at full speed at him. Tackle football is inherently violent in pretty much every aspect of the game. Absent a wholesale shift to touch/flag football with lineman yelling long state names while counting positive integers, there is very little that can be done without risking fan alienation.

          Moreover, the NFLPA does deserve some blame. At any time during the last several CBA negotiations, they could have pushed for stricter testing and multiple opinions before going back out on the field–but only did so in 2010. Also, that they still have not agreed to testing for PED’s like HGH, which make players bigger, stronger, and faster indicates that the NFL is not the only hypocritical part of the equation (though it definitely is, what with pushing Thursday night games every week and a desire for 18 game seasons). Before that, individual players turned a blind eye to guys using steroids and hard drugs–some of the same guys now blaming the NFL for not warning them that repeated blows to the head might not be a good thing.

          Back to your lack of enthusiasm for NFL games, I understand that. But watching bowl games and going to high school games is really not any different. Its the sport that should repulse you, not the league.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Arch Stanton

            I haven’t actually watched any bowl games since finishing the book either. Not sure if I will catch any of them. I’m anti-NFL and apathetic at best towards college. Never cared about high school football to begin with.

            Like

    2. Anthony London

      Arch Stanton,

      I read the book and thought it was a great read. Once Tony Dorsett announced his diagnosis, my interest in watching nfl games took a hit. I was a huge dorsett fan as a kid, so that hearts.

      I think the nfl has a huge problem on its hands, and has no clue on how to truly address it. We just had twin boys, and as of today, neither one will play football. That may change, but I feel pretty strongly about it. I have a good friend that played professional football from 89 -99, and we just found out how badly he’s doing. It’s not pretty….

      I’ve been recommending this book to everyone I know. It’s a good read…

      Like

      Reply
  16. gfunk

    I’m less than confident the BIG will do well this bowl season, call history my ally. Md and Rutgers will likely lose their bowl games as well – Terps will need a miracle here.

    Like

    Reply
      1. gfunk

        Every year it’s a set of different excuses, enough with em. When something becomes consistent, it’s beyond mental and physical – it’s fact.

        Like

        Reply
      1. gfunk

        As a Minnesota alum, the close bowl losses just get old. Just about every f’ing time in the past 15 years. Incredible curse on this program. Choke artists!

        Like

        Reply
    3. Brian

      Before the bowls started I guessed the B10 would go 2-5, with 1-6 a real possibility. I may have been optimistic, but things are going as expected so far.

      MN never met a bowl game it couldn’t lose, especially in TX. MI had no running game and a weak defense all season, and starting a freshman QB didn’t magically fix that.

      LSU is a tough match-up for IA. I doubt NE, but UGA is choke-prone. The PSU loss bothers me, but WI could give SC a good game. MSU’s D should keep them in the game, but I think Stanford is a little better. OSU’s pass D has been a sieve, but they can score on Clemson and Clemson is prone to collapses.

      Like

      Reply
  18. gfunk

    Watching bits and pieces of this Rutgers-ND game – entertaining thus far. Sadly, ESPN is at it again & has setup a narrative where ND has hogpile of excuses related to injuries, off field issues if they lose. Never mind the fact that Rutgers has been arguably the most slandered, much deserved, program this season.

    Like

    Reply

    2. ESPN invariably focuses on the narrative involving teams research shows people care about. Rutgers could go into this game as a one-loss team overlooked by the BCS, and the focus would still be on ND. I expect the same men’s hoopswise when Kansas visits Ames in mid-January, even if the Cyclones are still undefeated..

      Like

      Reply
  19. frug

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-27/colleges-athletics-arms-race-is-for-losers.html

    Among the more than 100 top athletic powers (the football bowl subdivision), which enroll more than 3 million students, inflation-adjusted academic spending per student rose a modest 8 percent from 2005 to 2011. Meanwhile, “athletic spending per athlete” rose by more than 38 percent. (This is based on the 90 schools for which data were available.) At the same time, university subsidies — “institutional funding for athletics per athlete” — expanded on average by an extraordinary 51 percent, despite rising television and ticket revenue. Commercial receipts covered only 74 cents of each extra dollar of costs incurred in this athletics arms race.

    …

    …Rutgers University, where spending per athlete more than doubled from 2005 to 2011, and inflation-adjusted academic spending was flat. Or at my school, Ohio University, where inflation-adjusted academic spending per student fell about 6 percent, while inflation-adjusted spending per athlete rose 77 percent. At Rutgers, commercial revenue (ticket sales, television, concessions and so on) paid only 53 percent of total athletics costs, and much less — 15 percent — at Ohio University.

    Like

    Reply
      1. frug

        I agree to an extent. Obviously getting into a major conference was a goal worth investing in, but Rutgers could have done so far more efficiently. They sponsor 27 which is way, way more than they should be given their budgetary constraints (they are effectively trying to run Michigan’s athletic department on 1/2 the total revenue and 1/4 of the earned revenue) and they are not particularly good at most of them (they ranked 120th in the Director’s Cup (second worst of any AQ team in the country) last year right in between Miami (Ohio) and Northern Iowa).

        If they trimmed the athletic department to a more manageable number (no more than 20 sports) they could reduce the cost to the university and improve their performance in the sports they continued to sponsor.

        Like

        Reply

          1. The 27 sports is probably the last vestige of Rutgers’ one-time status as an ersatz Ivy school. (Remember, until a few years ago, Rutgers fielded a “lightweight” or 150-pound football team, playing a few Ivies along with Army and Navy.)

            Like

          2. frug

            Yes, but then the Times and their ilk would scream bloody murder about how Rutgers is trying to kill amateurism, blah, blah.

            I say better to have the Times yelling out you and saving millions of a dollars a year than having the faculty and local media yelling at you for increasing athletic spending while cutting academic services.

            Like

          3. Transic

            But what to cut? It can’t be lacrosse (men and women) or the B1G would look like fools for starting up a lacrosse league right at the minimum number required. Sports in the B1G as of next year would be 10 for men and 14 for women. That leaves lightweight rowing (M & W) and rowing (M). I would think coming from the news of Temple cutting rowing that Rutgers would like to take advantage of that fact. Wrestling has typically been the easy target elsewhere but the B1G is very big on wrestling, so another potential PR nightmare.

            One thing for sure, I wouldn’t want to be the AD that has to decide what to cut next.

            Like

          4. ccrider55

            Did rutgers decide to join the B12? or stay put? They’ve had supported these sports without B1G affiliation, BTN and the associated income. Cutting sports just as it is going to see substantial increases would be truly professionalizing certain college sports.

            Like

          5. frug

            @Transic

            I’d probably start by cutting something like cross-country (M&F), wrestling (M) and 2 of rowing, gymnastics, field hockey, tennis, swimming and diving, and volleyball (all F).

            I would then cut one of T&F (M&F), soccer (M&F) or baseball + softball (M&F). I’d need to do more research to determine exactly which pair though.

            (Actually, to be totally honest I would love to see Rutgers cut lacrosse if for no other reason than it might kill JHU’s partial membership which I despise, but obviously that isn’t happening.)

            Like

          7. frug

            @bullet

            Maryland’s Men’s T&F managed to save itself even after the elimination of cross country so it can be done, but I agree it would probably make more sense to “pair” cross country and track and field and either eliminate both or keep both (in which soccer and baseball+softball would need to be eliminated).

            Like

          9. Richard

            Frg:

            If you cut a sport that is cheap, even if it brings in little money, you’re essentially cutting a sport just to cut a sport, not to save money.

            Like

          10. ccrider55

            Bullet:

            “And its one of the cheapest sports.”

            Is it? A good team will try to be 3 deep X 18 (aprox) events X two genders. Scheduling, support, transportation, facilities, equipment, event and dicipline coaches, etc are costs even if the scholarship limits have been dramatically limited (hence sponsoring indoor track and XC as a method to approach the scholarship numbers to truly support competitive outdoor teams).

            Like

          11. ccrider55

            What I’m saying is XC and indoor are branches of track. Cut it and you’re undercutting a program supposedly being retained.

            Like

          12. bullet

            @cc
            I’m saying cross-country is cheap.

            Basically your coach is the distance coach for track. There’s no equipment but shoes and uniforms. Travel is small compared to other sports as running is an individual sport, so you may compete against smaller schools. Its not like Notre Dame player Ohio Wesleyan.

            Its probably the cheapest sport out there.

            And as cc says, if you eliminate cross-country, you aren’t likely to get any good distance runners so you are severely hurting track.

            Like

          13. frug

            @Richard

            It’s all about profit margin. If more expensive sports like baseball or soccer still come closer to actually paying for themselves then you would still save more money by eliminating cross country.

            Like

          14. Richard

            Frug:

            It’s all about money saved, not profit margin.

            If track costs $1M and brings in zero and baseball costs $2M and brings in $200K, you save more by cutting baseball.

            In any case, though, as someone else said, there’s no rationale for RU to cut if they haven’t done so already,

            Like

          15. frug

            @Richard

            We are making the same point. In the scenario you described track would be the more profitable sport since it would “only” lose $1 million instead of $1.8 million. But if baseball brought in say $1.2 in revenue it would only lose $800,000 making it the better investment.

            I have no idea what the exact values for Rutgers’ cross country and baseball teams are, but I do know that baseball is capable of turning a profit at some schools (something that no cross country team does) and Rutgers’ baseball team no doubt is a money loser it might still be a better monetary investment than cross country.

            In any case, though, as someone else said, there’s no rationale for RU to cut if they haven’t done so already,

            Sure there is. They can reduce the cost to the school, students and taxpayers at a time of record high tuition rates and record low levels of state support and improve their on field results. I doubt they will cut anymore since no one wants to be the bad guy unless they have absolutely no other option, but that doesn’t mean eliminating sports would be a bad idea.

            Anyways, I still stand by my original point; Rutgers could have gotten a much higher ROI from its athletic department if it had trimmed its AD to down to a more manageable size years ago.

            Like

          17. Brian

            frug,

            http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

            You can get RU’s actual numbers from the DOE website. The DOE groups indoor and outdoor track with cross-country into one entry, but the rest as separated. According to RU, each of their sports pull revenue to exactly match their expenses.

            Expenses/revenues for sports:
            Football Men’s Team Expenses $19,522,057
            Basketball Men’s Team Expenses $4,663,032
            Basketball Women’s Team Expenses $4,035,221
            Soccer Women’s Team Expenses $1,123,804
            Baseball Men’s Team Expenses $1,047,924
            All Track Combined Women’s Team Expenses $1,018,993
            Swimming and Diving Women’s Team Expenses $956,393
            Volleyball Women’s Team Expenses $881,892
            Soccer Men’s Team Expenses $843,554
            Softball Women’s Team Expenses $841,502
            Lacrosse Men’s Team Expenses $791,345
            Lacrosse Women’s Team Expenses $779,148
            Gymnastics Women’s Team Expenses $740,746
            All Track Combined Men’s Team Expenses $687,039
            Wrestling Men’s Team Expenses $670,851
            Rowing Women’s Team Expenses $655,514
            Field Hockey Women’s Team Expenses $653,445
            Tennis Women’s Team Expenses $438,654
            Golf Women’s Team Expenses $262,065
            Golf Men’s Team Expenses $234,055

            Total Men’s Team Expenses $28,459,857
            All Men’s Teams but FB and hoops $4,274,768
            Women’s = Total Women’s Team Expenses $12,387,377
            All Women’s Teams but hoops $8,352,156

            Not Allocated by Gender/Sport Expenses $31,004,185

            Grand Total Expenses $71,851,419

            Like

          22. Title IX, Title IX, Title IX.

            Remember that a single athlete that plays two different sports is counted as 2 athletes for Title IX compliance purposes.

            The easiest two sports to do this in are track and field and cross-country. In fact, you can essentially put the entire track team onto the cross-country roster in name only and then have a fraction of those people actually run any cross-country races. That gets you double credit for Title IX purposes for half the number of athletes. I’m not speaking as a hypothetical here – schools actually do this.

            Whatever is being spent on the women’s track and cross-country teams is worth it for any university simply for Title IX compliance (as those expenses are peanuts compared to fines for being out of compliance).

            Like

          24. frug

            @Richard

            Yea, I should have said net profit not profit margin (though I’ll note that in my second example baseball did have the better margin).

            @Brian

            That’s the problem with the DOE numbers; they don’t separate earned revenue from allocated revenue so you can’t really tell which programs are the most profitable (in this case meaning which lose the least).

            Like

          25. Brian

            frug,

            That’s true, but you can see the most they can lose. Assuming $0 in earned revenue would be pretty accurate for almost all sports except FB and hoops. Tickets are often free to most of the others.

            RU only sells tickets to FB, hoops (both), wrestling, soccer (both) and men’s lacrosse. All other tickets are free. Thus, the other sports essentially have $0 in true revenue.

            Like

          26. mushroomgod

            I agree that 27 teams is way too many for RU given it’s financial problems. Puirdue has something like 18-19 teams, for example. I think IU might have 23..

            But I don’t think they’ll cut unless absolutely forced to…….because the perception is that they’ll be rolling in cash. We all know any cash increases will be eaten up by adm. expenses, better facilities etc…….Without knowing more, I would guess they are #120 in the D.C. because of crappy facilities and low-profile coaches.They’ll break the bank in an attempt to compete, in all likelihood.

            But if they DO want to save $, the fat’s probably in the $31M not allocated to any given program……

            As for certain programs…I wouldn’t expect volleyball or wrestling to be cut. The Big 10 is very good in both sports. Every league team plays vollyball. All but 1 or 2 wrestle. They won’t ut baseball and softball is a growing sport, as is Lax. If Title 9 weren’t an issue, you could easily dump M and W Tennis, rowing, FH, M’s golf, and W’s gymnastics. The Big 10 sucks at akll these sports and they don’t draw crowds.

            Like

          29. ccrider55

            FtT:

            “The easiest two sports to do this in are track and field and cross-country.”

            Three. XC, indoor T&F, and outdoor T&F.

            Like

          30. ccrider55

            Problem is that men double up in those sports at a higher rate than women (who apparently want to concentrate on academics rather than athletics at a higher rate). So actual cost for the women’s double or triple “track” program is higher. Cheaper/easier to reduce/cut the men’s programs.

            Like

          32. Richard

            “Problem is that men double up in those sports at a higher rate than women (who apparently want to concentrate on academics rather than athletics at a higher rate). So actual cost for the women’s double or triple “track” program is higher. Cheaper/easier to reduce/cut the men’s programs.”

            Not doubting you, but I’d like to see where you got this info.

            Like

          33. ccrider55

            Been involved in the T9 implications/requirements/etc and ways to satisfy them since the late ’70s when D1 wrestling teams were being cut and T9 was an excuse/reason (see U Nike, who when taken to court admitted there wasn’t a T9 or monetary reason to drop their program. (The AD with no degree reportedly said had he known the resistance and headache to come he wouldn’t have done it.) I can’t cite the particular stats, but the higher rate of men doubling or tripling was a frequent point brought up. Often had the individuals, not the roster spots, been counted many schools would have been close to or actually in compliance.

            Like

          35. frug

            @Frank

            The easiest two sports to do this in are track and field and cross-country. In fact, you can essentially put the entire track team onto the cross-country roster in name only and then have a fraction of those people actually run any cross-country races. That gets you double credit for Title IX purposes for half the number of athletes. I’m not speaking as a hypothetical here – schools actually do this.

            Whatever is being spent on the women’s track and cross-country teams is worth it for any university simply for Title IX compliance (as those expenses are peanuts compared to fines for being out of compliance).

            The thing is, Rutgers sponsors both Men’s and Women’s CC and T&F so it’s not of much use as a T9 offset.

            Like

  20. gfunk

    I’m not saying Michigan has lost this bowl game yet (would be shocking if they won), but this program is in a funk. Much throughout my life, you could always respect Michigan’s lines, speed & athleticism. It appears they’ve had little of the above since Carr. RRod and now Hoke are killing this program & they have an AD who will put up with Hoke as the program further fades. Hoke got a huge break because he won a BCS game on a controversial call against an average VT team. It’s also bad for the BIG overall when Michigan is horse-shit. I’m sure OSU fans are licking their chops with glee, but then they need to ask themselves why they only have one vacated win against the SEC in bowl games. OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record. The BIG has done OSU no favors in conference play as well because OSU shit themselves in BCSNCGs.

    The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn. Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins, esp in football and basketball – the latter being on the cusp of greatness. But football looks truly gloomy. It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      “The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn.”

      It’s not as if football would become better if the B10 got less money.

      Delany also doesn’t have the power to hire or fire the coaches or even the AD’s who hire or fire the coaches or the presidents who hire or fire the ADs.

      He also doesn’t possess the magical fairy dust that will make more 5-star recruits magically pop out of the Midwestern soil. So what will you have Delany do? Get some magical fairy dust.

      Like

      Reply
        1. gfunk

          Richard,

          Magical fairy dust, why not? Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint. It certainly helps recruiting budgets to say local if the equivalent talent is there. Sure, it’s up to these high school leagues at the end of the day, but blessings from state schools and the league offices can only help. If Delany has done wonders to improve profits for BIG schools, then why not back it up with quality. If quantity is justified by quality, then quantity further increases & Delany can be even happier when he gets his performance reviews : ).

          I just simple refuse to believe that talent has been optimized in the BIG footprint when many BIG states haven’t found a way to invest, whether it be private or public dollars, or both, in better prep football & by better I mean fundamental safety & skills learned at a young age that are cultivated on a constant, year-round basis, not just during late summer, fall, and early winter – year round football leagues are possible, winter or not. I’m also not saying that academic performance be sacrificed in the name of football. There are so many specialized prep academies who fulfill academic mission as well, schools out there that target specific sports. There are plenty of examples of such academies in the Midwest for sports outside football. Jesus, the rise of specialized, private hockey schools in Minnesota has been ongoing for more than a decade & damn if some of these schools don’t produce solid students – outstanding hockey prospects. A lot of the private Catholic schools in Minnesota have become unofficial farm leagues for college hockey, the NHL, and various junior and US-Canadian hockey leagues. Why not apply the same principles for football? Sure football requires a greater budget, but hockey isn’t a cheap sport to operate either, and the sport also has similar safety issues seen in football.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            “Magical fairy dust, why not? Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint. It certainly helps recruiting budgets to say local if the equivalent talent is there. Sure, it’s up to these high school leagues at the end of the day, but blessings from state schools and the league offices can only help. If Delany has done wonders to improve profits for BIG schools, then why not back it up with quality. If quantity is justified by quality, then quantity further increases & Delany can be even happier when he gets his performance reviews”

            I don’t see a cause and effect relationship here. This sounds like meaningless managementspeak. So you think that Delany “blessing” HS football will magically make HS football better?

            “I just simple refuse to believe that talent has been optimized in the BIG footprint when many BIG states haven’t found a way to invest, whether it be private or public dollars, or both, in better prep football & by better I mean fundamental safety & skills learned at a young age that are cultivated on a constant, year-round basis, not just during late summer, fall, and early winter – year round football leagues are possible, winter or not.”

            So are you saying that the B10 should start running prep schools and year-round pee wee football leagues or something like that?

            Like

          2. Brian

            gfunk,

            “Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint.”

            Nobody that matters in this is taking advice from Delany on how to groom HS players. The OHSAA has repeatedly voted against spring football (and despite Urban Meyer asking them to support it this last time). They are worried about it hurting other spring sports as well as being bad for the kids by driving them to specialize. They don’t give a rat’s ass what Delany thinks, nor should they. The B10’s success isn’t their problem.

            Like

          3. Wainscott

            Completely agree with Brian. Delany’s job is to ensure the financial health of conference athletic departments and promote Big 10 collegiate athletics. Delany has no power, and no potential power to influence the quality and quantity of athletes produced within the conference’s footprint.

            The lack of football recruits in the B1G footprint is another aspect of the drive to expand, especially to NJ and MD. While neither state is Texas, Florida, or CA in terms of football recruits, it helps a little. Of course, this aspect is a nice benefit of expanding into two states where it would be most lucrative to be present in.

            Like

    2. Marc Shepherd

      RRod and now Hoke are killing this program & they have an AD who will put up with Hoke as the program further fades.

      Michigan’s AD won’t put up with this forever. Rodriguez wasn’t his hire, so it was easier for him to pull the ripcord. Hoke has a six-year contract. At some point in year four or five, he’ll either prove he deserves an extension or get fired.

      It’s also bad for the BIG overall when Michigan is horse-shit. I’m sure OSU fans are licking their chops with glee, but then they need to ask themselves why they only have one vacated win against the SEC in bowl games. OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record.

      I agree with you: the Big Ten needs more than one dominant team. Whichever program you root for, you have to recognize that.

      The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn.

      It’s exactly the opposite. What makes Delany a genius, is that he has made so much money despite the mediocrity of the product. He doesn’t coach the games, nor does he hire those who do. He has done everything a commissioner could. The rest is out of his hands.

      Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins…

      What exactly would you have them do? I’m imagining Jim Delany pounding his shoe on the table at a league meeting, and saying, “Dammit guys, win more games.” Yeah, that’ll do it.

      Like

      Reply
      1. gfunk

        Marc,

        I could go on here as to why your pro-Delany statements have overstated traction. Money rules for most, so why bother. At a certain point, quality matters more than quantity. There’s nothing wrong if Delany or any other commissioner promotes its members to field better, more competitive teams & better utilization, new ideas that improve local resources. In the BIG’s case, quantity is there, imagine if there was more quality to justify the quantity.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          “There’s nothing wrong if Delany or any other commissioner promotes its members to field better, more competitive teams & better utilization, new ideas that improve local resources.”

          And from what we’ve seen, that is what he encourages. What more do you want him to do? More pep talks aren’t going lead to better results.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Marc Shepherd

          I could go on here as to why your pro-Delany statements have overstated traction.

          I’m not pro-Delany: I frequently disagree with him. But I’ve got to tip my cap to the guy on at least one thing: he’s managed to be a superb marketer of a mediocre product.

          At a certain point, quality matters more than quantity.

          Logically, it would seem that ought to be true, at some point. I just don’t know where that point is. The Big Ten hasn’t been the dominant football conference for a long, long time, but that hasn’t stood in Delany’s way. I don’t know when/if it will.

          There’s nothing wrong if Delany or any other commissioner promotes its members to field better, more competitive teams & better utilization, new ideas that improve local resources.

          Who said there was anything wrong with that? What you haven’t done is to show that there’s much Delany could do about it.

          Like

          Reply
      2. bob sykes

        Ohio State has not won the B1G football championship nor gone to the Rose Bowl for five years. It has been all Michigan State and Wisconsin over that period. So, in what sense does the B1G have only one dominant team. tOSU not only can’t win bowl games, it can’t win its own conference. 24 and 0 is a red herring.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          Ohio State has not won the B1G football championship nor gone to the Rose Bowl for five years. It has been all Michigan State and Wisconsin over that period. So, in what sense does the B1G have only one dominant team. tOSU not only can’t win bowl games, it can’t win its own conference. 24 and 0 is a red herring.

          I’m a Michigan fan, and even I recognize that that’s ridiculous. OSU has either been the best, or by the narrowest of margins the second-best, team in the league for nine of the past ten seasons. No other Big Ten team can even sniff at such dominance.

          Obviously, the NCAA sanctions took a bite out of them. In 2012, they were the best team but ineligible to play for the championship game. In 2010, they were co-champions, but the games were vacated. They are still the dominant program, and no one is a close second.

          MSU and Wisconsin have been good bridesmaids, but they are nowhere near as dominant as Ohio State over a comparable time period. Obviously, MSU was the better team this year. Only OSU has managed to put up comparable numbers almost every year.

          Like

          Reply

    3. It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

      In other words, the Big Ten should compromise many of its values to emulate the backward South and make football uber alles. Attendance and ratings are still strong for conference games, and Big Ten football culture is in no danger of diminishing to ACC levels; its heritage is too potent.

      Like

      Reply
      1. gfunk

        vp19,

        Attendance & ratings will diminish if the losing continues. Moreover, slight Md’s soon to be former conference all you want, but they, the ACC, current, partial and future members are 5-2 this bowl season, including new full members Pitt and Syracuse. The ACC also had a very nice 2012-2013 bowl season. Say what you want, but the ACC has more upside than the BIG in terms of football – a better footprint to work from. Question is: can they break the SEC grip? I think they can 1 out of 5 years, and they certainly have an opportunist this year.

        Secondly, I’m not going to make negative blanket statements against the South, but their prep football culture is pretty special. It’s not exactly against the grain to build specialized prep academies via private funding in order to build and maintain specific sports – tradition and excellence being part of the mission as well. Minnesota has plenty of private schools that specialize in hockey. These schools feed colleges, Canadian juniors, minor leagues (US and Canada) and also the NHL. Look up Shattuck-Saint Mary’s & also know that this isn’t the only school in Minnesota with such a mission. There are plenty of private type academies for basketball throughout the BIG footprint as well. Such schools attract student athletes from all over the country and sometimes other countries. Nowhere in my post due I imply that BIG universities sacrifice academic integrity for the sake of football, nowhere. But there is nothing wrong with BIG football programs promoting stronger local-state leagues & year round football is quite doable, especially if spring ball has less contact and a lighter schedule. If expenses are part of the equation, then look no further than Minnesota prep hockey programs that run year round – hockey also being an expensive sport that also shares similar safety issues seen in football.

        One thing about American culture, if the desire and will is there for something, then people will generally mobilize the necessary funds to make it happen. But, I think football has lost much of its former glory in the Midwest and Northeast – thus herein lie my culture change arguments, which I admittedly don’t explain in detail. I don’t really need to.

        Like

        Reply
          1. bullet

            I think Corrigan’s comment is telling-“We had to fight and claw to get into the BCS. Noone wanted us or the Big East.”

            The ACC did look like it might become the best fb conference 10 years ago. But the time before that was an aberration. In the 80s, the ACC was viewed on a par with the WAC in football. A number of the schools have returned to that level.

            Like

    4. Brian

      gfunk,

      “I’m not saying Michigan has lost this bowl game yet (would be shocking if they won), but this program is in a funk.”

      On a related note, with this loss MI finally lost their status as having the highest winning percentage in the history of CFB. ND has now taken over the #1 spot, 0.733 to 0.732.

      Interestingly, the #3 spot is also up for grabs. OU leads OSU 0.719 to 0.718 right now. The bowls this year wouldn’t be enough to switch places, but OSU could pass OU next year if they play well.

      MI still leads all of CFB in total wins, 903 to 867 for UT, though.

      “I’m sure OSU fans are licking their chops with glee,”

      Actually, many/most of us want MI to be good. Beating them means more when they’re good.

      “but then they need to ask themselves why they only have one vacated win against the SEC in bowl games.”

      Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA) – 1-2*
      Fiesta Bowl (Phoenix, AZ) – 0-1*
      Orange Bowl (Miami, FL) – 0-1
      Citrus Bowl (Orlando, FL) – 0-3
      Outback Bowl (Tampa, FL) – 0-3
      Gator Bowl (Jacksonville, FL) – 0-1

      * – includes NCG

      OSU faced AL, LSU and AR in New Orleans, and UF, SC x2, UGA, TN, AU and AL in FL. Since 5 of the games were one possession games, homefield advantage is relevant.

      “OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record.”

      20-23. In games that are supposed to be a toss up, that seems reasonable. And that’s playing USC in the Rose Bowl and the SEC in FL over and over again. In addition, B10 rules prevented teams from playing bowls in many years since it was the Rose or nothing.

      “The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference”

      Average among the power 5? Sure. So what? It’s been a jumble of the B12, P12 and B10 behind the SEC for several years.

      “filled with mostly bad coaches”

      None of Andersen, Dantonio, Meyer, O’Brien, Kill, Fitzgerald and Ferentz are bad coaches, and that’s 7 of the 12 to show you’re factually wrong. Hoke did well before MI, so he isn’t bad. Wilson is trying to fix a perennially bad program, so he’s hard to judge. Hazell is new. Beckman isn’t looking good.

      They aren’t all elite coaches, but there’s a huge gap between elite and bad.

      “Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG,”

      Getting rid of “fans” like you would be a nice start. You’re more negative than ESPN is about the B10. The next time you say anything positive would be the first time. That’s not helpful in any way.

      “It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.”

      Maybe they have higher priorities than trying to mimic the SEC.

      Like

      Reply
      2. Richard

        Actually, Dantonio could be elite. He needs a job at a king before we can be able to tell. MSU simply doesn’t have the recruiting footprint, brand, and resources to compete for national titles.

        The coaching job he and his staff has done at MSU has be terrific, though.

        Dantonio has already done better than Saban at MSU.

        Meyer and O’Brien could be considered elite as well.

        Possibly Andersen.

        Like

        Reply
  21. Richard

    So I decided to take a look at recruiting.

    I’ve looked before, and before all this realignment stuff, traditionally, the B10, Pac, ACC, and B12 would get 1/7th of the top recruits each, the SEC would get 2/7th, and the rest (mostly ND) would get the remaining 1/7th. 1/7th is roughly 14-15 of the top 100. Of course, that is much easier if the B10 footprint held more than 15 of the top 100 (as you’d expect ND and other local schools to take some). With NJ and MD added to the footprint, the B10 footprint should include more than 1/7th of the top 100.
    I also look at the Pac as they’re the only other conference with its own unshared footprint.

    So how does 2013 compare to 2003 (10 years ago) and how does 2014 look so far?
    Using Rivals data, and counting schools in the conference that they will be in in 2014:

    In 2003:
    B10 footprint (including MD, NJ, & DC): 25
    B10 schools (including UNL, UMD and RU): 16
    Pac schools (including Utah and CU): 17

    In 2013:
    B10 footprint (including MD, NJ, & DC): 22
    B10 schools (including UNL, UMD and RU): 18
    Pac schools (including Utah and CU): 17

    So far in 2014:
    B10 footprint (including MD, NJ, & DC): 16 (11 committed, 5 still uncommitted)
    B10 schools (including UNL, UMD and RU): 9
    Pac schools (including Utah and CU): 6

    Like

    Reply
  24. duffman

    Time to have supply match demand

    With a new year on the event horizon the best thing would be addressing the tickets and how they get distributed for bowl games and NCAA games.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/23/tis-the-season-of-giving-unsold-tickets-back-to-bowls/

    Some suggestions :

    #1 Have teams travel closer
    #2 Eliminate some bowls (8 wins for Big 5, 9 for non Big 5 to qualify)
    #3 Quit sticking the schools with the worst seats behind NCAA sanctioned scalpers
    #4 No school allotments in upper decks of bowls or basketball arenas in school allotments
    #5 Schools get tickets first to reward donors (and in sufficient numbers to cover all donors)
    #6 Eliminate at least 4 NCAA teams and the first round sacrificial lambs
    #7 In basketball go to a round robin double elimination (so fans can see 2 games)
    #8 Price tickets closer to actual demand so venues are full, not empty
    #9 Play games friday – sunday. No thursday or monday basketball or bowl games

    Feel free to add to things to make the games / venues better for the fans.

    Like

    Reply

    1. #6. That’s easy for you to say as a fan of an NCAA basketball team that isn’t a “sacrificial lamb.” Under your definition, Florida Gulf Coast wouldn’t have been invited last March. College hoops is more than Indiana, UNC and UCLA.

      Like

      Reply
      1. duffman

        My issue with Cinderella is they have still not gotten to the championship game. Conversely, lots of 13-16 seeds have gotten blown out in boring games nobody watches – or attends live – so all they really do is make a boring game or knocks out a real team while having no real shot in the end.

        In 1985 (28 years x 4 teams per seed = 112 chances to win) the format went to 64:

        Winning the Sweet 16 game 0 wins in 448 games or 0.0%
        #16 seed = 0 for 112 : 0.0%
        #15 seed = 0 for 112 : 0.0%
        #14 seed = 0 for 112 : 0.0%
        #13 seed = 0 for 112 : 0.0%

        In fact name any team seeded #9 through #16 who has won a Final Four game. Only 1 #8 seed has done it when Villanova won it all in 1985. While many thought it was a major upset, the Wildcats had played the Hoyas twice that season. The first was a 2 point loss at home and the second was a 7 point loss on the road. Of the 9 regular season losses only 2 were to non Big East schools. The first was a loss to Georgia and the second was a loss @ Maryland. Nova beat the Terps the second time they played in the NCAA tournament.

        0-1 Georgia, lost only meeting (neutral)
        1-1 Maryland, lost first (away) and won second (NCAA Tourney)
        1-1 Syracuse, lost (away) and won (home)
        1-1 Boston College, lost (away) and won (home)
        1-2 Georgetown, lost 2 times (home and away) and won third (NCAA Tourney)
        2-1 Saint John’s, lost (away) and won (home and Big East Tourney)
        0-3 Saint John’s, lost 3 times (home, away, and Big East Tourney)

        .
        …
        .

        Imagine if you cut the field in half and played a double elimination style?

        #1 You get to watch your team twice in a weekend, even if they lose 1 game
        #2 Getting 1 loss is not catastrophic
        #3 You actually get games where most every one is a “must see” game
        #4 Fill venues better because fans have 2 games to attend, and better games
        #5 Folks start watching the regular season and regular season games matter more

        32 team tournament
        weekend #1 : (8) 4 team regions, best 8 teams advance to second weekend
        weekend #2 : (2) 4 team regions, best 2 teams advance to championship weekend
        weekend #3 : 2 teams play friday night – sunday night in best 2 of 3 series.

        I am also in favor of limiting the post season conference tournaments to maybe just 4 or 8 teams. Why should the bottom feeders be rewarded with any post season play. If you want to have 64 teams then do a 32 team NCAA double elimination and do a 32 team NIT elimination and you have captured the best 20% or so of the NCAA.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          And how do you pick these 32 teams? 16 champs and 16 at-larges? Which conferences deserve an autobid automatically every year?

          What would this do to the regular season? If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets? What about the middle teams that know they aren’t top 32 material? Do their fans give up?

          Would casual fans lose interest? You lose the ability to easily do brackets. Would TV pay the same?

          Like

          Reply
          1. duffman

            It is not like they have not already had just 32 teams in the past. If you have a 32 team NCAA tourney and a 32 team NIT that covers a whole lot of teams. If it was up to me just do away with the conference autobids and use the conference tournaments as the first round to get to the 32 teams. Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.

            What would this do to the regular season? If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets? What about the middle teams that know they aren’t top 32 material? Do their fans give up?

            I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season. Many do not even start watching basketball till the NCAA tournament as the regular season and conference tournaments have been marginalized. The real beauty of college football is you can only lose maybe 1 game out of 12 if you want a shot at the brass ring. In college basketball you can lose 1/3 to 1/2 of your regular season games and still have a shot at the National Championship. What is the reward of doing well if it does not separate the “A” students from the C’s, D’s, and F’s?

            Would casual fans lose interest?

            If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.

            If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets?

            I would say if you eliminate most of the autobids and do it based on SoS and winning percentages you would probably have more interest. Again, you have 32 NCAA and 32 NIT which represents the “A” and “B” students in college basketball. I have been watching college basketball live and on TV for quite some time and the crowds and interest are always better when you have better teams playing each other. Fans know when 2 good teams are playing and tune in, on the other side they know the sacrificial lamb games and tune out.

            With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.

            Again, if you play 2 games that means fans of a school (live and TV) can watch their team through the entire weekend. Having games during the week where folks can not get off only to have your team out in the first game means many more fans will not travel. If I know I get to see a friday night game followed by a sunday afternoon game then footing the inflated 4 day NCAA hotel bill makes me more willing to take the risk.

            Would TV pay the same?

            If you have better content, TV should pay more because you will have more inventory that is actually watchable. look at the Super Bowl. More people probably watch 1 game than all the other playoff games combined. Lets say the Final Four gets 60% of the viewers, the Sweet Sixteen gets 30%, and the first rounds gets 10%. What is the marginal value of these games? If that first weekend was all top 32 teams playing each other the quality of the first weekend should greatly improved. If conference tournaments can play 4 straight days of survive and advance why do we have a day off once they get to the NCAA?

            Increase the overall quality and you can demand a bigger premium.

            .
            …
            .

            If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament. Let Darwin replace Cinderella and have a real “survival of the fittest” tournament replace it. My guess is the ratings for both the regular season AND the post season would go up. If I am an advertiser and my ad is in the #1 vs #16 game am I really happy? If that ad was running in the #1 vs #8 my guess is the eyeballs would be much higher.

            If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…

            Like

          3. Brian

            duffman,

            “It is not like they have not already had just 32 teams in the past.”

            1975-1978. That’s it. And the world has changed tremendously in the past 35 years.

            The tournament is the primary source of funding for many schools’ entire AD. How will they survive in your scenario?

            “If you have a 32 team NCAA tourney and a 32 team NIT that covers a whole lot of teams.”

            Nobody cares about the NIT. That ship has sailed.

            “If it was up to me just do away with the conference autobids and use the conference tournaments as the first round to get to the 32 teams.”

            And why on earth would all the smaller conferences vote to get kicked out of the tournament?

            “Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.”

            See above. Why would any non-power school support that?

            “I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season.”

            For power schools, sure. I think many small schools would lose all importance since they know they have zero chance to advance.

            “If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.”

            Yes, since the tournament is worth more than all the regular season TV deals combined.

            “With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.”

            And yet millions of people do watch, and enjoy having choices. Besides, why watch the opening games if a loss doesn’t matter?

            “If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament.”

            You couldn’t be more wrong. Cinderella is always present and draws millions of fans to watch in case this is the game when #15 beats #2 or #14 nips #3. Nobody really wants Cinderella in the later rounds. They want to see upsets the first week and then big names playing out for the title. TV ratings back this up.

            “If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…”

            That’s a complete non sequitur. No underdog has to make the title game in order for Cinderella to be a good thing. Americans like to root for underdogs, but they prefer to watch big names in the title games. The tourney gives them both.

            Like

          4. duffman

            And why on earth would all the smaller conferences vote to get kicked out of the tournament?

            “Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.”

            See above. Why would any non-power school support that?

            If you eliminate almost every autobid then it really becomes advantageous to win and schedule well in the regular season. For some reason you seem to assume the smaller schools will get left out when the opposite may happen. PAC has sucked wind the past few years and the SEC has supplied maybe 2 decent teams per year lately. On the flip side some sacrificial lamb that won some minor conference and gets blown out by 20 – 30 in the opening game needs to go too. Culling both those herds will actually free up more slots for mid majors to shine when they are having good seasons.

            .
            …
            .

            “I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season.”

            For power schools, sure. I think many small schools would lose all importance since they know they have zero chance to advance.

            You are making assumptions here. I would counter that smaller schools can actually shine with fewer teams from big conferences that played near .500 ball for the season and got hot to win their conference tourney to take a slot where they lose early.

            .
            …
            .

            “If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.”

            Yes, since the tournament is worth more than all the regular season TV deals combined.

            Times have changed and the conferences have their own networks now that need to generate interest in the non football season. If those value are to grow then they will have to build viewers in the basketball season before the tournaments. If regular seasons and SoS wind up mattering you will have better pre conference schedules and fewer “sisters of the poor” type games for easy wins. If you are forced to schedule better early people will actually want to watch the product which increases demand.

            It works the way it does now because the networks are lazy and they do not want competition for their pro broadcasts but now that conferences have networks they will have to do what is best for the college game even if it cuts into promotion of professional games. This is not rocket science. More demand for regular season games means more money flowing to the university coffers, and less heading to the NCAA or Pro coffers.

            .
            …
            .

            “With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.”

            And yet millions of people do watch, and enjoy having choices. Besides, why watch the opening games if a loss doesn’t matter?

            Think about it, would you rather see Duke play some #16 seed followed by a mid major 2 days later or see them play a #8 seed in the first game followed by a #5 seed in the second game? Baseball has been using double elimination for quite some time and folks still tune in to watch. The issue is not the single loss, but lose 2 and you are done. In a sense you get a safety game but as a trade off you have nothing but good teams to begin with so the overall quality is greatly improved

            .
            …
            .

            “If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament.”

            You couldn’t be more wrong. Cinderella is always present and draws millions of fans to watch in case this is the game when #15 beats #2 or #14 nips #3. Nobody really wants Cinderella in the later rounds. They want to see upsets the first week and then big names playing out for the title. TV ratings back this up.

            See, you freely admit Cinderella is a myth. In the real Cinderella she did not just get a date with the Prince, but wound up married to him in the end. In essence she made it to the Championship Game. This never happens in college basketball yet we keep perpetuating the myth. If we were really being accurate the stop calling the teams Cinderella and call them One Night Stands as that is what they really are. My guess if you started calling them Hookers (playing for the money) or Fat Chicks (playing for attention, even if it is negative) then the dynamics of rose colored glasses would be quickly replaced.

            .
            …
            .

            “If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…”

            That’s a complete non sequitur. No underdog has to make the title game in order for Cinderella to be a good thing. Americans like to root for underdogs, but they prefer to watch big names in the title games. The tourney gives them both.

            See this is where your point is exposed for the flawed thinking we pass off as genuine. If we called the first round games the Retard games instead of the Cinderella games we would be much closer to the reality. The set up now is a sham so they can milk the NFL into february then milk march with the NCAA tourney before milking the opening of pro baseball in April. Sure the networks win but is it really the best route for college sports? I would tend to say no, but until folks think outside of the box we will continue to be spoon fed what the networks want to make money on. I for on would like to vote with my eyeballs and wallet to break the current cycle and opt out of the pro games all together and just watch college all the time.

            With the advent of college conference networks and a la carte viewing, I may be much farther in the future than you are thinking about an outdated model.

            Like

          5. It’s instructive to note that even through all of the talk about Division 4, the power conferences have been consistent that they don’t want to mess with the NCAA Tournament. Threatening the existence of the NCAA Tournament is the biggest stick that the power conferences can wield and yet we haven’t seen that used at all. Part of it is that it would be PR suicide that would make any complaints about the BCS system look like small potatoes. Within our commenting community here, we might discuss this as somehow being a viable option, but any thought of cutting off small conference access to the NCAA Tournament would get completely murdered in the general public way beyond anything that we’ve talked about for football.

            Here’s the major difference between basketball and football: it doesn’t cost the power conferences much to allow the smaller conferences access in basketball (either financially or physically – 1 extra game against a cupcake in March for Duke isn’t a big deal for basketball, but the #1 football team shouldn’t be putting their bodies at risk to play a Sun Belt team in January in the name of equal access), so what’s the point of taking that access away when the marginal gains would be relatively small compared to the negative public blowback? In contrast, all of the negative public blowback in the world wouldn’t move the power conferences off of their positions on football because access is so much more important in that sport.

            I sympathize with trying to make the regular season worth more, but there are too many other factors, such as early entrants to the NBA draft that won’t allow for colleges to develop multi-year stars in the way that they had up through the 1980s, that will cap the value of the regular season no matter what is done with the NCAA Tournament. Once again, I don’t see the gains from the regular season offsetting whatever would be lost from reducing access to the NCAA Tourney.

            Plus, for better or for worse, entities that are perceived to be (or want to be perceived to be) successful will always push back on getting smaller. It’s always about expansion: expanding leagues, expanding the regular season, expanding the postseason, etc. Many of us hardcore fans say that we’d rather have fewer and more meaningful games across all sports, yet I haven’t seen an instance where any of the 4 major pro sports leagues or the power conferences willingly contracted anything about themselves. It has always been about getting bigger (and to be sure, TV networks up to this point have continued to fund getting bigger). That applies to the large number of bowls in general as well as the NCAA Tournament – if TV is paying for it, then there’s little incentive to reduce any quantity.

            Like

          6. Wainscott

            @FrankTheTank:

            Completely agree, and part of my opposition to CFB playoffs is that expansion always begets more expansion, never contraction. Once we go to 4 teams, 8 is probably inevitable, and one day, 16 (and maybe even 32, like FCS).

            And the concerns regarding basketball are equally applicable to CFB, such that regular season games in MBB have no inherent meaning other than as a broader seeding and ranking exercise for the NCAA tourney. Even conference championship tourneys devalue the regular season. Without either, Duke vs. UNC would have a meaning magnified by factors of 100. Same for Indiana/Mich St, or Kentucky/Florida.

            Like

          7. bullet

            The NCAA tourney costs them a ton of money. There is much more to be gained in $ terms from cutting off the smaller schools in basketball. They really already control the revenue in football. They are fighting any change to that. 85% of the NCAA’s money comes from the basketball tourney. You are right about the publicity. If they pulled out of the NCAA even the Division III schools would be adversely impacted.

            Like

          8. If the five major conferences and their smaller football counterparts (AAC, C-USA, MWC, Sun Belt, MAC) broke off to form their own basketball tournament, wouldn’t that eventually weaken the NCAA tourney with those conferences left behind, to the big boys’ benefit? If I’m Delany or Swofford, I want to diminish the Big East and Atlantic 10’s basketball product and recruiting prowess as best I can.

            Like

          9. Brian

            duffman,

            “If you eliminate almost every autobid then it really becomes advantageous to win and schedule well in the regular season.”

            When more than half of your schedule is in conference, that means the little guys lose almost all chance to make the elite group.

            “For some reason you seem to assume the smaller schools will get left out when the opposite may happen.”

            Right. Because so many little guys get top 8 seeds now.

            2013:
            Power leagues – 22
            Others – 10 (all from top mid-majors – A-10, MWC, MVC, WCC and CUSA)

            That leaves 20ish conferences that would get 0 bids, and none of them were close to the top 32 (#11 seed at best).

            “You are making assumptions here.”

            You led off by saying that you were guessing, and you’re criticizing me for making assumptions?

            “Times have changed and the conferences have their own networks now that need to generate interest in the non football season.”

            The tourney is still worth more than all the other hoops TV deals combined. Those networks carry multiple winter sports, too.

            “If you are forced to schedule better early people will actually want to watch the product which increases demand.”

            You think. I think most people don’t care until the tournament starts because that’s how hoops has marketed itself. They chose to make the regular season meaningless and you can’t put that genie back in the bottle. Only dedicated fans are going to watch regular season games consistently.

            “Think about it, would you rather see Duke play some #16 seed followed by a mid major 2 days later or see them play a #8 seed in the first game followed by a #5 seed in the second game?”

            I’ll take the former (with the chance for an upset), thank you very much. The latter sounds like the regular season.

            “Baseball has been using double elimination for quite some time and folks still tune in to watch.”

            Baseball fans do, not casual fans.

            “See, you freely admit Cinderella is a myth.”

            No, I don’t. I say you define it incorrectly. Everyone else means something different when talking about Cinderella in March.

            “In the real Cinderella she did not just get a date with the Prince, but wound up married to him in the end. In essence she made it to the Championship Game. This never happens in college basketball yet we keep perpetuating the myth.”

            No, we don’t. Nobody goes around thinking a #16 seed can win the title. You’re just making this stuff up.

            “If we called the first round games the Retard games instead of the Cinderella games we would be much closer to the reality.”

            There is no place in civilized society for that word. End of discussion.

            Like

          10. duffman

            @ Frank,

            Just look at the top 25, none of these teams are in the Big 5 :
            (Top 10 team in BOLD)

            AP Top 25
            8 Wichita State
            11 Villanova
            17 Connecticut
            18 Memphis
            21 San Diego State
            23 Massachusetts
            24 Gonzaga 11-2 78
            Others receiving votes: George Washington 37, Toledo 32, Harvard 10, Creighton 5

            USA Top 25
            7 Wichita State
            14 Villanova
            15 Connecticut
            18 Memphis
            19 San Diego State
            21 Gonzaga
            22 Massachusetts
            Others receiving votes: Creighton 29, George Washington 17, Toledo 8 , New Mexico 1, Saint Louis 1

            The argument is the little guys will be shut out, but it looks like they are still in?

            .
            …
            .

            Wainscott says:

            Completely agree, and part of my opposition to CFB playoffs is that expansion always begets more expansion, never contraction. Once we go to 4 teams, 8 is probably inevitable, and one day, 16 (and maybe even 32, like FCS).

            And this is my basic point. When they add teams they do not add the best teams. They add teams to add marginal revenue. Again, I am not advocating not letting the little schools in but more curbing the bottom feeders from the power conferences and getting the best of the smaller schools, not the not so good ones.

            I still feel you need no more than 4 teams for a football playoff and 16 for basketball. 8 teams in football dilutes the pool and certainly 64 – 68 basketball teams does the same. If the pro basketball does best of 3 then doing double elimination in college seems better equipped to reward the best of the best and not just some mid or low seed team that pulls a single upset.

            Like

          11. lovedtheusfl

            I have long thought the NCAA should go to a 96 team field with a 64 team play-in round. They were considering a 96 as an option when they went to 68.

            I think people have it wrong when they assume the Non-BCS conferences don’t compete well enough to get in. To me the issue is that the non-BCS conferences use their tourney bids to prop up their conference tournaments. I think that is bad logic. Far better to send your conference regular season champ to play a middle of the pack 5th seed from a BCS conference than to send a scrub school that gets hot to play #1 duke or #1 Kansas in the first round.

            They are, IMO, minimizing their automatic bid.

            That creates an impression that they do not belong, which I think is crap. I am reminded of the year Stephen Curry’s Davidson team played Patty Mills’s St. Mary’s team in the NIT. There is no way either team was less than the 30th or 40th best team in the country and either would have had good runs in the tourney, but both were on the outside looking in as they are from smalll conferences and were upset in their tournies, cheating viewers of some really good basketball.

            My thought is they should give all 32 conference champs byes and then have 64 at large teams play on the weekend where conference tourney’s normally end — highest seed is at home. winners advance, losers are eligible for the other tourneys.

            come Sunday at midnight, the games are done, the surviving 32 and the 32 champs are seeded and you have the 64 teams for the nice tidy bracket everyone loves.

            Like

          12. lovedtheusfl

            You know with 300+ teams in DI, every year you have 95-115 or so 20 win teams. I think that is an important plateau. I think they are losing money not to expand the tourney to 96 teams and increase viewership.

            Like

          13. lovedtheusfl

            117 teams finished with more than 20 wins last year.

            America East Standings
            Stony Brook 14-2 25-8
            Vermont 11-5 21-12
            Albany 9-7 24-11

            Atlantic 10 Standings
            Saint Louis 13-3 28-7
            Virginia Commonwealth 12-4 27-9
            Butler 11-5 27-9
            La Salle 11-5 24-10
            Temple 11-5 24-10
            Massachusetts 9-7 21-12
            Charlotte 8-8 21-12

            ACC Standings
            Miami (FL) 15-3 29-7
            Duke 14-4 30-6
            North Carolina 12-6 25-11
            North Carolina State 11-7 24-11
            Virginia 11-7 23-12
            Maryland 8-10 25-13

            Atlantic Sun Standings
            Mercer 14-4 24-12
            Florida Gulf Coast 13-5 26-11

            Big 12 Standings
            Kansas 14-4 31-6
            Kansas State 14-4 27-8
            Oklahoma State 13-5 24-9
            Iowa State 11-7 23-12
            Oklahoma 11-7 20-12
            Baylor 9-9 23-14

            Big East Standings
            Louisville 14-4 35-5
            Georgetown 14-4 25-7
            Marquette 14-4 26-9
            Pittsburgh 12-6 24-9
            Syracuse 11-7 30-10
            Notre Dame 11-7 25-10
            Connecticut 10-8 20-10
            Villanova 10-8 20-14
            Cincinnati 9-9 22-12

            Big Sky Standings
            Montana 19-1 25-7
            Weber State 18-2 30-7

            Big South Standings
            Gardner-Webb 11-5 21-13

            Big Ten Standings
            Indiana 14-4 29-7
            Ohio State 13-5 29-8
            Michigan State 13-5 27-9
            Michigan 12-6 31-8
            Wisconsin 12-6 23-12
            Iowa 9-9 25-13
            Illinois 8-10 23-13
            Minnesota 8-10 21-13

            Big West Standings
            Pacific 13-5 22-13
            UC Irvine 11-7 21-16

            Colonial Athletic Association Standings
            Northeastern 14-4 20-13
            James Madison 11-7 21-15
            George Mason 10-8 22-16

            Conference USA Standings
            Memphis 16-0 31-5
            Southern Miss 12-4 27-10
            East Carolina 9-7 23-12
            UCF 9-7 20-11
            Houston 7-9 20-13
            Tulane 6-10 20-15

            Horizon League Standings
            Valparaiso 13-3 26-8
            Detroit 12-4 20-13
            Wright State 10-6 23-13

            Ivy League Standings
            Harvard 11-3 20-10

            MAAC Standings
            Loyola (MD) 12-6 23-12
            Canisius 11-7 20-14
            Iona 11-7 20-14

            Mid-American Standings
            Akron 14-2 26-7
            Ohio 14-2 24-10
            Kent State 9-7 21-14
            Western Michigan 10-6 22-13

            MEAC Standings
            Norfolk State 16-0 21-12
            North Carolina Central 15-1 22-9
            North Carolina A&T 8-8 20-17

            Missouri Valley Standings
            Creighton 13-5 28-8
            Wichita State 12-6 30-9
            Northern Iowa 11-7 21-15
            Evansville 10-8 21-15

            Mountain West Standings
            New Mexico 13-3 29-6
            Colorado State 11-5 26-9
            UNLV 10-6 25-10
            San Diego State 9-7 23-11
            Boise State 9-7 21-11
            Wyoming 4-12 20-14

            Northeast Standings
            Robert Morris 14-4 24-11
            LIU Brooklyn 12-6 20-14

            Ohio Valley Standings
            Murray State 10-6 21-10
            Belmont 14-2 26-7
            Eastern Kentucky 12-4 25-10

            Pac-12 Standings
            UCLA 13-5 25-10
            Arizona 12-6 27-8
            Oregon 12-6 28-9
            California 12-6 21-12
            Colorado 10-8 21-12
            Arizona State 9-9 22-13

            Patriot League Standings
            Bucknell 12-2 28-6
            Lehigh 10-4 21-10

            SEC Standings
            Florida 14-4 29-8
            Ole Miss 12-6 27-9
            Alabama 12-6 23-13
            Kentucky 12-6 21-12
            Missouri 11-7 23-11
            Tennessee 11-7 20-13

            Southern Standings
            Elon 13-5 21-12
            Davidson 17-1 26-8
            Charleston 14-4 24-11

            Southland Standings
            Stephen F. Austin 16-2 27-5
            Northwestern State 15-3 23-9
            Oral Roberts 13-5 20-15

            SWAC Standings
            Southern University 15-3 23-10

            Summit League Standings
            South Dakota State 13-3 25-10
            Western Illinois 13-3 22-9
            North Dakota State 12-4 24-10

            Sun Belt Standings
            Middle Tennessee 19-1 28-6
            Western Kentucky 10-10 20-16

            West Coast Standings
            Gonzaga 16-0 32-3
            Saint Mary’s 14-2 28-7
            Brigham Young 10-6 24-12
            Santa Clara 9-7 26-12

            WAC Standings
            Louisiana Tech 16-2 27-7
            Denver 16-2 22-10
            New Mexico State 14-4 24-11
            Utah State 11-7 21-10

            Even if you eliminated every school that finished in conference play without a winning record, you would still have 106 20+ win teams to chose from.

            Give the 32 champs byes and then seed the next 64 in a play in round and you are still being selective, but you are dramatically improving the quality of the 64 teams in the bracket.

            There is no logical reason why the WAC shouldn’t have sent 4 teams to a larger NCAA tournament last year. Or the WCC sending 4. Or the MWC sending 5. or the A-10 sending 6….

            Such a change would dramatically increase viewership with better teams playing and more teams in a play in round.

            Like

    2. Brian

      duffman,

      “Time to have supply match demand”

      You falsely assume that official ticket sales is the appropriate way to evaluate bowls.

      “Some suggestions :

      #1 Have teams travel closer”

      So the B10 champ plays in the Pizza Bowl versus the MAC champ?

      In an era of large conferences, how do you guarantee less travel? The whole point of the new bowl deals is to use pools to make better bowl choices.

      “#2 Eliminate some bowls (8 wins for Big 5, 9 for non Big 5 to qualify)”

      ESPN makes money off of them, so they’ll keep sponsoring them. If schools really thought they were bad for them, they would say no. Nobody is required to play in a bowl.

      “#3 Quit sticking the schools with the worst seats behind NCAA sanctioned scalpers”

      Why shouldn’t the majority of tickets be sold locally and/or through the most efficient method? The schools combine for much less than half of the total ticket distribution. The bowls can get big money from local companies.

      “#4 No school allotments in upper decks of bowls or basketball arenas in school allotments”

      Why should the locals get stuck with all the bad seats?

      “#5 Schools get tickets first to reward donors (and in sufficient numbers to cover all donors)”

      Why do they deserve priority?

      “#6 Eliminate at least 4 NCAA teams and the first round sacrificial lambs”

      Lose the Cinderella effect?

      “#7 In basketball go to a round robin double elimination (so fans can see 2 games)”

      People like the tournament already.

      “#8 Price tickets closer to actual demand so venues are full, not empty”

      Very hard to do when you have to guess ahead of time what the demand will be.

      “#9 Play games friday – sunday. No thursday or monday basketball or bowl games”

      They can’t play Sunday bowls – the NFL prevents that. The whole point of playing in late December through 1/1 is that many people have time off, making the day less relevant. Evidence shows that playing the championship on Monday is a smart business decision. Friday is a terrible TV night, and TV pays for everything. Thursday games are one of the great things about the tournament.

      “Feel free to add to things to make the games / venues better for the fans.”

      You have to face facts – the TV audience is more important than the live crowd anymore. Those two groups often want very different things. The common man is irrelevant now. Only recruits, major donors and TV money really matter.

      Like

      Reply
    1. bullet

      Looks like basketball schools make the most.

      Maryland gets paid well for the embarrassment they put up with. Not surprisingly, Texas Tech is also Under Armour. They are wearing weird stuff and completely changing their look. Hawaii also fits the mold, although their stuff isn’t as ugly as Maryland and Tech.

      The other Under Armour schools are Auburn, South Carolina and Utah.

      Like

      Reply
  30. Alan from Baton Rouge

    Are any of you Sparty or Longhorn fans hearing anything about Dantonio to Texas?

    LSU’s Rivals beat writer just posted “Don’t be surprised if Michigan State’s Mark Dantonio is the new head football coach at Texas.”

    He is not one to just throw things out there.

    Like

    Reply
      1. duffman

        I would like Mark to stay at MSU but have been saying on here for the past few years that sooner or later a bigger program will come knocking. texas certainly has the resources to at least make a formidable offer.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bullet

      That’s one name I’ve never heard mentioned. Heard most of the others. ESPN ticker last night was saying the top candidates were Fisher, Franklin, Strong and Briles.

      But there are so many rumors, I don’t think anyone except a select few really know.

      Like

      Reply
        1. lovedtheusfl

          it’s interesting to follow this. Chris Spielman said on the radio this morning that Briles and Mora pulling out suggests that Texas has decided on their candidate already.

          Who is it? Only Franklin and Strong have interviewed. The fisher contact gives raises to Fisher’s assistants, so I am inclined to think he is out, but a lot of super-rich UT boosters like the idea of landing fisher (one super rich booster likes gruden) per chip brown.

          To me, it seems like Patterson is interviewing the people he wants to interview (although the briles thing looks like a screw up) and if and/or when the powers at UT fail to land their candidate(s) he would be able to step in and hire with confidence.

          But I could have it all wrong… 🙂

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            If this Franklin talk keeps up I’ll have to send a letter to Powers to step in and stop it. But I think UT is better informed than to hire such a loose cannon. But maybe not.

            Like

        4. lovedtheusfl

          brown thinks fisher signed the extension so that UT would know that any talks with him were in good faith— that fisher would not be leveraging Texas’s interest into a bigger deal at FSU. Says there is a perception that jim harbaugh did that.

          Like

          Reply
    1. duffman

      I am not linking the BR on here but they have a post up about Auburn rolling the palm trees. If that happens the Rose Bowl will become “special” indeed.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        I like the SEC just fine and obviously Mizzou is doing great.

        However… I went to grad school at Michigan and developed a respect for the B1G.

        And in my opinion, the B1G did very badly with expansion and made their conference worse overall.

        I think the absolute best case scenario, the one they should have gone for from the start and probably could have gotten, was this:

        West:

        Missouri
        Kansas
        Nebraska
        Iowa

        North

        Michigan State
        Wisconsin
        Minnesota
        Illinois

        Central

        Michigan
        Notre Dame
        Purdue
        Northwestern

        East:

        Ohio State
        Penn State
        Indiana
        Maryland

        I think pursuing Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, etc if in fact they did pursue those schools was foolish. They are not good fits geographically or culturally. It wasn’t going to work. Could they have gotten Notre Dame? Maybe, maybe not.

        Missouri and Kansas they could have had on day one, and they would have added a lot athletically.

        The B1G could have been a tremendous league in football and especially basketball.

        Now they’re being watered down by Rutgers, and, to a lesser extent, Maryland. I at least respect Maryland because they’ve been decent at basketball and they’re great academically, and they’ve at least had some success in football. Rutgers actually makes the B1G worse.

        Missouri is just fine in the SEC. It’s a good conference and Missouri is doing well there. Nobody’s crying for Missouri right now.

        But for the sake of the B1G I wish they had done better.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Wainscott

          Wait, what school is listed in your hypothetical B1G West under Missouri and above Nebraska.

          Is that…can it be…KANSAS?!?!?

          Just joking. Happy New Year to all!

          Like

          Reply
        2. Marc Shepherd

          I’m on the fence about the Rutgers/Maryland move, but I don’t see how Andy’s 16 could ever have come about.

          At the time the B1G added Nebraska, they were looking for one team. No neutral party has ever suggested that Missouri should have been that one team.

          They could have gotten a “three-fer” at the time, with Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. No neutral party has ever suggested that they should have grown by three schools all at once, much less those three.

          Shortly after Nebraska was selected for #12, Missouri joined the SEC, and was no longer available. Kansas signed a Big XII GOR, and was no longer available. Notre Dame has never been available.

          So I don’t see what conceivable set of moves the Big Ten could have made, that would lead to the 16-team league Andy is suggesting. Of course, it’s fun as a pure fantasy, but to suggest the Big Ten missed out is not supported by any facts.

          Really, the only question is whether they should have expanded to 14 at all, or just stayed at 12 for the indefinite future.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Andy

            Oh Marc. You’re so sure you know how it all went down even though you have basically nothing to go on.

            Here’s what I’ve heard, and no I can’t confirm it, but I think the sources are solid:

            The B1G was definitely thinking in terms of 14 and the Pac 12 was definitely thinking in terms fo 16. But then because of what went on with Texas, Baylor and Texas A&M, the Pac 12 stopped at 12, so the B1G nixed their plans at larger expansion. Missouri was very high on the B1G’s list for school #13, but then they decided against expanding that far, and then Mizzou started working with A&M to join the SEC. Yes, after that it was too late.

            What I think the B1G should have done: ignored what was going on with the Pac 12 and just do their own thing. Grab up Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas and go to 14. It would have been a huge athletic boost and all were AAU at the time. Basketball and football both get a big bump.

            Go to an East/West setup of

            West:

            Missouri
            Nebraska
            Kansas
            Iowa
            Wisconsin
            Minnesota
            Illinois

            East:

            Michigan
            Michigan State
            Ohio State
            Penn State
            Northwestern
            Indiana
            Purdue

            Then start fishing around the East and see who you can get for those last two spots: Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia, whichever are the two best you can get.

            Instead the B1G apparently chased white whales like Texas, North Carolina, and Duke and ended up with Rutgers.

            I think this was a fail and I think it was preventable.

            Like

          2. Richard

            Andy:

            This idea that the B10 based whether to expand to 14 or not on what the Pac did is implausible.

            BTW, if you noticed, later on, the B10 expanded to 14 even though the Pac did nothing, so your theory that the B10 cared about whether the Pac expanded or not makes no sense.

