It has been a long summer hiatus here, so it’s great to be back! Let’s get to the piled-up mailbag with questions on power conference autonomy, TV rights, conference realignment, the college football playoff system and more:
After many months of procedural wranglings and committee meetings, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors finally approved the autonomy of the five power conferences (Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12) to pass rules in a number of subject areas (such as full cost of attendance coverage for athletes and liberalization of athlete/agent contact rules) today. There’s no real set criteria for another conference to join that group outside of the “Power 5” letting them in. For practical purposes, the free market is really the driver in terms of determining power: if a non-power “Group of 5” conference could obtain TV revenue and bowl tie-ins on par with the Power 5 leagues, then it could argue that it a “high resource” league (as the NCAA has termed it in the past) that ought to have the same type of autonomy. However, even if a Group of 5 conference were able to achieve that (which is virtually impossible considering how much difficulty the post-2006/pre-2011 Big East had in keeping up with the other power conferences in terms of revenue and exposure despite having a better slate of bankable football brands compared to the entire rest of the current Group of 5), there’s no provision to mandate a move-up without the good graces and approval of the Power 5. (Good luck with that!)
As we have seen in conference realignment, individual schools might move up to power status (see TCU and Utah), but leagues as a whole don’t move up at all (and if anything, they are much more likely to get stripped of their most valuable assets by the Power 5 and then get relegated). I’ve pointed out this simple statistic many times before on this blog: in the first year of the BCS system (1998), there were 63 total schools in the power group of the 6 AQ conferences plus Notre Dame, while in the first year of the new CFP system (2014), there will be 65 total schools in the power group in the Power 5 plus Notre Dame. That’s only a net change of 2 total schools added to the power group over the past 16 years with one conference (the old Big East) getting demoted. Simply put, there won’t be any mass addition of an entire conference to the power level. Whoever wants to be a power school going forward is going to need an invite from the Power 5 because none of the Group of 5 conferences will move up on their own.
https://twitter.com/am19psu/status/495018432736546816
As of now, the only conference that will be negotiating a new TV deal in the near future is the Big Ten, whose current Tier 1 deal with ABC/ESPN expires in 2016-17. The other four power conferences have deals that stretch out for the next decade. It’s extremely doubtful to me that the Big Ten will act again prior to their new TV deal with the grant of rights agreements that are in place within the Big 12 and ACC, which are where the primary targets for Jim Delany (i.e. Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, maybe Kansas, maybe Oklahoma, maybe Georgia Tech) are located. Hypothetically, schools that aren’t under grant of rights arrangements such as the SEC members (i.e. Missouri, Vanderbilt) and UConn could be targeted by the Big Ten, but I don’t see anyone leaving from the SEC at all with their own gushers of TV money coming in (more on that in a moment) and UConn, for all of its strength as a basketball brand, doesn’t have the football value (either in terms as a program itself or, what a lot of realignment observers have missed, the strong football recruiting territory that Rutgers and Maryland have in their respective home states) that drives expansion or, somewhat less importantly, AAU membership on the academic side. (I do believe that if there’s a legitimate marquee football brand available that doesn’t have AAU membership, such as Oklahoma, then the Big Ten will consider them no matter what else they might say publicly.) The Big Ten has achieved its financial goal of getting into the New York City and Maryland markets for Big Ten Network carriage, so it would literally take a Texas-sized footprint addition to make it worth it for the conference to expand for TV territory alone. National name brands for football for the Tier 1 contract are going to be more important in the near-ish future for the Big Ten, and those types of schools simply aren’t available today.
https://twitter.com/GregGregoryKJ/status/495240351720828928
In response to Question #1, I believe the Big 12 will end up expanding to 12 within the next 5 years and that will be all of the changes that we’ll see to the power conferences. Now, it won’t be because they’ll be “forced” to do so by the other power conferences or that the new College Football Playoff system starts punishing the league for not having a conference championship game (as Dennis Dodd has recently suggested). Instead, we’re simply living a world where each conference needs to diversify its portfolio of markets for long-term strength and the Big 12, by FAR, is the least diversified at all. I suggested last fall in The Big 12 Expansion Index that Cincinnati and BYU were clearly the two best candidates for the league and nothing has changed my view of the landscape since then.
