I don’t exactly have a perfect record of predictions on this blog (as evidenced by the regular stream of friendly visitors from TexAgs that still remind me of what I wrote about Texas A&M and SEC expansion a few years ago), but one big picture issue that I understood from day one (meaning literally right when it was announced in 2006) was that the Big Ten Network would be a massive game changer for the conference and college sports overall. What others saw as vanity project destined to fail compared to the SEC’s then-traditional TV deal with ESPN, with the harshest criticism coming from Big Ten country itself, I looked at as the platform to turn the Big Ten into the New York Yankees of college sports financially. Many sports fans look at the BTN as shooting fish in a barrel money-wise now, but a lot of them have collective amnesia about how much criticism the network took in its first year of existence (including Tom Izzo publicly calling it a “PR nightmare”) and beyond when the SEC signed what was a then-large guaranteed deal with ESPN in 2008. Even when the Big Ten initially announced that it was looking to expand in 2009, many commentators didn’t bother taking into account how much the BTN would drive the process. If it wasn’t clear with the addition of Nebraska (which, despite its small market, could effectively have the BTN charge whatever it wanted to games and Husker fans would pay up), it was blatantly obvious with the expansion with Rutgers (New York/New Jersey market) and Maryland (Washington, DC/Baltimore market).

So, I can imagine how satisfied Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the rest of the conference officials must feel with the BTN on the precipice of capturing the great white whale of college sports: the New York City market. According to the Star-Ledger, BTN has entered into deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision for basic cable carriage of the channel in the NYC area (with discussions with Comcast moving along well). That means every the BTN (and by, extension, every Big Ten school) is going to receive a significant chunk of change from each Time Warner Cable and Cablevision basic subscriber covered under the deal. (Awful Announcing had a back-of-the-napkin calculation of at least $48 million per year for the Big Ten just from this single carriage deal, although that likely overstates the immediate impact since it doesn’t take into account Fox’s 51% ownership interest in the network and various expenses. Still, this market represents tens of millions of dollars per year for the Big Ten solely based on the BTN.) The skeptics of whether Rutgers would pay off for the Big Ten (myself included) are about to eat crow. This was the financial end game for the Big Ten when the expansion process began nearly 5 years ago: the addition of a massive market the size of either Texas or New York for the BTN. The Texas Longhorns weren’t willing partners on the former, so the Big Ten moved onto the latter.

Frankly, the fact that the BTN was able to negotiate a deal this quickly (several months before football season starts) in any part of the New York DMA was surprising (and bodes very well for the Washington and Baltimore markets where Maryland has a stronger sports presence compared to Rutgers in the New York area). Cable and satellite industry consolidation (the ongoing regulatory approval process of the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable and AT&T’s newly announced deal to acquire DirecTV) is likely in the backdrop, while BTN co-owner Fox has the ability to leverage its cross-ownership of YES (and there isn’t much more powerful programming in the NYC market than Yankees games).

Now, no one should be naive enough to believe that this cable TV money train will run into perpetuity. Cord cutting is on the rise and that will likely continue to accelerate among non-sports fans that can get their programming fixes from online sources such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. However, sports are still the killer app when it comes to live TV, which is why NBC/Comcast signed yet another expensive long-term extension of its Olympics rights that will last until I’m close to retirement age in 2032. Meanwhile, the Big Ten itself is gearing up to go to market with its first tier sports rights (with the new contract starting for the 2016 2017 football season) and will almost assuredly sign what will be the largest TV deal in college sports history without even including BTN money in the equation.*

(* For what it’s worth and this is strictly my semi-educated guess, but I believe that the Big Ten will end up with a split of rights between ESPN and Fox similar to how the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals are structured. It makes sense from the exposure and financial perspectives, while ESPN and Fox have clearly shown a willingness to partner with each other on large deals. The latest example of this is the recently-announced MLS/US Soccer deal with ESPN and Fox splitting the rights.)

With the Midwest having a lower proportion of the US population each year**, the East Coast has become a critical focus for the Big Ten out of necessity. The recent announcements of the Big Ten/Big East basketball challenge and the awarding of the Big Ten Tournament to the Verizon Center in Washington, DC in 2017 are important pieces to the league’s Eastern strategy, but the BTN carriage is definitely the clinching factor in all of the B1G plans.

(** Note that this different than the gross misnomer of the Midwest “losing population” that is often perpetuated in the national media, which simply isn’t true. What’s occurring is that the Midwest’s growth is much slower than other regions of the country. Granted, the legacy populations of places like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan are still extremely large to the point where it would still take many years, if not decades, for smaller faster growing states to catch up to them.)

(Image from CBS Chicago)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. ccrider55 says:

    #1?

    Like

  2. swardy76 says:

    Finally!!! oh and Go Eagles!

    Like

  3. greg says:

    Hawkeyes #2.

    Like

  4. vp19 says:

    I called for Maryland to pursue the Big Ten back in 2010…and perhaps in his mind at the time, Delany also was pursuing Maryland. (BTW, the Terps baseball team has qualified for the ACC tournament for the first time since 2005 and almost certainly will receive an NCAA berth.)

    Like

  5. Carl says:

    Franklin

    Like

  6. Transic says:

    Red Team Upstream. And a “buy very low” opportunity as well.

    By the way, you’re very welcome. I would have to thank Maryland the most since, without them, this would have remained a theoretical conversation.

    It’s now a good time to cue up Mr. Gene Corrigan, from back in 2012:

    I hope he’s enjoying his retirement

    Like

  7. jimisawesome says:

    I am a huge skeptic of online content ever at this point making real money. To do a bit of millennial bashing they are not moving to Netflix they are moving to piratebay so while it might hurt long term the only moves the leagues/conferences have is to either ignore them and/or prosecute them. The WWE Network is a failure so far with not even half of the projected subscriber numbers and if they cant get a million fans for the network when they are giving away the PPV at 50 plus dollar discounts I don’t know how anyone else is going to hit the numbers they need. Netflix barely makes margins and the Disney deal has not even started yet which will increase their costs significantly. Amazon Digital does not make money. ITunes for Apple is a low margin business despite them getting 30 percent.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      To do a bit of millennial bashing they are not moving to Netflix they are moving to piratebay so while it might hurt long term the only moves the leagues/conferences have is to either ignore them and/or prosecute them

      I felt the same way about music. Then everyone started using iTunes.

      Like

      • There’s definitely a strong corollary between what happened in music compared to what’s occurring with cable TV. The music industry’s profits in the pre-Internet days were driven by bundling just like basic cable: you’d have to buy an entire album of songs for $15 in order to get the one single that you wanted. I was in college when Napster was created and everyone with what was considered to be a broadband connection back then used it. Who wouldn’t want (a) free music and (b) only the songs that you actually wanted? The rise of iTunes, though, really curbed the emphasis on “free” for my generation. Sure, there are plenty of people on Pirate Bay and other sites simply because they refuse to pay for anything, but once there was a legal option to buy music in a manner where we didn’t feel like we were getting screwed (paying $.99 for the song that you really wanted instead of $15), most people fell back into the world of legitimate commerce.

        So, we can see cord cutters feeling the same way about cable channels: they just want to buy the single (specific networks and/or shows) as opposed to the entire album (all these channels that they don’t watch). That certainly makes sense if you’re not a sports fan – I’d freely admit that sports are the only reason why I keep my satellite description.

        Of course, sporting events aren’t really like singles on a music album (whereas standard scripted TV shows that drive Netflix and Amazon Prime are very comparable to them). Instead, they’re more like music concerts where each is a unique experience. Note that over the past decade, the top musicians no longer tour to drive album sales. Instead, they now put out an album to drive tour ticket sales because that’s where they make the vast majority of their income in the current environment. A concert can’t be passed around on iTunes legally or Pirate Bay illegally in the way that a recorded single can, so that’s where the entire music industry has shifted its focus. (I’ll have to find it, but the Wall Street Journal just had an article a week or two ago examining how album sales have plummeted, but concert revenue is skyrocketing.) What the experience in the music industry means for sports going forward is the trillion dollar question (and probably suited for an entire series of blog posts on its own).

        Like

        • jimisawesome says:

          Piratebay and other pirate sites are still about 85 percent of the music downloads. You sound about the same age as I am and as we started to make money some of us did move over to ITunes then spotifiy and the like but it seems (and the data supports) that those younger then never bought an album in the first place never went the legit route.

          On the concert front its the large headliner concerts and large festive type concerts that are all of the profits. If you are not Lady Gaga level or higher you really are not making money going on tour. The kind of exception here is EDM DJs but even here its the top tier cats that can get a residency deal.

          Like

          • Sean says:

            “If you are not Lady Gaga level or higher you really are not making money going on tour.”

            That is not true in the least. Yes, Lady Gaga (and those like her) might be the only one getting rich from tours. But I personally know several small and medium-sized bands that make a living wage (and some that do even better) through full-time touring.

            The most interesting part of the digital music boom (both in its legal and illegal forms) is the creation of a musical “middle class.” It used to be that you either made a lot of money (and went mainstream, like Nirvana), or you made essentially no money (and stayed underground, like The Melvins, who were a huge influence on Nirvana). Then came the digital revolution, and indie bands could carve out their own tiny piece of the pie through the notoriety that online buzz could generate.

            I know that’s not necessarily the most relevant point to the broader conversation here, but it is true. However, there is another point I’d like to quibble with that is more germane:

            “those younger then never bought an album in the first place never went the legit route.”

            Many in the digital music community have discussed how teens are incredibly open and receptive to the idea of paying for streaming music services – or at the very least, using legal streaming services. Youtube is the biggest music streaming service used by teens and young adults, which is an entirely legal means of listening to music that provides revenue for artists.

            The main contention of younger millennials has nothing to do with wanting to own music without paying for it. People who were coming of age when Napster dawned were, as Frank said, getting shafted continually. But they were also people that valued actual ownership of music. Initially that manifested itself as wanting to own music that existed only in the digital sphere. Eventually, it just served the purpose of devaluing recorded music.

            The consequence of the digitization of media is that it eventually caused people to view recorded music as something that you don’t need to “own.” As such, some kids might not want to pay $.99 to own one song, but they don’t bat an eyelash at spending $10 a month to have every song they’d ever want to listen to at their fingertips without having to go through the trouble of searching for torrents, waiting for downloads, transferring media, etc. It’s no different in many of their minds than the monthly fee to play on XBox Live.

            Just ask guys like Dave Allen (formerly of the punk band Gang of Four, these days a leader in the world of digital music/technology). They’ll tell you that streaming is indeed the future, and it is something “the kids” are into.

            And again, the second point is very relevant to the conversation at hand. Streaming services (whether related to music, like Spotify, or the WWE Network) might not be THE dominant form of media consumption in the next three years, but they will sometime very soon. The WWE is allowing its app to be a loss leader for the moment, because they know their fans will eventually get on board…especially when there are 10-year-olds now who weren’t “introduced” to the idea of streaming media. They were born into it.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.

            That probably does have some relevance to sports TV and attendance.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.

            @bullet – I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, but check out what Neal Young is doing.

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/tech/mobile/neil-young-pono-kickstarter/index.html

            Like

          • Sean says:

            “One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.”

            Some aren’t, some are There’s also the explosion of vinyl’s popularity over the last few years, driven at least in part by people under 25. Nothing convenient and portable about vinyl LPs. It’s more of a recognition that different mediums serve different purposes. Listening to an album on a turntable is an entirely different experience than streaming an album on your phone.

            “That probably does have some relevance to sports TV and attendance.”

            Not necessarily. One reason why audio quality isn’t as much of a concern for many (particularly when discussing music’s portability), is because when you’re on the run or streaming on your phone, you’re usually (though not always) listening to music passively. It’s on in the background while you’re doing something else. That’s what makes listening to music on a turntable different. It’s not as passive (or passive at all), because you’re forced to interact with the music…even if just to put it on and flip it.

            Similarly, if you’re streaming sports on a mobile device, it wouldn’t be a passive experience at all. As such, I’d say that most folks would very much care about quality, because they’d be actively trying to get the best possible experience given the circumstances.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Sean
            One of the things every is trying to do is improve WiFi and phone service in their stadiums. So the desire to be able to do all those things while at the stadium-or to choose not to go to the stadium because you want to do those things, is relevant.

            Like

          • Sean says:

            @bullet

            I’m not debating that. I was saying “kids” accepting lower quality audio via streaming services isn’t relevant to the conversation. Of course the desire for portability and convenience is relevant. Convenience is what almost the entire debate about streaming services and media consumption is about these days.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Sean:

            And bullet is saying the investment is being made to improve the quality of the convenience. Why force an either/or decision if it can be avoided? Provide both, in the stadium.

            Like

          • Sean says:

            @ccrider55

            Again, I’m not debating that point at all in the least.

            I was only saying that his example of a willingness to accept lower quality music via streaming isn’t a helpful analogy here, because the experience of consuming media passively (which you do with music) is different than consuming media actively (which you do with sports). That’s it.

            Like

        • Well, actually I’d venture that sports channels are a LOT like singles on a music albums. Music concerts are single events where the cost incurred to the host by me buying a ticket is that there are fewer tickets left to sell since capacity is constrained at some amount.

          Live sports events in terms of ticket sales are like live concerts, but sports channels really aren’t, since the marginal cost of selling a sports channel subscription is zero or, more accurately, something really low (there’s probably a bit over account management and data transmission expense, but it’s trivial).

          In a lot of ways, i’d expect the long-term impact of unbundling to be similar to what happened to music: profits for the rights holders go down by a bunch, but it’s still substantially profitable. That’s actually one of the really big risks for the B1G and the Pac-12, that before long their self-owned cable rights won’t be nearly as valuable as they once were.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “That’s actually one of the really big risks for the B1G and the Pac-12, that before long their self-owned cable rights won’t be nearly as valuable as they once were.”

            It isn’t any bigger than being completely dependent on an independent profit driven media entities. I’d argue that, if wholly owned and having completed most startup/infrastructure cost, the conference’s see value in their networks beyond the dollars attributed to singular event broadcasts. ESPN/Fox/nbc/etc would have a hard time justifying the recruiting and promotion of entire conferences general student populations to their shareholders. The B1G/PAC primary shareholders are the COP/C. They may/do have a different perspective as to the value of certain investments.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            DeLoss Dodds made the comment that the SEC schools would be making a bunch of money on their network, but they would only be 1/14th of the content.

            For Texas, certainly, the LHN money is merely a bonus. Its really about having 24 hour a day school advertising.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I disagree that 1/14 is a direct correlation to the value. The attractiveness needs to be of a critical mass. The within conference competitions (and OOC) games add more value/attractiveness to every member participating in a network, including UT. The SEC network will be worth much more than the added together value of 14 individual deals. And even the kings won’t be missing out on much (if any), while gaining the value of a strengthened and united conference.

            I agree UT shares the attitude of the non monetary value of the conference/school network. Which is why I keep pointing out that only the B1G and PAC actually have conference owned networks. The others are financial arrangements with strictly profit driven media companies, who actually own the networks and purchase broadcast rights. They are just like previous deals, with the addition of a channel (ESPN8, 9, 12, etc) to broadcast on. IF (and I don’t expect it to happen) live sports broadcasts were to drop in monetary value to where they were just above break even, which ownership group would likely look for another avenue for profit and which will feel the network is still fulfilling its mission?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The Pac 12 is kind of doing both by having the two team subsidiary networks which mostly get coverage in their own areas, but not outside.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes and no. You get the national and the regional. You don’t get the out of region channel over TV, but have access to everything that’s televised through streaming. It’s rarely a problem with FB as unless there is multiple broadcast overlaps games not on Fox/ESPN are on the national/regional mirror. Plus a lot of events not on the P12N are streamed on the PAC12.com. I actually prefer those as they borrow the radio broadcast from the home site instead of inserting their own broadcasters who may have little/no knowledge or association with either, let alone both of the schools, like the local broadcaster usually has from years of seeing/following the conference as it effects the teams he covers.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            DeLoss has bad math skills … the most valuable content is live games, and many of the live games present two conference schools at the same time, so it likely adds up to something more like 1/10th of the content per school … over a broader coverage footprint.

            Like

    • jimisold says:

      Is the concept of keeping your margins low in order to keep competitors out of your space beyond you?

      Like

    • metatron says:

      Well, I can say from anecdotal experience that you’re wrong – most twenty-somethings I know are subscribed to Netflix and if people do pirate things, it’s largely because there’s no easy way to get access to some content (largely because content creators either overvalue their properties or they’re pushing out a “competitor” to Netflix). Have you ever tried to pirate live television? It’s difficult and terrible at best.

      Besides, comparing the WWE to actual sports is laughable. They are utterly incomparable in both scope and appeal. The only hindrance to online distribution would be the Standard Oil-esque tactics of Comcast and other ISPs to either extort or dissuade competition to their existing services, but Net Neutrality is another topic for another time.

      Like

      • jimisawesome says:

        How are content creators overvaluing their content when Netflix is overpaying like crazy for content. Take House of Cards as an example where their offer was over 25 percent more then anyone else was offering and for less rights in return. Or the new Disney deal where they are paying more then 50 percent more then anyone else was offering.

        Why is the WWE comparison laughable? Except for football and NCAA Mens tournament it draws similar or bigger numbers then the other sports leagues. Yeah its scripted so what they are all entertainment. The WWE Network was offering more value then any of the sports leagues can offer at this point too with PPVs especially WrestleMania included in the 10 dollars a month. The NFL cant do that because the SB is on free TV and so are most of its games.

        Like

  8. Pat says:

    Go Blue!

    Like

  9. bikemore says:

    This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      If UVa wanted to join the Big Ten, it would become member #15 with no trouble whatsoever. The question is who to get at #16? It won’t be Connecticut as long as it’s not AAU, and UNC probably wouldn’t be swayed by the Cavs changing conferences. (Duke might, as it could re-brand itself as the Northwestern of the east, but would the B1G feel likewise? I’m skeptical.)

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        More like NW needs to rebrand itself the Duke or Stanford of the Midwest. Duke simply has more balance as an ADept than NW in terms of NCAA titles & per sport – they also have a well-grounded status in men’s hoops – a so-called blue blood. Their academics, across the board, measure up to NW & even surpass them in most publications.. For now, they simply have more upside than NW.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Except NW is already a member of a Big Three conference, so they don’t have a scenario where they are marketing themselves to a conference.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        vp19,

        “If UVa wanted to join the Big Ten, it would become member #15 with no trouble whatsoever. The question is who to get at #16?”

        I disagree, but only in the sense that your question is exactly the trouble that could keep UVA out. The B10 would be happy to have them, but unless/until rules change they need a partner. That list is essentially UNC and Duke, I think. Maybe GT or KU.

        “It won’t be Connecticut as long as it’s not AAU, and UNC probably wouldn’t be swayed by the Cavs changing conferences.”

        The only potential to get UNC would be if the B10’s payout predictions come true and the ACC can’t get much from (or instead of) an ACCN. If the B10 is making $10M more per school than the ACC annually, they have to think about it.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).

      UConn becomes a weaker candidate. If BTN has basic carriage in NYC, then adding UConn won’t earn them any more money, aside from the relatively small Connecticut market. UVa becomes a stronger candidate, because if a 98-pound weakling like Rutgers gets basic carriage in its home market, surely UVa would.

      By the way, Virginia is the second most populous state contiguous to the Big Ten footprint. New York is #1, but there is no school that delivers the whole state. If Rutgers was good enough to get basic carriage in NYC, then the Big Ten has gotten pretty much all that they wanted out of the transaction.

      If UVa joined the B1G, then the next most populous state contiguous to the Big Ten footprint would be North Carolina. I think I see a pattern here. If that happened, then Georgia would be next, and if that happened Florida would be next (again, that’s going by population in each case).

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bikemore,

      “This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).”

      UVA – No change. They bring academics and a sizable state.

      UConn – Weaker, if that’s even possible. Their only hope was to be seen as needed to get into NYC. If BTN has already managed that (and I remain unconvinced on that point), then UConn is worthless.

      Like

      • bikemore says:

        Unfortunately, there really are no details as to what basic carriage means in this instance, particularly on the amount charged per subscriber. Without that information, we have no way of knowing what additional income UConn would likely bring.

        Like

      • HuskyFan Dan says:

        You’ll eat your words.

        Like

    • Transic says:

      I think if it’s proven that BTN can give substantial numbers from Md/RU then I think the focus should shift to the West again. At the very least, to smooth over hurt feelings in the old footprint about the fear of moving away from Big Ten traditions.

      OU/KU, anyone?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Transic,

        “I think if it’s proven that BTN can give substantial numbers from Md/RU then I think the focus should shift to the West again.”

        Nobody in the west except UT solves any of the problems the B10 was trying to address by expansion. Besides, the last thing the B10 needs to do is stretch farther east to west. I’m not saying you say no to UT if they ask to join, but who else in the west is worth actively chasing? Now that we’re stuck with RU and UMD, the B10 is committed to the east. Going west just adds problems.

        “At the very least, to smooth over hurt feelings in the old footprint about the fear of moving away from Big Ten traditions.”

        We’re upset about not playing each other enough, so the answer is to expand even more? We’re upset about moving into a second region, so the answer is to add a third region?

        “OU/KU, anyone?”

        As a sports fan, sure. As a B10 president, hell no. VA (8.3M) has a lot more people than OK (3.9M) and KS (2.9M) combined. KU’s academics are borderline for the B10 and OU is well below that. KU would add yet another horrible football team, too. I’m not convinced OU football and KU hoops make up for that to the COP/C.

        Besides, how did OkSU and KSU get dropped and what happened to UT? The B10 would much rather have UT than OU or KU.

        Like

        • XOVERX says:

          You cant’ get Texas without adding Oklahoma. I doubt you get Oklahoma without adding Kansas.

          You add Oklahoma and the B1G has a significant opportunity to add Texas, since without Oklahoma the B12 essentially collapses.

          So … you add Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and you’ve got a helluva western wing to the B1G, bracketing the SEC in the west.

          Add those 3, and you can still finish off the northern end of the NE Corridor, plus two ACC schools to boot, sitting pretty at a 20 school B1G, busted up into pods of 5.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            XOVERX,

            “You cant’ get Texas without adding Oklahoma. I doubt you get Oklahoma without adding Kansas.

            You add Oklahoma and the B1G has a significant opportunity to add Texas, since without Oklahoma the B12 essentially collapses.”

            I doubt the COP/C will accept OU. KU is borderline and probably doesn’t add enough to be worth expansion, but they could be a solid #16 sort of school.

            I’m also not convinces that UT wants to come north. I think they’d prefer to take TT, OU and KU west to the P12 if they had to leave the B12.

            “So … you add Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and you’ve got a helluva western wing to the B1G, bracketing the SEC in the west.

            Add those 3, and you can still finish off the northern end of the NE Corridor, plus two ACC schools to boot, sitting pretty at a 20 school B1G, busted up into pods of 5.”

            Who says we want 20 schools? How is that a conference, especially in football? Even with pods and no locked rivals, you’d play most schools once every 3 years. Pods of 5 are also really hard to do without needing locked rivals.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            When did Kansas relocate to Stillwater?

            Like

  10. Richard says:

    The B10 failed to land their 2 big white whales: The top-tier brand of ND & the massive population of TX, so they got the next best things: the top-tier brand of the Huskers & the massive population of the East Coast.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      And far fewer ego problems than Notre Dame and Texas present. At least Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers don’t believe they’re bigger than the game — all better fit the Big Ten philosophy.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Agreed. Same reasoning when I suggested the P12 may have been a winner by not landing the Longhorns (unless it was as an equal, with no exceptions).

        Like

      • Brian says:

        On the other hand, you’re glossing over the down sides.

        1. Both ND and UT are more valuable brands than NE.

        2. ND and UT have a lot more fans than NE, RU and UMD. According to Nate Silver, ND and UT are #4 and #5 in terms of fans while NE is #18. They almost each have as many as the other 3 combined.

        http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

        3. If we added UT, would we have stopped at 12 with NE still available? Also add ND (13) and then RU for maximal NYC penetration? Either way, we’d be getting even bigger payouts.

        4. We wouldn’t have diluted the football brand as much.

        Like

      • XOVERX says:

        This is crazy talk. Who cares about “egos” if those egos are Texas and Notre Dame?

        I mean, seriously.

        You add Texas and ND, you’ve massively sweetened the pot for every school in the entire B1G.

        And when that big Texas and Notre Dame ego comes calling, you politely remind each school that they can vote any way they want, laughing as you remind yourself each has only 1 vote.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You care about egos when you’re talking about potentially disrupting the harmony that the B10 has internally. You care about egos if you’re a smaller brand and realize that makes 6 football kings plus several princes, or enough to start passing rules that favor the bigger brands more.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      Agreed, if you take the growth from 11 to 14 and consider it as one big expansion then the complementary aspects of the schools (athletics, academics, demographics) do make things look better. Unfortunately we needed 3 schools to do it instead of 1 (UT).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Realistically, Texas wasn’t ever going to come just by itself, however. Then again, realistically, Texas wasn’t ever going to come, period.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Agreed.

          Without knowing which other 2 might have come, it’s hard to analyze them anyway.

          Like

          • XOVERX says:

            Nice deconstruction there ccrider55 and brian. And who knows — maybe the B1G could care less about a school like Texas, there’s some kind of probability associated with that view.

            Then again, circumstances change over time. Delany’s view of Mizz has certainly changed over time.

            ccrider55 is right — Texas and its herd will always be able to find a nice, comfy home if the need ever arises, that’s for sure.

            As for a league of 20, there’s been plenty of smoke out of the B1G for a league of 20, from Gee to, I think, even Delany.

            Onward through the fog.

            Like

        • XOVERX says:

          Both of your comments are correct up to this point in time. But I think it’s entirely possible to force Texas into the B1G if Delany ever decides to become Machiavellian enough to do so.

          Right now Texas is tickled to death with its LHN receiving nationwide carriage over DISH, with the DirecTV carriage imminent (by then end of 2014). Therefore, Texas will do everything in its power to keep the B12 glued together.

          Some of the glue is pretty strong because the B12 has the biggest “per school” payout from all forms of TV revenues (contract, bowls, television Tier 3) than any other conference. OTOH, the B12 has only 2 football anchors — Texas and Oklahoma — now that Nebraska, A&M, Mizz, and CU are gone. If Oklahoma ever becomes unhappy, and migrates out of the B12, then the B12 is not a viable football league for Texas, LHN or not.

          So what might make Oklahoma unhappy?

          First, f the B1G really does command $45M per school beginning in 2017, increasing thereafter over the life of the new TV contract, that kind of money would dwarf what OU might expect from the B12. The B12 estimates $40M-$45M per school around 2025, but nowhere near that in 2017.

          Second, the B12 better find a way to draw the attention of TV viewers outside of the tiny B12 footprint, or the networks might not be so generous when the B12 TV contract nears the window for renegotiation. The SEC, for example, is beginning to own the TV ratings in the City of Houston, and I think the poor ratings are a direct result of uninteresting matchups offered by the B12.

          Let’s look at the B12.

          First, being continuous with the B1G, there is a huge number of Kansas folks with a natural affinity for the B1G. If the money disparity is significant between the B12 and B1G after 2017, and only growing thereafter, and if the B12 TV ratings remain deficient, then the B1G may be able to interest Kansas.

          If the B1G interests Kansas, then Oklahoma will undoubtedly be interested as well. Nobody wants to stay in a league that continually experiences defections.

          If the B1G is then willing to offer a non-AAU Oklahoma (a big ‘if”, true), then OU might well follow Kansas into the B1G. The B12 could survive a Kansas defection. The B12 cannot survive an Oklahoma defection. The glue cannot hold.

          As goes OU, so goes the B12. And Texas as well.

          There are influential boosters (and fans) of both UT and OU that want the schools to stay together. When the B12 is faced with its final calamity — the migration of KU and OU — then Texas will have no choice but to make a move.

          That means either the B1G, the PAC, the ACC, or the SEC. I put my money on Texas following OU into the B1G.

          The B1G would be very attractive to Texas, under these circumstances: Like-minded land grant flagship universities. The CIC. Potential academic association with the Ivy League academically. And most importantly of all: The huge metropolitan cities of the northern tier into the NE Corridor, including NYC, in which Texas can obtain vast new exposure and markets (to sell its t-shirts, trinkets, and junk). Plus, the B1G is an excellent athletic conference, too.