            What did change later on is that ND came off the table & they and ‘Cuse & Pitt joined the ACC, threatening the B10’s eastern flank. _That_ (and the Pac deal falling apart) was what triggered the B10’s desire to move from 12 to 14. Now, you could argue that if ND had came off the table before UNL joined, the B10 would have added Mizzou and KU as well (though adding some Plains schools still doesn’t address the B10’s eastern flank issues, and frankly, the east is more populated, so the the B10 cares more about there), but since ND didn’t make a move until they decided to, your scenario in which the B10 also took Mizzou and KU when they took UNL simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

            Like

          3. Andy

            Richard, listen to what you are saying: you’re saying the B1G expanded in reaction to the ACC expanding and threatening their eastern flank. So why then is it implausible that the B1G might also expand in reaction to the Pac 12 expanding on their western flank?

            Like

          4. Richard

            Because
            1. TX, OK, and CO are nowhere near the B10’s original western flank. On the other hand, by taking Pitt and ‘Cuse, the ACC had PSU surrounded by ACC schools to the north, west, and south. By semi-adding ND (along with the other new additions and original ACC schools, they threatened PSU & B10 to the east (in NYC) as well.
            2. The East is more populous and more important. NYC and DC are far more worth fighting for than StL and KC.
            3. By taking UNL, the West was already secured enough.

            Like

          5. Marc Shepherd

            You’re so sure you know how it all went down even though you have basically nothing to go on.

            Andy, you and I are not disagreeing about “what went down”. I haven’t disputed that they could have gone to 14 immediately, with Kansas and Missouri.

            What I’m saying, is that no neutral party has ever suggested that they should have. When the only person suggesting it is a Missouri homer, you can color me skeptical.

            Like

          6. Andy

            Marc, I’m far from the only one suggesting that the B1G could have initially started with 14. Delaney himself suggested it at the time, for instance. But whatever. Your mind is made up regardless of the evidence.

            Richard, a Pac 16 would not have been a direct geographic threat, but it very well could have triggered other conferences to expand to keep up, competitiveness-wise. Especially if the Pac 16 had just added power schools like Texas and Oklahoma. The B1G very well may have felt the need to respond at that point. And from what I’ve heard, part of the plan was to add Missouri in that scenario. And that scenario came very, very close to happening. But politics between Texas, Texas A&M, and Baylor nixed the moves.

            Like

          7. Marc Shepherd

            Andy, “could” and “should” are different words. I know that Delany considered going to 14 immediately, and could have done it. People consider lots of things that they eventually decide against.

            Who are the non-Missouri homers who think they should immediately have taken all three of Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas? You haven’t mentioned any.

            Like

          8. Andy

            Oh, that part about adding Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas is my opinion. Although the Ohio State AD said that’s what he favored in one of his interviews a while back.

            But the part about the B1G expanding to 14 if the Pac 12 added Texas, OU, etc, that was talked about pretty widely back in 2010.

            Like

          9. mushroomgod

            I don’t know where this will end up, but it’s in response to Andy’s BS…….

            Had the Big 10 added Nebraska, MO, and Kansas at the same time, those three would have been the three WORST schools academically in the Big 10, by a significant margin. And that’s not only at the undergraduate level, but (perhaps more importantly) also at the graduate level. Of the 3 MO is probably the best at the uindergrad level, KU the best at the graduate level, but all 3 significantly trail the Big 10 schools.
            .
            Nebraska was a huge reach in academic terms for the Big 10….schools like Ill, UM, and NW were against adding NEB, although they were talked into making the vote look unanimous .

            I for one wouild have added MO instead of NEB for the reasons you constantly spout…..but I was very much in the minority with that view amoung Big 10 fans.I think most everyone else thinks NEB and MD were better additions to the BIG 10 than MO. As far as MO v. Rutgers, there are/were solid reasons for adding Rutgers. It’s at least a close call, imno, and I’ve studied it pretty carefully..

            Like

          10. Richard

            Mushroom, where did you get that info?

            I’m quite certain that Northwestern did not oppose adding UNL.

            What I heard is that Michigan and Wisconsin were against.

            Northwestern probably would not have supported adding Mizzou, however. Unlike UNL, they do not bring as much buzz or traveling fans.

            Like

          11. Andy

            Kansas has better grad schools than Mizzou? Really? Really? Ok mushroom. Make up your own facts why don’t you? Zero justification for what you just said.

            USNews: Business Grad School rankings: Mizzou #52. Kansas not in top 100.
            Education Grad School: Mizzou #51. Kansas #22
            Engineering: Missouri #87. Kansas #97
            Law: Missouri #76. Kansas #86
            Medical Research: Missouri #76. Kansas #75.
            Medicine Primary Care: Missouri #31. Kansas #37.

            Now neither school is setting the world on fire in grad school rankings, but it would be a huge stretch to say that Kansas is better than Missouri considering they rank behind Missouri in most areas.

            As for the rest of what you said, people think Nebraska is better because of their football past (10+ years ago) and only for that. Mizzou has been better at football over the last 10 years. Better basketball. Better academics. Bigger state. Bigger market. More students. More alums.

            As for Rutgers…. we’ve beaten this to death but at some point for membership in an athletics conference athletics have to mean something. Rutgers has maybe the worst athletic tradition of any “major” athletic department in the entire country. If not the worst then definitely bottom 5. That matters.

            Maryland is fine. Athletics are worse than Missouri’s but not by that much. Market is the same size. Fanbase is smaller. Academics are better. So I have no problem putting Missouri behind Maryland. But that’s not really relevant to anything I said.

            Like

          12. Andy

            and before vp comes in and takes issue with my statement that Missouri has better athletics than Maryland, I’ll remind him that I don’t care about non-revenue sports like lacross and men’s soccer and stuff like that. I know he does and that’s fine. But those sports don’t make any money and aren’t really relevant realignment.

            Like

          13. Marc Shepherd

            Rutgers has maybe the worst athletic tradition of any “major” athletic department in the entire country. . . . Maryland is fine.

            You can’t view the Rutgers add in isolation. If “Maryland was fine,” they needed to come with a 14th school, and I haven’t heard of a better available option than Rutgers.

            Like

          14. Marc Shepherd

            Oh, that part about adding Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas is my opinion.

            OK, so we are in agreement: the only person known to have favored that option is a Missouri fan.

            Although the Ohio State AD said that’s what he favored in one of his interviews a while back.

            I don’t recall the OSU AD saying that he ever favored going straight from 11 to 14 with those three schools. I recall a vaguer statement that OSU favored adding more schools in the midwest, but not specific as to which schools, or in what time frame.

            But the part about the B1G expanding to 14 if the Pac 12 added Texas, OU, etc, that was talked about pretty widely back in 2010.

            Yes, I agree, if the Pac-12 had been able to implement that plan, many other dominoes would have fallen.

            Like

          15. Wainscott

            “As for the rest of what you said, people think Nebraska is better because of their football past (10+ years ago) and only for that. Mizzou has been better at football over the last 10 years. Better basketball. Better academics. Bigger state. Bigger market. More students. More alums.”

            Yes Mizzou has those advantages over UNL, but Nebraska’s football history was by far the most important element of the equation. If the stated goal was to expand to 12 to create a conference title game, a massive, uber-passionate fanbase of a historic national power with top-shelf name recognition is a no-brainer target.

            Nebraska was not added for the same reasons as UMd and Rutgers; the latter schools were targeted primarily (or in Rutgers case, purely) as a market/TV/BTN/academics play. UMd is mediocre as a football program, and Rutgers is historically terrible/irrelevant (absent 1869).

            Like

          16. Andy

            Yeah I know Nebraska’s football tradition is a big deal and that’s why they got the spot. I’m just saying Missouri leads on all those other things.

            I’m not the only “known” person to favor that. Lots of people favored that.

            Gordon Gee specifically said Missouri and Kansas. Look here:

            http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/31/ohio-state-gordon-gee-controversial-comments/

            As for Rutgers, yeah, they were the best available, but only because Missouri had already joined the SEC by then.

            But we’ve been over all of this a hundred times.

            Like

          17. Marc Shepherd

            I hadn’t realized Gee was quite that specific, so I have to tip my cap to you to that limited extent. At least one person outside the state of Missouri apparently did favor that idea.

            But I’m not sure where you’re getting “Lots of people favored that.”

            In fact, Gee directly contradicts you: “There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that.”

            Like

          19. Marc Shepherd

            As for Rutgers, yeah, they were the best available, but only because Missouri had already joined the SEC by then.

            But elsewhere you said, “What an awful pick. The B1G got tremendously weaker because of that stinker of a pick.”

            Make up your mind. Either the Big Ten had to take a pass on Maryland, or they had to take Maryland and Rutgers together. No other plausible options existed. So, which is it?

            Like

          20. Andy

            Like I said, they should have taken Missouri and Kansas when they had the chance. Everything after that was a failure because of their decision not to do that at that time.

            Like

    3. Nebraska fans don’t realize they would have the same football problems in the Big 12 as it has in the Big Ten — and in sports other than football, the B1G is head and shoulders above the XII. And I haven’t even brought the BTN or TV revenues into the discussion. Husker fans are as football-obsessed as their soon-to-be Terrapin brethren are basketball-obsessed — but if they both examined the big picture, they’d realize that the Big Ten has it all over their old conferences.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        What sports are those that they are head and shoulders above? Hockey and lacrosse definitely.

        Baseball, softball, tennis, track, golf, women’s basketball, don’t think so. Basketball the B1G isn’t much above.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Perhaps the context I should have used was stability. The Big Ten is in absolutely no danger of collapse, whereas once their GORs expire, all bets are off for the Big 12 and ACC.

          Like

          Reply

          2. Andy, get back to me a dozen years from now, especially if the revenue gap between the ACC and other conferences keeps growing and its mediocre football culture continues to be a hindrance more than a help to Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and others in that league that don’t view it as a mere prelim to its precious basketball. If ESPN isn’t truly serious about beginning an ACC network, the cracks will begin to show.

            Like

          3. Andy

            I think it will depend on on-the-field results to a large extent.

            If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.

            If the ACC doesn’t do well on the field and the B1G does then maybe there will be an opening. Maybe.

            Like

          4. Unless multiple ACC teams win national championships over the next decade (Florida State winning two by itself won’t be enough), the ACC will continue to be perceived poorly in football compared to the Big Ten (tradition, small institutions and travel bases, etc.). The ACC has to go twice as fast to get half as far.

            Like

          5. Wainscott

            “If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.”

            I agree with vp19 on this. The ACC is not a revenue threat to the B1G in the near or medium term. It would take decades of top to bottom success for the ACC, combined with massive demographic losses in the B1G footprint combined with sustained ineptitude by B1G teams for it to forfeit its advantages over the ACC. Certainly, anything is possible. But a dozen years is too short of a time frame for this.

            Like

          6. Marc Shepherd

            If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.

            It would probably take more than a dozen years for that to happen. Michigan continues to be one of the top handful of TV ratings draws, despite not having won a Big Ten championship in almost 10 years. In most of those 10 years, they didn’t even come close.

            The traditional powers can easily endure very long periods of irrelevance without losing much of their TV drawing power. It may make no sense, but that is how it works. And unfortunately, it works the opposite way too. Rutgers could win the next 5 Big Ten titles, and they still wouldn’t be as good a TV draw as Ohio State.

            Like

          7. Richard

            5 straight B10 titles would definitely catapult RU in to the middle or upper-middle class, however, given their massive potential. Just look at Wisconsin before Alvarez and now. Before, fan interest was anemic in WI. Now, they are firmly a prince and sometimes top 10 in revenue.

            RU is in an even more populous state with better recruiting grounds and next to the media capital of the world. It’s why the B10 added RU and UMD. There’s a lot of latent potential; a lot of casual fans who could be turned in to die-hard fans in their big alumni bases and a lot of neutrals that could be captured in the markets that they’re in.

            Like

          8. Marc Shepherd

            5 straight B10 titles would definitely catapult RU in to the middle or upper-middle class, however, given their massive potential.

            Oh, without a doubt. But they still wouldn’t be a draw the way Ohio State or Alabama is a draw, which goes to show how difficult it is to become a king, even with great success on the field.

            (I chose the most deliberately absurd example I could, Rutgers winning the next 5 Big Ten titles.)

            Like

        2. mushroomgod

          Volleyball, wrestling, men’s basketball, M and W soccer, swimming, M and wWHockey, M and W Lax………in what sports is the Big 12 significantly better? And before you say football, take a good look at the Big 10 and Big 12 head to head over the years.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Volleyball is very recent-last couple of years. Big 10 has more depth in wrestling, but Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. and OU aren’t slackers (OSU #1 with 34 titles, Iowa #2 with 23, ISU #3 with 8, OU #4 with 7). Swimming again more depth, but Texas has 10 men’s and 9 women’s national championships, all since 1981.

            Big 12 is significantly better in most of the spring sports. Baseball, the Big 10 might as well be division II.

            Like

          2. Richard

            Very recent?

            Let’s look at how many made the Sweet 16 in 2008, 2003, and 1998 volleyball tourneys (5, 10, & 15 years back), not counting UNL (BTW, I didn’t know these results before researching them):

            2008: 4 B10 and 2 B12 teams.
            2003: 3 B10 and 2 B12 teams.
            1998: 3 B10 and 1 B12 teams.

            The B10 had more volleyball teams make it to the Sweet 16 in all 3 years that I looked at.

            Like

          3. ccrider55

            Bullet:

            Agree that B12 isn’t wrestling slackers but they don’t compare. They have no supporting cast. All fourteen in the B1G wrestle providing support for third three kings. Recently only OkSU has consistently acted like the king that OU and ISU have been in the past (although OU may be re emerging)…plus WVU…

            Like

    4. Wainscott

      Btw, what’s awesome in that Nebraska Rivals thread is the hatred of Iowa. As one poster wrote:

      “And now, we’re teetering on the same level as that black and gold puke team to our East, or whatever ungodly colors they wear. Regardless, it’s ugly.”

      Seems like that quasi-manufactured Black Friday rivalry game might actually have potential to become a decent rivalry game in time.

      Like

      Reply
      1. BuckeyeBeu

        @Andy:

        Um. These types of Nebraska message board threads will happen for another 10-20 years. Penn State boards STILL occasionally devolve into debates about whether joining the B1G was a good idea. Occasionally, a PSU fan will boldly pronounce that PSU should “join the ACC” or some such.

        In short, there is nothing particularly noteworthy here about a bunch of Nebraska fans ranting about whether joining/staying in the B1G is good or bad.

        What would be noteworthy is if the PTB @ Nebraska make noises like this.

        For all the angst on the PSU boards, I never saw a news/media story reporting that the PTB @ PSU are unhappy with their conference affiliation.

        My guess is that the PTB @ Nebraska are NOT unhappy with the move.

        Like

        Reply
          1. Richard

            Considering that Nebraska has been trying to get in to the B10 since the ’90s (true story; you can find newspaper articles on this after PSU joined when Devaney was AD there), they’re almost certainly closer to ecstatic than unhappy.

            Like

          3. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            Actually, Nebraska has been trying to get into the Big Ten for more than 100 years. I recall reading they tried around 1910 (after Michigan left for a few years) and I think they even tried around 1900 or so. This is all google-able, either regular google or Google News Archives.

            There is no doubt the folks who matter at UNL (chancellor, AD’s, coaches, state politicians, major donors) are by and large thrilled to be in the Big Ten for many, many reasons. Message board rants have little value by way of insight into a fan base as a whole.

            Like

    5. Marc Shepherd

      I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the Nebraska fans have a very different opinion of the B1G than the Nebraska administration.

      But it’s worth noting that the cited evidence is a Rivals message board. In my experience, Rivals attracts the most delusional subset of a school’s fan base. I follow a number of Michigan sites, and by far the highest proportion of nonsense posts is found on Rivals. The occasional spot-check of other schools’ Rivals sites suggests that this is not unique to Michigan.

      Like

      Reply
      1. lovedtheusfl

        In some ways, it might make sense for Nebraska and the Big 10 for Nebraska to move to the PAC. Especially as UNL is no longer in the AAU and probably will never get back in. They are the ONLY non-AAU school in the Big 10 and that may be how things remain. One wonders if the administration at Lincoln is OK with a permanent reputation as the worst academic school in their conference.

        In the PAC, UNL would have the same benefits and be viewed much more fairly academically.

        I am not saying such a move is likely soon as the Big 10 makes more money, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens 4-8 years from now…Especially if Nebraska continues to have 4 loss seasons and complaints about recruiting.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          In some ways, it might make sense for Nebraska and the Big 10 for Nebraska to move to the PAC.

          I cannot think of any way it makes sense.

          One wonders if the administration at Lincoln is OK with a permanent reputation as the worst academic school in their conference.

          Are you kidding? Nebraska is delighted to be in their company. Why wouldn’t they be? Anyhow, your premise is somewhat flawed. Most of Nebraska’s academic programs are close to Big Ten norms. They’re not a Michigan or a Wisconsin, but they’re not grossly out of place. What killed their AAU membership, was that they don’t have a medical school in Lincoln.

          In the PAC, UNL would have the same benefits and be viewed much more fairly academically.

          What benefits do they now lack? In what way are they being treated unfairly?

          I am not saying such a move is likely soon as the Big 10 makes more money, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens 4-8 years from now…Especially if Nebraska continues to have 4 loss seasons and complaints about recruiting.

          No school has ever voluntarily switched leagues to lose money. The Pac would pay less, and they’d have to play most of their league games two time zones away. Recruiting certainly would not be any better in the Pac; it would probably be worse.

          Like

          Reply
          1. ccrider55

            I’m sure the PAC would have welcomed UNL. Why weren’t they included in leu of TT, or originally subing for aTm? They would have eventually landed on their feet, but the potential demise of the B12, or having to commit long term to it to save it had them concerned enough to tell the B10 basically “now, or not for a long time.” Never heard any westward leaning rumors at all.

            Like

          2. lovedtheusfl

            Certainly I mean no knock against Nebraska as an academic institution. I agree that they are peer to a number of Big Ten schools, but I am talking about perception.

            When Nebraska was AAU I am sure that your statement of delight would be the case, but even if Nebraska added a medical school, the way things appear to be trending in the AAU, the odds are firmly against them even being readmitted. It doesn’t seem likely that non-AAU schools will be added to the Big 10. That means that they will likely always be the only non-AAU school in the Big 10.

            Fairly or unfairly, they will be considered the academic dog of the Big Ten, admitted only due to their football reputation. This is what I am getting at with the “fairly” statement. Nebraska would be considered at least middle of the pack academically in most other contract conferences. Do they want to deal with that?

            The Pac is about half and half AAU and has Colorado, a long time rival, and California recruiting.

            As I said in my initial statement, I do not see them leaving the Big Ten any time in the immediate future as the Big Ten is a cash cow conference today, but we don’t know how the breakdown of the cable model will affect the Big Ten. What happens as more people who aren’t sports fans (like my sister) opt for a roku and netflicks instead of cable (and carriage fees for conferences). The money conferences get are largely fueled by non-sports fans. What happens if they shift away from cable? It seems to be happening fairly quickly.

            The Big Ten is in a great position today and is rightly using their leverage today, but that could turn fairly quickly to favor conferences that are getting guaranteed payouts.

            But I did and do concede the point that it is very unlikely that Nebraska would take noticeably less money to join the Pac-12 today.

            Like

          3. Marc Shepherd

            Fairly or unfairly, they will be considered the academic dog of the Big Ten, admitted only due to their football reputation.

            But it’s mostly fans who are saying that. In the corridors of academia, where academics do business with each other, is the rest of the Big Ten treating Nebraska like trailer trash from the other side of the tracks? I doubt it.

            Fan message boards aren’t going to prompt Nebraska to move to a lower-paying conference that’s two time zones away. You suggested a time frame of 4-8 years from now. Well, the Big Ten is now renegotiating its TV deal, and if they do as the other leagues have done, they’ll be locked in until the middle or late 2020s.

            Of course, the pay model for college sports could change eventually to the schools’ detriment, but probably not to the point where the Pac-12 actually pays more. The geography is what it is. In at least the last 50 years, the pay model for sports has moved in only one direction: up.

            Like

      1. Brian

        Not only did they get that wrong (it’s 6 in the top 13) or 7 in the top 20), the B10 has 8 in the top 20 to the SEC’s 7. The B10 also has 2 of the top 3 before the SEC’s first 2 appear at #4t. I think you could call it a draw.

        B10 – 2, 3, 7, 14, 14, 16, 16, 20
        SEC – 4, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 18

        Like

        Reply
    2. Richard

      Full list:

      1. Oklahoma
      2. Nebraska
      3. Ohio State University
      4. Texas, Florida, Auburn (tie)
      7. Georgia, Wisconsin (tie)
      9. Florida State
      10. Tennessee
      11. Notre Dame
      12. Alabama
      13. LSU
      14. Iowa, Michigan (tie)
      16. Penn State, Michigan State (tie)
      18. Missouri
      19. Oregon
      20. Minnesota

      Like

      Reply
        1. Alan from Baton Rouge

          Andy – I do a lot of work with pollsters and Rasmussen is not very well respected. Almost all of his polling is automated with calls made only to landlines.

          Also, Florida has the most fair-weather fans of any competitive team in the SEC. No way the Gators are number one in the SEC.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Maybe they are “loyal” because they are interested and ready to fire their coach! But I’d agree they are the most fairweather (except for Vandy) of the SEC-10 teams.

            Like

      2. Wainscott

        Minnesota definitely comes out of nowhere, but the lack of Pac12 teams on here (save Oregon) seems about accurate. Though, I would think Notre Dame would be higher, definitely in the top 5.

        Clemson seems like a notable absence. And if this were expanded to 25, I’d think UVW would be on there, along with Texas A&M and BYU.

        UF seems high.

        Like

        Reply
    1. Chet

      @vp19

      Thanks for sharing.

      “Johnny was a tremendous person and basketball coach,” said Michigan coach John Beilein in a statement released by the school. “We will always value the many positives he brought to both the University of Michigan and college basketball in general.”

      Like

      Reply
  35. Anthony London

    I’m watching the Nebraska – Iowa game….
    The Huskers have acquired some hoopers… This Pettway kid can flat out ball!!!
    Nebraska will compete this year in the BIG… You heard it here first.

    Happy New Year Everyone!!! If plans take you on the road tonight, be careful (especially within the Chicago area).

    See you in ’14.

    AL

    Like

    Reply
    1. Mike

      Nebraska will compete this year in the BIG… You heard it here first

      Nebraska will give some teams trouble this year, but there isn’t enough size on the roster. Probably will be an NIT team.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Anthony London

        Mike,

        Maybe, but their guard play is excellent. That matters in college hoops a great deal. I really like this Petteway kid. Do you know if he is a transfer or is he breaking out this year?
        Nebraska has a nice squad…

        Like

        Reply
        1. greg

          Petteway played a season as a true frosh at Texas Tech before transferring to Nebraska. He’ll have three years at Neb. I agree he looks like a player, and Nebraska will be a solid team, which is a step up for the program. Miles has it going in the right direction.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Anthony London

            Greg,
            Thanks for answering my question. Nebraska looks like a different hoops team this year. This is a good thing, because the conference needs more depth.

            Like

        2. Mike

          @Anthony – This is the best Nebraska team I’ve seen in a while. Petteway looks like the player that Nebraska has been missing, the guy who keeps the Huskers from having the five to seven minute scoring droughts. I expect this team to better in the Big Ten than last year than last, but I think they’re still think they are a year away from being an NCAA team.

          A player to keep an eye on is PG Tai Webster. He’s a true freshman that is a veteran of International play. He has shown some flashes of being a very good player.

          Like

          Reply
  36. Transic

    Well, BO’B has decided he is returning to the pros, after all. So now the Penn State and Texas jobs are open. I wouldn’t be surprised if another spot at another major program opens up.

    Interesting days ahead.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Richard

    Here’s a thought:

    We know that UM would never do it, but Dantonio has proven that he can win in the B10 with a program in the state of MI. Hoke has done a great job recruiting, but on the field, his team has struggles. What could Dantonio do with the much greater brand and resources at UM?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Marc Shepherd

      Dantonio was often mentioned as a potential Michigan head coach in the late Carr years, when it was clear Carr was going to retire soon, but no one was sure when. By the time Carr stepped down, Dantonio was already at MSU.

      I think Hoke is destined to be fired, but the A.D. has given him a very strong vote of confidence, so he’s going to be there at least one more year. Who should be on the list to replace him is one of the most debated questions among the Michigan faithful.

      It is pretty clear that when Rodriguez was fired, finding a “Michigan Man” was at the top of the A.D.’s criteria. No one with Hoke’s mediocre resume would have gotten a sniff for the Michigan job, if he hadn’t been a former Lloyd Carr assistant. Half the faithful continue to throw out names with a Michigan connection, while the others argue that the school should cast a wider net. I’m in the latter camp.

      I agree that UM would never look at Dantonio, but I don’t think Dantonio would be open to it either. He’s sitting pretty in East Lansing, and if he leaves it’s going to have to be a bigger step up than just an intra-state transfer.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Depends on the intra-state transfer.

        GTech->UGa is an intrastate transfer.
        TTech->Texas is an intrastate transfer.
        Cal->USC is an intrastate transfer.

        I don’t see any coach turning down any of those moves.

        Like

        Reply
    1. bullet

      Duke couldn’t catch a break. Aggies got the calls that could have gone either way and then the refs swallowed their whistles the 4th quarter. Flagrant holding on the last (or next to last) A&M TD as the receiver had a hand full of jersey, three PI penalties in a row not called-two flagrant-on the last drive before the interception. And then their freshman QB made freshman mistakes. Manziel should have gotten a couple of unsportsmanlike penalties. Would have liked to have seen Rice and Duke win today, but Rice couldn’t match up and Duke didn’t make the plays they needed. Cutliffe didn’t do a good job with his play calling in the 2nd half after moving the ball at will in the first half.

      Like

      Reply
    2. bullet

      Still think Herbstreit has GOT to be reading from a prepared script. He just said the SEC defenses have proven in bowls how good they are. Sorry, 48 points, scores the first 6 times the opponent touches the ball (with only mediocre time management keeping it from being 6 TDs), next two stops around your own 30, does not demonstrate all the SEC has superior defenses. MSU holding Rice to 7 doesn’t demonstrate a whole lot. Ole Miss holding GT in a bowl to 17 doesn’t demonstrate a lot. Everyone shuts down GTs option when they have a month to prepare.

      Alabama and Florida have really good defenses. Not all the SEC does.

      Like

      Reply
  40. bullet

    Bowl games have really been duds this year. Very few interested me. But very few have been interesting games to anyone. A&M/Duke was entertaining. SU/MN was at least close, even if what little I watched was pretty ugly. Very few close games.

    Like

    Reply
    1. largeR

      Thanks! A great read for Nitts.

      Three CFB related items that I am grateful for this coming year; mine are all positives by subtraction, and anyone wishing to add their own for discussion would be great! Otherwise we’ll all just be sitting around watching the Bee One Gee lose bowl games. (Thankyou Cornhuskers!)

      1. The BO’B to the pros act is over.
      2. ESPINS Clowney-Michigan play is hopefully fully covered and finished.
      3. Everyones Manziel-mania coverage is over! (Go pro, Johnny football, just go pro!)

      Like

      Reply
    2. David Brown

      I appreciate the job BOB did at Happy Valley, and I also understand taking a job in the NFL, but it was classless the way he trashed people and lied to recruits on his way out. In addition, the School did not have to give him a bigger contract nor lower the buyout. As for the “Paterno Supporters” (I referred to them as “Stepford Wives” here so I am no fan either). But, you are going to have a vocal minority who support him no matter what (Sandusky Incident included). However, as time passes, his presence will play an ever decreasing role on Campus and on the Football Field. One more message for BOB, if you hated the declining presence of Paterno overshadowing you, get used to the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns in Texas popularity, they will always be ahead of the Texans. Not quite as rough as being a Pitt Panther Coach in Steeler and Nitt Country, but pretty close,

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        …and lied to recruits on his way out.

        I don’t know of any coach who has ever told a recruit that he was willing to leave for the right offer. Coaches always say they’re staying, until the day they’re not. Whether that’s honorable behavior, it’s standard in the profession. I can’t put that one on BOB.

        In addition, the School did not have to give him a bigger contract nor lower the buyout.

        I am still struggling to understand why they lowered the buyout.

        As for the “Paterno Supporters” (I referred to them as “Stepford Wives” here so I am no fan either). But, you are going to have a vocal minority who support him no matter what (Sandusky Incident included). However, as time passes, his presence will play an ever decreasing role on Campus and on the Football Field.

        I am not sure about that. Michigan fans still bring up the glory days of Bo all the time, and Bo has been out of coaching for decades. They also over-romanticize Bo, choosing to ignore his horrendous bowl record. Now, covering up child rapes is obviously in a different category than losing football games. Nevertheless, I suspect that Paterno’s shadow will linger over that program for many years to come.

        One more message for BOB, if you hated the declining presence of Paterno overshadowing you, get used to the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns in Texas popularity…

        I agree: that one’s a head-scratcher. How anyone could take the PSU job and not expect that is really mind-boggling.

        Like

        Reply
        1. David Brown

          Marc, great retired Coaches and Players are a presence at Facilities (Bear Bryant at Alabama or Dean Smith at North Carolina come to mind, so does “Monument Park” at Yankee Stadium). But popularity does diminish over time (Derek Jeter getting booed at Yankee Stadium is an example of this). What happened with Sandusky will essentially put Paterno in the same company as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and other tainted athletes. They will always have their defenders but as far as being like Babe Ruth or Bear Bryant, popular for decades after their death? That is not happening.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            We shall see. I am certainly not disagreeing that popularity diminishes over time; the only question is how long it will be.

            There isn’t any precedent quite like Paterno, and I certainly think the “tained players” aren’t comparable. Without steroids, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens probably wouldn’t have set all the records that made them so popular in the first place. Once you know what they did, in a sense it invalidates all of their statistics.

            But Joe Paterno was already a legend before the events that eventually cost him his job. Although the NCAA chose to express its disapproval by erasing all the games that he won after a certain somewhat arbitrary date, there isn’t a very good argument (as there is with steroids) that Paterno’s admittedly deplorable behavior helped his team on the field.

            Over time, I see more and more people saying publicly that Penn State and Paterno were jobbed by the NCAA. Obviously, that’s a very prevalent view among PSU fans. While Paterno will never be forgiven for his failure to act, I think that over time, it will probably be recognized that with one very serious exception, he was the great coach that everyone always thought he was before the Sandusky scandal broke.

            That is certainly my view, and I’m saying that as someone who always hated Penn State on the football field.

            Like

      2. largeR

        As a fellow Nitt, I pretty much echo what you wrote. I was stunned when BO’B received so much NFL attention last year after one season at PSU. How can the NFL not have wanted him one year prior while being an assistant for Belichek and Brady? We’re we, PSU, so short of options that we were willing to take a one and done coach? Was our administration so intent on going outside of PSU that a one and done was OK, or did they not know this was possible? I give him a ‘ton of credit’ for coming into the PSU situation and stabilizing it. I also give a ‘ton of credit’ to the Mauti/McGloin senior leadership and class for holding it all together. PSU is obviously way better off than we were two years ago but I believe any number of coaches could have gotten us to this point. I personally would have loved for Tom Bradley to have gotten the chance to take us through this. Probably not with a 15-9 record, but certainly with more cohesion. And I, too, am not a JoePa guy.

        Like

        Reply
        1. David Brown

          Large R, I am certainly no fan of Paterno (including being a figurehead Coach the last five years of his career), or what BOB did. However we did not become SMU and he kept Hackenberg here instead of going to Alabama, so that counts for something. My biggest problem is the way BOB bashed others on the way out. As for the next Coach, we needed and to be honest, still need someone not tainted by the Sandusky Incident. There are a lot of Penn State haters out there, and it affects Recruiting and Perception (and they are not all found in Oakland, Pa. ( Pitt Campus)). I hope James Franklin gets the job because he is from Pa, without the Sandusky/Paterno taint, and he has the stomach to recruit and win at a tough place (Vanderbilt)

          Like

          Reply
  43. Richard

    The amazing Pelini manages 4 losses (and only 4 losses) for the 6th straight season in a row, which must be some sort of record.

    At most B10 schools, that kind of consistent annual finishes in the top half of the B10 would be enough even if there are no conference titles.

    Not sure about UNL, though they really have no reason to expect to be better than Wisconsin these days, and are only a bit above Iowa.

    Like

    Reply
    2. Mike

      I’ve mentioned on here a couple of times that the ghosts of Frank Solich’s firing still loom large in Lincoln. In 2001, Urban Meyer said something to the effect of ‘who wants to coach at a school where nine wins isn’t enough.’ There just isn’t a Nebraska guy ready or home run hire waiting the in wings where they could get away with firing an eight or nine win coach. Nebraska knows that if they’re going to fire Pelini, they’re going to roll they dice with a journeyman and as bad as the Bill Callahan experiment was there isn’t a lot of stomach for that.

      As awful as the Huskers looked at times this year, there is a lot of talent coming back on both sides of the ball and a manageable schedule (Miami, @Mich St., @Wisc) should allow the Huskers to break the 9 win regular season schedule.

      Like

      Reply
      1. lovedtheusfl

        I kinda wonder why you guys don’t bring back Solich. It seems like you haven’t come close to that level since and there are no coaches with Nebraska ties to hire in large part due to this.

        Like

        Reply
        2. Mike

          He is probably too old to take the job for the long term commitment that Nebraska is going to desire. In addition, Solich hasn’t shown anything in the MAC to show he should be leading a program like Nebraska.

          Like

          Reply
  45. Alan from Baton Rouge

    With only the BCS games, as well as the Cotton, GoDaddy, and BBVA Compass Bowls remaining, here’s the Conference Bowl Standings.

    Sunbelt 1-0 with one game remaining.
    SEC 5-1 with four games remaining.
    Pac-12 6-2 with one game remaining.
    Big XII 2-1 with three games remaining.
    Ind 2-1.
    CUSA 3-3.
    MWC 3-3.
    ACC 3-6 with two games remaining.
    AAC 1-2 with two games remaining.
    B1G 1-4 with two games remaining.
    MAC 0-4 with one game remaining.

    Like

    Reply
    1. largeR

      Thanks for that update. I was just pouring a single, but decided to triple it. 🙂

      Happy New Year and thankyou to all veterans, past and present, who have given, and are giving, to us daily.

      Like

      Reply
    2. bullet

      An interesting question was how many teams finished their bowl game with their starting QB. UGA, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and LSU were on backups. S. Carolina’s QB was injured much of the season, but made the bowl game. Texas was also on their backup. Oregon’s starter was still playing, but had been way below par the last 2 or 3 games (unfortunately was close to par in the bowl).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        MSU changed starters. OSU’s missed 3 games, and then part of bowl practice with the flu. Only a few teams got 12 solid games from their top QB.

        Like

        Reply
    3. Brian

      Alan from Baton Rouge,

      “Sunbelt 1-0 with one game remaining.
      SEC 5-1 with four games remaining.
      Pac-12 6-2 with one game remaining.
      Big XII 2-1 with three games remaining.
      Ind 2-1.
      CUSA 3-3.
      MWC 3-3.
      ACC 3-6 with two games remaining.
      AAC 1-2 with two games remaining.
      B1G 1-4 with two games remaining.
      MAC 0-4 with one game remaining.”

      The records lack any context.

      Expected records based on early Vegas lines / actual record:
      ACC 1-8 / 3-6 = +2
      B12 1-2 / 2-1 = +1
      B10 1-3-1 / 1-4 = -0.5
      SEC 5-0-1 / 5-1= -0.5
      P12 8-0 / 6-2 = -2

      Other 11-12 / 10-13 = -1

      Like

      Reply
      2. Brian

        Brian,

        UPDATE:

        Expected records based on early Vegas lines / actual record:
        ACC 1-8 / 3-6 = +2
        B12 1-2 / 2-1 = +1
        B10 1-4-1 / 2-4 = +0.5
        SEC 5-0-1 / 5-1= -0.5
        P12 9-0 / 6-3 = -3

        Other 11-12 / 10-13 = -1

        Also, BCS records:
        B10 0-1 / 1-0 = +1
        P12 1-0 / 0-1 = -1

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          UPDATE:

          Expected records based on early Vegas lines / actual record:
          ACC 1-8 / 3-6 = +2
          B10 1-4-1 / 2-4 = +0.5
          B12 2-2 / 2-2 = +0
          SEC 5-0-1 / 5-1= -0.5
          P12 9-0 / 6-3 = -3

          Other 11-13 / 11-13 = +0

          Also, BCS records:
          B10 0-1 / 1-0 = +1
          B12 1-0 / 0-1 = -1
          P12 1-0 / 0-1 = -1

          Other 0-1 / 1-0 = +1

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            UPDATE:

            Expected records based on early Vegas lines / actual record:
            ACC 1-8 / 3-6 = +2
            B12 2-3 / 3-2 = +1
            B10 1-4-1 / 2-4 = +0.5
            SEC 6-0-1 / 5-2= -1.5
            P12 9-0 / 6-3 = -3

            Other 11-13 / 11-13 = +0

            Also, BCS records:
            B10 0-1 / 1-0 = +1
            B12 1-1 / 1-1 = +0
            P12 1-0 / 0-1 = -1
            SEC 1-0 / 0-1 = -1

            Other 0-1 / 1-0 = +1

            Like

          2. bullet

            So far 1 loss teams are 3-4 with Alabama, Fresno and NIU losing to teams with more losses. Michigan St., Louisville and UCF over 1 loss Baylor being the winners. 2 loss teams are 3-1-Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina the winners with Stanford the loser.

            Like

  46. bullet

    ooc record so far
    overall vs. FBS vs. P5+ND
    SEC 39-9 81.3% 13-6 68.4%
    Pac 28-7 80.0% 10-6 62.5%
    Big 12 18-7 72.0% 4-5 44.4%
    Big 10 28-15 65.1% 7-10 41.2%
    ACC 28-21 57.1% 6-13 31.6%
    SB 14-17 45.2% 2-14 12.5%
    AAC 15-19 44.1% 5-13 27.8%
    Ind 24-38 38.7% 8-21 27.6%
    MWC 14-30 31.8% 1-20 4.8%
    CUSA 17-38 30.9% 4-21 16.0%
    MAC 10-34 22.7% 3-21 12.5%

    Interesting note, prior to bowls, the SEC, Pac 12, Big 10 and ACC each averaged exactly 1.0 P5 games out of conference. Big 12 was 0.6 (6 for 10 teams). Net was ACC, Big 10 and SEC each averaged 9.0 games vs. P5 teams, the Big 12 9.6 and the Pac 12 10.0.

    Like

    Reply
  47. bullet

    Will be a lot of shuffling at the bottom of the polls. 5 of the bottom 7 in the AP poll and 7 of the 9 “other receiving votes” have lost so far. Only 20 A&M beating 22 Duke and 25 ND beating 6-6 Rutgers won, along with #26 USC vs Fresno and #33 Washington vs unranked BYU.

    Like

    Reply
    2. Alan from Baton Rouge

      I’m guessing Northern Illinois, Fresno State, Georgia and Duke drop out of the top 25, and are replaced by Washington (9-4), Nebraska (9-4), Notre Dame (9-4), and Vandy (if they beat Houston).

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        Duke stays. USC moves into the AP. UW probably moves in. Nebraska had zero votes. But if Vandy loses, maybe they move in. NIU and/or Fresno shouldn’t, but might stay in due to inertia.

        Best guess NIU, Fresno and UGA out with USC definitely, UW likely #24 and either Vandy if they win or Nebraska as #25.

        Like

        Reply
  49. Brian

    http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/2013-final-cable-ratings-usa-tbs/

    Top cable networks for 2013 (total viewers and 18-49), with the percentage change from 2012.

    Total:
    1. USA: 2.680, -8%
    2. Disney: 2.438, -2%
    3. ESPN: 2.210, -6%
    4. History: 2.114, -2%
    5. TNT: 2.070, -5%
    6. TBS: 2.014, -3%
    7. Fox News: 1.785, -13%
    8. A&E: 1.781, +9%
    9. FX: 1.466, +4%
    10. AMC: 1.382, +18%

    18-49:
    1. TBS: 1.052, -1%
    2. USA: 1.036, -4%
    3. ESPN: 0.995, -11%
    4. TNT: 0.822, -9%
    5. A&E: 0.805, +5%
    6. FX: 0.800, +1%
    7. History: 0.777, -12%
    8. Discovery: 0.683, +2%
    9. AMC: 0.668, +32%
    10. Adult Swim: 0.605, +11%

    And yet ESPN is worth several times what any other channel is worth since viewers don’t skip as many ads.

    Like

    Reply
      1. Brian

        They tried to give it away a couple of times, but Stanford kept giving it back.

        What were they thinking running the fullback dive on 4th and 1 against MSU?

        Like

        Reply
          1. Richard

            I thought that the call was bad.

            If you watch a few Stanford games, you’ll notice that Shaw’s playcalling can be described as mediocre at best.

            Granted, unlike pretty much any other B10 team, MSU has an elite secondary, but that whole last Stanford drive was too conservative. Then he called the TO before hand, so there was no chance to get the ball back.

            Like

          3. Brian

            The call would be fine against most teams, but not MSU. They are the best run D in the country and had stuffed multiple runs up the middle earlier in the game. It’s not like it was a short 1 yard they needed, either.

            Like

          4. bullet

            I hate it. Throw a 3 yard pass to the tight end for a TD. EVERYONE was clogging the center. Arrogance. Stanford thought they should do what they do best which is power football. But MSU is best at stopping that and really sold out.

            Like

          5. frug

            @Bullet

            You are still more likely to pick up 1 yard on a rush than a pass.

            Maybe a FB Dive was the wrong call, but I still think running was a better option than passing in that situation.

            Like

          6. Richard

            Frug:

            Depends on the play call. Given the situation and opponent, there are few worse plays than a FB dive up the middle. If you run, try to beat MSU by speed and misdirection, not by physicality.

            Like

          7. Marc Shepherd

            The call was especially egregious, when you bear in mind that with 3:19 remaining, 75 yards to go and only one time-out, Stanford called four straight runs. OK, maybe you call one run in that situation, hoping to catch MSU napping in a pass prevent. But four straight runs against that defense?

            Like

          8. mushroomgod

            I also hated the way MSU played it so conservatively with 3 1/2 minutes to go—ran it twice against a stacked line and asked Cook to make a play on 3rd and 8. The pass option was wide open on 1st and 2nd downs. Worked out for them though.

            Like

          9. bullet

            I look at MSU’s calls as having faith in their defense. They only needed to avoid a mistake, run 2 minutes off the clock and then force Stanford to go the length of the field in a couple minutes. By running, they give Stanford only 1 more chance with the ball.

            Like

          10. Richard

            Right. I agree with Bullet.

            If I’m coaching MSU and I had to pick whether I wanted my offense or defense on the field with the game on the line, I’d pick the defense every time.

            Like

      1. Michael in Raleigh

        Either that or they’ll just gloss over it as an “abberation.”

        Remember the narrative: the SEC can do no wrong. When the SEC loses, t is someone else’s fault.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          I want FSU to win, so you should probably put your money on 5 in a row for the state of Alabama and 8 for the SEC.

          Acutally I did want Bill Snyder and KSU to win, but that was a lot of losses back. Forgot about that.

          Like

          Reply
  52. Transic

    Now I know people are going to make comparisons between UCF and Boise State. Here’s one major difference: UCF is located in much more fertile territory for recruiting purposes. I would think demand for playing UCF (and even USF) OOC would shoot up after this Fiesta Bowl.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      Big Ten teams especially should seek H&H’s with UCF. FSU and especially UF are hard to do those with, and Miami isn’t exactly easy. Quality opponents are important in the OOC schedule, and Big Ten schools aside from Ohio State can always use any edge they can get with improving access to recruits in Florida.

      The incentive for ACC and SEC schools to play UCF and USF might be a little less since their exposure in Florida is already more established, although the enlargening of the conferences do mean less frequent trips to the state than in years past. As for the Big 12 or Pac 12… I have no idea.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        The top B10 teams can still buy games against UCF and USF without giving up a home game to play at their place. Yes, you give up a chance to play in FL, but home games have huge financial value to the big schools. There are also multiple bowl opportunities to play in FL.

        I think home and homes make more sense for the lower B10 teams, with smaller stadiums and fewer FL bowl games historically.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Mack

        Scheduling H&H with any gang of 5 school, including the AAC will be perceived as weak. It will be better to schedule the worst SEC school or even an ACC school.

        Like

        Reply
        2. Transic

          I understand that thinking but UCF is somewhat unique in that while it’s a G5 school it is located in an area with a natural recruiting base and they have showed that they won’t necessarily roll over like a FIU would. Mississippi doesn’t produce nearly as many athletes, so a Mississippi team would potentially benefit more from playing a B10 team, especially one from Ohio or Pennsylvania, than any B10 playing a game in Mississippi. Playing a P5 team from Georgia, NC or VA is another matter.

          Like

          Reply
        3. Michael in Raleigh

          I see no shame in schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa doing straight up home and homes with a UCF. PU and U of I have already had them with Cincinnati–what’s the difference? Boise State has had H&H’s with Oregon and Washington and has one in the future with Florida State. Should those schools be embarrassed?

          I don’t think there is anything wrong with scheduling some games against G5 schools, especially upper echelon ones. Granted, Brian is right that the schools with 100,000+ seat stadiums, and maybe even those with like Wisconsin and MSU, are unlikely to do H&H’s with a UCF, but the rest of the league doesn’t have the same leverage.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            Iowa won’t do it because their annual H&H with Iowa State severely limits their flexibility.

            Otherwise, you and Brian are in agreement: the top half of the Big Ten won’t travel to UCF, but the bottom half probably would seriously consider it. Purdue is going to have some schedule openings now that ND isn’t on their schedule every year any more.

            Like

          2. Mack

            When a P5 school schedules a Go5 school they do it to win. That makes UCF, Boise State, etc. bad choices to schedule. If the lower level B1G schools want FL exposure they should be scheduling 2 for 1’s with FIU or FAU rather than H&H against UCF.

            Look at the stats posted on this board where P5 is broken out against Go5. No attention is paid to relative rank of the Go5 schools. A P5 loss to a Go5 school is just one step above losing to a FCS school. Due to perception, the P5 school that loses takes a much larger hit than the Go5 school gains by winning. Therefore, P5 schools should only schedule competitive games with other P5 schools if they can manage that scheduling.

            As noted, UCF only lost to #9 SC and beat #6 Baylor. So do you expect UCF to be right behind SC at about #8 in the final poll, or is it likely that being a Go5 school UCF will not benefit as much as Baylor is trashed by losing? Now if Baylor had taken a much bigger loss to Alabama in the Sugar Bowl I think they would finish better in the polls. As I said it is a perception thing, and due to that perception it is bad scheduling for any P5 school to schedule a Go5 school that they do not believe they have at least 85% probability of a win.

            Like

          3. Richard

            Mack:

            I suppose Washington, Oregon, FSU, MSU, and UGa are stupid, according to you, as they all have scheduled or will schedule Boise.

            Luckily for the rest of us, most AD’s try to schedule some interesting games, even if they are against Go5 schools, along with body bag games. I have little interest in a body bag game that doesn’t involve my team.

            Also, hopefully the new playoff committee will reward strength of schedule like they say they will. Unlike you, they understand that there’s no shame in playing a good Boise team.

            Like

          4. Mack

            Richard:
            No it is stupid for Virginia (which did), Indiana, Purdue, or Kansas to schedule Boise State. WA, OR, MSU, GA, oSu , and FSU believe they will beat Boise State 9 times out of 10 so those schools are not expecting a Go5 loss. Ole Miss is getting the $$ and exposure from the Atlanta neutral site game with Boise.

            Like

        4. Richard

          Right.

          Utah also has a HaH scheduled with Fresno. Kansas has a HaH with Memphis. MSSt. has a HaH with LaTech. Vandy has a HaH with UMass.

          I suppose that the SEC, ACC, B12, and Pac (as well as the B10) should all be perceived as weak.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Mack

            Not sure about Fresno-Utah, but the rest of the games are good. All the P5 schools should be heavily favored. Note that B12 bottom feeder Kansas scheduled AAC bottom feeder Memphis rather than UCF, Houston, etc. The last thing a bad P5 football program should do is prove how bad they are by losing to a Go5 school.

            The worst thing IL could do is allow NIU to prove it is a better football program on the field. In this case, just like pro boxers, there is no shame in ducking the fight, or at least less shame than losing. Purdue (and IU, MN, MD, Rutgers) should be scheduling Akron, Kent State, etc. rather than NIU. Iowa will usually beat NIU, so I do not fault them for scheduling NIU even though they got upset this year.

            Like

      3. Alan from Baton Rouge

        UCF’s one loss this season was at home to South Carolina. I could see other P5 schools scheduling UCF in the future, especially schools serving out a bowl ban. Orlando could be a cheaper alternative than Hawaii.

        UCF is now probably the #1 expansion candidate among the G5 schools, when you look at location, student enrollment, facilities (new on campus stadium), and a signature win. The Knights probably have more going for them right now than Utah and TCU did in 2000. UCF is not your father’s commuter school anymore.

        Regarding other home and homes, Ole Miss and Miss State routinely schedule home and homes with nearby Memphis and Tulane because of proximity, recruiting, and local alums.

        Like

        Reply
        1. David Brown

          I agree UCF would make a great addition to a Conference, but the problem for the Knights have is there is not a lot of places for them to move to. Obviously the ACC with FSU and Miami, and the SEC with Florida are out, and the B10 and Pac 12, are self explanatory. The only place is the Big XII (probably with USF).

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Or if the ACC gets raided by the SEC and/or B10 and/or B12. In such a scenario, FSU would likely be gone and Miami may be gone as well. If the ACC loses FSU, they’d likely backfill with UCF and USF.

            Like

          2. Richard

            ACC Armageddon scenario:
            UVa, UNC, Duke, & GTech to the B10.
            VTech and NCSU to the SEC.
            FSU & Clemson to the B12.

            ACC backfills with UCF, USF, UConn, and Cincy.

            ACC:
            BC
            UConn
            ‘Cuse
            Pitt
            L’Ville
            Cincy
            Wake
            UCF
            USF
            Miami

            ACC would be Wake + a bunch of old BE schools (and UCF, which was technically never part of any iteration of the BE).

            Like

          3. Richard

            What a great slate that would be for ND.

            Then again, they’d get to play an FL school 1-2 times a year (visiting FL virtually every year) and they’d get to visit the NE (which has tons of Catholics) plenty often.

            They might be OK with that after all.

            Like

          4. mushroomgod

            Yes, it’s a very strange situation…….right now, a duo of Cincy and UCF to the Big 12 would look pretty strong although I think that, in the end, the reason for that league’s exixtence is UK and OK only.

            Like

          5. Transic

            Richard,

            I would think that if the ACC somehow disintegrates, despite Swofford’s best efforts, that GT and Miami would join FSU and Clemson. GT games vs Clemson are very important to GT fans. FSU considers games vs Miami as important and also wants more regular games in Atlanta. So I could see Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson to B12 or another conference if the ACC breaks up.

            Duke may or may not go depending on if they can tag along with UNC. They might be a critical piece to whoever wants to land UNC the most but, otherwise, UNC and UVA might be the better pair. On the other hand, the B1G agreeing to land 4 might make it easier for schools to leave the ACC but going to 18 would be awkward and also raise questions about conference cohesion.

            The B12 could end up helping the B1G land the more coveted pair of schools (UNC,UVA) by agreeing to add six (the four I mentioned in the first paragraph + Louisville and either Pitt, Cincy or Duke). Fox may have a big role behind the scenes.

            In the end, after typing all these words, I don’t think the schools are leaving any time soon.

            Like

        2. Marc Shepherd

          UCF is now probably the #1 expansion candidate among the G5 schools, when you look at location, student enrollment, facilities (new on campus stadium), and a signature win. The Knights probably have more going for them right now than Utah and TCU did in 2000. UCF is not your father’s commuter school anymore.

          You can ignore the signature win. It would take about 15 more of those, before “winning” would be a factor in any conference’s decision to add UCF. Historically, it’s far more common for a school like UCF to regress to the mean, than it is for that type of win to inaugurate a new era. I’m not taking anything away from what they achieved this season, but expansion is a 50-year decision.

          Beyond that, the Big XII has a number of other problems to solve, before they could even think of expanding. By the time they get around to it, assuming they ever do, we’ll all have a lot more data on UCF.

          (Anyhow, is beating Baylor ever a “signature win”? Obviously, the Bears are a higher-stature program than UCF, but they were something of a Cinderella themselves. UCF needs to go out and beat Florida State, or someone like that.)

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            “I’m not taking anything away from what they achieved this season, but expansion is a 50-year decision.”

            Not true for every conference. If the ACC gets raided and loses FSU, expansion wouldn’t be a 50-year decision. Expansion would be a 1-year decision, as in “survive until next year and figure out what to do then”.

            Like

          2. Marc Shepherd

            All I meant, is that expansion is always intended to be permanent, and is therefore not based on: “They won last year’s Fiesta Bowl.”

            I do agree that expansion is sometimes a defensive maneuver, and can’t wait for the perfect candidate.

            Like

        3. bullet

          But Utah and TCU continued for a long period.

          All expansion is relative, depending on the need. UCF would not be a Big 10 candidate because of academics, Pac 12 because of geography and ACC because they already have 2 Florida schools. SEC would be doubtful as they are already at 14 and apparently already told FSU they weren’t interested in them as #15. Houston wouldn’t be considered by the Big 12 (4 Texas schools), SEC (A&M would throw a fit), Big 10 (academics) and probably not ACC (geography). But they are probably #1 on the Pac 12 list (we are talking G5 schools).

          Like

          Reply
  53. mushroomgod

    Andy, going to reply in part to your last posts down here…………

    So….I said KU was better than MO in graduate school rankings. You said “Make up your own facts don’t you”? You also said “It’s a huge stretch to say Kansas is better”. Well actually Andrew, no and no.

    Turns out that in 32 g.s. categories in which it is rated, KU is in the top 30 nationally in 10 or 11. MO is in the top 30 in 2.

    The complete rankings:
    KU: Business-NR; ED.-22; Engineering-97; Law-86; Med Sch, PC-37; Med. Sch.,Res.-75; Audiology-10; Biology-71; Chemistry-67; Clinical Psy.-26/6 (not sure what they’re doing there); Computer Science-79; Earth Sc.-54; Econ.-76; English-63; Fine Arts-72; Healthcare Management-41; History-50; Math-68; Nursing-36; Nursing -Anesthesia-48/55; Nursing Midwifery-24; O.T-5; Pharmacy-21; P.T.-19; Physics-85; Pol. Science-54; Psychology-40; Public AAffairs-9; Social Work-26; Sociology-64; Speech- Lan. Path.-8;

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      Continuing…..

      MU: Bus.-52; Edu.-51; Engineering-87; Law-76; Med Sch P.C.-31; Med. Sch Res.-76; Biology-82; Chemisrty-83; Clin. Psy.-32; Computer Sc.-110; Earth Sc.-89; Econ.-72; English-63; Fine Arts-153; Healthcare Man.-21; History-64; Lib and IS.-33; Math-63; Nursing-50; OT-69; PT-44; Psysics-93; Pol. Sc.-61; Psy-52; Public Affairs-33; Rehab Couc.-38; Social Work-66; Sociology-78; SL Path-106; Stats-48; Vet. Med.-19

      In gross terms, KU has more grad students-app. 8600 v. app. 7700. MO has about 8000 more undergrads.So KU is also more grad. student oriented.

      Andy, don’t have time just now to destroy the rest of your rantings, but I’ll get back with you.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        You’re not going to “destroy” my other rantings because they were all true.

        As for this, that’s a nice slight of hand to make it look like you’re saying something important, but the problem with your methodology is that you’re counting every program as equal. But we all know that Law, Medicine, Business, and Engineering are of a higher level of importance than Audiology, Fine Arts, “Nursing-Anesthesia”, and “Nursing-Midwifery”.

        Also, Missouri’s strongest area, Journalism, isn’t even on this list for some reason. Most recent Journalism rankings from December 2013:

        Click to access np%20Dec%202013%20LR%20Book.pdf

        Missouri #1, Kansas not in top 20. Kansas does have a journalism school and I looked around but I couldn’t find any rankings that they were listed in.

        Let’s break it down some more and see where this takes us:

        Professional Schools:

        Missouri Leads:

        Business Missouri 52, Kansas NR (105+)
        Engineering: Missouri 87, Kansas 97
        Law: Missouri 76, Kansas 86
        Medical School P. C.: Missouri 31, Kansas 37
        Medical School Research: Missouri 75, Kansas 76
        Journalism: Missouri 1, Kansas NR (21+)
        Information Science: Missouri 33, Kansas no program
        Veterinary Medicine: Missouri 19, Kansas no program

        Kansas Leads:

        Education: Missouri 51, Kansas 22
        Nursing: Missouri 50, Kansas 36
        Social Work: Missouri 66, Kansas 26

        So among the professional schools, Missouri leads 8 to 3.

        Arts and Science PhD Programs:

        Missouri leads:

        Economics: Missouri 72, Kansas 76
        Math: Missouri 63, Kansas 68
        Statistics: Missouri 48, Kansas no program

        Kansas leads:

        Earth Science: Missouri 79, Kansas 54
        Biology: Missouri 82, Kansas 71
        Chemistry: Missouri 81, Kansas 67
        Computer Science: missouri 110, Kansas 79
        History: Missouri 64, Kansas 50
        Physics: Missouri 93, Kansas 85
        Political Science: 61, Kansas 54
        Fine Arts: Missouri 153, Kansas 72
        Sociology: Missouri 78, Kansas 64

        Tied

        English: Missouri 63, Kansas 63

        So among the Arts and Science PhD programs Kansas leads 9-3-1

        Specialized Programs:

        Missouri:

        Healthcare Management: Missouri 21, Kansas 41
        Rehab Counseling: Missouri 38, Kansas no program

        Kansas leads:

        Clinical Psychology: Missouri 31, Kansas 26
        Physical Therapy: 44, Kansas 19
        Occupational Therapy: Missouri 69, Kansas 5
        Speech/Language Pathology: Missouri 106, Kansas 8
        Audiology: Missouri no program, Kansas 10
        Nursing-Anasthesia: Missouri no program, Kansas 55
        Nursing-Midwifery: Missouri no program, Kansas 24

        Among the specialized programs Kansas leads 7-2.

        So then it becomes a matter of how you weight these.

        Kansas has the clear lead in A&S PhD programs, and they also have some more of the specialized programs like Audiology and Midwifery.

        Missouri has the clear lead in the big professional schools like Business, Law, Medicine, and Engineering.

        I suppose reasonable people can disagree on which of those is more important. But I think it’s safe to say that saying Kansas has better grad schools than Missouri is a questionable statement at best.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Andy, you are so full of s***. Fact is, you made two statements that were incorrect, and I called you on it and now you’re being a whiny b****.

          #1, you said “Make up your own facts, don’t you”.. Not true.

          #2, you said It’s a huge stretch to say Kansas is better”. Again, and quite obviously, not true.Ragardless of how you want to spin it, it is obviously not a “huge stetch”: to say Kansas is better.

          So, as it turns out, KU is rated higher in Education, MS-Res., Audiology, Biology, Chemisty, Clin. Psch x2; Computer Science, Earth Sciences, Fine Arts, History, Nursing, Nursing Anesthesia x2, OT, Pharmacy, PT, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Public Affairs, Social Work, Speech Path., –21 to 23 areas, not sure why two areas are rated twice without checking on it. N MO is ranked higher in Business, English, Law, MS-P.C, Econ, Math, Rehab, stats, and Vet Med.—that’s it

          Like

          Reply
          1. mushroomgod

            continuing….So, I would say Education, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth Sciences, History, Nursing x4, OT, PT, Pharmacy Phycics, Political Science, Psychology, Public Affaiers (ie,,spea), and SW are pretty legit areas.You make fun of certain other areas where KU is rated higher, but you ignore Health Management, Rehab counceling, Stats where MO is concerned.

            Also, in engineering and Law, we’re talking about 80 somethjing v. 90 something in both…so the ONLY majot program in which MO is better, as contained in the 2014 rankings, is business.

            Like

          2. Andy

            So in other words you completely ignored everything I said and then just repeated yourself.

            What it all comes down to is that KU is somewhat stronger in the Arts and Science PhD programs, and Missouri is somewhat stronger in the major professional programs like Medicine, Business, Law, and Engineering. And ku has some specialty programs their strong at in things like audiology, midwifery, and occupational therapy. Missouri has strong programs in journalism, veterinary medicine, and information science.

            And then there are a whole bunch of programs Missouri is fairly strong at that aren’t even listed here: agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, food science, plant science, hotel and restaurant management, bioinformatics, etc. There are probably some ku programs that aren’t on here too, like architecture, for instance.

            How one would weight all this is a matter of opinion. But there’s little doubt that Missouri is ranked higher in most of the bigger programs, and Kansas is ranked higher in most of the smaller programs. Some of those programs Kansas is ranked high in probably only have half a dozen students at most.

            Like

          3. mushroomgod

            No, I restated and clarified my previous facts, and responded to your criticisms of those facts, in the off chance that something might penetrate your thick skull. I failed.

            Like

          4. Andy

            You responded to my arguments? I sure didn’t see that.

            So do you dispute what I said? you think midwifery should count as much as law? Speech pathology should count as much as business? Fine Arts should count as much as medicine?

            To my eye you completely ignored all of my main points. Probably because you couldn’t counter them.

            To use an athletics analogy, this is like saying (for the sake of argument) that Missouri is better than Kansas in Football, Baseball, Women’s Basketball, Women’s Softball, Women’s Volleyball, Track and Field, and Gymnastics. But somehow Kansas has the better athletic department because they have better Men’s Basketball to go along with better fencing, bowling, water polo, equestrian, synchronized swimming, lacrosse, sailing, rowing, women’s rowing, and women’s sailing.

            Yeah, you *could* count it that way. That’s the way the Director’s cup counts it, for instance.

            But everybody but the director’s cup cares more about the big stuff than the small stuff. And Missouri is better at most of the big stuff than Kansas.

            Like

  54. mushroomgod

    OK Andy….as to the rest of your rantings….

    You constantly tout Mo’s virtues over Neb. You certainly are a sly fox, because you primarily cite the same type of demographic and academic virtues for MO over NEB that you completely ignore when it comes to the Mo-Rut comparison. Lets look at the Neb-Mo athletic comparison, shall we?

    Neb has 19 recognized NCs in sports not called bowling—8 more in bowling..And 5 more in football, one of only 2 sports you say matter. Before you denigrate bowling….maybe MO ought to take it up, because MO has 2 MCs all-time in all sports, the last being in 1965. Yep, the last time MO won anything was when LBJ was president. Frankly, MO sports is best known for constantly choking–just within the last two years highly ranked MO teams bit the dust, once again. The football team loses at home to a replacement QB, then allows 1000 yards rushing to Auburn in the SEC champ. game. The undefeated volleyball team loses at home to an unranked Purdue team that lost 9 games in the Big Ten alone. And the higly ranked softball team fails to make it to OK

    City. Know who was there? Nebraska.

    NEB typically ranks 15-25 spots ahead of MO in DC standings, so not a good comp there. Now, you want to talk football, and say MO has won

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      continuing……2 more games over the last 10 years, or some such drivel. Yep, won 2 more games when for most of that time NEB has been coached by a guy who is certifiably insane.

      Did I mention that while NEB and MO were in the same conference, NEB was near the top of the schools in conf. titles won in all sports (#2 ?), while MO was near the bottom? Or that NEB has a uniquely devoted fanbase for ALL their sports? No other school gets 8000 people to their volleyball games. I realize that’s because there’s nothing else to do in Nebraska, but that’s beside the point.

      So, Andy, while I would have added MO over NEB for academic, cultural, and geographic reasons, I certainly understand why most Big 10 fans felt otherwise.