For Question #2, I’d put the odds of the powers-that-be changing the CFP system to an 8-team playoff prior to the 12-year contract being completed at about 60% yes/40% no. No matter what platitudes that the conference commissioners and university presidents might be putting out there, we’re inexorably heading toward a postseason system where all 5 power conference champions will automatically have a shot at the national championship… and the best way to do that is to grant them 5 auto-bids with 3 at-large slots. (How the Group of Five would be represented, if at all, is an open question.) Personally, I favor using the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls as the quarterfinal sites using traditional conference tie-ins and then go on from there. This protects the bowl system (which should never be underestimated as a driving force since its the contractual mechanism that allows the power conferences to maintain their access and control advantages) and, in my opinion, continues to provide a balance of maintaining the importance of the regular season (which wouldn’t be possible at all in a 16-team playoff), rewarding concrete objective on-the-field accomplishments without the use of polls or committees (conference championships), creating massive stakes for all of the conference championship games (as they’ll become de facto playoff games in their own right) and still allowing enough at-large slots to reasonably include all of the teams that have a legitimate case to play for the national championship. This type of system would be such easy money for the powers-that-be just for the playoff portion (not to mention the boost in rights fees that each league would receive for their respective conference championship games) that it makes little financial sense for anyone not to do it. However, the historical glacial pace of the college football world to enact postseason changes is the reason why I only put this at 60/40 within 12 years instead of the 90/10 that it would be in virtually any other business.
Depends on what you mean by “watering down” the conference. In the short-term on-the-field, these aren’t sexy additions for football. Maryland has an excellent men’s basketball history, while Rutgers is non-existent in that sport. However, from a revenue perspective, they’re massive home runs by getting the BTN onto basic (or widely-enough distributed packages that are de facto basic) cable packages in the New York City and Washington, DC markets. Only adding the state of Texas can compete with that market-wise. At the same time, this is a critical move for the long-term for the Big Ten’s recruiting territory for both athletes and regular students. The states of New Jersey and Maryland are specifically the two top non-Sun Belt state producers of FBS football recruits that are not already in the Big Ten. (Meanwhile, New York State and all of the New England states are among the worst producers of FBS football talent in the country whether looking at sheer numbers or on a per capita basis.) At the same time, New Jersey and Maryland are among the best producers of Division I basketball talent regardless of region (with Maryland actually coming out #1 in the country on a per capita basis – that state is to basketball players as Texas and Florida are to football players). Nebraska is the large national football brand name that the Big Ten couldn’t pass up, but bringing in Rutgers and Maryland is what can enable to conference to maintain the necessary demographics to continue to be strong two, three or four decades from now.
I have some more mailbag questions that I’ll get to next week regarding the SEC Network and divisional alignments. If you have any other questions in the meantime, feel free to leave them in the comments section here or contact me on Twitter at @frankthetank111. Enjoy the weekend!
(Image from al.com)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawks #1 in CFP
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Second
LikeLike
Add add add add add add and add
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
We can now like comments? neat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go Blue!
I have to agree with your assessments in the post regarding autonomy, etc.
When CFB adopts the eight-game playoff, I’d like to see those game decoupled from the bowls with the exception of the final game. The quarter and semi-finals should be played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. That would provide yet another degree of importance to the regular season results, although a committee would still be in charge of picking the three at large clubs and with sorting out the 1 through 8 rankings for the participating teams.
There would obviously still be a place for the bowls. The major ones (Rose, Sugar, etc.) would feature the second or perhaps third best teams from the Power 5 Conference or perhaps the best programs from the non-Power 5 Conferences. They could still serve as fund raising events or be used for commercial promotion or be the vehicle to bring tourists to the bowl locales. That said, they clearly wouldn’t have the same spotlight on them as they do now or will in the present playoff setup.
Schools across all the conferences have spent billions of dollars upgrading their stadiums, etc. for the regular season. Why shouldn’t the fans and major donors benefit after providing all this money by having those major playoff games on campus? There are a lot of great, huge, historic stadiums at colleges across the country. It’s a shame they lie essentially dormant until the next spring football game (or outdoor hockey game, in the case of Michigan Stadium).
LikeLike
cutter,
“When CFB adopts the eight-game playoff, I’d like to see those game decoupled from the bowls with the exception of the final game. The quarter and semi-finals should be played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team.”
Starting from scratch in an ideal world, that makes sense. However, I think too many entrenched powers would fight that for it to happen.
1. Warm weather schools don’t want to play in the north in December or January.
2. Many/most cold weather schools don’t want to play in the north in December or January either.
3. Fans don’t want to travel to the north in December or January.
4. TV would want night games (have to avoid the NFL games), and nobody wants to play night games in the north in December or January.
I think the better choice is going back to the “traditional” bowl pairings for the quarters. I mostly agree with Frank’s plan, but I’d use the Cotton Bowl instead of the Fiesta Bowl.