          There are some who say Texas could no longer recruit if it joined the B1G, but this seems hysterical to me. Texas can’t recruit in a league with Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Kansas? Balderdash. Pure silliness.

          I don’t know — maybe Delany doesn’t want to be responsible for the demise of an entire conference? But the opportunity to force Texas may well arise, depending on what kind of money the BTN commands during the up-coming negotiations.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The PAC presidents and chancellors said no to OU, and you expect the B1G to invite them? They would only get to the PAC (with OkSU and ToTo, too) as a requirement of UT. Kansas had a place before Utah joined with CU during the UT/PAC16 almost at the start of the decade. UT, if it ever needs to go somewhere else, will go where it can take as much of its herd as it can.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            XOVERX,

            “Both of your comments are correct up to this point in time.”

            Well, we were discussing the past so that’s all that really matters.

            “But I think it’s entirely possible to force Texas into the B1G if Delany ever decides to become Machiavellian enough to do so.”

            Nobody outside of TX can force UT to go anywhere.

            Right now Texas is tickled to death with its LHN receiving nationwide carriage over DISH, with the DirecTV carriage imminent (by then end of 2014). Therefore, Texas will do everything in its power to keep the B12 glued together.

            “If Oklahoma ever becomes unhappy, and migrates out of the B12, then the B12 is not a viable football league for Texas, LHN or not.

            So what might make Oklahoma unhappy?”

            UT leaving. They’re okay with anything else.

            “First, being continuous with the B1G, there is a huge number of Kansas folks with a natural affinity for the B1G. If the money disparity is significant between the B12 and B1G after 2017, and only growing thereafter, and if the B12 TV ratings remain deficient, then the B1G may be able to interest Kansas.”

            But why would KU interest the B10? Do they add more than $45M to the conference each year? Their academics are borderline for the B10, so that’s no help. KS isn’t a large or rapidly growing state.

            “If the B1G interests Kansas, then Oklahoma will undoubtedly be interested as well. Nobody wants to stay in a league that continually experiences defections.

            If the B1G is then willing to offer a non-AAU Oklahoma (a big ‘if”, true), then OU might well follow Kansas into the B1G.”

            The B10 told OU no once already.

            “I don’t know — maybe Delany doesn’t want to be responsible for the demise of an entire conference?”

            He doesn’t. He’s said so before.

            Like

  11. Nostradamus says:

    Frank,
    “(with the new contract starting for the 2016 football season”
    The current deal goes through the 2016 football season. The new deal will start the following year.

    Like

  12. Transic says:

    I’ve thought of this possibility recently, as far-fetched as it is. What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference? Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities. The 8 PAC schools could be their own division, with the schools from the B1G West forming a central division, along with OK, KS. Purdue would move to the eastern division, no longer needing to have their games w/ IU protected. Olympic sports would have to be regionalized, maybe along divisional lines. I doubt you could make an economic case for flying a women’s volleyball team across 3,000 miles one week and then another 1,000 miles the next week. So better to be safe and regionalize them. Basketball would be a doozy, since you’re going to rely on them to carry more of the financial burden after football season is over. But, by then, recruiting might become irreversibly national, when schools are competing for every young body to play sports for them. Also, what replaces the P5 would be able to take March Madness into their production, so as to not share as much with the NCAA.

    Just brainstorming here.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      OU leaving OrSt. behind, UDub leaving WSU behind, and UA leaving ASU behind.

      Hmm. Nope, not happening.

      I also don’t see the ACC “gaining so much power”.

      The next shoe to drop is the dissolution of the B12. That will happen far before the Pac breaks apart. Actually, a ton of improbable stuff are more likely to happen than the Pac breaking apart.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Transic,

      “I’ve thought of this possibility recently, as far-fetched as it is. What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference?”

      Why would the P12 want to drop 4 schools and add 2 in the plains instead, let alone 14 in the midwest and east? They have a big TV deal as is.

      Also, why would the B10 want to merge with them? They are the current kings of TV money and conference payouts.

      “Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities.”

      Why would you make that assumption? The B10 is about to take a temporary but commanding lead in total payouts once the new TV deal is signed. Everyone else is locked into their current deals through the 2023 season or longer (2023 – P12, SEC, 2024 – B12, 2026 – ACC).

      “The 8 PAC schools could be their own division, with the schools from the B1G West forming a central division, along with OK, KS. Purdue would move to the eastern division, no longer needing to have their games w/ IU protected.”

      East = PSU, OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
      Central = OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, KU
      West = USC, UCLA, UW, OR, Cal, Stanford, AZ, CO

      That really kills the B10, with 5 of the old 10 in each division. Assuming 7 division games with 2 crossovers, teams like IL would only see OSU or MI once every 8 years. Most of the new schools would have locked rivalries that would be their 10th game (USC, Stanford, UW, OR, AZ, CO, OU, KU), so I don’t see 10 conference games. Maybe the B10 teams could play each other OOC, but it would still stink.

      “Basketball would be a doozy, since you’re going to rely on them to carry more of the financial burden after football season is over. But, by then, recruiting might become irreversibly national, when schools are competing for every young body to play sports for them.”

      Hoops recruiting is already national. The good players go all over the country now.

      ***

      Wouldn’t just merging with the B10 make more sense? Each conference becomes a division instead without crossover games (except as OOC), allowing those with a locked rival to stay at 10 home and home games.

      The CCG could go back and forth but would have to be indoors in the midwest.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference? Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities.

      It’s hard to see what series of events would make the ACC so powerful that it would provoke that kind of response. But even if the ACC becomes a juggernaut, a B1G-P12 merger would be dilutive to the B1G, since the P12’s TV deal is worse, and will probably always be.

      Like

      • Transic says:

        It’s hard to see what series of events would make the ACC so powerful that it would provoke that kind of response.

        How about That Media Company From Bristol Connecticut? They’re all in on protecting the ACC and push the narrative when they run out of SEC bullets.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          They’ve had that interest for a long time now, yet the ACC is still where it is.

          Methinks you really overestimate ESPN’s influence.

          Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          Espn can push them all that they want. It comes down to fans. The ACC, except for a few brands, lacks them in both alumni and t-shirt fans. The SEC has a ton of t-shirt fans in a region without for the most part pro sports. Plus the majority of SEC schools are the flagship university for their respective states which attract t-shirt fans even in down times. Same goes for the BIG who also have a ton of alumni on top of being the states flagship institutions. The ACC lacks large enrollments and flagship status.

          The ACC becoming such a power to threaten the PAC and BIG is borderline ridiculous.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Especially since, aside from Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and to a lesser extent Georgia Tech and Miami, its members possess no real, sustained football culture. SU and Pitt have wonderful histories in the sport, but neither has kept it going for a long period of time since the ’60s (for the Orange) and ’70s (for the Panthers).

            Like

  13. Brian says:

    Frank,

    1. Thank you for the new post. The old one was taking forever to load. I’m guessing 2714 comments is a record. here’s hoping we don’t approach that again.

    2. The new TV deal starts in 2017, not 2016.

    3. Am I the only one that thinks this announcement isn’t very clear about exactly what the BTN just got?

    http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_network_strikes_deals_with_time_warner_cablevision_for_local_distribution.html

    Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, confirmed Monday that the network had reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market.

    “In the market” is vague. It could just mean NJ.

    “Broadly distribute” doesn’t necessarily mean expanded basic, especially in . We certainly don’t know what rate they got.

    I’m glad the negotiations went so quickly and painlessly, and I hope the rest do as well, but I’d prefer to wait for more details to leak before jumping for joy.

    4. As for the future deal, you may be right. I’m sure the B10 wishes FOX had a few more years of successful CFB broadcasting under their belt, though. The real question is where the B10 wants to put the additional inventory, on the BTN or on someone else’s network. I know we don’t want to lose ESPN, and I’m not sure there’s much room for FOX. FOX only showed 17 regular season games last year with 50 on FS1.

    http://www.lsufootball.net/archives/tvschedule-2013.htm
    By my count, this is how the B10 got on TV last year (home games only):
    ABC – 8
    ESPN – 9
    ESPN2 – 9
    mirror – 13
    ESPNU – 3
    BTN – 46

    Total – 88

    old deal – 12 teams with about 84 games (~36 OOC, 48 B10 games)
    2017 – 14 teams with roughly 98 games (~35 OOC, 63 B10 games)

    How many of those 42 games on the ESPN family, or of the 14 new ones, are you expecting the B10 to move to FOX/FS1?

    Maybe the B10 tries to match the SEC/CBS deal with a B10/FOX game of the week? Or will ESPN pay even more to have the same number of games but better choices with the BTN getting more games? Does the B10 want to risk losing ABC Saturday night games to play on FOX?

    5. As for the population migration, all things are cyclical. Global warming may start to drive some people out of the west and south due to droughts and extreme heat. As more midwestern states become right to work states, the odds of a new industry moving in improves.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      re: point number 3: I think everyone sees the lack of clarity and specifics. In the previous thread, the first link to an article about the new deal with Cablevision and TW mentioned that no details were provided on the payout.

      But, remember, we are in a world where perception often matters more than reality. Now it is “yay, BTN and B1G got lots of $$.” That drives the brand, drives the “buzz,” and drives the next deal.

      If it turns out in a year or two that someone gets the details and Awful Announcing overshot the estimate by 400%, oh well. That will be history and no one will care. I note that exactly the same thing has happened with the PAC-12 deal. It was reported as “wowowowowowwowow” but lately some of the PAC-12 ADs have come forth with the “real” facts about the $$ (to wit, not what it was presented as).

      Plus, as with many things, once your foot is in the door, you might leverage a better deal the next “re-up.” So, maybe the BTN is not getting 80 per subscriber; maybe only 40 cents. That is still 30 cents more than the estimated BTN payout for “out-of-footprint” subscribers.

      As said, the “buzz” around the NYC/NJ deal might help “snooker/stampede” a few more cents-per-subscriber from the cable providers in DC/Maryland.

      And the “buzz” from that helps “snooker/stampede” a few more million from ESpin/Fox/whomever with the upcoming 1st/2nd Tier rights negotiations.

      In short, vagueness has its value. I think “jumping for joy” is warranted (but only, like, one or two jumps; beyond that it would be silly 🙂 )

      Like

    • Wainscott says:

      “How many of those 42 games on the ESPN family, or of the 14 new ones, are you expecting the B10 to move to FOX/FS1?”

      I dunno if that many games will migrate from ESPN to Fox. Starting in 2017, with 7 games a week, there could be enough content to spread it around (3/4 for ABC/ESPN,1/2 for Fox/FS1, 1/2 for BTN).

      “Maybe the B10 tries to match the SEC/CBS deal with a B10/FOX game of the week?”

      Fox MLB games might make that difficult in September/October. Could also cost the more plum 330 ABC/ESPN mirror slot.

      “Or will ESPN pay even more to have the same number of games but better choices with the BTN getting more games?”

      This is the real question: if ESPN/ABC has an exclusive negotiation period before the present deal expires, do they overpay in order to prevent Fox from getting any additional B1G games? I could very easily see ESPN doing that.

      “Does the B10 want to risk losing ABC Saturday night games to play on FOX?”

      If the rights are split in the next deal, I would expect schedules to be done such that Fox would have the B1G network primetime game on weeks that ABC has another conference on in primetime. I would be stunned if Delany would do anything to jeopardize that ABC primetime slot. But as it is, the B1G averages 6-8 ABC primetime games a year, so that leaves 4-6 games that Fox could potentially bid on, including some of the new November games. FS1 could also get a lesser Saturday night primetime game some weeks, as ESPN and ESPN2 on Saturday nights are SEC games.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Wainscott,

        “I dunno if that many games will migrate from ESPN to Fox. Starting in 2017, with 7 games a week, there could be enough content to spread it around (3/4 for ABC/ESPN,1/2 for Fox/FS1, 1/2 for BTN).”

        I don’t see the BTN carrying fewer games than they do now. They averaged over 3 per week last season.

        “This is the real question: if ESPN/ABC has an exclusive negotiation period before the present deal expires, do they overpay in order to prevent Fox from getting any additional B1G games? I could very easily see ESPN doing that.”

        Do they have slots to carry these extra games?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          ESPN could put them on the LHN. It only has one game (or more, if they buy them) per year.

          Just kidding. But it does demonstrate that ESPN has a way to create shelf space for additional inventory. Question is, is it worth the cost for just a few additional games not going elsewhere?

          Like

      • Wainscott says:

        “I don’t see the BTN carrying fewer games than they do now. They averaged over 3 per week last season.”

        I could see it happen if it wouldnt cost any carriage fees/simulcasts an ESPN production (Like NFLN simulcasting CBS for TNF).

        “Do they have slots to carry these extra games?”

        I assume so, especially with the SECN coming online. Would also depend on contracts with other conferences (Moving ACC games to ESPNU, etc…).

        Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      “Broadly distribute” doesn’t necessarily mean expanded basic,
      They didn’t get expanded basic on Omaha. It is available to anyone with digital cable, but expanded basic analog customers, which there are still a fair number of are shut out here on Cox.

      Like

    • Transic says:

      If only there was a viable media package that could be a proper replacement for the E-Spin channels…

      Like

    • bullet says:

      All very, very reasonable.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’d enjoy seeing freshman eligibility go away, especially in hoops with the NBA’s one and done rule. Make everyone redshirt their freshman year, then they get 4 years of eligibility. No more 6th years, no matter what. If you have to sit out a year (for your second transfer, for example), you lose that year.

        I also like to see them pushing the APR even higher. I’d prefer they push the eligibility limits higher, though. These are college athletes, and academic success should be required.

        Like

        • SpaceTetra says:

          This would cause the creation of numerous Branden Jennings clones. High School -> Europe.
          Not sure the NCAA would be happy about that.

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Going to Europe did not actually help Brandon Jennings’ draft stock.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/sports/basketball/24recruit.html

            http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1567507-will-aquille-carr-taking-brandon-jennings-path-to-nba-help-or-hurt-draft-stock

            “You might recall Brandon Jennings going this route, choosing to play in Italy for a year as opposed to playing in college.

            While abroad, Jennings played 17 minutes a night and averaged 5.5 points and 2.2 assists per game. And remember, Jennings was also the consensus No. 1- ranked point guard recruit coming out of high school.

            * * *

            With a tough setting for scouts to evaluate in and a small sample size to study, Jennings’ stock took a hit before he was ever able to boost it.

            The 2009 NBA draft saw guards James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Stephen Curry and DeMar DeRozan all get taken ahead of Jennings, who ended up going No. 10 overall, much later than he was projected to go the summer before.”

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Why would the NCAA care. The point is to discourage the one and done, rent a player thing that does very little for, and arguably damages the collegiate brand and loyalty.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Unless the new model damages the NCAA bball brand (by making sure that virtually none of the top bball talent are ever there) more than the current one-and-done model.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I prefer supporting actual school oriented (students) teams, not mercenaries wearing their uniforms.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            OK, but do most NCAA bball fans?

            Not what they say but what they do. It’d be interesting to see how NCAA bball revenues were back when HS’ers went straight to the NBA compared to the one-and-done era.

            Like

  14. BuckeyeBeau says:

    g’morning.

    Like

  15. Mike says:

    (* For what it’s worth and this is strictly my semi-educated guess, but I believe that the Big Ten will end up with a split of rights between ESPN and Fox similar to how the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals are structured. It makes sense from the exposure and financial perspectives, while ESPN and Fox have clearly shown a willingness to partner with each other on large deals. The latest example of this is the recently-announced MLS/US Soccer deal with ESPN and Fox splitting the rights.)

    @Frank –

    This is probably the most likely outcome, but let me throw something else out there.

    From reading Matt Sarz’s posts I’ve got the impression that Fox and ESPN have more content than time slots to air it, especially over the air. My guess is that Comcast’s bid will center around nation wide games on NBC (bid with more exposure instead of over paying) and NBCSN. Therefore, I would not be surprised at all to see ESPN partner with CBS to put Big Ten games OTA nation wide similar to the SEC’s CBS/ESPN split, to be competitive with the exposure Comcast is offering. The (formerly) ABC regional/reverse mirror B1G games would become ESPN exclusives. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see CBSSN get some B1G games that used to air on ESPNU in that scenario. At some point, CBS has to invest in CBSSN with more than just Mountain West games.

    Like

    • Transic says:

      If anything, the EPL has proved that people will find NBCSN and watch it if there is anything worthwhile on. So for people to say that B1G games would be lost on that channel may not be as true now as when it was still called Versus.

      The issue is how NBC gets around the ND issue. If the Domers have a night game, for example, do they use the afternoon for a B1G game?

      Btw, I just learned that I can now watch CBSSN in HD. I’m currently with Verizon FiOS.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        The Domers will have exactly 1 night game they own the TV rights to each year. Not exactly an insurmountable issue.

        Like

      • Mike says:

        @Transic – NBC only has 7 ND games to work around. That is if they don’t move a game or two to NBCSN. There could easily be a B1G noon and/or prime time game around a 330 ND game.

        Like

  16. tigertails says:

    I’m glad the ACC stuck with 8 conference games. When the NCAA approves their bill co-sponsored by the Big 12, they’ll be able to eliminate divisions & determine how to fill their championship game. I think a plan for 3 annual rivals in conference & 5 games vs the remaining 10 teams (every other year) will be approved. Here’s how I would set the 3 ACC matchups & how I’d fulfill the 1 game requirement vs BCS.

    I think every team needs 10 BCS games on their schedule: 5 home, 5 away + FBS @ home & FCS @ home. There’s only a handful of FCS teams in midwest so B1G can play MACtion.

    Key:
    ACC team = (season finale match), ACC rival 1, 2, 3
    +9 = out of conference game vs BCS or American
    +10 out of conference game vs BCS or American

    BC = (Pitt), Cuse, Wake
    +9 = UConn annually
    +10 = NWern & ND every other year

    Pitt = (BC), Cuse, Lville
    +9 = Penn State annually
    +10 = West Va & ND every other year

    Cuse = (Miami), BC, Pitt
    +9 = Rutgers & NWern every other year
    +10 = UConn, Temple, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Miami = (Cuse), FSU, Va Tech
    +9 BCS = Florida annually
    +10 BCS = Central Florida, South Florida, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Virginia = (Va Tech), UNC, Lville
    +9 = Maryland annually
    +10 = East Carolina, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Va Tech = (Virginia), Miami, Lville
    +9 = Rutgers, Kentucky, Cincy 2x each every 6 years
    +10 = East Carolina, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years

    UNC = (NCST), Duke, Virginia
    +9 = Sakerlina or Tenn every other year
    +10 = East Carolina, Georgia, ND 2x each every 6 years

    NCST = (UNC), Wake, Clemson
    +9 = Sakerlina or Tenn every other year
    +10 = East Carolina, Georgia, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Duke = (Wake), UNC, Ga Tech
    +9 = Vandy annually
    +10 = East Carolina, Navy or Army, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Wake = (Duke), NCST, BC
    +9 = Vandy annually
    +10 = East Carolina, Navy or Army, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Louisville = (Kentucky), VPI, UVA, Pitt
    +10 = Cincy, Indiana, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Clemson = (Sakerlina), FSU, Ga Tech, NCST
    +10 = Georgia, Auburn, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Ga Tech = (Georgia), Clemson, FSU, Duke
    +10 = Auburn, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years

    FSU = (Florida), Miami, Clemson, Ga Tech
    +10 = Auburn, Bama, ND 2x each every 6 years

    Duke & Wake need to schedule easier because they’re small private schools that need wins. East Carolina has a 50k seat stadium so would be a good home&home for the NC & VA schools. I almost have every SEC east school playing 2 out of conference games vs ACC.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      A few points about this:

      1) I don’t see the point in artificially locking a season-ending match-up that has no historical pedigree. By all means Georgia/Georgia Tech, but why Miami/Syracuse? For those schools that lack a traditional Rivalry Weekend opponent, I think it’s better to rotate than to try to invent a rivalry and hope it sticks.

      2) For similar reasons, I don’t see any reason to lock intra-conference games if there is no particular tradition between the two teams named (e.g., BC/Wake).

      3) For the non-conference games, you seem to be assuming match-ups that the opponents might not want, e.g., Syracuse playing Northewestern and Rutgers every other year.

      4) You have an uneven schedule for ND (i.e., Pitt and BC would play them more often). I’m pretty sure that’s not what the league wants.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Currently, these are the season-ending rivalry games for the ACC:

        FSU-Florida
        Georgia Tech-Georgia
        Clemson-South Carolina
        Wake Forest-Duke*
        NC State-UNC*
        Va. Tech-Virginia
        Louisville-Kentucky (now at the end of the year)
        Syracuse-Boston College**
        Miami-Pittsburgh***

        *These teams are in opposite divisions, but the NCSU-UNC game is this state’s biggest college football game of the year, so the ACC is going to try this setup for 2014. (I hope it continues.) Alternatively, the season-enders would be Wake-NCSU and UNC-Duke.

        **SU-BC is the final game for both schools this year, as it was last year. It makes sense. Historically, they are two of each other’s most-played opponents.

        ***Miami-Pitt is the year-ender due to simple process of elimination. If Pitt ever works out a way to finish the season against Penn State or West Virginia instead, Miami will be left having to finish the season against an FIU, FAU, or, at best, an AAC team.

        Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I just hope they do SOMETHING. I’d love for the ACC to eliminate divisions, but at least they should do one thing that would make some sense:

      Make Louisville and Va. Tech permanent crossovers and UVA permanent with BC. VT & BC is not a rivalry. Louisville and VT at least have the common thread of having pretty good football teams.

      Like

  17. gfunk says:

    For what it’s worth, Scout has done a breakdown of football talent per state. As known by many on here, the gap between the Southeast and rest of the country is beyond noticeable. Ohio remains a shining example of how to keep up for the Midwest & Missouri’s numbers are interesting. But the SEC brand now has a solid foothold in the Show Me State. I especially paid attention to per capita numbers, in part because folks often overstate California’s NFL production, which has some obvious truth – great players do come from here. But man, the southern states are impressive, even the more populated states: Fl & Ga have high per capita numbers. Tx (Southwest) not only comes the closest to matching Ca’s overall population, but more than doubles the Golden State in per capita numbers . Cali hs talent in per capita output. Ca has a lot of mouths to feed, esp the Pac12. But so does Tx & some of the bigger Southeast states.

    This is merely one publication & it does raise questions. I didn’t break down the numbers yet. I’m assuming Scout is going by high school & not college. What I gather from this info is further validation for the SEC’s continuous success, why the ACC has upside & these numbers have been similar for much longer than we often note – I’d say since at least the 70s.

    The overall numbers underscore the importance of adding Rutgers (overall output – though slightly above average per capita numbers) & Md (Md & DC per capita numbers, esp DC). They also demonstrate the importance of program building and culture: Oregon and Wisconsin lack in-state talent, but clearly demonstrate national reputations via recruiting, finances and fan passion. So in theory, a Wisconsin or Oregon caliber program with Rutger’s in-state talent could translate into even greater success.

    I really think this gap can close, though time & patience would be required. Other regions need to figure out a way to maintain year round prep football cultures – something Ohio evidently does well and continues to improve as far as a Midwestern example is concerned. But expenses are obviously an issue for colder states in terms of infrastructure – culture as well & probably more important.

    http://www.scout.com/story/1404139-draft-stats?s=143

    PS I’m sure Brian, my favorite, has insight here. In this case needed interpretation as Ohio is his neck of the woods. I’ve always admired Ohio’s prep football culture – it’s similarly the way we do prep hockey here in Minnesota as our state continues to lead the US in NHL products. I know Minny does prep hockey year-round & the vast majority of essential facilities are indoors.

    Like

    • jimisawesome says:

      Good series of posts. I did the math a few years ago (which sucks that its stuck on a dead hard drive) states produce roughly there population numbers of AQ talent with some notable exceptions. NY is basically a small state and MA might as well be Vermont. You have the big per cap states like Hawaii (but only about a dozen players a year), MS, AL and LA but they are all midsize to small states. But, Florida is just crazy because its per cap number is insane despite having a huge population. What is even crazier is if you look at participation numbers for the 3 big states it becomes an even more impressive what Florida does. Texas has the most HS football players by a fairly large margin with CA second and Florida 3rd but its only about 60 percent Texas number.

      Oh, and the next 2 to 3 classes are better then anything I have seen in the state in at least a decade.

      I have no idea on how this is accomplished either. Prep coaching in Florida is subpar, we have kind of bad infrastructure, there really is only a couple of super private schools, and its not a religion to go to a game on Friday night.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      From the ’30’s to the ’70’s, the Midwest (and North in general) was as dominant in college football as the Southeast (and South in general) is now. It just wasn’t as apparent as Southeastern/Southern dominance is now because the 5 Midwestern kings were split between 2 conferences and an independent in ND (while PSU, the other northern king, and Pitt, which you could consider a king earlier in that period, were also independent) while one conference (the SEC) has the majority of the kings in the South/Southeast (‘Bama, LSU, UF, UGa, and probably Tenn.) currently.

      From 1936-1977, At least 1 Midwestern team was named national champion by either the AP or UPI 25 years (out of 42). From 1940-1957, A Midwestern team won either the AP or UPI national title 14 out of 18 years.

      Then for a time in the ’80’s & in to the ’90’s, before the SEC was seen as the best conference in college football, the B10 was able to flex its financial muscle (and may have been helped by the lingering memory of segregation in the South). As an MGo blog showed, for a period of time, the B10 got more top talent from outside its footprint than any other conference did. Now, the SEC has assumed that position, and the B10 just doesn’t draw as much top talent from the South, net, as it did before.

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        Richard, I think that dominance may of had more to do with segregation than hs football talent per state & region.. When Minnesota dominated, a good number of their players came from the South. Half of the 6 NFL HOFers who wore a Gopher’s jersey played high school ball in North Carolina – born there as well. My point is more about prep football & the built in advantage that the Southeast, especially, has when recruiting. The gap is widening – this region is really in a zone of its own.

        The BIG lost most Rose Bowls in the 70s, 9 of 10 (a lot of close losses) & that’s when the 10 year war started – I believe – when the BIG especially became a two team conference for a while.

        Granted, the BIG has the least amount of bowl experience amongst the power conferences – whatever bowl ban for so many years – decades really.

        Like

  18. gfunk says:

    ^ Some crap grammar above.

    Clarifications:

    Ga, Fl and Tx have better per capita numbers than California. Tx is closer to Ca in population, but still doubles Ca in per capita output.

    Like

  19. gfunk says:

    Frank,

    You nailed the apocalyptic Rust Belt decline argument, though without the stats. No need for any of us to post them. Population growth will inevitably slow in other regions as well. We can argue that the Midwest and Northeast are ahead of other regions in terms of re-populating city centers & recovering from de-industrialization. These processes take decades to play out.

    I posted the Scout stats (high school talent per state) because these numbers have more to do, my opinion, with passionate prep football cultures & fan passion than population growth. I do think the Southeast has embraced football at the prep level for much longer than given credit for. Culture is always an interesting and understated factor in life, sports being one example. Minnesota loves their hockey, Illinois = basketball, Ohio = football, etc – all three are among national leaders in terms of college and professional pipelines – each sport.

    There really hasn’t been a decline in BIG football as overstated repeatedly on message boards. I mean for much of my younger life (70s & 80s), the BIG lost most Rose Bowls, which reversed only in the 90s, one decade. The last 15 years translates into “business as usual” for my lifetime. Bottom line, the southeast de-segregated its colleges, conferences like the SEC spent decades realigning and building its football product, the SWC – Big 12 merger happened (is still likely to change) & a conference like the SEC, for example, inevitably created compatible program-fan cultures that maximize their region’s prep football output – talent. The bowl culture has always been Sun Belt oriented. Pro football still rules the Midwest and Northeast. It is what it is. At the end of the day, I like the underdog status of the BIG in football, other cold-weather based programs as well – minus ND.

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      What is also not discussed in these population arguments is what percentage of the growth is from Hispanics. The south has a much larger growth rate for Hispanic population compared to the BIG states. That population tends to be less affluent and less likely to go to college.