      Now…as to MD and Rutgers……

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        continuing….First of all, MD over Missouri was an absolute no brainer. Better academically by significant margins in both undergrad and grad. 25 NCs, not including another in football, and 1 in basketball, the only sports you say matter. Located near all the $ in DC. Case closed.

        As to RU…..again, signicantly better in both undergrad and grad studies.For example, RU is ranked in the top 30 in US News grad rankings in 11 areas v. 2 for MO. State school in NJ, a state with roughly twice the population of MO. Just more prestigious in every respect. Access to the NYC market. NJ is a very good state for FB recruiting, MO pretty poor. Very good local (NJ and NYC) recruiting area for basketball. So there’s a lot of upside to RU, as well as the downsides you exclusively focus on.

        Hey, I used to like MO, until I started reading your nonsense. They are better for the SEC than for the Big 10. They get the SEC into the Midwest. Also, while they would have dumbed down the Big 10, they make the SEC smarter. Good for you guys. Just stop talking smack until you have something to back it up. Mo is no OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, NEB or Wisconsin. It’s not even an Iowa, Illinois, IU, NW, or Purdue. MO is a smaller, dumber Maryland minus 23 NCs.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Andy

          So basically your argument comes down to non-revenue sports. Zzzzz…..

          Here are the only two revenue sports: Football and Basketball.

          In football Missouri has done better than Nebraska over the last 10 years. That’s a fact. Also, Missouri has played Nebraska about 100 times. Their lead in the series comes from a 25 game winning streak from 1979 through 2002. Take that out and the series is pretty much tied. Yes, Missouri was pretty damn bad for those 24 years. No doubt. But before and since then it’s been pretty even, including right now. In fact, Missouri’s doing quite a bit better at the moment. Time will tell where the two programs go in future years but I’m fairly optimistic.

          Basketball it’s no comparison. Missouri has 23 conference titles and 26 NCAA tournament appearances. Nebraska has never even won an NCAA tournament game. Ever.

          And then there’s the fact that Missouri’s population is three times higher than Nebraska’s. I’ve never heard a single person come up with any kind of justification for that that makes any sense.

          But you know this, mushroom. You’ve always agreed that Missouri was the better pick over Nebraska. You’re just arguing to argue here. You must be bored.

          As for your stuff about Maryland, it’s irrelevant. I’ve never disputed that Maryland should get the nod over Missouri just based on academics alone and the fact that their revenue sports aren’t that much worse than Missouri’s and their state population is almost as big as Missouri’s.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            ” That’s a fact. Also, Missouri has played Nebraska about 100 times. Their lead in the series comes from a 25 game winning streak from 1979 through 2002. Take that out and the series is pretty much tied.”

            I mean, really? If you take out Iowa’s 20 consecutive win streak over NW, NW actually holds a series lead. But no one will ever suggest the two schools are nearly that close together.

            But more to the point, UNL’s 25 win streak over Mizzou is part of Nebraska’s almost 40 years of sustained success in CFB. That’s the sort of sustained success that creates durable brands that sustain downturns. (I once saw an article that mentioned UNL as a top 10 TV draw for the entire 1980’s).

            There are good arguments for Mizzou over Nebraska as a school, and for Mizzou’s recent football success. But trying to minimize a 25 win streak in the process is kind of silly.

            Like

          2. Andy

            The point of bringing that up is to show that Nebraska’s seeming dominance in the head-to-head series isn’t a result of a sustained century of dominance, but rather 75 years of parity with 25 years of dominance inserted in the middle. Maybe this is meaningless to you but there is a difference.

            There’s been debate over the years as to whether this is unique or not, but in my opinion it’s fairly unique. Missouri had a decently good football program up until the 1980s. Then in the 80s and 90s it wasn’t just bad, it was bottom-feeder, celler dweller, losing games 77-0 pitiful. Then in the 2000s Missouri rebuilt into a decently good program again. Now, if you average all of those years together than Missouri’s football GPA is something like a 2.5, which looks like a C+ average. But you can get a 2.5 GPA with an A, two Bs, and an F. The F, for Missouri, is the 80s and 90s. So it goes with Missouri’s all time record both overall and with Nebraska specifically.

            Like

          3. Wainscott

            On the flip side, if you discount Missouri’s winning 20 of 25 series games from 1938-1962, when UNL was down in the dumps, Nebraska holds a commanding series lead. It cuts both ways.

            Like

          4. Andy

            Ok, sure. And yes, Nebraska has been the better program overall. But point is Missouri has held it’s own for long stretches and has been the better program over the last 10 years. And tred-wise, Missouri is trending up and Nebraska is trending down.

            Like

          5. mushroomgod

            So…per Andy’s reasoning, Iowa wrestling won the NC something like 23 straight times……but take out those 23 years and it’s really pretty mediocre.

            Like

        2. Andy

          As for Rutgers… I struggle to think of 3 or 4 major athletic programs that could reasonably be considered worse. What an awful pick. The B1G got tremendously weaker because of that stinker of a pick.

          As far as where Missouri would rank in a B1G, well, not near the top of course.

          Academics aren’t that much different from Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State, and Purdue, and better than Nebraska.

          Football is easily ahead of Rutgers and Maryland as well as Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, and Minnesota, and at least over the last 10 years is at least on par with or ahead of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa, and Nebraska. Wisconsin and Ohio State have been better.

          Basketball has been better than Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Penn State, and Rutgers. Has been on the same level as Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin a lot of years. Definitely behind Michigan State, Indiana, and Ohio State.

          So yeah, not super elite, but better than Nebraska or Rutgers and not that much worse than Maryland. And those were your choices, along with Kansas.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            I don’t think mushroomgod was defending Rutgers on the basis of athletics, Actually, no one is.
            Rutgers football historically sucks. Rutgers MBB is a remarkable failure, even more than football, based on its proximity to elite NYC recruits.

            But the rest of the equation (academics, tv, BTN, potential with success, etc…) tips very much in Rutgers direction, for reasons previously stated (at length).

            Like

          2. Andy

            academics, yes
            BTN, yes, if only because New Jersey has 30% more people than Missouri, and BTN is subscription based by state as I understand it.

            “tv” – no way. Missouri had the 8th highest TV ratings in the country this year. I doubt Rutgers made the top 50.

            “potential with success” – whatever that is, I haven’t seen much out of Rutgers. They’ve never succeeded in the past, so why expect it in the future? Missouri, on the other hand, has 4 division titles in the last 7 years and has averaged something like 27.5 wins per year in basketball over the last 5 years. I’d say their “potential” for conference chamapionships and even national championships is tremendously higher than Rutgers’s.

            Like

          3. mushroomgod

            You continue to assert that MO’s academics aren’t that much different than Iowa, MSU, IU, and Purdue.

            The facts don’t support that argument. In terms of undergrad rankings, MO is 22 behind IU, 29 behind Purdue in US News rankings.

            As far as grad. school rankings, using IU and PU as examples, IU has 16 program areas in US News top 30, Purdue has 9. IU is rated #22 in business, #10 in Education, #25 in Law, #26 in Chemistry, #22 in English, #23 in History, #8 in Lib. studies, #30 in Math, #40 in Physics, #25 in Political Science, #26 in Psychology, #2 in Public Affairs(ie..SPEA), #12 in Sociology, #11 in Speech Path., #34 in Biology, #17 in Audiology, #18 in Clinical Psychology, #53 in Computer Science, #36 in Fine Arts, #41 in Healthcare Management, #42 in Econ, .IU’s Music School is also recognized as #1/2 in the country each year. Purdue has a world-class engineering dept.ranked #8, as well as the #44 business school, #32 Education, #12 Audiology, #56 Biology, #21 Chemistry, #47 Clinical Psy., #39 Earth Sciences, #63 English, #74 History, #27 Math, #50 Nursing, #7 Parmacy, #40 Physics, #61 Poly Sci;, #46 Psy., #52 Sociology, #5 Speech Path., #22 Stats, and #14 Vet. Science.

            Like

          4. mushroomgod

            Left out Purdue’s Computer Science at #20…

            MO is to IU, PUR, Iowa, and MSU as those 4 schools are to Wisconsin or Illinois. I wouldn’t claim that IU’s academics aren’t that much different than Wisconsin’s,…..you sound pretty silly when you make the same argument about MO.

            Like

          5. Andy

            MU’s students ACT and SAT averages aren’t much different from Indiana, Purdue, Iowa or Michigan State. Slightly higher than some, slightly lower than others. System Endowment Size is the same story. Somewhat higher than some, somewhat lower than others, but basically about the same. Enrollment size of those four schools is fairly similar. Overall research budgets aren’t that far apart. In Business Mizzou is pretty far behind Indiana but pretty close to Purdue. Engineering Mizzou is pretty far back from Purdue but it doesn’t look like Indiana does much engineering. Medicine Mizzou beats out both. Also veterinary medicine. Then there’s all the areas of strength for Mizzou that your lists leave out: journalism, agriculture, horticultre, agronomy, food science, informatics, etc. Mizzou has strong programs in all of those areas, ranking as high as #1 in the nation in one of them, and yet they don’t make your lists.

            Yeah, Mizzou’s a bit behind those schools in the overall USNews rankings, but the difference isn’t that huge.

            Like

    2. Marc Shepherd

      Andy is correct, only in the very limited sense that Missouri lately has had better success on the football field than Nebraska. But fan loyalties and TV ratings appeal are so durable that it would take about 15–20 more years like that before Missouri would actually be the more desirable franchise.

      Like

      Reply
        1. bullet

          There has been remarkably little change since the 60s. The kings from the mid-60s are still kings and the only real change has been demographic. Florida grew and so did its 3 programs.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Andy

            Nebraska just shifted conferences. They lost their southern recruiting. They are steadily declining. Maybe they’re reverse it but I doubt it. I think they’re on their way to losing king status eventually. They’ll still have legacy king status because of the past of course.

            Missouri has trended up but there is the question of how high their ceiling is. It’s possible that their ceiling is averaging 8 or 9 wins per year. That’s not going to get them any kind of king or even prince status.

            Like

          2. bullet

            The threat to Nebraska is TV and the nationalization of recruiting. They didn’t particularly recruit Texas any more than any other place prior to joining the Big 12. They went all over the country with a lot of recruiting in the Midwest and California. Now maybe there is more competition. You might have Alabama, Florida, Miami and FSU competing with you for the Chicago kid who is also being recruited by the Midwest universities. And you might have the same type of dynamic in California.

            But all they are doing is going back to the recruiting that served them from the 70s to 90s.

            Like

          3. mushroomgod

            Hard to tell what will happen to MO and NEB in the very short term.

            MO struck it rich with those 2 great WRs, and Franklin. I tend to think MO is about as good as it ever will be.I’ll remind you that a year ago 90% of the Missouri board wanted the coach canned. On the other hand, Rutgers appeared to be on the verge of breaking through to the top 20. So it’s hard to say……

            Who knows what will happen with Pelini….but I will say that any school that can win 9 games a year with that crazy sob has a pretty good pedigree. In the mid to long term I have little doubt that NEB will be better in football than MO for one very simple reason: their fans expect and demand that it be so. NEB football is that huge in that state.

            Like

          4. Andy

            Kind of weak of you to claim that this was a one year thing for Missouri considering Missouri has 4 division titles in 7 years with win totals of 12, 10, 10, and 11 (maybe 12). 9 bowls in 11 years. Several top 20 finishes, including a top 4 finish and maybe another top 5 finish this year. I mean, we’re piling up more data points than just this year if you’re at all paying attention.

            Like

          5. Richard

            Nebraska didn’t have any conference games in the south back when they were in the Big8, and they were even more dominant then than they are now. Yes, football has changed a little and so have demographics, but not that much since the mid-90’s when Nebraska was winning national titles.

            I remember reading some UNL boards where they recalled that recruiting was a challenge even under Osborne, but they still won with the system that they had. Oregon has shown that you can get in to the national title conversation despite very poor local recruiting grounds & a small state population if you have an innovative scheme, lots of money, and can attract recruits by being perceived as cool; and what UNL doesn’t lack is a very devoted fanbase willing to shower tons of money on Big Red.

            As for Mizzou, they are in a similar situation to Minny, Wisconsin, RU, and UMD. RU has a little more in-state population. RU and UMD have better local recruiting grounds (while the other 3 have poor local recruiting grounds). Wisconsin has more money. All are pretty good in basketball besides RU. Right now, Mizzou is performing close to the level of Wisconsin (though no conference titles, which Bucky has acheived). However, unlike Wisconsin, all of Mizzou’s success has come under one coach. If Mizzou continues to be successful, they can be spoken of in the same breath as Wisconsin. I don’t see any of these schools becoming kings, however.

            What people always suffer from is recency bias; they see an upwards trend and think that that will continue forever. Likewise, they see a downward trend, and think that that will keep going forever. Those people lose money in the stock market. Maybe UNL will fall from king status due to their poor local recruiting grounds, but Mizzou’s isn’t really much better, and it will take several generations before Mizzou’s brand matches UNL’s.

            As for the idea that being in the SEC will improve your recruiting, don’t kid yourself. Arkansas is even closer to the hotbeds of recruiting in the south and have been in the SEC even longer and they are still poor in recruiting.

            Like

          6. Andy

            Could be. I honestly don’t know what Nebraska’s problem is. They seem to be in decline, and their recruiting hasn’t been very good lately. They do have a lot of money.

            I don’t think comparing Missouri to Rutgers or Maryland makes much sense as Missouri at least has a fairly large fanbase, with average attendance ranking in the top 25 most years, and apparel sales ranking in the top 20, where as Maryland and Rutgers rank 30 or 40 spots below that. Mizzou is also working on a $200M facilities upgrade and should have an 80k seat stadium soon.

            Wisconsin is a fair comparison, as far as where Missouri would like to be. I would consider Wisconsin a “prince” at this point and I think that’s probably Missouri’s ceiling, if they can keep their current momentum going.

            Nebraska may turn it around, but they do have geography going against them. One has to wonder how much of their previous success just came down to Tom Osborne. He was a hell of a coach, and they just haven’t been the same since he left.

            Like

          7. mushroomgod

            I think prince status for MO would have been more easily achieved in the Big 10.

            Hard to see MO finshing even or on top of Tenn, Fla., Bama, Aub,, Georgia, A&M
            ,and GT in most years. SC lives in a much more fertile recruiting neighborhood. Mid to long term I see MO right in there with Ark, Ky, Miss St., Ole Miss, esp. since MO is something of an outlier in the league. You should be able to handle Vandy most of the time.

            Like

          10. Andy

            mushroom, your claim that Mizzou won’t compete in the SEC seems a little outdated considerign Mizzou won the SEC East this year.

            Richard, Mizzou’s revenue numbers were hurt badly by the Big 12 withholding $14M in conference payouts. Starting next year Mizzou should get over $30M from the SEC, compared with around $14M from the Big 12 before 2011, and $0 in 2011.

            Also, Mizzou is expanding stadium capacity from 71k to 80k, with about 5k in additional premium seats being added, so that should help. Also, donations have been up sharply.

            Add all of that up and Mizzou’s revenue should jump by a good $20M per year if not more compared to where they were in 2010, and $34M or more compared to 2011.

            To put it another way, it very much looks like Missouri will jump from around 35th place in revenue to somewhere around 18th place.

            Rutgers and Maryland will make jumps too for joining the B1G, but considering their ticket sales, apparel sales etc rank so far behind Missouri I just don’t see those schools passing them unless they start to get huge amounts of big money donations.

            Like

          11. Andy

            Richard, again, looking at the numbers you posted, those 2012 numbers in USAToday are around $10M less than the previous year, and that’s in spite of attendance and donations that were well above average, so I think it’s safe to assume that the $14M Big 12 withholding was counted here. The year before Misssouri had ranked in the 30s, not the 50s like here. Add the $14M back and Missouri moves to 41st place just ahead of Rutgers. Add in the $35M that they’ll be getting from the SEC in a year or two and Mizzou would be in the top 25, although by then a lot of other schools will also get similar boosts, so let’s say high 20s. And then if Mizzou can pull together another $5M or so per year from increased premium seating sales, ticket sales, donations, etc they could maybe get into the top 25 in revenue. I think this is fairly likely. Probably best case 20th place, worst case 30th place in 2015.

            Like

          12. Andy

            mushroom, as far as long term, it’s really hard to guess. It think Mizzou will be up and down, probably averaging around 8.5 wins per season. They’ll have some 5 win seasons and some 12 win seasons and a lot of 8 and 9 win seasons. Would that rank enough for them to be a prince? I guess yes if they make the new Big 6 bowls (Sugar, Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Peach) every few years. I think regular appearances in those constitutes Prince status.

            Long Term SEC I see

            High Kings:

            Alabama
            LSU
            Florida

            Low Kings:

            Auburn
            Georgia

            Princes:

            Tennessee (former low King, demoted to Prince)
            Texas A&M
            Missouri (maybe, we’ll see what happens after Pinkel)
            South Carolina (maybe, we’ll see what happens after Spurrier)

            Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, MSU, Arky are below Prince. Yes, Missouri and South Carolina could drop back down to this level as they are “new money” and will need to replace their coaches relatively soon.

            And yes, that’s a lot of Kings and Princes, but the SEC is pretty damn good.

            As far as B1G, I’d say:

            Kings

            Ohio State
            Michigan
            Penn State
            Nebraska
            (with the last 3 in decline)

            Princes:

            Wisconsin
            Michigan State

            non-Princes:

            Iowa (closest to Prince status), Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Rutgers

            Like

          13. Andy

            I hate doing the multiple posts in a row thing, wish I could go back and add to the previous post, but…

            Richard, I clicked around on your link and you can actually go into the numbers and look at the specifics of the numbers and compare them to previous years.

            Under “rights/licenses”, which I take to mean TV money from the conference, Missouri has a steady diet of pretty healthy numbers coming in, and then suddenly has an $11M drop in 2012. This would almost half to be money withheld by the Big 12 for the conference move.

            Like

          15. Andy

            Fair enough. Iowa has as much of a chance as Missouri at Princehood I suppose. Neither is there yet. Iowa seems to be trending down and Missouri up, but who’s to say what the next few years will bring and if you expand it out to 12 years instead of 7 then Iowa does look better.

            Like

          16. What Nebraska and Iowa have are proven football fan bases that have stuck with the team even in down periods at an extremely high level (the former having sold out every game for 50 years straight). Those types of programs (particularly at Nebraska’s level) are significantly harder to find than the performance on-the-field that Missouri has had the past decade. That’s not meant to be a specific knock on Mizzou, as my own alma mater of Illinois and plenty of other schools have very fairweather football fans in large population states. Illini fans won’t show up unless we’re contending for the Rose Bowl. It’s just that Andy is severely undercounting how hard it is to find schools with loyal fan bases like Nebraska and Iowa that still bring audiences when they’re down while overvaluing what a school looks like when it’s playing at its very peak (which isn’t sustainable for even the very best king programs). As a result, when he applies that methodology (slightly undervaluing Nebraska’s long-term off-the-field metrics while slightly overvaluing Mizzou’s on-the-field metrics), that makes him look at the difference between Nebraska and Missouri seem much closer than it was in conference realignment reality.

            Like

          17. Richard

            It’s not a coincidence that neither NE or IA have pro franchises of any kind. It’s also partially why the SEC has such strong fan support; 5 of their states have no pro franchises of any kind.

            Like

          18. Richard

            As evidence of Frank’s point:
            This season, Nebraska was mediocre (by their standards) again while Mizzou won their division. here are their regular season national TV ratings (so no ESPNU games for either school):

            Nebraska:
            3.1: Michigan on ABC
            2.7: UCLA on ABC
            2.5: Iowa on ABC
            2.0: @Minny on ESPN

            =2.575 average while facing 1 king, 1 prince, and 1 almost prince.

            There was also an MSU@UNL/SU@FSU split telecast on ABC that garnered a 2.8; not sure how to handle that, so I threw it out; it doesn’t change the numbers much.

            Mizzou:
            2.1: @UGa on ESPN
            1.4:Tennessee on ESPN
            3.4: A&M on ESPN
            1.8: SCarolina on ESPN2
            1.5: @Ole Miss on ESPN

            2.04 average while facing 1 king & 3 princes (or 2 kings and 2 princes, depending on how you count Tennessee) in a season when Mizzou wins a division in the SEC.

            Like

          19. Andy

            @ Frank, Iowa and Nebraska haven’t had hard times. Missouri went to 2 bowls in 19 years from 1984-2002. Those are hard times. And Missouri still averaged in the high 40ks throughout, which is more than Illinois averaged now. During any kind of relatively good times Missouri has averaged in the 60k range. Yes Nebraska’s attendance has been much better, but it hasn’t been tested by any kind of hard times of the magnitude of Missouri.

            @ Richard, comparing games on ABC to games on ESPN is apples to oranges. ABC typically gets much stronger ratings. Over the air gets more viewers than cable. CBS made the mistake of not putting the East champs over the air this year. That hurt Mizzou’s average. And yet they still finished the season ranked #8 in tv ratings.

            Like

        2. Marc Shepherd

          Sure, anything could happen, but how often has a ‘king’ permanently lost that status? If you’re betting on that, then you’re betting on a pretty rare occurrence.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Basically just Minnesota in the last half century.

            Also maybe Chicago, Georgia Tech, Army and the Ivies towards the end of the first half of the last century. Those were driven by the growth of the state schools and their own choices.

            Like

          2. mushroomgod

            I think Pitt was pretty good back then as well……don’t they claim like 8 NCs? I think until 1960 or so Pitt dominated the PSU-Pitt competition……last time pitt was seriously good was in the Dorsett era….

            Like

          3. Marc Shepherd

            What happened to the service acadmies and the Ivies was the result of a secular change in the sport, not likely to be repeated.

            Beyond those, it is a very rare event. Minnesota, GT, and Pitt, might be valid examples. Chicago, of course, just stopped playing, which is not really what we’re discussing.

            Like

          4. Richard

            I would not say GTech was ever a king.

            Pitt, Illinois, and Cal in the early part of the 20th century, Minny from the 30’s through mid-century, and MSU mid-century could be considered former kings. Tennessee as well, if you don’t consider them a king any more.

            Like

      2. Wainscott

        For some context, Nebraska’s Kings status stems largely from having 40 consecutive winning seasons from 1962-2002, just as CFB and TV began its marriage. Throw in memorable games with Oklahoma, yearly New Years bowl games in a 3 channel era, some Heisman winners, legendary games (wins or losses), and you get the makings of a King.

        If Mizzou, or any other school for that matter, duplicates that, Kings status will be earned. But it’s far more difficult now, as tv channel fragmentation, numerous bowl games, less scholarships, NCAA investigators, makes it far more challenging to climb and maintain that level of success. It surely can be done, but its hard.

        Miami is a great example. 5 national titles in 20 years, mixed in with periods of bad play and NCAA punishment, and they still don’t consistently draw well in their stadium. But they are probably still a King, and definitely on the upswing.

        Like

        Reply
    1. Andy

      The moratorium was until Missouri was a contender for the national championship. Seeing as how Missouri would have been in the national championship game had they not relinquished their lead over Auburn at the end of the 3rd quarter of the SEC title game, I guess that broke the spell. But if people want to restore it feel free.

      I didn’t even bring up Missouri. Just Nebraska. Others brought up Missouri, which is an invitation to the topic as far as I’m concerned.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        FWIW for a long time I’ve said that I’m fine with this board not talking about Missouri and for the most part I’m not going to bring up Missouri on my own. But since this board has had a history of Missouri bashing I come in and bring facts as necessary when it happens.

        Like

        Reply
        1. wmwolverine

          You’re always the one who brings up Missouri and constantly bashing Rutgers & Maryland at every opportunity. It’s clear your severely butt hurt over the B10’s preference of going after East Coast universities, where the B10 needed more exposure, instead of Missouri. Which is a region the B10 pretty much already had with the addition of Nebraska…

          Most people here even agree with you that Missouri is a natural fit for the B10. IMO it all boils down to the B10 desired more control over the very valuable East Coast (taking that control away from the ACC) than add another Midwestern school.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Andy

            I don’t bash Maryland. I do bash Rutgers a lot, but they deserve it. 95% of the time I talk about Missouri it’s because somebody says something that’s completely false about them. Which you just did.

            For the one millionth time: The B1G did not “choose” to expand eastward instead of taking Missouri. Not because they wanted the east coast. Not for any reason. It did not happen. That’s clearly, obviously true.

            Here is what obviously, undeniably happened:

            1. The B1G announced they were expanding.

            2. Missouri was interested.

            3. So were Nebraska and Kansas.

            4. The Pac 12 tried to take pretty much the entire Big 12 South plus Colorado.

            5. The B1G chose to take Nebraska and the Pac 12 took Colorado.

            6. Things happened with Texas, Texas A&M, and Baylor that blew up the rest of the Pac 12 expansion.

            7. The B1G decided to stay at 12, thus locking out Missouri and Kansas.

            8. Texas A&M and Missouri still wanted to leave the Big 12. (Oklahoma and Kansas did too)

            9. The B1G and Pac 12 agreed to a partnership and said they would both stay at 12 and form a 24 school alliance.

            10. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State tried to join the Pac 12 but were voted down.

            11. A&M announced it was going to the SEC.

            12. The SEC invited Missouri. Missouri debated whether or not to join for over a month. Several board of directors meetings were called. The B1G was contacted and was asked if they were willing to expand immediately. They were not. The SEC said it was now or never for Missouri, so Missouri joined the SEC.

            13. The Pac 12 cancelled the B1G/Pac 12 partnership before it even started. This was supposed to be the alternative both leagues came up with for expansion.

            14. Notre Dame, the B1G’s top target for expansion, joined the ACC as a partial member.

            15. With no Pac 12 partnership and no reason to wait on Notre Dame, the B1G looked into expansion, apparently contacting schools like Texas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, but none agreed to join.

            16. Depending on who you believe, they also contacted Missouri at this point. But that very well may be false. But in any case, Missouri was very much not available having just joined the SEC and thus was not an option and could not have been passed over in any way.

            17. With Missouri off the table and most of the rest saying no or not being AAU schools, the B1G really only had 3 viable AAU options to choose from: Maryland, Rutgers, and Kansas. They went with Maryland and Rutgers.

            18. Frankthetank commenters began repeating the falsehood that Rutgers was chosen over Missouri, and continue repeating it to this day.

            Like

          3. Marc Shepherd

            Andy, there’s abundant evidence that the Big Ten coveted the east and southeast (many public statements from Delany, the presidents and ADs), although they considered other options as well.

            As I mentioned upthread, people consider many things that they eventually decide against. The “expand east/southeast” option was the winner.

            Obviously, some options were foreclosed due to the lack of willing partners (e.g., Notre Dame). But of course, they always had the option to do nothing.

            With no Pac 12 partnership and no reason to wait on Notre Dame, the B1G looked into expansion, apparently contacting schools like Texas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, but none agreed to join.

            You’re putting a lot of stock in apparently, but taking your scenario at its word, three out of the four schools they contacted were to the east/southeast, which certainly is consistent with the strategy they eventually adopted.

            But “contacting” someone is the weakest form of evaluation. If we were to discover that the Big Ten “contacted” Syracuse, I would not say that the Big Ten wanted Syracuse. You can “contact” anyone. Contact is cheap.

            Like

          4. bullet

            The Big 10 has been looking at Rutgers for 20 years. Rutgers may be fool’s gold, but it has always been someone the Big 10 has been interested in despite their lack of athletic success. With 4 kings, the Big 10 was better positioned to take a chance on Rutgers than the Big 12 or ACC.

            Lots of mainstream media in the 90s that the Big 10, after being turned down by Notre Dame, was looking at Missouri, Kansas AND Rutgers.

            You may not like the decision, but its clear the Big 10 has seen Rutgers as potentially valuable for a long time.

            Like

          5. Andy

            marc and bullet. not sure what your point is. yes, the b1g looked at eastern schools. how does that mean rutgers was chosen over missouri? obviously missouri wasn’t available when rutgers was chosen. that’s a simple verifiable fact that trumps everything you’re saying.

            Like

          6. wmwolverine

            Delaney promised the Big XII commish he’d only take 1 Big XII team when they notified him they were going to steal Nebraska, that is when the B10 turned down Missouri. If the B10 wanted Missouri bad enough (they didn’t) they’d have added Nebraska, Missouri & Rutgers all together.

            Like

  56. greg

    Here we are celebrating the biggest day on the college football calendar by rehashing old arguments with the board’s resident troll. Congrats to those who chose to engage with it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. largeR

      Is today the day when Mark May, Gus Johnson, and Beth Mowins lose their jobs? 🙂

      Is there a comparable ess eee cee blog that someone can subvert?

      Like

      Reply
  57. Andy

    All I did as post a link to a message board where Husker fans are lamenting joining the B1G. I didn’t bring up this argument. They did. But if they want to have it again, I’m always willing, because I always win.

    Like

    Reply
    1. BuckeyeBeu

      @Andy.

      Bullcrap. You posted a link to a Nebraska board and then added: “I guess the B1G should have taken Missouri after all. Better geographic fit, better football win % over the last 10 years, top 25 basketball program, oh, and AAU academics. Oh well. Enjoy your corn.”

      That was premeditated trolling.

      Like

      Reply
    2. BuckeyeBeu

      @Andy.

      B*****p. You posted a link to a Nebraska board and then added: “I guess the B1G should have taken Missouri after all. Better geographic fit, better football win % over the last 10 years, top 25 basketball program, oh, and AAU academics. Oh well. Enjoy your corn.”

      That was premeditated trolling.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        oops, yeah, I did. Forgot about that. My bad. I usually don’t do that.

        Still, they didn’t have to be taken into the troll near as much as they did.

        Like

        Reply
        1. BuckeyeBeu

          Fair enough. Thanks for admitting it. btw, sorry for the double post. 1st time was the “waiting moderation” so i thought I’d post it with the profanity censored. Seems both were okay.

          Like

          Reply
    3. Marc Shepherd

      All I did as post a link to a message board where Husker fans are lamenting joining the B1G. I didn’t bring up this argument. They did. But if they want to have it again, I’m always willing, because I always win.

      In your own mind.

      You aren’t the only intelligent person here. We do have minds of our own, and there are other ways of evaluating the evidence than your preferred way.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        Whenever you guys do a good job of arguing something I give you credit. It does happen from time to time. But usually it’s spin and shaky logic.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      Not that there are any excuses . . . but I suspect the Alabama team is re-living the Auburn game in their heads. In their minds, they’re one absurd, once-in-a-lifetime FG return away from playing for a third consecutive NC. Last night’s game was a consolation bowl for them, and they played like it.

      Like

      Reply
    1. bullet

      Typical bowls. Big 12 has had 4 games with 15-25 point spreads. Favorite won one of the 4 and lost by at least 2 TDs in the 3 losses.

      The Tech game surprised me. After 5 straight losses I didn’t think they had it in them. UCF winning was the least surprise. Baylor hasn’t been there much and was likely to be happy just to go to a big bowl and overlooking UCF. UT or OU pulling the upset wasn’t something I expected, but neither would have been that big a surprise.

      Motivation in bowls is so different from team to team and so different from the regular season.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        “Motivation in bowls is so different from team to team and so different from the regular season.”

        I agree, especially this season. Some of these squads are just playing harder than others, a lot harder. It reminds me of Louisville-Florida last year.

        UCF, Oklahoma are prime examples.

        Stanford-Michigan State has been one of the few where I really felt you could see both teams really playing at the same level of motivation.

        Like

        Reply
          1. bullet

            Georgia wasn’t the same team as all season. They were very flat. It wasn’t just the loss of Aaron Murray or Todd Gurley seemingly at about 75%. Just no fire in their play. This Georgia team made lots of mistakes, but always gave 110%. But not on NYD.

            Oklahoma looked far more fired up than I had seen them all season. Even more so than for Oklahoma St.

            Baylor was just very sloppy and didn’t seem to have good focus.

            Like

          3. zeek

            Another game like that was Texas A&M-Duke.

            Duke came out like a rocket in the first half and put together a monstrous first half on both sides of the ball.

            Texas A&M just didn’t look like they were into the game; the body language was terrible on the sidelines in almost every sideline camera shot I saw on TV. Some of the sideline shots just had the team looking like they weren’t that interested.

            Obviously, the second half was a completely different story. They realized they were getting embarrassed and got their heads in the game quick.

            Like

          4. Bo Darville

            “Losing your star QB leader affects the whole team. Can throw a team into disarray, especially in crunch time.”

            That’s why it is so impressive that Nebraska pulled it off without Martinez.

            Like

          5. Richard

            “Losing your star QB leader affects the whole team. Can throw a team into disarray, especially in crunch time.”

            Yep. It must’ve been easy for LSU and SCarolina to beat teams who lost their starting QB and didn’t have them in crunch time.

            Like

          7. Richard

            So all in all, only SCarolina held an advantage over Wisconsin, and they account for the difference between the B10 and SEC in the head-to-head bowl games.

            Like

      1. Marc Shepherd

        So Vegas doesn’t know how to evaluate the Big 12.

        No, bettors don’t. The Vegas line is simply the margin that attracts equal action on both sides. Vegas doesn’t care whether the line is correct, only if the betting public thinks it is correct.

        Like

        Reply
  62. Anthony London

    BuckeyeBeau,

    Good luck tonight!!!

    I’m pulling for tOSU, but I have a feeling that Clemson will be ready to play. I know the defense has not faced the caliber of receiver that is Sammy Watkins, but I think you guys can keep him contained. Urban has not inspired a ton of confidence with his remarks since the BIG championship game, which is concerning, but what are you gonna do.

    Go B-I-G!!!!

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      Have to say I’m less impressed than I thought I’d be with Urban M. after watching OSU these past two years. It seemed to me that the offensive gameplan was less than great tongiht……..no screens? no short slants into the middle? no TE in the middle? Just seemed like he really let Clemson get away with having 8-9 in the box a lot. Also, where is the toughness—seemed like the OL couldn’t establish themselves. And that didn’t look like OSU LBs out there……..

      Only good thing for OSU is Braxton M. will likely be back……while he is a very good college QB, it seems to me that he will almost certainly be a flop as a pro QB. As far as his pro prospects go, he looks like a poor man’s Vince Young.

      As to the game……Downtown Philly Brown….what a bonehead play on his part. …in all likelihood lost the game for them. Really looked like a bs selfish play on his part.

      Other observation about OSU is that they really need some stud WRs…..I assume a couple are in the pipeline?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Eh? They scored a TD on a TE streaking down the middle (and would have had another TD on a TE down the middle if BM had connected). They don’t call that often, though. Probably should have run the wheel route with the RB more. Clemson was blowing their coverage on that all night. Actually, Clemson was blowing their coverage all over the field all night. The game was definitely there for the taking, but it’s hard to win while committing 4 turnovers.

        If I’m BM, I’d turn pro. With the punishment that he takes, he’ll have as short a shelf-life as most running backs; might as well get paid for getting beat-up or learn as a backup. Also, with so much read-option being run in the NFL now, I’m certain some team will pick him.

        Like

        Reply
  63. GreatLakeState

    Amazing how tribal (conference oriented) College Football has become in the BCS era. It would have been nary unthinkable for me to root for MSU much less OSU against ANYONE pre-2000. Now I find myself leaping out of my chair (and spilling my precious Backwoods Bastard beer) when MSU scores….and whole heartedly rooting for OSU tonight. It’s a bit surreal.
    Don’t know who to root for in the other OSU game. Since I’ve always felt Mizzou should have been in the B1G, I lean toward them, but they have, after all, forsaken Winterfell for House Lannister.

    Like

    Reply
      1. GreatLakeState

        I think the ‘circle the wagons’ mentality comes from the fact that the Big Ten’s national perception is so bad. I have no doubt that if Michigan and OSU were contending year in/year out for NC’s like LSU/Bama I would feel the same way.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Brian

      The weird thing for me is that the recent era has also driven me to pay less attention to other leagues. I used to care a lot more about intersectional OOC games and rivalry games around the country. But now I really only worry about those games if they impact my team or another B10 team in the BCS. Otherwise, who wins means less to me than it used to and I don’t feel compelled to watch.

      Maybe it’s just the media hate for the B10 versus the love for the SEC (makes me avoid a lot of CFB coverage). Or maybe it’s the SEC playing on CBS and ND on NBC. Or maybe it’s all the other changes that have come with the BCS. I know the recent run of SEC titles has taken a lot of the enjoyment out of CFB for me.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Anthony London

      GreatLakeState,
      It’s funny you mentioned that because that is why I wrote my post to BuckeyeBeau. I’m a BIg fan, a diehard fan (three schools), but I never would have felt the need to voice my support before. And, I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing for the sport and college athletics. I guess time will tell…

      I think next year will be telling for football and the BIG.

      AL

      Like

      Reply
  64. Brian

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/01/3rd-annual-nfl-poll.html

    The Cowboys are not America’s team.

    PPP’s annual poll about the NFL finds that voters across party lines can agree on one thing- the Cowboys are not ‘America’s Team.’ Just 23% think they deserve that label, to 60% who disagree. And this is one sentiment that doesn’t divide along political lines- 63% of independents, 61% of Republicans, and 57% of Democrats say they don’t consider the Cowboys to be America’s team.

    In fact the designation the Cowboys do win out for is America’s least favorite team. 23% say the Cowboys are their least favorite team with no one else coming particularly close- the Bears get 13%, Patriots 9%, Broncos 8%, Steelers 6%, and Giants 5%.

    When it comes to Americans’ favorite team this year it appears there’s quite a bit of bandwagonism. The Broncos come out on top with 14% to 12% for the Cowboys, 11% Packers, 10% Bears, 8% Patriots and Steelers, 5% Giants, and 4% Saints and 49ers. When we did this same poll in 2011 the Packers were undefeated and came out way ahead of the pack with 22% naming them as their favorite team so we’ve found some inclination in the past for respondents to go with the hot hand.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Heck, the Cowboys aren’t even the Metroplex’s team. I have some friends in DFW who can’t stand Jerry Jones (just like Dan Snyder is despised in D.C., albeit for different reasons), and were it not for Cowboys Stadium securing all sorts of events for the area (e.g., this year’s Final Four, an upcoming CFB title game, a Super Bowl, an NBA all-star game), they would deem him worthless. Even with their early postseason exits the past two years, the Rangers clearly have stolen much of the Cowboys’ thunder; the Mavericks did likewise with their 2011 NBA title, though they couldn’t sustain such success; and the Stars appear back on their feet (though they’d need to make a serious Stanley Cup run to be the factor they were in 1999 and 2000). There have long been an array of Cowboys fans who have never set foot in Texas, and couldn’t identify a single member of the Rangers, Mavs or Stars.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Mike

          I attended a game in Dallas this year. Dallas fans did the strangest thing I’ve ever seen. On big downs for the Dallas offense, Cowboy fans would stand up and cheer. It caused issues for the Dallas offense as Romo had to repeat a couple of his calls to players who couldn’t hear them.

          Like

          Reply
  65. mnfanstc

    So far, some of these bowl results further prove the whole BS with the BCS—AND—that the new 4 team “playoff” will be just as big of a farce!!

    UCF was supposed to have NO chance, yet beat the Big 12 champion…
    Oklahoma was supposed to have NO chance against the 2-time defending BcS champs… yet beat them without too much of a sweat…

    Neither Oklahoma, nor UCF would even be within a whisper of being in the 4 team play-in… But both the teams that were beaten likely would have been in—

    I love the bowl games—except for all the toilet bowls with empty or half-empty stands (what a GI-NORMOUS waste)—including the choke of a bowl that my Gophers played…

    Could easily cut the bowls in half. This would be way more rewarding to the kids, the fans, and the schools— the schools are losing money sending teams/bands/etc to these crap bowls…

    Gone are the old bowl ways, yet the self-proclaimed sports network still tries to sell the pageantry, while non-stop selling the BcS championship, and focusing on it’s supposed relevance…

    Can’t have both!!

    Gimme a 8 team bracket with 2 play-in games—meaning 10 total teams have an opportunity at determining a champion ON THE FIELD (thank you)…

    Seed all 10 teams.
    Seed 8b plays 8a at 8a’s house–winner plays 1 seed at 1 seed’s house.
    Seed 7b plays 7b at 7a’s house–winner plays 2 seed at 2 seed’s house.
    6 plays 3 at #3
    5 plays 4 at #4
    Semifinals played at Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta. Championship at city/site determined by bid.

    Done! We get a real playoff, no more of this speculation of who is better than who by chatter… Play it out…

    Don’t gimme the poor student and class issue… ALL other levels of college football have playoffs that work…. SCREW this current F.Bull.Shit. CRAP!

    Thank you!

    Like

    Reply
    1. GreatLakeState

      I have always been a 4 team playoff proponent but you are exactly right. This year is ‘exhibit A’ for why an 8 team playoff might be required.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        UCF was BCS #16 while OU was #11. They wouldn’t make an 8-team playoff either, but they are capable of winning it. That’s the folly of a single game elimination playoff in CFB.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Redwood86

        No. This year is Exhibit A for why only conference champs should be in the playoffs. FSU v. Stanford or MSU in one semi-final and Auburn v. MSU or Stanford in the other. Baylor would have been excluded, as it proved it should have been. Ditto for Alabama and tOSU.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      So far, some of these bowl results further prove the whole BS with the BCS—AND—that the new 4 team “playoff” will be just as big of a farce!!

      I wouldn’t say they prove it. All these results show is what we already knew: favorites sometimes lose. Whether you have a 4-team playoff or a 64-team playoff, sometimes the team that “should win,” won’t win.

      Could easily cut the bowls in half. This would be way more rewarding to the kids, the fans, and the schools— the schools are losing money sending teams/bands/etc to these crap bowls.

      It’s hard for me to see how your proposal would be more rewarding to the kids, fans and schools. As far as I can tell, most players would prefer to attend a bowl, even a lower-tier bowl. Fans generally will tune in to watch their team, regardless of which bowl they’re in. It’s true that the schools often lose money, but one is putting a gun to their head: they choose to go. If the schools didn’t want to be there, or if the fans stopped watching, those bowls wouldn’t exist.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Brian

      mnfanstc,

      “So far, some of these bowl results further prove the whole BS with the BCS—AND—that the new 4 team “playoff” will be just as big of a farce!!”

      That’s because any postseason in football is an exhibition at best. The long break assures that these teams aren’t what they were in early December. The small number of regular season games assures that that nobody definitively knows which teams are the best. Most importantly, single game results aren’t necessarily indicative of team quality but people insist on using them that way (upsets, bad match-ups, extenuating circumstances, etc).

      “Neither Oklahoma, nor UCF would even be within a whisper of being in the 4 team play-in… But both the teams that were beaten likely would have been in—”

      If every team that’s within a 17 point spread of those above it has to get in, you’re asking for a huge playoff. On any given Saturday, any team can win. That’s why they ask teams to prove it during the regular season first. It’s not a guarantee of picking the right teams, but it does help to weed out the undeserving.

      “I love the bowl games—except for all the toilet bowls with empty or half-empty stands (what a GI-NORMOUS waste)”

      The bowls don’t exist just to fill seats. ESPN has air time to fill and cities want more tourists. They’d love to have sell outs, but they’ll take 20,000 extra visitors.

      “Could easily cut the bowls in half.”

      Sure. We could cut back to 4 or 5. But they make money for the people that matter, so they aren’t going anywhere.

      “This would be way more rewarding to the kids, the fans, and the schools”

      By having half of them stay home? That’s a reward?

      “the schools are losing money sending teams/bands/etc to these crap bowls.”

      1. That’s largely untrue or greatly exaggerated. Conferences pool bowl money and share expenses in different ways, and everybody cooks their books differently. It makes figuring out the bottom line very difficult.
      2. Are you giving any value to the PR (3.5 hours of advertising for the school)? What about to all the extra practices for the team?
      3. Schools don’t have to send as many people as they do. It’s their choice.

      “Gimme a 8 team bracket with 2 play-in games—meaning 10 total teams have an opportunity at determining a champion ON THE FIELD (thank you)…”

      UCF wouldn’t have made that playoff either. OU might have missed it too. Thus, you haven’t fixed the problem you started off bitching about.

      “Seed all 10 teams.”

      How are they selected? How are they seeded? How is this any different from the BCS or the CFP except for size and game location?

      “Done! We get a real playoff, no more of this speculation of who is better than who by chatter… Play it out…”

      How is that any more “real” than a 4 team playoff or a 2 team playoff? It’s larger, but you give no explanation of how it’s more “real.”

      “ALL other levels of college football have playoffs that work”

      I-A isn’t the same as the other levels. I-A is much more time consuming and much harder on the body to play.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        “That’s because any postseason in football is an exhibition at best. The long break assures that these teams aren’t what they were in early December. The small number of regular season games assures that that nobody definitively knows which teams are the best. Most importantly, single game results aren’t necessarily indicative of team quality but people insist on using them that way (upsets, bad match-ups, extenuating circumstances, etc).”

        Wholeheartedly agree. People used to understand that better.

        I’ll disagree on the money. All but the BCS bowls and a 3 or 4 others lose money for the conferences who send teams with all the ticket guarantees and expenses.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          How much does a 3.5 hour commercial on ESPN cost? Every bowl team is getting that for free. What is the value of having happy alumni and fans? What about coming to visit alumni in other parts of the country? Exposure to new pools of future students and athletes?

          In addition, I was talking about the total bottom line. The BCS games and top bowls provide a lot of profit to cover the losses at smaller bowls. As bowl payouts shrink, so do the mandatory ticket sales and the ticket price. And don’t forget, I clearly specified that schools spend more than they need to. You don’t get to send 100 extra people and then complain about the total cost.

          Show me that the conferences actually lose money overall on bowls when only counting mandatory expenses and valuing the PR of a bowl at more than $0.

          Like

          Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        Seems like an indication that Penn State is Al Golden’s dream job. He’s from PA. If a Miami graduate was the coach of PSU and the Canes job came open, he may just as easily go down to Miami.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Don’t know that much about Golden in particular, but in general I sure like the idea of hiring a “college” guy v. a “pro” guy, and particularly when that coach looks upon it as his “dfream job”.

          Like

          Reply
      1. bullet

        Took me a while to figure out it was a Tiger. But my biggest objection is the jersey. Will they really sell more of those than the black? Will they sell very many of those at all? Oregon ugly.

        Now Texas Tech I had to read on the internet what their helmet was. Apparently its a 3D image of their masked rider on his horse. It isn’t distinguishable on TV. So that tops modern art.

        I’m assuming this isn’t trouble with the TV coloring. People who watched on TV were convinced Tennessee was wearing blue this year instead of their traditional creamsicle. But I can verify from seeing them in person it was an even uglier grey. Clemson looks red on TV, but I have a Clemson friend who tells me they still wear orange.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          Can anyone explain why digital (or cable) TV has trouble with certain colors? I know its not just my set because I’ve heard the Clemson and Tennessee color issues from others and seen it on other TVs. Clemson used to look orange on TV.

          Like

          Reply
  68. bullet

    I really dislike the way they call interference (or don’t) now. You almost have to mug the receiver to get called. So they try to do it and hide it every time. They grab the arms and the jersey too (although that is more likely to get called). Its become a totally discretionary rule with no rhyme or reason.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      I’ll go along with calling them tighter on the DBs,, but you also have to stop the WRs from pushing off the DBs just before the ball egts there….it’s almost never called………

      Like

      Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Yes….I’m talking more about the plays where the WR pushes off and makes some space for himself as he cuts, esp. to the outside…….more than the handfighting. I really hate that play.

          Like

          Reply
  69. frug

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10240886/charlie-strong-louisville-cardinals-expected-take-texas-longhorns-job

    Texas has offered its head coaching job to Louisville coach Charlie Strong, and he is expected to accept, a person familiar with the search told the Associated Press on Friday night.

    Strong, though, told Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich on Friday night he has not accepted the job, Jurich told ESPN’s Brett McMurphy. Strong wants to talk to Jurich and Louisville president James Ramsey on Saturday, another source told McMurphy.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      That’s what I’ve felt for the last couple of weeks. The rest just made no sense for one reason or another.

      We’ll see. There have been lots of previous reports proven wrong.

      Like

      Reply
  71. gfunk

    Well had OSU won tonight, I would have given the BIG a favorable nod this bowl season. On the other hand, all BIG teams, minus Michigan, came to play & I credit Iowa, Wisky and Duke (ACC) for bringing down the SEC hype and certainly giving OU more than they needed to upset Bama, which is so far the game of the bowl season. But, the SEC has won most of their games in the end as Mizzou took care of OkSt tonight.

    Clemson has come a long ways since their implosion and beyond against WVa. Not to take any credit away from Clemson, OSU was just too battered and bruised – truly key injuries, including Miller throughout the game. It would have been nice to see a healthy OSU. I think OSU wins if healthy – the Spence disaster was the most significant loss then Bosa losing full strength during the game. I’m not sure Roby does enough for the OSU secondary, but a healthy Bosa and an available Spence slows Clemson’s attack down enough for a Buckeye win.

    I have no idea who will win between FSU-Auburn, despite the SEC’s strength being diminished some this bowl season – most of their teams, esp Auburn, have intangibles, luck and the athletes to adjust to most opponents – even the FSU steamroller.

    As for next year’s BIG, looking good gentlemen, looking good. I really think the league will breakout next year, and hopefully the down cycle is done. I’m going to call it now, Michigan will return to prominence, so will Nebraska, as for the BIG champ – I’m going with Nebraska upsetting MSU or Michigan. OSU will have 3 losses next year : ).

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      Had Ohio St. won and FSU won, interestingly, the top 3 probably would have been ACC/Big 10/Big 10.

      Definitely going to be a lot of shuffling. At this point, I think FSU or Auburn is #1, MSU or FSU is #2 and Auburn or MSU is #3. #4-#15 could go a lot of ways-I’ll guess (not necessarily my ranking, but my prediction of how it will end up) 4. MO 5. So. Carolina 6. OU 7. AL 8. UCF 9. Clemson 10. Oregon 11. Stanford 12. Ohio St. 13. Baylor 14. Lou 15. LSU.

      Then perhaps Okie St., UCLA, Wisconsin, A&M, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Arizona St., UW and Vanderbilt if they win, otherwise Nebraska.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        yeah, it’s hard to guess on this, but my best guess is:

        #1 Florida State/Auburn
        #2 Michigan State/Florida State
        #3 Auburn/Michigan State
        #4 Missouri
        #5 Oklahoma
        #6 Alabama
        #7 South Carolina
        #8 Clemson
        #9 Oregon
        #10 UCF
        #11 Stanford
        #12 Ohio State
        #13 Baylor
        #14 LSU
        #15 Louisville

        Like

        Reply
    2. mushroomgod

      As for OSU, I really put the loss more on the O than the D. And on that bonehead play by Philly Brown most of all. A truly idiotic play.

      With Roby and Spence out, you knew Watkins would go for 250-300 yards. I thought the OSU OL and Hyde would be more dominant.

      Clemson was clearly the better team, but the game was there for tjhe taking.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        Yesterday wasn’t a good argument for a playoff starting in January. Both games were pretty sloppy. Interesting, but sloppy. Missouri’s Franklin, who is a really good QB, was on a pace to throw 52 incompletions at the end of the 1st quarter (4/17/1int). Ended up 15/40/1. Okie St. QB was 33/57/2 and a fumble. Clemson and Ohio St. just looked like a lot of sloppy play whenever I switched over there. There was a safety, bunch of missed extra points, 6 turnovers.

        Like

        Reply
    3. Richard

      Nebraska doesn’t have the talent to win the league, and unlike Dantonio, Pelini hasn’t shown that he can turn a collection of 3-star recruits in to a conference title winner.

      Hoke definitely has recruited talent to UM, but they’ve underacheived.
      OSU, UM, and MSU could be pretty darn good, as in top-10 good, next year. But they might not reach those heights either. Wisconsin in Anderson’s 2nd year could join them. So the very best the B10 could do is 4 top 10 teams (which would be insanely good). 1 top 10 team and only 2 top 20 teams is also a possibility, however.

      Some high-profile OOC games next year:
      Wisconsin vs. LSU in Houston in Week 1
      UM@ND in Week 2
      MSU@Oregon in Week 3 (after a bye week)
      VTech@OSU in Week 4
      Miami@UNL in Week 4
      (Also Northwestern@ND in November)

      The B10 could win all of them (though a split is more likely).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Mike

        @Richard – IMHO, talent and development isn’t Pelini’s problem. Most of the analysts I’ve seen rate Nebraska’s overall talent behind Ohio St and Michigan but above the rest. His major problem is that his roster management has been horrible. For what ever reason Pelini stops recruiting positions resulting in a need to completely restock positions on the fly. For example:

        -Only 4 DTs played in 2011 with two suffering season ending injuries and one injured most of the year. Instead of pulling red shirts he moved a 240 lb DE inside to tackle.

        -The two deep at LB for 2012 had a transfer coming off an injury, a sophomore, and four freshman. Both DT and DE had two freshman on the two deep.

        -Next year Nebraska is going to be short on corners without some JUCO help.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Stops recruiting positions or can’t fill them? UNL (at least under Pelini) loses out on a lot of recruiting battles. This may lead to deficiencies in various positions.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Mike

            I haven’t noticed an increase in recruiting losses. I would be very surprised if Nebraska couldn’t fill a spot they had a need for. Nebraska, like most major schools, have plan B players that they have to turn away if plan A commits. Maybe forget isn’t the right word. Maybe I should have said Pelini lowers the priority on positions for too long. Let me illustrate the problem with linebackers:

            2008 – 5.
            2009 – 1. left team (discipline. I’m not sure he even made it to campus).*
            2010 – 1. JUCO Lavonte David.
            2011 – 1. *
            2012 – 4. 1 JUCO, One left team (discipline)
            2013 – 3

            *Rivals lists 2 for this class but one player “moved” to TE

            Not getting a player in 2009 isn’t a huge problem after taking so many in 2008. After missing out in 2009, Nebraska needed a HS player or two to go with the 2 years to play 2 JUCO. In 2011, the LB position is dominated by upper classman but still only one HS player. 2012 is the “oh crap” year as all the starters that graduate that fall are seniors. 2013 is another “oh crap” year due to the lack of depth.

            Like

        1. Brian

          Richard,

          “Hm. OSU will have to rebuilt virtually their entire O-Line next year.”

          Yes, 4 of 5 OL starters graduate and we lose Hyde. But we keep Miller, have several young WRs that should be good, have experienced TEs, and have some good backup OL. I expect the running game to drop off some, but the passing game should improve.

          We also have to rebuild our back 4 on defense and lose Shazier. But the front 4 is back intact, we have several young LBs that should be good and many of our “backup” DBs started multiple games this year or played significant minutes. The pass D can’t get much worse, and a more experienced DL may mean a better pass rush.

          “Contending for the national title is probably out, then.”

          Probably, but the schedule isn’t a killer:

          @Navy
          VT
          Kent St
          BYE
          UC
          @UMD
          BYE
          RU
          @PSU
          IL
          @MSU
          @MN
          IN
          MI

          The OOC schedule is better than 2013’s, but VT isn’t elite. The crossovers are IL and MN. The toughest game looks to be @MSU, but MSU also loses some key pieces. There’s no telling how good teams will be by next November (development, injuries and other attrition, etc). Obviously the CCG would also be a tough game.

          I’m not saying OSU would be an elite team, but thye might be able to put together a good record again.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Yeah, I think double-digit wins is very likely, but I still believe that most games are won in the trenches (otherwise, you need an elite, as in Cam Newton or RGIII elite, QB to contend for the national title). There are only so many Houdini acts that BM can pull.

            Like

          2. Brian

            How are NW fans feeling about 2014? Was 2013 just a perfect storm of bad things (injuries, etc) and the team will bounce back to 10 wins or so? Or was 2013 supposed to be the year and NW was supposed to slide back in 2014?

            Like

          3. Richard

            Well, what I think is different from what most NU fans think.

            I think a slight majority are in a negative/bad mood now and think that we’re a 6-6 team at best going forward with Fitz in charge and MCall calling plays. I’m in the other camp that is expecting an 8-4 season (though anything between 6-6 and 10-2 would not shock me).

            If you look at the difference between the 9-3 2012 and 5-7 2013 seasons, there were 4 main reasons for the 4 extra losses:
            1. a tougher schedule (OSU and Wisconsin in place of IU & PSU).
            2. injuries (least injured in the B10 in 2012; most injured, I believe, in the B10 in 2013).
            3. plain bad luck (2 OT losses, one after a tie on a FG with no time left where offsides wasn’t called on UM, and that game-winning Hail Mary vs. UNL).
            4. O-Line was worse.

            Only the last was something that NU can control.

            A lot of folks thought that 2013 was suppose to be the year because we had all our big-threat skill players returning, but what almost all NU fans (including me) discounted was that the O-Line suffered heavy losses and had to be rebuilt.

            In 2014, the schedule will be easier (PSU and PU replace OSU & MSU; ND does come on the schedule, but the Irish weren’t as good as OSU or MSU according to Sagarin this year). That’s one extra win there.

            The whole O-Line returns this time, and they should be better with more familiarity with each other. We didn’t really lose much to graduation that we can’t replace. Colter is gone, but Siemian is back and Alviti is a highly touted 4-star QB. If we rotate QB’s again, Alviti can easily step in to Colter’s role. His arm certainly can’t be any weaker. Venric Mark should receive the medical redshirt and be back as well.

            With average amounts of luck and injuries, 8-4 is definitely reasonable (10-2 if awesome luck and no injuries; 6-6 with terrible luck and big chunks of our team being injured again), though I don’t see NU winning our division (well, obviously, we wouldn’t by going 8-4). But also because Wisconsin and UNL have patsy cross-overs and we can’t seem to solve Bucky’s offensive style.

            What MSU and Mizzou did this year after the 2012 seasons that they had provides rays of hope for NU.
            MSU had awful luck (and dreadful QB play & a bunch of drops by their receivers) in 2012. Otherwise, they were essentially the same team, and they improved by 5 wins. Mizzou had a stupid amount of injuries in 2012. Despite calls for change, Pinkel changed virtually nothing, and they improved by 6 wins.

            Like

    4. Brian

      gfunk,

      “Well had OSU won tonight, I would have given the BIG a favorable nod this bowl season.”

      Really? What happened to this?

      January 1, 2014 at 3:20 pm

      Anyways, BIG, yet again, goes down with a losing bowl record.

      I’m out.

      “But, the SEC has won most of their games in the end as Mizzou took care of OkSt tonight.”

      Of course they did. They were favored in most of their games, just like the P12 was, because their commissioner doesn’t try to put together the toughest bowl schedule possible..

      Remember this?

      December 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      I’m sure it’s been said already, but damn did the Pac12 get a mostly chump easy bowl schedule.

      If you look above, you’ll see the SEC was favored in 6 of 7 games and the P12 in all 9 of their games. The B10 was favored in 2. It’s because we always play the best teams Delany can get, usually in their home territory. The current bowl deal doesn’t include any ACC foes, has the B10 playing higher seeds from the B12, and includes only the 1 MAC game as a non-AQ. The SEC’s current lineup plays 1 non-AQ, 1 AAC and 3 ACC teams. The P12’s includes 3 non-AQs and 1 ACC foe.

      Things will be a little different next year. The P12 will play only 1 non-AQ, 1 ACC team and 3 B10 teams. The B10 using tiers for bowl placement will lead to some odd games (#6 playing where #4 should sort of things), but maybe they’ll try to make smart pairings when possible.

      “Clemson has come a long ways since their implosion and beyond against WVa. Not to take any credit away from Clemson, OSU was just too battered and bruised – truly key injuries, including Miller throughout the game. It would have been nice to see a healthy OSU. I think OSU wins if healthy – the Spence disaster was the most significant loss then Bosa losing full strength during the game. I’m not sure Roby does enough for the OSU secondary, but a healthy Bosa and an available Spence slows Clemson’s attack down enough for a Buckeye win.”

      And yet previously you said this:

      December 27, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      Every year it’s a set of different excuses, enough with em. When something becomes consistent, it’s beyond mental and physical – it’s fact.

      Why is it valid analysis when you do it and excuses if someone else says it?

      “As for next year’s BIG, looking good gentlemen, looking good. I really think the league will breakout next year, and hopefully the down cycle is done. I’m going to call it now, Michigan will return to prominence, so will Nebraska, as for the BIG champ – I’m going with Nebraska upsetting MSU or Michigan. OSU will have 3 losses next year : ).”

      Really?

      December 28, 2013 at 11:58 pm

      The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn. Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins, esp in football and basketball – the latter being on the cusp of greatness. But football looks truly gloomy. It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

      A culture change happened in a week? That’s impressive, even for Delany.

      Like

      Reply

      1. To be fair, the SEC does play a tough bowl schedule contractually on paper. Their bowl tie-ins up to this last year before the CFP had the top non-BCS selections from the Big Ten (Capital One), Big 12 (Cotton) and ACC (Chick-fil-A) along with the next highest Big Ten selection (Outback). That’s honestly the toughest bowl lineup on paper, so I’ll give the SEC credit for usually handling it well. The Big Ten also generally plays higher selections (which usually means tougher opponents) from other conferences, while the Big 12 is relatively even. It’s really the Pac-12 and ACC that have had weaker bowl tie-ins.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          Frank the Tank,

          “To be fair, the SEC does play a tough bowl schedule contractually on paper.”

          Yes and no. They play mostly AQs, and often play up in seeds (#3/4 vs B12 #2 in the Cotton, for example). But they play CUSA and the AAC once each versus just the 1 MAC game for the B10. They also play the ACC 3 times versus none for the B10. Most importantly, they never leave really their own footprint with the Cotton being their longest trip. Plus, they have 14 teams so playing up against the 10 team B12 isn’t as bad as it sounds.

          “Their bowl tie-ins up to this last year before the CFP had the top non-BCS selections from the Big Ten (Capital One), Big 12 (Cotton) and ACC (Chick-fil-A) along with the next highest Big Ten selection (Outback).”

          SEC #2 vs B10 #2 – fair on paper

          SEC #3/4 vs B10 #3 – fair on paper half the time
          SEC #3/4 vs B12 #2 – fair on paper half the time (#3 of 14 is equivalent to #2 of 10)

          SEC #5 vs ACC #2 – playing up

          “That’s honestly the toughest bowl lineup on paper, so I’ll give the SEC credit for usually handling it well.”

          Your paper conveniently ignores which conferences they play (3 ACC, 1 AAC 1 CUSA much easier than 1 MAC with the rest B12, P12 and SEC) as well as where they play. The SEC goes as far west as Dallas and as far north as Nashville (FL x3, TN x2, LA x2, AL, GA, TX) while the B10 goes as far west as LA and as far south as FL (FL x3 all vs SEC, TX x2 vs B12, CA vs P12, AZ vs B12, MI vs MAC).

          My paper says that’s more difficult..

          “It’s really the Pac-12 and ACC that have had weaker bowl tie-ins.”

          Yes, they have. But this year the SEC was expected to cruise their bowls so I don’t consider that a hard slate (for them). I’ll worry about bowl records when every conference is predicted to be roughly 0.500 in their bowls.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            My rough rating of the bowl slate difficulty, on a scale of 0-10:

            B10 – 10 (tough conferences, tough locations)
            SEC – 9 (mostly tough conferences, playing up a lot)
            B12 – 7
            ACC – 5
            P12 – 5

            Like

          2. Richard

            Well, you’d expect to cruise if your teams are better than anyone else’s as well.

            The SEC can’t play themselves in a bowl game. You have a point about their AAC and CUSA tie-ins, but it’s not their fault that the ACC is right in their territory, so they play a lot of bowl games against them, while the Pac is far away. It’s also not their fault that a ton of bowls are located in their territory.

            How about this: You try to set up a realistic SEC bowl lineup where they can expect to be roughly .500 in their bowls. Then get back to me.

            Like

          3. Brian

            Richard,

            “Well, you’d expect to cruise if your teams are better than anyone else’s as well.”

            Or if they’re just better than who they are playing.