1/1:
Rose = B10 vs P12
Sugar = SEC vs at-large
Cotton = B12 vs at-large
Orange = ACC vs at-large
I’m guessing everyone would prefer that the SEC and B12 split up and both face at-larges rather than stay together. If they want to stay together in the Sugar instead, I’m fine with that. The only conference this alignment really hurts is the B10 and they’ve chosen to subject themselves to this road game. The at-larges should probably include an autobid for the top Go5 champion to avoid hassles.
2+ weeks later (on Monday and Tuesday to avoid the NFL playoffs)
Semi 1
Semi 2
These would be bid out to any dome or warm weather outdoor stadium.
Weekend before the Super Bowl:
NCG (on Sunday night)
Also bid out.
“That would provide yet another degree of importance to the regular season results,”
Which would be nice, but that ship has sailed.
LikeLike
The Fiesta and Rose would be too far west. 2/3 of the schools and roughly 60% of the P5 are east of the Mississippi.
I don’t see the Big 12 and SEC giving up the Sugar money or the Big 10 and Pac 12 giving up Rose money. So if the bowls stay, they probably sacrifice championships by competing with each other and keep the money. The Orange would have ACC and a wild card and the other bowl would have 2 wildcards. The P5 would directly get their share of those 5 bowl slots.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Fiesta and Rose would be too far west.”
Too far west for what?
I have the Rose hosting the Rose Bowl and I used the Cotton instead of the Fiesta. As for semis, a truly neutral site is a good thing.
“I don’t see the Big 12 and SEC giving up the Sugar money”
Perhaps not. That’s why I said I’d leave it up to them. I think they could get similar money with a guaranteed quarterfinal slot, though. That could even be part of the playoff deal, that all 5 conferences get the same amount since the bowls are part of it.
LikeLike
Its the control as much as the money.
LikeLike
Brian-
A short reply to your points:
1. I agree with you that many warm weather schools wouldn’t want to play up north in the December/January time frame. I would fully expect them to object to the idea because it would provide a competitive advantage to those northern host schools. I could also see them wanting to keep the bowl games as part of the playoffs not only because of weather, but also due to the proximity of those sites to the southern schools and their fans.
2. Conversely, I don’t agree with your second point at all for the very same reasons I outlined above. Besides the weather, the schools hosting the games–north or south–would have a competitive advantage because they’d be in familiar surroundings and most of the fan base would be supporting the home team.
3. I don’t know if that point is relevant for two reasons. First off, the number of fans from a visiting team traveling northward would be smaller than in a bowl game because the bulk of the tickets would be sold to the home team’s fans. Secondly, this isn’t a multi-day experience like a bowl game–it’s a playoff game where the opposing team would come to the game site a day or two before the game was played.
4. An eight-team playoff would have a total of six quarter- and semi-final games with at least one representative from each of the five major conferences. If a team were to host a game from a cold weather climate, it’d have to be from the Big Ten, the northern part of the ACC (with Syracuse being the exception because they have an enclosed stadium), the northern part of the Big XII and perhaps half of the Pac 12 teams. Conversely, the games in the rest of the college football region (southern half of ACC, SEC territory, southern half of Big XII, southern part of Pac 12) would be in warmer areas.
Given that dynamic, I don’t see that being a big problem for the television schedulers. There would perhaps be two or three of these playoff games in cold weather climates at most and those games could kickoff at noon or 3:30 eastern time. The warm weather or West Coast games could then be played in prime time or even have a late start on the East Coast if all four quarter-final games were to take place on a single day.
I do realize there are no real financial incentives at this point to change the system and I do agree with you that the longstanding relationships between the bowls and the conferences don’t easily lend themselves to change.
But what I’m proposing doesn’t eliminate the bowls or all the reasons why fan bases for the teams participating in them would opt to travel, spend vacation time in a warm weather climate and watch their teams play in a post-season setting. What it would do is give back to the fans who have bought the tickets and supported their teams by giving them a chance to watch a playoff game in their home stadium (and without all the attendant costs of going to a bowl site).
Speaking of the fans, look at the cost burdens you’re proposing by having these games at bowl sites versus campus venues. If I’m a Michigan fan living in Ann Arbor, your proposal would have me travel to Pasadena to watch the quarter final game. Two weeks later if the Wolverines won in the Rose Bowl against that Pac 12 program, traveling either to another warm weather site or a domed stadium (Minneapolis, Indianapolis or Detroit with the latter two being relatively easy go to at that point). If Michigan were to then win that game, the same fan would then be headed to a third locale for the championship game.
At some point, I would hope that the organizers of college football would be less interested in bidding out their playoffs and more interested in having the games in venues where literally billions of dollars have been spent to upgrade them with luxury boxes, etc. Will that happen? My guess is the answer is now, but two decades ago, I didn’t think we’d be talking about an eight-team playoff either.