      So yes population is growing faster in the south than in the north but in reference to college athletics, unless that population is contributing financially to that system, it doesn’t matter.

      Like

      • @Psuhockey – There’s some truth to this, although there are definitely long-term demographic issues that the Rust Belt states have to face and can’t deny anymore. Yes, there is a lot of growth in the South from immigration, but we also can’t underestimate the very high net migration rates from the Midwest and Northeast to places like Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia. A large number of those state-to-state migrants are affluent people that are fueling the growth in the major Sun Belt metros (i.e. Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc.) and that’s going to have a big impact on colleges in those areas. One can foresee how much tougher it will be to get into UT-Austin, Texas A&M, UGA, UNC and the University of Florida (and by extension, their other in-state brothers) in 10 or 20 years based on the much larger quality pools of students that they’ll be working with.

        So, the reality is that the Big Ten will lose ground relative to all of the other power conferences if it just focused on its home Midwest region (and even the move toward the East Coast is going into an area that’s also slower growth compared to the Sun Belt). The Big Ten schools, by necessity, have to take a more national approach on virtually every measure – attracting fans, recruiting students (whether it’s based on athletics or academics), engaging alums, getting TV viewers – compared to its other power school counterparts.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Its already much, much more difficult to get into Texas, Texas A&M and Georgia than it was 20 years ago (I presume the same is true for UNC and UF). Its real common for alumni not to be able to get their kids in.

          As for the Hispanics, they are spreading from the Southwest into rural areas everywhere, whether it be South Georgia or central Kentucky or Iowa.

          Like

          • metatron says:

            It’s more difficult to get into every school. Admission rates have plummeted over the past few decades.

            Like

      • jimisawesome says:

        I would add another issue its not that the South is growing its that the Atlantic South is growing plus Texas. Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and even Tennessee have rates of growth that are not much different from Wisconsin, NJ, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.

        Like

  20. gfunk says:

    Btw, as known by most at this point: Mpls got the SB. I think this means we will see a BIG CCG down the road, albeit not common. But Western BIG powers like Neb and Wisky will certainly lobby for a BIG CCG in Mpls. At least 6 BIG schools are within 8 hours drive of Mpls: Ill, NW, Neb, Wisky, Iowa and Purdue. So this venue does remain the most viable candidate for the Western BIG – CCGs. On the other hand, MSP International Airport is pretty damn efficient and easy to fly to

    Unfortunately the Internet is loaded with naysayers on the lack of entertainment value Minneapolis and St. Paul (MSP) offers, as well as continued thoughts that this SB or potential BIG CCG is being played outdoors:

    No on both accounts.

    Moreover, unlike say Dallas or Met Life Stadium, the new Vikings Stadium is served by an ultra convenient, reliable transit line that also serves MSP International Airport, dt Saint Paul, the U of Mn campus, the Mall of America and the rest of dt Minneapolis. There will be no nightmare transportation logistics, or out of the way public transportation deserts with this SB or potential BIG CCG’s. The Vikings Stadium is a mere 8 blocks, two light rail stops from Minneapolis’ entertainment-hotel district. The LRT line will offer several hotel options.

    Entertainment options, give me a break. If you lived here you’d know this city has actually become annoyingly faster with an excess of entertainment options & louder neighborhoods. By 2018, more such entertainment options, further increased density, the compact-conveneinet sort, will be more available in MSP.

    Bear in mind, from this view, the stadium is actually within 10 min walking distance to Mpls’ better known entrainment districts (Warehouse and Nicollet Mall), while a new district will be right in the middle of this picture, just outside the stadium itself. The light rail line runs right past the front entrance of the stadium & is only 20 min, at most, from the airport, another 10 min to the Mall of America, which will be further expanded by the SB:

    Like

    • @gfunk – Minneapolis is a great town and arguably has the strongest growth prospects of any of the major Midwestern metros. However, I’m a firm believer that the Big Ten Championship Game should stay in one permanent centralized location and Indianapolis has both the geography and venue to suit the league’s needs. (Chicago has the geography and large cross-section of multiple fan bases, but not the venue AKA “must have a dome because that’s non-negotiable for a prime time game in December”.) The basketball tournament can be used as a chit to placate the league’s regional fiefdoms, but the Big Ten should learn from the ACC’s experience of attempting to appease its geographic outliers in Florida with its football championship game: it’s a bad idea. The ACC now sells out its game in Charlotte regardless of who’s playing (even Florida State), the SEC should always be in Atlanta, and the Big Ten should always be in Indy as long as Chicago doesn’t have a domed option.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Agreed.

        We went through this in depth on the last post. MSP is only significantly closer to MN and NE than Indy, really. It’s a little better for WI and IA. Everyone else is closer to Indy. As hard as the B10 has worked to sell out the CCG so far, moving it to a far corner of the footprint seems an odd choice. Maybe I’d see an argument for it in NYC if they had a dome, but MSP is already solidly B10 territory. As for throwing the West a bone, MSP will often have the hockey tournament and NE may get the baseball tournament more often. The MBB tourney can also rotate through MSP and other cities.

        Like

      • gfunk says:

        I’m torn on your thoughts here. I have a feeling either Neb or Wisky will dominate the western half of the BIG CCG – Iowa could shake things up as well. NW doesn’t seem to travel well – period. If and when the Illini become a consistent BIG power, Mpls is less than 7 hours drive from Chicago Land & they’re still in works for a high speed rail corridor between MSP & Chicago. Most of these fan bases will get to Mpls in worthy numbers – that’s easily half your attendance right there. I don’t think OSU, MSU or Mi fans will flake out on a CCG in Mpls. But the true eastern BIG teams will have difficulty getting to MSP – even the mighty PSU alum base.

        I just have a feeling this venue will be truly world class and one of a few that offers so much compact density, entertainment and accessible, cheap & convenient public transportation.

        I agree, Chicago would be the best choice, period, if they had a domed venue.

        I’m fine with Indy. But I’ve heard some complaints from Neb fans about the travel. They should worry more about their coach.

        One thing is for certain, if there is possible BIG expansion and it happens (<– stress here) to include some Big12 members, which I believe more likely than an ACC poaching – Indy can't always be the site.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I think that the Twin Cities are a great place to visit, but for a CCG in the Twin Cities to get close to selling out, one of UNL/Minny/Iowa/Wisconsin would have to win the West, which, while likely, isn’t a sure thing. For Indy to have lots of empty seats, the matchup would have to be PSU/RU/UMD vs. Minny. That’s far less likely. BTW, I think that Detroit would fill up if any one of UM/MSU/OSU/PSU wins the East (which is almost assured).

          That said, while I’m not a great fan of the idea, the B10 very well could have the CCG in Detroit and Minny in back-to-back years every once in a while.

          Like

  21. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff

    Part 3 of ESPN’s look at the CFP (I linked the others on the last post, but they are at the bottom of this article anyway).

    Narrowing the list from 8 to 4 based on strategy.

    AL, AU, FSU, OR

    Like

  22. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101195/b1g-numbers-building-the-brand

    Part 3 in ESPN’s look at the financial numbers of the B10 – Building the Brand.

    MAIZE LIKE GOLD

    Revenue earned through licensing, sponsorships, advertising and royalties for the last seven years and the 2012-13 figures, with the national ranking in parentheses. (Northwestern, a private school, did not release figures.)

    School Last 7 years total 2012-13 total (nat. ranking)
    Michigan $109,393,917 $22,473,192 (2)
    Nebraska $64,168,059 $11,895,378 (5)
    Ohio St. $60,351,928 $12,714,758 (4)
    Minnesota $48,538,746 $9,546,232 (12)
    Iowa $42,126,663 $8,266,864 (17)
    Maryland $36,861,535 $6,262,955 (26)
    Indiana $33,254,545 $7,170,666 (20)
    Purdue $32,601,583 $5,756,946 (28)
    Penn St. $32,212,846 $5,086,773 (33)
    Mich. St. $31,438,207 $7,077,049 (22)
    Illinois $27,179,056 $4,826,982 (36)
    Wisconsin $21,422,157 $4,289,089 (43)
    Rutgers $9,942,929 $2,046,662 (66)

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Go Gophers! Pride On Ice…

      Like

    • Richard says:

      With the success that they’ve had, I think Bucky could boost those revenues dramatically if they replaced that logo straight out of the ’70’s.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101264/b1g-numbers-changes-in-recruiting

      Part 4, about the changes in recruiting and the rising expense.

      School 2008 2013 Difference Difference By Percentage
      Penn State $935,563 $1,694,982 $759,419 81.2%
      Nebraska $1,083,385 $1,794,747 $711,362 65.7%
      Ohio State $1,137,016 $1,738,633 $601,617 52.9%
      Michigan $1,333,040 $1,987,719 $654,679 49.1%
      Indiana $924,838 $1,356,996 $432,158 46.7%
      Northwestern $693,879 $945,740 $251,861 36.3%
      Illinois $1,263,219 $1,654,915 $391,696 31%
      Iowa $977,795 $1,275,114 $297,319 30.4%
      Michigan State $1,067,088 $1,351,444 $284,356 26.6%
      Wisconsin $754,972 $934,893 $179,921 23.8%
      Rutgers $697,539 $858,692 $161,153 23.1%
      Minnesota $1,212,843 $1,431,217 $218,374 18%
      Purdue $1,110,998 $1,141,492 $30,494 2.7%
      Maryland $856,074 $777,678 $-78,396 -9.2%

      Like

  23. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    Like

  24. Mike says:

    Feeling sorry for Ohio St baseball team. They’ve played four games this year vs Nebraska where the Huskers won on their final at bat, the last three walk offs. At the Big Ten tournament today, Nebraska scores four in the ninth to win 7-6.

    Like

    • Arch Stanton says:

      Bad loss for Illinois to Michigan State in the Big Ten tournament today. If they go 0-2 this week it will hurt their case for an at-large bid.

      Like

      • Rutgers crushed USF in the AAC Tournament today 10-0. Won 11 of last 12!

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          It is possible that the 2015 Big Ten conference will feature 5 teams that made the NCAA tournament the previous year…

          Like

      • Mike says:

        Illinois probably needs to win a couple in the losers bracket, and they’ll be in.

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          Illinois picked up a victory today over Ohio State. Next up for them will be a rematch with Michigan State in an elimination game. If the Illini can win that one they will finish no worse than 2-2 in the tournament. That would basically be like treading water for them, which still means they have a decent shot at an at-large bid. What they could really use to boost the resume is a victory over Indiana or Nebraska at some point and at least three wins for the tourny.

          Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Here’s a nice article about B1G baseball.

      http://sports.yahoo.com/news/baseball-no-longer-afterthought-big-195337260-ncaabb.html

      Like

      • Brian says:

        They talk about the B10 committing more , but there are also these key points:

        It was just two years ago that Anderson floated the idea of the Big Ten breaking away from the traditional NCAA season and going to a summer schedule. His coaching brethren dismissed the notion.

        Purdue coach Doug Schreiber prompted serious discussion, though, with a proposal that Northern teams be allowed to play as many as 14 games in the fall that would count in the following spring’s RPI.

        The rationale, for both Anderson and Schreiber, was that long winters in Big Ten country make it extremely difficult to gain access to the NCAA tournament because conference teams must play nearly all February and March games on the road.

        Those concerns were addressed last year when the NCAA began using a new formula for the RPI, which measures the relative strength of teams and conferences and helps determine at-large bids for the national tournament. There now is greater weight placed on road wins.

        Traviolia said coaches agreed to put Schreiber’s proposal on hold to see how the new RPI formula affects the conference. The Big Ten on Wednesday ranked 10th out of 32 conferences in RPI. Indiana (fourth in team RPI), Nebraska (27) and Illinois (50) all are in line for NCAA tournament berths.

        Last year the Big Ten was sixth in RPI, with five teams among the top 65. Before that, the conference hadn’t ranked higher than No. 11 since at least 2002.

        ”I think you’ll see a renewed effort to have Schreiber’s idea of counting fall games reconsidered,” Traviolia said.

        While geography and climate will prevent the Big Ten from matching the top-to-bottom strength of the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12, the conference is showing it no longer is content with being an easy out.

        Emphasis mine, obviously. It’s amazing how much a simple change to level the playing field helped things. As the new RPI helps the B10 get more tournament teams, that in turn will help the B10 get better players and be more competitive.

        Like

    • metatron says:

      So at roughly $16MM, the Pistons wasted about $30MM because Tom Gores was too stupid and/or proud to amnesty Ben Gordon for $25MM.

      Hooray for Sunk Cost Fallacies!

      Like

  25. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24569104/notre-dame-paid-charlie-weis-more-than-brian-kelly-in-2012

    Just a reminder how smart ND was to extend Charlie Weis’s contract because he barely lost to USC that one time. ND is paying him through 12/2015, and he made more from ND than Brian Kelly did in 2012.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      If they don’t want to go to 12, then what was the point of adding New Mexico State and Idaho as #10 and #11 when they’re so far from everyone else and so very bad, even by SBC standards?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        They’re waiting on U Conn…

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Michael in Raleigh,

        “If they don’t want to go to 12, then what was the point of adding New Mexico State and Idaho as #10 and #11 when they’re so far from everyone else and so very bad, even by SBC standards?”

        You have to read the fine print. The SB is looking for a 12th all-sports member while UMass is looking for a spot for their FB team only (A10 for the rest). Not having a home for FB, UMass has to decide whether to drop FB back down, be a FB independent, or join the SB in all sports.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Brian, that is true. A twelfth full member would make more sense. Given their extreme distance and, to put it mildly, lack of upside, I still do not understand how NMSU and Idaho serve the Sun Belt can serve the Sun Belt unless they are part of a group of 12 teams for a CCG.

          Going back to early 2013, the Sun Belt was scheduled to be at 8 football members for the fall of 2014. So, they added Ga. Southern and App State as full members, and soon thereafter they invited NMSU and Idaho for football only. That would have set them up for 12 in fall 2014. The problem is that they knew another round of dominoes was going to fall their way.

          The soon-to-be-renamed AAC stood was set for 11 members for fall 2015. They were bound to take a C-USA member, as they had many times before. They took Tulsa. C-USA would, in turn, take a Sun Belt member. Sure enough, they took Western Kentucky, which set up the SBC for 11, not 12. Everyone who paid any atttention knew that was coming. So, again, why have NMSU and Idaho?

          Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          I will guess that Eastern Kentucky ends up being the twelfth school. James Madison University in Virginia appears uninterested in joining the Sun Belt. They will either stay in the Colonial/FCS or holdout for C-USA or the MAC. Liberty has been a willing suitor for quite some time, but if the SBC wanted them, they’d already be in by now.

          That was probably more than most of you care to know about the Sun Belt, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.

          Like

  26. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10964005/2014-nba-draft-cleveland-cavaliers-gm-david-griffin-already-fielding-calls-no-1-pick

    Completely off topic, but I know Frank is an NBA guy. The Cavs have been getting calls about trading their #1 pick in the draft. In a league that is all about stars, what sort of trade could someone offer that makes any sense for Cleveland (Kevin Love and #13 in exchange for #1?)? Especially since Cleveland is hoping to lure LeBron back this summer.

    Like

    • @Brian – This is a tough one. I don’t see luring LeBron back being realistic – it’s a story that I’m sure the media would love to push for the next couple of months (“The Prodigal Son Returns!”), but he’s at the point of his career where he simply isn’t going to deal with *any* growing pains with new teammates at all. Anything less than a team that would be ready to win a ring immediately is off the board. So, the only way LeBron leaves the Heat is if the team has a cast that’s unequivocally better than his Heat teammates and I’m just not seeing that with the Cavs. That consists basically of the Bulls (assuming that Derrick Rose is healthy again) and Rockets as teams that conceivably have the ability to clear enough cap room and still have enough top tier pieces left to be as good or better than the current Heat with LeBron added in.

      If I’m running the Cavs, I’m keeping that #1 pick unless I get a legit top 10 superstar (and I love Kevin Love, but I’m not sure if he’s quite at that level). Those rookie contracts have disproportionate value under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, so teams are VERY reluctant to trade draft picks in general (much less the #1 pick). Joel Embiid, Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker all look like potential superstars, so the Cavs are likely better off keeping that pick and maintaining salary cap flexibility unless someone offers a truly crazy superstar trade.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Indeed. The rookie contracts are worth so much.

        So while I would trade the #1 pick for Love and something, the only other players I’d trade for would be at that level or higher (James/Durant/Curry/Griffin/Paul/Harden).

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Frank the Tank,

        “This is a tough one. I don’t see luring LeBron back being realistic – it’s a story that I’m sure the media would love to push for the next couple of months (“The Prodigal Son Returns!”), but he’s at the point of his career where he simply isn’t going to deal with *any* growing pains with new teammates at all. Anything less than a team that would be ready to win a ring immediately is off the board. So, the only way LeBron leaves the Heat is if the team has a cast that’s unequivocally better than his Heat teammates and I’m just not seeing that with the Cavs. That consists basically of the Bulls (assuming that Derrick Rose is healthy again) and Rockets as teams that conceivably have the ability to clear enough cap room and still have enough top tier pieces left to be as good or better than the current Heat with LeBron added in.”

        As I’ve heard it explained, the theory is that Wade might look to retire, making LeBron more likely to look elsewhere. As for the Cavs, I suppose the idea is that he’d like to stop being hated in his hometown plus he’d love to bring them their first championship in a major sport in over 50 years. He’d be a god in Cleveland if he did that, especially if they beat the Bulls along the way.

        I don’t follow the NBA closely, but combining James with Kyrie Irving, this year’s #1, Anthony Bennett (if he becomes anything), Varejao and whoever else they have has to be a contender. The Bulls will always be one Derrick Rose knee away from contending (seriously, he’s played 49 games in 3 seasons).

        “If I’m running the Cavs, I’m keeping that #1 pick unless I get a legit top 10 superstar (and I love Kevin Love, but I’m not sure if he’s quite at that level).”

        But he’d give them an elite power forward so LeBron can play the 3.

        Personally, I’m with you. I’m doubtful LeBron would come this summer, so they need another young star to try to attract James in 4 more years.

        “Those rookie contracts have disproportionate value under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, so teams are VERY reluctant to trade draft picks in general (much less the #1 pick). Joel Embiid, Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker all look like potential superstars, so the Cavs are likely better off keeping that pick and maintaining salary cap flexibility unless someone offers a truly crazy superstar trade.”

        I’d avoid Embiid. The NBA is a small guy’s league any more, plus big guys with back problems scare me. Wiggins has a higher ceiling supposedly, but Parker is better right now. I expect the Cavs to somehow get none of the 3.

        Like

        • bob sykes says:

          I believe LeBron’s hometown is Akron.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Not sure why Lebron did not just say that he was leaving Cleveland, but that he hoped to return someday to finish his career and retire as a Cavalier. That would have gone a long way towards minimizing the impact of leaving Cleveland, without really impacting his present. If Michael Jordan could retire a Wizard, etc., James could play one season at ANY AGE for Cleveland and sell tickets, ending as a hero with or without a Cavalier championship.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Well, when he left, 25 year-old LeBron might not even have considered ever going back to Cleveland.

            He certainly didn’t anticipate the fallout.

            I’ve said it before, but research shows that humans aren’t generally fully mentally & emotionally mature until around 30.

            Like

        • metatron says:

          Except that the divorce between LeBron and Dan Gilbert was beyond bitter.

          Like

  28. Arch Stanton says:

    The Big Ten should probably hold the baseball conference tournament in Omaha as often as it can.

    Attendance for day 1 at TD Ameritrade – 10,424

    Overall tournament record – 12,219

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Note that 3 Big 10 teams, Washington, Oregon and Kentucky are in the sweet 16 in softball. It belies the claim that northern schools can’t compete in baseball. They simply don’t.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      They’ve always rotated it a lot, but I’ve been an advocate for moving it to Omaha permanently. They have the most avid college baseball fans.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Arch Stanton,

      “Attendance for day 1 at TD Ameritrade – 10,424

      Overall tournament record – 12,219”

      According to the B10’s official baseball twitter account:

      Day 2 – 11,759 (new single day record)

      Running total = 22,159 (new tournament record with 5+ of 13+ games left)

      Of the 7 games already played, 6 were 1 run games.

      Like

  29. Rick says:

    Add

    Like

  30. loki_the_bubba says:

    Boise State president penned a letter slamming the proposed power grab by the P5 conferences.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/21/3195511/boise-state-president-bob-kustra.html?sp=/99/104/

    Like

    • greg says:

      Its awfully rich to hear BSU president complain about the behavior of a group that BSU has been fighting to join for 20 years. Maybe Kustra should put his money where his mouth is and drop to Division 3.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      I would expect nothing else by Kustra. The “level playing field” NCAA model (spending limits on everything but facilities and coaches) made his school famous. Taking away those limits will harm Boise’s ability to stay there.

      Like

      • Essentially, Kustra is going all in on being a moral black hole. At least he’s being honest I guess…

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “Taking away those limits…”

        The limits are raised, not eliminated.

        “…will harm Boise’s ability to stay there.”

        True. Unless there is a Phil Knight like Boise St alum who chooses to try to level the field.
        Although, they have been the poster child for doing more with less for a decent stretch. Once you have the kids on the field it is all about performance.

        Like

  31. Wainscott says:

    Brian Kelly less then thrilled with the whole UND-ACC football scheduling arrangement:

    http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/brian-kelly-notre-dame-s-acc-ties-puts-football-in-tough-schedule-spot-052114.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Notre Dame is joining the club of schools remorseful over the changes in affiliations. Western Big Ten schools will miss Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. ACC schools in separate divisions will miss the games against teams they used to play regularly. Nebraska fans miss playing Oklahoma, and vice versa. The rich, albeit relatively brief, tradition of Big East basketball has been broken up into three separate conferences (Big East, AAC, and ACC, with one each also in the B1G and Big 12). Everyone outside of Texas shakes their head over the loss if UT-A&M.

      As an independent which, unlike BYU, can command a home and home with the lkkes of Texas and Oklahoma, Notre Dame still has as much scheduling flexibilty as any team in the country.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        “As an independent which, unlike BYU, can command a home and home with the lkkes of Texas and Oklahoma, Notre Dame still has as much scheduling flexibilty as any team in the country.”

        In theory, UND has scheduling flexibility. In practice, UND has 5 ACC games + Navy (an opponent UND will never drop) + USC + Stanford as annual opponents. UND basically has a locked 8 game slate, leaving it with as much flexibility as any ACC/SEC school with 8 set games annually.

        Like

        • metatron says:

          So in practice, they have five games committed. Their own self-imposed “rivalry” games are just that, self-imposed.

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            So in practice, they have 8 games committed. Self-imposed commitments are still commitments.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Self-imposed commitments are still commitments.

            By your definition, there are no independents, since every team has 12 committed games.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Conference imposed requirements are NOT the same as commitments made by the schools. There are/have been occasions when teams don’t play the full number of allotted games for various reasons, including by choice.

            Like

        • Wainscott says:

          “By your definition, there are no independents, since every team has 12 committed games.”

          1) No, because committed games does not equal independent from any conference affiliation.
          2) I’m only talking about Notre Dame. They have annual scheduled games against specific opponents that are commitments that are on par to its ACC scheduling agreement commitments.

          its games against Navy, USC, and Stanford are annual commitments that neither side will end. Hence, those dates are booked. There are 5 ACC games it must play starting in 2015, so those dates are booked. Hence, there are 4 games free to schedule with other schools.

          Likewise, I don’t consider Ga Tech as having only 8 committed games, since it also has an annual game with UGA. Same idea applies to UND with Navy, USC, and Stanford.

          If you want to talk theoretical, no school has any commitments, since any school can leave a conference and become an independent. But that’s insane in practice.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            There’s a pretty big difference between “you’d have to leave the conference” and “could be ended by mutual agreement between two schools”.

            Notre Dame-Stanford has been annual only since 1997. Either school could end it easily, without the kind of structural change implied by leaving a conference. The USC and Navy games, although they’ve bee going on longer, are the same type of agreement, existing only due to the mutual agreement of two parties.

            Notre Dame clearly needs a conference for its Olympic sports, and no major conference is going to give it a better deal than it is getting from the ACC, so it’s stuck. It has to play the 5 games. The Navy, Stanford, and USC deals are just conveniences that could be abandoned at any time without the same kind of large-scale disruption as switching conferences.

            GA/GATech is a bit different, because both are state schools, so they probably do not have complete freedom to end that game, even imagining that they wanted to.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Iowa/ISU didn’t play for how many years?

            Like

          • greg says:

            “Iowa/ISU didn’t play for how many years?”

            Didn’t play 1935-1976. Statehouse saber rattling got it going again.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            The bottom line is that UND has 8 commitments on its schedule, 5 from the ACC and three annual commitments-3 annual commitments all longer lasting than any ACC commitment. That the nature of the commitment is different does not change the realities of the situation, that UND has only 4 free slots to rotate among any number of opponents. Commitments, be they self-imposed or by nature of a conference arrangement, are still commitments.

            And in the case of UND, it arguably would be easier for them (as opposed to other schools) to pick up and leave the ACC since it doesn’t have the same attachment. UND did up and leave the Big East rather easily.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Commitments, be they self-imposed or by nature of a conference arrangement, are still commitments.”

            Yes, but one commitment it to all the members of a conference and the others are individual OOC.

            “And in the case of UND, it arguably would be easier for them (as opposed to other schools) to pick up and leave the ACC…”

            Apparently ND has a need for a conference greater than that for the arrangements with some former long standing opponents. Is USC a need greater than a conference? I don’t know. I’m not a Domer.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Also, in UND’s case, its not as if it kept its part of the bargain with the Big Ease for scheduling football games with BE schools. And it also has only 4 ACC games this year because it couldn’t get out of previously schedule games. So, for UND, conference arrangements have similar security as its annual opponents.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Notre Dame has way more games (all-time and consecutively) with Purdue than Stanford, and yet it was able quite easily to cease playing Purdue annually after joining the ACC.

            So I do think there is a fairly substantial difference between pairwise scheduling agreements (even if long-standing) and the collective commitment of conference members to each other. Both are breakable, but the disruption of leaving or joining a conference is practically an order of magnitude greater than just altering a series with one opponent.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            However, ND wanted to drop PU while they didn’t want to drop Stanford.

            I mean, fine, if you dislike the word “commitment”, then call them “games that a school can’t or won’t drop”. These days, ND has 8 of those.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Notre Dame has way more games (all-time and consecutively) with Purdue than Stanford, and yet it was able quite easily to cease playing Purdue annually after joining the ACC.

            So I do think there is a fairly substantial difference between pairwise scheduling agreements (even if long-standing) and the collective commitment of conference members to each other. Both are breakable, but the disruption of leaving or joining a conference is practically an order of magnitude greater than just altering a series with one opponent.”

            http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24571210/kelly-on-irish-scheduling-outside-of-acc-youre-really-limited

            “Therefore it’s put us in a very difficult situation scheduling and unfortunately, it’s taken some of those schools like a Michigan or Michigan State off our schedule … [Navy, Stanford and USC] are not coming off and those are etched in stone. So now, add your ACC schools with those three schools and you’re really limited to where you can go.”

            Yeah, I can’t imagine why people describe those games as a commitment.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        Notre Dame is essentially a semi-independent in terms of football scheduling. Between the five ACC games, USC, Stanford and Navy, they have a de facto 8-game conference schedule now.

        Couple that with their desire to have six home games, one neutral site game and one game on the West Coast annually, the scheduling flexibility ND has is essentially the same as any other major conference program.

        The four “non-conference” games ND needs to schedule each season likely entails two home games, one away game and the neutral site contest. That essentially limits Notre Dame to two home-and-home contest outside of the eight games it has with the ACC programs, USC, Stanford and Navy.

        The ND 2016 schedule is illustrative of just that. It includes at Texas (part of a home-and-home series) and homes games with Michigan State (also a home-and-home) and Nevada. The neutral site game is with Army in San Antonio.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the negotiations that led to Notre Dame’s ACC deal. It’s well known that some ACC schools wanted ND as either a full member or not at all. ND would surely have preferred to keep its traditional schedule. But the ACC felt it needed to bolster its line-up, and ND needed to get out of the cratering Big East, and this was the compromise.