            “The SEC can’t play themselves in a bowl game.”

            They already have once. Give them time, and they might do it more often. Have the game of the year that wasn’t played, pairing the highest teams (after the playoff) that didn’t meet during the season.

            “You have a point about their AAC and CUSA tie-ins, but it’s not their fault that the ACC is right in their territory, so they play a lot of bowl games against them, while the Pac is far away. It’s also not their fault that a ton of bowls are located in their territory.”

            I’m not blaming them for anything, just pointing it out. Geography favors certain conferences (they host the bowls) and certain pairings of conferences (they neighbor each other). But the ACC and P12 do play in TX, so it can be done.

            “How about this: You try to set up a realistic SEC bowl lineup where they can expect to be roughly .500 in their bowls. Then get back to me.”

            Again, I’m not blaming them. I’m just pointing out that bowl schedules are apples and oranges between conferences, so comparing bowl records is largely pointless.

            The SEC could have a tougher slate if they didn’t try to maximize the money or convenience for their fans, but that would be illogical of Slive and I’m saying they should. If the B10 can play in the Holiday and KFH bowls, so could the SEC in theory. They could play the B10 in NY or DC or Detroit instead of FL.

            General idea (I’m assuming the money changes somewhat as the match-ups do):
            1. Cotton vs B12 #1 – CFP (replaces Sugar)
            2. Orange vs ACC #1 – CFP
            3. BWW vs B10 #2
            4. Alamo vs P12 #2
            5. Cap 1 vs ACC #2
            6. Holiday vs P12 #3
            7. Pinstripe vs B10 #5
            8. Tangerine vs ACC #3
            9. Sun vs B12 #5
            10. DC vs B10 #8

            Like

        2. Alan from Baton Rouge

          Brian – you grossly overestimate the difficulty of the bowl locations and the home field advantages that the SEC enjoys. While Orlando (B1G #2 v. SEC #2) and Tampa (B1G #3 v. SEC #3 or #4) may be big UF towns, that doesn’t necessarily translate into them being big SEC towns. For the most part, the locals that attend bowl games are looking for a good game and don’t usually cheer very much one way or the other. Also, think of all the Midwestern snowbirds/retirees in the region, and the fact that the B1G fanbases travel so well (to get out of the snow back home). I’ve attended two Cap One Bowls and didn’t feel like LSU had any sort of a home field advantage. While I didn’t attend the Outback Bowl last week, my friends that went said that Iowa fans outnumbered LSU fans 3 to 1. Furthermore, only Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Auburn are located within 500 miles of any of the Florida bowls.

          With the Peach Bowl (ACC #2 v. SEC #5), the locals may be more vocal for the SEC, but of the Peach Bowls that I attended, my Tigers played GA Tech. The 15-20,000 Tigers fans made more noise than the rest of the stadium.

          With the Cotton Bowl (B-12 #2 v. SEC #3 or #4), the locals that attend support the B-12 teams. I have attended two Cotton Bowls and the opponents were Texas and Texas A&M. The crowds were not a factor in either LSU’s loss against Texas or its win against A&M.

          The Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham and Shreveport bowls’ local crowds are going to favor the SEC, but I doubt those crowds of casual fans make or made much of a difference in any recent games. I have attended several Independence Bowls, and the only time I remember the crowd being a factor was when LSU played a Nick Saban-led Michigan State team. Even then, 20% of the stadium was pulling for Sparty.

          One other thing to take into consideration is that 7 to 20,000 fans all sitting in generally the same spot in the stadium can make a lot of noise for their team. For SEC road games, visitors are only allotted about 7,000 tickets, which are usually some of the worst seats and spread throughout the stadium, in order to minimize their impact. That’s not the case with bowls.

          Both teams have to travel and stay in a hotel for a week. Even when LSU plays in the Sugar Bowl, they are required to stay in New Orleans for the week, despite Baton Rouge being located 80 miles away to the Northwest. The Sugar Bowl is probably the biggest home field advantage for the SEC if the visitor is playing LSU, Auburn or Alabama, but each team receives 17,500 tickets and many more are available on the secondary market. Even when LSU played your Buckeyes, you still had about 30-35% Ohio State fans in the building. I was there and the Buckeye faithful were very loud in the first quarter. After the first quarter ended, not so much.

          Furthermore, on paper the B1G doesn’t “play up” in any of their bowl games (except for Dallas and Pizza versus non-AQ teams), according to this season’s bowl tie-ins.

          Big Ten Conference

          2013:
          #1 Bowl Championship Series. Automatic berth to a BCS bowl game, preferentially the Rose Bowl versus Pac-12 #1.
          #2 The Capital One Bowl versus SEC #2.
          #3 The Outback Bowl versus SEC #3 or #4 (SEC East preference)
          #4 The Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl versus Big 12 #4.
          #5 The Gator Bowl versus SEC #6.
          #6 The Texas Bowl versus Big 12 #6.
          #7 The Heart of Dallas Bowl versus Conference USA # 4.
          #8 The Little Caesar’s Pizza Bowl versus MAC #2.

          For comparison, here’s the SEC.

          Southeastern Conference

          2013:
          #1 Bowl Championship Series. Automatic berth to a BCS bowl game, preferentially the Allstate Sugar Bowl.
          #2 The Capital One Bowl versus Big Ten #2.
          #3 or #4 The Cotton Bowl Classic versus Big 12 #2.
          #4 or #4 The Outback Bowl versus Big Ten #3.
          #5 The Chick-fil-A Bowl versus ACC #2.
          #6 The Gator Bowl versus Big Ten #5
          #7 The Music City Bowl versus ACC #6.
          #8 The Liberty Bowl versus Conference USA #1.
          #9 The BBVA Compass Bowl versus AAC #5.
          #10 The AdvoCare V100 Bowl versus ACC #7.

          I know the B1G didn’t have enough teams to qualify for all its bowls (Dallas and Pizza), and the SEC didn’t send a team to the Shreveport bowl. But your argument about the SEC playing weaker teams in secondary bowls doesn’t hold water either. If the B1G had another bowl-eligible team, its #7 team would have played CUSA #4 (North Texas). The SEC’s #10 team played the CUSA Champion. Furthermore, while Vandy did play Houston in the Birmingham bowl, the AAC is an AQ conference this season.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            Alan from Baton Rouge,

            “Brian – you grossly overestimate the difficulty of the bowl locations and the home field advantages that the SEC enjoys.”

            I don’t think I do, but I’m also considering it in a bigger picture way than you seem to be. I’m not just talking about crowd noise on game day. I’m considering the weather the team practices in before heading to the bowl, because it takes more than a few days to adjust. I’m considering the playing surfaces teams have versus the bowls (more northern school have artificial turf because grass doesn’t do as well). I’m considering the cultural differences between home and the bowl site (even things like food differences affect people). I’m considering the impact of large changes in latitude on sun intensity and length of day. I’m considering the number of fans you run into on the street that maybe aren’t going to the game. I think you get the idea.

            “While Orlando (B1G #2 v. SEC #2) and Tampa (B1G #3 v. SEC #3 or #4) may be big UF towns, that doesn’t necessarily translate into them being big SEC towns.”

            And yet the B10 almost exclusively plays SEC East teams in FL (lately UF, UGA and SC), and SEC fans are renowned for their conference spirit.

            “For the most part, the locals that attend bowl games are looking for a good game and don’t usually cheer very much one way or the other.”

            The locals are clearly pro-SEC. They aren’t as vocal as the team’s fans, but they aren’t cheering for the B10.

            “Also, think of all the Midwestern snowbirds/retirees in the region, and the fact that the B1G fanbases travel so well (to get out of the snow back home).”

            Yes, we do a good job of trying to minimize the disadvantage. Of course, that happens at great expense to our fans versus the home conference’s fans, but that’s not a W/L issue.

            “I’ve attended two Cap One Bowls and didn’t feel like LSU had any sort of a home field advantage.”

            Nobody is claiming it feels like Death Valley West at a bowl. Just because it doesn’t feel remotely like that doesn’t mean LSU is lacking an advantage. It just isn’t as large as you’re used to seeing.

            “Furthermore, only Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Auburn are located within 500 miles of any of the Florida bowls.”

            BCS era teams from the SEC in those games versus the B10:

            Tangerine/Cap 1:
            UF/UGA/SC/AU – 10
            Other – AR x 2, LSU x2, UT, AL

            Hall of Fame/Outback:
            UF/UGA/SC/AU – 12
            Other – UT x 2, UK, LSU

            Gator:
            UF/UGA/SC/AU – 2
            Other – MSU x2

            That’s 24 of 36 slots filled by those 4 nearby teams.

            “Both teams have to travel and stay in a hotel for a week. Even when LSU plays in the Sugar Bowl, they are required to stay in New Orleans for the week, despite Baton Rouge being located 80 miles away to the Northwest.”

            And you think LSU feels that the same way as a team from 1000 miles away?

            “Furthermore, on paper the B1G doesn’t “play up” in any of their bowl games (except for Dallas and Pizza versus non-AQ teams), according to this season’s bowl tie-ins.”

            I didn’t say they did.

            Big Ten Conference

            “But your argument about the SEC playing weaker teams in secondary bowls doesn’t hold water either.”

            That wasn’t my argument. I said the SEC plays more teams from weaker leagues (non-AQ/AAC/ACC).

            Like

          3. Brian

            Richard,

            “BTW, the B10 is 7-5 in those 3 FL bowls against the 6 SEC schools located outside the 500 mile radius.”

            Yep. Here’s the breakdown:

            The 4 local schools:
            Cap 1 – 6-4
            Outback – 8-4
            Gator – 1-1
            Total – 15-9 (0.625)

            The rest of the SEC:
            Cap 1 – 2-4
            Outback – 2-2
            Gator – 1-1
            Total – 5-7 (0.417)

            Also, let’s look at the Sugar Bowl/NCG in New Orleans since 1998:
            LSU – 4-1 (with the loss to AL)
            Rest of SEC – 4-6
            B10 – 2-2 with both losses to LSU

            Those 4 bowls (essentially all of the neutral site meetings between the conferences) combine to make the B10 18-22 (0.450) versus the SEC since 1998, but 9-5 (0.643) against non-local teams and 9-17 against the locals (0.346).

            Is that disparity really just coincidence?

            Like

          4. rich2

            Brian, Richard and anyone else (I have not read this entire thread) — Never in a million years would I have imagined that I would be posting on this board in defense of the SEC, but as long as we are hypothesizing:
            2011
            I take Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, South Carolina and Georgia — you take any five Big Ten teams, you pick the match-ups — SEC wins this series no matter how many times you simulate the results (at least 10)
            2012
            I take Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M, South Carolina and LSU — you take your five (Michigan, Northwestern, PSU, OSU and Nebraska?) — I take same bet.
            2013
            Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, Missouri and LSU — you take your five (MSU, OSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa?) — I take same bet.

            It does not matter if they play indoors, outdoors, at the Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium or Jerry’s World. In fact, if you had to play seeds (#1 vs. #1), in 2011 I would win if the Big 10 had home field advantage for every game — and maybe in 2012. The Big 10 is down. The conference might improve. But you cannot deny the recent history.

            Like

      2. gfunk

        Brian,

        It’s ultimately about the end result: win the games. We can debate match ups all day long, I have plenty of issues with the tradition of bowl scheduling, but again “win the games”. The BIG has been overall subpar, historical fact prevails and underscores my easy argument. I firmly believe that cultural changes involving many actors could improve the product, but this is ultimately an ineffective space for such debate.

        You continue to amaze me Brian with your textual analysis – it’s actually comforting to know that there are crazier people than me on this planet : ).

        PS The BIG has to be the only conference where most of its top programs have losing bowl records. PSU remains the underrated gem in this conference when it comes to bowl games, but their records book will remain tainted for good.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          The B10 is the only conference that had restrictive bowl rules that greatly reduced the total number of bowls their teams got to play in and limited them to playing the P8/P10 champ in CA (back when travel was harder, too).

          PSU 21-15-2
          NE 25-25
          MI 20-23 (2-7 vs USC/UCLA in Rose, 18-16 otherwise)
          OSU 19-23 (3-5 vs USC/UCLA in Rose, 16-18 otherwise)

          Like

          Reply

  72. The apparent loss of Golden from Miami and Strong from Louisville will deliver a considerable setback to the perception of ACC football. No, it hasn’t yet reached the level of Florida State and the 13 dwarfs, but it remains to be seen if their successors would be able to maintain nationally prominent programs.

    Like

    Reply
    2. Richard

      Nope, it will FSU and Clemson and the 12 dwarves. Beamer use to be able to work miracles, but he hasn’t in a while and is getting old.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Marc Shepherd

      The apparent loss of Golden from Miami and Strong from Louisville will deliver a considerable setback to the perception of ACC football. No, it hasn’t yet reached the level of Florida State and the 13 dwarfs, but it remains to be seen if their successors would be able to maintain nationally prominent programs.

      It strikes me as two very different situations. Until the early 2000s, they were football elite, no matter how you define that term. They did it long enough (again, under multiple coaches) to suggest it wasn’t a fluke. The next Miami coach’s job is to restore what was undoubtedly a top-tier program for many years. Al Golden certainly seemed to have them on that path.

      Louisville, on the other hand, has been a slightly above-average mid-major for most of its existence. Historically, they have a good year or two, then go back to playing .500 ball against a mediocre schedule. When they find a decent coach, he leaves for greener pastures. Until Charlie Strong did it, Louisville had never had consecutive double-digit win seasons, nor won consecutive bowls. So the open question is whether, without Charlie Strong, they go back to being the old Louisville.

      Like

      Reply
    4. bullet

      If the Stoops to Cleveland rumor pans out, the USC, OU, Texas, Miami and Penn St. jobs will all have been open in the same year.

      Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St. and Florida turned over recently as well. Nebraska may turn over soon. And its not like Saban and Fisher have been at Bama and FSU forever.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Mark Richt: Dean of the king program coaches.

        However, I don’t see the rationale for Bob Stoops leaving for Cleveland.
        He loves OH that much? At OU, he’s pretty much set for another decade (I don’t see him pulling a Mack Brown; he’s still cranking out double-digit win seasons virtually every year), which would take him in to his ’60’s. At Cleveland, it would be tough to last 4 years.

        BTW, my feeling is that Richt is on shakier footing than Pelini. Doesn’t look that way from GA?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Over the past 6 years, Richt has fewer wins than Pelini (both are 3-3 in bowl games) despite having massively better local recruiting grounds than Pelini. You can’t say that it’s due to the much tougher ESS-EEE-SEE either as UGa has racked up more OOC losses over that time frame as well.

          Like

          Reply
        2. bullet

          No. Last year brought him back from the brink. This year the injuries were so critical, no one complains much about 8-5. And his team put out full effort every game but the bowl game (sometimes a stupid effort, but always a great effort). They were in every game. And all but Missouri into the final minute. 4 of the losses could easily have gone the other way with a single key play. Of course, a couple of the wins could have also.

          Like

          Reply
        3. Brian

          The rationale would have to be a desire to test himself on the top level (NFL) and perhaps some family reasons (he’s from the area). Or maybe just for the paycheck and to stop dealing with recruiting.

          Like

          Reply
  73. Richard

    I decided to take a look at the link between recruiting and winning a national title since it seems obvious that you’re simply not going to contend for a national title with recruiting classes out of the top 20. Granted, even with stellar recruiting, you may not contend because of poor coaching or development (ahem, Mack & Lane), but you won’t get in to the race without the horses.

    So I decided to give 2 points to top 5 classes and 1 point to classes 6-10 (going by Rivals). I know that there is a difference between a top 20 class and one lower down, but it does look like you’re not going to be able to win a national title just with a string of top 20 classes without breaking in to the top 10 (and going past the top 10 would take more work). I also decided to double-weigh the senior and junior classes, as they’d have more impact than the sophomores and freshmen.

    So here’s the raw data, including every school that has a top 10 class since 2002:
    2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    Texas 4 2 4 6 10 8 8 12 10 8
    UF 5 8 6 8 10 10 6 6 8 7
    UGa 8 7 7 8 8 5 6 4 4 4
    Alabama 0 0 1 3 6 10 12 12 12 12
    LSU 6 9 7 4 8 7 6 7 5 4
    OSU 5 2 2 2 4 6 8 6 4 8
    FSU 8 8 10 9 6 4 7 7 8 9
    USC 8 12 12 11 11 10 10 11 9 6
    Michigan 3 5 6 3 2 3 4 3 3 4
    ND 0 1 2 5 6 6 5 1 4 5
    PSU 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
    OU 9 9 7 7 3 3 3 2 2 0
    Tennessee 6 2 6 6 5 6 3 4 2 2
    Miami 9 9 6 4 2 4 4 1 1 3
    Auburn 2 1 2 3 4 4 3 6 8 6
    TAMU 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
    UCLA 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1
    Nebraska 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Colorado 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    NCSU 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    SCarolina 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0
    MSSt 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    MSU 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Cal 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
    UNC 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0
    Clemson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
    Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
    Stanford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
    Ole Miss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Sorry, I suppose you could contend; both Oregon and OSU got in to the title game with poorer recruiting classes, but then they got beat as well.

      Like

      Reply
  74. Richard

    Every school that has won a national title since 2005 has had at least a 4 (Texas in 2004, with a 4, beating USC with an 8 & Auburn in 2010, with a 4, beating Oregon, with a 0, were the lowest).

    Here were the ranks in recruiting by this methodology of the title winners:
    2005 Texas: 10th
    2006 UF: tied 5th
    2007 LSU: tied 3rd
    2008 UF: 3rd
    2009 Bama: tied 6th
    2010 Auburn: tied 10th
    2011 Bama: 1st
    2012 Bama: tied 1st
    2013: FSU & Auburn both tied for 4th

    So who will be the national champion in 2014? Assuming that 2014 class rankings stay as they are (though even if they don’t it wouldn’t be a big deal for most teams as the senior and junior classes are weighted more), here are the contenders by this metric:
    Bama: 12
    FSU: 9
    OSU & Texas: 8
    UF: 7
    Auburn & USC: 6
    ND: 5
    LSU, UGa, Michigan, & Stanford: 4

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      BTW, if you go by this metric, you can see that the SEC has started producing more true national title contenders relative to the rest of college football in recent years. From 2005-2008, there were always more true (has a 4 or above in recruiting by this metric) non-SEC national title contenders than SEC national title contenders. From 2009-2013, however, other than in 2011, there were as many or more true national title contenders within just the SEC than in all other conferences combined.

      This is really due to only a few trends. While Bama has roared from being a non-contender back in 2005 to being the most talent contender in recent years, both Miami and OU have gone from recruiting the talent required to win national titles in 2005 to not doing so in recent years.
      USC, FSU, UF, LSU, and UGa have recruited enough talent to be national title contenders the whole period though UGa has dropped a bit now compared to the beginning. Texas as well except for 2006. OSU has generally had the recruiting (though were weaker earlier in the period, when they, ironically, made it to the title game and promptly got smashed). Michigan and ND have always been close to the cut line through the whole period. Tennessee was recruiting the talent early in the time period to be a true contender but isn’t now, but Auburn wasn’t recruiting the the talent required earlier but is now. That makes up virtually the entire list of schools that had gotten a 4 at some point during this time period. UNL did in 2007 & 2008 while Stanford will in 2014. PSU is the only king that never recruited well enough to win the national title any year during the period.

      In 2014, SEC schools will make up a slight minority of true national title contenders (5 vs. 7).

      Like

      Reply

    1. @frug – Quite the irony that the two top superstation teams of the ’80s and ’90s (the Braves and Cubs) that leveraged huge nationwide cable exposure are currently saddled with far-below-market TV contracts.

      Like

      Reply

          1. Yes, that’s correct – the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks all have 20% shares in CSN Chicago. The thing is that it has been a good-to-great deal for the White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks, but the Cubs are leaving a lot of money on the table in that setup. They could easily be the sole team on a station like the Dodgers and get a truly monster deal. Plus, CSN Chicago’s carriage rate is actually fairly low considering the market size and that it’s a legitimate 24/7/365 RSN with relevant programming everyday. My guess is that Comcast, which owns the last 20% of the network, has favorable carriage terms and they’re the top cable provider in the Chicago market. All of those things out together mean that the Cubs are getting paid a lot less than they ought to be (and their ownership has said as much). In terms of actual market value, they should be right next to the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers in terms of TV money, but they’re more towards the middle of the pack in MLB (considering the deals that teams like the Mets, Angels, Rangers, Phillies and Giants now have).

            Like

          2. Richard

            Still, that’s not nearly as bad a situation as the one that the Braves are in. The Cubs bring in far more TV money than any of their competitors in the NL Central and have TV deals that are expiring soon.

            The Braves have a TV deal that is towards the lower end of the spectrum in MLB, gives them no equity stake, and is one that they’re locked in to until 2031.

            http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/

            Also, it seems that the Mets may be in the same ballpark as the Cubs (though greater equity stake) while the Giants have a worse TV deal.

            Like

          3. And what about the Nationals? They are in a top 10 market — both in size and affluence — but they currently are boxed in because of the MASN deal with Cuban Pete (Angelos). If they could negotiate their own TV deal, either with CSN Washington or a completely new channel (Fox reportedly is interested), they would be in excellent shape.

            Like

          4. frug

            @vp

            The Nats are currently in arbitration and are requesting $100-$120 a year. While they may not get they much right now, they are allowed to renegotiate their TV deal every five years anyways, so at most they just have to wait a few years to get a big payday.

            Like

    2. bullet

      Braves aren’t desperate. They just want it all. Right now they are in the slums. Parking is a pain. Access is a pain. They don’t control all of their parking and have had times when they couldn’t get their parking open. And their customers are almost all north of Turner Field. The geographic center north/south is right where they are moving. If they moved straight north to GA-400 and I-285, they would be exactly in the center.

      So they get
      Development rights around the stadium
      Total control of the parking, so they don’t have to negotiate when they need parking a little early
      A stadium in an area their customers aren’t afraid to be in at night
      A stadium closer to their customers
      More suites
      Fewer seats-Turner Field with 50k gives them more supply than they need most of the time-meaning lower ticket prices.

      And they found a community willing to give them what they wanted. While Atlanta gave the Falcons all they wanted while bribing the neighborhoods and churches not to put up a fuss.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Hey, if Republicans want to waste taxpayer money on corporate welfare, what do I care (so long as it isn’t MY money; which is why I hope the Rams will move).

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          Well it was the Democrats in Atlanta who gave up money to the Falcons to replace a perfectly good 22 year old stadium and the Republicans in Cobb County who gave up money to the Braves to replace a perfectly good 17 year old stadium.

          Like

          Reply
        1. Brian

          Fewer seats and fewer parking spaces.

          Plus, no mass transit access. At least MARTA ran shuttles to the Ted. MARTA isn’t allowed into Cobb County, so only CCT (a bus system only, and a small one) can get to the new park and the only access from Atlanta is on CCT express.buses from north of downtown.

          In addition, it’s being built at an intersection of 2 major interstates (6+ lanes each way for both) that are already parking lots during rush hour. Then they have to exit onto an incredibly busy surface street that is also a parking lot in rush hour. Now that road will have an extra 25,000 cars on it. Someone in downtown Atlanta would probably need to allow at least an hour to drive the 15 miles to a 7pm weeknight game.

          Like

          Reply
          2. bullet

            Turner field is at the intersection of 2.5 interstate (6+ lanes each way for both) and an exit onto a couple of tiny surface streets into an area hemmed in by the freeways.

            Atlanta messed up by not putting Turner Field actually in downtown with direct MARTA access like Phipps Arena and the football stadium(s). Turner is one of worst spots you could pick. Maybe central DeKalb County (to the east with no freeways or MARTA) or the middle of Buckhead (north of downtown with 1 freeway off to the edge) would be worse, but not many places.

            Like

          3. Brian

            Richard,

            “Well, people in downtown Atlanta weren’t going to Braves games anyway, so . . .”

            Lots of people that work in town were going, they just don’t live there.

            Like

          4. Brian

            bullet,

            “Turner field is at the intersection of 2.5 interstate (6+ lanes each way for both) and an exit onto a couple of tiny surface streets into an area hemmed in by the freeways.”

            Yes.

            “Atlanta messed up by not putting Turner Field actually in downtown with direct MARTA access like Phipps Arena and the football stadium(s). Turner is one of worst spots you could pick.”

            It’s a terrible place except that’s where they had room. They should have created a MARTA station, at least, though. The GA Dome is only about a mile away, though, so it’s not like it or Phillips are so much easier to access.

            “Maybe central DeKalb County (to the east with no freeways or MARTA) or the middle of Buckhead (north of downtown with 1 freeway off to the edge) would be worse, but not many places.”

            Up GA 400 when it was a toll road when have been cute. How about on top of Lenox or Phipps?

            Like

          6. Brian

            frug,

            The malls will just love that, with the Braves fans filling all the spots so their customers can’t park. Besides, why will those shuttles be any more popular than the MARTA shuttles to the Ted?

            Like

          7. Wainscott

            This whole plan is so harebrained its actually funny.

            No train access to a 40k stadium in one of the worst traffic cities in the country, and said location is at the interchange of two major interstate highways known for congestion? LOL.

            Like

  76. ccrider55

    How is Charlie Strong going to handle dealing with media, LHN, alums and boosters at UT when he didn’t particularly like dealing with those (at a lesser level) at Louisville?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brian

      Saban detests those things and does fine at AL. If Strong wins big at UT, he’ll be fine. I think this was a great choice for UT because Strong can recruit successfully against Sumlin.

      I see that Al Golden is staying at Miami. Munchak or Franklin next on PSU’s list?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Golden must think that he has a better chance of winning titles at Miami than at PSU (almost certainly true over the next 5-10 years).

        Like

        Reply
  77. frug

    http://www.hurricanesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=28700&ATCLID=209360363

    There has been much speculation concerning my future at the University of Miami. While I am flattered that our progress at The U during an extremely difficult period of time is recognized, I am also appreciative of just what we have here at UM and I am not a candidate for another position.

    Personally, I think this is a good thing for PSU. Golden is a good coach, but I really think PSU would be better served by bringing in an outsider instead of an alum who grew up in Central Pennsylvania.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Why an outsider? Why not a PA guy? If PSU wants to be any good again, they’ll have to start to dominate recruiting again in the Northeast down to VA.

      Like

      Reply
  78. GreatLakeState

    Consensus on the PSU rivals board seems to be that the AD let the cat out of the bag before Golden could get his ducks in order and that he backed out. It would appear Munchak is the next ‘done deal’ . I personally think Franklin is the better choice.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Johnny Utah

      Franklin would certainly be a better choice, but rumor is he already makes over $3MM at Vandy. Would Penn State pay up for him? They were only paying $1.9MM to BoB.

      Like

      Reply
  79. Richard

    So who’s going to hire Blake Anderson for a coaching gig next year?

    Arkansas St. has launched Hugh Freeze, Gas Malzahn, and Bryan Harsin in to coaching positions where they can get top 100 recruits and get to BCS bowl games each after 1 year stints.

    Like

    Reply
  80. Richard

    Continuing a discussion from the previous thread, Michigan got $4.7M to play ‘Bama in 2012 and will get $6.0M to play UF in 2017, both at JerryWorld, but Wisconsin will receive $4.0M to play ‘Bama in JerryWorld in 2015 and $2.0M to play LSU in Houston in 2014:

    http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/badgers-football-uw-guaranteed-million-for-opener-vs-alabama/article_4975aa1c-9d7c-58c1-9122-033686b4145e.html

    Brand matters, evidently. From Bucky’s perspective, these games still make sense as they bring in $3M+ for each home game, but these neutral site games don’t require a return trip for little profit to a hostile environment (and are more interesting than a patsy in a guarantee game).

    Also, JerryWorld can afford higher payouts than Reliant (likely due to the increased amount of seating available). From ESPN’s perspective, these games are a relative steal. For the Wisconsin-‘Bama match, they get $4M from JerryWorld & company (not sure if that’s a total or just UW’s share). They pay $4M to the Badgers and likely $4M to the Tide. Consider that they’re paying roughly $5M for just an average Pac game. Granted, they have to compensate both the B10 and SEC some amount for the TV rights. Not sure what that may be.

    Like

    Reply
      1. bullet

        Looks like they had quite a finish. And the Sun Belt wins the bowl championship with a 2-0 100% record. Also finished 6th in ooc record, just ahead of the AAC. Those programs have come a long way. 2005 the Sun Belt was 1-26 ooc vs. FBS schools. 2010 4-33. And prior to 2011, they only twice won more than 20% of their ooc games vs. FBS.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Michael in Raleigh

      No worries. I’ll be a little obnoxious for everyone if Florida State wins. Just imagine… the conference that finally knocks of the SEC could be… the lowly ACC.

      FSU 45 Auburn 31

      Like

      Reply
      1. DITB

        Michael,

        FSU 38
        Auburn 31

        That would be something if it winds up being the ACC to take down the SEC. I do consider FSU a football king though, so that has to count for something, right?

        Here’s hoping for a good game tonight.

        AL

        Like

        Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      It’s an interesting line of analysis, but there are numerous flaws. The study purports to answer two questions for seven different playoff formats:

      1) What’s the probability that the true “best team” actually wins it?
      2) What’s the probability that the true “best team” qualifies for the playoff?

      Among the seven systems, the answer to #1 varies in an extremely small range, from 29.4% to 32.9%. According to this analysis, the 4-team playoff starting next year will select the best team as champion 31.4% of the time.

      So if you believe this analysis, expanding to 12 teams will improve the result by only 1.5%, nowhere near significant enough to justify all of those other games. Of course, with the differences being so small, tiny changes to the underlying assumptions could change the outcome dramatically.

      I’m dubious of the method used to identify the allegedly “best team”. According to the analysis, even with a 16-team playoff, the true “best team” would make the field only 90.9% of the time.

      Beyond that, the analysis makes no assumptions about substantial questions that could alter the result, such as whether non-deserving teams get auto-bids, or whether any of the games are played on campus.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        Frankly, the numbers make a decent argument for sticking with the BCS.

        One problem is that high rep simulations tend to force reversion to the mean. They rarely show 12-0 or 0-12 teams, which impacts the “rankings” significantly. The increased losses for the top teams are the reason why the best team gets left out so often in all those systems. Does anyone really believe the BCS missed the top team making the NCG 60% of the time?

        Like

        Reply
  84. Marc Shepherd

    The New York Times has an article by Richard Sandomir about how the records of disgraced athletes are erased from the record books (e.g., O.J., Paterno, Reggie Bush, Lance Armstrong).

    “No one says Nixon didn’t go to China or sign Title IX into law because he was forced to resign because of Watergate,” said Bob Costas, an NBC commentator. “It seems to me you can’t strike from the historical record what occurred. The Fab Five played in the N.C.A.A. tournament, and Reggie Bush was a great and impactful player who won the Heisman Trophy.”

    I agree with Costas that history shouldn’t be erased. It creates all sorts of problems for researchers, as depending on what source you look at, and how you query the source, certain games either happened, or didn’t. The NCAA isn’t even consistent, as it erases wins but not losses, and in most cases it preserves the individual statistics, just not the game outcome.

    “Armstrong was penalized for things he had done but Paterno for things he didn’t do or for things people think he should have done,” Costas said.

    You can understand the rationale in Armstrong’s case, as without blood doping he probably wouldn’t have won all of those titles. But no sensible person has suggested that if Paterno had promptly reported Sandusky, he wouldn’t have won any more football games.

    Like

    Reply
  85. Wainscott

    Although Florida State and Auburn didn’t have trouble selling their 20,200 tickets each, many of those buying up the tickets — including donors — were sellers, said Jimmy Siegendorf, owner of online ticket brokerage Premium Seats USA based in Hollywood, Fla.

    “It was clear from the very beginning, that with the travel expenses and the airfare, that a lot of the people getting the tickets were selling them,” Siegendorf said.

    Distance traveled tends to have an effect on where final prices settle.

    And Monday’s game marks the first time in the 14-year history of the BCS that the campuses of each team are at least 2,000 miles away from the championship venue.

    For the 2004, 2008 and 2012 games, prices were high thanks to the fact LSU was playing in the game in New Orleans.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls13/story/_/id/10250044/2014-vizio-bcs-national-championship-tickets-cheapest-14-year-history

    So, even fans of FSU and Auburn (SEC) have limits, regarding travel, costs, work, timing, etc… Doesn’t bode well for multiple neutral site games in forthcoming playoffs.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      No, at least for the semis and title game.

      If the Rose hosts the Pac and B10, Sugar hosts the SEC, Cotton hosts the B12, and Peach hosts the ACC, all the quarterfinal sites would have at least one school that is close (the Rose could get a Pac school from the NW and Sugar could end up with UK, SC, or Mizzou, but I don’t see a problem with those bowls selling out; The Peach ending up with BC, Pitt, or ‘Cuse would be problematic if the other school is far away).

      Then, the semifinals should be held in the center of the country when many fanbases from different conferences can get to easily or places with a mix of people from different parts of the country. I nominate Indy or StL. Possibly Miami/Phoenix as well.
      How about Indy (which is where the NCAA HQ are as well) for one semifinal and alternating between Phoenix and Miami for the other semifinal.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        Just because somewhere is “convenient” doesn’t mean its cheap.

        Say Michigan State is in the playoffs, and plays a quarterfinal in the Rose Bowl. That will be the second consecutive neutral site game (after the B1G Title Game in Indy). Now, on top of that, you want MSU fans to pony up for flights and hotels and tickets and cars and such to a third neutral site game in either Indy (six weeks after last appearing there) or Miami/Phoenix (several hour flights to each city).

        And then, if MSU wins, a FOURTH straight neutral site game for the national title, in, say, Dallas? Way too much to ask of fans. WAYYYYY toooooo much.

        Any 8 team playoff will have to have on campus quarterfinals in my view, meaning that NYE/NYD should be the semi’s (much how the 4 team playoff will be), with a title game a week later. (I think a Friday night in January, either 1st or second, depending on when NYD is, makes more sense than a Monday night game. TV probably prefers Monday, though.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Using MSU as an example, Indy is a day trip for most Spartan fans. So really only the Rose and national title game would require significant outlays.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            Maybe so, but that’s assuming:

            a) Indy actually hosts a semi-final;
            b) that fans will be excited about a 2nd road trip to Indy in winter; and
            c) that fans will actually take the approximately 4 hour drive each way on shorter notice.

            If the bowls on NYE/NYD are the quarterfinals, when are the semi’s held? Are we assuming for arguments sake that tis Frank’s plan, his plan actually only states ” 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.* ”

            So, the only way semi-finals can work and be on a weekend is to be on the NFL Championship Saturday (no chance of games going head to head with NFL playoffs. None.) That’s the only date I see MSU fans road tripping to Indy for a game. Few will take a day or 2 off from work to road trip to a Monday (or Friday) night game.

            Now, assume the three neutral site games are Pasadena, Miami, and Phoenix? MSU fans going to all three? MSU fans booking flights a week before a game, when airlines will set the algorithms to jack up prices on those dates? That would be asking more of fans than any domestic professional sports league does, and asking this of significantly more fans than the NCAA tourney does (based on stadium size).

            These factors will definitely be considered.

            Like

          2. Richard

            I would hold the semis on MLK Monday, which is 2-3 weeks after NYD, so not extremely short notice.

            The title game would be the week after, though (I would hold it on the Sunday during the Super Bowl bye week), and thus short notice.

            College bball diehards would actually have to travel all over the country like this (conference tourney & then 3 NCAA tournament sites) on short notice, but you’re right, the numbers aren’t the same.

            The title game should get plenty of local fans going. The NCAA has no problem selling out the Final Four, for instance, no matter where it is held, and it’s in a big stadium. You don’t have to hold it at a gigantic stadium like JerryWorld, either.

            Like

          3. Richard

            BTW, that’s why I have one of the semifinals permanently in the middle of the country, not the sun belt, so that at least one of the 3 rounds could be close for any school with a top 2 seed (well, other than those in the Northeast or Northwest or possibly Mountain West; but the possibility of those regions producing national title contenders are a bit remote anyway.

            Like

          4. Wainscott

            Ok, using MLK as the Semi-final weekend:

            Games would have to be either on Saturday or Monday (NFL title games on Sunday).

            If Saturday, stadiums might get blowback from NFL, since semi-final sites are all home to NFL teams that might host a conference title game the next day. (Issues with turf, media preparations and the like mean semis would probably be on Monday. Roger Goodell would flip his BLEEP if the turf at, say, Sun Life Stadium, got market up by college kids less than 24 hours before a potential AFC title game in Miami hosted by the Dolphins. This might seem like a trivial matter, but the logistics are more complex than we realize.

            Now, since MLK is a national holiday, federal government Is closed. However, MLK observance is different around the country. More places/businesses are closed in Atlanta than in NYC on MLK day, whereas in NY, Presidents Day is the more widely observed holiday/school vacation week.

            Other issues include casual fan interest waning with 2+ weeks between NYD and semis and the other issue that games at night on MLK run into the same problems of fan travel home for work on Tuesday, as well as already inflated travel costs to host cities, as most host cities are also weekend/tourist destinations on long weekends.

            Plus, having games on Monday on MLK, you’ve stated a preference for a Sunday title game–that’s 5 full days of prep for teams (Tues-Fri), and 6 days for fans to book a new set of tickets/flights. In the playoff, there are I think 9-12 days between the semis and the title game. I’m not certain powers that be will sign off on giving teams less than a week to prepare for the title game. I assume no stadium would hose the super bowl and cfb title game in the same season, so no issues with turf/stadiums are present.

            Dare I mention that players are now potentially missing the first few weeks of the spring semester practicing and hopping around the country for the semis and the finals?

            Like

          5. Wainscott

            “BTW, that’s why I have one of the semifinals permanently in the middle of the country, not the sun belt, so that at least one of the 3 rounds could be close for any school with a top 2 seed (well, other than those in the Northeast or Northwest or possibly Mountain West; but the possibility of those regions producing national title contenders are a bit remote anyway.”

            I understand that, and I agree that’s a smart move, but as is posted below, the powers that be have not done this:

            2014–15
            Semi: Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)
            Semi: Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA) January 1, 2015
            Title: AT&T Stadium (Arlington, TX) January 12, 2015
            2015–16
            Semi:Orange Bowl (Miami Gardens, FL)
            Semi: Cotton Bowl (Arlington, TX) December 31, 2015
            Title: University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale, AZ) January 11, 2016
            2016–17
            Semi:Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)
            Semi: Chick-fil-A Bowl (Atlanta, GA) December 31, 2016
            Title:Raymond James Stadium (Tampa, FL)
            .
            Plus, I think the powers that be are frightened about having games in cold cities in the winter, for fear that fans won’t be able to actually get to the game or that warmer weather school fans wont travel to, say, Minnesota, in the winter even for an indoor game. Indeed, only one cold weather city even bid for the 2017 game: Minneapolis (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/story?id=9748601).

            Like

          6. Marc Shepherd

            Using MSU as an example, Indy is a day trip for most Spartan fans. So really only the Rose and national title game would require significant outlays.

            That’s not a very good example, is it? Sparty had a great run this year, and I’m not taking anything away from them. But there could easily be years when NO Big Ten team qualifies for your proposed Indy round, and there almost certainly wouldn’t be two.

            Four out of five power leagues are nowhere near Indy. They’re not going to agree to put a semifinal game there.

            Like

          7. Richard

            Students don’t have to miss more classes than they normally do during the fall if you limit practices.

            Teams who play on Thursday nights may have even less time to prepare between games.

            In any case, they have 15 practices over the winter break to prepare.

            Like

          8. Richard

            Marc:

            I wouldn’t say “nowhere near Indy”. The SEC is just across the Ohio river/IN border. Northern part of the ACC and B12 aren’t too far either.

            If Indy doesn’t suit you, make StL the permanent semifinal spot. The SEC would like it as it would be in their footprint. The B12 would be close by as well.

            Like

          9. Richard

            Also, the other 4 P5 leagues have their quarterfinal sites in their footprint. Only the B10 doesn’t, so they can’t complain if they have to travel somewhere for a change.

            Like

          10. Richard

            BTW, if you go by that criteria, no one besides the Pac are anywhere near the Rose Bowl or Phoenix, so they should be rejected as sites as well.

            Like

          11. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            “Teams who play on Thursday nights may have even less time to prepare between games.”

            Regular season schedule means nothing. The powers that be will not schedule a title game with less than a week after a semifinal game. Use the timing and scheduling from the forthcoming playoff as a guide, not the MAC or ACC’s need for Thursday night exposure.

            “Students don’t have to miss more classes than they normally do during the fall if you limit practices.”

            But my missing X number of classes in the fall, by missing even one class in the spring, they will miss more classes. There is no way around this.

            Like

          12. Richard

            “The powers that be will not schedule a title game with less than a week after a semifinal game.”

            They scheduled the DivIII title game less than a week after the semifinal.

            In any case, if you think they will set a minimum of a week between the semis and title game, then move the title game to the Monday of the Super Bowl bye week (which seems to be the preferred day of the week that tPtB like to schedule the title game anyway).

            “But my missing X number of classes in the fall, by missing even one class in the spring, they will miss more classes. There is no way around this.”

            Yes, but they’d harm their academics if they expand to 8 spots regardless. I’m not arguing for an expansion to an 8-team playoff; I’m arguing that my plan is the best (otherwise, you’d interfere with finals) if tPtB decide to expand the playoff to 8.

            Like

          14. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            “And yes, if you read my post, my plan is for the semis on MLK day, which is always a Monday and never a Saturday.”

            Yes, I’m aware MLK Day is actually a Monday, which is why I spent most of my post above discussing that, which I’ll repost for you:

            “Now, since MLK is a national holiday, federal government Is closed. However, MLK observance is different around the country. More places/businesses are closed in Atlanta than in NYC on MLK day, whereas in NY, Presidents Day is the more widely observed holiday/school vacation week.

            Other issues include casual fan interest waning with 2+ weeks between NYD and semis and the other issue that games at night on MLK run into the same problems of fan travel home for work on Tuesday, as well as already inflated travel costs to host cities, as most host cities are also weekend/tourist destinations on long weekends.

            Plus, having games on Monday on MLK, you’ve stated a preference for a Sunday title game–that’s 5 full days of prep for teams (Tues-Fri), and 6 days for fans to book a new set of tickets/flights. In the playoff, there are I think 9-12 days between the semis and the title game. I’m not certain powers that be will sign off on giving teams less than a week to prepare for the title game. I assume no stadium would hose the super bowl and cfb title game in the same season, so no issues with turf/stadiums are present.”

            Like

    2. Johnny Utah

      I’ve said all along that attendance at the semifinal games will be disappointing. The majority of fans will not have the discretionary income and time off work to travel to both a semifinal and national championship game, and will hold off on the semifinal in hopes of going to the championship.

      The semifinal games should be held on the campus of the #1 and #2 ranked teams.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        I’ve said all along that attendance at the semifinal games will be disappointing.

        You’ll note that the tickets have been sold. It may not be the original buyers who are going, but someone is going.

        The semifinal games should be held on the campus of the #1 and #2 ranked teams.

        They’d reinstate the BCS before they would do that. If the semi-finals aren’t popular, the solution is not to have them.

        Like

        Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            I thought that you were taking the Auburn-FSU ticket sales as evidence for your position.

            But anyhow, whatever your reasons for saying so, they won’t move the semi-finals to campus sites. No. Way.

            Like

        2. Wainscott

          “You’ll note that the tickets have been sold. It may not be the original buyers who are going, but someone is going.”

          Actually, tickets having been sold means only that tickets have been sold. In this case, its safe to assume that there won’t be many empty seats, but overall, its wrong to say tickets sold = someone’s going.

          But that tickets on the secondary market are going for less than anticipated does indicate lesser demand, which is not something that should just be dismissed without further thought.

          Like

          Reply
    3. Brian

      Wainscott,

      “So, even fans of FSU and Auburn (SEC) have limits, regarding travel, costs, work, timing, etc… Doesn’t bode well for multiple neutral site games in forthcoming playoffs.”

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2014/01/05/bowl-ticket-requirement-college-football-playoff-bcs/4331253/

      For a start, they are greatly reducing the ticket requirement (was 17,500, dropping to 12,500). They also will respect geography as much as they can for the semis and other games. The NCG will increase to 20,000, though.

      The contract bowls will have their own deals. The Rose is 24,000 tickets, for example.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        “For a start, they are greatly reducing the ticket requirement (was 17,500, dropping to 12,500). They also will respect geography as much as they can for the semis and other games. The NCG will increase to 20,000, though.”

        A good idea, for sure. And the Rose Bowl is a special beast, played in a neat venue in a great setting, with pageantry unmatched (at least the NYD version of the game) by any other bowl game. Tradition dictates its truly the one unmatched, ahem. “granddaddy” of them all. It also doesn’t hurt to have the ideal timeslot on NYD, allowing fans to redeye back to the east coast or travel to the Midwest/west and get to work/school the next day.

        But others main are far more dependent on matchups and fan travel.

        Like

        Reply
  86. Michael in Raleigh

    I don’t know whether this has been discussed much, but I do wonder when the bowl games traditionally played on New Year’s Day (Capital One, Gator, Outback, Heart of Dallas) will be played going forward with the initiation of this New Year’s Six.

    A quick google search turned up few clear answers. In fact, all I found was a link to the following blog: http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-will-2014-15-college-football-bowl.html . I’m not familiar with the author, but his opinions seemed to make sense.

    He notes that those four games have gone head-to-head in the past four years on ESPN networks, with slightly staggered start times early in the afternoon for them. The Outback and Cap One have been on either ABC or ESPN, depending on the year. The Gator, which he notes has been unhappy with ratings in recent years, has been on ESPN2, while the HOD Bowl has been on ESPNU.

    Going forward, that early timeslot will include a New Year’s Six bowl (essentially the equivalent of a BCS bowl game, but not a semifinal). The Cotton will be played in that slot in 2015 and 2017, and the Fiesta will have that slot in 2016.

    The Capital One Bowl is under contract to have its game played on an ESPN network on New Year’s Day (or January 2 when NYD is on Sunday), but I couldn’t find information on the other three games.

    I will be curious whether ESPN will even want the Cap One going against the Cotton/Fiesta. Would the Gator want to move back to CBS or maybe try NBC or Fox? What about the Outback?

    Would those games take a chance going after New Year’s the way the Cotton did?

    Interested in your opinions, FTT people…

    Like

    Reply
    1. Alan from Baton Rouge

      Michael – here’s the schedule through 2017.

      http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809833

      Next year, the semis will take place on Jan 1, but in 2016 and 2017, both semis will take place on Dec 31. I’m assuming those games will take place in the afternoon and night time slots.

      The Sugar (NYD night) and Rose (NYD afternoon) have locked time slots. My understanding is that the other bowls in the CFP don’t. Since ESPN controls every bowl except the Sun Bowl, I doubt ESPN will schedule bowls against the Rose, Sugar, and semi-final games. Maybe they will continue to schedule multiple games in the early slots on NYE and NYD. I could see the Outback with a noon kick on NYE and the Cap One with a noon kick on NYD, with all the other NYE or NYD bowls finding other slots in the calendar, probably after NYD but before the CFP NCG.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        NYE will be full with 3 CFP bowls. My guess is that the Outback and Gator (both in pro stadiums with lights) will be moved to weeknights after NYD, taking the place of the straggler BCS bowls that are shown on those nights now. CapOne remains on ABC at 1PM(EST) as a lead-in to the Rose. Dallas bowl for the eary birds (I would start that at 11AM(EST).

        Alamo may move post-NYD as well (with the Liberty moving in to their spot). The rest of that week leading up to the national title game will be filled with those new no-name bowls.

        Like

        Reply
      2. bullet

        The Rose and Sugar have protected time slots. There was an interview with Bill Hancock that said the semis would be in the 4 and 8 slots on NYE 2 out of 3 years. I think they are making a mistake there. The article didn’t specify, but it looked like the Orange would be in the noon NYE slot when not a semifinal.

        Like

        Reply
  87. Penn State Danny

    Just guessing here but could the Gator/Cap One/ Outback Bowls move to the nights of January 2,3 and 4 kind of like the current BCS Bowls are?

    The playoff people want to “own the New Years Holiday” but those dates would still be available.

    The current worst timeslot of the 35 bowls HAS to be the GoDaddy.com bowl. The Sunday at 9 pm after a full day of NFL football is just brutal. At least the Compass Bowl on Saturday served as kind of an appetizer for that day’s NFL games.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Wainscott

      I doubt the B1G would approve a shift of with Cap One or Outback off of NYD. I doubt the Gator would leave its spot, either, based more on tradition.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brian

      The powers that be have said it was a big mistake to spread out the BCS as the games disappointed in ratings and attendance. I doubt they’ll move lower bowls to those days, although a few small bowls always try to exist in early January. I’d look for more bowls to be in December.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Richard

      Yeah, I’m predicting that the Gator and Outback move. I’m not sure that the Citrus Bowl has adequate lights, so may have to be played in the daytime.

      Like

      Reply
  88. Penn State Danny

    And while we are guessing, could possible quarterfinals be held on the first day of the Bowl Season ?(one week after Army/Navy).

    Fresno State and USC played in the Vegas Bowl that Saturday. It seems like 4 ON CAMPUS games could fit on that day.

    However, I truly think that for better or for worse (and I think it is for the better) that the playoff will remain at 4 teams for the full 12 year contract with ESPN.

    Like

    Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      And while we are guessing, could possible quarterfinals be held on the first day of the Bowl Season ?(one week after Army/Navy).

      Fresno State and USC played in the Vegas Bowl that Saturday. It seems like 4 ON CAMPUS games could fit on that day.

      This runs headlong into several intractable problems. Or to put it more accurately, problems that the people deciding (who are the only ones that count) would deem intractable.

      One is that they don’t want a southern team to face a playoff game in a blizzard in a northern stadium. I realize the NFL does it, but they’re paid to do it. Some of the southern college football teams probably have kids who’ve hardly seen snow in their lives, much less played football in that kind of weather. At least three of the five power leagues (ACC, SEC, and PAC) would be firmly against this, and would have the votes to block it.

      Of course, in particularly severe weather, there could be problems getting fans to the stadiums. The NFL stadiums in cold-weather cities are used to this, because they play the regular season through the end of December every year. Many college stadiums do not have the infrastructure and access figured out, if they have to host a mid-December game in severe weather.

      Another problem is that your proposed timing leaves very little time for the bowls to sell tickets, and for fans to make travel plans. Army-Navy is December 13 next year. Your proposal would have quarter-finals on December 20, less than two weeks before New Year’s day. The bowls would be very uncomfortable with waiting until late December to know who is playing, so that fans can buy tickets and make travel plans.

      Yet another problem is that the major bowls are traditionally winners’ games: teams win something to get there. Your proposal raises the distinct posssibility that, in some years, the major bowls would be turned into losers’ games. Imagine a Rose Bowl that’s an anti-climax for teams that lost their quarter-final, teams that are only there because they lost the chance to play for something better. The major bowls and the schools/networks that sponsor them would not stand for this.

      Finally, depending on how the schedule plays out in a particular year, the campus games would be either: A) During final exams; or B) After exams are over, and most of the student body has dispersed for the holidays. Neither of those is a very attractive idea.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Penn State Danny

        Mark: So, other than that, do you like the idea?

        Look, I am fine with the 4 team playoff. I was just trying to anticipate what the next step could be.

        You are of course right with all of those issues. I just think that if things do indeed go to 8 that the jpeople in powers would rather have the quarterfinals be in December rather than have the semis and finals even later in January.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          So, other than that, do you like the idea?

          Look, I am fine with the 4 team playoff. I was just trying to anticipate what the next step could be.

          FTT has laid out a roadmap that I believe is the correct one. The former BCS bowls become the quarter-finals. The semi-finals and NCG are played in January. This approach has its problems too, but not as many as holding the quarter-finals at campus sites in December. Those issues, I believe, are sufficiently intractable that I don’t think the presidents will ever find a way around them.

          Like

          Reply

          1. @Marc Shepherd – Yes, I definitely believe that conflicting with finals in December is ultimately less desirable than pushing further into January when the next semester is just beginning or might not have even started. Even more importantly, TV interests want January games. There’s not even a debate about that. The last two weeks of December are the worst period for TV ratings of the year outside of the dog days of summer. Just look at how networks schedule the shows that they care about – they steer completely clear of late-December.

            Putting aside all of the revenue arguments that I believe favor the plan that I’ve advocated, the biggest thing is that it ultimately doesn’t change *that* much structurally. Effectively, it’s just taking the current schedule and adding a week to 10 days to it. The bowl system isn’t completely upended in the way that it would be if you attempted December quarterfinal games. In fact, games like the Rose Bowl actually get restored to how they were traditionally under my proposal.

            Does it cover every single issue? No, just as no proposal can. Attendance can absolutely be a large issue for early round games, but that has to be balanced by what the TV people want, the likely substantial amounts of money that all of these new NFL stadiums are going to throw toward hosting neutral site games, and the ties that conferences still have with the bowls (especially the Big Ten and Pac-12 with the Rose Bowl). An 8-team playoff is a major change on paper, but I believe that my proposal moves toward that with the least amount of change to the overall system (and as we’ve seen, inertia is quite strong in college football).

            Like

          2. Brian

            Frank the Tank,

            “Yes, I definitely believe that conflicting with finals in December is ultimately less desirable than pushing further into January when the next semester is just beginning or might not have even started. Even more importantly, TV interests want January games. There’s not even a debate about that. The last two weeks of December are the worst period for TV ratings of the year outside of the dog days of summer. Just look at how networks schedule the shows that they care about – they steer completely clear of late-December.

            Putting aside all of the revenue arguments that I believe favor the plan that I’ve advocated, the biggest thing is that it ultimately doesn’t change *that* much structurally. Effectively, it’s just taking the current schedule and adding a week to 10 days to it. The bowl system isn’t completely upended in the way that it would be if you attempted December quarterfinal games. In fact, games like the Rose Bowl actually get restored to how they were traditionally under my proposal.”

            Everyone knows I’m against a playoff, let alone expanding it, but I think you’re generally right about it being the least objectionable plan to TPTB.

            As a reminder, this is his plan:
            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

            I’d expect a few tweaks, though:

            1. An autobid for the next best champ or independent
            2. The SEC and B12 stay paired in the Sugar Bowl for financial reasons
            3. The ACC stays in the Orange Bowl
            4. TPTB decide to maintain the locked pairings when the Rose and Sugar are semis (B10/P12 in Fiesta, SEC/B12 in Cotton)

            Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
            Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. Big 12 champ
            Orange Bowl: ACC champ vs. other
            Fiesta Bowl: other vs. other

            This let’s Dallas and Atlanta compete for semis and the NCG.

            “Does it cover every single issue? No, just as no proposal can. Attendance can absolutely be a large issue for early round games, but that has to be balanced by what the TV people want, the likely substantial amounts of money that all of these new NFL stadiums are going to throw toward hosting neutral site games, and the ties that conferences still have with the bowls (especially the Big Ten and Pac-12 with the Rose Bowl).”

            I don’t think they’ll be that worried about attendance in the semis. They’ll stick to large cities and sell lots of local tickets, especially to businesses. They’ll also choose smaller stadiums (more like 60k-70k than the big bowls) for the semis. The NCG can be in a big stadium in a warm spot.

            Like

          4. Eric

            Also agree that if we go to an 8 game playoff, Frank’s proposal is the best. Along Frank’s lines, here are my suggestions/thoughts if it came to it.

            1. With the autobids for the power conference champs, I agree something would be place to put the highest independent or Group of 5 team in. This would be a weird working which could go to Notre Dame or UNLV, but I think it’s the compromise they’d end up with.

            2. Have the semi-finals and championship in the same host stadium. It would be a week along event somewhere.

            3. They’ve come too far in the seeding for me to believe they’ll go back. I want Big Ten/PAC-12 every year in the Rose, but I think you’d see something like keeping that match-up (and maybe SEC/Big 12 in Sugar) provided it wasn’t two top 3/4 teams (otherwise the lower one is moved to a different bowl). I don’t like this additional rule, but I think they’d go with it.

            4. If an 8 team playoff does come, for those of us who like the traditional bowls, it’s probably better than it happen faster. The longer you detach us from the traditional set-up, the less new leaders are going to care about and fans in general.

            Like

          5. Marc Shepherd

            With home sites, finals aren’t a significant issue. There will be very few traveling.

            There’s a variety of academic scheduling systems (semesters, trimesters, quarters). Practically anything you do in December is going to stomp on finals for some schools. They’d probably overcome that if there weren’t other, more serious issues (especially the risk of undermining the major bowls).

            Remember, the question isn’t whether YOU want it (campus quarter-finals), but whether you can envision a believable scenario where the presidents would approve it. I can’t.

            1. With the autobids for the power conference champs, I agree something would be place to put the highest independent or Group of 5 team in. This would be a weird working which could go to Notre Dame or UNLV, but I think it’s the compromise they’d end up with.

            My guess is, it would be the P5 champions, a guaranteed bid for the best GO5 champ if it surpasses a necessary hurdle, and two at-large slots.The years Notre Dame is good enough, they get an at-large slot. Honestly, there aren’t many years that there are more than two deserving at-large teams.

            They’ve come too far in the seeding for me to believe they’ll go back.

            I agree. They four-team playoff deal lasts into the mid-2020s. By the time they are ready to re-negotiate it, the Rose Bowl “tradition” (as being invariably a P12/B1G match-up) will be a decade in the rear-view mirror. They’d probably do something like the current arrangement, where the traditional bowl relationships are encouraged, where possible, but wouldn’t be mandatory.

            Like

          6. Wainscott

            Frank’s plan is a decent start, but there are significant gaps in the logistics that make it far more complicated in practice. I’d like to see Frank flesh it out more with proposed dates for semi-finals, ‘in line with what we’re seeing from the new playoff regarding sites for the national title game. If Bowls are indeed the quarterfinals, then three neutral site cities are required, along with considerations for NFL playoffs, dates, fan travel, logistics, and such.

            @Frankthetank: Maybe update your proposal to outline the specifics for scheduling of semifinals (not just a week or two after the bowl games) and scheduling in relation to the title game (keeping in mind that the powers that be apparently require at least 8 days between semis and the championship game in the new system, so similar timing would be necessary in a 8 team playoff.

            I think Frank’s plan runs into logistics that start to get too complicated. I’d sooner see the bowls remain semifinals in a 8 team playoff, with a title game around the same time as it will be in the new system, and the quarterfinals on campus on Christmas Day (1pm, 430pm, 8pm tripleheader) (which I think would make for better TV than sanitized neutral sites, anyways). This would basically be a modified version of the FCS playoffs anyways, not some loony product of online debates. Plus, for TV, CFB would OWN the NBA on Christmas, and Fox would love the chance to take some CFB from ESPN (who has NBA deals on that day).

            Like

          7. @Wainscott – Yes, the dates of the semifinals are a bit of challenge when you get past New Year’s Day, but as I’ve noted, those challenges just seem to be “less bad” than the logistical issues of games in December (and especially on Christmas Day itself as you’ve proposed).

            Here’s the thing: you seem to be focused a lot on the travel logistics of fans, which is fair. That’s a relevant concern. However, I firmly believe that TV interests, when push comes to shove, trump everything here since they’re the ones that will be paying the money to make any type of expanded playoff worthwhile in the first place. Outside of New Years Day itself (which has shown to be a good day for both traveling fans and TV ratings), dates that are good for TV are largely inconvenient for traveling fans and vice versa. The best days for TV are when people actually *have* to go to work the next day (Sunday through Thursday prime time) because that’s when the population generally stays home and watch TV. Of course, it’s better for traveling fans to attend games when they don’t need to work the next day (holidays, Fridays, Saturdays). The fact is that sports at all levels (pro and college) are going to continue to serve TV as their master because, frankly, that is locked-in revenue that’s guaranteed compared to trying to sell tickets to an increasingly fickle public. Christmas Day itself is almost a double-whammy – people generally don’t like traveling on that day AND it’s not an optimal TV time slot.

            Anyway, for dates for the semifinals themselves, I agree it’s tough to find the optimal schedule (but once again, when push comes to shove, what’s better for millions of TV viewers will ultimately win out over what’s better for 70,000-plus fans in the stands). Marc Shepherd proposed a viable option (Saturday before NFL conference championship games for semifinals and the Sunday before the Super Bowl for the final) and Richard had a good suggestion, as well (semifinals on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day). If that timeline extends too far into January, you could have the schedule be either (1) the semifinals on the first Thursday and Friday evenings that are at least 1 week after 1/1 (or 1/2 when 1/1 is on a Sunday) and then the final on the next Monday evening at least 1 week after that (which would almost always be King Day) or (2) the semifinals on the first Monday and Tuesday evenings that are at least 1 week after 1/1 (or 1/2 when 1/1 is on a Sunday) and then the final on the next Thursday evening at least 1 week after that). Those dates avoid the NFL playoffs while catering to the preference of the powers that be to have games on either Monday or Thursday if they need to be played on weeknights. Now, I’m not saying that those are great dates for traveling fans, but once again, the TV viewers at home are who ultimately rule.

            Like

          8. Wainscott

            “Remember, the question isn’t whether YOU want it (campus quarter-finals), but whether you can envision a believable scenario where the presidents would approve it. I can’t.”

            Actually, I think its far easier to envision FBS schools borrowing ideas from every other level of college football and having some on campus playoff games in late December than it is to envision three Monday night games (2 semis, one title game) in January at neutral sites. Sometimes, the simpler ideas makes more sense,

            Like

          9. Marc Shepherd

            I think Frank’s plan runs into logistics that start to get too complicated.

            All eight-team playoff proposals have logistical issues. Frank’s are just the “least bad”. It is, of course, entirely possible that they’ll stay with four forever, because none of the options are acceptable. The presidents for decades thought that any kind of playoff was a bad idea, and many fans still think the same. There’s no assurance they’ll ever think that eight is at all necessary or desirable.

            Anyhow, if it were this year, the semi-finals would be on Saturday, January 18 (the day before the NFL conference championship games), and the NCG would be on Sunday, January 26. Assuming you want an eight-team playoff, I don’t see a better schedule.

            Yes, there are logistical issues, which simply means they may never do it. The logistical issues with campus sites in December seem far, far worse; and on top of that, you cannibalize the bowls, which the schools quite simply will never agree to do.

            Like

          10. Wainscott

            “Anyhow, if it were this year, the semi-finals would be on Saturday, January 18 (the day before the NFL conference championship games), and the NCG would be on Sunday, January 26. Assuming you want an eight-team playoff, I don’t see a better schedule.”

            I do not think for a second that any NFL stadium would bid for a semifinal the day before conference championships. Roger Goodell will not let any college kids ruin the field at, say, Sun Life Stadium, 24 hours before a theoretical Dolphins-hosted conference title game. Turf stadiums don’t have that problem, but there would be issues turning around a stadium (painting endzones, field markings, and the like) in a compressed timeframe that the NFL might not want to have to worry about for the second largest event on its calendar.

            Like

          11. @Wainscott – If the Dolphins or Cowboys had made the playoffs this year, then their respective stadiums would have had to turn around their fields in 12 to 36 hours from the Orange and Cotton Bowls. In 2012, the Superdome had a Saints home game on 1/1, the Sugar Bowl on 1/3, a Saints playoff game on 1/7 and the national championship game on 1/9. It might not be optimal to have quick field turnaround times, but we’re not talking about converting a field from a stadium concert setup or having a hockey rink a la the NHL Winter Classic that would take multiple days to deal with. So, that in and of itself isn’t going to prevent extremely revenue hungry (and, in many cases, taxpayer-funded) stadiums from filling up every event date possible that they believe that they can logistically manage. Regardless, I think that you can mitigate those turnaround times for the most part, anyway.

            Like

          12. Wainscott

            Indeed, consider that it takes MetLife Stadium–a stadium designed to be changed between two home teams–about 20 hours to change over between the Jets and Giants.

            http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/09/the-changing-of-the-stadium.html#slide_ss_0=1

            Stadiums less familiar with this practice, or not designed for the same flexibility, might take even longer. The NFL won’t risk this unless they have too.