LikeLike
cutter,
“2. Conversely, I don’t agree with your second point at all for the very same reasons I outlined above. Besides the weather, the schools hosting the games–north or south–would have a competitive advantage because they’d be in familiar surroundings and most of the fan base would be supporting the home team.”
However, we’ve heard ADs come out and say their stadium wasn’t designed to be used in December/January. We’ve seen ADs say they worry about the weather in November, so I assume that worry is even greater in the next two months. That’s why I said they wouldn’t want to play at home, not because I don’t think they want home field advantage.
“3. I don’t know if that point is relevant for two reasons. First off, the number of fans from a visiting team traveling northward would be smaller than in a bowl game because the bulk of the tickets would be sold to the home team’s fans. Secondly, this isn’t a multi-day experience like a bowl game–it’s a playoff game where the opposing team would come to the game site a day or two before the game was played.”
a. The NCG right now allocates over 50% of the tickets to the two teams. The semifinals allocate 12,500 to each team. The question is how they would change things for a home game. I’m guessing they’d force the home team to allocate at least 10,000 tickets to the visitors. That’s a lot of people traveling north to me.
b. It’s not about length of time. People don’t want to go and the trip will be expensive.
“Given that dynamic, I don’t see that being a big problem for the television schedulers.”
The first problem is that they would have to schedule the games well before they knew who was playing in them. The second problem is that outside of 1/1, CFB doesn’t own December or January weekends. The games would have to avoid the NFL and that probably mean night games on weekdays.
“I do realize there are no real financial incentives at this point to change the system and I do agree with you that the longstanding relationships between the bowls and the conferences don’t easily lend themselves to change.”
Which is why I don’t see the point. Without a major financial incentive, they won’t consider dropping the bowls.
“But what I’m proposing doesn’t eliminate the bowls or all the reasons why fan bases for the teams participating in them would opt to travel, spend vacation time in a warm weather climate and watch their teams play in a post-season setting.”
Yes, it does in my opinion. You are crippling the major bowls and making all bowls virtually irrelevant. No fan will be excited about a $5000 trip because they finished 3rd in the conference.
“Speaking of the fans, look at the cost burdens you’re proposing by having these games at bowl sites versus campus venues.”
I’m not expecting most fans to travel. It would be all about neutral fans like most major championships are. Also, there are lots of local fans for different schools who wouldn’t have to travel far. Besides, the traveling fans are such a small percentage of all the fans that designing the system around them makes no sense to me. The playoff is a money grab, and neutral sites let them grab more money.
LikeLike
Brian-
In reply to my comments, I offer the following:
2. You’re arguing to the exception of the rule, i.e., there are some ADs who worry about weather or their campus stadium’s capabilities to host a cold weather game. There are clearly also athletic directors who would welcome having such a game on campus.
For those ADs who have objections to hosting games at their stadiums and/or in cold weather, there are options. Let’s use an example and say #3 seeded Boston College would be hosting #6 seed South Carolina in a future playoff scenario, but the BC AD concludes the game cannot be played at Alumni Stadium. What can he do?
First off, if he’s been forward looking and has known long in advance that BC couldn’t play a cold weather game on campus, then he could have made arrangements or set up plans to play in alternate sites. The New England Patriots Gillette Stadium could be available or even the Carrier Dome at Syracuse. I would assume that this scenario would have been anticipated years in advance and could be implemented in short order (tickets, team/staff hotels, practice facilities, etc).
The second alternative is not nearly as attractive–go play the game in Columbia, SC. Frankly, if I’m BC’s AD and I find myself agreeing to this plan, I would need to find myself prepared to answer a lot of questions (some very heated) from major donors, alumni, students and the press about why Boston College isn’t hosting a college football playoff game at Alumni Field, in the New England area or even in the northeast.
3. I’m surprised by your assertion that 10,000 people traveling north to watch a college football game seems like a difficult proposition. As an Ohio State fan, I’m sure you’ve witnessed thousands of fans from opposing non-conference schools coming to Columbus to watch their teams play the Buckeyes in the Horseshoe during the regular season. Having that many come for a playoff game doesn’t seem to be a particularly difficult proposition, especially as you just pointed out that perhaps four times that many would go to a bowl game.
Also, if the solitary trip is expensive as you say, then why do you think it’s advisable for the two fanbases of the teams in the national championship to potentially make three trips of varying distances and in such short time spans that buying airplane tickets, lodging, etc. is going to be even more expensive?
4. The NFL and all the other divisions of college football manage to get their games scheduled and on television in short order, so there’s readily available examples right there showing it can be easily done.