      I don’t see where the Irish had a realistic choice. They had to get out of the Big East, and the ACC wasn’t going to accept them without a substantial football commitment. It’s a bit odd to have Brian Kelly grousing publicly about something that now cannot be changed until at least the mid-2020s.

      Notre Dame is essentially a semi-independent in terms of football scheduling. Between the five ACC games, USC, Stanford and Navy, they have a de facto 8-game conference schedule now.

      It was like that before. Notre Dame had USC, Stanford, Navy, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Pitt as practically annual games. There was another cluster of very frequent, but not quite annual, opponents, such as BC, BYU, Army, Air Force. A number of other ACC teams were frequent guest stars on ND’s schedule: before the deal, they were playing 2-3 ACC teams a year.

      Like

      • Transic says:

        That’s the thing that gets me about the Domers! They brag about being independent but, yet, you can count on 6/7 specific programs to appear on their schedule. The soap opera between them and Michigan. Their supposed allegiance to Navy. Their affinity with Pitt and BC. Just how “independent” has their independence really been?

        I won’t even mention their mistreatment of several former Big East teams when they were in an association with them…oh, wait

        Like

        • bullet says:

          In the 60s and 70s, their schedule regularly included 7 to 9 schools between Chicago and Boston. At that time, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan St., Navy and Pitt were pretty much every year. There were usually one or two other Big 10 schools + a few eastern schools like Army. And, of course, USC was every year.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          That’s the thing that gets me about the Domers! They brag about being independent but, yet, you can count on 6/7 specific programs to appear on their schedule.

          What upsets you about that? I think all independents have recurring opponents. Independence means that the team isn’t in a league, so each game (or series) is a separate agreement. The fact that certain teams appear repeatedly isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.

          The soap opera between them and Michigan.

          What soap opera? It’s mostly in the heads of Michigan fans, who have invented nefarious motives that, as far as I can tell, don’t exist.

          Their supposed allegiance to Navy.

          What’s “supposed” about it?

          Their affinity with Pitt and BC.

          Exactly what is wrong with playing like-minded opponents regularly?

          Just how “independent” has their independence really been?

          What’s independent about it, is that each pair of opponents is a separate agreement, without reference to anyone else. Compare this to life in the Big Ten, where the league office tells you what your schedule will be for 8-9 games out of the 12.

          No one is telling Notre Dame to schedule USC every year. Both schools happen to find it useful, so it continues. In contrast, Michigan couldn’t just decide to replace Indiana with New Mexico State.

          Like

          • Transic says:

            The Domers know that as long there are programs willing to play along to their games that they can just get away with anything. They’re not the only ones (Alabama does this same kind of crap, wanting “neutral” games OOC).

            1. Created divisions within the old Big East (BC and SU, specifically, played to ND’s tune, which created pressure on RU and UConn to do the same [RU refused, UConn agreed])

            2. Created the illusion among certain B1G fans that they’d eventually join (one of my few bugaboos I’ve had with the Big Ten, specifically Mich State and Purdue) when any reasonable person knows they won’t

            They’ve recently pulled the crap by moving the Wake Forest game to next year.

            I guess, in a way, I’m not as mad at them as I am with their enablers.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The Domers know that as long there are programs willing to play along to their games that they can just get away with anything. They’re not the only ones (Alabama does this same kind of crap, wanting “neutral” games OOC).

            What exactly do they “get away with”, and what “crap” are you referring to? They make scheduling deals with willing partners who know exactly what they are getting. Teams want to schedule Notre Dame and Alabama, for entirely predictable reasons. It’s not their fault they’re popular.

            1. Created divisions within the old Big East (BC and SU, specifically, played to ND’s tune, which created pressure on RU and UConn to do the same [RU refused, UConn agreed])

            The Big East created those “divisions” all by themselves.

            2. Created the illusion among certain B1G fans that they’d eventually join (one of my few bugaboos I’ve had with the Big Ten, specifically Mich State and Purdue) when any reasonable person knows they won’t.

            So, Notre Dame is at fault for what delusional fans believe?

            They’ve recently pulled the crap by moving the Wake Forest game to next year.

            It amounts to the same thing. Instead of playing five ACC games both years, they’re playing four this year and six in 2015.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            One of the “crap” things ND did was refusing to play at the campus stadium of one of the schools (Rutgers) from the conference you have an affiliation with, while at the same time you are playing at the much smaller campus stadiums of Boston College and Wake Forest.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Phil –
            From what I understand, Rutgers’ on-campus facility, which was new at the time, was still a joke compared to the Meadowlands where ND had previously played Rutgers. UConn’s stadium is a joke compared to Foxboro, and Connecticut is approximately half Pats fans. They wanted them at home for selfish reason, and ND wanted to play in a place where they could be seen and actually make a good bit more $$$. If Rutgers and UConn want to blame someone, they should look to themselves.

            My assumption is that the CSC would be willing to cut a break to the Jesuits at BC, and that Charlotte was not a financial viable option for WFU. That’s my best explanation there. I can see the NDPTB being less mercenary to fellow privates as opposed to state schools.

            cutter –
            My guess is when Dr. White said he would play three Big East schools he was thinking Pitt, BC, and a combination of WVA, Rutgers, and maybe Miami. I don’t think there was ever any intention of scheduling the like of U of L or Cincy (I don’t think South Florida was intended either, but stuff happens).

            Kevin White was considered at the time to be the most pro-B1G person in the administration. Mostly because he was rather iconoclastic in monetizing the football team and was considered a kind of lazy scheduler. The general consensus of the student body was that he would happily sell out tradition for a couple mil and to make his own job easier.

            Llloyd Carr never mentioned anything about a gentleman’s agreement until all of the ADs who made that deal were gone, IIRC. I’m not saying he’s lying, but I think he’s mistaken or misinterpreting it for his own benefit.

            It’s been my experience that when veteran admins ignore professional courtesy, it’s on purpose and for a reason.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            “From what I understand, Rutgers’ on-campus facility, which was new at the time, was still a joke compared to the Meadowlands where ND had previously played Rutgers.”

            Actually, Notre Dame has never played Rutgers at the Meadowlands.

            Your attempt at rationalizing a need for a Rutgers-ND game to be at Met-Life because of stadium size falls apart when one realizes that MetLife is as far from Rutgers as Gillette is from BC, yet ND plays on campus at BC in their on-campus (10,000 seats smaller than RU) stadium.

            Also, your “there never was any intention of scheduling the likes of” is belied by the press from when the “agreement was announced:

            //Notre Dame, Big East agree to series of football games
            By Mathew Keller
            FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW
            Saturday, May 28, 2005

            Notre Dame and the Big East have agreed to a series of games starting in 2009.

            The Irish, a member of the Big East in all sports except football, will play three Big East teams each football season on a home-and-home basis. All eight conference teams will face the Irish. //

            ND made no attempt to accommodate Big East teams that didn’t bend over for them.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I must have been thinking of Navy. My bad.

            ND did play @Rutgers in 2000. Must not have worked out for ND financially. Like I said previously, I think the CSC gives the BC SJ a break.

            My point is that Rutgers and UCONN were frankly looking a gift horse in the mouth. If they did not want the NDAD’s charity, they should not feel bad about ND walking away.

            I didn;t see that article, but I did see an article from the Charleston daily mail talking about a home, away, neutral site (Meadowlands) from that time, and it noted that discussions with RU, UCONN, CINCY, and USF were ongoing. I don’t know if the deals were ever really released, but I don’t remember anyone getting worked up about it on the internet like they do about the ACC deal. If ND was going to have to play on campus with a school without dorms, I think there would have been some consternation.

            Like

          • frug says:

            My point is that Rutgers and UCONN were frankly looking a gift horse in the mouth. If they did not want the NDAD’s charity, they should not feel bad about ND walking away.

            That’s complete crap and you know it.

            ND didn’t agree to play those games as a favor to the Big East; they agreed to do it in exchange for the conference continuing to host the Irish’s non-FB sports.

            Don’t get me wrong, from a business perspective it made sense to make the deal and even more sense to break it after it became clear the Big East wasn’t willing to actually sanction ND for non-compliance, but try and rationalize what really happened; ND lied and screwed over the Big East football schools in the process.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            I don’t know if the deals were ever really released, but I don’t remember anyone getting worked up about it on the internet like they do about the ACC deal. If ND was going to have to play on campus with a school without dorms, I think there would have been some consternation.

            Nope. Nothing unusual. Just Domers being Domers.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            School without dorms?

            And yeah, not arrogant at all.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Sorry, frug, but it was always described as a favor. ND was not going to get tossed when half the league was non-football at the DI level, and the football teams were in no position to threaten, what with ND almost going to the B1G a few years before. No one outside CUSA or possibly Nova were potential invites for the BE at the time.

            Like

          • frug says:

            the football teams were in no position to threaten, what with ND almost going to the B1G a few years before.

            No one outside CUSA or possibly Nova were potential invites for the BE at the time.

            Why would the Big East FB schools possibly need to replace ND? Without the promised 3 FB games a year the Irish didn’t bring anything of value to conference anyways.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            I think the Domer fan should be looking for what is coming out of ACC land in the next few years. Already there’s been an article appearing in SouthernPigskin.com calling for ND to join in full.

            http://www.southernpigskin.com/acc/time-for-notre-dame-to-get-on-board/

            The main argument, according to the piece, is that there was once vehement opposition on the part of ND to participating in bowls until the 1970s and then that opposition wilted away over time. So, the argument goes, they’ll eventually get used to watching ND football with a full ACC schedule.

            Like

          • @Transic – That writer either has (a) no clue about Domers whatsoever or (b) engaged in wishful thinking/justifications/rationalizations of an ACC fan in the same way that he criticized Big Ten people for doing the same.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I, and most ND folk I know, are more concerned with the NDS surface change, and the subsequent turf sale, than the opinions of the average ACC blogger. Actually, the surface fracas is taking up way more headspace than the loss of the MSU series, but I think that’s more to do with trying to see which way the winds of change are blowing under the Dome than anything else. That and the loss of the games with Sparty are obviously casualties of the 9 game conference schedule and the need for 7 home games for both sides (actually 6&1 for ND, but I digress).

            The articles are amusing, I suppose. JonWitte is not the first to tell us how ‘great’ conference championships are…but it is rather funny to hear it in re the ACC given their CCG attendance woes. Mr. Shoor’s history leaves out that the original anti-bowl crowd was not the fans/alumni but the administration who was trying very hard after the 1925 Rose Bowl championship not to appear to be a football factory. When the AP poll went after the bowls in ’68, Bowls became in the eyes of the NDPTB to be a necessary evil to win a National Championship.

            He is right that Tom Dienhart’s BTN article reeked of sour grapes. They should have been embarrassed to run it.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        Marc-

        I think the difference between what you describe and what I point out is that Notre Dame didn’t have any long-term agreements with any conference to play X amount of football games with their teams. If I recall correctly, the deal between ND and the ACC extends into the late-2020s.

        I know that former ND AD Kevin White talked about playing three Big East teams per year at one time, but looking at past schedules, that never actually took place. In the end, of course, when the BE began disintegrating, Notre Dame opted to join the ACC with the agreement that the ND football team would play five games a year with teams from the conference.

        IRT to the Michigan-Notre Dame scheduling situation, that’s been pretty well documented in John Kryk’s “Natural Enemies: Major College Football’s Oldest, Fiercest Rivalry–Michigan vs. Notre Dame”.

        When UM and ND made the decision to play one another back in 1970 (the first game would be played in South Bend in 1978), Michigan made it pretty clear they wanted to have it as the season opener or barring that, UM wanted to make sure that each team had at least one game in hand before playing one another.

        That was working out fairly well until Holtz took over at ND. The Irish began scheduling tune up games before what was supposed to be the mutual season opener for both teams. Michigan then did two things–move games in front of the annual matchup with ND (which wasn’t a 100% successful in the early 1990s) and have another sit down with ND to clear matters up (and if Schembechler was still AD at the time, he said he would have cancelled the series right then).

        That meeting between the two athletic directors at the time had the programs opening the season with one another in 1998 and 1999. ND won the 1998 contest pretty convincingly in 1998 in South Bend, but then opted to play in one of the kickoff classics in 1999 immediately prior to the Michigan game that was going to be played in Ann Arbor. If you might recall, Lloyd Carr stated publicly that Notre Dame had broken a “gentleman’s agreement” prior to that 1999 UM-ND contest, but he didn’t elaborate on any details.

        In 2006, I attended a fantasy football event at Michigan that was part of a cancer research fund raiser and asked Carr about the “gentleman’s agreement” comment. He said that it was based on the events I described above, i.e., the meeting that had taken place between the two ADs in 1993. Carr was in complete agreement that college football teams improve the most between their first and second games, so he knew that ND was stealing a march on him. Did ND do anything illegal? No, they had every right to schedule that kickoff classic game. But Carr opted at that point that Michigan would never again try to schedule Notre Dame as their season opener.

        The other things that Michigan fans cite about Notre Dame was the timing and the method of cancellation of the series a couple of years ago. ND joined the ACC ten days prior to cancelling the UM series outright. While I realize it was a short window for ND, Irish AD Jack Swarbrick didn’t exactly extend Michigan any professional courtesy by giving UM AD David Brandon a phone call, etc.prior to handing him a letter right before the 2012 UM-ND game in South Bend ending the series.. In fact, Brandon didn’t even realize that the 2012 game would be considered one of the three required by the agreement to cancel the series until he was headed back to Ann Arbor.

        I think what tickles UM fans and alums like myself about Kelly’s lament about not being able to play Michigan State or Michigan (especially since he also called UM-ND a “great regional rivalry” at one time as a defense for cancelling the series) is that there’s a certain element of backtracking and irony about it.

        The other thing about this is that if Swarbrick had approached Brandon about this differently, the UM-ND games could have continued in some form. It may not have been the annual contest that it had been since 1978 (although there were a couple of two year breaks in it so ND could play Ohio State and Nebraska home-and-home), but they could have set up something whereby the two teams would play one another perhaps four times over a ten-year period or two times or an eight-year span. But given the way Swarbrick handled this a couple years ago, I don’t think that’s going to happen as long as Brandon is AD. Something tells me that he was “in the know” when Michigan played the “Chicken Dance” on the public address system at UM Stadium after beating ND last year in Ann Arbor 41-30.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I do vaguely recall the controversy over whether there was an agreement that the two schools would be each other’s first opponents of the season. But by the time ND joined the ACC, that was long since over with.

          Despite being a Michigan fan, I understand the bind ND was in. They had to get out of the cratering Big East. There were factions in the ACC that did not want anything to do with a partial member, whereas I’m sure ND would have preferred to retain its traditional independence. The five-game commitment was a compromise, and Swarbrick had 10 days to figure out what to do.

          As I gather, the provision that either side could cancel without penalty on three games’ notice was a unique feature of their deal with Michigan. Ironically, it was Michigan that had, at one time, requested this. (Most football scheduling deals have financial penalties to cancel, given that you cannot ordinarily find an opponent of ND’s or Michigan’s caliber on just three years’ notice.)

          Brandon has made clear that he didn’t appreciate the way Swarbrick handed him a letter on the sideline, just before kickoff. But the fact is, a friendly phone call a few days earlier would have made no substantive difference. The issue, assuming there is one, is of form, not substance.

          Some Michigan fans have also complained that Notre Dame had the first home game when the modern series resumed in 1978, and they are now also getting the last home game. To me, that seems like random timing. I don’t think Swarbrick plotted with evil intent to join the ACC at the precise moment that would give him an extra home game.

          Michigan has had trouble finding marquee non-conference opponents who will agree to a home & home. So far, they’ve lined up Utah, Arkansas, Virginia Tech, and UCLA, none of which have Notre Dame’s cachet. The bet here is that if Swarbrick wants to patch things up, Brandon will listen.

          But their next deal won’t be cancellable on three years’ notice without a buyout. I also think Notre Dame would need to visit Michigan in even-numbered years, i.e., the years that Michigan has both OSU and MSU on the road.

          Like

          • cutter says:

            Marc-

            I agree with you that any question about the two schools opening up the season with one another was answered in 1999. When I talked to Carr, he clearly felt that Notre Dame had undercut Michigan that year by scheduling what was essentially a warm up game. Bear in mind that this was the second year of the BCS, and the first season had an undefeated Tennessee play a one loss Florida State (FSU lost the second game of the season to NC State). With the post-season stakes now changed, winning the non-conference games became even more important.

            I have every sympathy for Notre Dame’s situation given the BIg East’s collapse. They went for the best available circumstances given what had transpired by joining the ACC. I don’t believe they had just ten days to figure out what they were going to do with their schedule though–this deal wasn’t made overnight.

            I agree with you that a phone call may not have made a substantive difference, but giving a head’s up would have been a very basic professional courtesy. The presentation of the letter in the manner Swarbrick did it pretty much precluded any opportunity for the two schools to modify the series in such a way that both schools could play one another in the near future. Given Kelly’s comments about how he and Swarbrick include Michigan in their discussions about non-ACC/traditional opponents in the years to come, it now seems a rather short-sighted way for Notre Dame to go about the matter.

            As a Michgian fans and alum, I really don’t care if UM has the last game or not. I do realize that perturbs some of the fanbase, but why cry over spilt milk? The best answer to that is beat them in South Bend next September.

            Keep in mind that the Arkansas and Utah games were schedule prior to the breakup with Notre Dame. MIchigan asked for the two year break from the ND series a few years ago to play the Razorbacks because their AD Jeff Long as ties to Ann Arbor. The games with Utah came about due to the short-lived Big Ten/Pac 12 scheduling alliance. I do agree with you that VIrginia Tech and UCLA are replacements for the hole in the schedule with ND. I’d expand on that by saying that Brigham Young in 2015 and Florida (neutral site) in 2017 are also replacements for the Irish falling off the schedule. The latter two are clearly not home-and-home arrangements, but they’re perhaps the best UM could do given the time frame. It’ll be interesting to see what Michigan has line up post 2023 when the home-and-home with UCLA is completed.

            I don’t know if Brandon would be willing to patch things up with Swarbrick. I’m going to see him at a charity event in a few weeks and I was planning to ask him what happened, etc. We’ll see what he says.

            I imagine that Brandon would have been perfectly happy with the series continuing. I know he wasn’t happy with the BIg Ten Conference shortly after the first expansion by putting Nebraska and Ohio State on the same home/away schedule rotation as Notre Dame. The irony of all this was that given the second Big Ten expansion and the shakeup of the conference schedule, the ND series’ timing would have fit perfectly with the four/five home/road game conference split that starts in 2016. UM would have had PSU and ND at home/on the road opposite of OSU and MSU.

            As you know, the two Under the Lights games were wildly successful beyond the final score. There were record crowds, lots of hype, special halftime shows, the un-retiring of Harmon’s jersey, etc.–all the things Brandon wants to bring to Michigan football. Michigan will play Penn State at night this year–we’ll see if he’s able to recreate that atmosphere in Ann Arbor for that game.

            Like

  32. vp19 says:

    Maryland, in the ACC baseball tournament for the first time since 2005 (and, as the sixth seed, not needing to play a win-or-go-home qualifying game), probably assured itself an NCAA tourney bid today with a 7-6 victory over Virginia, ranked third nationally. (The Terps and Cavs didn’t face each other during the regular season.) Maryland plays Florida State tomorrow and North Carolina Saturday, with a chance to qualify for Sunday’s championship game against the winner of the other pool (Miami, Duke, Clemson. Georgia Tech).

    Like

  33. Wainscott says:

    Update on UMass:

    http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=10445

    Also in that article, a claim that the AAC would like Army as a #13, and that the AAC would love BYU if it needed a home.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I don’t see the AAC luring BYU from the ranks of independence. The Big XII might, but not the American, with its mediocre set of schools. BYU is doing fine as a football independent, and for their olympic sports the West Coast Conference is a much better home (geographically) than the American.

      Army’s problem is that it has struggled to field a competitive football program. It needs a very carefully massaged schedule to have a shot at a respectable record. I think even Navy, which is traditionally the stronger of the two, may struggle in the AAC.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        I dont see BYU to the AAC either, unless they really have no other option.

        I see why AAC would want Army (name brand of a different sort), but I also agree that Army would probably not want to more elevated schedule the AAC would mean. Army’s schedules nowadays are very weak,and they still cant win.

        Like

  34. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24569993/american-athletic-conference-considers-division-alignment

    The AAC will look at divisional alignment next week.

    The American plans to go to six-team divisions in 2015 when Navy joins as a football-only member. The plan is to stage a conference championship game at a host school.

    For now, the American is settled at eight conference games. It’s looking at either a 5-3 scheduling model (five division opponents, three cross-division opponents) or a 5-2-1 model (five division, two cross-division, one permanent cross-division). Having a permanent opponent would likely be needed if UCF and USF are in opposite divisions.

    Aresco said both scheduling models break down by east-west geography for divisions. The conference’s teams in 2015 are: UCF, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, SMU, Temple, East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. That’s seven schools in the Eastern time zone.

    If the NCAA allows championship games without divisions, “we would at least look at that,” Aresco said. “You could have the issue of a rematch and not be an ideal scenario. If the NCAA changes don’t happen, we’re going to move ahead with our plan for divisions.”

    My suggestion:
    E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
    W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC

    Play a 5-3 schedule. It gives them pairs of “rivals” in each division as well as giving every school FL or TX access in division. It makes sense geographically, too.

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      “My suggestion:
      E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
      W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC”

      I wouldn’t be shocked if they switched UCF/USF with Cincy in order to give each school a guaranteed Florida opponent annually. Still doable with geographic-based divisions. Much harder to do with the Texas schools and have geographic divisions.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        They don’t all need FL access annually. The West gets a guaranteed game in TX every year, the East gets a game in FL.

        They could swap Navy and UC since Navy’s fan base is more national, but that’s a lot of travel for them.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          “They don’t all need FL access annually. The West gets a guaranteed game in TX every year, the East gets a game in FL.”

          I understand the logic, I just wouldn’t be shocked if the Florida schools are split. Could be from a desire to get every school a Florida opponent (and some guaranteed big market Texas/Florida games for TV) and allowing Cincy to be in the east (less travel on balance).

          “They could swap Navy and UC since Navy’s fan base is more national, but that’s a lot of travel for them.”

          Way too much travel for Navy in that scenario

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Unless they also split the TX schools, one division would really get the short end of the stick by splitting the FL schools. Besides, that would also force them to lock rivalries rather than play a 5-3 schedule.

            Scheduling:
            The keys to my divisions:
            1. No rivalries are split, meaning no locked crossover games are needed.
            2. There are natural pairs of schools that will allow for zippering in the crossover schedule.

            E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
            W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC

            Each team in the West plays one each of UCF/USF, UConn/Temple and ECU/Navy.
            Each team in the East plays one each of UH/SMU, Tulsa/Tulane and UC/Memphis.

            Everyone plays a team from every region of the conference every year. Everyone is guaranteed a game in TX or in FL annually, plus a game biannually in the other.

            Splitting the FL schools makes that much uglier.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            “Unless they also split the TX schools, one division would really get the short end of the stick by splitting the FL schools”

            That’s the geography and the conference composition.

            Your proposal is very reasonable. I just wouldnt be shocked if they split the Florida schools as I outlined.

            Like

  35. Brian says:

    Maurice Clarett spoke at an OSU alumni club meeting in Phoenix.

    jbook™ ‏@jbook37 19h

    Clarett said ESPN 1st approached him about doing a bash Ohio State film before he did the 30 for 30. He told them to get lost.

    It’s stuff like this that drives OSU fans to hate ESPN.

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Brian,

      It is just my opinion, but I believe that E*PN has a tendency to be negative towards ALL things Big Ten… I recall the recent Frozen Four– even with Minnesota’s great hockey history, seemed that all things were BC, or the upstart “David” in Union College.

      That is just one example that most recently comes to my mind—but, generally seems that B1G teams are an afterthought—unless it is something negative to report.

      Of course, with LHN, SEC network, and ties to ACC, seems logical that they would push their closer ties first—but, does get very old… Sucks that I automatically donate to their bottom line even though I don’t spend a lot of time viewing their programming… (unless it’s Minnesota being broadcast on their channel(s))… This is a good example of where I would be willing to pay “a la carte”—pay for what I actually watch…

      Like

      • Mike says:

        It is just my opinion, but I believe that E*PN has a tendency to be negative towards ALL things Big Ten

        @mnfanstc – SEC, ACC, PAC12, Big 12, and G5 fans all say that ESPN does same thing to them. ESPN’s job isn’t to be a cheer leader for anyone, it is to drive ratings. Union being in the final wasn’t going to do that, so they had to do whatever they could to get casual NCAA hockey fans (like me) to watch. Getting Maurice Clarett to bash OSU would have given ESPN enough content for all of their shows they might not have to mention Tebow for a few weeks.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          They want to drive ratings for schools that they are partners with that increase the value of ESPN. It can’t be more obvious.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            @Kevin – Isn’t the Big Ten one of ESPN’s partners? They just aren’t throwing a billion+ dollars (over 10 years) at the Big Ten for charity.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/ohio-state-football/2014/05/35961/braxton-miller-couldnt-start-sec-or-pac-12#

      There’s also stuff like this, where one of their talking heads says Braxton Miller couldn’t start for any Pac-12 team nor a good SEC team. I’m not saying Miller is the greatest QB ever, but he is the 2-time defending B10 player of the year and about to become a 4 year starter. And by ESPN’s own made up QB stat (QBR) he outperformed many of those QBs Cunningham said he couldn’t replace (Miller was 13th nationally, and remember he missed some cupcake games due to injury).

      Like

      • Mike says:

        This is why I dislike “Embrace the Debate” ESPN. We all know that Cunningham’s claim isn’t true, but he sure got Buckeyes talking. Hopefully Ed doesn’t take anymore notes from Skip Bayless.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Klinsmann doesn’t like him.

      Still, to anyone following the national team closely, Donovan’s exclusion did not come as a great surprise, whether one agreed or disagreed with the decision.

      Klinsmann had openly questioned whether Donovan’s desire, commitment and skill had ebbed to the point that less-experienced forwards like Chris Wondolowski and Aron Johannsson deserved instead to be named to the World Cup team along with Jozy Altidore and Clint Dempsey.

      He had also come to view Donovan as a forward, no longer as an attacking midfielder, a role in which Donovan was often menacing as he splayed the middle of a defense or raced down the flank.

      Donovan did not endear himself to Klinsmann by taking a self-imposed four-month sabbatical from soccer in December 2012. He returned and played superbly in the 2013 Gold Cup last summer, but he was relegated to reserve duty last month for a friendly against Mexico. At the time, Klinsmann said that Donovan lacked speed and insistence in training, hampered by a balky knee. He also appeared heavier than in the past.

      Donovan did not have an auspicious start to the current M.L.S. season. Klinsmann also appeared concerned that Donovan lacked motivation and was too willing to accept a lesser role on the national team. As Ridge Mahoney of Soccer America has pointed out, Klinsmann, a native of Germany, has also questioned Donovan’s toughness, especially after his inconsequential stints in the Bundesliga.

      Still, Donovan’s presence has always brought reassurance to the national team, not to mention five goals by him in the World Cup.

      His absence could add more vulnerability to a fragile team that has historically struggled to score in the tournament. No United States forward has delivered a goal in the World Cup since 2002.

      Recently, goalkeeper Tim Howard predicted that Donovan would be a key to the United States’ chances in a difficult World Cup group with Ghana, Portugal and Germany.

      “If Landon is on the field, he’s our top one or two players,” Howard told reporters.

      Smart move dropping the only player many Americans have ever heard of. What we really need is a coach who can develop an offense.

      Like

  36. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/95261/by-the-numbers-nonconference-scheduling

    A look at OOC scheduling versus Power 5 teams for the ACC.

    In fact, going back five years to the 2009 season, the numbers are pretty bleak.

    The 11 current ACC members who have been a part of the conference since 2009 have played a total of 73 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 teams. Their combined record is a dismal 22-51 (.301).

    Here’s how bad it actually is:

    • Three of those 22 wins actually came against Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville when those programs were not part of the ACC.