            (In case you are wondering, if the Jets and Giants both host an NFL title game, one would be on Sunday night, one Monday night.: http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2008/11/goodell_giants_and_jets_would.html )

            Like

          13. Wainscott

            @FranktheTank:

            Thanks for the reply.

            The NFL is built on control and contingencies. I find it hard to believe that the league would risk jeopardizing, say, Sun Life Stadium, with a game 24 hours before a Dolphins game, running the risk of inclement weather on Saturday ruining a grass field with no opportunity to fix it. The examples you cited are also of a greater period of time between events. Big difference between 12-14 hours and 72 hours.

            Like

          15. bullet

            @marc

            What are the logistical issues with campus sites in December? That minimizes the logistical issues.

            There may be TV issues as Frank points out. There is some negative impact on the bowls while Frank’s is a positive for the bowls.

            But doing it all in January lessens the validity and leads to sloppy play as teams get rusty.

            Like

          16. Marc Shepherd

            I think its far easier to envision FBS schools borrowing ideas from every other level of college football and having some on campus playoff games in late December than it is to envision three Monday night games (2 semis, one title game) in January at neutral sites.

            But the other divisions of football don’t have the traditional bowl season. I cannot imagine the presidents agreeing to cannibalize the bowls.

            Like

          17. Richard

            Eric:

            A Final Four type setup spread over a week would be pretty neat. Monday through Monday, either starting or ending on MLK Day. You could hold a couple all-star games (college and HS; or several!) throughout the week as well.

            The only major concern is a ton of students missing a week of school.

            Like

          18. Wainscott

            @Marc Shepherd:

            “But the other divisions of football don’t have the traditional bowl season. I cannot imagine the presidents agreeing to cannibalize the bowls.”

            Not all bowls are created equal. Cannibalizing the Rose Bowl is a non starter. Cannibalizing whatever the Insight Bowl is now called is something else entirely.

            @Richard:

            “tPtB are fine with only 6 days between the semifinals and title game. Look at what they plan for 2017 (also 2018 & 2019, BTW):

            http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809833

            They would be perfectly OK with the semifinals and title game on consecutive Mondays (MLK day and the Monday before or after).”

            Read your link again:
            In 2017, the semi’s are on December 31, the championship is Jan 9.
            2016: December 31 semis, January 11 championship.
            2015: Jan 1 semis, Jan 12 championship game.

            Like

          19. Marc Shepherd

            What are the logistical issues with campus sites in December?

            Many of those I mentioned above, e.g., southern schools playing games in severe weather, or severe weather events at sites not equipped for them. I realize that could happen in FCS too, but there’s nowhere near the media circus around FCS games.

            For the presidents to agree to an 8-team playoff, they have to be convinced it’s better than what they have, not merely that it’s no worse than FCS.

            There is some negative impact on the bowls while Frank’s is a positive for the bowls.

            There’s quite a bit of negative impact on the bowls, and if the presidents have shown anything, it’s that they they value the bowls highly and don’t want to undermine them. Whether they’re right about that is a whole other matter. Some journalists, like Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, have argued the presidents are crazy. But it doesn’t matter what he thinks, until they start agreeing.

            But doing it all in January lessens the validity and leads to sloppy play as teams get rusty.

            Even in your scenario, there would be semi-final bowl games and a final in January, so there is no way around that. The only way to entirely avoid that problem would be to hold quarters, semis, and the final game in consecutive weeks, as FCS does.

            Anyhow, plenty of teams brought their “A” game to the bowl season this year, e.g., Auburn last night. There is no excuse for those who don’t.

            Like

          20. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            In the spirit of full disclosure, you are correct for 2018 and 2019, where there will be a week between the semis and the title game (Jan 1-Jan 8; Dec 31-Jan 7).

            But the key difference is that the semi’s are hallmark bowl games, not neutral site games. Also, with games on MLK Monday, the beauty of filling the NFL gap in late January is lost, because there wouldn’t be a game until Monday night.

            Like

          21. Wainscott

            @Marc Shepherd:

            “I realize that could happen in FCS too, but there’s nowhere near the media circus around FCS games.”

            Who cares about a media circus? If anything, it will generate more interest, seeing, say, FSU or Alabama playing at Notre Dame Stadium or The Big House or Ohio Stadium. That’s good media circus.

            “For the presidents to agree to an 8-team playoff, they have to be convinced it’s better than what they have, not merely that it’s no worse than FCS.”

            True, but hosting a semi final can also serve as a nice infomercial for a school, what with the likely Gameday studio set/media coverage. Never a bad thing, especially during college application time.

            President’s wont willingly go to 8, but if they do, on campus quarters is a pretty good deal.

            Like

          22. Marc Shepherd

            Not all bowls are created equal. Cannibalizing the Rose Bowl is a non starter. Cannibalizing whatever the Insight Bowl is now called is something else entirely.

            You’re right, but your proposal cannibalizes every bowl, except the two that are designated semi-finals in a particular year. If your system were in place next season, the Rose Bowl would be fine, since it’s a semi-final host. But the following year, it would be a “losers’ bowl.” That is what I think the presidents won’t find tolerable.

            Beyond that, of course: the presidents do value all of the bowls, even if some fans consider them unimportant. Maybe you think the Insight Bowl, or whatever it was called this year, doesn’t matter. TV and the schools apparently disagree with you, as they are the ones who decide whether it exists or not.

            Like

          23. Wainscott

            @Marc Shepherd:

            “If your system were in place next season, the Rose Bowl would be fine, since it’s a semi-final host. But the following year, it would be a “losers’ bowl.” That is what I think the presidents won’t find tolerable.”

            In non-semifinal years, the Rose Bowl will be a losers bowl. Hate to break it to you. It’ll be nothing more than an exhibition game for fans and an excuse to go see a game in January in Pasadena.

            Actually, come to think of it, the Rose Bowl Game has been a losers bowl since 1998. I think the Presidents are ok with that, or they would have stopped it by now.

            (Which is ironic because the Rose Bowl used to be an exhibition game until the 1960,s when the AP named national champs after the bowl games, as opposed to in early December. So, actually, the Rose Bowl will be back to its historic status as a huge infomercial for southern California living; see: http://www.tournamentofroses.com/History.aspx

            Rose Parade

            This event began as a promotional effort by Pasadena’s distinguished Valley Hunt Club. In the winter of 1890, the club members brainstormed ways to promote the “Mediterranean of the West.” They invited their former East Coast neighbors to a mid-winter holiday, where they could watch games such as chariot races, jousting, foot races, polo and tug-of-war under the warm California sun. The abundance of fresh flowers, even in the midst of winter, prompted the club to add another showcase for Pasadena’s charm: a parade would precede the competition, where entrants would decorate their carriages with hundreds of blooms. The Tournament of Roses was born.

            The Game was designed to supplement the Parade).

            Like

          24. @Wainscott – That’s actually part of my aim with having the Rose Bowl going back to being the Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ game that it was before, but now it would be a quarterfinal game in an 8-team playoff. To me, that would make it significantly more meaningful than the consolation prize that it is now and will be in non-semifinal years (and let’s face it, even a semifinal where the Rose Bowl could be #2 Auburn vs. #3 Alabama as it likely would have been this season is simply a playoff game that happens to be in Pasadena on January 1st as opposed to truly being the Rose Bowl).

            Like

          25. Wainscott

            To clarify, the Rose Bowl was not a loser’s bowl in 2003, when USC won and got the AP national title. In all other years, it was.

            Like

          26. Richard

            “Also, with games on MLK Monday, the beauty of filling the NFL gap in late January is lost, because there wouldn’t be a game until Monday night.”

            Wut?

            I don’t see “beauty” “lost” there. If there aren’t games on the weekends, then there aren’t games on the weekends. Do something else with your life.

            Like

          27. Marc Shepherd

            In non-semifinal years, the Rose Bowl will be a losers bowl. Hate to break it to you. It’ll be nothing more than an exhibition game for fans and an excuse to go see a game in January in Pasadena.

            Actually, come to think of it, the Rose Bowl Game has been a losers bowl since 1998. I think the Presidents are ok with that, or they would have stopped it by now.

            That’s not the way the presidents think about it, and as FTT is fond of saying, you need to think like a president. To take this year, for example, Michigan State and Stanford both won something to get to the Rose Bowl. True, they didn’t win everything they conceivably could. But to them, getting to the Rose Bowl was a winner’s reward. I don’t think there is any rational doubt of that.

            In your system, the major bowls would be populated exclusively with losers, except for the designated semi-final bowls. On top of that, they wouldn’t know their match-up until 1-2 weeks later than they currently do, depending on your proposed date for the quarter-finals. In fact, no bowl would, since the lesser bowls don’t know who they’re getting until the major ones have chosen, and so on down the line. It’s even worse for the lesser bowls, since they’re generally earlier on the schedule. They have the harder marketing job and less time in which to do it.

            Like

          28. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            ““Also, with games on MLK Monday, the beauty of filling the NFL gap in late January is lost, because there wouldn’t be a game until Monday night.”

            Wut?

            I don’t see “beauty” “lost” there. If there aren’t games on the weekends, then there aren’t games on the weekends. Do something else with your life.”

            Then whey in your plan above did you propose having the game on the Sunday between the Conference championships and the Super Bowl? Same with Frank proposing his title game that same weekend? Because the NFL is off, and there is a tv sports void. A game not on that Saturday or Sunday will not fill that void. Simple facts.

            Like

          29. Wainscott

            @Marc Shepherd:

            Actually, those are perfectly valid, fair, and reasonable reasons why my plan has problems. The sad truth is with any 8 team structure, the bowls have less meaning. Just as the bowls in my plan are for the also rans (unless hosting a semi), the bowls in Franks are hosting a quarterfinal, which doesn’t have nearly the same import as a semifinal (or title game, or chaos champion scenarios from the old bowl system).

            Also, my view, long since spouted on these threads, is definitely anti-playoff, but tolerant of at most a 4 team system.

            But if 8 is the eventuality we need to accept (which I definitely think it is), then giving an extra first round game to a new years bowl not be all that better to the bowls. If say, the Chik fil a, Rose, and Fiesta host quarters, the Orange is an exhibition in a warm climate. Same with the Cotton and all the others.

            Indeed, the BCS began the process of marginalizing the bowls to such a degree that the majors and close to majors will either become part of the playoff or be relegated to a second tier, filling up late December cable TV with sports programming and making some fans happy. Even with 8 teams, there will be bowls, but they already lack most of the meaning they had back when.

            Like

          30. Wainscott

            @Marc Shepherd:

            “That’s not the way the presidents think about it, and as FTT is fond of saying, you need to think like a president. To take this year, for example, Michigan State and Stanford both won something to get to the Rose Bowl. True, they didn’t win everything they conceivably could. But to them, getting to the Rose Bowl was a winner’s reward. I don’t think there is any rational doubt of that.”

            The Rose Bowl is special, and will remain so even in years not hosting a quarter/semi. #9 Wisco and #13 UCLA will be happy to play in the Rose Bowl under either plan. The Fiesta Bowl is a better example. This year, it was little more than a showcase for UCF’s QB and Baylor’s high flying offense. Nothing was on the line. And in an 8 team playoff, it won’t have any special meaning. But it will still be a nice thing for teams to play in it. But the idea that even now, or since 1999, it has any special value is false.

            Moreover, thinking like a president doesn’t actually favor either plan. I can think like a president and come up with valid, solid, business reasons why either Frank’s or my plan is better. Presidents are not known for bold action, and might want to mimic to a degree what’s familiar. Both the bowls and FCS playoffs are familiar to them (to the minimal extent they care about college football). Or they could just say whatever makes them the most money. Or they could say no games in the spring semester, ever/I’d sooner have games during finals than stretch this madness into spring semester. Good arguments cut both ways.

            Personally, I looked at the FCS bracket and almost puked. No 8 team plan is any good.

            Like

          31. bullet

            If you have quarters in mid-December and semis on NYD, that’s basically two weeks. Noone has more than a 3 weeks off and most not more than 2.5 (mid-December to January 1). Not much more than a typical off-week. Right now, a school could go from November 20th to January 1 without playing a game. Most offenses start off very slow in the bowls. You get more false starts. More bad passes. More dropped balls. Quarter-finals in December minimize that problem. Everyone will be pretty sharp.

            Like

          32. bullet

            Pac 12 and Big 12 presidents are quite fond of the Rose Bowl. In contrast, the SEC and Big 12 took over the Sugar. The Big 12 came out in favor of the semi-finals in December at home sites.

            Presidents are not monolithic in their support of bowls.

            If the Big 10 and SEC get on the same page on something, it is likely to happen. Or if 4 of the P5 get on the same page, the Big 10 or SEC isn’t going to be able to hold out.

            Like

          33. Richard

            Wainscott:

            I’m fine with Sunday or Monday.

            You’re the one complaining that there needs to be X days between the semis and title game.

            Like

          34. Wainscott

            “You’re the one complaining that there needs to be X days between the semis and title game.”

            Complaining? No. Pointing out overlooked fact because its inconvenient? Yes.

            Like

          35. Wainscott

            @bullet:

            “The Big 12 came out in favor of the semi-finals in December at home sites.”

            Can you link to article on that? I genuinely hadn’t heard about that.

            Like

          37. bullet

            And Bowlsby stating the case while playing good foot soldier:
            http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07/23/Colleges/Bowlsby.aspx

            ■ On keeping the national semifinals within the bowl structure:
            “There is no question that we — the college football enterprise — can make more money by having the semifinals and national championship game outside of the bowl system. That’s the most lucrative of all the models. And we’ve already said that we’re prepared to leave some money on the table because we think it’s wise to keep the bowl system strong. … Likewise, the fewer semifinals that the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl host, the poorer the access for the at-large teams [because those bowls open up more at-large spots in the years that they’re semifinal games]. … We think it’s important to solve the access issues that have been criticisms of the past.”

            Like

          38. Richard

            Wainscott:

            And then, when I changed it to a Monday-Monday schedule to fit your “fact”, you complained about that. See the hypocrisy there? In any case, I don’t see any “beauty” in playing on a weekend, so Monday-Monday should be fine.

            Like

          39. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            “And then, when I changed it to a Monday-Monday schedule to fit your “fact”, you complained about that. See the hypocrisy there? In any case, I don’t see any “beauty” in playing on a weekend, so Monday-Monday should be fine.”

            Complaining? No. Pointing out issues with your plan? Yes.

            And regarding my use of “beauty”, I’m not sure why that’s harped on. Both you and Frank and others have made the good observation that there is a void on the Sunday between NFL title games and the Super Bowl. Indeed, your original plan was to have it on that Sunday. But logistically I do not believe that’s doable, hence the beauty, or allure, of games on that Sunday is not possible, and Monday night games on non-holiday weekends are to me suboptimal.

            Like

      2. bullet

        Another problem is that some of the schools “winterize” their stadiums and would have to prepare them for a game in January. But that wouldn’t be an issue with a mid-December game.

        Like

        Reply
  89. mushroomgod

    Duffer- Good IU news on 2 sports in which we’ve traditionally sucked–up to #22 om WBB and pre-season #7 in baseball. With respect to baseball, IU has 4 pre-season AAs (1st, 2nd, and 3rd teams), 2nd most nationally behind Oregon St. Demuth and Schwarber are 1st team, Travis and Denato 3rd team. IU is the only Big 10 team in the top 40 (ouch).

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      Big 10 doing well in the winter sports—

      Men’s BB-OSU 3rd, Wisky and MSU tied for 4th, Iowa #23
      Men’s Gym-UM #1, OSU, PSU, and ILL tied for #5, Iowa, MN, and Neb 8,9, and 10. Pretty good since only 7 Big 10 teams have M. Gym.
      Wrestling-PSU, MN, and Iowa 1,2,3. Neb 8, OSU 9 ILL11 NW 16 UM 19 Pur 21 Wisky 23
      Men’s Swimming-UM 1, OSU 11 MN 13 IU 16 PSU 19 Iowa 21
      Men’s Hockey-MN 1 UM 8 Wisky 14
      Women’s BB-PSU 14 Neb 16 Pur 21 IU 22. MD is #6
      Women’s Gym.-UM 7 Neb 10 MN 14 PSU 15 ILL 16 osu 17
      Women’s Swimming-MN 10 IU 14 OSU 16 Pur 17 UM 23 PSU 24
      Women’s Hockey-MN 1 Wisky 2

      Minnesota seems to do a really good job in a lot of sports for having one of the Big 10’s smallest budgets………

      Like

      Reply
  91. Brian

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24400505/auburnalabama-could-met-in-iron-bowl-rematch-if-playoff-started-this-year

    Mixed messages from Bill Hancock on how a 2013 playoff might have looked.

    Auburn and Alabama could have met in an Iron Bowl rematch had the College Football Playoff been in effect this year, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said Monday morning.

    “Take just a minute to think about what an Iron Bowl rematch would be like here in Los Angeles. Wow!” Hancock said at the annual Football Writers Association of America championship game breakfast.

    Using the current BCS standings, Hancock speculated on what a playoff bracket might look like with No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Michigan State and No. 2 Auburn and No. 3 Alabama.

    Florida State, he said, would have been protected as the No. 1 seed and played as close to home as possible in the Sugar Bowl. In this conversation, then, Auburn and Alabama would have met in the Rose Bowl. The Rose and Sugar host the first playoff semifinals next season.

    “They’re [selection committee] not going to like rematches. They’re going to try to not have rematches,” Hancock cautioned. “On the other hand the integrity of the bracket will trump [everything].”

    I tend to think they would have split AU and AL by seeding MSU #3 to avoid a rematch.

    Like

    Reply
      1. Brian

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10252932/college-football-playoff-committee-try-avoid-rematches

        Here’s another source on the same thing:

        BCS executive director Bill Hancock says the selection committee for the College Football Playoff will try to avoid rematches, but not at the expense of the integrity of the seedings.

        Hancock spoke to the Football Writers Association of America on Monday. He says the top priority of the selection committee will be to make sure the No. 1 team plays close to home and the teams are properly seeded.

        Using this season’s final BCS standings, and next season’s semifinal sites, the final four would have been No. 1 Florida State playing No. 4 Michigan State in the Sugar Bowl and No. 2 Auburn playing No. 3 Alabama in the Rose Bowl.

        Hancock says seeding adjustments will only be made if teams are considered even.

        So apparently they would have chosen a rematch over giving FSU and “easier” game by switching AL and MSU.

        Like

        Reply

        1. In that scenario, couldn’t they simply switch the game sites? It’s rather absurd to have an Iron Bowl rematch in Pasadena when it would be better suited to New Orleans, and a Florida State-Michigan State Rose Bowl meeting would at least give it one of its customary conferences.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Eric

            Agreed completely, sadly all the wording we’ve heard so far suggests to me, that’s how they are going to do this. They should remember these are bowls as much as semi-finals and arrange games in that matter accordingly. I’m not suggesting #1 and #2 should ever play in semi-finals, but we are only talking 4 teams. Everyone is playing someone tuff and once you get beyond easy drive time, distance for the #1 team shouldn’t be an overwhelming factor.

            Like

          3. Brian

            vp19,

            “n that scenario, couldn’t they simply switch the game sites? It’s rather absurd to have an Iron Bowl rematch in Pasadena when it would be better suited to New Orleans, and a Florida State-Michigan State Rose Bowl meeting would at least give it one of its customary conferences.”

            They could, but they determine locations based on the #1 seed. That team gets to play as close to home as possible.

            Like

    2. Michael in Raleigh

      If a Big Ten team finishes #1 in a year with the Rose and Sugar serving as semifinals, would that team go to the Rose Bowl based on the Big Ten tie-in or to the Sugar based on the closer proximity?

      Like

      Reply
      3. Wainscott

        So, according to what I found online, all it says is the committee will make sure the top 2 seeds have “home” games for the semis. That’s rather unclear, but I’d have to imagine that for the Big Ten, the Rose Bowl (assuming it hosts a semi that year) would be considered a “home” type environment, unless it would play a Pac12 team.

        See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/24/college-football-playoff-questions-and-answers/2111419/

        “Q: How will geography factor in?

        A: The selection committee’s goal will be to protect the top two seeds from playing in road environments in semifinal games. For instance, if Southern Cal was the No. 1 seed and LSU was the No. 4 in 2014, that semifinal could be played in the Rose Bowl but not the Sugar Bowl.”

        Like

        Reply
  92. Brian

    ESPN’s B10 blog had a series of relevant posts today.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/93200/new-lineup-should-boost-b1g-bowl-mark

    Explains how the new bowl deals should help the B10.

    The Big Ten had a losing bowl record in all four years of the last postseason lineup, including a 2-5 mark this year. The overall record: 11-21 (including Ohio State’s vacated win in the 2011 Sugar Bowl).

    Losing is losing, and the Big Ten’s postseason struggles reflect the league’s current state, but the lineup did the conference no favors. It was extremely ambitious, and commissioner Jim Delany’s desire to play the best competition in the best games is admirable, but it hurt the league’s perception. Big Ten teams were favored in only eight of the 32 bowl matchups during the past four seasons.

    Only favored in 8 of 32 games. At least we won 11, I guess. It shows the folly of Delany’s desire to maximize the bowl revenue.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brian

      http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/93221/final-numbers-on-b1g-in-the-bcs

      The B10’s BCS history by the numbers.

      BCS records:
      28 games for the B10 (SEC had 27)
      10 games for OSU (OU had 9)
      6 wins for OSU (tied with USC)
      12 consecutive weeks OSU was #1 in the BCS standings
      246 rushing yards by Ron Dayne

      Other good numbers:
      8 of 11 teams made the BCS (NE made it in the B12)
      11 of 12 teams made the BCS standings (IN never did)
      84 times OSU was in the BCS rankings (ineligible in 2012) – 7th overall
      15 weeks OSU was ranked #1 – 2nd behind OU

      Results:
      5-11 in Rose Bowl and NCG
      8-4 in other BCS bowls

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brian

      http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/93227/b1g-teams-still-dominate-in-dollars

      B10 teams still rank high in total value.

      The Wall Street Journal has published a list of the most 50 valuable college football programs, according to research from a professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus. Ryan Brewer assessed values based on “revenues and expenses and made cash-flow adjustments and risk assessments and growth projections.”

      Not surprisingly, Texas tops the chart with a value of $875 million, followed by Notre Dame at $811.5 million. Michigan comes next and leads off the Big Ten contingent at $685.5 million. Although Michigan has had a rather forgettable decade on the field, particularly since 2008, it consistently finds ways to make money. Athletic director Dave Brandon has successfully transitioned his success in the business world to Michigan’s athletic department.

      Ohio State is fourth in value at $674.8 million. Four other teams are in the top 15: No. 11 Iowa ($479.1 million), No. 12 Nebraska ($432.5 million), No. 13 Wisconsin ($406.4 million) and No. 14 Penn State ($377.6 million).

      Here’s where the rest of the Big Ten comes in:

      No. 29: Michigan State, $212.9 million
      No. 36: Minnesota, $179.7 million
      No. 40: Northwestern, $154.5 million
      No. 46: Indiana, $125.8 million
      No. 48: Purdue, $114.6 million

      Illinois is the only Big Ten program not to appear in the top 50. Future members Rutgers and Maryland aren’t there, either (they came in at Nos. 61 and 62 last year, respectively).

      Like

      Reply
        1. zeek

          Rutgers and Maryland will be on a list like that in 2017 after the new TV deals kick in…

          FWIW that’s one of the best looking lists of valuations that I’ve seen.

          Forbes’ have been bogus for the most part in terms of providing $ valuations, although Forbes’ orderings are interesting data points.

          Like

          Reply
    3. Richard

      “It shows the folly of Delany’s desire to maximize the bowl revenue.”

      Hmm. His new bowl lineup still tries to maximize bowl revenue. The Houston bowl dropped us, the Wings bowl dropped their payout, and the Holiday and SF bowls increased their payouts, so Delany still got as much money as he could from the bowls. Also, he took the opportunity to get a chunk of the Orange’s massively bigger payout when that became possible.

      The net result is that we exchanged 2 B12 and 1 MAC matchup for 2 Pac and 2 ACC matchups (and exchanged SEC in the CapOne for ACC in the Orange when a B10 school gets selected to the Orange). In any case, no conference has not tried to maximize their bowl revenues so I think it’s unfair to blame Delany for that. The Pac and ACC would love to get as much bowl money as the B10, but they’re constrained by having their schools, outside of their top tier, not being big TV draws or travelling all that well.

      Like

      Reply
  93. Richard

    i just finished the latest issue of “ESPN the Magazine”, and their “ESPN Football Power Index” BCS predictions were hilariously wrong: Stanford blowing out MSU, Baylor blowing out UCF, and ‘Bama blowing out OU. Also OSU beating Clemson. They’re predicting that FSU blows out Auburn so I guess that means the state of AL will win the national title for the 5th straight year (has that ever been done by any state before?)

    Like

    Reply
  95. Richard

    BTW, I have to admit that I’m rooting for Auburn.

    A small reason is because, if the SEC winning streak is going to end, I want it to be ended by a non-southern school.

    The main reason is because I like Malzahn’s story. I like the idea that a high school coach running the Delaware Wing T offense can win the national championship.

    Like

    Reply
  96. Richard

    Watching this game, one of my main thoughts is “man, MSU could have been national champions!” They were a few dubious pass interference calls by ND from facing FSU in the national title game, and once there, while facing this FSU defense would have been tough, Narduzzi’s blitz-heavy defense with its elite secondary would have rattled the freshman QB just as much if not more.

    Like

    Reply
    1. gfunk

      I don’t think MSU would have beaten FSU, but it would have been a great game. Auburn has more team speed (not much) than MSU, but less toughness. On the other hand, SEC praises unfortunately coming here: Auburn gets a diverse range of opponents in the SEC, which helped them big time in this game.

      I know it boils down to match ups and injuries, but Clemson took care of a bruised OSU, as did MSU, but Sparty didn’t exactly dominate, though more so than Clemson. FSU just flat out destroyed Clemson, no other way to put it, and it was in Death Valley.

      You can’t complain with Auburn’s result, the game went down to the wire. They truly blew coverage on that huge FSU pass play. And how about that missed FG?

      MSU will finish second. On the other hand, and you can save this prediction: Sparty’s cutting down the nets in early April, Men’s basketball.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Auburn and FSU both have more team speed than MSU and Sparty’s offense may have struggled. However, Narduzzi’s blitzes would have knocked Winston around and the Sparty secondary is truly elite. It would have been close, it would have been a lower-scoring affair, and it probably would have come down to special teams (where FSU, with the speed advantage, has the edge).

        Like

        Reply
      2. Kevin

        I think MSU would have had a good shot to win the NCG. Both QB’s were neutralized when the other team brought the pressure. MSU is probably better at disguising blitzes than any other team in the country.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bullet

      1st thing Musbarger says is it was a great season for the SEC (yes, SEC, not for Auburn).

      We are going to get inundated with these promos for the SEC network. LHN is a toy, but they plan to make serious bucks on the SEC network. I’ve heard they were asking 35 cents for LHN. BTN is getting 70 cents to $1 in territory.

      Like

      Reply
  98. Geo

    It’s been forever it seems since the SEC won a National Championship. ACC dominates college football. I feel the SEC was overrated this year and with two BCS loses I think that has been proven.

    Like

    Reply
    1. gfunk

      Geo,

      7 out the last 8, well that pretty much speaks for itself. You can’t deny Auburn came to play. Remember, they were the underdogs.

      Moreover, any non-SEC team will definitely have a tall task come playoff time.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Geo

        The fact is the so called great SEC has not won a NC in football for a whole year. They think they are so great but got their asses handed to them in the BCS this year, what a joke. Besides, this comes from a general fan base that uses the word “bait.” Wtf is gator bait or tiger bait? Think about it…. The worm loses and so does the fish. Not a bright bunch down there. Nice weather and lots of chicas, but after that you don’t have much.

        Like

        Reply
  100. gfunk

    So all who predicted the demise of the ACC, there you go. The worst BCS conference ends the era on a high note, winning the NC and Clemson beats the Bucks, who had the most BCS appearances.

    The ACC is fine. And how about all those FSU Internet fans who wanted to go to the Big 12 or SEC?

    Auburn played a great game, but damn that missed FG. Game would have been different had he made it. Who knows who would of won. The end result was a fantastic thriller, no less.

    Excited for the playoff, no more of this BCS BS, but I’m sure a new kind of BS is on the horizon.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Excited for the playoff, no more of this BCS BS, but I’m sure a new kind of BS is on the horizon.

      There always is, gfunk, there always is.

      And some of us still unconvinced regarding the quality of ACC football as a whole need to see some national thunder emanating from sites other than Tallahassee and Clemson.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Geo

        sec commish will demand (aka “cry”) that at least 3 sec teams be selected for the playoffs, held in Atlanta, and also want to choose the fourth team involved.

        Like

        Reply
      2. gfunk

        VP19,

        True, but that same sort of perception applies to the BIG as it’s OSU and the rest. But MSU ended the BCS era on a high note. It’s too bad Wisky choked away 3 consecutive Rose Bowls, the last one is forgivable – they got thrown in because of PSU-OSU bullshit. In hindsight, the Rose Bowl tie-in did the BIG no favors at least 4x in the BCS era – the best team those years was OSU & damn is the best Pac12 team, usually USC was waiting in Pasadena. Michigan didn’t carry its weight the past 8 years, albeit they have 2 BCS wins, but they are trending down, and fast. Lastly, PSU has pretty much left the rest of us sick as their fans continue to rot in denial. There’s a really unhealthy culture in PSU land right now. Maybe it was always there.

        The new playoff era eliminates the BCS bragging rights, which is a minor downer. With the new playoff, I can’t wait to see the discontent once a particular conference gets two bids. No matter what, at least 2 major conferences will be shut out of the playoffs on an annual basis. OOC games are going to matter – big time!

        Like

        Reply
        1. gfunk

          ^That is in those years that OSU was the best BIG team, they slipped in conference play, thus played in a different BCS bowl. USC slipped as well, but still went to the Rose Bowl because no other Pac12 team got a BCS bid.

          Like

          Reply
    2. Michael in Raleigh

      Yessss! I am almost as happy to see the ESS EEE CEE go down as I am to see Florida State win the national title. It’s doubly sweet for me.

      So sick of people acting like they say something insightful when they say the SEC is the best. Yeah, no sh*t, doesn’t mean they’re better in every dang facet. They’re not the supposed minor oeague to the NFL that their fans make them out to be.

      Hiw about those Noles though? What an incredible, incredible game.

      Like

      Reply
      1. GreatLakeState

        I became quite confident FSU was going to come back at about the two-minute mark in the first half. Auburn played out of their heads up till that point, then sort of fell off a cliff just as FSU was getting comfortable. Awesome game.

        Like

        Reply
  102. bullet

    Final ooc record vs. FBS (vs. P5 + ND in parentheses)

    1. SEC 41-11 78.8% (14-8 63.6%)
    2. P12 28-8 77.8% (10-7 58.8%)
    3. B12 19-9 67.9% (5-6 45.5%)
    4. B10 29-16 64.4% (8-11 42.1%)
    5. ACC 30-21 58.8% (8-13 38.1%)
    6. SB 15-17 46.9% (2-14 12.5%)
    7. AAC 16-20 44.4% (6-14 30.0%)
    8. Ind 24-38 38.7% (8-21 27.6%)
    9. MWC 14-30 31.8% (1-20 4.8%)
    10. USA 17-38 30.9% (4-21 16.0%)
    11. MAC 10-35 22.2% (3-21 12.5%)

    Only thing that kept P12 from finishing #1 was Leach blowing WSU’s bowl vs. Colorado St. Pac 12 was 12-1 vs. MWC. Interesting that the P5 record closely follows the overall record (Sun Belt being a notable exception-they were 13-3 vs. the rest of the G5).

    Like

    Reply
  103. Alan from Baton Rouge

    I guess an hour after the BCS NCG is not too early for some way-too-early 2014 cfb rankings.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10246704/florida-state-leads-2014-way-too-early-top-25-rankings

    SEC (8) #2 Bama, #5 Auburn, #10 LSU, #11 Georgia, #13 South Carolina, #16 A&M, #20 Ole Miss, #25 Florida

    PAC-12 (6) #3 Oregon, #4 Stanford, #7 UCLA, #14 USC, #19 Washington, #22 Arizona State

    B1G (4) #6 Mich State, #9 Ohio State, #15 Wisconsin, #21 Iowa

    ACC (3) #1 Florida State, #17 UNC, #18 Clemson

    Big XII (2) #8 Oklahoma, #12 Baylor

    Ind. #23 Notre Dame

    AAC #24 UCF

    Like

    Reply
  104. Alan from Baton Rouge

    Micheal – congrats are in order for you and your Seminoles. I’m also very happy for Jimbo Fisher. He is held in very high regard here in Louisiana for his seven years on Saban and Miles’ LSU staffs.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      Thanks Alan. I’ll have to get in touch with my cousin, a Florida alum and HUGE Gators & SEC fan, to talk to her about . The interesting thing is that she actually got to go to the game, and even sucked it up and wore a garnet shirt (though not one that said FSU on it), because her fiancée’s FSU-crazy family scored tickets to the game. They had an RV in Pasadena for a week, did Disneyland, the whole nine yards. Being at that game among Noles fans had to feel weird for her; I know it would have for me at a Gators championship game.

      Anyway, I mention that little story because it shows how civility, sportsmanship, and fun can certainly happen between fans of rival teams & conferences. It’s one of the things I have appreciated about this little FTT community for the past four years or so, and your comment is a great example of what makes this blog great.

      It was a heck of a game to watch, and by and large a pretty clean game. Maybe a few missed tackles by Auburn on that last drive, but for the most part, any problems each team had were because the other team was playing so well. Auburn’s pass rush and its coverage of FSU receivers were perfect game planning and execution.

      No question Auburn was a very, very worthy opponent.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Big 10 refs did their part by missing a crucial horse collar AND facemask (same play) in the last minute. At least it didn’t decide the game.

        Like

        Reply
  105. Andy

    SEC goes 7-3

    Auburn loses to #1 FSU
    Alabama loses to #11 Oklahoma
    Georgia loses to unranked Nebraska

    Missouri defeats #13 Oklahoma State
    South Carolina defeats #19 Wisconsin
    Texas A&M defeats #24 Duke
    LSU defeats unranked Iowa
    Ole Miss defeats Georgia Tech
    Vanderbilt defeats Houston
    Mississippi State defeats Rice

    Probably the weakest performance the SEC has had in a bowl season in many years, but still better than any other league.

    Second place is probably the Pac 12 at 6-3

    Stanford lost to #5 Michigan State
    Arizona State lost to unranked Texas Tech
    Washington State lost to unranked Colorado State

    USC defeated #20 Fresno State
    Oregon defeated unranked Texas
    UCLA defeated unranked Virginia Tech
    Washington defeated unranked BYU
    Oregon State defeated unranked Boise State
    Arizona defeated unranked Boston College

    The Big 12 had the big wins over Alabama and Arizona State, but finished only 3-3.

    The ACC claimed the national title but went 5-6 in bowls.

    The B1G was even worse, going 2-5, but at least they finally won a Rose Bowl.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      So glad to see the evil that is the SEC go down…………..

      Although Winston had the winning drive, imo Teddy B. and Johnny Football got ripped off in the Heisman balloting. Both are better.

      Famous speaks at about a 7th grade level. Didn’t hear many scholars after the game for FSU. I’m just glad they can now get back to their studies.

      Best line I saw last night….”Once again Winston would not be denied!”..

      Like

      Reply
  106. gfunk

    At the end the day, who really rules college football? I’d say no conference, but the big 3 in Florida: Miami, Florida State and the Gators.

    In the past 35 years these schools have won 11 AP NCs (assuming FSU will rightfully get number 3). Pretty amazing, but to be expected since the state cranks out arguably the best hs players, second most NFL players after Ca, but higher per capita rate than Tx and Ca.

    So these schools get no underdog love from me.

    Like

    Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Don’t think this is correct. What I saw was 6.7 rating, avg 11.4M, 10% higher than last year, and highest since 2008—-see Buckeye’s link just a few posts down.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            That 3.5 in the other link may have been the 18-49 demographic. Not the easiest to read and interpret. Still lower than Baylor/UCF. And there have been some pretty lousy matchups in the Orange Bowl in recent years, so improving on that is not much of an accomplishment. I would have expected much better with Ohio St. and those two QBs.

            Like

      3. Wainscott

        The matchup matters for sure, but Fox doesn’t have the promotional power that ESPN has to promote its own games. Plus, the Cotton Bowl isn’t marketed as a BCS game with all the trappings.

        Also, I’m sure the Cotton up against the Orange depressed numbers a little for both games.

        Like

        Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      The arrangement is definitely an improvement from the BCS era. The ACC tie-in is a constant, which is a good thing as long as the ACC wins at least some of the time (not loss after loss after loss) and as long as it’s not the same team over and over (i.e., VT after ’07, ’08, and ’10 seasons) or someone with zero ability to generate national interest like Wake Forest. A good variety of VT, FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, Louisville, and the occasional public school from NC and northward will serve the bowl well, especially if they’re top ten teams.

      The non-ACC half of the Orange Bowl pairing is a major upgrade, again, from the BCS era. No more non-AQ’s (Northern Illinois), non-brand name Big East team (Cincinnati) or Big 12 team (Kansas), and no more quality but too-far-away Pac-12 teams (Stanford). Instead, the Orange Bowl will basically get the best available from the best available among only brand name teams. In terms of maximizing TV ratings, the WORST the Orange Bowl ought to get would be someone like Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, or Minnesota, all of whom would travel well. The game ought to be really interesting in any given year.

      Compared to the pre-BCS era, the matchup is still a far cry, and that’s coming from a very pro-ACC guy. That old Big Eight tie-in which regularly featured major independents, ACC champions, SEC runners-up, and other very highly ranked teams, churned out national champions better than almost any bowl game. Off the top of my head, the Orange Bowl had national champions in ’94 (Nebraska), ’93 (FSU), ’91 (Miami), ’90 (Colorado), ’87 (Miami), ’85 (OU), ’83 (Miami), and ’81 (Clemson). The Rose Bowl was always the golden bowl game, but the OB was as good or better than the Sugar, Cotton, or certainly the Fiesta.

      I usually see the BCS itself as the reason cited for the Orange Bowl’s relative decline in prestige. I would argue that the end of the Big Eight tie-in (which effectively switched to the Fiesta) and the end of the existence of major independents have had as much to do with it. Of course, Miami and FSU both being in the middle of a long slump didn’t allow the ACC tie-in to make up for the loss of the Big Eight tie-in, either.

      Aside from whichever bowl games are semifinals in a given year, it’s clear the Rose and Sugar Bowls will be the two most prestigious bowl games out there. It’ll be interesting to see if the OB emerges as the #3 game or if the Peach, Cotton, or Fiesta will beat it out.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        Yeah, I think the constancy of its tie ins will really push the Orange Bowl into the #3 slot. I think people will get used to seeing the whole ACC v SEC/Big Ten/ND thing, and that will help year after year maintain the ratings.

        I don’t see how the other 3 which will have matchups all over the place will develop that kind of ratings as the years go. They’ll depend entirely on the matchups with those other bowls in non-playoff years.

        Like

        Reply
    1. bullet

      South Carolina #4 has 4 wins over ranked teams, but two losses to unranked teams. Among top 16, only Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford and LSU also have losses to unranked teams-each 1.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andy

        Yeah… tough call between Missouri and SC for #4. SC won head to head, but they lost to Tennessee, who Missouri beat by 28, and Georgia, who Missouri beat by 15, and they didn’t have to play Auburn.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Michael in Raleigh

        The Tennessee loss is one thing, but SC deserves a pass for the loss to Georgia; it was basically a loss to a team that likely would have finished in the top ten, top 15 at worst, had it not had all those injuries. Remember: UGA lost close in the opener @Clemson team and lost on a bizarre play on the road to #2 Auburn, and that was after UGA had sustained all those injuries. UGA was clearly very, very good, with the wins over SC and LSU serving as evidence, but the injuries prevented it from providing further proof as the season progressed.

        I’d give a slight edge to SC over Mizzou based on the head-to-head win on the road and superior non-conference wins (Clemson & @UCF). It’s darn close, though. Mizzou was the rightful division champ, only lost to top five teams, and had a better bowl win (Oklahoma State was higher ranked than Wisconsin).

        Post bowl games, people don’t remember the difference between #3, 4 or 5 anyway. They’ll just remember that so-and-so finished in the top five.

        Like

        Reply
        2. Andy

          SC’s best wins were Missouri, Clemson, Wisconsin, and UCF

          Missouri’s best wins were Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Vanderbilt

          So SC had somewhat better wins. But much worse losses (Mizzou’s two losses were to teams that ended up ranked in the top 4, SC’s losses were to mediocre teams that Mizzou beat by an average of 22.5 pts.)

          Head to head matters somewhat, but a double overtime 3 pt win on a missed 20 yard field goal that hit off the crossbar against the opponent’s backup quarterback in October isn’t exactly a defining victory.

          All in all I’d say they’re basically tied. But I’d agree that as long as you’re top 5 that’s what matters. 4 vs 5 isn’t really all that important.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            “4 vs 5 isn’t really all that important.”

            Say that while you still can. Better get it out of your system now.

            Like

          2. Andy

            Certainly 4 is better. But the distinctions are typically “top 5 team”, “top 10 team”, and “top 25 team”. So making that “top 5” bracket is important.

            To put it another way, the difference between 4 and 5 is less important than the difference between 5 and 6. Sorry, OU.

            Like

          4. Michael in Raleigh

            Andy,

            I agree with you completely about the top 5, top 10, top , but wainscott’s point is that going forward, at the end of the regular season, finishing 4th vs. 5th is a critical difference. 4 means you’re in the CFP; 5 means you’re out.

            Like

          5. Andy

            oh, you’re right. hadn’t thought of that. But these are the post-bowl rankings. Pre-bowl (when it would have mattered) Mizzou was 8th.

            Like

    2. bullet

      Nothing particularly egregious among the ranked teams this year, but once you get out of the top 25 some typical “do they pay attention to anything but the bowl game?” type voting. Marshall #29 with 17 votes and a 10-4 record. Rice 10-4 who beat Marshall decisively in CUSA ccg 0. Texas Tech #30 with 13 votes 8-5, KSU #31 with 11 votes 8-5. Tech beat 1 team with a winning record all season, lost by 23 at home to KSU and 25 at Texas (#33 also 8-5 with 4 votes) while 2 of their other 3 losses were by 18 points or more. Meanwhile Georgia got 0 votes at 8-5 with a 2-5 record vs. ranked teams in which 4 of those could easily have gone the other way.

      Its good that the coaches don’t have a say in who makes the playoffs anymore. I don’t like that the playoff committee will start their own top 25 in October. They should wait until November.

      Like

      Reply
  111. bullet

    Georgia, Texas and Virginia Tech led the nation in # of times ranked in the AP poll in the BCS era with 13 (now tied by FSU and OU), but none of the 3 were ranked this year for the first time since the early 90s.

    Those 3 and OU are 4 of the 6 who have had the same coaches since 1999 (Iowa and Troy are the other two).

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      Mark Richt’s first season as coach of Georgia was 2001. He was hired away from FSU prior to the championship game against OU. Some FSU fans blame the offense’s scoreless effort in that game on Richt supposedly having his mind on preparing for coaching Georgia rather than preparing for the game. After Richt, the Noles offense wasn’t the same under Bobby Bowden until Fisher came in to replace Jeff Bowden as offensive coordinator.

      Your point remains that UGA, Texas, VT, and OU’s coaching stability have led to consistent finishes in the top 25.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Arch Stanton

        “Your point remains that UGA, Texas, VT, and OU’s coaching stability have led to consistent finishes in the top 25.”

        I think it is the other way around: Consistent finishes in the top 25 have led to their coaching stability.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          Good point, Arch, and that’s the general rule. But VT is a good example of coaching stability lending itself to top 25 finishes. Frank Beamer started off terribly for VT. His first six years were 2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, and 2-8-1. Every year since has been a bowl season, most of which were top 25 finishes. The coaching stability paid off. Georgia’s coaching stability allowed Richt to put a really good, Top-25 quality team back together after a few down years; changing coaches likely would have resulted in a longer rebuilding period. Another example is Mack Brown’s tenure at North Carolina. He went 1-10 his first two seasons, then, thanks to coaching stability, he steadily built NC into a top ten team.

          Like

          Reply
    2. Michael in Raleigh

      Down from last year despite being a far more compelling game on the field. Speaks to the power of brand names. FSU and Auburn are well-known to the public, but neither is stronger than Bama or ND.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        It also was a regional game in some respects.

        It wasn’t SEC v SEC, but it was basically as close to that as you can get with FSU being located in the “heart” of SEC territory despite being the ACC’s flagship.

        ND probably brought in the higher ratings in the North and West which is why it was going to be hard for FSU v Auburn to match that.

        Like

        Reply
          1. zeek

            The spread didn’t help. I was really surprised at how many people thought Florida State would blowout Auburn. Somehow people expected the actual game to be exactly like last year’s game.

            Like

          1. Caddy

            “True. FSU is as close to being an SEC team as any non-SEC team could be.”

            Hell, we should just chalk it up as a win for the SEC then. Yep, that’s 8 in a row folks! All hail the mighty S-E-C!

            Personally I feel that West Virginia is the most SEC team as any non-SEC team could be. In fact, they are a lot more SEC than either Vanderbilt or Missouri. They’ve got everything that fits the SEC mold: backburner academics, illiterate fan base (whether or not they are alumni of the school) and copious statewide obesity/diabetes.

            I realize that Florida’s academics are not too shabby but they are still SEC all the way. Take a trip to Gainsville sometime and behold the sea of pick-up trucks in all its glory! Same for Texas A&M but with a little less academics and a whole lot more pick-up trucks (I think they are at about 85% truck saturation point in College Station, Texas).

            Like

          2. zeek

            Yeah. I’d go as far as to say, if you asked the general sports watching public at large, they’d definitely give that answer if asked to name a team like that.

            Like

          3. Michael in Raleigh

            And I suppose Michigan State is next-closest because they were #3 in the nation and had the #1 defense. That’s a very SEC thing to do. And Oklahoma beat Alabama, which only SEC teams are supposed to do, so I guess OU is the next closest thing to being an SEC team. Clemson recruits in SEC territory, and beat Georgia this year, an SEC team, and they’re good, so I suppose they’re like an SEC team.

            Here’s an alternative revelation: yes the SEC is the best conference. Hands-down. No doubt about. It’s the best conference by a considerable margin, not just this year, but going back many, many years. But that doesn’t mean that it has ALL the good teams. Miami in the 80’s, early 90’s, and early 00’s didn’t have to be like or unlike SEC teams; it was BETTER than SEC teams. USC in ’04 was better than SEC teams in ’04. Texas was better than SEC teams in ’05. There are many very, very good teams in the other four major conferences, and even in non-major conferences every once in a while (Boise, Utah, TCU teams from years past) who are BETTER than MOST SEC teams. This year there was a team better than ALL the SEC teams. So maybe FSU wasn’t like an SEC; it was BETTER than an SEC team.

            Like

          4. zeek

            Michael, I wasn’t really talking about better than or whatever on a football field.

            I just mean regionally and the perception of FSU nationally is that it’s a Deep South football power; I guess that’s a better way than saying “SEC”.

            I mean this game was a matchup of two Deep South football powers. In that sense it was something of a regional game (even though Florida State is obviously a national program).

            Like

          5. mnfanstc

            What’s wrong with pick-up trucks?? I can throw your P.O.S. Prius in the back of my truck AND tow my boat to the lake… AND don’t have the forever toxic battery waste to deal with…

            Like

          7. bullet

            Actually pickups are more of a Texas thing as far as urban areas. Other than that, they are mostly rural. However Jacksonville, Florida seems to have more pickups per capita than any city outside Texas.

            Like

  113. BuckeyeBeau

    Here is some interesting information on TV and Twitter. This is the first I’ve seen where they are measuring Twitter “traffic” during a TV program. (I’m sure this measuring has been going on for awhile, but the first time I have seen it.)

    “According to Nielsen SocialGuide, a Twitter TV audience of 2.9 million people sent 97,000 tweets during the premiere evening [of Downton Abbey], generating a total of 15.2 million impressions and making it the #2 telecast, ranked by Unique Audience, across the whole day and excluding sports events.”

    http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/01/06/two-hour-premiere-of-downton-abbey-season-4-on-masterpiece-highest-rated-drama-premiere-in-pbs-history-337413/20140106pbs01/
    Would love to see numbers for sporting events.

    What is a “Twitter TV audience”?

    Like

    Reply
  115. frug

    It appears that the Nets, Spurs, Pacers and Nuggets have finally worked out a deal that will (almost) end the perpetual royalty agreement they made with the Spirits of St. Louis in 1976.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      John Y didn’t make the best deal. St. Louis was on the verge of folding. The Kentucky Colonels were one of the league’s strongest and most successful franchises. In the next to last year of the ABA, 1975, they may have had the best team in basketball.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        Amazing that they likely came out ahead versus their original hopes of using the deal as a chip to get an NBA team to own. I think with this settlement, they would have gotten around $800 mil, whereas NBA teams in mid markets only now are getting around 500-600 mil.

        Like

        Reply
      2. frug

        Yeah, given that Brown got $3 million to fold and the Colonels and $2.2 plus a royalty for shutting down the Spirits it looks like Brown chose to trade an annuity that is appears to be worth about $800 million over 38 years for an extra $800,000 upfront.

        Not a smart deal at all.

        Like

        Reply
  116. Brian

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10257706/booster-red-mccombs-bashes-texas-longhorns-charlie-strong-hire

    Red McCombs is mad about UT hiring Strong.

    “I think the whole thing is a bit sideways,” McCombs said of the selection process during an interview with ESPN 1250 San Antonio. “I don’t have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.

    “But I don’t believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don’t think it adds up.”

    …

    He publicly lobbied last week for Texas to hire former NFL coach and ESPN analyst Jon Gruden.

    “I think it is a kick in the face,” McCombs said. “Beyond the fact of what actually happened. We have boosters that have a lot of knowledge about the game. When we decided to go get Mack — from the time we decided to go get Mack to about 30 hours later to have a press conference here and it was done — we had a lot of input before we went after him.

    “So I don’t know what the big rush was. I was kind of pleased that [Texas athletic director Steve] Patterson already said that he’d like to get it done in the middle of January. That seemed logical to me. I’m a team player, but I think they went about it wrong and made the selection wrong.”

    1. Gruden was never coming to CFB.
    2. Strong should be a position coach at UT after being HC at UL? Is that racism or just arrogance?
    3. Boosters don’t know jack about football.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Yeah. I’m not sure Red realizes that this just makes him look like a rich old arrogant blowhard with more dollars than sense who cares more about his ass being licked than about Texas winning.

      Like

      Reply
    2. bullet

      Don’t know if true, but someone said AD Patterson wasn’t returning phone calls. Red has a big ego and is mad he wasn’t in the loop. IMO bad decision by Patterson. You don’t have to do what they say, but you do need to listen. Then maybe McCombs vents to Patterson instead of ESPN. There were rumors Gruden was intrigued. But I think Strong was the best available candidate. Gruden has been out for a while.

      Like

      Reply
      2. Wainscott

        It has to be an ego thing.

        By any metric, Strong is as credentialed and qualified as any other potential Texas coach. Its not like Texas is gambling on this generation’s Gerry Faust or something.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Yeah. (I’m going to repeat, since I can’t find more fitting adjectives.) I’m not sure if McCombs is actually a rich old arrogant blowhard with more dollars than sense who cares more about his ass being licked than about Texas winning, but he sure comes across as one.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Michael in Raleigh

            Makes you wonder if this is the kind of thing that just skims the surface of what these coaches have to deal with. Granted, they’re paid VERY well to deal with it, but there are few things less appealing in life than being required to placate arrogant, ignorant idiots. I suppose we all have to do that in life in some form or another, to varying degrees, but man. Yuck!

            Like

    3. Michael in Raleigh

      “I don’t have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.”

      What an idiotic thing to say. He’s going to come out looking like a racist, whether he is or not. Suggesting that Texas’ new African American head coach would or should take a demotion back to an assistant’s position is going to make anything else he has to say, legitimate or not, sound like utter garbage. Plus, his assertion that Strong would merely make a good coordinator completely ignores Strong’s success as a HC and exposes McCombs as ignorant about college football. Everyone is going to react to him saying, “You don’t know what the h*** you’re talking about. Thank God Patterson didn’t listen to you. And you’re a racist.”

      Like

      Reply
    1. Brian

      They’ll never have one, unless a truly unique player appears (best pitcher and best hitter in MLB). They feel duty bound not to honor any recent player more than the stars of the past.

      Like

      Reply
      2. frug

        What makes this ballot particularly egregious though is that the voter (Ken Gurnick) says he won’t vote for anyone from the steroid era (including Maddux) but did vote for Jack Morris’ whose career overlapped Maddux by 9 years (indeed by the time Morris was done Maddux had already won 3 of his Cy Young Awards)

        Like

        Reply
        2. Chet

          Among other notable facts about Jack Morris (and an unforgettable TV memory of mine of Chicago’s Comiskey Park): Jack Morris was on the bench − after pitching the previous game vs Milwaukee − during the infamous “Disco Demolition Night” of July 12, 1979.

          From this link:

          “… The event was conceived by a Chicago disc jockey, Steve Dahl. He and his followers resented how disco threatened rock ’n’ roll.

          So Mike Veeck, the son of the team’s owner, Bill Veeck, invited Dahl to blow up a bin full of disco records in center field between games of a twinight doubleheader.

          … Jack Morris, a Tigers pitcher, recalled “whiskey bottles were flying over our dugout” after Detroit won the first game, 4-1.

          Then Dahl blew up the records.

          “And then all hell broke loose,” Morris said. “They charged the field and started tearing up the pitching rubber and the dirt. They took the bases. They started digging out home plate.”

          … “It was a strange night,” (Tigers shortstop Alan) Trammell said. “It was crazy. What a night. Thirty years later, and we’re still laughing…”

          Like

          Reply
      1. frug

        Oh, in addition to Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas were also elected along with managers Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre who were all elected unanimously by the Veterans Committee last month. Good day for Braves fans (though it’s a shame Smoltz went to Boston in 2009 and couldn’t go in with Maddux and Glavine this year).

        Also, someone voted for Jacque Jones.

        Like

        Reply
      2. bullet

        So we’ll have a “Hall of Fame” without Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Makes it a joke. Also w/o McGwire and Sosa, but those are more marginal and more arguably primarily a product of steroids.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Well, Rose broke the rules. At least you could argue that what Bonds did and Clemens may have done weren’t against the rules at that time (while gambling was clearly against the rules).

          McGwire was on-track for a borderline HoF career before he started juicing. You could argue that he should be in. Sosa was definitely mediocre before he started juicing, however.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Rose broke the rules, but anyone who thought Rose ever gave anything but 110% never saw him play. The rule was to protect the integrity of the game, but Rose never threatened it. He also did it after his playing career was over. A permanent ban is a stupid rule for the Hall of Fame. A permanent ban from managing or playing is a totally different issue.

            To me, Rose is what made baseball great. He was never a superstar athlete, but he was a superstar player. To exclude him from the Hall of Fame is to pretend much of the 60s and 70s didn’t exist. Like they have started doing with 1995-2005.

            Without Bonds, Clemens and Rose, you take out 3 of the 5 or 6 most iconic players of the last 50 years. Maybe the top 3. Its no longer a Hall of Fame. Its a baseball museum with a limited selection. You still have Reggie and Nolan.

            Like

          2. Interesting. I’d have to disagree about Rose. Gambling on your own sport should carry the death penalty because even the *appearance* of impropriety can kill that sport entirely quickly and swiftly. The entire sports business exists because we (the audience) doesn’t know the outcome and believes that the results will be determined by what’s on the field in front of us. This is what makes sports inherently different from all other forms of entertainment (TV shows, movies, pro wrestling) – *nothing* is supposed to be predetermined. Any hint that gambling is affecting the outcome, whether you’re talking about players on the field or managers or coaches, is honestly more dangerous to the long-term existence of any sport than virtually any other factor. (And I say this as someone that has no issue with the general public gambling or putting pro teams in Las Vegas provided the proper rules are in place to ensure that no one actually involved in playing or coaching teams is betting on their sport.)

            Regardless of the moral arguments, the no gambling on games rule was very clear and posted in every clubhouse. There isn’t any parsing about whether someone actually tested for steroids or what MLB allowed back in the 1990s regarding drug use that you can use in favor of Bonds and Clemens (although I personally don’t think that they should be in the Hall, either). Rose directly violated what was widely known as the cardinal sin for baseball personnel. The Black Sox Scandal nearly killed baseball and MLB *has* to take a no tolerance policy on gambling on games – you can’t afford any slippery slope on that issue.

            Like

          3. Brian

            Frank,

            I agree with everything you said, but to me those are all reasons to ban him from the game but not from the Hall of Fame. He’s the all-time hits leader and he didn’t cheat to do it. He should be in. If MLB wants to say he doesn’t get to be part of the induction ceremony, I’m OK with that. But he should be in.

            Bonds should be in because he was deserving before he became a cheater. The same is true of Clemens.

            It’s players like Sosa and McGuire (all they did was hit homers, and we know they cheated to do it) that don’t belong in.

            Like

          4. ccrider55

            When McGuire, etc did it they weren’t banned by baseball. Is that cheating? Is every player who ever partook of whacky weed a cheater? Or is using controlled substances, but prescribed by team doctors to shorten time lost to injury, any less a performance enhancement?

            Like

        2. Wainscott

          Rose will get in the HOF, but only posthumously. And its because he’s an unrepentant liar who will say and do anything for a buck. Like betting on your own team while managing and making questionable pitching changes in late innings to swing a game (or a line).

          There’s a fine line between sporting and WWF, and folks like Rose who blur the difference threaten the sport’s very core.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Rose never did anything to swing a game other than try to win.

            There are lots of true low life characters in the Hall. Rose is a gambling addict. He shouldn’t be in a position to influence a game as a manager. But again, that’s different from the Hall of Fame. And he did it after his playing career was over. He was only a manager at that point.

            Do you keep OJ out of the college football hall of fame and pro football hall of fame because of what he did after his playing career was over? Its like these zero tolerance policies in schools where a kid accidentally brought his cub scout knife to school, turned it in and got expelled. There’s no common sense applied. Its like vacating Georgia Tech’s ACC title because one player took $300 of clothes from an agent, which he returned, primarily because the NCAA investigator got ticked off. Its pretending something didn’t really happen with an arbitrary and capricious decision making system.

            Like

          2. @bullet – The thing is that you can’t separate Rose’s playing and managerial careers from each other in the way that you can separate OJ’s career from his post-career actions. Rose gambled on the game while he as an employee of a Major League Baseball franchise and subject to its rules. Furthermore, the context of Rose’s career itself shows that it’s more than common sense and not an arbitrary application of a strict rule. Remember that he was a player-manager for the last 2 years of his playing career and then went to a sole managerial position without any interruption after retirement from playing. It wasn’t even as if though Rose retired, left the game for a few years, and then became a manager. He was working for the Reds the entire time without a break and his playing and managing careers literally overlapped with each other. It also doesn’t matter whether he bet on the Reds to win – MLB (and any other sports entity) CANNOT be allowing anyone betting on games that they’re influencing directly. He gambled hundreds of thousands of dollars on dozens of Reds games (and those were only the ones that had firm documentation), so we can’t even give him the excuse that it was a one-time slip-up like the taking clothes from an agent example. Pete Rose willfully gambled substantial sums of money on dozens of games on a baseball team that he managed and was employed by when there is a clear cut and unambiguous MLB rule that doing so will get you permanently banned for life (and happened to be applied directly to another legendary hitter compared to Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson). MLB should never backtrack on its decision on Rose – it is a strict rule because it is the one area where it HAS to be done that way. People can make arguments about whether taking steroids is really any different than other advanced medical treatments or about how certain members of the Hall of Fame were terrible people (i.e. Ty Cobb being a virulent racist), but gambling on a game that you have an impact on is an immediate and direct violation of the competition itself, so it is deservedly an area where there needs to be zero tolerance.

            Like

          3. ccrider55

            Only a manager? You mean the single most influential person regarding who, how and when strategies and personnel will be, or not be used?

            Rose is the single most qualified person to not be HOF based on play…and the single most important example of standing by a rule that simply cannot be overlooked, sunseted, or forgiven in the interest of the game.

            FtT:
            Sadly, over time people are becoming cynical. As the influence/importance of media (and its desire for attractive match ups and story lines) and the money involved has grown a growing number no longer believe on field results are necessarily always honest, and that any selection process used in leu of on field elimination circumvents even playing fields.

            Like

          4. @ccrider55 – Yes, that’s the heart of it about Rose. He was a superstar player and the all-time hits leader, so it’s completely understood that he should statistically be in the Hall of Fame. However, if some pedestrian manager with a nonexistent playing career had wagered hundreds of thousands of dollars on dozens of games involving his own team, then I don’t think we’re having a debate about the nuances of whether his wagering was in favor or against his team. He’d be banned without any question and no fans would think twice about it. That exact same standard should apply to Rose regardless of how illustrious his playing career was. What would have been arbitrary was giving him a pass because of his hitting records.

            Like

          7. ccrider55

            Bullet:

            Do not we induct managers?

            Yes, his playing career was absolutely HOF worthy. BUT he disqualified himself! It is not a hall of “achieved qualifying threshold numbers”. No vote would be necessary. It isn’t a collection of the best players, it is hall of fame and gambling straight up is a DQ…forever.

            Like

          8. ccrider55

            As for Shoeless Joe, I believe there was never any evidence against him. He got tarred with the broad brush. If anyone was to overcome the gambling ban it should be him…because according to all reports he didn’t and was banned anyway. Not a claim Pete can make.

            Like

          9. bullet

            As I recall, Shoeless was offered money, but you couldn’t tell from his performance. He did know about it.

            Pete Rose hasn’t been in a movie yet, so doesn’t have much sympathy.

            Like

          10. ccrider55

            Yes. Perhaps Joe should have exposed the offer at the time. But should everyone who although not using be permanently painted with the roid/hgh brush for not ratting out the users? I wish some had done so decades ago.

            Like

          11. bullet

            On that topic:
            http://tomahawktake.com/2014/01/07/hall-fame-broken/

            Part of the writer’s article:

            From the 1940s to the 1980s, Major League Baseball was plagued by PEDs. These PEDs were called amphetamines, or “greenies’ in their era. The all time greats like Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and even Braves legend Hank Aaron have all admitted to using greenies in their playing days. These enhanced recovery, allowing players to play when they really physically should not have been able to, much like the in-season effects of modern PEDs. Modern PEDs do most of their “muscle growth” effect in the offseason when the body can have time for cardiovascular recovery, something nearly impossible to do during a 162-game schedule. That’s another post for another day, however.

            Writers in the 1940s didn’t write about the drugs in the locker room. Writers in the late 1970s to early 1980s didn’t write about illegal narcotic drug use. Writers in the late 1980s until the late 1990s didn’t discuss steroid/PED use. The reason? Well, many, but the main reasons as explained by a number of writers who are no longer in the club house were 1) they didn’t want to lose access/trust in the locker room, and 2) the public didn’t care. After 1998, the public noted the drastic muscle builds of many players and began to demand investigation into the steroid issue. Many writers have admitted to seeing the drugs taken right in front of them and never reporting it. Now those same writers want to turn around and decline to vote for the same guys they protected throughout that era in order to save face. That’s not only hypocritical, but it’s revisionist history. Would those same writers vote down Mickey Mantle if his name was put up for election again based on the admissions of how he lived in his era and used drugs, legal and not so much, to help him play every day?