If an eight-game playoff is implemented with the quarter finals played in December, then there are only three college playoff games competing with the NFL in the January time frame. Also, the college bowl season this season starts on December 20, 2014 and ends with the national championship game on January 12, 2015. This includes a cluster of bowl games on 31 December & 1/2 January, which is a possible time frame for the semi-final games in an eight-team playoff. I don’t see this situation as the same problem you describe.
5. My entire point was to argue against financial incentives and to essentially giving this portion of the post-season back to the fans. But to go back to financial incentives, ESPN is paying $5.6B over 12 years to broadcast the 4-team playoff. To quote one college football writer, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that seven playoff games in an eight-team field would generate more TV revenue than three playoff games in a four-team field.”
At some point, I hope college football steps back and realizes that by monetizing every aspect of the game, they’re turning fans more and more into mere consumers.
6. In my assessment, the major bowls started to become irrelevant when the BCS was introduced, but they still remain wildly popular. Now that we have a four-team playoff with the two semi-final games at the Rose and Sugar Bowls this year, what does that say about the relevance of the other major bowls in the larger scope of the post-season?
Even if the bowl games do get further pushed into the background, what does it matter? As you point out, most of the people who go to these games aren’t fans of either team. Frank also states that the corporate interests who buy luxury boxes, etc., really don’t care about the two teams on the field anyway. So if the second best Pac 12 team plays the third best Big Ten team in some future Rose Bowl while three better teams from those two conferences are in the playoffs, where is the drop off? Tickets will still be sold, the Rose parade will still be held, the game will still be on television and college football will still make a lot of money on the entire deal.
LikeLike
Cutter
The difficulty with the NFL is that they are taking the Saturday time slots the colleges want for TV. For example this year, the NFL had 2 games on Saturday January 4th and 2 on Saturday January 11th. That Saturday the 11th is when the NCAA would like to have their semi-finals. To maximize revenue, the NCAA would want prime time slots and the NFL is going to take the best slots. The NCAA would have to settle for Friday or Monday and maybe seeing if they can squeeze one in on Saturday in whatever time slot the NFL didn’t take and trying to beat the NFL pre-game and post-game shows.
LikeLike
cutter,
“2. You’re arguing to the exception of the rule, i.e., there are some ADs who worry about weather or their campus stadium’s capabilities to host a cold weather game. There are clearly also athletic directors who would welcome having such a game on campus.”
Do you have numbers to support that I’m talking about the exception to the rule for northern schools? There aren’t a ton of northern schools to begin with, granted, but how many have said they do want December/January semifinal home games? And how many of those have a realistic shot of ever making the top 4 so it’s not just an academic question for them?
“First off, if he’s been forward looking and has known long in advance that BC couldn’t play a cold weather game on campus, then he could have made arrangements or set up plans to play in alternate sites.”
So he should make a stadium available months in advance (that requires paying money, usually) just in case he happens to end up hosting a semi? So he pays a deposit every year for 50 years on the off chance he’ll host 1 game?
“The second alternative is not nearly as attractive–go play the game in Columbia, SC.”
I notice you skipped the obvious alternative of never having home playoff games and thus avoiding the problem altogether.
“3. I’m surprised by your assertion that 10,000 people traveling north to watch a college football game seems like a difficult proposition. As an Ohio State fan, I’m sure you’ve witnessed thousands of fans from opposing non-conference schools coming to Columbus to watch their teams play the Buckeyes in the Horseshoe during the regular season.”
In September with months to plan, sure. On short notice in winter is a whole different thing.
“Also, if the solitary trip is expensive as you say, then why do you think it’s advisable for the two fanbases of the teams in the national championship to potentially make three trips of varying distances and in such short time spans that buying airplane tickets, lodging, etc. is going to be even more expensive?”
I don’t think there should be a playoff. I certainly don’t think the fan bases should travel to watch it. I really don’t care about people being able to afford the trips. If you don’t have the money, don’t go. It’s all just a money grab. Local fans and corporations will buy the tickets if traveling fans don’t.
“4. The NFL and all the other divisions of college football manage to get their games scheduled and on television in short order, so there’s readily available examples right there showing it can be easily done.”
The NFL is a completely different animal. The lower divisions have many fewer concerns (fewer people, less TV , etc).
“Also, the college bowl season this season starts on December 20, 2014 and ends with the national championship game on January 12, 2015. This includes a cluster of bowl games on 31 December & 1/2 January, which is a possible time frame for the semi-final games in an eight-team playoff.”
That cluster is also a possible time frame for the quarters with the semis a week later and the NCG not much later than it is now.
“5. My entire point was to argue against financial incentives and to essentially giving this portion of the post-season back to the fans.”