    • Seven more wins came against Vandy, Kansas, Rutgers and Indiana — hardly traditional powers despite their conference affiliations.

    • No ACC team has a winning record in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams during that span. The team that has performed the best during that stretch is North Carolina, which is 3-3.

    The number of games played by ACC teams against nonconference Power 5 opponents in the regular season since 2009:

    Team No. of Games
    Clemson 10
    Wake Forest 10
    Georgia Tech 9
    Boston College 8
    Florida State 7
    Virginia 7
    Miami 6
    North Carolina 6
    Duke 4
    NC State 3
    Virginia Tech 3

    Like

  37. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/10967581/chicago-cubs-owner-tom-ricketts-opts-return-original-wrigley-field-renovation-plan

    How much can the Cubs improve Wrigley? Greedy people won’t compromise, so it’s headed to court.

    Like

    • @Brian – I’m not even a Cubs fan (White Sox all the way), but I support Tom Ricketts 100% on this. The fact that the Cubs haven’t been able to break ground on renovations that should have started several years ago because of a combination of Chicago aldermanic cronyism, rooftop owners that are profiting off of a product that isn’t theirs, and local NIMBYs that complain about traffic after willingly buying million dollar homes a couple of blocks away from a 40,000-seat ballpark that has been there for the past 100 years is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the Cubs steamroll all of them. They should be able to do with they want with their property that draws 3 million people into the city every year for games (plus spurring the bar and nightlife economy in the Wrigleyvile neighborhood), particularly when they’re actually paying for it themselves (as opposed to other teams that have held their home cities hostage for public financing).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’m with you. The greedy people I was referring to were those other people who profit from the Cubs. Of course it wouldn’t be such a problem if Ricketts hadn’t sign a contract with them that’s good into the 2020s.

        Like

        • John O says:

          The Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, and White Sox all, directly or indirectly, received public assistance for new stadiums because they knew who to had to be paid off and how to do it with out getting caught. But the Cubs are as inept at politics (remember Joe Ricketts’ anti-Obama ad in 2012?) as they are on the field. They want to spend their own money improving their own property? Don’t they know by now that nothing gets done in Chicago unless there is something in it for those with clout? I wonder what Mike Royko would have to say about all of this.

          Like

      • frug says:

        rooftop owners that are profiting off of a product that isn’t theirs,

        I’ll give you the others, but Ricketts signed a deal with the rooftop owners, so it’s hard to fault them for fighting.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          The country lives vicariously through those rooftop fans. When I visualize Wriggly Field I see them in the background.

          Like

        • frug says:

          Also, on the topic of the aldermen, it is worth remembering that Rickett’s dad made created problems for the entire Rickett’s clan in Chicago with his attempt to sabotage the Democratic National Convention in 2012. He was even warned in advance that it would make Tom’s attempts to purchase the Cubs and renovate Wrigley more difficult.

          Like

  38. Brian says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/22/nfl-likely-to-add-two-more-teams-to-playoffs-for-2015-season/?cmpid=sem_fkfn

    Since the NFL playoffs are too restrictive, they want to add 2 more teams by 2015. That would make 14 of 32 teams making the playoff, with a 7-9 team being quite possible to make it.

    Like

  39. Brian says:

    http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/05/22/3440404/50-us-senators-demand-change-to-redskins-name-in-letter-to-nfl/

    The senate really thinks Daniel Snyder should rename his team.

    Fifty United States Senators have called for a change to change the name of the Washington Redskins in a letter to National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell released Thursday. The letter, first reported by the New York Times, cites the NBA’s swift action against the racism of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and asks Goodell and the NFL to take similar action against a name Native American activists call a “dictionary-defined slur.”

    “Today, we urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports. It’s time for the NFL to endorse a name change for the Washington, D.C. football team,” the letter states.

    “Now is the time for the NFL to act,” it continues. “What message does it send to punish slurs against African Americans while endorsing slurs against Native Americans?”

    Only five Democrats — Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor — did not sign the letter. Kaine and Warner’s absences are notable, as both represent the state in which the team is based.

    The 50 signatures mean that a majority of the U.S. Senate has now spoken out against the name. Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) did not sign the letter, which the Times said was not circulated among Republicans, but challenged its continued use in the wake of the Sterling ban. “If they think it’s that offensive and terrible, I would certainly — probably — I’m not the owner and he has the rights of an owner. But frankly I would probably change the name,” McCain said during an appearance on The Dan Patrick Show earlier this month. “Myself I’m not offended. You’re not offended. But there are Native Americans who are.”

    This is the third letter from Senate and congressional leaders to the NFL in the last year. Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Native American Caucus, and eight other members of Congress sent a letter demanding a change to the NFL in May 2013. Cole and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the former chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, sent a similar letter to the league in February. President Obama is on record saying he would consider changing the team’s name, and other congressional leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have called on the team to drop the name.

    The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, which has led a public campaign against the name since the beginning of the 2013 NFL season and National Congress of American Indians, which has opposed the name for more than 50 years, “applauded” the letter in a statement.

    “The name of Washington’s NFL team is widely recognized as a racial slur,” NCAI executive director Jackie Plata said in the statement. “The NFL is a global brand, but if it wants to contribute to the positive image of the United States across the world, rather than callously promoting discrimination against Native Americans, then it must stop promoting this slur and finally change the name.”

    “The R-word is a dictionary defined racial slur, which likely explains why avowed segregationist George Preston Marshall decided to use the term as the team’s name,” Oneida representative Ray Halbritter said. “Continuing an infamous segregationist’s legacy by promoting such a slur is not an honor, as Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell claim. It is a malicious insult. That is why leaders in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the White House, and at all levels of government across the country are uniting in opposition to this offensive and hurtful name.”

    If that many Native Americans are against it, then Snyder really should rethink his position. I understand not wanting to lose brand value, but there are limits.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Its really not much different than if it were the Washington N words.
      A lot of this political correctness runs amuk like Marquette changing their name from the Warriors. But Redskins is clearly offensive and a slur.

      The NFL would do the same thing in a heartbeat if they had a Donald Sterling. But they won’t do anything about a formal league sanctioned slur against American Indians.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Agreed. I continue to hold out hope that eventually Snyder will decide to keep the logo and colors and change the name to something a little less offensive (Washington Warriors?) as a compromise.

        Like

      • metatron says:

        They won’t do anything about it because they own the trademark and the vast majority of people are ambivalent about it, including most Native Americans.

        Like

      • Wainscott says:

        Pigskins would be a perfect new name.

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          How about the Washington Pork?

          Since the team’s offensive line was known as the Hogs in the 80s, this would be a nice nod to tradition as well.

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Pigskins would require very little change. “Hail to the Pigskins” works. ‘Skins nickname works. Same colors, just swap out the Indian for a football. Heck, can even modify the Arrow logo to be a really long and narrow football if you get creative.

            Another great suggestion I once heard was to keep the name and change the logo to a potato.

            Like

    • Kevin says:

      I never thought of the name being offensive although I am sure some do. If you research the history of the organization the team was the Boston Braves and then upon their move to Washington they changed to Redskins to honor a coach who was a relatiive of the Sioux tribe.

      I would imagine Synder would like to ride it out as public outcry seems to be cyclical and not constant. This may go away for a decade or more etc…

      There is too much political correctness and its a shame that many High Schools can no longer be the “Indians” etc…. Is Cleveland or Atlanta at risk too? Schools and teams pick mascots as sense of pride and to honor. I don’t know of any to suggest differently. Some of the animal mascots are somewhat goofy. Golden Gopher, WTF?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Kevin,

        “I never thought of the name being offensive although I am sure some do.”

        It’s literally defined as offensive by dictionaries.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
        “Redskin” is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as “usually offensive”,[2] “disparaging”,[3][4] “insulting”,[5] “taboo” [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Kevin,

        “If you research the history of the organization the team was the Boston Braves and then upon their move to Washington they changed to Redskins to honor a coach who was a relatiive of the Sioux tribe.”

        Umm, that’s not what I’ve read.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins

        The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team’s name to the Boston Redskins. The Redskins relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937.

        I’m not discounting the coach part of your story, but the team was still in Boston and had to change their name since they left the Boston Braves’ (baseball) home field for the Red Sox’s home field. Also, there is dispute over whether that coach was actually part Sioux or just claimed that.

        And remember, this is the same franchise that had to be forced to integrate by the federal government. They were the last NFL team to integrate, and it only happened because their stadium was owned by the federal government. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

        “There is too much political correctness and its a shame that many High Schools can no longer be the “Indians” etc…. ”

        Says the non-Native American. If white southerners had their way, some of the team names in the south would be interesting, too. That doesn’t make it right.

        “Is Cleveland or Atlanta at risk too?”

        Indians and Braves are seen as more neutral terms. Chief Wahoo should go. The Braves don’t use a face or human mascot. They could feel free to drop the tomahawk chop, but that’s more from its annoyance factor.

        “Schools and teams pick mascots as sense of pride and to honor.”

        That’s great. It doesn’t make their choices appropriate.

        “Some of the animal mascots are somewhat goofy. Golden Gopher, WTF?”

        Goofy and racist are not even remotely similar.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          “Redskin” is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,

          People need to get a grip on this stuff. I am part Menominee and am the least bit offended. I also went to graduate school at Marquette and had to suffer through the Warrior name change and for a brief time the “Gold”.

          In a recent 2014 poll nearly 80% believe Synder should not change the name of his team. I believe he isn’t changing the name unless the NFL and the other owners compensate him for the potential loss in brand value.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            But do you consider yourself “Native American?” I’m about 1/6th Native American but don’t consider myself “Native American.” I’m not personally offended. But its an offensive term and many are offended.

            There’s a big difference between Redskin and Indian as there is between “Chink” and Chinese or the “N word” and Black. It clearly crosses the line.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            As for the poll, American Indians just don’t have as good a lobby. In one of my kid’s elementary history book in the western era, they went on and on about discrimination against Chinese railroad workers, Hispanic cowboys and Black farmers but only mentioned briefly the extermination campaign against the Indians. Buffalo were wiped out by “loss of habitat” instead of the reality that they were almost hunted to extinction in a deliberate policy designed to starve the plains Indians onto the reservation. There was as much on discrimination as there was on the rest of the history. Yet the Indians didn’t get much attention.

            They’re 1% of the population so they get ignored by the 80%.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…but only mentioned briefly the extermination campaign against the Indians.”

            The most egregious assault, among many, was the intentional shipping of measles and TB infected blankets to trading posts. True biological warfare.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Kevin,

            “Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,”

            While great that it wasn’t pejorative 200 years ago, that’s irrelevant to today’s world. The word was a pejorative term before the team was named that.

            “I am part Menominee and am the least bit offended.”

            So if I can find one person that doesn’t object to any ethnic slur, I can name a team that and be OK?

            “In a recent 2014 poll nearly 80% believe Synder should not change the name of his team.”

            A poll of whom? Redskin fans? White people? The fly diet argument is silly. Being popular doesn’t make something right.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “The most egregious assault, among many, was the intentional shipping of measles and TB infected blankets to trading posts. True biological warfare.”

            —Except that it never happened.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst’s name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman’s Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac’s forces during the summer of 1763:

            … Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort — an early example of biological warfare — which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
            Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.”

            http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

            “The above paraphrased quote from William Trent’s Journal has been taken as the major evidence for using smallpox blankets…but…the full quote by Trent is subject to a different interpretation.

            “[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as [at] Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of.”

            Yes, there is not a lot of documentation, but there is knowledge and it is a stretch to think an unofficial use would have occurred off and on, and that only a few exposures would have devastating effect.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Yes, there is not a lot of documentation, but there is knowledge and it is a stretch to think an unofficial use would have occurred off and on, and that only a few exposures would have devastating effect.”

            —-By ‘not a lot’ you mean that you just quoted the sum total of said documentation.

            Not only is there is doubt as to whether Amherst’s suggestions was ever carried out but there is also some as to whether Captain Ecuyer’s goal was to infect Fort Pitt’s besiegers with smallpox. The presentation of the blankets & the handkerchief as gifts to help persuade the Indians to lift the siege. It is possible that was the ‘desired effect’ referred to by Ecuyer as it was prefaced with “out of our regard for them”. His true intent is certainly open for debate but the bottom line is that we don’t know for certain. Whether it was intentional or not it’s unlikely that it was successful as the Indians in the delegation did not contract the disease (they were in contact with the Fort more than a month later).

            Of course the quoted events took place during Pontiac’s War in which both sides were particularly brutal. The Indians fighting on the French side regularly massacred entire communities men, women & children. They also carried out their own form of biological warfare by fouling wells with animal carcasses.

            Note that the incident at Fort Pitt was carried out by the British prior to the formation of the United States. A few years later the British were accused of various attempts to infect American troops & civilians with Smallpox during the Revolutionary War. While those claims are completely undocumented, it suggests that deliberate infection with Smallpox wasn’t a specific horror intended to eliminate native peoples.

            The claims regarding Indian trading posts (remember your initial claim specifically mentioned trading posts) did not occur until roughly seven decades later. Those claims coriginate with Ward Churchill who made them while serving as a Professor at the University of Colorado. Churchill was later fired from his position for falsifying his research. His claims have been completely discredited.

            Now given that in 1801 President Jefferson ordered that Smallpox vaccinations be provided to Indians, and those efforts continued for more than 30 years; how likely is it that the US Army was trying to exterminate Indians via Smallpox while at the same time they providing them with vaccinations for the disease?

            Lord Amherst was certainly an asshole when it came to Indians but that has little bearing on the later policies of the United States.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            …it isn’t a stretch…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Scarlet_Lutefisk,

            “—-By ‘not a lot’ you mean that you just quoted the sum total of said documentation. ”

            Just out of curiosity, how much documentation would you expect for a biological warfare attack before electricity?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “See Ann F. Ramenofsky, Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1987):

            Among Class I agents, Variola major holds a unique position. Although the virus is most frequently transmitted through droplet infection, it can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (Downie 1967; Upham 1986). As a consequence, Variola major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets (Dixon 1962). In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945). [p. 148]

            It’s not like this is a completely new concept. It was a new application.

            “See also Robert L. O’Connell, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989):

            Marking a milestone of sorts, certain colonists during the French and Indian Wars resorted to trading smallpox-contaminated blankets to local tribes with immediate and devastating results. While infected carcasses had long been catapulted into besieged cities, this seems to be the first time a known weakness in the immunity structure of an adversary population was deliberately exploited with a weapons response. [p. 171]

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            The intentional transmission of smallpox to indians by the US Army has been hotly debated by historians,and there does not appear to be sufficient proof of the event.

            Smallpox outbreaks could have just as easily been benign, like in 1837, which many consider to be innocent transmission from a sick ship crew.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20090302163142/http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

            https://web.archive.org/web/20050212022243/http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Sorry for taking so long to reply. I don’t check the board regularly these days as conference realignment is at a low ebb.

            “Just out of curiosity, how much documentation would you expect for a biological warfare attack before electricity”
            — Electricity has nothing to do with it. Militaries are obsessive record keepers. Likewise commisioned officers has a tendency to be journal keepers and just about everyone wrote Mary Sue or Mama back home.

            We also have detailed reports from the Department of the Interior Office of Indian Affairs (as well as it’s predecessor Council of Indian Affairs) & the Canadian government’s Department of Indian Affairs.

            The era is very well documented. The advent of electricity just means that, in a thousand years records from the 1800’s will likely be more plentiful than from the early 21st.

            As great as the Internet is, it has also greatly broadened the ability of bad information to propagate & persist among groups who lack either the inclination or the ability to properly research topics.

            That brings us to ccrirder who has done a quick Google search, stumbled across an activist web site then cut & pasted without ever actually checking the primary sources. The original source is a paper written by Peter d’Errico in 2001 about Lord Amherst.

            The Ramenofsky quote? Her citation (Stearn and Stearn 1945) is a book called “Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian”. It also happens to be one of the sources that Ward Churchill intentionally misquoted which subsequently led to his dismissal for misconduct.

            I own a copy.

            Guess what? Nowhere in the book does it claim that the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to native Americans ‘to contron the Indian problem’. It does however detail the many occasions of accidental contact from both sides. Commonly when an outpost on the frontier was hit with smallpox they tried to warn Indians away because once infected Indians had a tendency to become riotiously angry and go on the war path in revenge.

            Interestingly there are a couple of incidents that are worth mentioning. In 1812 the Chinook has decided to run white settlers off of their land. They planned an attack on Fort Astoria & stopped trading. Word of the upcoming hostilities leaked out. A fur trader by the name of James McDougal called a number of Chinook leaders together for a negotiation. He made a speech in which he told them that he was the Smallpox Chief, he kept it within a small glass bottle and if he removed the cork it would escape and kill them all. He went on to state that such measures were only for his enemies, not his friends. The Chinook pleaded with him to keep the bottle sealed, McDougal agreed and trade resumed. Obviously McDougal was making an empty threat, but smallpox was so terrifying that it was an effective one.

            Similarly in 1870 during the construction of the Pacific Railroad, individuals intent on inciting Indians to attack the workers started spreading rumors among the Indians that there was a plan to exterminate them with smallpox via clothing items that would be sent to them.

            Once smallpox began decimating them, many tribes came to believe that it was an intentional attack brought upon them by the white man. That’s human nature. How many plagues in Europe were blamed on Jews, Gypsies or other outsiders? The preponder of evidence however doesn’t support the claim. The US went to great efforts to prevent the spread of smallpox among native peoples. It did not intentionally try to infect them if for no other reason than it was counter productive. The US wanted to expand smoothly & without trouble. Pissed off Indians with nothing to lose didn’t help to achieve that goal.

            I know it’s tempting to do a bit of superficial digging & start to believe you know a little bit about a topic. However looking at quotes that are 2 or 3 times removed from their source without ever checking the original context is not useful research.

            Like

      • Richard says:

        However, there was a policy to exterminate the buffalo as a cynical strategy to bring the Plains Indians to heel by starving them in to submission.

        Like

  40. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Here’s a good college baseball analysis of the conference tournaments, national seeds, and host sites for the tournament.

    http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9939

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      College baseball update through Friday’s games.

      http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9944

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Maryland beat Florida State Friday, and combined with UVa’s win over UNC last night, the Terps have qualified for Sunday’s ACC title game (though they will face UNC today in a game that now means more for the struggling Tar Heels. Maryland — which hasn’t won an ACC title since 1971 — will meet either Georgia Tech or Duke for the conference championship.

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        College baseball update through Saturday’s games.

        http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9948

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          They have your LSU Tigers trending up to a national seed.
          What’s with the low non-conference SOS this year for LSU? Seems like they usually schedule pretty aggressively in other sports.
          Do they play a bunch of small local schools yearly, or is this year just unrepresentative of the usual non-con schedule?

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            LSU’s OOC SOS is never really that good because my Tigers need all the home games they can get to pay off their $50 million stadium. Before SEC play begins, LSU usually schedules some northern teams either in a three game series, or multiple teams for a round robin to give them a chance to play more games and play in front of several thousand fans. For mid-week games, LSU usually plays in-state teams and teams from East Texas or Mississippi. The Tigers had the misfortune is playing a bunch of teams that are usually decent that had bad seasons this year, like Tulane. When VA Tech and Purdue were scheduled, they were coming off great seasons, but the Hokies and the Boilermakers sucked this season. Also, LSU scheduled two games against UNO this season as they were opening up a new ballpark, but UNO still hasn’t recovered from Katrina. Also, the Tigers inexplicably scheduled four SWAC schools that all sucked. Only two OOC opponents will make the tournament.

            Next season, LSU will play in the Minute Maid Classic in Houston that should help it OOC and road RPI. I understand that Houston and Rice usually participate in this tournament.

            Like

          • Arch Stanton says:

            I think Nebraska is scheduled to be in the Minute Maid Classic next year too.

            Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          LSU threw their 17th shutout of the season to win the SEC tournament over the regular season champion Florida Gators 2-0.

          Like

  41. bullet says:

    Big 12 tax returns are out.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/13/bob-bowlsby-salary-big-12-conference-revenue-finances/9020973/

    “Buoyed by a new television contract that Bowlsby helped negotiate with Fox and ESPN, the 10-team conference reported that its annual revenue increased by about $57.6 million to $217.1 million during a fiscal year that ended June 30, 2013.

    The conference’s huge overall revenue jump is almost entirely attributable to an increase in television rights fees from the new agreement that took effect with the start of the 2012-13 school year. For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2012, the Big 12 reported total TV revenue of nearly $79 million. The new return placed that figure at $132.3 million.

    As a result, the eight schools that remained with the Big 12 following the departures of Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC saw their payouts from the conference increase by about $6.5 million each in 2012-13, to between $20.5 million and $21.4 million. The conference’s two new schools each received less than half as much – TCU got $9.8 million and West Virginia $8.8 million, the return showed.

    Big 12 chief financial officer Steve Pace said TCU’s and West Virginia’s distributions will gradually increase until they become full shares in the 2015-16 fiscal year.”

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      $100m less than the B1G and SEC, after the SEC’s renegotiation and before the B1G’s renegotiation. That’s a big gap that’s only going to grow.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        317/12=26.4 Big 10
        314/14=22.4 SEC
        217/10=21.7 Big 12

        Not very big on a school by school basis. And the Big 12 should be ahead of the SEC next year as they are dividing the same playoff/Sugar Bowl money 10 ways instead of 14. And the Big 10 number includes their Tier 3 figures. Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million. Kansas earns a substantial amount as well and the others earn some.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          Now, compare that to the reported B1G projections in 2017, after it gets a chance to renegotiate. $45m/ year per school. SEC is projected at, what, $35,/year per school once the SECN gets up and running? B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years.

          Like

          • frug says:

            B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years.

            They might make less than the B1G and SEC, but after including Tier 3 rights and the Sugar Bowl payout, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas should be making amounts comparable to the PAC (especially after factoring in travel costs since the Big XII is more compact) and substantially ahead of the ACC, which should be enough to keep them satisfied.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years

            Texas has the LHN money to keep pace. Everyone else may not be thrilled, but there isn’t much they can do. For various reasons, anyone with options is stuck in the Big 12 until Texas decides to leave.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million.”

          No. It bumps Texas and Oklahoma’s numbers, not the B12.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Well then pull the comparable amount out of the Big 10 if you are going to compare them. You could pull out the BTN, which would drop the Big 10 down to around 19 million. Of course, that wouldn’t exactly be apples to apples either as BTN includes more than the Big 12 Tier 3.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No. Distribute those incomes throughout the conference and then it’s conference income. Otherwise it’s personalized deals for particular schools. To compare otherwise exposes the reason UT isn’t a good fit for the B1G. They look at themselves and conference members as pseudo independents business competitors, and give just enough to keep them afloat and around. To claim equal revenue sharing for the B12 while raking in ESPN anti super conference money (which is what % of the conference distributed media money), and then to use the LHN to blister B12 numbers is just disingenuous.

            The argument will be moot when the new B1G media deal happens, and the BTN continues to expand carriage in the eastern corridor.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t see how you think comparing Tier I, II and III to Tier I and II makes any sense. It doesn’t.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I agree, but you miss the point. B12 conference distributions don’t include the Sooner net, LHN, or whatever else is involved outside those. How the middle/bottom of a conference fares is more instructive about a conference than how kings, who would be fine in any setup, are doing. My point is that UT/OU could have leveraged far more than the added together tier 3 contracts in a conference network. Would UT be getting 11M? That’s silly, super conference vaccination (bribe) money. But they’d be a getting significant amount. The B12 would then be able to legitimately be the (temporary) leader in conference distributions. And the conference (not just OU/UT) would have a chance at staying in the B1G/SEC neighborhood.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And I guess I should have included the PAC, judging by year one of the new contract and the “not so successfully distributed” P12N (lacks DTV…for now).

            Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “317/12=26.4 Big 10
          314/14=22.4 SEC
          217/10=21.7 Big 12

          Not very big on a school by school basis.”

          I agree with your underlying point that the correct comparison is on a per team basis. That said, it’s always weird to hear $4.7M described as not very big.

          Normalized:
          B12 = 1.00
          SEC = 1.03 – 3% more (not very big, I agree)
          B10 = 1.22 – 22% more (that seems kind of big to me)

          “And the Big 12 should be ahead of the SEC next year as they are dividing the same playoff/Sugar Bowl money 10 ways instead of 14.”

          But the SEC also has the Orange Bowl deal and the B12 doesn’t.

          “And the Big 10 number includes their Tier 3 figures. Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million. Kansas earns a substantial amount as well and the others earn some.”

          Tier 3 is a gray term. B10 schools still get large additional payments for radio, advertising, etc outside of the BTN deal. OSU is making $11M per year for radio and such from IMG, for example.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The point is that the Big 10 is 4.7 million ahead but includes more. When you add in the Big 12 Tier 3 media deals (LHN, OU deal with Fox Sports SW, 5 others deals with Fox Sports SW, KU’s deal, ISU’s deal and WVU’s deal), that 4.7 gets a lot smaller and you are more comparing apples to apples. The Big 12 schools also get additional Tier 3 outside of their media Tier 3. Texas gets $9.4 million from IMG on top of the $15 million average from ESPN (although IMG gets a cut of the ESPN deal).

            Texas earned about 11 million on LHN last year and OU’s deal is 7 million, so that alone narrows the gap from 4.7 to 2.9 million. The amount of the rest of the media deals hasn’t been publically announced or, in WVU’s case, isn’t separated from the other miscellaneous Tier 3, but probably is a little more than the combined UT and OU deals. If you assume another 18 million, that narrows that gap to only 1.1 million.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            But at the same time the B10 is building the value of an asset (BTN) that they seem to value at roughly $75M per school based on what NE is paying in. Factor that in, too. The point is, you really can’t do apple to apples comparisons because of the way accounting and contracts vary.

            What is wrong is to say that the gap between the listed B10 payout and the listed B12 payout isn’t very big. You can argue for why the listed values aren’t the best comparison (as you have here), but you can’t start by saying a 22% difference isn’t very big. That undermines anything else you proceed to say.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…B10 is building the value of an asset (BTN) that they seem to value at roughly $75M per school based on what NE is paying in. ”

            $75M x 12 = $900M
            And that’s for 50% of the total value.
            What’s the value with the eastern corridor included?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it. What would it sell for in an open market?

            If you take out the BTN, the Big 12 makes more. If you add the comparable Tier III revenues to the Big 12 numbers, its close and either the Big 10 is a little ahead or the Big 12 schools are a little ahead.

            What doesn’t make any sense is to say the Big 10 is 22% ahead, but we are going to count revenues for the Big 10 but ignore those same revenues for the Big 12. Texas Tech is apparently making $3 million on its TV deal with Fox Sports SW. That put them at $25 million which is pretty similar to the $25.7 million that actually got distributed to continuing Big 10 members last year.

            Even the conferences that say they share everything don’t necessarily. In 2011-12, the ACC distributions ranged from $15.7 to $18.6 million and they supposedly share EVERYTHING equally. So its pretty relevant to include the TV Tier 3 from the Big 12 schools.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it.”

            Same for the LHN.
            And UNL went to the open market and chose to go B1G and pay that amount.

            “Texas Tech is apparently making $3 million on its TV deal with Fox Sports SW. That put them at $25 million which is pretty similar to the $25.7 million that actually got distributed to continuing Big 10 members last year.”

            So…we should expect to hear rumors of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, exploring B12 options?

            “So its pretty relevant to include the TV Tier 3 from the Big 12 schools.”

            But not as conference income. The numbers you’re adding have very little or nothing to do with the conference.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it. What would it sell for in an open market?

            On the other hand, they had access to more data than we do, and had more on the line if they got it wrong. I would put the burden of proof squarely on the “not worth it” crowd.

            Like

      • Kevin says:

        Wonder what their distribution is per school. Could be generating a fair amount of revenue from PAC 12 Network but not making money and not paying rights fees since they have complete ownership. I could see them one day selling a significant interest to a TV partner. Could be a windfall for their conference membership.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Completely nearsighted temporary gain, for a bunch of schools who just got a big raise, at the cost of future income and control? Not likely…

          Kevin Weiberg said that the single thing they would change if starting the BTN again would have been to keep 100% ownership. But, as it was the first of its kind, risk reduction won the day.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          That makes sense. They have revenue from Pac 10 network, but also a lot of expenses.