            Like

          12. ccrider55

            I kinda agree with your contention, but I’d suggest Mantle actually shortened his career and may have cost himself a hundred HRs by his abuses.

            I don’t think it was anyone noticing bulked up bodies around ’98. There were a number of obvious cases in the ’80s (Canseco?). What they did discover with three players (not one, but three!) not simply passing the “61” but blowing by it, was that the conventionally accepted wisdom that steroids wouldn’t help fine motor skills and hand/eye coordination was now obviously false. And it still took years to have them become prohibited by baseball.

            Like

      3. Brian

        I always thought the 15 year rule was stupid. If you aren’t HoF material in one year, what’s changed by the next year? I think voters shouldn’t be restricted to 10 players (as the league grows, there may be more than 10 worthy people that retire in 1 year), but you only get on the ballot once. I know it’ll never happen, but it would make more sense than slowly growing your vote total every year until you squeeze in after 14 years.

        By the way, Jack Morris became only the second player to ever get 50%+ of the vote in a year and not make the HoF eventually.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          What changes is the voter body composition, and certainly recently, hidebound fogies ignorant of modern analytical techniques have more and more been replaced by younger journalists who have a better grasp of which players actually contribute more value.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            I understand that, but I’m talking about the same voter changing his mind after several years. Most of them are just using a tiering system where they say this guy only deserves to get in after 10 years while that guy should get in after 7. The HoF is supposed to be a yes/no vote.

            I’ve always thought that if you don’t easily get in, then you shouldn’t get in.

            Like

      5. frug

        By the way, I was looking at the list of rejected nominees and realized you could make a really sick starting lineup

        C: Piazza
        1B: Bagwell
        2B: Kent
        3B: Martinez
        SS: Trammel
        LF: Bonds
        CF: Biggio
        RF: Walker
        DH: McGwire/ Raines

        P: Clemens
        P: Mussina
        P: Schilling

        Obviously defense isn’t ideal with Piazza and Kent at C and 1B and Biggio and Martinez playing outside their normal position, but the other 4 are strong defensive players and with that pitching lineup I doubt it would matter much.

        Like

        Reply

      1. @frug – The BBWAA is laughable. The thing is that the LeBetard/Deadspin ballot ended up being perfectly reasonable (and certainly much more reasonable than the Rocca ballot). For all of the consternation from the BBWAA, the crowd-sourced ballot was pretty well-informed. Why *shouldn’t* writers allow feedback from fans to be considered, particularly the writers themselves are allowed to apply whatever personal criteria that they want and create a world where Hideo Nomo gets into the Hall of Fame while Greg Maddux doesn’t.

        Like

        Reply
  118. zeek

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-scores/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Impt article on how many student athletes at these universities are functionally illiterate at the college level.

    Interesting that CNN actually went and got some data where they could through public records requests.

    Some of these statements are stunning:

    “They’re pushing them through,” said Billy Hawkins, an associate professor and athlete mentor at the University of Georgia.
    “They’re graduating them. UGA is graduating No. 2 in the SEC, so they’re able to graduate athletes, but have they learned anything? Are they productive citizens now? That’s a thing I worry about. To get a degree is one thing, to be functional with that degree is totally different.”
    Hawkins, who says in his 25 years at various universities he’s witnessed some student-athletes fail to meet college reading standards, added: “It’s too much for students reading below a college level. It’s basically a farce.”
    Gurney, who looked into the situation at the University of Oklahoma, put it bluntly: “College presidents have put in jeopardy the academic credibility of their universities just so we can have this entertainment industry. … The NCAA continually wants to ignore this fact, but they are admitting students who cannot read.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      Interesting article. I know UGA has a massive program for all the athletes, from football to women’s equestrian. They have people assigned to buildings to check on attendance, note takers, tutors for every subject, academic advisors, advisors to teach them how to study and coordinators who keep track of them and coordinate with the coaching staff. They have mandatory study halls.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        Yeah I think this goes to the heart of the matter.

        These universities have set up such extensive support operations for certain student athletes (largely in revenue sports) to glide them through the process that it makes me wonder how actually prepared they are for the real world. How much are they actually learning if they’re being tutored through a lot more than your average student who doesn’t get that tutoring but enters with much higher test scores on average and a much more rigorous high school curriculum on average.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          Probably varies by school, but for UGA, all the athletes get the same level of support. I asked someone who does some tutoring if it was just the men’s bb and fb who had challenges. Apparently its not just them. There are some non-rev sports where some of the students have challenges.

          Like

          Reply
          2. Marc Shepherd

            There would probably be a Title IX issue if men’s football got better tutoring than women’s rowing. And obviously, once you make it equal for football and rowing, you’d better just make it equal for everyone.

            Like

          3. ccrider55

            That is/should be the case anyway. This is a case where T9’s intent, and it’s enforcement capability, is a good common sense college athletics policy.

            Like

    2. bullet

      Thought the ones not responding were interesting, so I checked by conference:
      SEC 3/9 sent data, 2 of those had comments (UGA and LSU)
      Big 10 2/7 sent data, 1 had comment (Ohio St.)
      Big 12 4/5 sent data, 3 had comments (Texas, ISU, OSU)
      Pac 12 2/6 sent data, 2 had comments (OSU, UW)
      ACC 4/5 sent data, 2 had comments (UNC, UL)

      Like

      Reply
        1. bullet

          I think its a good sign if they do give comments. Shows they at least acknowledge and think about the issue. Although with UNC, they couldn’t really avoid comment.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            UNC about their academic advisor: they weren’t aware of her research-“Research is not within her job duties.”

            Like

  119. Michael in Raleigh

    Brian, Bullet, & anyone else in the in the Atlanta area:

    The discussion about the baseball HOF made wonder: What’s the latest you’ve heard about the College Football Hall of Fame there? When is it set to open? Are people in the area excited about it? Is it going to be big? Would you visit it?
    .
    I was in Atlanta this past August visiting family. We went the aquarium and then walked around Centennial Olympic Park. Gorgeous day. Very, very busy Saturday in the summer there. Isn’t that where the HOF is going to be?

    I do hope that it ends up being successful there. If not in Atlanta, I don’t know where it could work. People never really talked about it, at all, as a tourist attraction in my five years in Indiana. South Bend sounded like a nice idea on paper because of the Notre Dame history, but South Bend is just not a place people visit much for anything besides family and ND games.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      You see a few articles about it. Not sure when it opens, but it is getting close. I don’t think it has people “excited.” Its in that same area as World of Coke, CNN and the Aquarium. They expect to get a lot of convention people going. Probably will visit it at some time.

      Atlanta has a bunch of these minor attractions that add up. Not too many are destinations, but there is a broad variety with those downtown, Kennesaw Mountain, Stone Mountain, the Atlanta History Center, the Botanical Gardens, the Atlanta Zoo, the Cyclorama, the Tellus Science Museum and Fernbank Science Museum.

      Like

      Reply
    2. zeek

      I definitely agree with the line of thought that if it doesn’t work in Atlanta it isn’t going to work anywhere.

      There’s really no other city that attached to college football as a major city in the US given its intersection between the ACC and SEC as well as how many alumni from schools across the country (especially the East) settle in Atlanta.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        I think it will get a little overshadowed in Atlanta, partly because its a recent transplant in a city with many long-standing attractions. In time, it might attract a following. Maybe Birmingham would have been better, even if its a smaller city. If nothing else, Birmingham’s tv ratings for pretty much any college football game indicates unusual levels of passion for CFB. I dunno if B’ham is large enough for the CFB HOF, but maybe the local enthusiasm would help.

        Will it be charging admission?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          Wainscott,

          “I think it will get a little overshadowed in Atlanta, partly because its a recent transplant in a city with many long-standing attractions.”

          Atlanta has older attractions, but nothing top tier. What Atlanta has is a bunch of midlevel or small attractions that can reach critical mass when combined. Civil rights is really the only major draw.

          It’s location is great because thew World of Coke and the Aquarium aren’t all day attractions for most people. If those people want to kill a few more hours, the HoF is right there.

          “Will it be charging admission?”

          Heck yes. I’d guess around $20 to start. The WoC is $16. The aquarium is $36.

          You can buy a CityPass for $74 and get tickets to the WoC, GA aquarium, CNN tour, zoo or Atlanta history center, and Fernbank or High museum. Perhaps the HoF will join that deal. A CP is good for 9 days from first use.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Michael in Raleigh

            The aquarium was definitely awesome. 3-4 hours could be spent there. We went with my little nephew & in-laws. Will return whenever kids happen and maybe use that CityPass.

            You & Bullet describe Atlanta well. Lots of minor attractions but nothing major. Still a great city to visit for a long weekend.

            Like

          2. bullet

            Aquarium is definitely the nicest I’ve seen. Forgot about the Civil Rights Museum and Carter Presidential Center.

            Like

          3. Alan from Baton Rouge

            While its about 75 miles south of Atlanta, FDR’s Little White House in Warm Springs, Georgia is a must see for history buffs.

            Like

          4. bullet

            Was at FDR State Park one time, just across the hills from Warm Springs. They had a guy speak as FDR. You felt like it was FDR there. Took questions. Did a really good job. Don’t know how regularly they did that, but it was very interesting. That park was built using CCC labor. Lake there was dug out by hand.

            Like

    3. Brian

      Michael in Raleigh,

      “The discussion about the baseball HOF made wonder: What’s the latest you’ve heard about the College Football Hall of Fame there? When is it set to open?”

      It’s supposed to open this fall, hopefully in time for the start of the 2014 season when Atlanta hosts the kickoff game(s).

      http://www.cfbhall.com/

      Their website has lots of info including a live construction camera so you can monitor progress.

      “Are people in the area excited about it?”

      Some are, but it’s not that big of a deal to most people.

      “Is it going to be big?”

      The $66.5 million facility will top out at 94,256 square feet and will feature approximately 30,000 square feet of exhibit space, as well as a 45-yard indoor football field that also will serve as a unique, flexible programming and event space.

      Would you visit it?

      Why not? It beats seeing the World of Coca-Cola again.

      “I was in Atlanta this past August visiting family. We went the aquarium and then walked around Centennial Olympic Park. Gorgeous day. Very, very busy Saturday in the summer there. Isn’t that where the HOF is going to be?”

      It’s very close, yes. They’re actually building in what once was once of the GA World Congress Center’s parking lots.

      The new Hall of Fame is being constructed at the former “Green Parking Lot” of the Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) on Marietta Street in downtown Atlanta. The attraction will be adjacent to GWCC (one of the largest convention facilities in the country), the Georgia Dome and the Omni Hotel. The site also is just steps from Centennial Olympic Park, the World of Coca-Cola, the Georgia Aquarium, CNN Center, the Imagine It! Children’s Museum, and the soon-to-be-constructed National Center for Civil and Human Rights, as well as numerous dining and hotel options.

      “I do hope that it ends up being successful there. If not in Atlanta, I don’t know where it could work. People never really talked about it, at all, as a tourist attraction in my five years in Indiana. South Bend sounded like a nice idea on paper because of the Notre Dame history, but South Bend is just not a place people visit much for anything besides family and ND games.”

      Atlanta certainly gets more visitors than SB, and the downtown isn’t overly full of things to do for guests. I think it will do pretty well if they execute it properly.

      Like

      Reply

  120. One note about the BCS game that I didn’t see anywhere (though I’m sure someone mentioned it) was that by winning, Florida State broke the tie between Florida and Alabama for most BCS titles from one state. Florida ended with 5 (2 FSU, 2 UF, 1 UM) and Alabama ended with 4 (3 Bama, 1 Auburn).

    The states of Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana produced 11 of the 16 BCS Champions.

    Other tidbits after the last BCS game.

    With the addition of TAMU, states currently within the SEC footprint produced 13 of the BCS champions (only exceptions being Ohio State, Oklahoma, and USC). Of those three exceptions, only USC isn’t in a state that borders the SEC footprint. Geographically, the three farthest north schools to win a BCS title were Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Ohio State.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      He makes some pretty good points.

      I also think it’s fair to say that criticism of the BCS has been a bit overblown.

      If I look back at the past 15 years or so, I can only really see 2 or 3 glaring examples of a “system meltdown” when you look at the matchup that we’ve gotten in the BCS national championship.

      Many have been completely non-controversial even if there’s been multiple 1-loss teams in the mix and 1 ends up being plucked up.

      It’s like I said before the Big Ten/SEC Championships. All the debates about Ohio State v Auburn were academic until both got through the weekend unscathed. These things tend to sort themselves out on the field naturally.

      Like

      Reply
      3. bullet

        But sometimes the lack of controversy is just common perception. I’m not sure TCU wouldn’t have beaten either Oregon or Auburn in 2010. Both teams had flaws. Texas definitely got the shaft in 2008 because their loss came late, but its possible USC was the best team and they weren’t even in the conversation.

        I think the 4 team playoff will pop a lot of common perceptions (Remember USC 2005–best team ever?).

        Like

        Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      There’s validity in many of his points, but he lapses into one common fallacy:

      “And how many times was the BCS ever wrong?” Fisher said. “How many times did they ever get it wrong at the end? We’ve still got the same problem. You’re going to argue over who’s four and five or who’s two and three. What’s the difference?”

      There’s a huge difference. It’s pretty common that there’s a #3 team with a legitmate argument that it’s in the top two. It’s less common (though not unheard of) that there’s a #5 team with that same argument. It’s even far less common that there’s a #9 team that can make that argument.

      Of course, in any size playoff, there are always teams that just barely missed getting in. But at some point you’ve got a large enough field to say, without fear of contradiction, that you included everyone with a legitimate claim to be #1. I think 8 teams would get you there every year; 4 should do it in most years; 2 frequently failed.

      I do realize that there are traditionalists who don’t particularly care whether the top teams ever play each other, but assuming you care about that, there obviously is a huge difference between four teams and two, in terms of assuring you actually identify the best team.

      Sure, Jimbo is right that there’ll always be a spurned #5. But the question is not whether there’s a #5 with an argument that they were as good as #4. It’s whether there’s a #5 that can argue it’s as good as #1, and in college football that happens a lot less often.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Playoffs don’t increase the probability that the two top teams will play each other, they decrease it.

        Let’s assume teams A and B are the two best teams in the couintry. If they are so identified (which I think the BCS has done a damn good job of doing year in, year out), there is a 100% chance they will play each other for the NC. Lets say teams C and D each have a 30% chance of beating A and B. By adding them to the mix, you end up with a 49% chance that A abd B will play for the NC. Add more teams, and you further lesson the %. See the NCAA tourney and MLB playoffs as examples.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          But at least they had a shot instead of being voted out by other team’s coaches. Survivor may be popular, but its no way to run a sport.

          Like

          Reply
          1. zeek

            True.

            And certainly there have been years where there’s been a #3 team with a legitimate gripe.

            Auburn’s undefeated campaign that got left out of the NC for one.

            Oklahoma State had a legitimate argument to have a shot at a NC a few years ago when they were left out.

            TCU a couple years ago and Michigan State this year are other examples.

            Michigan State went 12-1. Don’t they deserve a chance to prove themselves even if they aren’t perceived as being as good as FSU/Auburn?

            It’s a fair argument for why 2 was too small a sample size.

            Like

        2. Marc Shepherd

          Playoffs don’t increase the probability that the two top teams will play each other, they decrease it.

          Let’s assume teams A and B are the two best teams in the country. If they are so identified (which I think the BCS has done a damn good job of doing year in, year out),…

          I think there are a lot of people who would vociferously dispute that the BCS did “a damn good job” of identifying the best two teams. In fact, the broadly held view is that it did a terrible job.

          You are correct that IF the BCS always (or usually) identified the two best teams, then increasing the playoff size reduces the chance that they’ll face each other. Your premise is certainly open to dispute.

          But anyhow, I was challenging Jimbo Fisher’s statement that there is “no difference.” There clearly is a difference; you and I are not disputing that. You are asserting that expanding to 4 teams makes it worse, and I’m asserting that it gets better. The one thing neither of us is saying, is what Jimbo Fisher said: that it makes no difference.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            I think he’s wrong that there is a dramatic difference between FBS and FCS. Georgia Southern beat Florida this year and a couple of years ago was toe-to-toe with Alabama’s MNC team for 3 quarters (and still only lost by 24 with a last minute TD pass by Alabama to pad the score). And there’s less of a gap from FBS to Division III than from the NFL (which gets the top 1% of college players) to FBS.

            Like

          2. Brian

            One game is not the same as a season. I-AA teams are very excited to play a I-A foe. The reverse is never true.

            Fisher’s point is that I-A players are larger, faster and more talented, so players are taking much harder hits and getting hit more often. That takes a larger toll on the body, and growing bodies have their limits.
            .

            Like

          3. bullet

            I’ve looked at some FCS rosters. I don’t think there is that significant a size difference. FBS are faster on average. But FCS players get in the pros as well. And a number of FBS players who could play FCS have transferred so they can start w/o sitting out a year.

            Like

          4. bullet

            And if the defensive players are slower, the offensive players are slower too, so I don’t know how they get hit less often.

            Like

          5. Brian

            bullet,

            Apart from the lines, I-A generally has a size advantage. They have a speed advantage everywhere. The number of pro caliber players in I-AA is much less than in I-A, too.

            They get hit less often because there are fewer studs making elite plays and fewer people able to pile into the hit, and each hit is less severe.

            Like

      2. Brian

        Marc Shepherd,

        There’s validity in many of his points, but he lapses into one common fallacy:

        “And how many times was the BCS ever wrong?” Fisher said. “How many times did they ever get it wrong at the end? We’ve still got the same problem. You’re going to argue over who’s four and five or who’s two and three. What’s the difference?”

        There’s a huge difference. It’s pretty common that there’s a #3 team with a legitmate argument that it’s in the top two. It’s less common (though not unheard of) that there’s a #5 team with that same argument. It’s even far less common that there’s a #9 team that can make that argument.

        Maybe, or maybe that’s our perception because right now the cutoff is 2/3. We all know #4 has decent odds of winning a playoff in any given year (not 25%, but not 0% either). How much gap is there between #4 and #5 in any given year? When that’s the distinction we’re looking at, then I think you’ll find more controversy over that selection.

        Of course, in any size playoff, there are always teams that just barely missed getting in. But at some point you’ve got a large enough field to say, without fear of contradiction, that you included everyone with a legitimate claim to be #1.

        What constitutes a legitimate claim? I’m pretty sure #9 could win 3 straight games against top 7 teams every so often. It depends partially on how the teams are being ranked.

        I do realize that there are traditionalists who don’t particularly care whether the top teams ever play each other, but assuming you care about that, there obviously is a huge difference between four teams and two, in terms of assuring you actually identify the best team.

        Saying it doesn’t prove it. We just had that link of Monte Carlo simulations that dispute your theory.

        Sure, Jimbo is right that there’ll always be a spurned #5. But the question is not whether there’s a #5 with an argument that they were as good as #4. It’s whether there’s a #5 that can argue it’s as good as #1, and in college football that happens a lot less often.

        I disagree completely. The argument is whether or not the team should make the playoff, because once in they have almost the same chance of winning as #4. I agree that people will get less worked up about it, but mathematically I think you’re wrong.

        Like

        Reply
        1. ccrider55

          “I’m pretty sure #9 could win 3 straight games against top 7 teams every so often.”

          #11 went 1-0 vs #3 in this year’s post season.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Marc Shepherd

          No, I stand by the math. It becomes more obvious if you extend the curve out to the basketball tournament’s 68 teams. No team higher than a regional 8 seed has ever won it, and that happened only once, so there should be no rational dispute that once you get beyond 32 teams, you’re including squads whose chances are near zero. The #69 bubble team, therefore, has no legitimate gripe that they could have won it all. Their only gripe is that they missed out on the chance to play another game or two.

          If you graph all playoff sizes from 2 to 68, you would find that the probability of the “last team omitted” winning it all declines asymptotically to near zero at around 32 teams. The Monte Carlo study you mentioned, despite its flaws, found exactly that. It didn’t carry the analysis all the way to 32, since no one thinks football would ever go that far, but the trend was right.

          What varies considerably is a different question, the probability that the actual best team fails to win it all. At some point, that probability starts to increase, since you’re giving that team more chances to get upset. But remember, worst way the true #1 might fail to win it all, is if you exclude them from the playoff field altogether.

          So assuming you want to identify the true #1, you want to balance two objectives. You want #1 to make the playoff, but you don’t want such a large field that #1 frequently gets upset in the early rounds. The Monte Carlo study that you cited, concluded that the sweet spot balancing those two interests was a 10-team field. It also concluded, as I do, that four is considerably better than two.

          Of course, I do understand that some fans think it unimportant to settle the issue on the field, and other factors (tradition, logistics, money) might prevent football from selecting the mathematically best model. But all I was talking about was the math, not other factors.

          If my math is wrong, then the Monte Carlo author and I both got it wrong, but I don’t think so. In fact, I am positive.

          Like

          Reply
          1. ccrider55

            All of this depends on the questionable ability of identifying who should be included while limiting to four. The lack of conference champ requirement means this year probably both the B1G and PAC would have been excluded. Which is fine by me ’cause I want those champs in the Rose Bowl every year, playoff be damned.

            Like

          2. Brian

            I read that study differently.

            If you want #1 to win most often, 12 teams was best but they were all very similar. He fails to indicate what difference would be statistically significant, but the range was only 29.4-32.9%. At 4 teams you’re already at 31.4%, so further growth provides very marginal growth at best.

            10 was best for having the best winner on average. This also didn’t vary that much, especially from 4 teams on.

            16 was best for assuring #1 makes the field.

            But that’s not the math I was talking about. To me the math says the gap between 4 and 5 is generally smaller than the gap between 2 and 3, so the controversy of the pick is greater. Any team that high up still has a decent shot to win the title, too. Whether those teams “deserve” a shot at the title is a different discussion, but the math says you’re splitting hairs for your cutoff as you expand and thus the first team out has a better argument to get in.

            Like

          3. bullet

            To me the biggest flaw in a system is if the best team doesn’t even get a chance to fail. That is a huge flaw in the 2 team. Its also a lesser flaw in a 4 team. A team can still get excluded because their big wins were early in the season or the 1 loss was late in the season or simply because people didn’t expect them to be good and so they started out low in the rankings and weren’t paid attention to. Hopefully a committee minimizes those biases since people have to actually talk about their choices, but those biases still exist.

            Like

          4. mushroomgod

            The best team has 12 chances to fail. It’s called the regular season.

            I’m a dino, but I preferred the old bowl system, then a vote. 2nd favorite was the BCS. Don’t like the 4 team playoff at all. Then the 8 team playoff will be worse.

            College football is making exactly the same mistakes as MLB…………20 years of this kind of crap is one of the main reasons they have 5M people watching their league championship games.

            Like

          5. bullet

            No its strikes, cancelling the world series and the disparate revenues putting the Yankees and Red Sox in contention every year and the Pirates and Royals (who were powers in the 70s) once every 30 years.

            Like

    3. Michael in Raleigh

      I like the four-team playoff, no more, no less.

      1996 is a perfect example. It was pre-BCS, meaning the top two teams outside of the Pac-10 and Big Ten could face off in the Sugar Bowl for a quasi-national championship game.

      Under the BCS, #1 and 11-0 Florida State would have faced #2 and 11-0 Arizona State. Instead, FSU faced #3 and 11-1 Florida while ASU faced #4 and 10-1 Ohio State.

      Now, as an FSU fan, I would have much rather seen FSU face Arizona State and have been done with it, where even a loss would have prevented the hated Gators from winning its first national title. But, as the bowl results proved (Buckeyes over Sun Devils, Gators decisively over Seminoles in a rematch), the better teams were the ones with a loss, not the ones who were unbeaten.

      The four team playoff would have yielded a #1 FSU vs #4 Ohio State semifinal and a #2 Arizona State vs. #3 Florida semifinal. BYU, who finished the season 14-1, would have had a gripe. Virginia Tech (10-1 entering bowl season) might have, too, but it was clear that neither was the nation’s best team. Meanwhile, it was not clear at all which among the top four was truly the best.

      Like

      Reply
  122. Brian

    http://www.stadiumjourney.com/news/01-06-2014/535/stadium-journey%E2%80%99s-top-100-stadium-experiences-of-2013

    Top 100 stadium experiences for 2013.

    CFB:

    1. Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame Fighting Irish
    2. Bryant-Denny Stadium, Alabama Crimson Tide
    3. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, USC Trojans
    4. Darrell K Royal- Texas Memorial Stadium, Texas Longhorns
    5. Blaik Field at Michie Stadium, Army Black Knights
    6. Spartan Stadium, Michigan State Spartans
    7. Michigan Stadium, Michigan Wolverines
    8. Ohio Stadium, Ohio State Buckeyes
    9. Memorial Stadium, Clemson Tigers
    10. Kyle Field, Texas A&M Aggies

    Like

    Reply
    1. Wainscott

      The only reason a noted Buckeye booster would post this is because it has MSU above Meee-chigan.

      Just kidding.

      List seems about right. Having gone to an Army game, the lesser football is more than compensated by the stunningly gorgeous views of the Hudson. An absolute must-see stadium that should be on everyone’s list.

      Conference Breakdown:
      3- B1G
      2- SEC
      2- Independent
      1- Big 12
      1- ACC
      1- Pac12

      Like

      Reply
  124. Andy

    Ranking of wins over the last 8 years by schools who were members of the Big 5 conferences over those 8 years plus Notre Dame (excludes teams like TCU, Boise State, Northern Illinois, Central Florida, etc):

    Top 20

    1. Oregon 76
    2. Alabama 74
    t2. Oklahoma 74
    4. LSU 73
    5. Virginia Tech 68
    6. USC 67
    7. Oklahoma State 66
    8. Missouri 65
    t8. Texas 65
    t8. Florida 65
    t8. Wisconsin 65
    t8. Georgia 65
    13. Michigan State 64
    14. Stanford 63
    t14 Clemson 63
    16. Nebraska 62
    t16. Ohio State 62
    t16. South Carolina
    19. Florida State 61
    20. West Virginia 59
    t20. Auburn 59

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Yeah. What the heck happened there? Did Hoke lose a power struggle? Gave in to the demands of the marketing department that saw that season ticket renewals were plummeting?

      I can’t imagine that that’d be good for recruiting (and UM had done well in that department, even though it hasn’t translated on to the field yet).

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Borges was OC at IU for several years under Dinardo.

        My overall impression was that he was capable, but arrogant and over-rated.

        What I saw from him at Michigan confirmed that impression.

        My thought is that UM is very much better off with the OC from Bama.

        I wonder,why the DC was not replaced? I know he’s got a big rep as well, and seemed to do a good job in ’12–but ’13 was pretty ugly……..

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Well, the timing makes sense, then.

          Guess Nussmeier didn’t want to see what life was like without McCarron. Can’t really blame him. Staying at ‘Bama is mostly downside; if they keep winning, Saban’s Process and recruiting will get the credit, but if the offense struggles, Nussmeier’s star will dim. At UM, they can only go up, and are likely to do so with all the talent coming in; all geared toward the pro-style smashmouth style that Hoke (and Borges and Nussmeier) favor.

          BTW, FEI has UM D 16th (4th in the B10), 26th (5th), & 37th (6th) over the past 3 years.
          S&P has UM D at 23rd (4th), 29th (6th), & 50th (6th)

          UM O:
          FEI: 9th (2nd), 25th (4th), & 42nd (6th)
          S&P: 11th (2nd), 9th (2nd), & 44th (5th)

          Yeah, not that different. I guess Mattison still gets credit for turning around RichRod’s dreadful D his first year. Plus, he’s close to retirement. They may just kick him upstairs.

          Borges could probably do good work elsewhere.

          Like

          Reply
          1. mushroomgod

            Just guessing, but there might be a personality conflict with Hoke also……..as I mentioned above AB comes across as a pretty arrogant guy….don’t get that vibe (at least) concerning Mattison.

            Like

          2. Alan from Baton Rouge

            There are various reports/rumors that Lane Kiffen and Rick Nieheisel are being considered for the open OC position at Alabama.

            Like

    2. Marc Shepherd

      The timing makes sense now: this must’ve been in the works for a while, and they waited to go public until they were ready to announce Borges’s replacement. According to Michigan boards, Borges stopped talking to recruits several weeks ago, so he must’ve known this was coming.

      At least one story suggested that Nussmeier was gently pushed out the door. Otherwise, it would be a very peculiar move, essentially lateral (as far as tradition goes), but not a lateral if recent performance is considered. Anyhow: only at Alabama would a performance like his be considered “not good enough.”

      What happened between Hoke and Borges is very unclear, because all season long Hoke said he supported the offensive philosophy, and as recently as a month ago, said that he didn’t anticipate any coaching changes. I realize a lot of that is coachspeak, but there’s just no hint at all of what Hoke’s thinking might be.

      Some fans have wondered why Mattison gets a free pass. The overall defensive numbers are not stellar, but if you dive into the details, it’s pretty clear that most of Michigan’s losses were on the offense. You can make a decent case for Mattison, whereas Borges’s failure is indefensible: multiple games where the offense (especially the running game) didn’t show up, even against mediocre opponents.

      Borges could probably do good work elsewhere.

      A guy with his resume will probably get hired. But the fact is, he’s a journeyman, who occasionally has some success, but is seldom able to sustain it. In fact, his Michigan career is very similar to his Auburn career: stellar initially, but very quickly tailing off.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        The ‘pushed out the door’ theory may be a reaction by the delusional fanbase to anyone daring to leave Kind of like the pissed off, drunk bamamoma jumping on the OK fans and then saying she was defending her kid.

        Like

        Reply
      2. GreatLakeState

        Both the credit and the spotlight are Saban’s and Saban’s alone at Alabama. Michigan is the perfect opportunity for Nuss to ride into town, save the day and get Narduzzi-like consideration for a big HC gig. Some on MgoBlog are convinced UofM just hired Hokes replacement.
        I Still think Funk is on his way out. If a new OL coach has a connection with Nussmeier I might buy into that theory.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          Both the credit and the spotlight are Saban’s and Saban’s alone at Alabama. Michigan is the perfect opportunity for Nuss to ride into town, save the day and get Narduzzi-like consideration for a big HC gig.

          Saban’s dominance in the media narrative isn’t unusual. It tends to be true whenever you have an outsize head-coaching figure. Nevertheless, I think it’s fairly uncommon for coaches to make lateral moves, unless there was something else going on to prompt it.

          Some on MgoBlog are convinced UofM just hired Hokes replacement.

          Well, there are two ways it could happen. If Nuss fixes the offense and Hoke fails to fix the defense, Nuss would be an obvious successsor. And even if they’re both successful, Hoke is not a youngster any more. How many years do you figure he has left?

          I Still think Funk is on his way out.

          It is hard for me to believe Nuss would’ve taken the job if he didn’t have some latitude to select his assistants, and Funk is the next most obvious guy to replace.

          Like

          Reply
    1. Richard

      Interesting that all 5 power conferences average about the same in football expenditures even though the B10, SEC, and (top-heavy) B12 (where I’m sure the numbers look more different with Texas removed than they would if the top revenue-generating program was removed from each of the other conferences) generate more revenues, on average, than the ACC and Pac.

      And where are all those football expenses in the B10 going? For the most part, we aren’t matching the SEC in assistant salaries.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        Higher scholarship costs? Higher recruiting expenses since the coaches have to travel farther? More spending on academic support? More construction ongoing right now? Different accounting methods for certain expenses (B10 schools bill FB while the SEC schools bill the university or AD)?

        Like

        Reply

    1. @Brian – It appears more and more likely that adding one more wild card team per conference is a given (much of it driven by TV so that more playoff games will get allocated to NBC and ESPN). That would mean only the top seeded division winner in each conference would get a bye to the divisional round while there would be 6 total wild card playoff games (instead of the 4 now).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        I’m all for it, but I doubt the idea of Friday night or Monday night games. On Friday, there is a competitive disadvantage for those teams, and the winner gets a competitive advantage by having an extra day before the divisional round. For Monday, the winner is disadvantaged by having less time to prepare for divisional round then any opponent.

        The competitive advantage/disadvantage idea also is why both conference championship games are on Sundays, as opposed to Sat night/Sunday or Sunday/Monday.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Wainscott;

          The NFL doesn’t care that much about competitive advantage (except for maybe the Super Bowl; though in that case, it could just be due to TV viewership generally being higher in Sundays than Saturdays). If you’ve noticed, both Saturday and Sunday have featured 1 AFC and NFC game each this weekend.

          In any case, if competitive advantage is a concern, just make the Monday and Friday game winners face the top-ranked team (that has a bye), who gets a big advantage in off-days anyway.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            @Richard:

            “The NFL doesn’t care that much about competitive advantage”:

            Read: http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2008/11/goodell_giants_and_jets_would.html

            “Instead, one game would likely be played at night on the traditional Sunday, Jan 18., and the second game would be played Monday night, Jan. 19.

            Goodell said Saturday would not be an option, as it would give the two teams playing only six days to prepare.”

            I think the NFL cares about competitive advantage for conference title games, in order to make it as even as possible for the final four teams, with wild card and divisional rounds on both Saturdays and Sundays as a nod to the realities of television.

            “If you’ve noticed, both Saturday and Sunday have featured 1 AFC and NFC game each this weekend.”

            See above.

            “In any case, if competitive advantage is a concern, just make the Monday and Friday game winners face the top-ranked team (that has a bye), who gets a big advantage in off-days anyway.”

            Likely a non-starter for the TV networks, who want a say in picking the best matchups for the best time slots without adhering to strict slotting rules. For the money the networks shell out for NFL programming, they want to be able to make sure they get prime games in good slots

            I believe the conference title games switch off time slots each year to ensure both CBS and Fox get the later slot the same amount of times, regardless of matchup quality but that’s also because conference title games will draw huge numbers regardless of the teams, even though certain teams will draw more than others. Its like the ole Spinal Tap joke of going to 11. A conference title game will draw to 10 regardless of teams, but certain teams/players will crank the ratings up to 11 (like how Pats vs. Broncos/Peyton Manning will do a little better than a San Diego/Cincy game would have, even if the latter game would have also done really well because its the AFC title game).

            Like

          2. Richard

            “I think the NFL cares about competitive advantage for conference title games, in order to make it as even as possible for the final four teams, with wild card and divisional rounds on both Saturdays and Sundays as a nod to the realities of television.”

            Well, the Friday and Monday games would only be during the wild card round, so there won’t be any difficulties with playing them there.

            Like

  128. GreatLakeState

    Great fire for the Maize n’ Blue. Now if they could pull a Mario Cristobal-quality OLC, Brady can do the Hokey pokey on the sidelines ’till the cows come home and we should be in decent shape.

    Like

    Reply
    2. Michael in Raleigh

      Chad Morris, one of the main reasons Clemson has gone from consistent 6-6 finishes to 10- and 11-win seasons, was available. Why not hire him? Pat Narduzzi had Michigan State as the No. 1 defense in the country, which I find even more impressive given the Spartans’ distance from large numbers of D-line recruits compared to southern teams. Why not hire him? Both, like Strong was out of Florida, are proven coordinators (albeit with slightly lesser credentials than Strong) and would have been perfectly sensible hires. They very well could have kept the train rolling in the new ACC.

      Louisville faces a far, far tougher schedule next year with Clemson, FSU, Miami, and Notre Dame. The next year doesn’t have Miami or ND, but the opener is Auburn in Atlanta. I don’t care. You don’t hire Bobby Petrino.

      Jurich is going to face the old adage in 2-4 years: ” Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me.”

      Like

      Reply
      1. GreatLakeState

        From ESPN:
        ‘So Petrino — identified as one of the biggest villains in Louisville football history — is now being welcomed back to a place he seemed eager to ditch in nearly every waking moment he previously held the job. The only plausible explanation is because he knows how to win.’

        The AD all but admitted the hire was a desperation move based on the fact Louisville is now in a division with Clemson and FSU and they couldn’t afford to tank in their inaugural season.

        Like

        Reply
        1. frug

          http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140109/bobby-petrino-louisville-cardinals/

          Tom Jurich should have fully embraced the situation. If the Louisville athletic director was going to approve a web page that announced Bobby Petrino was “Hungry For More,” then he should have told Petrino to ride into Thursday’s introductory press conference on a motorcycle. Or at least the school’s marketing wonks could have come up with a better slogan.

          Jurich, one of the sharpest ADs in the country, knew exactly what he was doing when he brought back the prodigal coach. Jurich also knew precisely what the reaction would be. And he almost owned his decision completely. He could have become the first athletic director in the history of college sports to have an honest introductory press conference. He came close on Thursday.

          Like

          Reply
      2. GreatLakeState

        The only think that could make this better is if he rides into his first practice on an OC chopper with a cheerleader twerking on the back.

        -ACC.ountability baby!

        Like

        Reply
          1. Wainscott

            Rutgers is a hot mess, but its not like ACC schools like UNC are squeaky clean, either.

            From all reports, Rutgers athletes can do things like, you know, read. Apparently more than we can say about Tar Heel athletes.

            Like

  130. Michael in Raleigh

    I hope that with time, there will fewer and fewer distinctions between national championships won in the BCS era and those won prior. Was Tennessee’s national title in 1998 that much more significant than Michigan and Nebraska’s in 1997? The exact same title matchup, Tennessee-UF, would have occurred under the previous system, and although ’97 produced split titles, so did ’03 under the BCS (and ’04 produced an uncrowned but undefeated Auburn team).

    It’s as though the BCS era has been modern college football and everything before then was the dark ages. It makes no sense. Peyton Manning played college football in those dark ages. If someone who played that oh-so-long ago is irrelevant, how does he manage to still be arguably the best quarterback in the sport?

    The advent of the BCS did not change or improve the quality of play. The distinction between national championships won in the BCS era, as though everything post-1998 matters and everything before doesn’t, makes for very convenient arguments sometimes.

    For one, it works very favorably for the SEC. 1998 was the first of nine championships for that league under that system, but in the 16 years prior (’82 to ’97), the SEC won a much more modest 2 national titles (Florida in ’96, Alabama in ’92). Meanwhile, the BCS-era distinction works very well against the Big Ten. The very last year prior to the BCS, a B1G team won half of the split title, and a future B1G team won the other half. If what mattered was the past 17 years instead of the past 16, the B1G would be right on par with the Pac-12 (titles in ’03 and ’04), Big 12 (’00 and ’05) and ACC (’99 and ’13).

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Michael in Raleigh – It’s a noble hope, but I foresee the exact opposite happening, where the pre-BCS national championships will likely be discounted (if not ignored) in the way that pre-Super Bowl NFL championships don’t have the same luster as Super Bowl champs. The memories of what it was like in the pre-BCS days will fade and today’s college kids already are too young to have any real recollection of the old system. It’s natural that people are going to see a hardline break between the times that we guaranteed a #1 vs. #2 game (even if the composition of that game might still have been flawed) and where it was determined by polls (just as we perceive a greatly different world when there wasn’t a Super Bowl versus after the game came into existence). That will only be exacerbated over time – if fans are already starting to discount pre-BCS championships (and I agree with you that it’s starting to happen), then they are extremely unlikely to reverse course and begin giving them more credit.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        I’ve never seen any discounting. People still recognize mid-90s Nebraska as among the greatest of all time.

        If we discounted pre-BCS, no one would care about Notre Dame.

        Like

        Reply

        1. It’s more of a gradual thing. In articles that refer to records, you see lots of references to “BCS era” or “BCS appearances” which I believe will only increase with time. We’re still in a period right now where there are enough people that remember the Nebraska teams of the 1990s where they’re not forgotten, but I imagine it was the same way in the 1970s about memories of the old NFL championships when the Super Bowl was still fairly young. At a certain point, though, the pre-Super Bowl era became a very large and distinct break in the NFL history timeline and I can foresee the same thing happening to college football. George Halas won 8 pre-Super Bowl NFL championships as a coach and was even a founder of the NFL itself, but he isn’t lionized (outside of Chicago) in the same way as Vince Lombardi who won 6 championships (but that included 2 Super Bowls). Frankly, the creation of the BCS was a much bigger change to college football than the Super Bowl was to pro football. Most of us here grew up with the poll system in place, so it’s what we knew and doesn’t seem that foreign, but I can imagine trying to explain the pre-1998 system to my kids when they get older (they’re 4 years old right now) and looking at me like I’m a wooly mammoth (as I’m sure they’ll also think as I lived in a time when the Internet wasn’t ubiquitous, DVRs didn’t exist, and cell phones were a luxury item that only made expensive phone calls as opposed to being a texting/app device that everyone has).

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Green Bay’s 2 Super Bowl championships were really viewed as exhibition games. That’s really why Baltimore lost to the Jets. They had already played their championship game (didn’t help them the Jets had a coach and a number of players who were Colt discards with a chip on their shoulders). They thrashed Cleveland who had given them their only regular season loss and who had beaten them 3 years before in the NFL title game.

            At the time, old NFL titles were not discounted. The Super Bowl is more of an easy measuring stick, much as BCS era is. There is one BCS champion, not two. There is one Super Bowl champion, not an NFL and AFL or NFL and AAFC.

            Right now, I would say its more convenient, rather than a discounting. There is always the recency phenomena. People forget what happened more than a couple years ago. You constantly hear about Texas doing less with more as if it had always been that ways. But as Andy showed, when Texas has had 4 mediocre years in a row, they are still #8 in wins over a 7 year period. And Texas was #2 behind Boise from 2000-2009. Saban has had a great run, but people forget how much Alabama struggled in the period between Stallings and Saban. Alabama, despite several years of Saban, was 49th in win % from 2000-2009.

            At some point things become a trend, rather than a mere up or down cycle. But in this text world, people often fail to see that. (MHVer3 has a great picture with his posts on the WV board of a bearded guy with one of those old cell phones that looks like a WWII walkie talkie).

            BTW-when I was in college, erasable bond typing paper was a wondrous technological invention. Saved many hours re-typing papers. I can tell stories of carrying two foot long boxes of keypunch cards and sitting and waiting 20 minutes or so until the operator at the computer center ran your program. A portable computer was one than only took a single truck and some guys and no cranes to move.

            Like

      2. Eric

        Sadly, I’ve had the same thought. It’s not that schools will stop highlighting those championships, but going forward, it’s doubtful you have another year where the playoff winner is not national champion. I don’t think the cut-off will be between the old bowl system and the BCS though, but between the BCS and CFP. That term I expect to stick around and in 30 years, I could see people talking about the CFP winners and considering much of the older history as less relevent in the same way the NFL Championships are less relevent (as you pointed out) or the pre-World Series National League Champions were. It won’t be to the same extent (too many extra titles people want to claim), but it will be there.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          That’s quite possible.

          The BCS only had one split title in 16 years, although it probably should have one in ’04 (Auburn) and arguably in ’08 (Utah) and ’10 (TCU). I think those days are over. The #5 team isn’t ever going to be considered by AP voters, coaches, or anyone else as eligible for the national title after bowl games and the playoff. There are only five major conferences, and anyone who finishes unbeaten out of one of those leagues is in. And there’s just absolutely no way we’ll ever have a year that all five conferences will have a team finish 12-0 or 13-0. I guess a team from one of the G5 leagues could finish unbeaten and #5 or #6, but if it doesn’t get into that playoff, it’s not getting a split title.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            I agree, it is exceedingly unlikely that a team would be ranked #1 in the AP poll and not make the 4-team playoff at all. The only time that happened in the BCS era (USC), they changed the formula afterward, to make it much harder for that to happen again.

            Of course, now there is no formula. It’s extremely unlikely that human voters or a human committee would leave out an undefeated USC team. It only happened in the BCS because, at the time, the computers were unimpressed with the Trojans, and the computer polls had a heavier weighting than they did in later years.

            Indeed, one of the major failings of the BCS was that the formula had to be tweaked so many times, thereby laying bare the total arbitrariness of the two teams eventually selected to play for the championship in any given year.

            Like

    2. Marc Shepherd

      I think that Michael is greatly exaggerating the “problem”. Very few people think that the pre-BCS championships are irrelevant or less important.

      Bear in mind, the pre-BCS era is not really one era. Some of the so-called “championships” were awared retrospectively, long after the games were played. And then, for decades the major polls crowned a champion at the end of the regular season, and did not consider bowl games. Despite these limitations, there were some seasons that had an overhwelmingly obvious #1 team, and others that will be forever disputed. The BCS era is obviously not free of such disputes, since it produced a split championship the year that USC went undefeated but failed to reach the championship game.

      Obviously, at some point the BCS will recede into memory, and it will be recalled as one of many former systems no longer in use. But all of the old championships still count, and always will.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        Even aside from the national championships, schools are praised for winning or appearing in “BCS bowls” as though the games were brand new in 1998. Oklahoma, for instance, was noted on SportsCenter for being the only team to win “all four BCS bowls.” Nevermind that FSU (and quite possibly others) have also won the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and either or Rose Bowl or a national title game held at the Rose Bowl, only the Fiesta Bowl was in the 80’s (or maybe early 1990’s).

        Ohio State & Oklahoma are praised for having made the most BCS bowl appearances, as though Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton, or Orange appearances meant nothing if they were in 1997 or earlier. Again, some of the best players ever played in those games. They weren’t from the dark ages at all. Quite to the contrary, to use the Manning example again, they STILL dominate players who come out of college to this day.

        @Frank, the Super Bowl distinction makes a decent comparison in that pre-SB championships are discounted while SB-era titles are held in higher regard. The difference between the advent of the Super Bowl and the advent of the BCS is that the BCS didn’t increase the number of teams eligible for the championship by 40%. The Super Bowl was a championship between two distinct leagues and eventually became a takeover of the AFL by the NFL. There were previously two separate championships ever year, and with the Super Bowl, there was one.

        The difference between the BCS and the prior system was simply that the Rose Bowl, Pac-10, and Big Ten were brought into the fold. Had the BCS been in place in ’92, ’93, or ’95, the exact same #1 vs. #2 games would have taken place, whereas if the SB had existed prior to ’66, the championship would have been AFL vs. NFL.

        Moreover, if the old system had been in place for the past 20 years but the same results had played out on the field, only the ’02, ’04, ’06, ’07, and ’10 would have had different teams involved. So why are all the other years’ championships held in a higher regard?

        But, again, even though some of the games would have been changed, the old system didn’t render the Big Ten or Pac-10 ineligible for championships. It only made them ineligible for the #1 vs. #2 game.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          I think you’re quite mistaken about national championships. I see no evidence that the BCS era de-valued NCs won under prior systems.

          You are right that the BCS era created a wholly new stat: number of BCS bowls attended (and won). Those bowls existed before, but the BCS enshrined an upper tier that had only existed informally. That stat will gradually pass out of public consciousness, along with the BCS itself.

          But stats like “total number of NCs” (all of them) and total number of bowls (all of them) will persist, as they do today.

          Like

          Reply
          1. BruceMcF

            The new era creates an equivalent tier to the BCS bowls, among the semi-final bowls in their two off-years, and people will track number of those bowls attended, and record, just as they did with the BCS bowls. In addition to CFP semi-finals and finals attended and won.

            Like

          2. Marc Shepherd

            Yes, of course they will, and they should. But I don’t see any reason to think that teams will stop touting total number of NCs, and total number of bowls attended and won, as they do now.

            Like

  131. bullet

    So it looks like Franklin to Penn St. Does Penn St. face Nebraska? You could promote like WWE. Pellini and Franklin, nose to nose.

    Penn St. deserves it if he blows up in their face. He’s a loose cannon and the Vanderbilt rape allegations could blow up on PSU if there is any basis for it. That’s one thing PSU doesn’t need. But then, the NCAA has proven with Montana it doesn’t really care if the coach and AD cover up rapes of women.

    Like

    Reply
      1. bullet

        No. The justice department was investigating 80 charges of rape in the town, several of which involved football players. Here’s an excerpt from a February ESPN article:
        http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/_/id/8921202/university-montana-qb-rape-trial-begins-amid-larger-sex-assault-scandal-plaguing-Missoula

        Datsopoulos represented former Montana running back Beau Donaldson, who admitted his guilt to a charge identical to the charge against Johnson (the QB whose trial was starting in February and was the main part of this article) and was sentenced on Jan. 11 to 30 years (20 suspended) in the penitentiary. According to court documents, 260-pound Donaldson admitted to police that he assaulted a Montana student as she was sleeping in his apartment on New Year’s Day in 2012. The woman testified she feared for her life as Donaldson chased her after the attack. The judge who sentenced Donaldson, Karen Townsend, is also presiding over the Johnson prosecution.

        “It is certain,” Datsopoulos said, “that the environment created in Missoula is responsible for the 10-year sentence. “[Donaldson] did the right thing; he is a quality guy; he told the police what he did; he wanted to clear it up, and it has cost him dearly.”

        Others in Missoula do not share Datsopoulos’ skepticism about the investigations. Pat Williams — who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1997 and is now a member of the board of regents that governs higher education in the state, including the university in Missoula — saw a serious problem in Missoula, welcomes the investigations and praises the university’s actions in response to the crisis.

        Describing the situation that prevailed before the investigations prompted changes, Williams said: “The football team was recruiting too many thugs. Rape was not the only problem. There was vandalism, there were personal assaults, and there was destruction of property. The players were pampered and adored. Too many of them had the feeling they were bulletproof and immune to the rules that all of us must follow. They acted like arrogant marauders.”

        In the face of numerous allegations involving football players, Williams said, the university’s “procedures were not good” and the authorities “failed to follow up on accusations from women.”

        Like

        Reply
  132. Brian

    http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2014/01/2014-sec-b1g-non-conference-scheduling

    Here is a look ahead to the OOC schedules for the B10 and SEC in 2014.

    Illinois: Youngstown State, Western Kentucky, @ Washington, Texas State
    Indiana: Indiana State, @ Bowling Green, @ Missouri, North Texas
    Iowa: Northern Iowa, Ball State, Iowa State, @ Pitt
    Maryland: James Madison, @ USF, West Virginia, @ Syracuse
    Michigan: Appalachian State, @ Notre Dame, Miami (OH), Utah
    Michigan State: Jacksonville State, @ Oregon, Wyoming, Eastern Michigan
    Minnesota: Eastern Illinois, Middle Tennessee State, @ TCU, San Jose State
    Northwestern: Cal, Northern Illinois, Western Illinois, @ Notre Dame
    Ohio State: Navy (neutral), Virginia Tech, Kent State, Cincinnati
    Penn State: UCF (neutral), Akron, UMASS, Temple
    Purdue: Western Michigan, Central Michigan, @ Notre Dame, Southern Illinois
    Rutgers: @ Washington State, Howard, @ Navy, Tulane
    Wisconsin: LSU (neutral), Western Illinois, Bowling Green, USF

    Alabama: West Virginia (neutral), Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, Western Carolina
    Arkansas: Nicholls State, @ Texas Tech, Northern Illinois, UAB
    Auburn: San Jose State, @ Kansas State, Louisiana Tech, Samford
    Florida: Idaho, Eastern Michigan, Eastern Kentucky, @ Florida State
    Georgia: Clemson, Troy, Charleston Southern, @ Georgia Tech
    Kentucky: UT-Martin, Ohio, UL-Monroe, @ Louisville
    LSU: Wisconsin (neutral), Sam Houston State, UL-Monroe, New Mexico State
    Mississippi: Boise State (neutral), Louisiana-Lafayette, Memphis, Presbyterian
    Mississippi State: Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama (neutral), UT-Martin
    Missouri: South Dakota State, @ Toledo, UCF, Indiana
    South Carolina: East Carolina, Furman, South Alabama, @ Clemson
    Tennessee: Utah State, Arkansas State, @ Oklahoma, Chattanooga
    Texas A&M: Lamar, Rice, @ SMU, UL-Monroe
    Vanderbilt: Temple, UMASS, Charleston Southern, Old Dominion

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      Almost looks like a 1 AQ rule in the Big 10. Only Penn St. doesn’t have one. IA, MD, MI, NW have 2, although only NW does it without former MWC or BE football schools. Only Ohio St. and Penn St. avoid FCS schools.

      Only UGA in the SEC has 2. Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M and Vandy skip AQ schools. Each plays 1 FCS school.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Ross

        App State is no longer FCS, I believe, so Michigan technically doesn’t have one either. Though I don’t recall what year App State moved up.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          This App State alum can answer that.

          Technically, this past season was the first of two transitions seasons. App State remained a member of the SoCon this year and played an FCS schedule, but was ineligible for the postseason. (Not like it mattered because we sucked azz. Worst season in 19 years. 4-7. Great way to get ready to move up to FBS, huh?) This fall App State will move to the Sun Belt and will play a full conference schedule but will again be ineligible for the postseason. App could win the league but can’t go to a bowl game.

          For the Michigan game, there was a clause in the contract mandating the UM pay App State a higher game fee if it joined an FBS league, and as a result, UM will indeed pay App a few hundred thousand more for this game than it would have if App weren’t moving up.

          For purposes of piling up six wins for bowl eligibility, teams like Old Dominion, App State, and Georgia Southern all count the same as any other FBS opponent; teams could play one FCS team in addition to App State and both count towards bowl eligibility.

          Like

          Reply
    2. Michael in Raleigh

      ACC

      Boston College: @UMass, Maine, USC, Colorado State
      Clemson: @Georgia, SC State, Georgia State, South Carolina
      Duke: @Troy, Elon, Kansas, Tulane
      Florida State: Oklahoma State (in Houston), The Citadel, Notre Dame, Florida
      Georgia Tech: Wofford, @Tulane, Georgia Southern, @Georgia
      Louisville: Murray State, @FIU, @Notre Dame, Kentucky
      Miami: Arkansas State, Florida A&M, @Nebraska, Cincinnati
      North Carolina: Liberty, San Diego State, @East Carolina, @Notre Dame
      NC State: Georgia Southern, Old Dominion, @USF, Presbyterian
      Pitt: Delaware, @FIU, Iowa, Akron
      Syracuse: Villanova, @Central Michigan, Maryland, Notre Dame (MetLife Stadium)
      Virginia: UCLA, Richmond, @BYU, Kent State
      Virginia Tech: William & Mary, @Ohio State, East Carolina, Western Michigan
      Wake Forest: @La.-Monroe, @Utah State, Army, ???

      NC State is the only school without a Power 5 school (counting ND) on schedule. It also has two schools transitioning to FBS (Ga. Southern & Old Dominion).

      FSU plays 3 Power Five schools. Clemson, Louisville, and Syracuse have two each.

      Duke is the only school without an FCS school on schedule. The rest have one each. (I’m guessing Wake Forest is more likely to join NC State with no Power Five schools rather than Duke with no FCS schools.)

      11 road games total against non-Power Five schools. That includes BYU, BC @UMass (arguably a neutral site in Foxboro), @USF, & @ECU, each of which seat > 50,000.

      Breakdown by conference, with WFU having one game to fill:

      FCS: 13
      American & SunBelt: 6 each
      SEC & MAC: 5 each
      Notre Dame: 4
      B1G, Big 12, MW, & C-USA: 3 each
      Pac-12: 2
      BYU & Army: 1 each

      Like

      Reply
    3. Michael in Raleigh

      Big 12

      Baylor: SMU, Northwestern State, @Buffalo
      Iowa State: ND State, @Iowa, Toledo
      Kansas: SE Mo. State, @Duke, Central Michigan
      K-State: S.F. Austin, Auburn, UTEP
      Oklahoma: La. Tech, Tennessee, @Tulsa
      Oklahoma State: Florida State (in Houston), Missouri State, UTSA
      TCU: Samford, Minnesota, @SMU
      Texas: North Texas, BYU, @UCLA
      Texas Tech: Central Arkansas, @UTEP, Arkansas
      West Virginia: Alabama, Towson, @Maryland

      Baylor is the only school without a Power 5 school.

      West Virginia is the only school to play two Power schools, although Texas plays BYU; everyone plays nine non-conference games, not eight.

      K-State is the only school that does not play away from home for a non-conference game.

      Neither Oklahoma nor Texas have an FCS school on their schedules.

      4 road games total against non-Power Five schools.

      Breakdown by conference:

      FCS: 8
      C-USA: 5
      SEC: 4
      B1G, American, & MAC: 3 each
      ACC: 2
      Pac-12 & BYU: 1 each
      Sun Belt & MW: 0

      Like

      Reply
    4. Michael in Raleigh

      Pac-12

      Arizona: UNLV, @UTSA, Nevada
      Arizona State: Weber State, @New Mexico, Notre Dame
      Cal: @Northwestern, Sacramento State, BYU
      Colorado: Col. State (in Denver), @UMass, Hawaii
      Oregon: South Dakota, Michigan State, Wyoming
      Oregon State: Portland State, @Hawaii, San Diego State
      Stanford: UC Davis, Army, @Notre Dame
      UCLA: @Virginia, Memphis, Texas (in Jerry’s World)
      USC: Fresno State, @Boston College, Notre Dame
      Utah: Idaho State, Fresno State, @Michigan [No BYU this year]
      Washington: @Hawaii, Eastern Washington, Illinois, Georgia State
      Washington State: Rutgers, @Nevada, ????

      Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon State do not have Power 5 schools on their schedules.

      UCLA and USC are the only schools to play two Power 5 schools, although Cal plays BYU and @Northwestern; everyone plays nine non-conference games, not eight.

      Oregon is the only school that does not play away from home for a non-conference game.

      Arizona, Colorado, UCLA, and USC have no FCS schools on their schedules (nor does WSU, for now).

      All but Cal, Stanford, & UCLA play a Mountain West team. SJSU, Boise, Utah State, and Air Force are only MW not to play a Pac-12 team.

      Washington State has one game to fill for its schedule.

      Breakdown by conference:

      MW: 12
      FCS: 7
      B1G: 5
      Notre Dame: 3
      ACC: 2
      Big 12, American, BYU, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, Army: 1 each
      SEC: 0

      Like

      Reply
      2. ccrider55

        “Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon State do not have Power 5 schools on their schedules.”

        I don’t need to remind you everyone in the PAC plays a power conference team in addition to eight conference games, that being a ninth conference game…

        Like

        Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          Yes that’s true, but look at the Big 12, which also plays nine conference games. Only Baylor has no Power Five schools on the schedule.

          Like

          Reply
          1. ccrider55

            Yes, B12 seems to have worked on improving SOS. PAC usually has, perhaps scheduling just couldn’t be worked out. It sometimes happens and playing nine conf may have reduced the SOS necessity enough to not be forced into a disadvantageous agreement (ie. a one off with a lower level power conf member).

            Like

        2. Marc Shepherd

          Actually, nine conference games is now the norm in P5 leagues; only the SEC and the ACC still play eight, and the SEC will probably go to nine in the next few years.

          Like

          Reply
          3. ccrider55

            Not really apples to apples comparing a current schedule to a potential future one.
            Colorado has 7 B1G games scheduled through 2024, OrSU has three B1G through 2017 (and only one OOC / year scheduled so far after that). Az does seem a bit light, but they do have BYU in ’16, ’18, and ’20 and have a number of dates still to be filled.

            Like

          4. Richard

            Huh, you’re right.

            CU has 7 games against B10 opponents scheduled and none vs. any of the other 3 P5 leagues.
            Wacky.

            Add in the visit to OSU in 2011, and that’s 8 games vs. B10 opponents and none vs. any other P5 leagues since joining the Pac in 2011.

            Like

    5. Michael in Raleigh

      Nebraska was left out: Florida Atlantic, McNeese State, @Fresno State, Miami (FL)

      B1G Breakdown by conference:

      FCS & MAC: 11 each
      American: 6
      Pac-12: 5
      ACC & C-USA: 4 each
      Big 12, ND, & MW: 3 each
      SEC, Navy, & Sun Belt: 2 each

      SEC Breakdown by conference:

      FCS: 14 (one for each team)
      Sun Belt: 10
      C-USA: 8
      ACC & MAC: 5 each
      Big 12 American: 4 each
      MW: 3
      B1G: 2
      Pac-12: 0

      Like

      Reply
  133. bullet

    Mack Brown is twittering. A couple of interest:

    I agree we should get rid of preseason polls & have the 1st polls come out the middle of Oct. then teams have earned their rankings!

    1:35 AM – 7 Jan 2014

    Good bye BCS & welcome the CFB Playoffs. Can’t wait. Wish it was a 10 team playoff instead of 4, but we will get there in time

    12:59 AM – 7 Jan 2014 @UT_MackBrown

    Like

    Reply
  134. zeek

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10270876/notre-dame-fighting-irish-select-armour-next-apparel-deal

    Very Interesting. This is the first “big fish” that UA has gone after as far as I know.

    Under Armour’s typically gone for schools that aren’t the most expensive to get a foothold in each conference/region of the country.

    Auburn in the SEC, Texas Tech in the Big 12, Northwestern in the Big Ten, Maryland in the ACC (now Big Ten), etc.

    This is a huge get for UA if true.

    Like

    Reply
  135. bullet

    UNC is having trouble keeping its story straight on its academic issues.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/us/ncaa-athletes-unc-response/index.html

    They knew, they didn’t know. She didn’t do that, she did.

    Also interesting is the article linked about the women who blew whistles.
    NCAA President Emmert is mentioned.

    One excerpt:
    Louisiana State University instructor Tiffany Terrell-Mayne settled a lawsuit with the school in 2005 after alleging she was told to change grades to keep football players eligible for a bowl game.

    LSU admitted to some NCAA violations in the early 2000s, and the probe went away.

    Then-coach Nick Saban said publicly that he knew of no cheating. Then-Chancellor Mark Emmert — now the president of the NCAA — said at the time Terrell-Mayne and another whistle-blower were tying personal issues to NCAA violations.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      UNC’s issues are the slowly-burning dumpster that they keep trying to put out, but then something else flares up and it’s a PR crisis all over again. It’s been an ongoing source of jokes/source of embarrassment (depending on your perspective) since I moved here in 2011, and for another year prior to that. The football coach, AD, and chancellor have changed but the problems aren’t going away.

      Like

      Reply
  136. bullet

    Georgia self-reported 2 violations according to the AJC, demonstrating the absurdity of NCAA rules. Mark Richt texted a recruit on 12/5 (apparently before a playoff game) “good luck.” If he had sent it privately via twitter as he intended, it would not have been a violation.

    Also in November a staff member put on the UGA facebook page an image with “Let the playoffs begin. Best of Luck, Mark Richt.” That was a violation of a bylaw preventing schools from “endorsing or promoting an event involving prospects.” The compliance staff got it taken down upon being notified.

    Probably won’t be any penalties, but the fact that there are these types of rules is the problem.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Marc Shepherd

      Those dumb rules could end tomorrow, if the schools themselves felt strongly enough about it. They have no one but themselves to blame for this mess.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brian

      They wouldn’t need all those silly rules if coaches and boosters weren’t so willing to push the envelope to get the next recruit. Some of the rules do need to go away, but the basis for most of them is the lack of self-restraint people have shown over the years.

      Like

      Reply
  137. Marc Shepherd

    Thanks to Brian and Michael in Raleigh for posting the OOC schedules of the P5 schools. It’s interesting to see where schools have agreed to road trips against “non-peer” schools. Exactly what constitutes a non-peer is a matter of judgment. Rutgers is visiting Navy. I consider that a “peer” visit, although Navy is not P5. But if Ohio State were visiting Wake Forest (which it isn’t), I would consider that non-peer.

    Anyhow, among visits to “non-peer” school, these strike me as the oddest:

    Missouri @Toledo
    Baylor @Buffalo

    Both of these are the visiting end of a home & home, but you’d think Missouri and Baylor could’ve found something sexier.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m guessing Missouri visiting Toledo was a condition of allowing Mizzou to hire Toledo’s coach. I recall something similar happening some years back when Georgia hired Western Kentucky’s men’s basketball coach.

      But at least this year, there’s nothing comparable to Minnesota and Boston College playing games at New Mexico State.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Logan

        As a Mizzou fan, I’ve never heard that before. It would be surprising given how long it has taken, Pinkel was hired in 2001.