The only point of the playoff is money. CFB has steadily proved they don’t really care about the fans except for their bank accounts.
“But to go back to financial incentives, ESPN is paying $5.6B over 12 years to broadcast the 4-team playoff. To quote one college football writer, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that seven playoff games in an eight-team field would generate more TV revenue than three playoff games in a four-team field.””
But each round is worth less per game, and you are displacing major bowls to have more playoff games. Richard has posted the math on this point multiple times. Perhaps he will again here.
“At some point, I hope college football steps back and realizes that by monetizing every aspect of the game, they’re turning fans more and more into mere consumers.”
They do realize that, and that for every old school fan they lose they gain at least 2 new consumers.
“In my assessment, the major bowls started to become irrelevant when the BCS was introduced, but they still remain wildly popular.”
They lost some relevance, but didn’t become irrelevant. USC won a split national title without being in the BCS NCG. Bragging rights were still strongly tied to BCS bowls. It was another blow when they added the NCG as an extra game. The playoff is the next step in that process.
“So if the second best Pac 12 team plays the third best Big Ten team in some future Rose Bowl while three better teams from those two conferences are in the playoffs, where is the drop off?”
The stadium is designed to hold almost 100,000 people. It’ll start having a lot of empty seats if it gets pushed that far down the pecking order. That’s a shame for a once proud institution.
LikeLike
For Bullet:
The NFL will take the time slots it wants regardless of the format of the college football playoff or the post season, so why is this an issue?
The four semi-final games could take place one or two weeks after the regular season, so for this season, that date would be 20 December, i.e., the same date that the bowl games are starting. There is no reason why the NFL would put the two games it has on the schedule this year on that Saturday date if those four high college games are taking place that day. It wouldn’t be hard–in fact, on the next weekend, all the NFL games are played on Sunday, December 28th.
The exact same goes for the NFL and college football playoffs. There’s no reason why the two college football semi-finals couldn’t be played on Friday, 2 January (where there are major college bowl games already in place) or on Monday, 4 January if the NFL has to play on Saturday or Sunday. College football doesn’t get those slots for the bowl games now, so why would they expect them with the playoff?
The Super Bowl this year is scheduled for 1 February 2015. The college football final game could reasonably be played one or two weeks prior to that game. Saturday, 17 January would be the date immediately before the NFC and AFC championship games–that would certainly be a reasonable option.
See the complete playoff schedule here–http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs-schedule.php.
To me, the points you make are largely a non-issue because there are already bowl games on the dates that any perspective eight-team playoff game would be played anyway.
For Brian:
You made the assertion about the northern schools objecting, so the burden on you is to provide the numbers. To be frank, I thought you were pulling your original statement out of your butt about the ADs having problems with the games because of cold weather or stadium configuration just to be argumentative. Any AD confronted with such a scenario would have years to plan what to do in case his or her team was going to host a playoff game, so I imagine they’d know (1) if such a game could be played on campus and (2) what other alternatives are in place.
How may northern schools are likely to host a game in an eight-team playoff? I imagine the number is very few–maybe two from the Pac 12 (Oregon, Washington) and a handful from the Big Ten (Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State). That’s why I asserted in my original post that here may be two or three games out of the seven quarter- and semi-final games every post-season that may be in a northern climate zone.
You claimed that an AD would have to pay an annual deposit to have an alternative stadium site handy. Please cite a precedent for that, otherwise your comment deserves no further response. Also explain why the school’s conference wouldn’t pay such a fee if this was even a possibility.
The only problem I seem to be avoiding is one of your own creation based on assertions you haven’t really supported at this point.
Again, it’s interesting to me that you cite travel with a short planning horizon being a problem in an eight-team playoff with home sites hosting the games, but seem rather unconcerned with the same playoff being played at bowl sites. Of course, in your assessment of the matter, fans don’t travel to see their teams bowl sites in the first place, so perhaps that explains the apparent disconnect.
All that, of course, is a shame. My original premise is that I’d like to get the eight-team playoffs back to the fans of the teams and to have the bowl games assume their traditional role as post-season exhibitions. You seem to want to support the bowl system even if the fans who support the team during the regular season by purchasing tickets, attending the games, etc., are largely left out of the live experience. As I’ve written before, I think college football needs to seriously look at treating the fans as fans and not as customers–or to use your term, consumer. Please cite the statistics that support the idea that every fan lost equals two more consumers.
You say the NFL is a different animal, but give no real reasons why that’s true. The consensus opinion by a lot of CFB experts in the press and within the ranks of college coaches and officials is there will be an eight-team playoff. Will the participants be selected differently than the NFL? Absolutely. But the end result with the teams deciding it on the field–as happens in the other divisions in college football–is the same.