          Their distribution were last among the P5 in 2011-12 ($11.1 million) and their expected distributions according to Wilner (never heard final-should be in that tax return USA Today got) was $18 million which was also last.

          Like

        • Mack says:

          PAC Distribution $19.8M for 11 members; $10.8M for Utah (at end of post), so average of $19.1M. With the full revenue of the PAC networks, the PAC should continue to lead in revenue, making this a meaningless apples and oranges comparison since the PAC also has the full expenses of the network that the other conferences do not.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Why would full revenue and full cost not balance with aprox 50% revenue and 50% cost? ESPN and Fox aren’t donating. The PAC full ownership means no middleman profit need be accounted for seems the only difference. Should be able to generate similar distributions with significantly fewer subscribers, once startup costs are finished.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Or generate significantly less.

            With 100% you take all the risks. Its not all upside.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes, from a strictly immediate cash standpoint. But I thought we agreed that a conference owned network served the conference needs/objectives in ways that don’t provide immediate cash returns.

            Until these networks are actually losing money (production costs greater than carriage fees + advertising, no content purchase required) 100% > 50%. The production costs for fox may be slightly different than for a conference, but if that was close to eating up the profit I don’t think fox would have exercised the option to increase ownership and the extension of the partnership.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The intangible benefits of the 100% owned pac 12 network vs. the half owned Big 10 network vs. the half equity non-owned SEC Network vs. the 0% ownership Longhorn network are pretty much the same.

            The only issue is the Pac 12 is taking more risk in order to potentially get more returns. But you get more returns because you are taking the risk that you don’t make any money.

            Now you lose some control. With the SEC Network and Longhorn Network, ESPN is determining the rate and is basing it on making the most money, not on the most coverage.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “But you get more returns because you are taking the risk that you don’t make any money.”

            Agreed. But (a) that risk has been shown to be minimal and (b) Weiberg, who was involved in starting the BTN says they wish they had accepted that risk. Risk avoidance was understandable for the first effort. That risk now is quantifiable, and not high.

            “The intangible benefits of the 100% owned pac 12 network vs. the half owned Big 10 network vs. the half equity non-owned SEC Network vs. the 0% ownership Longhorn network are pretty much the same.”

            Agree, as long as sports rights remain valuable monetarily (which then makes 100% ownership less risky, and more profitable).
            Disagree if those rights become less monetarily valuable. With co-owned or completely external commercial media ownership the decision to continue/renew the agreement creating the network, when it approaches expiration, will primarily be a monetary one. The intangible benefits to the conference and it’s schools won’t influence most Fox/Disney shareholders, but will presidents/chancellors.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Then again, the B1G deal with Fox to run the BTN expires in 2032. The conference would assume full ownership and control at that point unless an extension is agreed to.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “The conference would assume full ownership and control at that point unless an extension is agreed to.”

            They could. That’s why I’ve suggested the BTN and P12N are the only true conference networks (owned, as opposed to dedicated to). Fox seems to believe there is enough long term benefit to extend. For the cost of operations their profit could be kept in house.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            With split ownership the BTN has its own corporate structure. Based on reported revenues and distributions of the B1G it appears only the profit turned over to the B1G by the BTN is counted as conference revenue (no production expenses). With the PAC network fully owned all of its revenue and production expenses are reported as part of the conference. Therefore, although the PAC reports higher revenue, due to higher expenses it has less profit (distributions) than the B1G.

            Like

      • Transic says:

        What is the timeline for the Pac 12 to pay off all of the start up costs of the P12N?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          What is the timeline for Fox/B1G to pay off all of the start up costs of the BTN?

          The report noted “The conference reported paying $17.6 million to a general contractor and $13.7 million in what it described as “installation” costs.”
          Are those P12N expenditures, something else, or a combination? Will they be recurring, and if so, for how long? Where is Fox/B1G in the same process? I’m sure some bean counter knows, but he isn’t sharing.

          Like

  42. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10974117/men-basketball-dayton-run-elite-eight-worth-73-million-city

    A little hoops success goes a long way, apparently.

    Dayton’s surprise run to the Elite Eight of this past season’s NCAA tournament was worth nearly $73 million to the city.

    A report issued by Dayton’s city commissioners this month concluded that the Flyers garnered the equivalent of $36.7 million for Dayton during the play of their four games, $34.5 million from replays and television clips, and $726,321 in value from social media posts. The team’s Twitter handle, @daytonflyers, received more than 90 million impressions from the start of the tournament on March 18 to when the team was knocked out by overall top seed Florida on March 29.

    The team’s run did cost the city of Dayton something. To control the celebrations, the city paid more than $57,000 in overtime to police officers, according to the Dayton Daily News.

    ..

    Schools that have had Final Four runs have concluded that making it just one more game than Dayton did is worth much more. George Mason said its run in 2006 was worth $677 million to the school, and Wichita State’s trip to the Final Four in 2013 was said to be worth $555 million.

    Butler’s trips to the title game were said to be worth $639 million in 2010 and $512 million in 2011.

    When people question why schools spend money on sports, this is part of the answer.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Seems like small schools should spend it mostly on basketball.

      Butler would not gain much potential upside from doubling its football budget.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I really don’t understand. Where is this 1.1+ billion Butler supposedly gained? They could have endowed their entire athletic dept.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Publicity value mostly, I assume. How much would Butler have to pay to get as much media attention as their hoops team got them for free?

        Like

      • Mark says:

        These studies are huge lies – for the school there may be some more applicants, but assuming most universities are going to accept x number of students, more applicants just helps to increase your US News rating but doesn’t result in any more money. Maybe get a few more donations, but are there really that many alumni for school like Dayton that will all of a sudden sent in $1000 due to winning a game or two? For the city of Dayton to get $34.5M, you would need a massive influx of new residents or visitors paying taxes that certainly has not happened due to a fall ball games.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Most universities are willing to accept more students. Maybe most of the AAU schools have target enrollments, but other schools are still willing to grow.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Mark,

          “These studies are huge lies – for the school there may be some more applicants, but assuming most universities are going to accept x number of students, more applicants just helps to increase your US News rating but doesn’t result in any more money.”

          Wow. That’s a lot of wrong packed in one sentence.

          1. Bad assumption. Many schools would be happy to grow.
          2. More applicants means you can be more selective and improve your average student. That leads to better graduates, which leads to more donations, etc.
          3. More applicants also means more out of state applicants, so they can make much more money per student (state schools, at least).
          4. More awareness of your school means better jobs for your graduates, which leads to more donations, etc (especially for small private schools).
          5. Improving the student body helps to draw better faculty which in turn draws more research money, again helping the bottom line.
          6. If it’s so useless, why do schools pay to advertise? If advertising has value, why are you calling it a lie? If you have some evidence to back it up, feel free to show it.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            Most schools are happy to grow? Really? Where do they get the extra classrooms, faculty, etc? Are these schools a certain size due to the number of applicants, but then due to winning a basketball game or two are overwhelmed by applicants so they decide to grow from 1000 students in the freshman class to 2,000? I don’t buy it at all. School have a goal enrollment, and just because more kids apply doesn’t mean more are getting in.

            The rest of your argument is just silly – its a few wins in March. More research money?? Better faculty?? Better students?? Do good students choice Dayton over Stanford since Dayton won the basketball game??

            Ask even the average sports fan who comprised the Elite 8 or even Final Four today and I wager that fewer than 10% get all the team rights and maybe 25% know who won the national title. Make it the population as a whole and 1 person out of 5,000 might know. It really just doesn’t matter and you’d have to an idiot to make your college choice based on who won a basketball game.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The world Is full of idiots. Many go to college trying to improve that. Some succeed.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Look up the Flutie effect. Boston College had a big positive impact. Baylor repeated it with RG3.
            Johnny Manziel helped contribute to A&M having a record fundraising year-$740 million. The previous record was set by Wisconsin with $595 million in 2005.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/23/butler-banks-basketball-success-growth/?print=1

            Plenty of privates that are not elite brand-names actually are having trouble getting enough kids to apply to meet their enrollment figures without reducing the quality of their student body (to the point where they have to take in kids who they doubt will graduate). That includes a surprising number of reputable liberal arts colleges, in fact.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Mark:

            It seems that you are under the impression that all colleges operate at their maximum enrollment capacity, and while that is definitely the case for the elite privates and the better state flagships, that isn’t true for a lot of the colleges in this country. There will be a shake-out coming very soon in higher education; simply put, this country has too many colleges right now and not enough demand for all of them.

            For instance, here are the colleges still looking for kids to apply (http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/College-Openings/Pages/College-Openings-Results.aspx), and this is after the traditional May 1 acceptance date.

            Baylor, Gonzaga, St. Joe’s, St. John’s, Seton Hall, and Marquette are still taking students, as well as reputable small schools like Knox, the New School in NYC, Wheaton College, Ohio Wesleyan, and New College of Florida. UF, Oregon, Iowa, WSU, UA, and ASU still taking applicants as well.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Does ASU ever stop taking applications? Aren’t they trying to pass University of Phoenix? 🙂

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Clearly, ASU is one of the schools that could benefit most from doing well in sports.

            Win the Rose Bowl and make the Final Four & passing UoP would be more than a dream.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Actually for freshman the only P5 schools still taking applicants are PAC schools outside CA (all except WA and CO). These 6 schools may be trolling for out of state CA students to balance the budget or may have state mandated late closing dates. Three other P5 schools (Baylor, IA, FL) are only open for transfers.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            However, none of Butler, Dayton, George Mason, or Wichita are in a P5 conference. I still don’t see evidence that for most small privates and less-prestigious publics, spending on sports that can increase their visibility is not worthwhile.

            Like

  43. greg says:

    Additional P12 information shows that the new network greatly increased costs. Bottom line, 4th in distributions.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/23/pac-12-conference-tax-return-revenue-record/9497233/

    Still, distributions to member schools grew substantially in what was the conference’s first year of nearly equal revenue sharing. Each of the 11 schools other than Utah received about $19.8 million (Utah received $10.2 million, although fellow conference newcomer Colorado received a full share). For Arizona, Oregon State and Washington State, that meant a near-doubling of their money from the conference in one year. For Oregon and Stanford, it meant increases of more than $4 million.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “Bottom line, 4th in distributions.”

      Seems reasonable. They are all purchasing their share of 100% equity in the P12N (and the oft forgotten PAC-12 Enterprises), much as UNL is for it’s share of 50% equity in the BTN. They could have distributed it all, and then required payments be made.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      They got about 11 million last year. So that $19 million average was better than the $18 million they were projecting.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      So their history of non-conference network TV money:
      2010-11 $ 59.5 million
      2011-12 $ 85.6 million
      2012-13 $170.8 million

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Ahh, the legacy of Gene Hansen…

        I believe the ’11-’12 bump was a result of increase number of games post UU/CU entry, and the CCG, added to the old contract.

        Like

    • Blapples says:

      Ouch. $60 Million in tax money. If Texas wasn’t the one always howling the loudest about “communist government regulators”, it wouldn’t be nearly as poetic. Glad they found the issue before anyone got hurt.

      Like

  44. bullet says:

    http://onlineathens.com/sports/college-sports/2014-05-22/georgia-readies-ncaa-changes-when-dealing-athletes

    Georgia estimates the snacks, transportation and post-eligibility scholarships changes will cost $1.28 million per year.

    Some interesting stuff on what they currently do for athletes along with some discussion of facilities.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “Georgia athletic director Greg McGarity doesn’t see drastic changes for how athletes (which now include walk-ons) eat under the rules that take effect Aug. 1.”

      I must have slept through this change.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        This is to feed the “starving” athletes. Unlimited snacks. Not much of an impact on UGA because:

        “The intent of the rule is to supplement meals. We’re very fortunate at Georgia. Going into this we had the best of all worlds. We have unlimited dining. You can walk in any dining hall any time it’s open, go in and eat whatever you want to. We are not on a swipe system where if you get 15 meals during the week you get 15 swipes. That’s the way the majority of schools are. It helps them probably more than us.”

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I mean no longer differentiating walkons and scholarship in this. I’m not against it, but it blurs the distinction. There may be starving band members, or physics majors, who are also not scholarship athletes. Obviously they expanded (eliminated?) the number limitation of what teams may offer regarding food to team members regardless of scholarship limitations. I just didn’t remember that being thoroughly discussed.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The scholarship/walk-on I don’t remember being discussed either.

            I’m not sure what schools do on the training table. Do walk-ons eat there? Only preferred walk-ons?

            Like

  45. Nostradamus says:

    It sounds like they may be opening the outfield bleachers at TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha this afternoon..

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      19,965 in attendance.

      Like

      • Mark says:

        It is amazing what people will watch in flyover country. Put this tournament in a city with MLB and you maybe get 500 people, most with a direct association to the players.

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          Believe it or not, them flyover folks did not show up to watch corn grow…

          I mean, why is it hard to believe that people would be interested in a college baseball game between two top 25 teams (one local) playing for their conference championship in a relatively new, pro-caliber ballpark?

          Is that any more astounding to you than college basketball arenas that routinely draw 20,000, even for token opponents?

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Omaha is a great baseball town. There’s a reason they have hosted the CWS for 60 years. All those great crowds for CWS are largely made up of Omaha’s citizenry. Very few CWS participants will bring thousands of fans. Throw the Huskers in there and you have turnstile gold.

            Omaha should be the B1G baseball tournament host forever.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Arch Stanton,

            “I mean, why is it hard to believe that people would be interested in a college baseball game between two top 25 teams (one local) playing for their conference championship in a relatively new, pro-caliber ballpark?”

            1. It’s baseball.
            2. It’s college baseball at that.

            I’d rather watch the corn grow.

            “Is that any more astounding to you than college basketball arenas that routinely draw 20,000, even for token opponents?”

            Yes. There’s no accounting for taste.

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            Alan,

            You are right on regarding the fact that Omaha should be the permanent location for the B1G conference tourney… The attendance numbers reveal that. During one of the games, they interviewed the commish (Delany), apparently the tourney goes back to Target Field in Minneapolis next year—I just don’t see any way that the attendance numbers will even be close, even if the Gophers would be having a good year. I believe that Delany mentioned something about “re-evaluating” where the future tourneys would be, with an eye on attendance numbers. Makes good $en$e, doesn’t it?

            The simple fact is… in a major market with professional sports teams, the natives are generally “luke-warm” to college athletics–that is one reason why TCF Bank was not built for 100K people… Generally, unless it’s Final Four basketball, a high end D-1A Football Game (even that has exceptions–see B1G championship attendance), or maybe the Frozen Four in Minneapolis or St Paul, the latter example being the probable one exception to the rule due to the local market’s diehard hockey fans from high school to the pros.

            The long-time major pro-sports markets are that… New York City, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, St Louis, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia… Big time college athletics can and do survive in these markets… but will likely never rule these markets…

            … LSU spent $50 million for a college baseball stadium? Holy Moly! I would agree that lots of home games, with big attendance, would be a requirement…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            mnfanstc,

            “You are right on regarding the fact that Omaha should be the permanent location for the B1G conference tourney… The attendance numbers reveal that. During one of the games, they interviewed the commish (Delany), apparently the tourney goes back to Target Field in Minneapolis next year—I just don’t see any way that the attendance numbers will even be close, even if the Gophers would be having a good year. I believe that Delany mentioned something about “re-evaluating” where the future tourneys would be, with an eye on attendance numbers. Makes good $en$e, doesn’t it?”

            I think the B10 will come around on this. Traditionally the site has rotated, but no other host city has ever come close to the attendance numbers Omaha put up. They got many more people for the title game than the old tournament total attendance record. Once they finish up their contracted visits to other cities, Omaha seems like a natural spot. Maybe they rotate it to the east coast some, too, at least to see how it does. But the old footprint has had many years to prove they could draw fans and the evidence is clear on that.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            There were a few reports this weekend that Creighton (and its conference) get right of first refusal to use TDAP for their conference tournament. I believe next year the Big East will have their conference tournament in Omaha.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I don’t watch much basketball until post season. I don’t see the point to before then. But I don’t denigrate those who choose to. And these are watching a conference championship.

          Like

  46. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Here’s the 16 regionals hosts for the NCAA baseball tournament. The seeds and the rest of the teams will be announced tomorrow.

    AAC – Louisville

    ACC (3)- Florida State, Miami, Virginia

    Big 10 – Indiana

    Big 12 (2) – Oklahoma State, TCU

    Pac-12 – Oregon State

    SEC (5) – Florida, LSU, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

    Big West – Cal Poly

    Sunbelt – UL-Lafayette

    CUSA – Rice

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      I’m not convinced Vandy deserved one over Houston.

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Auto bids

      Team Conference Record Berth Last NCAA appearance
      Houston American Athletic 44-15 Won AAC tourney 2008 (College Station Regional)
      Binghamton America East 25-25 Won Am-East tourney 2013 (Raleigh Regional)
      George Mason Atlantic 10 34-20 Won Atlantic 10 tourney 2009 (Greenville Regional)
      Georgia Tech Atlantic Coast 36-25 Won ACC tourney 2013 (Nashville Regional)
      Kennesaw State Atlantic Sun 37-21 Won A-Sun tourney First appearance
      Xavier Big East 29-27 Won Big East tourney 2009 (Houston Regional)
      Campbell Big South 40-19 Won Big South tourney 1990 (Palo Alto Regional)
      Indiana Big Ten 42-13 Won Big Ten tourney 2013 (College World Series)
      Cal Poly Big West 45-10 Won Big West regular season 2013 (Los Angeles Regional)
      College of Charleston Colonial Athletic 41-17 Won CAA tourney 2012 (Gainesville Regional)
      Rice Conference USA 41-18 Won C-USA tourney 2013 (Raleigh Super Regional)
      Youngstown State Horizon League 16-36 Won Horizon tourney 2004 (Austin Regional)
      Columbia Ivy League 29-18 Won Ivy League tourney 2013 (Fullerton Regional)
      Siena Metro Atlantic 25-31 Won MAAC tourney 1999 (Winston-Salem Regional)
      Kent State Mid-American 36-21 Won MAC tourney 2012 (College World Series)
      Bethune-Cookman MEAC 26-31 Won MEAC tourney 2012 (Gainesville Regional)
      Dallas Baptist Missouri Valley 40-19 Won MVC tourney 2012 (Waco Regional)
      San Diego State Mountain West 42-19 Won MWC tourney 2013 (Los Angeles Regional)
      Bryant Northeast 42-14 Won NEC tourney 2013 (Manhattan Regional)
      Jacksonville State Ohio Valley 36-25 Won OVC tourney 2010 (Clemson Regional)
      Oregon State Pac-12 41-11 Won Pac-12 regular season 2013 (College World Series)
      Bucknell Patriot League 30-19 Won Patriot tourney 2010 (Columbia Regional)
      Louisiana State Southeastern 44-13 Won SEC tourney 2013 (College World Series)
      SE Louisiana Southland 37-23 Won Southland tourney 1994 (Baton Rouge Regional)
      Georgia Southern Southern 39-21 Won SoCon tourney 2011 (Columbia Regional)
      North Dakota St. Summit 25-24 Won Summit tourney 1956 (Stillwater Regional)
      Louisiana-Lafayette Sun Belt 53-7 Won Sun Belt tourney 2013 (Baton Rouge Regional)
      Jackson State SWAC 31-23 Won SWAC tourney 2013 (Baton Rouge Regional)
      Sacramento State Western Athletic 39-22 Won WAC tourney First appearance
      Pepperdine West Coast 39-16 Won WCC tourney 2012 (Palo Alto Regional)

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Is it just me, or did the west get hosed?

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        The west always claims to get hosed. But the auto-bids are not negotiable.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          SDSU and UNLV have a good argument. They are #3 seeds going to Louisville and Oxford, while the #3 seed in Corvallis is Kansas. Pac 12 and Big West just had too many teams for the western regionals.

          Rice regional is interesting. Rice opens up with Columbia. Texas and Texas A&M are in the other half and make a decent academic pair to go the two Ivy/Ivy caliber schools.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “SDSU and UNLV have a good argument. They are #3 seeds going to Louisville and Oxford, while the #3 seed in Corvallis is Kansas.”

            ??
            My bracket shows Kansas to Louisville regional, UNLV and Irvine in Corvallis and SDSU in LaLa land.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I was looking at the one Alan linked.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            bullet – I posted a prediction of the bracket (7:58am) and later the actual bracket (10:59am).

            Like

  47. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    College Baseball bracketology. Actual brackets released today at 11am CDT.

    http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9953

    Like

  48. Brian says:

    http://www.realclear.com/news/2014/05/26/redskins_to_senators_teams_name_is_respectful_7138.html?rc_fk

    No surprise, the Redskins think their name is “respectful.”

    The letter references research that “the term Redskins originated as a Native American expression of solidarity.” It notes that the team’s logo was designed by Native American leaders and cites surveys that Native Americans and Americans as a whole support the name.

    The senators noted that tribal organizations representing more than 2 million Native Americans across the U.S. have said they want the Redskins name dropped.

    Like

    • Kyle Peter says:

      I’ve yet to hear anyone use the term “redskin” in a derogatory way to describe any American Indians.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Never watched any old westerns?

        Like

      • I’m exactly an uber-PC person, but ultimately, it’s not my place to tell a Native American whether he or she should be offended one way or another by a phrase. The fact that some Native Americans might be not be bothered by the term doesn’t mean that others may very well be legitimately offended (just as some African-Americans being comfortable using the N-word doesn’t suddenly make that unoffensive).

        Like

        • Kyle Peter says:

          I’m not for or against the usage. I think our society is much to focused on PC issues personally.

          Ultimately I feel it falls on the individual’s to decide what they let offend them and what they don’t.

          The people out there that decide to use derogatory terms to describe others says a whole lot more about them than those they attempt to demean. If someone wants to prove to the world they are an ass-hat then they have the right to do so.

          I’m not an old movie watcher, but I did serve in a military unit with two American Indians. I would have figured to have heard something there, but never did. I’ve heard many “descriptions” of women, those choosing alternative lifestyles, and African American’s. I’ve just never known the term “redskin” to be considered a derogatory term. Maybe I’ve lived a more sheltered life than I originally believed.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I agree that it is way too focused on PC issues. But the NFL gets lots of public subsidies, so its fair game if it keeps doing something that is no longer acceptable.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Bullet,

            That point is very much spot on. The NFL has gotten billions in tax-funded stadium dollars. Some answering to the public is warranted, whether the public is in unison over a subject like changing the Redskin name or not.

            Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I’m a bit baffled that with all the uproar over the Redskins name, there is very little discussion about the Cleveland Indians at the very least discontinuing the use of that hideous, cartoon red-faced, toothy emblem. Pictures sometimes are more powerful than words, andI would think that picture is at least as offensive as the word “Redskin,” if not far more so.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Complaints about Chief Wahoo are out there. IIRC, the Indians are quietly phasing him out. Among fans, there is an entire “de-chiefing” movement among Cleveland fans where they take the Wahoo logo off of their apparel.

        Like

        • I find myself completely at odds internally about the use of Native American imagery.

          For instance, I never recalled thinking about the depiction of race when I watched Disney’s Peter Pan as a kid. However, when I sat down to watch it for the first time in years with my own children recently, I was taken aback at the blatant stereotypes of Native Americans, including the song, “What Makes the Red Man Red?” (referring to how Indians got red skin from blushing after women kissed them). Could you imagine if a children’s movie included a song, “What Makes the Black Man Black?” in today’s world? For better or worse, Disney didn’t perform a George Lucas-type editing job on its Blu-Ray release, so the entire original scene is still there for the world to see in its entirety. (In contrast, Disney has done everything that it could to erase “The Song of the South” from history.) I also completely understand why there are people that are offended by the Redskins name.

          Yet, my favorite jersey is the red home Blackhawks sweater and I still have Chief Illiniwek logo paraphernalia in my house. In my mind, I probably consider those to be more “honorable” images compared to the Peter Pan depictions or Chief Wahoo, but is it really my place to judge this? Would we do the same type of parsing of logos if they were depicting any other race?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            In general, people seem to have fewer complaints about the logos than the cartoon caricatures and mascots. The NCAA takes it farther, but I think “Redskins” and Chief Wahoo are really the only 2 things drawing ire from people in major pro sports for this. People don’t complain about more neutral names (Braves, etc) or reasonably accurate logos.

            Like

  49. Wainscott says:

    Arkansas vs Mizzou moved to the day after Thanksgiving, kicking off at 230 EST on CBS.

    http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=6100&ATCLID=209508168

    Like

  50. gfunk says:

    Agree or disagree, this reporter is creating hope, perhaps “false” for UConn faithful & an increasingly growing movement for folks in this state, as well as Alum.

    http://foxct.com/2014/05/24/the-stan-simpson-show-uconn-to-the-big-10/

    If you go the upper right of this link, Mr. Simpson has also spent time discussion this in greater detail on his radio show.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Things I’ll agree with:
      1. The guest says it’s speculation.
      2. He says RU has been an embarrassment from day 1.
      3. He mentions AAU status as being important to UConn’s president and how attractive the B10 would be to UConn because of that.

      Other things he said:
      1. He claims it might happen in the next 6 weeks, but definitely before another whole academic year passes.
      2. He claims UConn’s football program is in a good place and attractive.
      3. He makes no mention of who could possibly be #16.
      4. He never mentions the importance of AAU status to the B10 and how large a barrier to admission lacking it could be.
      5. He says UConn’s SNY contracts are attractive to the B10. But SNY is driven by their Mets and Jets coverage, and some/most of the UConn stuff would have to move to the BTN anyway. How many of the SNY people would insist on getting BTN? What sort of ratings does UConn content draw for SNY compared to their other programming?

      Like

    • I think his timetable is ridiculously optimistic (6 weeks?), but I think that the end result is right.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        If you remove a timetable, of course UConn becomes a more realistic target. They may join the AAU in the future. If so, that would be a major change in their attractiveness for the B10. They also might grow their FB program like Boise and become more attractive. But until we see how the BTN does in NJ and NYC with Rutgers on board, nobody is going to rush to add another eastern school just for NYC access. Especially one that lacks AAU status and a large, on campus football stadium.

        If UConn joins the AAU, then things might get interesting. UVA wouldn’t have to bring UNC or Duke or GT for the B10 to get to 16.

        Based on the current CCG rules, I’d expect to see these divisions if it happened soon:

        E – UConn, RU, UMD, UVA, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU
        W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN

        That continues the current policy of putting the eastern kings in the new markets as much as possible. If it happens after 10+ years, things might be different. Geography won’t have changed, but there wouldn’t be as much need to build up NYC and DC as markets. Unless they switch to competitive balance again, E/W makes the most sense in terms of travel. It just sucks of OSU, MI and MSU since they basically get kicked out of the old B10. Even with a 7+2 schedule, you’d only see old rivals once every 4 years.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I’d say the realistic scenario for UConn joining the Big Ten is:

          1) Get into the AAU. Not merely be headed that way, but actually get in.

          2) Become a strong mid-major in football, comparable to what Louisville and Boise State have achieved in recent years.

          3) Expand their football stadium and prove they can fill it, not merely for the occasional trophy game, but for most games.

          4) Hope that there is strong mutual interest with at least one other school, because odd numbers are awkward.

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            “3) Expand their football stadium and prove they can fill it, not merely for the occasional trophy game, but for most games.”

            And that’s assuming the B1G doesn’t have an opinion on the stadium being an hour from campus in Hartford.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Agree or disagree, this reporter is creating hope, perhaps “false” for UConn faithful & an increasingly growing movement for folks in this state, as well as Alum.

      I’d say a very false hope. Connecticut is a small media market. UConn plays football in a tiny stadium by Big Ten standards, and they have a weak football program. Every time a current Big Ten team plays the Huskies, it would be a less valuable game than what’s on the schedule today.

      The three most populous states contiguous to the Big Ten footprint are New York (3rd in population), Virginia (12th) and Missouri (18th). Connecticut, which is non-contiguous, is 29th. No single school “delivers” New York,” which leaves Virginia as the obvious target, and once they are added, North Carolina (10th). If they get that far, next would be Georgia (9th) and Florida (4th).