        MU has played some lower conference teams on the road in the past decade (Troy, UCF, Nevada, New Mexico). Had a home & home with Arkansas State, but the road trip was moved to Arrowhead. And the last time MU played a home & home with a MAC school was, I believe, Bowling Green in 2001-02. Which, just our luck, happened to be the Urban Meyer era. Those two losses look better in retrospect than they did at the time. In fact, Pinkel’s first game at MU was a home loss to the Falcons.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Richard

      Mark:

      It’s easy to tell that you’re a fan of a king program. These kinds of HaH’s are not uncommon for the FBS middle class (or even princes). The lower tier schools that draw any sort of attendance now want at least one attractive HaH series each each year and charge a prohibitive sum for guarantee games.

      Just recently, TTech scheduled a HaH with Wyoming, Utah scheduled a HaH with SJSU, Miami scheduled a HaH with Cincy, and A&M scheduled a HaH with Rice.

      And yes, Minny dropped a HaH with UNC for a HaH with NMSU. Guess Jerry Kill was worried about his job security so adopted the Glen Mason strategy.

      And NMSU paid for a one-and-done with BC. Guess Texas and UCLA paid NMSU enough that they figured they had enough money left over to splurge on a buy game to host BC.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        It’s easy to tell that you’re a fan of a king program. These kinds of HaH’s are not uncommon for the FBS middle class (or even princes).

        Actually, they’re not common, which is the reason I could only see two that stuck out as bizarre.

        Just recently, TTech scheduled a HaH with Wyoming, Utah scheduled a HaH with SJSU, Miami scheduled a HaH with Cincy, and A&M scheduled a HaH with Rice.

        Those don’t strike me as unusual. Cincy is a high mid-major that could get the next P5 invite; A&M and Rice were conference mates for decades. Utah was a mid-major until only a couple of years ago, and no doubt a trip to San Jose is seen as attractive. Wyoming got Texas to visit, so TTech doesn’t surprise me.

        And yes, Minny dropped a HaH with UNC for a HaH with NMSU. Guess Jerry Kill was worried about his job security so adopted the Glen Mason strategy.

        Minny is functionally a mid-major, in terms of playing strength, so I expect them to take games like this.

        But why would Baylor visit Buffalo?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          I see the disconnect. You tier teams by playing strength when in reality, schools tier themselves by attendance and revenue (because schools still pay each other guarantees in HaH OOC games, and they aren’t always the same amount changing hands in both directions, so schools who pay roughly the same guarantees tend to schedule HaH’s with each other; sometimes, schools go up or down a tier).

          By attendance, Minny has more power than Baylor (higher attendance in 2012) and Buffalo has higher attendance than NMSU.

          Like

          Reply
        2. mnfanstc

          Minnesota re-scheduled a home-and-home with TCU (which, prior to this season has been relatively formidable–ask Wisconsin), AND ended up getting back their $800,000 to boot…

          I would also argue that 18 Big Ten conference football championships (3rd all-time behind Meat-chicken and the *uckeyes) and 7 mNCs is just slightly above mid-major…

          Like

          Reply
  138. mushroomgod

    Concerning the Franklin hire at PSU (not sure if it’s official yet)—it would sure make me nervous as an PSU fan that he did not specifically deny that he advised his former player to delete a picture that could have been evidence—-instead’ he took a “I won’t dignify that accusation’ and ‘Ive fully cooperated’ approcach.

    Of course he’s also somewhat famous for his comment that any asst coach he hires should have a good-looking wife…..that might cause some issues on the Island of Lesbo…..

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      And going verbally after the UGA player in that game a couple years ago and fighting with Todd Grantham, UGA defensive coach. I would have thrown a fit if UT hired someone with as bad a judgement as this. Kind of surprised Vandy puts up with it.
      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/895953-sec-football-coach-james-franklin-started-it-but-coachtodd-grantham-finished-it

      And rather than apologize later:

      247 Sports quoted Franklin as saying, “We just had a tough, emotional game and some things that were said that I didn’t think were appropriate. I went to find Coach Richt and didn’t find him, so I found one of the assistant coaches, and it didn’t go well. We’re not going to sit back and take it from anyone.”

      These are things that Alabama woman who jumped the OU fans might like, but those of us with degrees find unacceptable.

      Like

      Reply
  139. Marc Shepherd

    ACC favors new rules for title game.

    ACC commissioner John Swofford said Friday he is in favor of conferences having “the autonomy” to determine how teams qualify for their league championship games, and should the NCAA decide this spring to lighten its restrictions, the ACC would consider a different format.

    Under the current structure, the NCAA requires that each conference have an equal number of teams in each division, and every team must play each opponent in its own division. Swofford said the NCAA is likely to re-evaluate those rules this spring.

    “A piece of legislation may affect what we ultimately do,” Swofford said. “… If some of those requirements were removed, we may schedule a little differently during the regular season than we do now, but that’s to be determined.”

    Nothing’s done until it’s done, but when a league commissioner says the NCAA “is likely to re-evaluate those rules,” it usually means he’s done his homework on it, and feels it’s likely to pass.

    As regular FTT readers will know, I’ve long thought the current rule had no relevance to the NCAA’s mission and ought to be abolished for that reason alone. Swofford apparently agrees, and my guess is that if he said so publicly, he’s on his way to having the votes lined up.

    And now @ccrider55 will take a valium.

    Like

    Reply
    1. ccrider55

      If they change the rules, then they are the new rules. While I don’t like it I could see the possibility of allowing conferences of fourteen or more being allowed to miss one in division team. It doesn’t have the inherent fairness of full RR in division but could be seen as addressing the same need that the conf CCG (dividing 10 or more) was addressing, that of trying to decide the champ and still have rivalry, OOC, extra home (money making) games, etc. I don’t see them allowing same division teams into the CCG. Duke wouldn’t have been denied their place in the CCG. If they were…every non king should just bend over and accept they will never be allowed to succeed.

      Like

      Reply
      1. John O

        I hope they dispense with divisions and assign 3 permanent rivals per school; this would allow them to keep an 8 game schedule and play everyone in the conference no less than 2x every 4 years.

        Like

        Reply
        1. ccrider55

          What justification and/or qualification for a CCG to crown a champ then? Without dividing and playing champs off against each other (allowing the potential winner of a tougher set of opponents the opportunity to demonstrate its superiority to the better record from the weaker teams that missed the toughest competition and had a better record) there is no need to allow an extra game. You won’t be using a bracket like system so no final is necessary. Just decide the champ the same way you’d choose the final two, just eliminate the second.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Richard

          Actually, this could be the first step to a 8-team playoff. They could ban conference title games (which are really lucrative for only the SEC and maybe the B10) but expand the playoffs to 4 (so that no college player ever plays more than 15 games a year).

          That’s the only scenario I see where they allow quarterfinals on home sites.

          Like

          Reply
    3. bullet

      Yes. Lets just abolish the ccgs. Period. If conferences stayed at manageable sizes they would not be needed at all. If they can’t figure out a champ, its their problem. Noone else (unless they play at Hawaii) plays an extra game.

      I do like ccgs, but artificial ones I see no purpose for except SOLELY to make money.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        So as I said above, an abolishment of the CCG’s could very well lead to an 8-team playoff.

        It definitely also opens the door to mega-conferences. Even with 18 schools in a league, you could play 1 designated rivalry game and everyone else half the time with a 9-game conference slate.

        In the B10 (and most other conferences), many schools have more than 1 rival they want to play all the time, but even with 3 locked rivals, in an 18-school league, you lay everyone else 6/14th of the time, or no less than you play the schools in the opposite division now. 20-school league and 3 locked rivals means you play everyone else 6/16th of the time; still more than 1/3rd of the time so you could easily make sure that a kid who stays 4 years will have played everyone in the conference.

        Ironic that Swofford brought this up as it may lead to the destruction of his league down the road.

        Like

        Reply
    4. Brian

      Marc Shepherd,

      I knew you’d see that article. I thought you skipped over the most interesting bit, though:

      If the NCAA lifted its title-game requirements, Swofford said the ACC would consider having the top two teams in the league play for the ACC championship, in addition to maintaining divisions, but not requiring teams to play every opponent in their division.

      The ACC wouldn’t take the commonsense approach of eliminating divisions and just having a rotating schedule. Instead, they’d keep divisions but not play everyone in their division (6-1-1 becomes 5-1-2 and you play everyone at least twice in 6 years).

      What’s the point of divisions if you don’t play everyone in your division and you don’t take the two division winners to stage the CCG?

      “Nothing’s done until it’s done, but when a league commissioner says the NCAA “is likely to re-evaluate those rules,” it usually means he’s done his homework on it, and feels it’s likely to pass.”

      In this case, I think it means just what he said. The NCAA is likely to look at it. They may or may not change it, but it is likely to be discussed. Until and unless the voting method changes, the smaller schools have a lot of say on this.

      “As regular FTT readers will know, I’ve long thought the current rule had no relevance to the NCAA’s mission and ought to be abolished for that reason alone. Swofford apparently agrees, and my guess is that if he said so publicly, he’s on his way to having the votes lined up.”

      I think as leagues have expanded to 14, they are seeing the downside to this rule for them. That doesn’t mean the little guys will let them change it necessarily.

      I still contend that if the rule is dropped, then leagues should employ a no-rematch rule for their CCG. I understand the downsides, but I think getting a fresh matchup is more valuable.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        In this case, I think it means just what he said. The NCAA is likely to look at it. They may or may not change it, but it is likely to be discussed. Until and unless the voting method changes, the smaller schools have a lot of say on this.

        This strikes me as precisely the type of issue that the P5 leagues have been agitating to decide for themselves. I mean, why should the Pioneer League schools even care, much less have a say, how the ACC chooses two teams for its championship game? If it comes to a vote of just the P5 leagues, I am sure it passes easily. Two commissioners (Bowlsby, Swofford) are already on record as favoring a change, and you’d think the others would want the flexibility, regardless of whether they take advantage of it right away.

        I think we all agree scrapping the divisions would be better.

        I don’t think @ccrider55 agrees.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          Marc Shepherd,

          “This strikes me as precisely the type of issue that the P5 leagues have been agitating to decide for themselves. I mean, why should the Pioneer League schools even care, much less have a say, how the ACC chooses two teams for its championship game? If it comes to a vote of just the P5 leagues, I am sure it passes easily. Two commissioners (Bowlsby, Swofford) are already on record as favoring a change, and you’d think the others would want the flexibility, regardless of whether they take advantage of it right away.”

          And I’m not saying it wouldn’t pass. I’m just saying that I thought you read too much into his statement. I don’t think he was saying it would be changed, but re-evaluated.

          “I don’t think @ccrider55 agrees.”

          I think he does, he just doesn’t see a need for a CCG if there are no divisions.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Marc Shepherd

        What’s the point of divisions if you don’t play everyone in your division and you don’t take the two division winners to stage the CCG?

        That part had me stumped, which was why I didn’t quote it. In fact, it’s so odd that I have to think Swofford was either misquoted, or quoted out of context. Divisions without a full round robin make no sense.

        Like

        Reply
        1. ccrider55

          Perhaps once divisions become large enough (7 or 8?) the theory is that just as a number of 10 team conferences for decades felt that not quite full RR was enough to decide a champ, missing one in a division gets as close as was acceptable for much of FB history.

          I’m not advocating, just theorizing.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Michael in Raleigh

          I don’t see how that would.even work mathematically. If, for example, the Big Ten West were to require its teams to play 5 of the six other opponents, then there would be an odd man out. If Purdue skipped Nebraska, Illinois skipped Iowa, and Northwestern skipped Minnesota, which team does Wisconsin skip?

          Would the league really be okay with one (or three or five) teams having to play all six of the division’s opponents while the rest miss a game? Why even have divisions?

          Like

          Reply

    5. @Marc Shepherd – Good for Swofford and I hope Delany and Slive back him up on this issue. This will actually be part of my next post (I promise it’s coming), as it would work out very well for the Big Ten if it were able to scrap the divisions.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        I think we all agree scrapping the divisions would be better. And for every league, too. The question is how many games to lock (the absolute minimum, 2 per team, 3 per team, etc) and whether this changes the move to 9 games. I think leagues might seriously consider dropping back to (or staying at) 8 games if this happens. People like a balanced schedule, and it opens up more opportunities for big OOC games.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Eric

        I think the divisions might prove more resiliant than I’d like even with a rule change (they are set-up, ingrained, and the level contraversy with them for the CCG is limited). That said, if they were able to be done away with, I’d like to see the Big Ten go without and have 2/3 locked rivals and 6/7 non-locked. I could see it like this.

        Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
        Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
        Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
        Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, ____
        Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, —-
        Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, ____
        Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
        Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
        Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern
        Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
        Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, _____
        Minnesota: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa
        Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
        Wisconsin: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

        Ideally, you’d leave those 4 with only 2 locked and you could play each other a little more. If they wanted everyone to have the same number of locked teams, then add in Nebraska/Rutgers (put a big name school in the east more often) and Michigan State/Maryland
        (completely random leftovers).

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          OK, why are you locking Northwestern with the IN schools? There are no rivalries there.
          MSU wants to play in Chicagoland often, so MSU-Northwestern.

          Otherwise, I like your list.

          UMD, RU, Northwestern, PU, IU, & UNL are what’s left over.

          Selfishly, I like NU-NU (and UNL would much prefer to visit Chicagoland as well, where they probably have more alums than anywhere outside of Nebraska) and the IN schools paired with the 2 Eastern schools.

          Only the IN schools don’t have a permanent series with a king.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            Richard,

            “OK, why are you locking Northwestern with the IN schools? There are no rivalries there.
            MSU wants to play in Chicagoland often, so MSU-Northwestern.”

            I agree, that seems more likely.

            “Only the IN schools don’t have a permanent series with a king.”

            That gives me pause. They might demand one locked king like everyone else. Perhaps the scheduler promises that they will play at least one king every year anyway.

            Like

        2. Richard

          With 9 conference games and 14 schools, you can actually lock 5 games and still play everyone at least half the time (if you only lock 3, you play everyone else more, but only slightly more: 60% of the time vs. 50% of the time). The great thing about 5 locked rivals is that you can have each of the kings play 2 other kings and still have enough slots left over for all the other schools to have at least one locked series with a king.

          Plus, pretty much any series that anyone considers a rivalry would be covered this way. For instance, you may not know this, Eric, but Northwestern-Iowa is a rivalry.

          Wisconsin-MSU isn’t a rivalry, but I set that one up solely for TV ratings (as it was the best matchup left).

          OSU: Michigan, PSU, Illinois, IU, PU
          Michigan: OSU, UNL, MSU, Minny, Northwestern
          PSU: OSU, UNL, RU, UMD, MSU
          UNL: PSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny
          Wisconsin: UNL, Iowa, Minny, MSU, Illinois
          Iowa: UNL, Wisconsin, Minny, Illinois, Northwestern
          Minny: Michigan, UNL, Wisconsin, Iowa
          Illinois: OSU, Northwestern, Iowa, PU, Wisconsin
          Northwestern: Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, MSU,
          PU: OSU, IU, Illinois
          IU: OSU, PU, MSU
          MSU: Michigan, PSU, IU, Wisconsin, Northwestern
          RU: PSU, UMD
          UMD: PSU, RU

          Then RU & UMD both face off against both IN schools. One of them also gets Minny and the other one gets Northwestern (I vote for NU-RU for the NYC-Chicago thing, leaving Minny-UMD).

          Like

          Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            With 9 conference games and 14 schools, you can actually lock 5 games and still play everyone at least half the time.

            The key is not to lock the same number of teams for each conference member. Richard has adopted this idea in principle, but locked too much. Northwestern has no particular affinity for Michigan and MSU, beyond the affinity it has for all of the original 9 opponents (or 8 if you disregard MSU, who joined much later).

            Sure, Michigan and MSU would love to have games in Chicago, for the reason that all the Big Ten teams do. There’s no reason to give them that privilege. Northwestern’s only locked opponent should be Illinois, which gives the others more opportunities to play there.

            Like

          2. bullet

            That gets very difficult to schedule if they have different numbers of fixed opponents. Not impossibile, but difficult to plan and difficult to get agreement on.

            You can play everyone every other year with 3 teams fixed in an 8 game schedule.

            Like

          3. Marc Shepherd

            That gets very difficult to schedule if they have different numbers of fixed opponents. Not impossible, but difficult to plan and difficult to get agreement on.

            The Pac-12 already has the template for it: the California schools have two locked opponents from the opposite division (so that they’re guaranteed to play each other every year). The other schools have none, as their rival is in the same division already.

            The Big Ten has done it too: in the new division structure, Purdue and Indiana have a locked cross-divisional rivalry. Everyone else has none.

            Every conference has full-time people who do scheduling. What may seem difficult to us is not that hard, when it’s your job. Once the schools decide which games they want to lock annually, the schedulers go to work.

            Locking games unnecessarily actually makes the scheduling harder. And every game you lock, means that the unlocked teams meet less often. The fewer constraints you have, the easier it gets.

            Like

          4. Richard

            However, you only play teams you don’t care as much about fractionally more while playing teams that you want to play annually less-than-annually if you have less locks.

            For instance, going from 5 to 3 locks with the examples above, Northwestern exhanges UNL for UM (a wash) and drops the frequency of play with Iowa and MSU from annually to 60% of the time while increasing the frequency of play with Wisconsin, Minny, IU, PU, OSU, PSU, RU, and UMD from 50% of the time to 60% of the time. While MSU doesn’t mean that much to us, I can assure you that Northwestern fans would not be willing to give up an annual series with Iowa just to get one extra game every decade with OSU, Wisconsin, and a bunch of schools that don’t mean much to us.

            If there’s only one locked game, the triangle of Iowa-Minny-Wisconsin would have to give up annual games with each other and either MSU or OSU would have to forgo their annual game with UM. Think that’s going to fly? I don’t think so.

            Like

          5. Richard

            Oh I see. You have uneven locks. However, that’s actually not more fair. With 5 locks, at least every school has a locked series with a king (and in almost all cases, a king they care about more than the other kings). With fewer locks, there’s a big difference between locking with a king and not locking with a king when it comes to schedule attractiveness.

            Like

          6. Marc Shepherd

            Oh I see. You have uneven locks. However, that’s actually not more fair. With 5 locks, at least every school has a locked series with a king. . . .

            You’re absolutely right. But the Big Ten is already uneven, with its parity-based scheduling. The actual algorithm hasn’t been published, but it’s clear that Michigan and Wisconsin are going to meet more often than two randomly-selected teams from the opposite divisions. Michigan and Penn State met 16 of the Netts’ first 18 years in the league, which was obviously not the result of an even distribution of non-locked teams.

            So you can obviously have scheduling procedures that go beyond the publicly announced locked games.

            Like

          7. Eric

            I’m inclinced to go with no more than 3 locked games. At 3 locked, you play the other 10 teams, 60% of the time (6 games for 10 teams). At 5 locked, that’s down to 50%. While that may not seem huge, it’s the difference between playing most teams most year and playing them about half the time which feels big. I don’t think an extra game or two against a king every couple of years is reason enough to change that. It wouldn’t be hard to still make sure you get at least 1 and maybe even 2 on your schedule every year.

            Like

          8. Richard

            Well, in theory, it’s fair, in that over a 36 year cycle, everyone outside the IN schools plays all the other teams in the other division an equal number of time. They’re just frontloading the most attractive matchups (and no one expects the full 36 year cycle to complete).

            I don’t think we’ll see uneven locks. They didn’t lock unevenly during the 11school era even though that meant that NU locked with PU, a school that we have no rivalry with.

            Like

          9. Richard

            Eric:

            Most schools have series they’d want annually which they could get with 5 locks that they can not get with 3 locks.
            MSU:NU
            NU:Iowa
            Illinois:Iowa (both)
            Minny:UNL
            PU:OSU
            IU:OSU
            UNL:PSU (both)

            Like

          10. Richard

            Also, the league would love UNL-PSU and UNL-Michigan to be annual. That would also be more fair to OSU, as all kings would have 2 locked kings then.

            Like

          11. bullet

            @Marc
            Have you looked at the schedules? And you think the people who do it for a living do it well??????

            There are all kinds of issues involved. Not the least of which is the one you didn’t address. Getting the members to agree. And its easier when there are one or two special cases that random numbers.

            Like

          12. Marc Shepherd

            Have you looked at the schedules? And you think the people who do it for a living do it well??????

            I assume they did what was asked of them. We don’t know exactly what that is, as the full scheduling algorithm is not public knowledge. Richard thinks he knows, but he is only guessing.

            On the whole, I would suppose that professionals are better at it than amateurs (i.e., all of us). For all the money the Big Ten is making, if they have not found schedulers who are more competent than fans on a message board, then they are wasting their money and should hire someone else.

            There are all kinds of issues involved. Not the least of which is the one you didn’t address. Getting the members to agree.

            I didn’t address it, but it seems obvious to me that the more constraints you put on the schedule, the more difficult it will be to gain agreement. That is why I suggested that it is better to have fewer constraints.

            Like

          13. Brian

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I didn’t address it, but it seems obvious to me that the more constraints you put on the schedule, the more difficult it will be to gain agreement.”

            I disagree. I think an equal number of constraints for each team would be easier to get approved. It’s what the B10 has chosen to do in the past as well.

            Like

          14. Marc Shepherd

            I think an equal number of constraints for each team would be easier to get approved. It’s what the B10 has chosen to do in the past as well.

            Except…it isn’t. As I noted above, Penn State played Michigan 16 of its first 18 seasons in the league. This was clearly not the result of an even rotation. There must have been a further scheduling “rule” involving those two teams—and not others—that was not explicitly publicized. (It is unlikely that a mid-level Big Ten employee would have done that on his own, without being told.)

            Like

          16. Brian

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Except…it isn’t.”

            Predominantly, it is. With 11 teams, everyone had 2 locked rivals and the rest rotated (PSU/MI was a special case – see below). With 12 teams, the B10 chose to lock IA/PU and MSU/IN. With 14 teams, the B10 plans to only lock IN/PU despite several rivalries being split.

            “As I noted above, Penn State played Michigan 16 of its first 18 seasons in the league. This was clearly not the result of an even rotation. There must have been a further scheduling “rule” involving those two teams—and not others—that was not explicitly publicized.”

            Supposedly, one condition of PSU joining the B10 was that they got to play OSU and MI for the first 10 years (they wanted both locked, but that didn’t work since MI needed OSU and MSU). PSU felt they needed those games to assure ticket sales while their fan base adjusted to being in the B10. Since OSU and MSU were PSU’s locked rivals, that meant they played MI 2 extra times (normal was 2 locked + 6 of 8 others = 6 games in 8 years). Once the 10 years expired, the regular rotation kicked in and they played 6 times in the next 8 years.

            How publicized this was is hard to measure. It was pre-internet, so it couldn’t get the overwhelming discussion it would now. I knew about it during the 90s, so it wasn’t secret.

            Like

          17. Marc Shepherd

            Having 14 different sets of rules is hard to get 14 ADs to agree is fair.

            Now that the precedent is in place in the B1G (Indiana/Purdue) and the Pac-12 (the California schools), I suspect you will see more of this.

            Like

      3. Wainscott

        Good. Round-robin is much better. Scrapping divisions will also benefit once the NCAA signs off on a 13 game season, when the B1G will go to 10 conference games.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          You mean, “when the university presidents sign off.” They NCAA doesn’t sign off on anything; they just codify and enforce what the presidents tell them to.

          The nature of NCAA reform is that most changes are talked about for a long time before they happen. I haven’t seen many university presidents and ADs agitating for a 13-game season, so my guess is you won’t see it anytime soon.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            Yes, by NCAA I did mean university presidents.

            I think university presidents will allow a 13th game as part of a defense against an 8 team playoff, then arguing that 13 games, a CTG, and playoffs are too many games for 18-21 year old athletes whose brains and bodies are still filling out, and with a big impact on academics. (Note: I’m not saying this its the most honest argument, but its one I’d expect them to make).

            Like

          2. Richard

            I think you’re letting your personal bias against an expanded playoff get in the way of clear thinking.

            IMO, the presidents will be more willing to sign off on an 8-team playoff than they will be on expanding the season to 13 games.

            Like

    6. Michael in Raleigh

      CCG’s aren’t going anywhere, and we all know that. They’re just not. And yes, it’s about the money. Every team that has twelve or more teams is going to have one, which, by 2015, will be 9 of the 10 FBS conferences. The Big 12 will remain the exception.

      Knowing that, we might as well have something set up so that the teams can play each other more often. I’d love it if FSU played Va. Tech, Ga. Tech, UNC, etc. twice every four years instead of twice every twelve, even if it means they’re playing Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, etc. half as often.

      Assuming the conference championship game is non-negotiable, wouldn’t most B1G fans want to see their teams play everyone else more often, too? Ohio State would have to give up some games against Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and yes, Michigan State in exchange for more games against Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska. Is that not a good deal.

      Would schedules be unbalanced? Yes, but they’ll be unbalanced going forward anyway. The best team in a given division often doesn’t win it. South Carolina swept the SEC East in 2011 and 2012 but lost to strong western division teams while Georgia lost to SC but beat teams from the West who had softer records. Georgia went to the CCG representing the East. The same scenario could easily happen in the Big Ten.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        If the ACC would go to a 9 game schedule and use logical divisions, everyone could play each other more often. Big 10 will play each other more often with 9 games as they have pretty logical divisions. SEC would play each other more than they did in their old 12 team 5-2-1 format if they went to 9 games. They have difficulty getting divisions that match the rivalries.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          Bullet,

          The ACC is not going to a nine-game conference schedule. Prior to the addition of ND, a nine game model was planned, and it was designed so that FSU, Clemson, and GT would have 5 ACC home games in the years they faced their SEC rivals on the road. In years those teams play SEC rivals at home, those teams would play 5 ACC road games.

          But the ND addition changes that. Let’s say the ACC kept the nine-game schedule but everyone also had to play ND once every three years. There would be years when those three schools, plus Louisville, would play six road game. ND would have to be a road game some of the time for them, and they’d already be playing either 5 league road games or 4 ACC road game plus an SEC road game. That just would never fly. Seven home games are a must.

          So what the ACC is trying to do is to come up with an alternative where everyone can play everyone else more often while allowing for everyone to have those seven home games.

          The Big Ten can much more easily do a nine-game schedule. Now that the ACC got ND to half-a** join the league, none of its teams have locked-in annual non-conference opponents. It also doesn’t have the complicated layer where everyone plays one other school every three years.

          Like

          Reply
      2. ccrider55

        M in R:

        “The best team in a given division often doesn’t win it.”

        Huh? Why play the games if we aren’t going to have results decide standings?

        How do the lesser division mates feel about decreasing frequency of play at OSU, PSU, etc. ?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          ccrider55:

          There doesn’t have to be a decreasing frequency of play with the kings unless the kings play each other more. In the current system, the western schools already only play the kings (other than Nebraska) only 3/7th of the time (with a 9-game conference slate). Get rid of divisions, and that frequency actually goes up.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Michael in Raleigh

          @ccrider,

          See my South Carolina example. They swept the division in 2011 and in 2012. That indicates to me that it was the best team in the division. Yet it did not win the division because it played and was defeated by stronger opponents from the other division. Georgia, not SC, therefore represented the East in the championship game, not because it was the best team in the division, but because it had the best SEC record among eastern teams.

          Anyway, as it is, schedules are already imbalanced and can result in a team or two in the CCG, even if it got there due to a weaker schedule. At least with the no-division model, teams are playing each other with greater frequency, even if it doesn’t solve disparity in scheduling.

          Like

          Reply
          1. ccrider55

            That’s a matter of how conferences decide division winners. I agree, division record should decide division championships. Cross div could (should?) be a tie breaker. Does anyone include OOC record with equal importance for conf standing? With larger divisions crossover is closer to OOC…but that is conferences choice. NCAA isn’t dictating how you decide, only allowing for a 13th game subject to requirements.

            Like

          2. Marc Shepherd

            NCAA isn’t dictating how you decide, only allowing for a 13th game subject to requirements.

            I think Swofford’s issue (which has long been mine), is that once you’ve allowed the 13th game, why should it be anyone’s business (outside of the ACC) to constrain how the two participants are chosen? How is anyone (outside of the ACC) harmed if they choose a tie-breaker that some fans might disagree with?

            I am personally undecided as to the best tie-breaker and scheduling format. I am more interested in getting the NCAA out of businesses it shouldn’t be in, this being merely one example out of many.

            Like

          3. ccrider55

            Marc:

            “I think Swofford’s issue (which has long been mine), is that once you’ve allowed the 13th game, why should it be anyone’s business (outside of the ACC) to constrain how the two participants are chosen?”

            And just dismiss the reasoning and logic that allowed for the exemption to the 12 game limit? Heck, lets all just play 13 because its allowed (not mandated) for a team that travels to Hawaii. Same logic.

            “How is anyone (outside of the ACC) harmed if they choose a tie-breaker that some fans might disagree with?”

            No body is harmed as long as the requirements to hold the 13th game are met, full division RR and finalists rep each division. They haven’t stopped cross division games from deciding division champs. They allow the 13th as a CCG because conferences said they were too big to fairly decide the champ without a bracket type system. NCAA said ok, here is the bracket. Play everyone in one half (5 games in a 12 team conf) and do what ever you want with the remaining schedule. Now you are saying you don’t need that to decide the best? Then you don’t need the 13th game. This is why I suspect they are simply arguing for being able to decide a 7 or 8 team division with 5 or 6 games similar to the 8 game schedule for 10 (and 11) team conferences in the past.

            Like

          4. Marc Shepherd

            No body is harmed as long as the requirements to hold the 13th game are met…

            That wasn’t my question: I was asking, how is anyone harmed if those requirements are NOT met?

            Most rules exist to prevent a harm. What is the harm that those requirements prevent? Who would be harmed, if the leagues chose their two CCG participants any way they damn well pleased?

            If you’re a school president in, say, the Colonial League, you might dislike Swofford’s idea for any number of reasons. But what business is it of yours?

            Like

          5. ccrider55

            The 13th game itself is damaging. Off setting the inability to fairly decide large conferences by dividing them and allowing a 13th (playoff final) was deemed an acceptable concession. If dividing is not necessary the neither is the extra game.

            Like

          6. Marc Shepherd

            The 13th game itself is damaging.

            That ship has sailed. The game is happening, one way or another. You can call it creeping incrementalism, if you’d like, but the game is going to be played.

            If it’s going to be played, then it is no one’s business, outside of the scheduling league how its participants are chosen. And it’s clearly no business of the FCS leagues who, under the current rules, control the vote numerically, but play very few games against FBS.

            Among P5 leagues, I think there’s very little doubt it would pass overwhelmingly.

            Like

          7. ccrider55

            “If it’s going to be played, then it is no one’s business, outside of the scheduling league how its participants are chosen.”

            Until they remove all restrictions to the 12 game rule then yes, it is everyone who is governed by the same rules business. And the reason for the game remains, deciding a champ in an unwieldily large conference. Without divisions we wind up with inter conference “BCS” selections? Oh goody…
            That is exactly what the CCG rule was designed to avoid.

            Like

          8. Marc Shepherd

            Until they remove all restrictions to the 12 game rule then yes, it is everyone who is governed by the same rules business.

            Obviously, but if a president of a Colonial League school is having cocktails with John Swofford, and Swofford asks him, “What business is it of yours who plays in my championship game?” What’s the former’s response? If the former has no coherent answer, it’s a pretty good indication that legislation has run amok. When legislation runs amok, it changes.

            I’ve asked you many times, and you’ve never been able to answer, so I am satisfied there is none.

            Like

          9. ccrider55

            No, you just don’t accept that anyone else’s concern is any of their business. I do. But even if you are right at the bare minimum it could be held as a bargaining chip in the continual give and take between the various interest groups within the 1200 or so members of the NCAA. Which then does make it their business…

            Like

          10. bullet

            Again, the purpose of a championship game is to find a champion when you have to many in the division. The NCAA limits contests except for championships. What that proposal would do is essential add an extra game for which there is no “necessity.” And if a conference wanted to do things that way they could with 12 games. Just have the last week flexible. Pair 1 and 2, 3 and 4,… Or if they wanted it less uncertain, have everyone scheduled but change 1 and 2 and their opponents.

            Like

          11. Marc Shepherd

            …you just don’t accept that anyone else’s concern is any of their business. I do.

            If I understand you, you aren’t able to articulate a reason why ACC scheduling affects the Colonial League.

            All you seem to be saying, as a hypothetical Colonial League president, is that you think you know what the ACC “needs” better than the ACC itself does.

            What you are not saying, as I gather, is that if the ACC adopts this unwise scheduling format, you, your institution, or your student-athletes are harmed in any way.

            You just feel, philosophically, that they should be restricted to scheduling formats that you personally believe are wise, whether it affects you or not.

            Is that correct?

            But even if you are right at the bare minimum it could be held as a bargaining chip in the continual give and take between the various interest groups within the 1200 or so members of the NCAA. Which then does make it their business…

            A bargaining chip is something you’re willing to give away, in exchange for something you care about more. This, of course, is the reason why the NCAA is holding a convention for the purpose of stripping the smaller schools of their ability to do that.

            Like

          12. Brian

            Marc Shepherd,

            “If I understand you, you aren’t able to articulate a reason why ACC scheduling affects the Colonial League.”

            If the rule changes for the ACC, then it most likely also changes for the Colonial’s more direct competition in I-AA. It also changes the expansion pressure that has helped several I-AAs jump up to I-A. In other words, it directly affects the Colonial.

            “All you seem to be saying, as a hypothetical Colonial League president, is that you think you know what the ACC “needs” better than the ACC itself does.”

            That’s how societies and groups make governing rules and laws. Everyone makes some compromises along the way. The presidents of the Colonial are allowed to have opinions of how many games NCAA student-athletes should play. As members of a group that could be sued by former players for injuries in those extra CCGs, they are potentially impacted by this decision.

            Like

          13. ccrider55

            “You just feel, philosophically, that they should be restricted to scheduling formats that you personally believe are wise, whether it affects you or not.”

            I have no problem with enacting an “unwise” scheduling format, one that lends no credence to the use of a “final” game to decide a championship. I do have a problem with those wanting the extra game feeling it is now a right. It is not. You have said the game is going to be played anyway – that that ship has sailed. It is not and has not. Ask the B12. Yes, they are no longer at 12. But why should that be an impediment if you aren’t addressing the size problem with divisions anyway? You know, the whole justification for allowing the 13th game as a CCG?

            We’ll see. As I said before I suspect the most to be hoped for is allowing one miss within division as divisions reach the size past conferences felt was manageable. It MIGHT enable a bit more rivalry/cross division/OOC games in the interest of better whole conference cohesion and/or income games.

            Like

          14. Marc Shepherd

            If the rule changes for the ACC, then it most likely also changes for the Colonial’s more direct competition in I-AA.

            Actually…no. The whole point of the forthcoming convention is to split large- and small-school rule-making, to eliminate that possibility.

            Like

          15. ccrider55

            Unless their’s a complete break away (unlikely) they will continue to share most rules. This isn’t a rule/concern that would factor very much into that decision.

            Like

          16. Brian

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Actually…no.”

            Actually…yes. There is nothing in your “logic” to indicate that a vote to allow the ACC that right wouldn’t also support that right for I-AA conferences. What business is it of theirs, etc, etc?

            “The whole point of the forthcoming convention is to split large- and small-school rule-making, to eliminate that possibility.”

            Which is a completely different discussion. That’s not how you’ve been arguing for the rule change. If you want to switch to saying the little guys will be cut out of the decision making process, that’s very different.

            Like

          17. frug

            It’s worth noting that the NCAA has federated the voting procedures for the various FB divisions. The move was, at least in part, a reaction to the SEC’s addition of a CCG which was the result of a rule intended to apply to 1AA, but because of the per-federated voting procedures and the exact wording of the rule the SEC’s for head realized actually applied to all conferences of 12+ members regardless of division.

            Like

          18. Marc Shepherd

            Unless their’s a complete break away (unlikely) they will continue to share most rules. This isn’t a rule/concern that would factor very much into that decision.

            It is by definition, given that it’s something several P5 leagues have indicated they might want to do. The whole point of the so-called “Division IV” discussion is that the P5 are tired of the more numerous, but less prosperous, smaller schools telling them what they can do. Obviously, this issue alone is not what has prompted the split, but it’s emblematic of the entire problem.

            There is nothing in your “logic” to indicate that a vote to allow the ACC that right wouldn’t also support that right for I-AA conferences. What business is it of theirs, etc, etc?

            The whole point of the split is to allow the larger conferences to make their own rules in certain matters. For instance, it would allow P5 leagues to pay “full cost of attendance” scholarships without opening the same door for the I-AA schools.

            “The whole point of the forthcoming convention is to split large- and small-school rule-making, to eliminate that possibility.”

            Which is a completely different discussion. That’s not how you’ve been arguing for the rule change. If you want to switch to saying the little guys will be cut out of the decision making process, that’s very different.

            It is true, that my primary reasoning has been that a change to CCG qualifying rules within the ACC is none of the Colonial League’s business. I still believe that. You offered a couple of hilariously laughable reasons why the Colonial League might argue that it was their business. I have no idea if that’s what the Colonial League actually believes, but let’s assume that it is.

            If I’m John Swofford, I say to them: fine, that’s why we’re creating our own division, so that we never have such a ridiculous argument ever again.

            Like

          19. Brian

            It’s their business because they are both in the CFB business under the NCAA banner.

            You also haven’t shown that the AQs would allow this change and only the little guys are stopping it.

            Like

      3. Brian

        Michael in Raleigh,

        “CCG’s aren’t going anywhere, and we all know that. They’re just not. And yes, it’s about the money.”

        I agree. I’m not a huge fan of them, but the genie is out of the bottle.

        “Knowing that, we might as well have something set up so that the teams can play each other more often.”

        Most of us support that. Some of us wish they did it by not expanding so much, but that’s also a done deal. The issue for some of us is: what purpose does a CCG really serve if you don’t have divisions?

        “Assuming the conference championship game is non-negotiable, wouldn’t most B1G fans want to see their teams play everyone else more often, too?”

        We’ve said so repeatedly on here as you know.

        “Ohio State would have to give up some games against Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and yes, Michigan State in exchange for more games against Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska. Is that not a good deal.”

        We don’t want games against RU and UMD particularly. The president and AD may disagree, but most fans aren’t excited about playing them. I’d definitely prefer games against IL and WI. OSU has never played MSU much historically (least of any old B10 school since MSU joined) so playing them less than annually isn’t an issue. Adding NE games doesn’t mean as much to me since it still feels like an OOC game, but it’s a good OOC game so I’m not against it.

        “Would schedules be unbalanced? Yes, but they’ll be unbalanced going forward anyway.”

        Exactly. Any schedule that isn’t a round robin is unbalanced. The old days of 11 teams in the B10 had really unbalanced schedules.

        Like

        Reply
  140. Brian

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24404728/ncaa-proposal-would-put-power-in-hands-of-bcs-conferences

    On a related note, a new proposed governance structure for the NCAA has been sent out to the members in advance of their upcoming annual meeting.

    At its core, the proposed structure would give “legislative autonomy” to the five BCS or power conferences that consider themselves the main stakeholders of big-time college sports: the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12.

    …

    Hatch’s proposal seeks to preserve the NCAA’s base collegiate model of amateurism. That term may be redefined and reshaped in the coming months. Some coaches, commissioners, ADs and critics of the current system believe the time has come to compensate players with an umbrella term, “student-athlete welfare.”

    That could mean everything from a stipend to an accessible trust fund after graduation. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has advocated access to free education for athletes who exhaust their eligibility but eventually return to school.

    To that point, proposed areas of autonomy for those 65 schools include “lifetime opportunity to fund the undergraduate education of current and former” players.

    Other bullet points in the document:

    • Support for “at-risk” athletes.

    • Redefinition of rules governing agents. SEC commissioner Mike Slive has been a proponent of that change.

    • Coaching personnel limits. Several coaches have been critical of the so-called “polo shirts” or “advisors” associated with programs who are non-coaching personnel.

    What presidents don’t want is any pay-for-play model. That would endanger, they say, the NCAA’s core values of “balancing [players’] academic, social and athletics experiences.” In other words, anything that would “professionalize” NCAA athletes.

    One stakeholder from a major conference called Hatch’s proposal “a good start.”

    The article has links to the actual proposal and the letter accompanying it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Brian – As bullet pointed out elsewhere, I don’t think that this is enough for the 5 power conferences. Simply having autonomy on a specific list of issues that we can identify today on January 10, 2014 isn’t what they’re looking for (or at least what I’ve interpreted from what they’ve said). Instead, the 5 power conferences want broad autonomy on anything that they see fit, including unforeseen issues. I think we’ll see more pushback by the power leagues for more than this, although I’m sure the stakeholder is correct that it’s a “good start” to eventually get something close to full autonomy.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Marc Shepherd

      There’s an irony that the president of Wake Forest would be proposing this, as Wake is one of the most atypical “power” schools, in terms of its size, athletic performance, and budget. This is not the proposal the University of Alabama would have come up with.

      Like

      Reply
    1. gfunk

      Nice pull Brian, I like what I see, but it’s only a small step. The article still doesn’t address the utter consensus of mediocre prep football in the BIG region, granted Ohio as whole, much of Jersey, and then parts of Pa-Md-In-Ill-Mi have decent prep football. But, these bright spots aside, think about any given state in the SEC footprint, they all share a passion for prep football – their smallest states surpass most and more populated BIG states in terms of FBS recruits. Then there are states like Ga-La-Fl-Tx who consistently crank out tremendous talent, Fl being the jewel & all these states annually produce more per capita football talent than Ohio, which is a top 10 state. As I said above, somewhere buried in this 918 post thread, it’s the Florida kings who take the cake over the past 30 years of FBS CF history, not the SEC or any other conference: 11 AP NC’s between UF-FSU-Miami. Moreover, God knows how many Fl kids have made a difference on rosters at Bama, Auburn, LSU and beyond.

      It’s really simple: states with higher quality prep football have at least one strong in-state college program to feed. Thus, I expect schools like OSU, UF, FSU, USC, UCLA, LSU, UGA, Miami, etc., to field upper tier squads on a given basis. It’s the same expectation I have for college hockey programs in Mass, Minn or Michigan, or marquee college basketball schools like UNC, Duke, IU, Ill (underachiever), UCLA, etc. Sure there will always be national programs without the riches of in-state talent, KU in basketball or state schools who don’t capture their local ties – Illinois & Rutgers in basketball. But, it’s less difficult to build a powerhouse when nearby pipelines, rich in talent, are available to favorably exploit. BIG football simply doesn’t have the advantages of other regions, and it’s also easier for warm weather schools to mine the colder regions for blue chips, any given sport, than to do the opposite.

      It’s up to the masses in the BIG region, more specifically amateur sports leagues-associations-high schools to start matching football down south. Population decline in the BIG region is overstated, quality athletes as well – it’s a money thing (unwillingness to invest), as well as a lack of effort due to cultural norms – an uphill battle indeed. But let’s be fair here, the BIG has dealt with this reality far longer than Internet voices suggest – the decline started in 1970 when the SEC and other schools down south desegregated. Throw in the fact that a lot of Mi-OSU teams got upset throughout the 70s in Rose Bowls, 80s as well & they often lost to Pac12 teams ranked lower. The BIG’s Rose Bowl record between 1970-1990 as pretty awful.

      Like

      Reply
  144. mushroomgod

    Re: Jameis Winston…..I have seen it asserted on a couple of fan forums that his atty was provided free to him from a booster club….anybody know if there is anything to this? Also, apparently his atty is a big FSU booster.If he didn’t charge JW, would that be an NCAA violation?

    Like

    Reply

    1. @mushroomgod – Hmmm… I’m not sure how the NCAA would treat that, although Winston would presumably be in clear if the attorney is providing the services pro bono (and if the NCAA somehow had a problem with that, a judge would likely tell them to GTFO if that was ever challenged).

      Like

      Reply

      1. Further to the last post, a booster club that pays for the legal fees that an attorney is actually charging could be an NCAA violation. I have a very hard time seeing how an attorney providing pro bono services (which we are encouraged to do as a profession) would be a violation, though (and even if it were on the books as such, virtually any judge would toss that out if it were ever challenged – rules restricting people from receiving legal representation in any manner are uniformly vomited upon in court for good reason).

        Like

        Reply
        1. ccrider55

          So restaurants, clothiers, auto dealerships would be allowed to provide services for free too? Wouldn’t it be allowed only if such services were provided to all the student population? Same with attorney representation.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Marc Shepherd

            The difference is that lawyers have a long history of providing pro bono services, and indeed are encouraged (in some states, I believe required) by the profession to do so. Restaurants, clothiers, auto dealerships, etc., don’t customarily do that.

            Like

          2. ccrider55

            Marc:

            It’s not what a group historically does, it’s who they do it for. No problem in my opinion if they provide pro bono service to the entire student population. I don’t know, do they? If they don’t, then it is a big problem.

            Like

          3. @ccrider – You have a constitutional right to have legal representation in a criminal trial. If you can’t bring your own attorney, the government will appoint a public defender to you at no cost. There isn’t a benefit here that the public at large isn’t receiving and it’s fulfilling a right that every citizen has. In contrast, no one has a constitutional right to a loaner car, free clothes, etc. Regardless, I don’t think you’d find a court anywhere that would uphold an NCAA violation for a student receiving pro bono legal services. Killing innocent puppies and kittens in the courtroom would find more sympathy with a judge.

            Like

          4. ccrider55

            Was this a court appointed attorney? If so, no problem. If it was a booster or whatever stepping in, taking the place of whoever the court was going to appoint, well… I may be wrong but that seems special treatment not available to average Joe english major or struggling engineering major involved in a disputed assault charge.

            Like

          5. @ccrider55 – I understand what you’re getting at, but this is one area where there is going to be absolutely ZERO sympathy from a court in terms of determining the intent behind providing those pro bono services. Even if it was special treatment in practicality, a court doesn’t care about the reasons why an attorney might provide his or her services for free. The right to receive legal representation completely overrides any type of “harm” that the NCAA is trying to prevent. The US Constitution takes precedent over the NCAA rule book (despite what some university presidents might want to believe) and any NCAA representative that would actually try to posit this as a violation would get completely crushed if challenged in a courtroom. Once again, we’re talking about a Constitutional right that every citizen has – any infringement upon that is not going to be tolerated from a legal standpoint. This is quite different from payments or free goods from boosters (and I already have a low opinion of NCAA regulations in general).

            Like

          7. Richard

            Ccrider:

            Pro bono services can be and have been provided to students (and much more heinous figures) as well. I’ll let the lawyers here talk about whether volunteering to be Jameis’s lawyer constitutes special treatment or not. You didn’t seem to get Frank’s point, though, which is that whether you think it’s special treatment is immaterial. The NCAA would be asking for trouble if it starts to crack down on pro bono services.

            to think that judges would not consider it special treatment, so if the NCAA cracks down on pro bono services

            Like

          8. ccrider55

            No, I get it. Using the term pro bono does not change the fact that a service is being provided without cost. The point isn’t what is free, but to whom and why. If this was student legal services, no problem. If they provide free service to all FSU students, no problem. Is this the norm for students at that school? We’re these attorney’s appointed by the court because he couldn’t afford representation? Then no problem. Or did they offer their services to a high profile NCAA athlete, at no cost, because he was that athlete?

            Like

          9. ccrider55

            FtT:

            That is my point. Without these particular lawyers he would not have been without legal representation, unless these were his court appointed attorneys.

            Like

          10. frug

            @Frank

            I tend to agree with you that courts probably wouldn’t look too kindly on the NCAA for sanctioning someone for their use of a pro bono attorney, but I think you are being a bit hyperbolic when you say “The US Constitution takes precedent over the NCAA rule book”. Courts have long upheld NCAA rules that restrict athletes and coaches rights to free speech and assembly.

            The NCAA has also turned over information they have gained from interviews to law enforcement which effectively allowed the government to get around the right to remain silent since the NCAA can sanction individuals who refuse to cooperate with their investigations.
            (For example, if the a coach refuses to cooperate with a Federal investigation into gambling or whatever by his students, the Feds can either empanel a grand jury, collect evidence and then subpoena the coach to try and force him to testify or they can simply have the NCAA ask him the same questions since they can end the coach’s career if he doesn’t answer).

            Like

          11. ccrider55

            Frug:

            My point is that the NCAA isn’t sanctioning (if they actually were to) a constitutional right. They would be dealing with a privilege (eligibility) the NCAA grants to student athletes at NCAA governed institutions under their rules.

            Again, if this attorney was court appointed then no problem. Every student would be eligible for the same if unable to pay.

            Like

          12. Richard

            ccrider, I don’t think you do get it, because you keep saying whether something is a “problem” or “no problem” _from_your_point_of_view_.

            It’s only a “problem” or “no problem” if the lawyers & judges decide so, right? Even if what they decide is immoral or whatnot.

            Like

          13. ccrider55

            Lawyers and judges on the NCAA infractions committee?

            IF there is a problem it wouldn’t be a constitutional one but an NCAA rules issue that might touch on eligibility. No body is suggesting he doesn’t have right to representation. But he also doesn’t have a constitutional right to FB eligibility (nobody does), or to have boosters, agents, or even the school assist in a way not allowed by NCAA rules. The question is whether he received special treatment, not afforded to the general student population. I’m just saying who, why and how he got this particular pro bono representation, and whether he is eligible to accept gift (another term for pro bono), is a POTENTIAL issue. Not the necessity for (the potential legal charge against him), and his right to representation. All players have a right to live, eat, etc but they can’t be taking gifts, meals, housing, money, or representation outside what is allowed.

            Like

          14. Wainscott

            There are also potential legal ethics issues for an attorney for someone being paid by a third party–massive potential for conflicts of interest for the attorney (who to listen to–the client or the one paying the bills?).

            Like

          15. Marc Shepherd

            All players have a right to live, eat, etc but they can’t be taking gifts, meals, housing, money, or representation outside what is allowed.

            The crucial point, is that unlike stores, restaurants, landlords, etc., lawyers have a long history of giving their product away pro bono.

            A lawyer is permitted to do this for any reason he wants…or for no good reason at all. Lawyers sometimes take high-profile cases pro bono, or at below-market rates, for no other reason than they want the exposure.

            I think FTT is entirely correct. There is no way it would fly in court, if one arm of the state (the police) is criminally investigating an athlete, and another arm of the state (a university) prohibits that athlete from securing legal representation on whatever terms he can get.

            Indeed, I vaguely recall a case where the NCAA attempted to defend their rule, and lost. I have no doubt that if they tried to press it, they would lose every time.

            Anyhow, what the schools are really worried about, are “lawyers” who are really sports agents. They are not worried about athletes getting free (or below-market) legal advice when they’re accused of crimes.

            Like

          16. Wainscott

            Totally agree with Marc and FtT. No court would even uphold an NCAA regulation prohibiting student athletes from accepting free legal services, at least in criminal matters. If a lawyer offers pro bono services, the why is irrelevant.

            Even for civil matters, where there aren’t the same constitutional issues, such regulations likely wouldn’t fly. Courts wouldn’t ever read acceptance of an athletic scholarship as somehow limiting a student athlete’s access to legal representation, no matter how big of a loophole it seems to create.

            Like

          17. ccrider55

            You all are very probably right. I just don’t see that what I’ve said in any way limits his legal rights. I’m right there with you in saying they (the NCAA, or anyone else) cannot. I do feel how, why, who, and whose payed (or by choosing not to be effectively makes a gift of those services) is within the scope of NCAA concerns. It’s not a matter of being denied representation (he can’t be) but rather how/why/who provides that representation. Athletes aren’t allowed to engage representation until ready to give up eligibility regarding turning pro (or has that rule been softened?).

            Like

          18. Wainscott

            “Athletes aren’t allowed to engage representation until ready to give up eligibility regarding turning pro (or has that rule been softened?).”

            That’s for agents, not legal representation in legal matters. Athlete A cannot hire an attorney to negotiate pro contracts for him or do any sort of agent work.

            But a booster can likely get an attorney friend to represent Athlete A pro bono for a speeding ticket or drunk driving or marijuana possession or some other legal/criminal matter.

            Like

          19. Marc Shepherd

            You all are very probably right. I just don’t see that what I’ve said in any way limits his legal rights.

            Think of it this way. If the subject were anything other than legal representation, the athlete could not accept so much as a penny of outside help, except at market rates. If a local restaurant gives Jameis Winston a cheesburger, and he accepts, then he has committed an NCAA violation.

            But now imagine telling him: you are not allowed to have a lawyer during a criminal investigation, unless you can prove that you paid the going market rate for his services. Or if he works pro bono, you have to prove that he offers the same services to everyone in your situation, regardless of whether they’re athletes.

            How on earth can you claim that wouldn’t infringe on his rights? Remember: he attends a state school. The state can’t infringe upon his legal rights with one hand, while criminally investigating him with the other. Whether a private school could do that is an interesting question, but FSU isn’t private.

            Athletes aren’t allowed to engage representation until ready to give up eligibility regarding turning pro (or has that rule been softened?).

            The written NCAA rule has not changed, but most of us seem to agree that if they tried to enforce it in a criminal law setting, they’d be demolished. This is probably the reason why they are not trying. They know they’d lose.

            Like

          20. bullet

            There could be a question if someone was paying for it (other than the attorney himself).

            He could argue he was doing it to get free publicity.

            Like

          21. ccrider55

            “He could argue he was doing it to get free publicity.”

            Wouldn’t that mean Jamison would then be receiving a service for free that wouldn’t be available to “anonymous Andy” the chem major with a legal problem?

            I don’t know. It just seems wrong to me. Not the giving services away (that’s admirable), but the accepting of those services unless he was unable to pay and this was the court appointed attorney. Having not been arrested, I don’t see how he would have been in position to receive one.

            Like

          22. @ccrider55 – The point is even if the intent behind why an attorney offering his or her services pro bono might be important to the NCAA, a court absolutely positively does not care. The NCAA could come in all day and say that Winston’s attorney is providing pro bono services just because he’s the FSU QB and a judge’s reply will be, “So what? That doesn’t matter. Your rule is unenforceable here. Drop this immediately or we’ll start looking at what other NCAA rules are unenforceable.” I understand what you’re trying to say that this might be a benefit that other FSU students might not be receiving, but this is also a specific area that judges (who are lawyers) simply have no tolerance about placing restrictions on – their public policy is specifically to *encourage* pro bono work. Once again, the intent behind why an attorney is providing pro bono services (whether it’s because he’s a booster, wants to get his name in the media in connection with a high profile case, or is truly doing a good deed in providing services to an underprivileged minority) is absolutely irrelevant to a judge. That seems to be the disconnect – you seem to be very concerned about why an attorney is providing pro bono services, whereas the point is that a judge doesn’t care about the “why” and will find MUCH more harm in any rule that would disallow pro bono services at any level regardless of the reasoning behind it. It’s not even close – the NCAA would get pummeled swiftly if they actually tried to find a violation here.

            Like

          23. ccrider55

            “Winston’s attorney is providing pro bono services just because he’s the FSU QB and a judge’s reply will be, “So what? That doesn’t matter.”

            Yes. I agree. It doesn’t matter to the court. Does that mean it doesn’t matter to the NCAA? The court isn’t concerned with a question about its applicability to a question about eligibility unless and until an action regarding it is brought.

            I remember coaches getting in trouble for bailing kids out, even when the kid reimbursed the next day. It wasn’t the cost, or the service rendered. It was the “why” that service was rendered – something not available from the athletic department to the non athlete student body. Even if an essential concert pianist member received the same from an instructor he isn’t governed by NCAA eligibility rules.

            Like

          24. @ccrider55 – Once again, though, you don’t have a right to get bailed out any more than you have a right to a free car or even a basic amount of food. However, you *do* have an explicit Constitutional right to legal representation. Every other type of free product or service that the NCAA prevents athletes from receiving is inapplicable in this situation – there isn’t a single other corollary. In fact, it’s even different than other Constitutional rights – there are certain restrictions that are allowed on free speech or gun ownership, but whoever your lawyer is and what you’re paying or not paying him/her is your complete business (and this is intentional as judges are lawyers and most lawmakers are, too).

            It’s an interesting discussion because we might have found the one “loophole” (if you want to call it that) where it would be impossible for the NCAA to enforce any type of restriction when it comes to pro bono legal services, but that’s where we’re at. And yes, the NCAA does need to be wary about this because a court could very easily find any contract (i.e. a national letter of intent) unenforceable entirely if it is judged to restrict a person’s ability to seek any legal representation that is at his or her disposal (regardless of whether it’s considered to be favoritism or not). COURTS HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACTS OF THAT NATURE. I can’t emphasize that enough. Even contracts that have mandatory arbitration clauses, jury trial waivers and other restrictive venue mechanisms don’t ever dare to put restrictions on who you have as an attorney. That’s likely why this hasn’t been brought up at all as an issue in the Winston case – the NCAA doesn’t even want to consider the argument that receiving pro bono legal services could be a violation because arguing that would do more harm to the NCAA itself than good. If that means an FSU QB gets legal advice that he wouldn’t have otherwise received for free, then so be it. Better to have that occur than to risk having the entire form of the national letter of intent being called unenforceable because it restricts your right to receive legal representation (especially in criminal matters that don’t deal with athletic issues at all).

            Like

          25. Here’s a relevant article to our discussion, where a Florida booster provided pro bono services to many Gators (including Aaron Hernandez in the past):

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578594142608224534?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323823004578594142608224534.html

            The key quote:

            “The NCAA does not expressly forbid athletes from accepting free legal representation in criminal cases. NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson said that in its interpretation of the rules, the association had determined “that outside agencies can provide pro bono legal services to student-athletes” under two conditions: that those agencies had represented other needy individuals in the past “not based on athletics criteria,” and if the athlete initiated contact with the lawyer.”

            Now, it also says Florida and LSU have started instructing attorneys to have them charge legal fees to players to try to avoid NCAA violations. However, I agree with the Nebraska NCAA faculty representative that when push comes to shove, the ability to receive legal representation is going to prevail over enforcement concerns.

            Like

          26. Brian

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578594142608224534

            The NCAA does not expressly forbid athletes from accepting free legal representation in criminal cases. NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson said that in its interpretation of the rules, the association had determined “that outside agencies can provide pro bono legal services to student-athletes” under two conditions: that those agencies had represented other needy individuals in the past “not based on athletics criteria,” and if the athlete initiated contact with the lawyer.

            Like

          27. Brian

            Click to access cabmaoct08.pdf

            Further, the issue is not would the benefit have been provided, but has the benefit been provided in the past to non-student-athletes. For example, it is a common practice for student-athletes to be referred by a coaching staff to or recognize the name of a certain law firm since the athletics department utilized the firm or firm members have had access to the student-athlete. Once services are provided by the law firm to a student-athlete, usually pro bono, it is a common practice for the NCAA Enforcement Staff to review the charges billed by the law firm for the services provided to the student-athlete. Even if the law firm contends that pro bono work routinely is provided, the burden is on the firm to demonstrate that a similar pattern
            exists of: (i) the number of student-athletes who received pro bono work versus the number of other students; and (ii) the extent of the services. A similar analysis would be undertaken for other professional groups, such as a medical doctor.

            Like

          28. Brian

            Where I think some of you are wrong is thinking the court automatically trumps all here. The NCAA can’t prevent a player from using pro bono legal counsel. They can probably punish them after the fact if it’s deemed a violation, though. The player could try to sue/get an injunction, but there’s no guarantee they’d win. Being NCAA eligible isn’t a legal right.

            But realistically, any decent lawyer will have a history of doing pro bono work for poor people already so they’d be allowed to provide it to the player.

            Like

          29. Wainscott

            @FranktheTank:

            “but whoever your lawyer is and what you’re paying or not paying him/her is your complete business (and this is intentional as judges are lawyers and most lawmakers are, too).”

            You need to dial that down a level, as the who can very important in the eyes of a Court. The Court will care first and foremost as to the attorney’s concern for his/her client, and placing the client above all others, including a third party paying the attorney.

            Like

        2. ccrider55

          Thanks Brian. That clearly states the concern I was having difficulty expressing. Frank, I never said he didn’t have the right to legal rep. I said he did. Just because I have a free speech right Doesn’t mean I won’t be fairly terminated if I exuberantly exercise that right toward my boss. I’m just saying Winston MAY have violated a non criminal rule. But as Brian said they probably have their bases covered even if the spirit of the rule was circumvented.

          PS: I’m not adamant against Winston, but I am against preferential treatment. This just seemed a bit too convenient and fortunate a happenstance for someone neither arrested or indicted.

          Like

          Reply
    2. Richard

      That brings up a point:

      What can the NCAA do about free services that people provide to NCAA players? Compensation is prohibited, but if someone not affiliated with the athletic program is willing to provide, say, free . . . . backrubs, can the NCAA do anything?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        It is an NCAA violation if a player receives anything of value for free, that would not normally be provided to ordinary citizens who didn’t happen to be athletes.

        For the NCAA to do anything about it, a certain level of proof is required. As in the criminal law, no doubt many violations go unpunished, either because the NCAA never finds out, or because they cannot muster the requisite level of proof.

        For instance, Terrelle Pryor’s numerous “loaner” cars were undoubtedly NCAA violations, but because car dealers do sometimes provide loaners to ordinarily people, proving it was problematic, and in the end Pryor skated on that issue.

        Like

        Reply
  145. BuckeyeBeau

    more info on ESpin’s viewers and markets (bowl vs. season).

    interesting chart towards the bottom. a bit hard to decipher, but first “columns” are for the bowl ratings with the second being the season ranking. Example, C-bus is #2 bowl, but #7 season.

    http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/01/10/college-football-generates-record-audiences-bcs-title-game-third-most-viewed-cable-program-ever-619412/20140110espn01/

    only 3 northern cities in top 25 (c-bus, kan. city and dayton).

    i realize these are just Espin numbers. But that really puzzles me. Who/what is Chicago watching? What about Cleveland and Cincy? Pitts, Philly, NYC?

    I guess I don’t understand these numbers.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Well I think it’s instructive to look at how Dallas did; I mean Atlanta’s the only huge metro well-represented on this list.

      It’s almost impossible to draw big numerical ratings % in a city like Chicago for this.

      That’s the reason why you don’t see big cities well-represented on lists like this outside of Atlanta.

      Other thing that is worth mentioning is that typically ESPN’s broadcasts are more appealing to the SEC’s markets simply because they typically had better SEC matchups on ESPN (higher ranked teams) than what other conferences were able to put up. So the ratings are going to be higher in SEC markets for ESPN matchups than outside…

      Like

      Reply

      1. @zeek – That’s true about the ESPN ratings tilted in favor of SEC markets due to the quality of their SEC games. It may look a bit different if ABC games are included, which is where Disney’s best Big Ten games end up. I think Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh would show up much higher in that regard.

        I agree about Chicago (speaking as a lifelong native): you’re not going to see that market show up on this list. The market is too dispersed among different schools, although the Big Ten is clearly the main presence. That actually wasn’t the case as much when I was growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, where this was a clear Notre Dame town for college football. Now, ND is still the most popular single college football team here, but that has dissipated a bit where the Big Ten as a whole is more prominent. (Consider that the Chicago market had 40% or so higher ratings for the 2005 Illinois-UNC NCAA basketball championship game compared to the ND-Bama BCS title game last year.) It’s ultimately a very fairweather college football town where it simply depends who is playing well among Illinois, Northwestern, Notre Dame and even Northern Illinois in a given year. This is in contrast to the Bears, where they receive a massive saturation level rating for every game even when they’re terrible.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Brian

      BuckeyeBeau,

      “only 3 northern cities in top 25 (c-bus, kan. city and dayton).

      i realize these are just Espin numbers. But that really puzzles me. Who/what is Chicago watching? What about Cleveland and Cincy? Pitts, Philly, NYC?

      I guess I don’t understand these numbers.”