I addressed the time frame problem you mention in my reply to Bullet. This is actually a non-problem.
We differ on the relevance of the bowl games, and as your example points out, the BCS system was highly unsatisfactory on the whole for deciding a true national champion. The four-team playoff is an improvement, but for the reasons cited many times earlier that do not bear repeating, many experts inside and outside of the game believe we’ll have an eight-game playoff before long–much to your dissatisfaction.
Please cite any studies that support the assertion that the Rose Bowl would not be sold out if it was not included in an eight-game playoff, but instead, hosted the top-rated Big Ten and Pac 12 teams that are not in the game. Why would a crowd of what you say are largely neutral fans with no rooting interest in either team not attend such a game? Why would the corporate ticket buyers and lease holders care when they’re primarily concerned with the tax write offs and the entertainment options that surround the game and not the game itself.
LikeLike
Re: AD’s planning for deep winter FB.
“Any AD confronted with such a scenario would have years to plan what to do in case his or her team was going to host a playoff game…”
Planning is not arranging and executing. Those would be on very short notice (or at a high cost, with very rare return).
LikeLike
The NFL’s slots are an issue because if you do quarterfinals January 1, you don’t have your preferred time slots available.
If you do quarters in December, you can do semi-finals on NYD and they will do the championship game on a Monday. Then the NFL is not an issue. The NFL can’t play on Saturdays during the college football season by law.
LikeLike
cutter,
“You made the assertion about the northern schools objecting, so the burden on you is to provide the numbers.”
You made a counter assertion of it being an exception to the rule, so the burden is on you to prove that.
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-ads-favor-4-team-playoff-model-that-includes-bowl-structure/
The B10 internally rejected the notion of home semis in favor of playing in the bowls. That’s most of the northern P5 ADs right there. No other conference even gave it serious consideration.
So where would these games be played? The Big Ten seemed to be considering college campuses as semifinal hosts, but Hollis said that no longer is on the table.
Instead, the Big Ten has shifted its focus to including the bowls in the playoff structure. That also would preserve the importance of the Rose Bowl, which has been a priority of the league.
“For me, it’s critical to keep the Rose Bowl in the equation,” Hollis said. “There’s a lot of historical value and there’s a lot of future value to having the Rose Bowl connected with Michigan State, with Michigan, with the Big Ten Conference, and the home (game idea) takes that out.”
Smith said he also has concerns of playing playoff games in cold weather, which seemingly would offer the Big Ten an advantage against Southern teams.
“Let’s say Ohio State is hosting, and it’s whatever the date may be — January or December. Let’s say it’s 5 degrees. Is that right for the game? We’re not pro,” Smith said. “I think a fast surface, good weather is important for the game. It’s important for the kids.
“To be frank, I thought you were pulling your original statement out of your butt about the ADs having problems with the games because of cold weather or stadium configuration just to be argumentative.”
I can’t help that you’ve paid no attention to what ADs have said in the past few years. Stadiums in the north have to be winterized, and it’s done in December. Failure to winterized can lead to burst pipes in a hard freeze.
http://blog.pennlive.com/bobflounders/2010/12/a_cold_hard_fact_winterizing_a.html
In addition, the Monday night game is expected to be played in sub-freezing temperatures with a low of three degrees.
…
“The bottom line is these stadiums weren’t built to be open all year,” Combs said.
And that ignores the player safety concerns (frozen field = concussions) and the fans concerns (exposure, driving in winter weather for hours, traffic, plowing, etc.
The B10 has resisted November night games for a long time, and now you’re talking games several weeks later that TV will want at night.
“You claimed that an AD would have to pay an annual deposit to have an alternative stadium site handy.”
Stadiums are run as businesses. They want to host as many events as they can. If you require one to be available on certain days, you are precluding them from scheduling anything else. Only an idiot wouldn’t charge you for that.
I don’t know how there’d be a precedent since I’m not aware of a circumstance where a team kept an alternate stadium on standby. The Vikings are paying $300k per game plus costs to use TCF Bank Stadium while their new stadium is built (and they paid for all the needed upgrades to be open later in winter).
http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Vikings-University-of-Minnesota-Reach-Agreement-On-Use-Of-TCF-Bank-Stadium/89844254-c9ed-4dab-97b6-abd34dcde9ca
“Also explain why the school’s conference wouldn’t pay such a fee if this was even a possibility.”
Why should they? Are they getting a split of the game day revenues?
“Again, it’s interesting to me that you cite travel with a short planning horizon being a problem in an eight-team playoff with home sites hosting the games, but seem rather unconcerned with the same playoff being played at bowl sites.”