      The population of Virginia is close to 2 1/2 times that of Connecticut. It is also growing faster. Now, you might think UVA and UNC are unlikely to join the Big Ten, but the league can afford to wait and see. UConn isn’t going anywhere.

      UConn does have a premier basketball program, but basketball brings in far less revenue than football. UConn is not an AAU school, nor are they especially close to that status, and whether or not you care about that, the Big Ten presidents sure do.

      The Big Ten had 10 schools for decades, and eleven for 21 years. They are playing a long game. They won’t budge unless something truly compelling comes along. Maryland was a no-brainer (19th in population, and adjacent to Virginia), and because even numbers were required, they took the next best school available, which was Rutgers.

      UConn offers nothing like that.

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        I’ll give these reporters some credit – at least they did it on tv, showed their faces, more specifically the white dude as opposed to pure Internet alias speculation. This one definitely made its way to the BIG offices.

        Moreover, plenty of UConn fans don’t trust this guy.

        Like

        • gfunk says:

          So I’ll say more “false” hope than not. But, I’ve clearly stated my support for UConn in large part because I’m especially basketball biased.

          Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          UConn is next in line to join the ACC. As for the Big Ten, their top choices remain ACC schools and would take UConn only if it was insistent on more expansion of some sort and was willing to accept less than the more preferred ACC schools.

          As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.

          One of the big selling points for UConn, as UConn supporters will argue, is that it aids in access to New York and Boston, not to mention the decent market of Hartford. The problem for UConn getting into the Big 12, (again, the most likely league to expand), saying nothing of the enormous distance from everyone in the league, is that market size/access would have a much more limited impact on improving Big 12 TV dollars than it would for leagues with a TV network (or, in the case of the ACC, the prospect of getting one). Even optimistically, if the Big 12 was able to get better ratings in New York, Boston, or Hartford by adding UConn, that still does not help them get the lucrative cable carriage for a Big 12 TV Network because none exists and none will anytime for the next decade-plus. Instead, UConn would have to improve the value of the Big 12’s Fox and ESPN contracts more so than Cincy, BYU, and UCF would. It is very doubtful that wouod happen.

          Since the Big Ten has nearly (or already has) reached an agreement with New York area cable.providers, it is probably satisfied with east coast expansion for the foreseeable future. Maybe the Big Ten has some buyer’s remorse on Rutgers, but at best, it is because it believes it could have gotten similar cable deals with UConn INSTEAD of Rutgers, not in addition to them. But the incentive for adding a non-AAU in a basically overlapping market that the league already has achieved cable coverage for just is not there. The best hope for UConn is for John Swofford to twist Notre Dame’s arm into joining for football full time and UConn joining as #16. Since that won’t happen, they just need to make the most of the place where they are.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            UConn is next in line to join the ACC

            According to the Louisville AD, UConn’s name was written in ink on the ACC invite before UL made their pitch.

            As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.

            The Big 12 GOR doesn’t expire until June 30, 2025. I don’t see any power conference realignment announcements until 2024 at the earliest. For the next ten years, the only way I see UConn getting into a power conference:

            1) Notre Dame discovers its one loss teams can’t get into the playoff without a conference title and becomes a full member of the ACC with UConn added as #16. Highly unlikely, but possible.

            2) The ACC needs UConn for additional content to re-work their ESPN contract to improve their deal for the ACC Network. ESPN agrees because they feel UConn (combined with Duke, Syracuse, UNC, ND) is needed for carriage in NYC.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            I don’t think so Michael & their fans prefer the BIG, by overwhelming numbers. But who knows. Losing UConn to the ACC will be a regret for the BIG, long-term. The BIG, only 2 NCs, both sexes, past 20 years in hoops, will rarely ever win it if based on current history & UConn to the ACC.

            There’s a bit of understated BIG pedigree at UConn right now: president taught at NW for many years, AD is a Michigan alum, new football coach is an Iowa alum. It’s a flagship school with a high ceiling for academics that continues to improve. These sort of connections matter more than we think & AAU & football can sometimes be overstated, along with the fact that the alum, fans, and administrators prefer the BIG as well. UConn is understandably bitter about previous ACC rejections – a conference most their supporters felt was guaranteed in previous expansions.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Then again, it was reported that BC was and is very against UConn joining the ACC in order to be the only New England school in the conference. Between BC and some of the football powers (FSU, Clemson) resenting adding a weak sister program, would UConn have the votes for admission? If 3/4 is needed to approve, would that be 11/14 teams? If so, and BC, FSU, and Clemson vote no, only one other school would need to vote no to block UConn. (I assume UND does not have a vote as a partial member).

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            UConn is next in line to join the ACC.

            It’s probably more accurate to say that the line is empty. The ACC won’t expand unless it loses schools to other leagues, and with a GOR in place, that’s at least a decade away, assuming it happens at all.

            As for the Big Ten, their top choices remain ACC schools and would take UConn only if it was insistent on more expansion of some sort. . . .

            There is no reason for the Big Ten to expand for expansion’s own sake. There needs to be something very compelling about it.

            As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.

            Frank did a good, smart analysis. And yeah, UConn is almost certainly behind BYU, Cincy, and the two Florida schools (UCF/USF), at least for the Big XII’s purposes.

            Since the Big Ten has nearly (or already has) reached an agreement with New York area cable providers, it is probably satisfied with east coast expansion for the foreseeable future.

            That’s factor that probably dooms UConn. If the Big Ten is already on local cable, then what do they gain by adding another team from the same market?

            Maybe the Big Ten has some buyer’s remorse on Rutgers. . . .

            I am reasonably sure that if they had a do-over, they’d still pick Rutgers.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Wainscott –

            Then again, it was reported that BC was and is very against UConn joining the ACC in order to be the only New England school in the conference.

            If the Louisville AD is correct, then I think BC either didn’t have a problem or got out voted.

            Between BC and some of the football powers (FSU, Clemson) resenting adding a weak sister program, would UConn have the votes for admission?

            I’m not sure they would have a problem. Assuming ND plays their current partial schedule and the round robin requirement goes away, you can break the conference into three groups of five protected rivals:

            North: BC, Uconn, Pitt, Syr, UL
            Carolina: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, Clem
            South: FSU, Miami, GT, UVA, VT

            If the ACC scheduled nine games (2 pods would have 9 conf games, 1 would have 8 + ND) for each team they could play each team in the conference at least once every three years.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “I’m not sure they would have a problem. Assuming ND plays their current partial schedule and the round robin requirement goes away, you can break the conference into three groups of five protected rivals:

            North: BC, Uconn, Pitt, Syr, UL
            Carolina: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, Clem
            South: FSU, Miami, GT, UVA, VT”

            While that’s convenient, Clemson would throw a fit. UVA, UNC, FSU and GT would be upset, too. The ACC doesn’t break up neatly into 3 equal and geographic groups if you protect rivalries.

            A better approach:

            North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr, UL
            Middle: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
            South: VT, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

            With UVA/VT also locked (do it the final week when others play the SEC, perhaps).

            Or try 4 groups:
            North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr
            Middle: UL, UVA, VT
            NC: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake
            South: Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

            With UVA/UNC also locked.

            Or even better, lock a different number of teams for each school. UNC may need 4, but not everyone does.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The BIG, only 2 NCs, both sexes, past 20 years in hoops, will rarely ever win it if based on current history & UConn to the ACC.

            If that matters so much, why did the ACC pass on UConn? The Big Ten in 2014 earned more tournament credits than any other league, so it’s not as if their failure to win titles is hurting them at the cash register.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            “If the Louisville AD is correct, then I think BC either didn’t have a problem or got out voted.”

            Or had not actually been voted on before UL made its pitch. Or that ACC schools were receptive to Louisville because they knew several schools were opposed to UConn. Remember, at that time, in addition to BC, there were reports that FSU and Clemson were less than thrilled at the prospect of UConn football in the ACC, where UL had a better football program and had just won a national title in basketball.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Brian –

            While that’s convenient, Clemson would throw a fit. UVA, UNC, FSU and GT would be upset, too. The ACC doesn’t break up neatly into 3 equal and geographic groups if you protect rivalries.

            I will admit I’m not an ACC expert. I did the best I could, but that was more of an example to show that with three groups of five the ACC could make a nine game schedule work with 15 teams + ND where each member plays every other member at least once every three years. I had thought about your breakdown with VT/UVA locked but I was too lazy to find out what its impact was on the overall rotation.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “I will admit I’m not an ACC expert. I did the best I could, but that was more of an example to show that with three groups of five the ACC could make a nine game schedule work with 15 teams + ND where each member plays every other member at least once every three years.”

            I understand. I just wanted to show that ACC members would have issues with it. Once you get into all the rivalries people want, it’s hard to make good groups of 5.

            “I had thought about your breakdown with VT/UVA locked but I was too lazy to find out what its impact was on the overall rotation.”

            North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr, UL
            Middle: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
            South: VT, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

            With UVA/VT also locked (do it the final week when others play the SEC, perhaps).

            Yes, those extra locked games make everything difficult. That’s part of my point. There is no really neat solution for the ACC.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            Mike,

            1) Notre Dame discovers its one loss teams can’t get into the playoff without a conference title and becomes a full member of the ACC with UConn added as #16. Highly unlikely, but possible.

            I would love to see the reaction of BC and Cuse if they knew that ND joining in full is predicated on them accepting UConn into the ranks.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            @Marc Shepard,

            The ACC has Tobacco Road, which means 7 modern era NCs on the men’s side alone between Duke and UNC. Btw, UConn is the only school that matches Duke’s NC totals in the modern era. Duke-UNC is also the best rivalry in CB. The ACC was infighting with many of the former Big East additions after VT and Miami (Pitt, Syracuse). FSU & Clemson, esp, wanted football power. Lville once shared conference membership with FSU (I believe Metro) & the Cardinals were seen as a better cultural fit, equal basketball power to UConn, well close enough, rising football power – plus a new market outside the greater Atlantic Coast.

            When I read UConn boards, posters claim that Tobacco Road was supportive of UConn to the ACC, but it was in fact BC, more than any other school, that opposed their membership.

            Attendance aside, the BIG is considerably behind the ACC in men’s basketball since 1985. We’ve lost most challenges to them, their NBA production has at least quadrupled us & they have more than twice as many modern era NCs. Carolina and Duke also hand pick Midwest blue chips with plenty of success.

            Moreover, the ACC got Lville and Syracuse, so combined they have 4 NCAA titles. The ACC lost Md, which is the only non-Carolina team to win a NC under ACC membership. 4-1 = +3.

            Even if the BIG were to add UConn, it would still be behind the ACC in men’s NCAA titles – but the gap would significantly close and UConn is a AtCC killer in hoops, both sexes.

            I will continue to say one thing: the ACC is only getting stronger, esp in football. If ND, esp, pulls a full membership move – it’s truly absurd to think the ACC will ever lose a member in my lifetime. Only the Big12 may dissolve at this point.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @gfunk: The trouble is, you’re using the wrong measuring stick. Conference expansion is about making money, full stop. Winning national championships is very poorly correlated with revenue.

            Look at football, which is the revenue driver. In the BCS era, the Big Ten had fewer title game appearances and fewer titles than any other P5 league. If championships mattered, the Big Ten would have had the lowest revenues. In fact, it had the most.

            Basketball is similar: despite not winning a title recently, the Big Ten accumulated more tournament credits this year than any other league.

            If you’re going to make a case for UConn, you need to make it with money, not by counting the number of titles.

            Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Rutgers has had a collection of really dumb PR moves in the last year or so. Unreal.

        Notwithstanding that, RU seems to have made major inroads in delivering the NY market in ways that UConn could never touch. RU football games get very good ratings in NYC, not UConn. When Rutgers had its big year in 2007 (I think), the Empire State Building was lit up in scarlet for the Louisville game. Nothing like that has ever happened for UConn.

        In addition, the population of NJ is more than double that of Connecticut. RU just delivers much much more for the BTN than UConn could hope to.

        All of this ignores the fact that RU is in the AAU and UConn is not. There is no way that UConn was or is a viable candidate for the B1G, even with their basketball title.

        Like

        • Transic says:

          Agree on the comparisons wrt RU vs UConn, except never say never when it comes to the Huskies. They still would need a #16 to make it work IF they become a serious candidate.

          There is still the matter of RU being one of the most disrespected programs on college sports. Much of that is due to historical performance but much more of that is borne out of the perceptions generated by graduates of private schools in the NY-area sports media, which get picked up elsewhere in the country. The PR gaffs don’t help at all, either.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I do not agree that RU has been one of the most disrespected programs in college sports. I would say generally more of a non-entity. An occasional big win or big season, but never close to enough or not often. Reaching the final four in bball in 1976 does not quite resolve years of lousy basketball. Having respectability and no more during the last ten years in football also does not do the trick. RU did win bowl games for something like 6 years in a raw, a few years ago. They were not top bowls, but 6 years in a row was the most in the country.

            The real problem has been the absolute joke that the athletic department has been for the past couple of years. The idiot basketball coach, followed by the firing of a very good AD who was set up as a fall guy, followed by the hiring of a complete jerk from Louisville as the new AD, has left quite an impression of total chaos. A well deserved impression. Is there any AD in any major conference who has earned less respect than the RU AD? I doubt it.

            Despite all of the recent craziness, the school and its location offer a lot to the B1G, which UConn does not. RU was AAU without the medical school (because years ago politicians felt that they could get more in their own pockets if the med school and RU were split). Now RU has the medical school back, so there are even more research dollars and a “stronger position” in the AAU. There are lots of research dollars and the opportunity for academic collaboration with other B1G schools in many areas.

            NJ is the home of more than enough football and basketball players to consistently have a top 20 team or much better. In the B1G, only Ohio produces significantly more football players. Pennsylvania is just ahead of NJ. But that is it. Will RU ever get to keep a majority of them? Not with this football coach and AD, but maybe in the future.

            Again, this year the top ranked (by far) football recruit in the B!G was Peppers to UMichigan, from NJ. A 7″ bball player picked by some as the top recruit in the country went from NJ to Kentuckh.

            A couple of years ago, Don Bosco Prep, from North Jersey, was ranked number 1 in the country in HS football. They put four players in the US Army All Star Game. No high school has ever done that. One 5 star came to RU and is entering his junior year. A second 4 star was committed, but had an issue with Don Bosco about posting on the internet, and Don Bosco expelled him (after football season). He moved to Colorado, finished high school there (I think) and plays for U Colorado now. The last two four stars both had RU as their second choice and went elsewhere.

            The potential is there. It will take a top coach and recruiter and may never happen. Who knows.

            On the other hand, if the best football players in Connecticut stayed home every year, maybe they would be competitive once in a while.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Is there any AD in any major conference who has earned less respect than the RU AD? I doubt it.”

            Not saying you’re wrong, but give it some time. There are probably others in the running that aren’t at a school that just joined the B1G.

            Like

  51. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The NCAA men’s final four for golf is set.

    #1 Stanford v. #4 OK State

    #3 LSU v. #2 Alabama

    Like

  52. Wainscott says:

    Capital One Bowl will be on NYD at 1pm on ABC. Same time as the Cotton Bowl, which will be on ESPN.

    Like

  53. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10976033/college-football-playoff-system-redefine-how-bowls-selected

    Using the 2013 BCS standings, a look at how the CFP committee would change the big 6 bowls compared to the BCS.

    Even though the rankings are identical, there are huge differences in which teams play where based on whether it’s the first, second or third year of the playoff.

    The 2013 final BCS standings:

    1. Florida State
    2. Auburn
    3. Alabama
    4. Michigan State
    5. Stanford
    6. Baylor
    7. Ohio State
    8. Missouri
    9. South Carolina
    10. Oregon
    11. Oklahoma
    12. Clemson
    13. Oklahoma State
    14. Arizona State
    15. UCF

    If the above rankings were the Selection Committee’s rankings after this season, this is how the New Year’s Six bowls would look for the bowl rotation in each of the next three seasons of the College Football Playoff:

    Year 1 (after 2014 regular season)
    SEMIFINALS

    Sugar Bowl: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
    Rose Bowl: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama

    The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to New Orleans instead of Pasadena.

    NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS

    Orange: 12. Clemson (ACC) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten/SEC/ND)

    Cotton, Fiesta and Peach: 5. Stanford, 6. Baylor, 8. Missouri, 9. South Carolina, 10. Oregon, 15. UCF (Group of 5).

    The selection committee would have to pair the at-large teams in the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach and create the best and most compelling matchups. The highest-ranked available teams make the cut along with the highest-rated champion from the Group of 5 conferences (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC and Sun Belt). My guess:

    Fiesta: Stanford versus Missouri
    Cotton: Baylor versus Oregon
    Peach: South Carolina versus UCF

    You could easily swap Oregon and Stanford or Missouri and Baylor. Neither decision would be right (or wrong), but this is one example of how tough it will be for the selection committee when making these matchups.

    What stands out in this model: Where’s Oklahoma? The Sooners were ranked No. 11 in the final poll and just missed the cut (no longer will bowls be able to skip higher-ranked teams to pick a lower-ranked team that will travel better). So OU, which had the most impressive bowl win in 2013 against Alabama, would not have even had the opportunity to play in one of the CFB Playoff major bowls if the system had been in place. Even though Clemson ranked lower than OU, the Tigers get a bid to the Orange Bowl because of their tie-in to the ACC. Clemson was the highest-ranked available ACC team.

    Year 2 (after 2015 regular season)

    SEMIFINALS

    Orange: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
    Cotton: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama

    The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to Miami instead of Arlington, Texas.

    NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS

    Rose: 5. Stanford (Pac-12) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten)
    Sugar: 6. Baylor (Big 12) versus 8. Missouri (SEC)

    Fiesta and Peach: 9. South Carolina, 10. Oregon, 11. Oklahoma, 15. UCF (Group of 5) The selection committee would have to pair the at-large teams in the Fiesta and Peach. My guess:

    Peach: South Carolina versus UCF
    Fiesta: Oklahoma versus Oregon

    Like Year 1, the matchups are pretty obvious based on geography.

    What stands out in this model: This year, No. 12 Clemson gets left out. The Rose (Pac-12 versus Big Ten) and Sugar (Big 12 versus SEC) are contracted to take the highest-ranked teams from their respective conferences. That leaves only three at-large teams, compared with five in Year 1.

    Year 3 (after 2016 regular season)
    SEMIFINALS

    Peach: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
    Fiesta: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama

    The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to Atlanta instead of Glendale, Arizona.

    NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS

    Rose: 5. Stanford (Pac-12) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten)
    Sugar: 6. Baylor (Big 12) versus 8. Missouri (SEC)
    Orange: 12. Clemson (ACC) versus 9. South Carolina (SEC/Big Ten/ND)
    Cotton: 10. Oregon (at large) versus 15. UCF (Group of 5)

    The selection committee doesn’t have much to do — other than putting out its Top 25 final rankings. That’s because the Rose (Pac-12 versus Big Ten), Sugar (SEC versus Big 12) and Orange (ACC versus highest-ranked available SEC, Big Ten or Notre Dame) bowls are all determined by conference affiliation. That means there will be only one at-large team and it faces the Group of 5 champion.

    What stands out in this model: Based on contractual agreements, the Orange gets stuck with a Clemson-South Carolina rematch. Also, with three of the four non-playoff bowls aligned with their specific conferences, that leaves only one at-large team. So every third year of the playoff, the highest-ranked at-large team will always play the Group of 5 champion (unless it’s in the national semifinals) at the Cotton Bowl.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8633324/acc-orange-bowl-finalize-12-year-agreement

    He isn’t totally correct. There is a rule to prevent rematches for the ACC team in the Orange Bowl.

    The ACC representative will play the highest available ranked team from Notre Dame, the SEC or the Big Ten. However, if the ACC’s highest-ranked opponent would create a regular-season rematch, the Orange Bowl has the flexibility to avoid that rematch by taking the next highest-ranked team from Notre Dame, the SEC or Big Ten. The team that was “skipped” over would be placed in an access bowl as long as it meets the minimum ranking requirement.

    So in 2016, the Orange would be #12 Clemson vs #16 LSU instead. And because SC was #9, they’d bump #10 Oregon out of the at-large slot. Or has that rule changed?

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Nice analysis. What I really hate there is seeing Alabama vs. Auburn. Based on the way they have described things, that’s how it would have been, but I’m hoping they are willing to tweak things enough to avoid rematches, especially conference ones. The argument could be that Michigan State won their conference and Alabama didn’t as official justification (not even bad justification), but don’t give us a conference rematch unless unavoidable.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Agreed. I tend to think the committee will adjust their rankings to avoid things like that. They can make a valid argument either way, so why not choose the way that makes more money for everyone? They wouldn’t swap #4 and #5 for convenience, but shifting #3 and #4 seems plausible.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      I emailed Brett McMurphy about it and he sent me this response:

      It is not definite about the no-rematch rule. They hope to avoid rematches, but there still may be some. Actually, no one knows for certain how it will be interpreted – and if they said no rematch, they wouldn’t skip South Carolina, they would simply send them to a different bowl and move someone else from the “pool” of teams in its place, if possible. Not sure if that makes sense

      Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://college-football.si.com/2014/05/27/will-muschamp-florida-fcs-opponents-nick-saban-strength-of-schedule/

    UF may stop playing I-AA teams. Probably a good thing since they lost to one last year.

    Like

    • I really wish they would have done that years ago. There’s nothing worse that having the last home game of the season be noon game against an FCS school, which is what happens every other year at UF now.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That’s one reason I hate September conference games. One of their purposes is to open that hole in the schedule in November. I’d much rather see all the OOC games up front (I understand year-end rivalry games, I’m talking normal OOC games).

        Like

    • bullet says:

      That’s the coach. The AD said he wasn’t going to stop it.

      Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      The problem to me is not the presence of one FCS team on a home schedule. It’s the combination of FCS team plus two or three G5 teams, especially weak ones who cannot command return games. NC State here in town is notorious for this. They are playing Presbyterian, an FCS school with a tiny enrollment which has never made the FCS playoffs; Old Dominion, a school in only its fifth or sixth year of having a team and so new to FBS that it will just now be bowl eligible this year; Georgia Southern, a school brand new to FBS and bowl ineligible this yeaf; and at USF. Change Ga. Southern and Old Dominion to a Big Ten team and an SEC team, even if they are lower tier B1G/SEC teams, and it’s not a bad schedule at all. No one would care that Presbyterian is on the schedule.

      If two or three of the four non conference games are against strong opponents, it makes little difference to most fans mandatory one or two cupcakes are FCS, MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, or otherwise.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “…to most fans mandatory one or two cupcakes…”

        Mandatory cupcakes? What the…?

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Yes, mandatory cupcakes. That’s the college football world we live in. Teams insist on seven home games a year and the only way to make that happen is to schedule teams who cannot command a return game, i.e., cupcakes. Everyone has them. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, Florida, you name it.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No. Presbyterian is a cupcake. Being unable to require a H&H is not the defination of cupcake. There are plenty of Go5, and a fair number of lower P5 teams that will play one off’s. And the desire/need for a 7th home game being very desirable economically does not make it mandatory. Mandatory would be being required to do something regardless of the financial consequence.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Very well. Rather than mandatory, perhaps I should say obligatory. And my point remains that most fans are not going to be much more excited about paying for tickets, concessions, perhaps hotel room, parking, and other expenses to see their favorite P5 team play Georgia Southern/ Old Dominion/ Eastern Michigan / San Jose State than they are to see them play Presbyterian. A cupcake is a cupcake, whether it is FCS or a weak football school that happens to play in an FBS conference. Seriously, I just do not buy the idea that Ohio State fans cannot stand the idea of playing Youngstown State yet get jacked up for playing Buffalo. FCS, FBS… they’re both total cupcakes to Power Five schools, especially to traditional powerhouse programs. I think that fans would be perfectly accepting if only one game a year like that was played, whether it was an FCS school or one of the weaker G5 schools. Again, everyone has at least one of those types of games a year because of the desire for seven home games.But the rest of the non conference schedule ought to be Power Five schools or at least upper tier G5 schools.

            Florida State’s schedule this particular year is a great example of what more schools ought to be doing, inclusing FSU in years past and future. The Noles play Florida and Notre Dame at home and Oklahoma State in Arlington, TX. That’s three peer programs, each of which have outperformed FSU at least once in just the past three or four years. Those are good games. The fourth game is some FCS school. It wouldn’t make a lick of difference if that game was against Florida International or some MAC school. It is still an excellent non conference schedule. Last year, on the other hand, was pathetic. At Florida and home vs. Nevada, Idaho, and Bethune Cookman. If Bethune Cookman had been replaced by FIU, would that somehow have made last year’s schedule better than this yyear’s? No. It would still be three very weak opponents compared with one strong one (well, UF is traditionally strong, anyway), and this year’s would still be four strong opponents compared with only one weak one.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Obviously not literally mandatory, but not realistically avoidable in the current revenue model. The plan for most Big Ten teams, in most years, will be nine conference games, one end of a home & home, and two paycheck games with opponents who don’t get a return visit.

          I hesitate to call those paycheck games “cupcakes,” because plenty of teams have lost those games, or come damned close to doing so. Michigan needed a goal-line stand on the final play to beat Akron last year, and I hardly need to remind anyone of Appalachian State.

          Like

  55. Brian says:

    This is basically rumor, but a local sports talk radio host claimed that IN has been offered 3-for 1 deals by some southern teams and has refused. He was amazed they’d say no to such a gracious offer to actually get to host a game.

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      I dunno whether that’s a good idea for IU, but their future schedules right now leave much to be desired:

      http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/indiana-hoosiers.php

      P5 teams on future schedules: Mizzou (2014), Wake.
      Non-P5 schools: UConn, UMass, FIU, BGSU, Indiana State, North Texas, Western Kentucky,

      Like

      • Brian says:

        IN will be lucky to win 6 games in any of those seasons. They don’t need road games at AL added to their list. Besides, it makes no financial sense to accept a 3-for-1 unless they would get a huge check as part of it.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I can see some G5 schools (especially those with small stadiums) going for a 3-for-1, but why would IU (with a 50K stadium) do it (unless, yes, they’re getting more than $1.5M each for both buy games as well as the HaH)? They’d have better luck trying to get a program that has financial difficulties (CU? CU?) to sign up for that. Heck, if we’re talking about one of the kings, they’d have better luck getting BYU to for a 2-for-1 since BYU does plenty of those to bring kings in to Provo.

          God those programs in the south are arrogant.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            3 for 1? Has anyone done that before? I wouldn’t, unless the second of the four were at home, and with reasonable buyouts for the remaining two. And probably not then.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            Nebraska signed two for one agreements with Fresno St, So Miss, and Wyoming. There’s no reason that Indiana should have to sign a three for one.

            Like

      • Transic says:

        What if the 3-for-1 would be with Texas A&M, Georgia, LSU or Florida, in states where there are a good number of potential recruits? You get three visits to show off to adolescent boys what your program can do for them. Maybe use the first one to promise some of them that their parents would get to see them play on their next visit. If it’s against those program then I would think about it.

        The money would be the big hang-up, though, that would scuttle this type of deal.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          3 games to get your ass kicked?

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          What if the 3-for-1 would be with Texas A&M, Georgia, LSU or Florida, in states where there are a good number of potential recruits? You get three visits to show off to adolescent boys what your program can do for them. Maybe use the first one to promise some of them that their parents would get to see them play on their next visit. If it’s against those program then I would think about it.

          I doubt whether there is enough of a recruiting bump to make up for the proposal’s disadvantages. Coaches can’t tell 16-17 year-olds that they will definitely be playing in a particular future game. The only assurance is that they’ll get a chance to compete with others recruited for the same position.

          If it matters to the family to be able to see the kid play, he’s far more likely to stay much closer to home than play at a perennial Big Ten cellar-dweller, where maybe the family would see him locally once or twice in four years.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      I’m a little surprised they are deserting Atlanta for Nashville, but Atlanta does get the CCG so maybe they prefer to spread the money around a little more.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        I wonder if there has been some recent “drama” at the tourney (not with UK fans) that one would associate with the terms “Hawks game”, “Freaknik” and “Hot-lanta”; maybe that explains the move to Nashville, where that element may feel the need to restrain themselves.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Freaknik died years ago and that element hasn’t reappeared in any meaningful way. I haven’t heard any local coverage to indicate any problems at the tournament over the years other than the tornado that one year.