      Terminology:
      The metered markets are 56 of the top media markets (not the top 56, but close).
      Household rating – what percentage of all possible households watched a given show
      Share – of the TV sets in use, what percentage watched a given show

      ESPN always reports by rating and not total viewers, which skews the results towards smaller markets with more unified interests. The north has many of the larger markets with more diversions, so those markets rate lower. The south also has a higher interest in CFB, meaning CFB usually pulls a higher share down there as well.

      Like

      Reply
      2. bullet

        Pro sports markets often ignore college sports. You don’t get the casual viewer like you do in Birmingham. Only 4 of the top 25 regular season cities had professional baseball (bigger you are, more entertainment options). Only 8 had professional football. Most had no professional sports. Atlanta and DFW were the only ones with football, basketball and baseball. Only DFW also had hockey and soccer.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Yeah. If you count only the cities in the top 25 who have some sort of pro franchise, the split between Midwest, South, and West is 3-8-3, as opposed to 5-17-3 if you include all cities. And a lot of that is due in part to the prevalence of small markets in the south as well.

          Seeing a ranking by total viewers rather than ratings would be quite informative.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            Richard,

            “Seeing a ranking by total viewers rather than ratings would be quite informative.”

            I can’t provide that, but here’s a rough re-ranking of the bowl top 25 by total viewers. I used an online list of DMA size for the metered markets that’s a few years old and multiplied the DMA size by the rating.

            Atlanta 136319
            Columbus 113495
            Birmingham 86921
            Tampa-St. Petersburg 85628
            Phoenix 84720
            Ft. Myers 82795
            Seattle 80192
            Orlando 74571
            Nashville 59903
            Greenville 58679
            Charlotte 55368
            Portland 52915
            Richmond 51995
            Oklahoma City 45349
            Raleigh-Durham 44715
            Kansas City 44499
            New Orleans 42611
            Austin 41967
            Jacksonville 39984
            Memphis 39406
            West Palm Beach 34115
            Norfolk 33720
            Tulsa 33268
            Knoxville 33133
            Louisville 30887
            Greensboro 28895
            Dayton 28628

            NYC would only need a rating of 1.85 to be #1 on the list and would make the list with a 0.4.

            Like

          3. Brian

            Richard,

            “Right. Chicago, Philly, DC, and Detroit also would not need much to make the list.”

            Yep.

            Top 10 markets by size on the bowl ratings list: #11 Atlanta
            11-20: Phoenix, Tampa, Seattle, Orlando
            21-30: Portland, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, #8 Nashville
            31-40: KC, #2 Columbus, #4 Greenville, West Palm Beach, #1 Birmingham
            41-50: 6 more (2 top 10)
            51-63: 7 more (4 top 10)

            Missing from the top 25 by ratings list:
            Designated Market Area (DMA) Rank
            New York 1
            Los Angeles 2
            Chicago 3
            Philadelphia 4
            Dallas-Ft. Worth 5
            San Francisco 6
            Boston 7
            Washington, DC 9
            Houston 10
            Detroit 11
            Minneapolis-St. Paul 15
            Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 16
            Cleveland-Akron 17
            Denver 18
            Sacramento 20
            St. Louis 21
            Pittsburgh 22
            Baltimore 24
            Indianapolis 26
            San Diego 27
            Hartford & New Haven 29
            Cincinnati 33
            Milwaukee 34
            Salt Lake City 35
            San Antonio 37
            Las Vegas 43
            Albuquerque 44
            Buffalo 50
            Providence 52

            Like

  146. zeek

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/10/3522277/unc-whistleblower-stands-firm.html

    “University officials say they have asked Willingham repeatedly for the data behind those findings; she has declined because that would identify the students. She said she is bound by research regulations not to do that.

    She said she knows that one of Williams’ players could not read.

    “I stand by what I said, and if he wants to meet with me and go through his players, I’d be happy to share that,” said Willingham, who worked in the tutoring program for student athletes from 2003 to 2010. “I have his scores and … I’m the one who taught him.”

    ———————————————————-

    Wow. This is getting ugly.

    It’s amazing that this story isn’t a bigger deal nationally, although I’d assume it’s a huge deal in North Carolina based on what Michael’s said around here.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael in Raleigh

      It’s one thing after another with UNC scandals. Just the idea of any UNC scandal, by the way, is so strange. UNC had a golden reputation up until a few years ago. They talked about ‘the Carolina Way,’ very much akin to JoePa’s ideal of ‘success with honor.’ Wolfpack fans have had an awesome time with the whole thing, but it’s gotten well beyond the point of being funny. It’s just ugly.

      I did hear Roy Williams the other day on the radio. He denied and denied and denied the accuracy of the report. He sounded emotional, as though it genuinely hurt that someone would accuse his players of being illiterate. But he may not like to see the actual findings.

      For me, and probably for a lot of people who are neither pro- nor anti-UNC, the scandals just all blur into one big mess. It’s still an excellent university in just about every department (with one enormous exception), but they’ve got some serious problems at the administrative level there.

      Like

      Reply
    1. Richard

      Assistant salaries are still out of whack compared to HC salaries. In other established industries, the CEO typically makes only double what his top lieutenants make, not 3-5 times more.

      The CEO’s don’t make more than the next 10 people down the hierarchy.

      Like

      Reply
    2. bullet

      Texas went to 500k just a few years ago and was tops in the country.
      Louisville is indicating they won’t be outbid. But really, Georgia’s defensive coordinator? They play hard, but not smart.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        This could be a big chance for UGA. Richt was too nice to fire Grantham, but the fans have wanted a change. If Richt can get an elite D to pair with the offense, UGA may finally get a shot at a NCG. Or maybe the offense’s best days are gone with Murray leaving so it won’t matter.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          Supposedly he’s waiting for a desirable AQ HC job to open up. He’s had non-AQ HC offers and isn’t interested. I could see him replacing Beckman at IL perhaps. If money could get him, I’d tell OSU to go up to $2M for him.

          There are a lot of major DC slots open at the moment. I’m curious to learn who the hot names are.

          Like

          Reply
  148. Richard

    In the last 21 combined football/basketball conference games Northwestern has played, only Illinois has lost to NU.

    Granted, one of the losses is also to Illinois, but still, a winning record.

    Like

    Reply
  149. mushroomgod

    I thought there could be no more classless display than Cam’s “Superman” routine when scoring a TV…..then came Kaepernick’s display mocking Cam’s display…he explained later that he was still pissed that Newton was drafted 30 spots higher than him. I’m no Cam guy,…..but if Kaepernick had won the Heisman and a NC he’d have a legit gripe…..as it is, stfu. It’s a team game anyway clown.

    Like

    Reply
  150. Wainscott

    MLS has a new TV deal with ESPN & Fox:

    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/01/8538709/mls-gets-its-life-changing-television-moment

    This article links to one that discusses MLS’ emphasis on attendance over ratings, which is very interesting: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2013/08/8533178/why-did-soccer-bury-its-big-clint-dempsey-event.

    It would help MLS to try to create set times for set games, possibly even national double-headers like the NFL whenever possible. It can be done in a way that does not de-emphasize attendance.

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Wainscott – One thing that I believe a lot of the articles over the past few days have been severely under emphasizing is the fact that the US Men’s National Team World Cup qualifiers are included in the MLS package, which are games that actually draw very good ratings from casual sports fans. I don’t know the history of why MLS rights are grouped with the USMNT rights, but that’s a big factor in why there’s been such a large TV rights increase when the MLS ratings alone don’t justify it. The USMNT qualifier games are getting Original Six NHL-level ratings or better, which is valuable in this day and age. Those USMNT games are really what ESPN and Fox want as opposed to the MLS games (which are generally filler – the MLS Cup was ESPN’s counter programming choice against the SEC Championship Game this year).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        That’s a very important point, and I am one of those casual viewers who’ll watch USMNT matches but have no interest in MLS.

        Having ESPN involved will help Fox, assuming there is a cross-promotion agreement. I’m curious how they’ll divide the USMNT games, since Fox alone has the English-language TV rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

        Like

        Reply
    2. mnfanstc

      One thing I loved about Barry Sanders, and love about Adrian Peterson—they play hard all the time, and when they make a big play or score—they act like they’ve been there before… No grandstanding…

      It is so class-less to see these athletes put on these stupid dances/other theatrics, after a tackle/catch/broken up pass/etc… Just wish they’d play the effin game…

      It’s one thing to celebrate with your team-mates, but… I have ZERO respect for any of these grandstanding yahoos—at any level of the sport…

      Like

      Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Same for Manning and Brady……but on the other hand I will say I really looked forward to see what Chad J. or T. Owens would do next……some of that crap was pretty funny……i guess for me the motto should be ‘go crazy or go home’.

          Like

          Reply
    3. Richard

      So this guy knows that MLS games get very low TV ratings, yet he still wants MLS to sacrifice attendance in order to garner a miniscule amount more of TV viewers. MLS knows what side its bread is buttered. This guys evidently doesn’t.

      As for “national double-headers”, a league who’s TV partners essentially use its games as filler isn’t going to have too much say over when its games are shown on TV.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        “As for “national double-headers”, a league who’s TV partners essentially use its games as filler isn’t going to have too much say over when its games are shown on TV.”

        I agree that MLS might not have as much say now, but MLS apparently prioritizes stadium-goers over TV viewers. At $70 mil per year, the networks are going to want to try to expand viewership, and national double-headers is means to do that. That’s a lot to pay for mere filler.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Almost all of the value of that $70M likely reside in the USMNT games.

          The networks have shown virtually zero interest in promoting MLS (because when they have done so in the past, the ratings have shown it to be a resounding failure) or expanding viewership. Given that environment, why shouldn’t MLS prioritize stadium-goers over TV viewers? That’s where the money is.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            Yes, well only several hundred thousand even know a) there is an NBC Sports Channel and b) where it is on their cable system. (which televised the MLS games mentioned in the Grantland article).

            To grow a sport beyond core, rabid fans, a push to get more TV viewers is necessary. Otherwise, the sport won’t maintain its growth. ESPN has the promotional power to make it work, assuming MLS plays ball, which they will at $70 mil per season. Plus, there is no real, hard evidence that these “sacrifices” will actually negatively impact fans. Its not as if MLS is so popular as to get away with flexing games like the NFL. National double-headers on TV on weekends isn’t exactly punishing anyone.

            Like

          2. Richard

            I seem to need to repeat something several times when discussing with you.

            “Almost all of the value of that $70M likely reside in the USMNT games.”

            Like

    1. duffman

      Since the B1G has just under half of the BTN they are partners which boosts the bottom line. If ESPN owns the SEC Network does this mean ESPN keeps the gross – including advertising – and just pays a net number to the SEC? How big is the actual windfall for the SEC?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Alan from Baton Rouge

        duff – I think its some sort of revenue sharing after the expenses are recouped, but the percentages haven’t been disclosed.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bullet

      The pricing is a “rate card.” Remains to be seen whether ESPN is actually getting that. If they do, its very good.

      Also the article doesn’t say DISH has an agreement with Disney. Just that, as has been said before, the SEC Network is not a hangup. Hopper is a hangup on getting an agreement done.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Gailikk

        Seems outkick the covarage wrote on this today. http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-network-aims-for-500-million-a-year-launch.php

        I’m just trying to understand the numbers. OKTC says 30 mil subscribers in SEC territory. According to http://www.mrgco.com/blog/cable-vs-satellite-vs-iptv-subscribers-in-the-us/
        Dish has 14 mil subscribers, and Direct TV has 20. Do 30 of the 34 million subscribers live in the SEC area? I guess if you assume that 30 million of the 85 million total subscribers live in SEC territory, than this all makes sense.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          Don’t read Clay Travis unless you want the most homerish possible interpretation of anything. Last year he was claiming the SEC Network would make huge carriage fees, that happened to be more than the NFL network was making.

          In other words, don’t ask anyone to explain outkickthecoverage, because it doesn’t make any sense.

          The SEC network will make plenty of money, but it will take a while to catch up to the Big 10 network. And the financial arrangement hasn’t been disclosed. This is a wholly owned ESPN network. There are rumors the SEC has a 50% of profits share, but that’s not certain. And its not clear if that is in addition to or in place of rights fees.

          Like

          Reply
  152. mnfanstc

    General questions regarding recruiting (could maybe be good topic of discussion 😉

    1. I recognize that there are many services out there that “rate or rank” prep athletes—any idea where this money is funneled in from?
    2. From year to year some of the class rankings tend to be overblown… For example, this year Minnesota (my known example) only has around 15 scholarships available to give–due to total number of scholarship players on the roster–seems the rankings penalize schools that have commitments from fewer players even when they only have so many available— does the value per recruit actually mean anything then?
    3. Loosely tied to #2… How the heck can schools get away with actual oversigning (ending up with more kids committed than scholly’s available)?? What are these coaches/ath dept’s doing to “hide” these extra players?
    4. I’ve heard of the term “grey-shirt”, what the heck is that?
    5. Regarding “red-shirting”, what kind of rules/limitations are placed on that?
    6. What the heck is a preferred-walk-on? I’ve seen this referenced in various places, and have tried to figure out what exactly this means in the big scheme…

    There are only a few weeks til national signing day… I know there a couple of key recruits that my gophers are crossing fingers for—some of these questions are kinda tied to the unknowns with where these recruits will ultimately end up…

    Like

    Reply
    1. Marc Shepherd

      1. I recognize that there are many services out there that “rate or rank” prep athletes—any idea where this money is funneled in from?

      If you mean services like Rivals, 247, Scout, and ESPN, fans pay subscriptions to access premium content on their websites, and that’s where most of the money comes from. They also sell ads on their websites.

      2. From year to year some of the class rankings tend to be overblown… For example, this year Minnesota (my known example) only has around 15 scholarships available to give–due to total number of scholarship players on the roster–seems the rankings penalize schools that have commitments from fewer players even when they only have so many available— does the value per recruit actually mean anything then?</em

      The value per recruit is a useful statistic, if you want to measure the general level of talent that is being attracted to that school. It's true, the overall ranking can be depressed if you have a small class, but I don't have a problem with that. The value of the money in your wallet is the total of the whole wallet, not the two or three biggest bills.

      While other ways of ranking classes might be better from a certain perspective, in the long run I don't think it matters very much.

      3. Loosely tied to #2… How the heck can schools get away with actual oversigning (ending up with more kids committed than scholly’s available)?? What are these coaches/ath dept’s doing to “hide” these extra players?

      Well, the party line is that schools over-sign because some of the kids inevitably will fail to qualify, and the team may have attrition of existing players (due to career-ending injuries, academic disqualification, unrenewed fifth years, transfers).

      The ugly side of it is that some coaches have been known to force kids off the team, because there wasn’t room for them. There is nowhere to “hide” extra players. If you have too many, someone’s gotta go. Some leagues have imposed caps (beyone the NCAA requirements) to discourage this practice.

      4. I’ve heard of the term “grey-shirt”, what the heck is that?

      It’s the situation where a kid graduates in June, but doesn’t enroll until January, so that he counts against the following year’s class.

      5. Regarding “red-shirting”, what kind of rules/limitations are placed on that?

      You could google it to get the exact, ironclad definition. The basic idea is that an athlete is allowed four years of competition in a five-year period. The year the athlete doesn’t compete, if any, is the redshirt year. A redshirting athlete can still do everything else rest of the team does (practice, eat, lift weights, travel, dress for games). He just can’t appear in a game. Ordinarily, going onto the field for even one play uses up an entire year of eligibility. In certain cases, and I am not going to type out all the rules, an athlete who is injured can get the eligibility back, which is called a medical hardship waiver, or more informally, a “medical redshirt”.

      6. What the heck is a preferred-walk-on? I’ve seen this referenced in various places, and have tried to figure out what exactly this means in the big scheme…

      A preferred walk-on is a recruited player who is not on an athletic scholarship. The normal connotation of a walk-on is someone who shows up one day, and asks for a spot on the team. They try out, and if they’re impressive enough, they’re in. A preferred walk-on is someone who has been recruited, and is assured of a place on the team. He doesn’t have to try out.

      Like

      Reply
      1. ccrider55

        “In certain cases, and I am not going to type out all the rules, an athlete who is injured can get the eligibility back, which is called a medical hardship waiver, or more informally, a “medical redshirt”.”

        Medical hardship gets an athlete a 6th year of eligibility if he has used his RS year because of injury that kept him from being able to compete a full season, and then lost a second complete year to injury (both must be thoroughly documented). I don’t think a “med RS” described below qualifies as a lost year. That kid did compete, and some will have elected to RS rather than return even if medically cleared.

        Med RS isn’t an actual term. Someone who participates in less than 30% (?) of the year, and not past a certain point in the season (halfway?) is eligible to regain his regularly available RS (assuming it hasn’t been used electively) usually because of an injury, even if it possible to rehab and return later that year.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Marc Shepherd

          Medical hardship gets an athlete a 6th year of eligibility if he has used his RS year because of injury that kept him from being able to compete a full season, and then lost a second complete year to injury (both must be thoroughly documented). I don’t think a “med RS” described below qualifies as a lost year. That kid did compete, and some will have elected to RS rather than return even if medically cleared.

          It also applies to getting the fifth year back, when an athlete is injured early in the season. For instance, Michigan QB Devin Gardner will be a RS senior this year, his fifth. He appeared in two or three games early in his true freshman campaign, but then suffered a back injury. A medical hardship waiver permitted him to count that year as “redshirted,” even though he had played.

          Without the injury, his brief appearances as a freshman would have counted as a full year of eligibility, and he’d now be an ex-Wolverine. The athlete has to document that the injury prevented him from returning to the field. He can’t participate in a game or two, suffer a papercut, and then just “elect” to redshirt that year.

          It is also possible to get a sixth year, but the documentation requirements for that are far more onerous, and it is infrequently granted.

          Med RS isn’t an actual term.

          That is correct; I just put it in there, qualified as “informally,” because you see that terminology a lot, even though it is not the official term.

          Like

          Reply
          1. ccrider55

            Correct. Matter of semantics. The athlete regaining the RS (due to injury early in season) is technically having the regular RS restored/applied for that season. Essentially a second shot at the RS, assuming it is available. Somewhat common for freshmen who were going to fill a spot need as true frosh.

            The term medical hardship actually only refers to having the five year clock extended to six tue to serious enough injury to lose two full years, one of which was designated the “regular” RS.

            Like

    2. bullet

      The various services have their own rating points systems. For example, USC only signed 11 players last year and was ranked generally in the 20s, even though they had far and away the best average stars per player. No one else was even close. Texas A&M was around 2nd or 3rd because they signed 32-34 players, but they were around 10th in average stars (behind Texas who was about 6th or 7th in average stars but who was around 20 because they only signed 15). And it varies throughout the year. For much of this year, the Texas/Texas A&M dynamic was reversed. A&M had higher average stars than Texas but fewer signees and was ranked lower. Oklahoma wasn’t even rated as they had fewer commitments, but have started showing up in the rankings as they sign more players.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Brian

      mnfanstc,

      “1. I recognize that there are many services out there that “rate or rank” prep athletes—any idea where this money is funneled in from?”

      Subscriptions to the special parts of the web site (player data, certain chat rooms, certain articles, etc) is the main source. They also sell ads, of course. In addition, companies like Nike sponsor a lot of combine-like events for the publicity. TV is starting to make some money from HS games and all-star games, too.

      “2. From year to year some of the class rankings tend to be overblown… For example, this year Minnesota (my known example) only has around 15 scholarships available to give–due to total number of scholarship players on the roster–seems the rankings penalize schools that have commitments from fewer players even when they only have so many available— does the value per recruit actually mean anything then?”

      The formula varies from site to site, but size is a factor in class rankings generally. However, at least most of the sites also let you sort by average rating per player which eliminates that issue.

      Rivals only counts the top 20 players (full explanation here: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=880&CID=1364602), but you can sort by the average star ranking for the teams on that page (click Avg).

      Scout uses the top 25 players (full explanation here: http://www.scout.com/3/about-team-rankings.html), but you can sort by the average star ranking for the teams on that page (click Avg).

      24/7 presents both their ratings and the composite rating (averages all the major sites – full explanation here: http://247sports.com/Article/247Rating-Explanation-81574). They use all players, but use a Gaussian weighting so each player is worth less than the top one (full explanation here: http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/CompositeTeamRankings – click the “i” icon for the explanation). Their rankings aren’t sortable by the average, but Excel fixes that easily enough.

      ESPN is crap and not worth my time or yours to explain.

      “3. Loosely tied to #2… How the heck can schools get away with actual oversigning (ending up with more kids committed than scholly’s available)?? What are these coaches/ath dept’s doing to “hide” these extra players?”

      Basically, they they hope for attrition (kids fail out, get arrested, transfer, are too injured to play, signees don’t qualify academically, etc). If that fails, they have to perform roster management. That means convincing players to leave (medical hardships, transfers for playing time, etc) or they don’t renew some scholarships for existing players (remember, they are still 1-year renewables for many schools), or they tell a signee that there is no space for them and pull the offer in August (LSU did that once – it made the news).

      “4. I’ve heard of the term “grey-shirt”, what the heck is that?”

      Getting a kid to show up the following January instead of the fall after he graduates so he doesn’t count that first year (sometimes they actually don’t show until the next fall). It basically makes him a part of the following year’s class. This is often done with the consent of the player to create extra space between a current starter and them (so a new QB recruit has more years to play rather than backing up the previous stud QB, for example). It can also be done to give a kid a chance to boost his academics at a prep school.

      “5. Regarding “red-shirting”, what kind of rules/limitations are placed on that?”

      You have 5 years to play 4. Lots of players sit out their freshman year to get stronger, learn the schemes, etc without losing a year of eligibility. Nominally you can practice but can’t play in any games. A medical redshirt can be given after the fact, though, and for that you can play in the first 3 games of the season before suffering a season-ending injury.

      “6. What the heck is a preferred-walk-on? I’ve seen this referenced in various places, and have tried to figure out what exactly this means in the big scheme…”

      A team is limited to 105 players before school starts (or the first game, whichever is first), 85 on scholarship. A preferred walk-on is guaranteed to make the team but doesn’t get a scholarship. Usually this is a player the school really wants but ran out of scholarships, so they tell them to walk-on for year 1 and they’ll get a scholarship the next year (like for a backup kicker behind a senior about to graduate). The top 20 walk-ons show up for the summer training camp just like the scholarship players. Regular walk-ons get no guarantees of anything but pain and often can’t arrive until school starts.

      Rivals has a recruiting glossary:
      http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=638480

      Like

      Reply
    4. BuckeyeBeau

      @ MS, Brian, CCrider55 & Bullet:

      thanks and nicely done. very succinct and, in total, an excellent quick primer. I knew most of the answers (yes, i am breaking my arm patting myself on the back), but I was a bit fuzzy on the walk-ons. So, I learned my new thing for the day. 🙂

      thanks for the questions, mnfanstc.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mnfanstc

        Thanks to all for the input and insight… never too old to learn new stuff, or more about things you thought you knew a little bit of…

        Go Gophers! At least we CAN recruit some hockey studs!! 🙂

        Like

        Reply
    1. BuckeyeBeau

      wow, some shocking numbers (to me).

      Only MSU sold all of the school-allotted tickets. Iowa came close (11K of 11.5K allotment). Everyone else at 50% or lower. Even tOSU was only 8.5K of 17.5K. Wiscy only sold 3600 or so of 12.5K. Nebraska only sold 3K of 12.5K and gave away 4K of tickets.

      The article also gives attendance numbers and stadium capacities. Those were interesting too.
      Only Rose Bowl was a sell-out and the Orange Bowl got close (about 4K from capacity). Otherwise, significant emptiness.

      Nice solidly researched article by Brian Bennett.

      Of course, he writes a nice article and then ruins it by trolling the B1G with his final thought: “The big question going forward is whether that [Rose Bowl] game will maintain its allure when it’s not a semifinal in the new College Football Playoff.”

      Really, Brian? why be a d-bag?

      How about: “With the passion B1G fans have for the Rose Bowl, it will be interesting to see if that game will maintain its allure when it’s not a semifinal in the new CFP. I think it will.”

      Good ole ESpin.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        Stub Hub is going to put more of a crunch on the schools. Good thing they have been negotiating lower ticket requirements. This will get worse.

        Like

        Reply
      2. greg

        I was surprised in how many tickets Iowa fans bought from the school. So many have sworn off buying them from the school because they are the worst tickets available.

        To me, the poor seat aspect makes all these numbers hard to interpret.

        Like

        Reply
  157. mushroomgod

    Some amazing #s from the NFL on undergrad declarations for the draft shows just how bad Big 10 talent was this year, but also gives us some hope for next year—#s by conferences—SEC 26; PAC 12-21; ACC 11; Big 10(including RU) 5; Big 12-3……………ND alone had 4…..Amazed by the PAC 12 # as 5-6 years ago PAC 12 was really down.

    Like

    Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Yes, I think it does……..in the 2012 draft the SEC had 42 players drafted, the Big 10 41, ….ACC was 3rd with 31……now these are TOTAL players drafted, not undergrads…..but the Big 10 had tons of talent as late as ’11-’12…….its only in the last two years that it has not even been competitive…….and the PAC 12’s total of 21 this year is WAY more than in typical years…….5 or 6 years ago everyone was talking about how bad the PAC 12 sucked…….I’d be very surprised if the Big 10 and Big 12 aren’t much improved in ’14-’15 (TX and OK lost nobody, I believe), while the PAC 12 is way down.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          To follow up on this, per a study by someone named Doug Kyed from NE Patriots.com, the following #s of players were drafted from the various conferences from 2003 through 2012:

          SEC—401—-15.7%
          Big 10—339—13.3%
          ACC—323—12.7%
          PAC 12—305—12%
          Big 12—291—11.4%
          Big East—184—7.21%

          So….until 2012 the SEC definately had the talent edge, but it wasn’t the crater it’s been the last 2 years. I think we see the entire SEC capitalizing on the success of Meyer, then Saban……

          For more perspective, I saw an article about the NFL’s top 100 players as of 2011…..guess which conference had the most alums? That’s right, the Big East with 16!! sec AND bIG 10 HAD 13 EACH, acc 12, pac-10 11, bIG 12 7….ND had only 1

          Like

          Reply
  158. Transic

    3. Michigan $685.5 million
    4. Ohio State $674.8 million

    11. Iowa $479.1 million
    12. Nebraska $432.5 million
    13. Wisconsin $406.4 million
    14. Penn State $377.6 million

    29. Michigan State $212.9 million

    36. Minnesota $179.7 million

    40. Northwestern $154.5 million

    46. Indiana $125.8 million

    48. Purdue $114.6 million

    55. Illinois $94.5 million

    http://www.ibj.com/the-score-2014-01-09-notre-dame-no-2-in-ranking-of-football-riches-iu-tops-purdue/PARAMS/post/45498

    The list was done by IU finance professor Ryan Brewer.

    Like

    Reply
    1. BuckeyeBeau

      Thanks for posting. Thanks for others who post these lists from other sources.

      But, having said that, personally, I don’t see much value to these lists. If I understand correctly, the idea here is that I could “buy” Texas football for $875M or PennSt football for $377M.

      It’s absurd.

      So, Pegula gave Penn State $100M for their hockey program. What a chump! He could have bought 25% of the football program and, ya know, got a return on investment.

      sarcasm font.

      Like

      Reply
  159. BuckeyeBeau

    Well, since it’s a slow sunny and not-too-cold day, and since we had a soccer discussion above, I will throw out a mnfanstc-esque set of questions about major league soccer. I know almost nothing about the structure of professional soccer. So …

    1. what is the US structure? is there one? In football, there is the AFC and NFC, it leads to the superbowl. does MLS have something similar?

    2. what is the European structure?

    3. what is the relationship between, say, C-bus’s soccer team and the US soccer team that played/is playing the Bracket of Death?

    4. what the hell is the Bracket of Death? 🙂

    5. how does all of this lead to the FIFA World Cup? and why only every 4 years?

    6. does structure have any impact on attendance and ratings? As an example, FtT has pointed out how the NFL has kept tv ratings high by the way the playoff and wild-card rules keep teams mathematically eligible until nearly the last weekend.

    Like

    Reply
    1. jdwahoo

      BuckeyeBeau –

      I rarely post here (though frequently lurk), but comparisons btwn college football and European soccer are right in the wheelhouse. I would welcome any clarifications and additional points from others, as there’s a ton to say about this and limited space.

      1) US soccer structure – This will make a lot more sense after describing the way soccer works everywhere else in the world, so I’ll take (2) first.

      2) European soccer structure – The game is structured on two basic levels: the domestic leagues within each country, and the European competitions btwn the top teams from all the countries.

      Domestically, each country has a top-level pro league, with additional leagues forming tiers below the top level. For example, in England, the top-level league is the 20-team Barclays Premier League, with the second level being the Championship, the third level being the (oddly-named) League One, and the fourth level being League Two. (There are actually several leagues below that, but the process is the same for all.) Every year, the top finishers in each lower-tier league promote to the next higher league, while the bottom teams in each league are relegated to the next lower league. Unlike the minor league system of American baseball, the lower league teams are not directly affiliated with top-level teams, and so in theory, any tiny small-town club could work its way into the top-level (rare, but has happened). Smaller countries may only have one or two lower leagues, but this same basic process plays out every year England, France, Italy, Germany, Holland, etc.

      As for European competition, the top 1-4 finishers in each domestic league (the number varies depending upon strength of league) are eligible to play in the following year’s UEFA Champions League, which takes place concurrently with the following domestic season. The Champions League field of 32 is divided into round-robin groups, with the top finishers advancing to a 16-team bracket. So, a team that won its league last year (like Manchester United) is currently playing 2013-14 Champions League games on midweeks and open Saturdays, in addition to its regular 2013-14 domestic league schedule. This is grueling and requires a large and deep squad so that every player doesn’t have to play every game. (There is also a secondary Euro competition called the Europa League, which has a similar format but corresponds to college basketball’s NIT – it’s also-rans from major leagues and the champions from Albania and whatnot. It’s basically a nuisance for big clubs and probably should go away).

      1) US soccer structure – OK, so the US system is very different – most of the world operates roughly on the European model. In the US, the top-level league is Major League Soccer (MLS), which has Western and Eastern Conferences and a playoff system similar to other American sports. The playoff format is a little screwy, as it allows for wild-card teams to be slotted on the other side of the bracket, which on at least one occasion led to two Western teams playing for the championship (known as MLS Cup). Europeans tend to take a dim view of the whole playoff system, but MLS thinks it is necessary to appeal to American fans. MLS recently announced the addition of its 20th (New York City FC) and 21st (Orlando City FC) teams, and it is expanding to 24 teams soon.

      There are two other notable American leagues, but there is no promotion and relegation – every team is affiliated only with its stand-alone league. The second-tier league is North American Soccer League (NASL), which has aspirations to dethrone MLS as the top league and has recently added the famous brand of the New York Cosmos. There are significant questions about NASL’s business model, however, and it is a long way from overtaking MLS. The third league is USL-Pro, which seems to have a sound business model and has a friendly working relationship with MLS. A few teams have actually moved “down” to USL-Pro in hopes of stabilizing their franchise to become MLS expansion teams, including Orlando.

      3) Relationship of C-bus to USMNT – The relationship of Columbus or any other MLS team to the US men’s team is essentially the same as the relationship between the Miami Heat and the US Men’s Olympic basketball team: one is a professional team in a private league, and the other is a national team that competes against other countries in international competition. Just as LeBron may play for the Heat and then also for the US, a player may play for his professional club team and also for his country.

      4) Group of Death – When FIFA (the international soccer governing body) assigns all 32 qualifying teams into round-robin groups for the World Cup, it only seeds the top 8 teams – the rest are divided geographically and then drawn out of a hat. Thus, in a given 4-team group, you could get one seeded team and then also the strongest teams from, say, Europe, Asia, and North America. This happens so often that fans and pundits immediately try to pick out which group best meets this criteria and proclaim it “the Group of Death.” Many think that the US has been drawn into such a group in 2014; to me, while the US group is very strong, there are actually two other groups that are even stronger.

      5) FIFA World Cup – Think of the World Cup as the Soccer Olympics; just as the Olympics isn’t directly related to the NBA or other pro leagues in any Olympic sport, the World Cup is completely separate from the European club soccer structure discussed above. Part of the 4-year timetable is the time required to actually reduce the field to the 32 teams in the World Cup. Every single nation in the world with a soccer federation – even tiny islands – is given a chance to qualify for the World Cup, and these qualifying tournaments begin 3 years in advance. The larger nations don’t participate in the earliest rounds, but everyone joins in at least two years ahead of the World Cup. These qualifying games can only be played during summers and designated break weekends during the year (FIFA mandates that every league must take these breaks), so it takes awhile.

      6) Structure and Ratings – It’s really hard to say whether the structure affects MLS ratings, as they are so tiny to begin with. Most soccer fans are big supporters of promotion and relegation, and you will hear people claim that a pro-rel system would really boost popularity of MLS. I personally am not so sure about that – there’s just no compelling reason for soccer fans to invest in what is more or less still a start-up league when you can watch every English league game on NBC Sports and plug into teams with 130-year histories and worldwide fan bases.

      Hope this was helpful – I enjoyed writing it. Don’t tempt me to write a 20,000-word essay on how the P5 college football conferences correspond to the 5 largest European domestic soccer leagues.

      Like

      Reply

      1. @jdwahoo – Great stuff – thanks for that.

        I’d agree with you that a promotion/relegation system likely wouldn’t help interest in MLS very much. The US is quite different in terms of how it approaches sports franchises and the European leagues have the benefit of generations of fans supporting clubs that are on board with the ups and downs of pro-rel. Billionaires here don’t shell out franchise fees in order to see their teams possibly get relegated to a lower division. I’ll provide one caveat, though: a pro-rel system that I could see working for MLS is if there is a *big* prize at the end of the tunnel – namely, if the Premier League wanted US expansion and then incorporated the MLS as a lower division in their pro-rel system (which I realize is a fantasy on par with the Big Ten adding Texas, USC and Florida tomorrow). If the Premier League doesn’t want to do it, then maybe another European league such as La Liga or Bundesliga that believes breaking into the US market is the way to get an edge back against the EPL could try for it. All of those European leagues are looking at the US in the way that the NBA is looking at China – it’s so wide open and they’re looking for ways to break in beyond better TV coverage and stateside summer friendlies.

        Alternatively, maybe MLS needs to start looking at some type of partnership or merger with Liga MX or South American leagues. I’m a big believer that pro soccer could work in this country IF we’re actually getting the very top players to come here in their primes, but that simply isn’t happening with the MLS salary cap structure (particularly when the European clubs can have payrolls that make the New York Yankees look destitute). That’s why Americans have really started to pay attention to the World Cup in a way that hasn’t been happening with MLS.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          You have to consider FIFA, however. Unlike any sport that Americans care about, FIFA has a ton of power in soccer due to the WC (and is extremely corrupt, BTW). They issued an exemption to allow Canadian teams to play in an American league, but unlike college athletics (which is as close to a free-market free-for-all as you can get), I doubt they’d let any European league buy MLS. Or actually, the other powerful European leagues (and the Mexican league, etc.) wouldn’t allow it.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Pablo

          Relegation works in other countries because caste status are more accepted norms. Brand teams that achieve “king” status truly hold special status in European Leagues. For example, Real Madrid and Barcelona are truly head-and-shoulder above the La Liga competition. Relegation is hardly a fear for the brand teams, except as a punishment for illegal behavior.

          Most US leagues’ fundamental business models promote too much revenue sharing to make relegation a viable option.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Europe is not La Liga.

            For example, every single Premiership team has been relegated at some point (though granted, the last time Arsenal was was in 1913). Every other English club has been outside the top flight at least once since WWII.

            For example, here are the final standings of the top tier in England in the 1974-1975 season (at a time when the current kings in college football have already been established with the exception of none of the FL schools in those ranks yet):
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_in_English_football#First_Division_3

            Liverpool is 2nd and Everton is 4th, but Ipswich Town is 3rd, Stoke City is 5th, and Derby County won the whole league. Tottenham barely escaped relegation. Also notice that Chelsea is relegated and ManU is in the 2nd division.

            It’s not revenue sharing that make relegation unviable, it’s the big financial hit that would come with relegation.

            Like

      2. Chet

        jdwahoo −

        Here are some clarifications and additional points (although not exhaustive, plus I cannot guarantee that all of this information is mistake-free or up-to-date):

        (1) Domestic leagues are arranged using home/away round-robin schedules. As example, in Serie A (the top league in Italy of 20 teams), the first 19-team sequence is scheduled with all other teams. This is then followed by the same 19-team sequence, which is repeated with the visiting team becoming the hosting team.

        (2) Domestic leagues also have Cup tournaments. Most domestic leagues have only one Cup tournament. The English Premier League (EPL) is an exception and has two Cup tournaments: the FA Cup and the League Cup. Domestic Cup tournaments are mainly scheduled and played concurrent to the domestic leage schedule.

        (a) For the FA Cup (from Wikipedia):

        The competition is a knockout tournament with pairings for each round drawn at random. The draw also determines which teams will play at home. Each tie is played as a single-leg. If a match is drawn after normal time, there is a replay, usually at the ground of the team who were away for the first game. Drawn replays are currently settled with extra time and penalty shootouts.

        (b) For the League Cup (from Wikipedia):

        The League Cup is currently open to members of the Premier League and the Football League and is divided into seven rounds. Teams involved in European competition during the season receive a bye to the third round; the remaining Premier League teams enter at the second round, and the remaining Football League teams enter at the first round. Matches in all rounds are single-legged, except for the semi-finals, which are two-legged matches.

        (c) As example, in Italy (from Wikipedia):

        The Coppa Italia is a Cup tournament using knock-out rounds with pairings for each round structured and made in advance of the tournament. Each game is played as a single-leg match, with the exception of the two-legged semi-final matches. Clubs playing in Serie B join in the second round and the 12 lowest-ranked teams in Serie A based on the previous league season’s positions begin the competition in the third round . The remaining eight Serie A teams join the competition in the fourth round in January, at which point 16 teams remain.

        (3) Champions League (CL) games are played on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings (Central European Time − CET) and Europa League (EL) games on Thursday evenings (CET). Presently, the CL Final is played on a Saturday evening (CET) but in the past were played during mid-week. Otherwise, there are no CL or EL games played on open weekends. Open weekends are usually used for scheduling games between National teams (e.g. World Cup or European Championship qualifying games, or international friendlies).

        (a) From Wikipedia: The CL tournament proper begins with a group stage of 32 teams, divided into eight groups, which is drawn to prevent two teams from the same domestic league being in the same group. Each team meets the others in its group home/away in a round-robin format. The winning team and the runners-up from each group then progress to the next stage of knock-out rounds. The third-placed team enters the UEFA Europa League …

        (b) … In the first round of the knock-out stage of the CL tournament, the winning team from one group plays against the runners-up from another group. The draw is arranged so that teams from the same domestic league are not drawn against each other in this knock-out round. From the quarter-finals onwards, the draw is entirely random, without protection for games between domestic league teams during the draw …

        (c) … During the knock-out stage, the two-legged rounds use the “Away Goals Rule”: If the aggregate score of the two games is tied, then the team who scored more goals at their opponent’s stadium advances. The knock-out rounds are played in a two-legged format, with the exception of the final, which is decided using the single-leg format.

        Most casual soccer fans are aware of the single-leg format for deciding drawn matches, because this is the format used in theknock-out stage of the World Cup. In this case, if a match is drawn after normal time, extra time is played. In the event of a draw after 30 minutes of extra time, a penalty shoot-out is contested.

        However, the “Away Goals Rule” of two-legged rounds often provide a different but greater dramatic effect. Once the game starts for a single-leg match, then the first team to score has an advantage because the other team needs to score at least two goals to win (or one goal to draw followed by winning the penalty shoot-out after extra time).

        However, during the second match of a two-legged round using the “Away Goals Rule”, it is possible that one team has an advantage because of the amount of away goals it has scored. Thus, the outcome of a knock-out round can change by only one goal (instead of two or one plus penalty shoot-outs) during the second-leg match.

        This often provides the second-leg matches of the CL knock-out stage with greater drama. If one team is winning (i.e. has the better aggregate score because of away goals) but could lose if the other team scores (i.e. after this other goal, the other team has the better aggregate score because of away goals), then the other team will change its tactics and take higher risks as normal time winds down. This higher risk increases the chance of the other team actually scoring the other goal. This then increases the possibility of dramatic endings (as compared to the dull outcomes of many World Cup knock-out matches decided by penalty shoot-outs); unless the aggregate score is also tied, at which time the game is decided in the same way as a single-leg match. Tactics also become important, and any advantage of hosting the game is somewhat offset for the visiting team.

        Like

        Reply
          1. Chet

            I suspect that my point about the “Away Goal Rues” is not totally clear. Here is an example to illustrate. Assume the same scoring sequence occurs for two scenarios, where each team scores in consecutive manner, for a final score of 3-2.

            Scenario 1: The only game of a single-leg round; the dramatic effect is the following: 1-0 win, 1-1 draw, 2-1 win, 2-2 draw, 3-2 win.

            Scenario 2: The second game of a two-leg round (where the first game ended 0-0); assume the home team scores first; the dramatic effect is the following: 1-0 win (home team), 1-1 win (away team), 2-1 win (home team), 2-2 win (away team), 3-2 win (home team).

            Like

        2. Chet

          As further supplement for (1):

          Domestic league titles are decided according to the points scored during the home/away round-robin season. Teams are awarded three points for a win, one point for a draw, and no points for a loss. The team with the greatest point total at the end of the home/away round-robin schedule wins the title. There is no subsequent playoff or championship game to decide the league title.

          If two teams are level on points at the end of the season, then each league has autonomy for stipulating tie-breaker rules. These vary among leagues and can be prioritized according to head-to-head results, total goals scored, goal difference, etc.

          Winning a league title is generally considered as more prestigious than winning a league Cup tournament. The utlimate goal is the to win both plus the CL title, commonly referred as winning the “treble”. This was memorably achieved by Manchester United with the FA Cup in 1999 (no EPL team has yet to win the “quadruple”). Last year, Bayern Munich achieved the treble as as a Bundesliga team. Jose Mourinho was the coach when Internazionale (“Inter Milan”) won the treble as a Serie A team in 2010. Mourinho was also the coach when FC Porto won the Portuguese league title, Portuguese Cup tournament and UEFA Cup (predecessor to the Europa League) in 2003, followed up by the CL title and another Portuguese league title in 2004.

          Fun fact: The team which wins the league title of a Serie A season wears a tricolor triangular-shaped patch on its jersey for the next season. This patch is called a “scudetto” (Italian: “little shield”). The expression “winning the scudetto” is then synonymous with “winning the Serie A league title”.

          Like

          Reply
      3. Chet

        BTW my comments above refer only to European soccer structure. And I concur: There are intriguing comparisons between college football and European soccer as cultural phenomena.

        Like

        Reply
  160. bullet

    @Frank
    NFL and Thursdays.

    Are Thursdays that much more valuable than Tuesdays? On Tuesday, they would have more continuous buzz and it would fit better for the athletes. And there wouldn’t be as much competition. (and obviously everyone but the MAC would love it).

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      It may be hard to for many to imagine, but the NFL created Monday night football in the 70s. A lot of people didn’t think it would be a big deal. But it became a phenomena. Probably more in the 70s and 80s than now. Howard and Frank and Dandy Don were must see TV. Of course, it seems like they put a lot of the dog games on Monday nights now.

      Could they do it on Tuesday?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wainscott

        Thursday is the most valuable night of TV programming. Its not a coincidence that NBC for 20 years made certain to have their best shows on Thursday nights, or why CBS and ABC moves CSI and Grey’s to that night once they were established shows.

        Its most valuable for movie commercials, weekend events/TV specials, sale ads before shopping weekends, and the like.

        Like

        Reply

        1. @Wainscott – Correct. There is an extra premium attached to Thursday night programs in particular because of those factors (i.e. movie studios making their weekend box office push, car companies, etc.). It is disproportionately more valuable to place a program on Thursday night, even with the heavier competition, than on any other night of the week.

          Now, the thing is that IF the NFL decides to put Thursday night games over-the-air (which I’m skeptical of since the cable networks have much more ways to monetize the package), then that’s a massive game changer for TV. Not very long ago (i.e. 5 years ago), Sunday night was every bit as important to the OTA networks as Thursday nights. Recall that Disney didn’t want to move Sunday Night Football games from ESPN to ABC because it wanted to protect its-then highly-watched Sunday night drama lineup that included Desperate Housewives. That turned out to be a short-sighted decision as every other network is getting obliterated on Sunday night going up against NBC. The 9 pm ET Sunday night slot that used to be where networks wanted to put their very best shows has now turned into a tough place to be.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Wainscott

            “Now, the thing is that IF the NFL decides to put Thursday night games over-the-air (which I’m skeptical of since the cable networks have much more ways to monetize the package), then that’s a massive game changer for TV”

            You leave out the biggest reason why it would appeal to an over the air network: The package would be the first half of the season (Sept-Oct), allowing an over the network excellent promotional power for big time shows to start during November sweeps. NBC would definitely benefit the most, also because its present Thursday night lineup is very bad.

            Like

          2. BuckeyeBeau

            @ FtT. In other words, OTA Thursday nights is going to happen.

            If Monday night NFL became (long ago) a TV staple and Sunday night NFL has succeeded wildly (since 2006), then Thursday night will succeed wildly too.

            Like

          3. Wainscott

            Though, the thing is that ABC MNF ratings had actually declined over time, and were still declining around the time the package came up for bid in 2005 (Remember, the NFL and ABC changed start times several times, shifted announcers, and tried stunts to generate ratings).

            By 2005, it was still highly rated, but it was not leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

            The NBC ratings for SNF far surpass those that ABC had.

            Like

          4. NBC’s SNF package definitely has a large benefit on MNF with its flex scheduling in the latter part of the season. That has largely ensured that they’re not stuck with late-season dog matchups that occurred (and still occur) with MNF and, in most instances, they’ll be getting the very best game of the week when the stakes are at their highest. Frankly, NBC scored a massive coup on that front. The flexing option won’t be available for the Thursday night package.

            Like

          5. Wainscott

            Flexing has been a major boost for NBC, without a doubt, especially the week 17 flex.

            But the lack of Thurs Night flex wouldn’t be as big of an issue in the first half of the season, when all teams are in competition. The larger issue will be team/market selection. A 2-2 Jets/Giants/Bears/Steelers/Packers/Cowboys/Pats/Broncos will probably draw better than a 2-2 Rams/Raiders/Vikings/Falcons team in week 5, based on team popularity, market size, stars, etc…

            Like

          6. For the past two years, NBC has received a break in that the NFL’s most popular division, the NFC East (although this year it was probably the worst), came down to a winner-take-all game in week 17. If Washington had defeated Dallas in week 16, the Cowboys’ game with Philadelphia would have been meaningless, and NBC probably would have gone with Green Bay at Chicago as the Sunday night game. While the Packers and Bears both have large followings, I don’t believe they get quite the same hype as their NFC East counterparts.

            Like

    2. Wainscott

      Tuesday and Thursday is a wash from the athlete perspective. Either way, its 4 days between games and 10 days between games (Sun-Thurs & Thurs-following Sun/ Sun-following Tues & Tues-Sun).

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        No its 5/9 with Tuesdays and 4/10 with Thursdays. That’s a short recovery period.

        Although with Thursdays, competitively it is an advantage. Both teams face the same short week and both have a longer week than their next opponent. With M & T, both have the same long break, but both have shorter breaks than their opponent the next week.

        Like

        Reply
  161. Wainscott

    Well, this is interesting:

    Jeff Barker‏@sunjeffbarker
    New Maryland counterclaim against ACC claims ACC schools tried to recruit two Big Ten universities to leave the Big Ten and join the ACC.

    Jeff Barker‏@sunjeffbarker
    New Maryland counterclaim alleges Pitt, Wake Forest athletic reps tried to recruit unnamed Big Ten schools to join ACC. #Terps #ACC

    Penn State and who? Purdue?

    Like

    Reply
      1. Wainscott

        From the ACC standpoint, I could see most B1G schools east of the Mississippi as ones the ACC might try to recruit:

        1) Penn State
        2a) Ohio State
        2b) Michigan
        small gap

        3) NWU

        LARGE GAP
        4) Purdue (advocated by Notre Dame)
        5) Indiana (east coast alumni/student body, top-shelf basketball)

        Like

        Reply
      3. Brian

        greg,

        “I’d guess PSU and NWU.”

        I’m with you. NW would solidify Chicago as part of their footprint and give ND a travel partner. Besides, NW is a good institutional fit with the ACC.

        The other candidates eliminate themselves:
        OSU and UM – never leaving the B10
        MSU – never leaving UM
        IL, IN, PU – insufficient value to the ACC
        NE, WI, IA, MN – too far to be useful to the ACC

        PSU is a geographical fit and would bring them a much needed FB power in the north.

        Like

        Reply
      4. Marc Shepherd

        Penn State is quite logical. JoePa dropped hints, over the years, that he’d rather be in the ACC, and if he thought so, you’ve gotta assume there were others who felt the same. Not that it had any chance of happening, but it wasn’t crazy for the ACC to ask.

        I can’t imagine how they ever thought they’d snag Northwestern.

        Like

        Reply

        1. There have been reports that the ACC was interested in Penn State before it went to the Big Ten, but failed to act on it, and that when it pursued a ninth member, both Syracuse and Florida State were candidates, and the first vote was a 4-4 deadlock.

          In retrospect, imagine if in 1987, Gene Corrigan (or whomever was ACC commissioner at the time) had shown the foresight the SEC did and expanded to 12, with a CCG, by adding Syracuse, Penn State, Florida State and Miami. That conference would have dominated the East Coast, and any expansion (especially that of the Big Ten) would have gone in a drastically different direction.

          Like

          Reply
          1. John O

            I’m sure the B1G would have handled Texas’ early 90’s overture (assuming it would still have been made) very differently.

            Like

          2. Brian

            Correct. #11 would have been UT. The the question is would the B10 have stayed at 11 or would a suitable #12 have come calling sooner. I think Pitt would have gotten in. Would the B10 be looking at 14+ now (OU, NE, ND, others). UMD and RU wouldn’t be on the horizon without PSU, certainly.

            Like

          3. bullet

            Texas was told around 1990 that UT was 1st if they were looking west or south, but that they weren’t ready yet. After that Texas approached the Pac 10 and A&M the SEC.

            Like

          5. Wainscott

            Or if the Big East had approved PSU’s membership application in 1982, where Syracuse cast the deciding vote against PSU.

            Like

    2. Wainscott

      I mean, none of this surprises me in the least. I’m sure that every conference called specific teams in every other conference to gauge interest in switching. I’m sure the B1G spoke with Big 12 schools, SEC schools, ACC, and AAC schools. SEC undoubtedly spoke with ACC and B1g12 schools, and maybe AAC and B1G one’s, too. Same for the Big 12 and Pac12.

      I would be surprised if the call from ACC schools to the 2 B1G schools, or that portion of a longer call, lasted very long.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Marc Shepherd

        I mean, none of this surprises me in the least. I’m sure that every conference called specific teams in every other conference to gauge interest in switching.

        I also called Kate Upton to see if she’d like to drop her current boyfriend and date me instead.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Wainscott

          Her voicemail box was full when I tried. Alas.

          I mean, the UMD attorney’s claim was clearly designed to generate a reaction and public interest, but its likely no more than:

          Pitt AD: Hey, PSU, you interested in the ACC?
          PSU AD: No, thanks.
          Pitt: AD: Ok, no harm in asking.
          PSU AD: I suppose.

          Months later:

          UMD attorney: TWO ACC SCHOOLS TRIED TO RECRUIT 2 BIG TEN MEMBER TO THEIR CONFERENCE!

          Like

          Reply
          3. Wainscott

            Paragraph 109 of the Counterclaim is a thunderous right hook at the SEC. Gist: Maryland would never slum in the academic wasteland that is the SEC, and has no natural rivals in that conference.

            Paragraph 110: Other ACC schools might me a better fit for the SEC based on the existence of natural rivalries.

            Also, the bit about not targeting B1G schools west of the Mississippi is in the context of defining the geographic market for the ACC and UMD for anti-trust purposes. UMD wants a narrow geographic market to show the ACC is anticompetitive and UMD a powerless victim.

            Like

          4. Wainscott

            In reading the counterclaim, and based on where the bits about ACC schools trying to raid the B1G, my hunch is that the schools were actually PSU and NWU.

            In the context of the counterclaims, UMD is trying to shrink the relevant market in size and geography. Had the schools been PSU and OSU, the UMD attorneys could have used that to their advantage and define the geographic market even more narrowly, thereby claiming that the ACC has even more power. But by drawing the boundary at the Mississippi, it leads me to believe that one of the schools spoken to would have been excluded if UMD attorneys said in “the Eastern time zone”.

            PSU would be the obvious other one. Context does not change that.

            Like

          5. I agree that the 2 schools that were contacted were probably Penn State and Northwestern. The deeper question is whether this was anything more to this than the standard phishing that many leagues and schools go through (including by the Big Ten itself) and my guess is no considering the complete lack of details about the “recruitment”. Maryland threw in the antitrust counterclaim so that they could attempt to claim treble damages. It’s doubtful that this has much traction compared to the breach of contract-related issues.

            Like

          6. bullet

            Here’s an excerpt from former UT President Cunningham’s book (The Texas Way) on how these sorts of contacts take place. This was when the SEC contacted Texas in the late 80s. So many of these people know each other, you just find the right connection:
            “On June 30, 1989, I traveled to Washington to participate in a meeting at the French Embassy with several other university presidents….My office received a call from Chuck Knapp, president of the University of Georgia, asking if I could meet with him at the law office of Kilpatrick and Kody before our meeting at the embassy. Knapp and I had been assistant professors together at UT and I told his office that I would be happy to visit with him….we spent twenty minutes reminiscing about our careers as assistant porfessors, and then I asked Knapp what this was all about. He said the SEC wanted UT Austin, and he wanted to know if I would be willing to consider it.”

            So someone at Pitt knew someone at Penn St. and someone at Wake knew someone at Northwestern (or whatever school) and they had an informal feeling out discussion.

            Like

          7. BruceMcF

            @Wainscott ~ Yes, its to establish it as a tight oligopoly market … the difference between a three participants in one side of the market and five can be quite substantial in the industrial organization literature. A two-supplier duopoly confers even more market power on the two suppliers, hence the slam at the SEC.

            Like

    5. Blapples

      My guess is PSU (obvious) and one that nobody has brought up yet, Michigan State. They’re a great basketball school and improving every year in football under Dino. They have the obvious Notre Dame connection. Also, the ACC has a seemingly ubiquitous affinity for the #2 school in a state (FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Pitt, etc)

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’m guessing Pitt tried to recruit Penn State and Wake did likewise with Northwestern (“hey, join us, Duke, Miami, BC and Syracuse, not to mention those folks from ND”).

        Like

        Reply
        1. dhs3120

          It PSU and Northwestern. ACC was chasing PSU as early as the 2003 Big East raid and Northwestern is the best fit in the ACC otherwise as an elite academic university in a big city.

          Ohio State is one of the worst fits. MSU is personally one of my two favorite B1G teams because they tend to beat OSU in football and they always lose to UNC in basketball, but they’re not a good fit for the ACC either.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Blapples

            “MSU is personally one of my two favorite B1G teams because they tend to beat OSU in football”

            Um, no?

            1998 was soul crushing because that’s still the most talented OSU team I’ve ever watched, but MSU most certainly doesn’t “tend to beat OSU” with regularity. The coming years should be good though. Dantonio has them playing well.

            Like

    7. Transic

      Well, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t figure out whether this would help their case or not. However, the counter-suit does give an insight on how the ACC operates and the classlessness of that organization (my opinion, of course). Heck, they think that they could lord over the East Coast, like the B1G, SEC and PAC “lord over” their respective regions. They thought they could determine who could be left out of P5, P4, whatever, like only they can decide who gets the CFP candy.

      I’m sure that schools like Syracuse, Wake and other private schools are fuming over the November 2012 news and are trying to organize a counterattack to somehow prove that the ACC is the big boy on the block. We’ll see where that goes…

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        Is the ACC any less classy than Maryland itself or the Big Ten when it comes to expansion?

        Tom McMillen, a former Congressman and a member of UMd’s Board of Regents, didn’t think to highly of the way the Big Ten or his university handled the move:

        “When we asked why we couldn’t hear from other stakeholders, we were told that the nondisclosure agreement signed with the Big Ten prevented such a discussion. We were further told that, under the terms of that agreement, Maryland could lose the offer and the university president could be held personally liable if details were divulged.

        “Maryland couldn’t even discuss the proposal with the Atlantic Coast Conference, to which it had belonged for nearly 60 years and had helped found. The board members were each given a single piece of paper outlining the proposal, and it was taken away when Monday’s meeting ended. I get more documentation when I buy a cell phone.

        …

        “Right now, universities and their boards are captive to a process controlled by the commissioners of the various athletic conferences. Commissioners managing hundreds of millions of dollars are extorting what they need from the universities, and the schools are powerless to stand up to them. We need a national solution to end this practice. What happened at Maryland is just another case where outside athletic forces dictated terms to a university. Once more the tail wags the dog; once more athletics distorts higher education.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/big-ten-big-mistake/2012/11/21/75844dca-335e-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

        During the Povich Symposium this past fall, a moderated panel discussion at the university discussing the pros & cons of the move to the Big Ten, McMillen also vented his frustration that he could not say anything to Swofford, other ACC executives, or other ACC university administrators when they called him to ask what was going on once the rumors started swirling. He felt that was not the way to treat schools it had done business with for over 60 years, or even longer, dating to the Southern Conference era.

        Personally, I don’t find any of this stuff classy. There’s a lot of petty junk being thrown around, on all sides, all in self-serving interests. I suppose it’s all just business, but no one deserves to be singled out here.

        Like

        Reply
  162. Fabian

    Why would you even bother to mention the “west of the Mississippi” thing anyway? Is there some legal thing where if Minnesota (let’s say) was contacted, the lawsuit would have go to a different district court?

    Like

    Reply
      1. Fabian

        Oh, I agree — it just seems kind of an odd thing to mention, unless you are trying to telegraph who it is without saying it. “They aren’t west of the Mississippi, they aren’t within a four hour drive from a large body of water, they aren’t…….”

        Or they are just throwing the reporters a bone, cancelling out the three schools least likely to be contacted anyway.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Mike

          It made sense in context. Maryland claimed that due to travel concerns there are only three possible options for its membership (conferences with most members east of the Mississippi): The SEC, B1G, and ACC. By attempting to raid the B1G after Maryland moved, Maryland was claiming this was one example of anti-competitive behavior (they listed others).

          Like

          Reply
    3. Transic

      If they think that the GoR’s are breakable, would that not put them in an even more vulnerable position? Also, let’s not forget that Fox could bankroll a massive counter-counter-attack if they want to.

      Like

      Reply
        1. Michael in Raleigh

          Officials from Wake Forest and Pitt (not sure if it was the presidents, AD’s, or whomever) supposedly talked with officials from two Big Ten schools about joining the ACC. The Wake & Pitt officials would have been the ones who supposedly would have thought that GOR’s are breakable.

          Now, even if those officials did think GOR’s are breakable, it certainly doesn’t mean they are. Moreover, that supposed thinking would be rooted in a lack of knowledge of how GOR’s work. That lack of knowledge about all things related to conference realignment, conference revenues, etc., would be consistent with what others from the ACC didn’t know. Remember those e-mails to and from UNC administrators?

          http://frankthetank.me/2013/10/11/one-year-later-a-look-at-unc-conference-realignment-emails/

          Like

          Reply
    1. Kevin

      I would suspect the SEC Network is a good landing spot for TIm. He definitely has SEC bias on his radio show. He lives in SEC country etc… Wonder if that network would be too regional for him. He has bad mouthed various ESPN people over the years so maybe that wouldn’t work. Fox is another option but they are quite a ways from acquiring more properties.

      Like

      Reply
    2. GreatLakeState

      I ‘ll bet he’s headed for SECN. I was more surprised to see that ESPN may not resign Musburger, or choose to sign him to a limited contract. Apparently they want to enter the playoff era with a new signature voice that has years of shelf life. They mentioned Brent’s age (74) as being a reason, but I haven’t noticed that he’s slipped much. Always been a little goofy. I am starting to get the sinking feeling that the BTN (college football coverage)is going to pale in comparison to SECN. BTN has made no real progress, presentation wise, with their football coverage. I realize you can’t compete with ESPN, but cut rate FOX can only cut it for so long.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        ” . . .but I haven’t noticed that he’s slipped much”

        Well yes, he’s been bad for many years now.

        I don’t mean goofy. I mean misidentifying players, who has the ball, what happened on the field, etc. I mean, he’s impressive for a 74 year-old man, but . . . .

        Like

        Reply
          1. ccrider55

            I want simple, good, informative announcing that isn’t a continual advertisement for other/upcoming games. You get a better gamecast from either teams local radio broadcaster. I don’t even mind the probable bias – it’s expected from a teams broadcaster.

            Like

          2. bullet

            Informative he isn’t. For years after he started working colleges, he could still not get the rules right. “That isn’t a catch. He only had 1 foot in bounds.” His co-anchors generally avoid embarrassing him.

            Like

  165. mushroomgod

    What is the legal relevance to MD’s situation of the alleged attempt by the ACC to recruit Big 10 schools after MD had decided to go to the Big 10? Don’t get it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brian

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/01/14/maryland-acc-lawsuit-exit-fees-big-ten/4471441/

      This article explains it a little bit.

      These actions, according to Maryland, are among a series of moves by the ACC that constitute “illegal, retaliatory, and anti-competitive conduct (that) threatens irreparable harm to Maryland and Maryland’s student-athletes, student and alumni fan base, faculty, athletic competitiveness and reputation.”

      …

      Further, Maryland alleges, after the school announced its intention to join the Big Ten, the ACC attempted to strike back by trying to recruit Big Ten schools to leave that conference and join the ACC. Maryland claims that the ACC pursued its overall strategy toward expansion “based in large part on counsel and direction that the Conference” receives from ESPN.

      Maryland’s filing does not claim that ESPN had anything to do with the alleged recruitment efforts of Big Ten schools by representatives from Wake Forest and Pitt. ESPN also has a television rights contract with the Big Ten.

      Like

      Reply
    2. BruceMcF

      They are making an anti-trust claim, and any anti-trust claim has to establish that the market is sufficiently narrow for individual suppliers to hold market power. That is in a section arguing first that the relevant production markets are the P5 conferences, then that the relevant geographic market is east of the Mississippi, so the ACC, Big Ten and SEC, and finally that the SEC would be slumming it academically so its really just the ACC and the Big Ten.

      The feeler going to two Big Ten schools, both east of the Mississippi, is part of the evidence regarding the geographic extent of the market (of suppliers of conference services to schools).

      Like

      Reply
    1. bullet

      Well after Mack Brown resigned and Charlie Strong took over, Bo Davis took the DL job at USC. Texas hired Mark Rumph from Alabama to replace Davis. Alabama, about a week later, hired Davis to come back to Alabama and replace Rumph.

      Net result-Bo Davis worked for 4 coaches in a couple weeks and Texas and Alabama traded defensive line coaches.

      Like

      Reply
    2. bullet

      Assistants do that, but its an unwritten rule that head coaches don’t. Sounds like Vandy didn’t write its buyout very well.

      But it fits with the lack of propriety he’s shown before.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Marc Shepherd

      It’s refreshing whan a coach is brutally honest about what is going on. I don’t care what the LOI says, we all know that most top recruits commit to a coaching staff, not just to a school in the abstract. Obviously, the NCAA will maintain its petty little fiction, but everyone knows it is untrue.

      Like

      Reply
      1. ccrider55

        It’s not a petty little fiction. Kids/parents sign a NLOI. Is there anything in that document that is ambiguous? Are they being misled by the NLOI? The only thing misleading is if a kid signs with a school because of the non binding (and misleading) promise from a coach that he will be there.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to Mike Cancel reply