          Like

      • Mack says:

        Since the SEC will not allow UK to host the MBB tourney, what is the closest non-college affiliated major arena to UK? Nashville (SEC country) and Indianapolis (B1G) are both about a 3 hour drive from UK, so Nashville makes a lot of sense for the SEC (Cincinnati’s arena is closer, but 40 years old, smaller, and in a B1G state). So 9 years in the next 11 it will be much closer to UK, St. Louis is about the same as Atlanta in 2018. So it is only in 2022 when the UK fans will need to make a long road trip.

        Like

  56. Brian says:

    http://deadspin.com/opponents-barred-from-speaking-as-cobb-county-approves-1582556255/all

    Typical Cobb County. And the opponents weren’t even allowed to speak at the meeting.

    The Braves have been masters at brokering no dissent:

    • When Atlanta balked at replacing the nearly 20-year-old Turner Field, team executives approached Cobb County—secretly, because as the team president said, if people knew about it, they would have said no.

    • The funding was secured through some creative taxation, specifically chosen to avoid requiring a public referendum; Cobb County residents were never allowed to vote on giving $397 million to a baseball team.

    • The actual vote on the operating agreement was only announced after 6 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day—concerned parties had just a long weekend to examine the details of a massive deal.

    And the deal still contains questions and landmines. Cobb County has committed just $14 million to transportation improvements that are likely to cost at least 10 times that. The bond measures, released for the first time on Friday night, reveal that the Braves do not actually guarantee the $400 million in private development around the stadium that they had touted, rendering one of the project’s biggest selling points imaginary long before ground is even broken.

    This is going to cost Cobb County taxpayers well more than $400 million. But will the new ballpark provide an economic benefit in return? Well, there’s a first time for everything.

    As for that $14M in transportation costs:

    http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/11/27/6311/cobb-county-approves-preliminary-braves-agreement-now-just-has-to-figure-out-how-the-money-actually-works/

    I wondered last week whether all the needed transportation improvements could be paid for with the $14 million that Cobb has committed to the project, and the Peach Pundit is wondering too, only with actual numbers:

    [begin quote from another blog]
    Other transportation options are being explored to facilitate efficient traffic flow, including the utilization of the Cobb Community Transit bus system and the development of a trolley line connecting Cumberland-area businesses. Cobb County officials also plan sidewalk improvements around the site and have potential plans for a bus transit and pedestrian-only bridge connecting I-285 to the Galleria area.

    Cobb County officials also are planning to build a bridge that will span I-285, connecting the Cobb Galleria office park to the stadium. Tim Lee gushed over this “Cheesecake Factory” bridge in a recent story. He stated it would have a shuttle that ran across it all the way to the Cumberland Mall/Galleria area. The bridge at 17th street in Atlanta cost approximately 40 million. That bridge was much easier to build than this one, as the interstate runs significantly below grade at the crossing point. The highway in this instance is well above grade, and the bridge will have to be much longer and built much higher. The grade cannot be very great or the shuttle, in whatever form it takes, will not be able to climb the bridge. This points to a bridge cost of conservatively 3 times the 17th street bridge, probably closer to 4. It is safe to say that this bridge, though specifically stated as being part of the the overall costs in the MOU, has not been budgeted.

    The first paragraph discusses things that GDOT is already doing or planning to do, so there’s no cost there to Cobb taxpayers outside of what they already pay in state taxes. The second and third paragraphs refer to “options,” “plans,” and “potential plans.” Is $14M enough to cover building pedestrian bridges and trolleys, in addition to the more likely items like sidewalks and CCT buses? My guess is no.
    [end quote]

    Three to four times the cost of the 17th Street bridge would mean $120-160 million, which is a hell of an unfunded mandate — and that’s just one item on the Braves’ wish list. The Pundit says it’s “likely the state DOT will have to catch some of the total left over when the irrational exuberance fades”; if that’s going to require a state vote, then things could get interesting, given the murmurings of opposition to the deal in the legislature.

    Like

  57. Brian says:

    http://deadspin.com/nobody-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-1582151092/+sarah-hedgecock

    Nobody wants to host the 2022 Winter Olympics.

    Munich and St. Moritz both voted against a bid in public referndums.

    Of the 6 finalists:
    Krakow and Stockholm have withdrawn their bids

    Lviv, Ukraine seems highly unlikely due to current events

    Oslo’s bid is falling apart as public opposition is rising and the junior member in the government coalition has voted not to fund any Olympics, meaning the left and right would have to form a coalition to support it.

    That leaves Almaty Khazakstan and Beijing, two cities where public opinion doesn’t matter. Beijing just had the summer Olympics, obviously, plus only the indoor events could be held in Beijing. The outdoor snow events would be held in Zhangjiakou (roughly 50+ miles away).

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      Borat should be the official mascot of a Khazak olympic bid.

      Like

    • Wainscott says:

      The other aspect which hurts is, as the winter olympics have grown in size, the smaller host cities of the past are simply unable to host the games anymore, what with the increase need for hotel rooms, infrastructure, and the like. Places like Lake Placid, Innsbruck, Albertville, and the like just cannot support the modern winter olympic games. Even Lake Tahoe would have to spend billions building venues and related infrastructure for a potential future bid.

      Like

  58. Kevin says:

    What is the general perception from B1G schools/fans about an early signing period? If it’s a good thing for the B1G what date would be best? I would think Mid or Late August would be a good time as long as they allow official visits in May or June.

    Weather is always an issue for B1G schools so getting official visits in the warmer months is probably a good thing but on the flip side you can’t showcase the gameday experience. Always thought OV’s in December or January is an uphill battle but the Florida kids that pick a Northern school on a winter visit will certainly know what they are getting themselves into and maybe less likely to get homesick or transfer.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’m not sure there is any consensus. Personally, I think having a week in August would be good assuming they allow official visits the summer after your junior year. The whole point for me is to provide kids a way to get recruiting over with before their senior season starts if they want to do so. It’s no different than letting regular students apply for early decision.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        Agreed. It’s been a couple of decades or more since I applied for school but I remember getting it over with in early Fall and just waiting for acceptances. Most of my classmates knew where they wanted to go and were just waiting for the official acceptance letters.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          I think multiple signing dates will lighten or significantly reduce all this glamorization of the February signing day. Which I think would be a good thing as some of these kids are just playing with the schools. Less TV coverage for NSD the better in my opinion.

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I am opposed to it. As it is, the LOI is one-sided: the school has various ways to back out of it, but the student does not. Most other students are not making a college choice until much later, and indeed, couldn’t even if they wanted to.

      I’ve seen one suggestion I could stand behind: an early revocable LOI. An athlete who wanted to end his recruitment could sign one of these, and while it was in effect, he couldn’t take visits, and no coach from any other program could speak to him. If he changed his mind, or there were subsequent events (e.g., the coach getting fired), he could formally revoke the document and re-open his recruitment. If all goes well, the athlete would sign the familiar irrevocable LOI in February.

      The beauty of this, is that it doesn’t force kids into irrevocable decisions so much earlier than all of their non-athletic classmates. It also gives them an out if the coach leaves at the end of the season, or for any of the other reasons that athletes decommit in the current system. (Yes, yes, I know that in the current rules, the departure of the coach is legally irrelevant, but I think you’d find very few Big Ten football players who said it didn’t matter who the coach was.)

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “Most other students are not making a college choice until much later, and indeed, couldn’t even if they wanted to.”

        Precisely. Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign). This early period is primarily for the coaches and teams benefit.

        “I’ve seen one suggestion I could stand behind: an early revocable LOI.”

        Which is like a verbal. Most teams curtail recruiting a player who has given a public verbal. Stops wasting resources better spent elsewhere, unless a de-commit becomes public or a person close to the kid (HS coach, parent) suggests contact would be welcome.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign).”

          But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted. An early signing period is no different. If non-athletes can make a decision on where to go in August, why can’t a football player?

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted. An early signing period is no different. If non-athletes can make a decision on where to go in August, why can’t a football player?

            I think the typical early decision application date is in December, not August.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted.”

            Who, how, where has this happened? I’ve heard of needing to commit/sign to recieve an academic scholarship or risk it going elsewhere (sound familiar?). But it in no way restricts them from continuing to explore other opportunities, or other schools from recruiting them.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            It is the NLOI observing member schools only that are restricted by the signing. Ivy League isn’t a member and can “legally” recruit signed athletes, if they choose to.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I think the typical early decision application date is in December, not August.”

            The final date is often 11/1, but the window opens much earlier.

            For example:

            http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/deadlines/

            The window opens on 8/15 and ends on 11/1.

            Some schools have much earlier deadlines.

            Signing periods are also windows, but everyone quotes the first date. The early signing period in hoops is a week long, for example. Football could be 1 day or 2 months.

            Remember that football players undergo a recruiting pressure much different from regular students. Also, they are playing football in the fall so they don’t really have spare time to do much research on schools then anyway.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Who, how, where has this happened?”

            You’ve never heard of early decision?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_decision

            Early decision is a common early admission policy used in college admissions in the United States for admitting freshmen to undergraduate programs. It is used to indicate to the University or College that the candidate considers that institution to be his or her top choice. …

            … Early decision differs from early action in that it constitutes a binding commitment to enroll; that is, if offered admission under an early decision program, and the financial aid offered by the school, if requested, is acceptable, the candidate must withdraw all other applications to other institutions and enroll at that institution.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/early-and-regular-decision

            Here’s Penn’s explanation of their program:

            Early Decision Plan

            For applicants who have decided that the University of Pennsylvania is their first choice and who agree to matriculate if accepted, we encourage application under our Early Decision agreement. Children and grandchildren of alumni will receive the most consideration for their affiliation with the University during Early Decision.

            Early Decision applications are binding and represent a serious commitment to Penn. In signing the Early Decision agreement, a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools if admitted to Penn. Further, Early Decision applications supersede any non-binding Early Action applications. A student may apply Early Decision to only one institution.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “…a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools…”

            Again, is there anything other than the that school withdrawing offer/admission as a consequence of looking elsewhere? If a student chose to look elsewhere, in spite of that agreement, is there anything preventing the other schools from offering/admitting the prospective student, as is the case with NLOI’s (except for the Ivy’s)?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Ccrider:

            See my response below. It’s seen as unethical by some and some schools do share their list of ED admits, though whether there are repercussions is murky. For the sake of relationships, many of the top high schools play along.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          “Precisely. Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign). This early period is primarily for the coaches and teams benefit.”

          Wow. ccrider evidently went to college before both the early-decision era and the now-standard May 1 enrollment-decision deadline.

          When was this? The ’60’s? So how did it work back then? After schools mailed out acceptances, they just waited until the fall to see how many kids would show up?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            It’s called statistics. You know, with past data you can project enrolement based on % of those accepted who actually arrive. Most do go where they originally plan to, but some have life interruptions or changing opportunities/needs.

            I missed the law being passed that requires attendance if you signed up. The only one I was concerned with was conscription (draft lottery #120). Has it returned and been expanded to cover college admission/attendance?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            OK, it isn’t a legally binding decision (but you need to send the school some money to hold your place). However, are you arguing that athletes should be treated more like regular students? Because regular students can drop-out or transfer whenever, so long as they find another school to take them. If an oboe player doesn’t like the orchestra he joined, he can leave and join another university who takes him, and if that university gives him a scholarship to play oboe for their orchestra, there are no restrictions on that.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            “However, are you arguing that athletes should be treated more like regular students?”

            I’m saying until an irrevocable NLOI’s is signed that is exactly what they are. The idea schools are going to accept, let alone promote, an agreement that binds them but not the recruit is illogical…not in the schools interest.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The idea schools are going to accept, let alone promote, an agreement that binds them but not the recruit is illogical…not in the schools interest.

            The revocable LOI does benefit the schools, in comparison to the current system, in which “commits” are verbal, unregulated, and don’t actually “commit” anything.

            Today, Johnny Jones can commit to Clemson, but other coaches can still call / text / email / visit him. If Johnny signed a revocable LOI, it would be an NCAA violation for other teams to communicate with him in any way. So this provides a considerably higher measure of security that a “commit” really stays committed until the February date, when the revocable LOI would be replaced by the familiar irrevocable one.

            Of course, once a player signed a revocable LOI, the coach would be free to talk about him publicly, as opposed to the current rules, where kids can talk about where they’re (supposedly) committed, but coaches cannot.

            I am guessing that a pretty low percentage of the revocable LOIs would actually get revoked, fewer than the number of athletes that “decommit” today. For one thing, I think the act of signing something would make the commitment more serious. Beyond that, if the kid can’t talk to other teams, and other teams can’t talk to him, he’s far less likely to stray unless something goes seriously wrong at the school he committed to (coach fired, etc.).

            I do realize that coaches would naturally push for early commitments to be irrevocable. Why should they give 17-year-olds a chance to change their minds? But that doesn’t mean we have to support that idea.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Unless an early signing is a binding, irrevocable NLOI like the current one it isn’t a signing in the normal sense. It is a written “verbal”. It ain’t happening/changing unless it’s binding. I suggested that kind of agreement with a girlfriend, me being able to see others if I chose to, but she couldn’t. Guess how that went…

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I certainly agree with you that the coaches would surely prefer that the system remain heavily loaded in their own favor. That doesn’t mean we have to support them.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I’m not arguing what we should or shouldn’t support. I’m saying that the schools (coaches) aren’t suggesting a change that weakens their hand and increases their vulnerability, without the ability to respond, to the whims of kids not hardly HS seniors (or underhanded “influence” of other schools “boosters”). If AD’s/coaches are proposing/supporting a change it is to increase their certainty and security. It’s not to benevolently help the kids they are recruiting.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            If AD’s/coaches are proposing/supporting a change it is to increase their certainty and security. It’s not to benevolently help the kids they are recruiting.

            I certainly agree with you that the coaches will naturally prefer the system that gives them the strongest hand. However, I do think you have misjudged the benefits of a revocable LOI. Obviously, it’s not as strong as the irrevocable kind, but it certainly helps them.

            For one thing, they would know that their commits literally cannot talk to, or even be approached by, coaches at other schools, unless the athlete formally revokes his LOI. In the current system of unregulated commitments, there is no such assurance. The other benefit is that they’d be able to talk about their commits openly; today, that’s a violation.

            Obviously, given their druthers, this is not the system the coaches would choose, if they could have an early signing date that gives them even more control. But it does give them quite a bit of extra security, while giving a 17-year-old some wiggle room to change his mind if, for instance, the coach gets fired at the end of the season.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Obviously, it’s not as strong as the irrevocable kind, but it certainly helps…”

            No more than a verbal. If it’s revocable it is NOT a binding commitment! It provides no certainty. If kids can change their mind there is incentive to continue to pursue, whether “allowed” or not. Just create a master “do not call list” that kids can opt into or not. Why should they have to commit in order to curtail the recruiting? Can’t a kid/family decide they have all the information they need but would like some quiet time to dispassionately evaluate, and then decide? Probably work as well as the do not call lists have been in other areas…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “No more than a verbal.”

            No. You are just flat out wrong about that. We’ve explained it to you multiple times, so you’re just choosing to ignore the glaring difference between the two situations.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            I’m discounting anecdotal similarities. Are we really to believe a non binding on the athlete, but binding on the schools agreement is what the schools are proposing? It’s not. What’s being proposed is like the other sports where there is an early binding signing period. The rest is just that some think, and others (me) disagree, that they should be allowed to sign, but not really, and yet limit what schools may do. By defination of the agreement being non binding on the athlete they would remain eligible to go anywhere. But, again, this is not the proposal.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Are we really to believe a non binding on the athlete, but binding on the schools agreement is what the schools are proposing?”

            I don’t believe anybody has claimed that it is. Marc said it had been mentioned by someone.

            Then we had this side discussion about a revocable LOI versus a verbal commitment versus an irrevocable LOI. In that side conversation, you have stubbornly maintained that there is no real difference between a verbal and a RLOI despite all the evidence to the contrary.

            Now you’re trying to change the topic back to the main discussion while acting as if that was what we were discussing in this thread.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Sorry if I am not being clear. My point is that a revocable LOI a one way contract. It is indicating a future intention to sign a binding agreement (like a verbal), but with no consequences to one of the party’s if they don’t follow through.

            If you want to curtail recruiting that could be accomplished by an opt in/out on a master list of all eligible athletes (an interactive do not call list). It need not be associated with any level of commitment to any school – a recruit controlled dead period. Should/would the schools go for having to dedicate a scholarship, that could wind up not accepted, with no guarantee in return, to enable that dead period?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Sorry if I am not being clear. My point is that a revocable LOI a one way contract. It is indicating a future intention to sign a binding agreement (like a verbal), but with no consequences to one of the party’s if they don’t follow through.”

            But unlike a verbal, it invokes a change in a recruit’s status according to the rules. All other schools would be forbidden from contacting him. Right now, teams regularly recruit players verbally committed elsewhere.

            “If you want to curtail recruiting that could be accomplished by an opt in/out on a master list of all eligible athletes (an interactive do not call list). It need not be associated with any level of commitment to any school – a recruit controlled dead period.”

            Find me a player that doesn’t know where he wants to go (that will accept him) and also doesn’t want to be recruited. The players that don’t want to be recruited feel that way because they know where they want to go and know that school will take them.

            “Should/would the schools go for having to dedicate a scholarship, that could wind up not accepted, with no guarantee in return, to enable that dead period?”

            Why not? It still will almost eliminate players getting flipped, meaning coaches can stop babysitting committed players and spend more time recruiting others to fill out the class.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            I understand what is suggested but disagree as to the advantage/disadvantage conclusion you’ve reached. And I agree about what would or wouldn’t be allowed IF such a rule existed. I just don’t see schools/coaches eliminating recruitment of players who haven’t yet signed binding contracts with another member of the NLOI observing group. And they would be the ones to write and pass such rules. We do have no contact periods. Expanding/manipulating them would be an easier lift, but still not as easy as applying the existing early signing rules of other sports to FB.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “I just don’t see schools/coaches eliminating recruitment of players who haven’t yet signed binding contracts with another member of the NLOI observing group. And they would be the ones to write and pass such rules.”

            What coaches want doesn’t always win. ADs and president overrule them frequently. If this is viewed as a player welfare issue, the top level people may make the decision despite what coaches think. Especially since they have another revenue sport to look at that already has a similar rule. My guess is they are more likely to make it binding, and I’m fine with that. I don’t see a problem with allowing someone to make an informed decision earlier.

            “We do have no contact periods. Expanding/manipulating them would be an easier lift, but still not as easy as applying the existing early signing rules of other sports to FB.”

            Those periods don’t help when some players want to be recruited and others don’t.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Those periods don’t help when some players want to be recruited and others don’t.”

            Hence the suggestion for a individual opt in/out “do not call” list.

            Like

      • Eric says:

        The revokable one sounds better. I’m leery of forcing kids into an earlier choice, especially before they even started their senior year. Technically it might not be forcing, but if most are signing on early, your spot can well be gone if you want to wait a bit to decide and most are signing in August.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        I’d certainly support a revocable early signing. It gives most of the real benefits (no unwanted contact from other coaches) for the student. The coaches would have to keep recruiting them until the LOI is signed, though, which may be an unwanted hassle for both sides.

        Ideally, they’d have a choice of an irrevocable one (no recruiting by their own coaches, either) or a revocable one (their coaches can and would keep recruiting them).

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          What the heck is a revocable “signing”? It’s no different than giving a verbal in that it depends on honoring a non binding agreement, which “revocable” implies/means the opposite. You want to hand power to 16/17 yr olds just make a master list and rule saying schools may only recruit kids who have opted in (or not opted out), perhaps by individual school. Or a master site and list that is the only place initial contact may be made. Kid can choose to ignore or respond, but no other contact allowed without invitation. And any contact can be terminated by clicking the “end” or “terminate” box on the site.

          Boy, that seems like something coaches/recruiters would love…(sarcasm)

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “What the heck is a revocable “signing”?”

            Exactly what it says. It’s a binding legal document that can be undone, like most legal documents. A RLOI would stop all recruiting contact from anyone other than the school a player signed with, which is why both players and coaches would like it.

            “It’s no different than giving a verbal in that it depends on honoring a non binding agreement, which “revocable” implies/means the opposite.”

            Verbals are not recognized by the NCAA, so they carry no weight. A RLOI would be official with the NCAA and thus rules would apply.

            Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Here is a link to the University of Pennsylvania early decision site. If you are accepted to U of P early decision and are accepted, it is binding. If a student is admitted to any other school’s early admission, they must notify Penn and withdraw their application to Penn.

        http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/early-and-regular-decision

        It says:

        Early Decision Plan

        For applicants who have decided that the University of Pennsylvania is their first choice and who agree to matriculate if accepted, we encourage application under our Early Decision agreement. Children and grandchildren of alumni will receive the most consideration for their affiliation with the University during Early Decision.

        Early Decision applications are binding and represent a serious commitment to Penn. In signing the Early Decision agreement, a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools if admitted to Penn. Further, Early Decision applications supersede any non-binding Early Action applications. A student may apply Early Decision to only one institution. Accordingly, if a student applies Early Decision to the University of Pennsylvania and to another school, the Early Decision application to Penn will be withdrawn.

        Early Decision candidates who are denied admission in December may not reapply for Regular Decision in the same academic year.

        Regular Decision Plan

        If any Regular Decision applicant to the University of Pennsylvania is accepted by another school under a College Board-approved, binding Early Decision plan, the applicant must inform the Office of Admissions and withdraw the Penn application

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Other than being denied admission to UPenn, is there any other “binding” consequence, like the NLOI program that governs all participating members (pretty much everyone but the Ivy’s)?

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Not legally binding, but there may or may not be consequences. The rumor is that the top privates share their ED lists, so a kid could see an offer pulled (or other schools not consider him/her) based on a judgement that reneging on an ED agreement is a character flaw (ED is kind of like a handshake promise). Foreign schools don’t participate in this, so there is some sort of loophole there. Also, different schools may or may not have arrangements with each other. However, reneging on an ED acceptance for non-financial-aid-related reasons is seen to be pretty serious in the admissions world.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I did quite a bit of research on “Early Decision” when my son was going through his college search a couple of years ago. Many institutions do share their early decision lists, and won’t accept a student if he’s been ED’d at another institution. It’s not as strictly regulated as an athletic LOI, but it’s pretty serious.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And many/most honor kids verbal for the most part. Why wast the time, effort and resources trying to change a mind you couldn’t win when he supposedly was undecided? All I’m saying is there is no national association regulating early entry like the NCAA/NLOI. There may be cooperation and respect, but there is to some extent with athletic verbals, too.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            And many/most honor kids verbal for the most part. Why wast the time, effort and resources trying to change a mind you couldn’t win when he supposedly was undecided? All I’m saying is there is no national association regulating early entry like the NCAA/NLOI. There may be cooperation and respect, but there is to some extent with athletic verbals, too.

            You have obviously done zero research on “Early Decision”. Among the schools participating in that process, it is pretty much an absolute bar on changing your mind, unless the first school releases you.

            As far as I can tell, no one “cooperates” or “respects” a verbal commitment, which legally does not even exist. Now, I agree with you that, pragmatically, coaches might not waste a lot of time trying to change the mind of a kid who claims to be solidly committed. But that’s merely pragmatism. It is pretty well documented that supposedly “committed” athletes continue to receive significant attention and offers from other schools.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “You have obviously done zero research on “Early Decision”.

            True. I can’t see how you can legally be restrained from exploring options. And I also know kids who have applied early to multiple schools.

            “Among the schools participating in that process,…”

            Is there a name of the organization that oversees and governs the process? NCAEE (national collegiate association of early enrollers)?
            “…it is pretty much an absolute bar on changing your mind, unless the first school releases you.”

            Two things. First: “Pretty much” doesn’t suggest “absolute”, at least to me. But since I don’t know the extent or the enforcement power of the unnamed organization governing the competition for early enrollers that may be a reasonable discription (like NLOI governs in the NCAA, except for the non participating Ivy schools).
            Second: if a release is sought, how often is it granted (how does it compare to getting out of a signed NLOI)? Will it prevent an early enroller from deciding their councillor was right and Harvard was an option they should explore rather than the local Enormous State U: every time? only under hardship? sometimes? rarely? never?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Is there a name of the organization that oversees and governs the process? NCAEE (national collegiate association of early enrollers)?”

            Actually, there is some organization. I can’t remember the name, but it’s like the organization for college adcoms (or private adcoms) or something like that, and someone who use to work in admissions at Smith said her college participated in the list sharing back in the day.

            “Second: if a release is sought, how often is it granted (how does it compare to getting out of a signed NLOI)?”

            They tend to be handed out fairly easily if a kid doesn’t act like a total ass. Usually, not enough financial aid to attend, or didn’t get in to the school of the university they wanted, or . . . something is a good enough of an excuse.

            However, the stakes also aren’t as high. At the elite universities, there are far more qualified applicants who would do well at that school than there are slots. If an admit with a 1550 (M+V) SAT and 4.0 GPA rejects Penn, Penn will . . . admit another kid with a 1550 SAT and 4.0 GPA instead.

            If a 5-star recruit rejects you, plucking another 5-star recruit from the “reject” pile isn’t an option.

            Like

    • Mike says:

      From my experience, most Nebraska fans love the idea. There is usually one player a year that commits in the summer and then later in the year gets the offer from their dream school and de-commits. This completely ignores the de-commits from other schools Nebraska gets late in the game, but that seems to be how it is.

      I don’t like the early signing period. It helps coaches at the expense of players. For example:

      1) Most of the dates thrown around are before coaching changes are made. There are comparatively few coaching changes after the February date. It isn’t in an athletes best interest to make it more common where a player can sign with a school where the coach/staff who recruited them could be gone a few weeks later*. This happens with basketball today, and I don’t think anyone would describe it as ideal.

      *Yes, I know coaches can get fired/leave/retire after a year. That isn’t ideal either, but an early date will actually make this problem worse, not better. A vast majority of signees now get at least a season with their chosen coaches.

      2) Coaches will abuse it. Imagine an under the radar player who’s recruitment blows up once their senior film is evaluated. At the early signing date (because no one had the chance to look at their film yet) they only have an offer from a MAC school. The coach tells the player, either sign or lose the scholarship to someone else. With out any other options they have to sign.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Mike,

        “It helps coaches at the expense of players.”

        It also helps players. They are essentially being stalked by up to 100 coaches and recruiting reporters. They get calls and texts all day and well into the night every single day. They get pulled out of classes to meet with coaches. If they know where they want to go, why should they have to put up with that for 6 more months?

        “1) Most of the dates thrown around are before coaching changes are made.”

        That’s unavoidable since signing day is in early February. Any early signing period would have to be before the season ends to make any sense. I agree it’s an issue, though.

        “2) Coaches will abuse it.”

        I think this is overblown. Coaches don’t have nearly the leverage people claim. The 2* guys are mostly recruited during and after their senior year as coaches wait to see how they do. This early signing wouldn’t impact them at all. 3* and above players have options. The real purpose is for the better players to be able to finish recruiting earlier. Right now, over half of the MAC has 0 or 1 player verbally committed, for example. Meanwhile, every SEC team has at least 2 and all but Vandy have 6 or more. Half have at least 10, and UK has the only 2* player in the whole conference.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          @Brian –


          It also helps players. They are essentially being stalked by up to 100 coaches and recruiting reporters. They get calls and texts all day and well into the night every single day. They get pulled out of classes to meet with coaches. If they know where they want to go, why should they have to put up with that for 6 more months?

          An early signing period will help with that problem, but is it the most effective way? I just can’t accept that the best thing for an athlete is to limit their already limited rights even further. Just throwing out an idea here, but maybe instead of a NLI they could sign a “quiet period” document that would limit the ability of (all/some) coaches to contact players in line with quiet period rules. They could opt in or out for time periods similar to the Do Not Call registry. That way they still have the unlimited flexibility to explore their options if they get second thoughts, coaching change, or academic issue.

          I think this is overblown. Coaches don’t have nearly the leverage people claim.

          I think coaches