Driving to small college towns in the north in December is a little different than flying to LA/Miami/Orlando/New Orleans/etc.
“Of course, in your assessment of the matter, fans don’t travel to see their teams bowl sites in the first place, so perhaps that explains the apparent disconnect.”
No, I said I don’t care if they travel or not. B10 schools have alumni all over, so many don’t need to travel far to reach a bowl. Others are rich and don’t mind the cost.
“My original premise is that I’d like to get the eight-team playoffs back to the fans of the teams”
Which is a pollyanna notion that we all know will never happen. The fans are always the last to be considered. If they switched to home games, it would be for something much more important to them than fans. It would take money. Lots and lots of money.
“You say the NFL is a different animal, but give no real reasons why that’s true.”
If you actually need that explained to you, any discussion is pointless.
“The four-team playoff is an improvement,”
No, it isn’t.
“Please cite any studies that support the assertion that the Rose Bowl would not be sold out if it was not included in an eight-game playoff, but instead, hosted the top-rated Big Ten and Pac 12 teams that are not in the game.”
Right, because people would make a study like that public.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24395084/another-beautiful-compelling-rose-bowl-faces-uncertainty-in-playoff-era
I’m far from the only one speculating on it. Bowl attendance fluctuates a lot based on the teams involved. Going from B10 #1/P12 #1 to #3/#3 would hurt. The Cap1 Bowl (lately B10 #3/SEC #3) averages 63k in attendance and has seen as few as 57k in the past decade (nominal capacity of 65k with an option to hit 70k with bleachers), not the 93k (94k capacity) of the Rose.
“Why would a crowd of what you say are largely neutral fans with no rooting interest in either team not attend such a game?”
They only attend because it’s a big game. When you strip its value by putting outside the 8 team playoff, it loses that value.
LikeLike
The Sugar already has a deal in place for SEC vs Big 12 champs, so it would have to be:
Rose = B1G champ vs PAC champ
Sugar = SEC champ vs Big 12 champ
Orange = ACC champ vs At Large
Fiesta = At Large vs At Large
LikeLike
…creating massive stakes for all of the conference championship games (as they’ll become de facto playoff games in their own right) and still allowing enough at-large slots to reasonably include all of the teams that have a legitimate case to play for the national championship
I’m having trouble seeing this happening. The only teams that are going to care about conference title games are teams that are on the outside looking in. For example, take last years Big Ten, what motivation would #2 Ohio St have to play in that game? They’re in the play off win or lose (they ended up #7) and another game against a good opponent represents a whole lot of risk (injuries, etc) for a team who’s success in the playoffs will go much farther in determining how successful their season will be than a conference title.
IMHO – the only way we get to eight games is the defacto eight game playoff. The four conference title game winners are in with a special clause that #1 or #2 team outside of those conferences can replace the lowest ranked title game winner. Its messy, its subjective, its exactly what college football tends to end up with.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I’m having trouble seeing this happening. The only teams that are going to care about conference title games are teams that are on the outside looking in. For example, take last years Big Ten, what motivation would #2 Ohio St have to play in that game? They’re in the play off win or lose (they ended up #7) and another game against a good opponent represents a whole lot of risk (injuries, etc) for a team who’s success in the playoffs will go much farther in determining how successful their season will be than a conference title.”
I get your point, but I don’t think teams will not show up. Winning gets them a much higher seed, which is very helpful. Losing runs the huge risk of dropping out of the committee’s top 8, too. Especially if 1 or more champ is not a top 5 team and the Go5 gets an autobid.
LikeLike
Brian – The greater the expansion of the playoff the less meaningful the games get. Top teams can only be hurt in the game and teams that are outside of a playoff spot can only help themselves. For a game that already isn’t popular with coaches and some ADs I can’t see them cheapening it even more.
In addition, my defacto playoff means four conferences effectively control all of the first round money. Nothing to share with the G5 (or even the Big 12).
LikeLike
Mike,
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of going to 8 teams. I fully agree the games would be devalued. I just think the teams would still give 100%.
As for the money, they have to share it with the Go5 anyway. They already give them $75M (versus $250M for the P5) plus a guaranteed major bowl slot. They won’t give them less in any future deal.
LikeLike
@Frank-
Nice post, but your playoff answer again mentions your preference for quarterfinal bowl games. I do think that is one thing that is a red line non-starter for presidents–second semester football. It messes with the academic calendar and it potentially exposes schools to ineligibility issues (many legit draft prospects drop out of school for the spring to focus solely on training for the combine/workouts).
I personally believe presdients will sooner schedule games closer to Christmas then kick the CFB schedule deep into January.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24399700/eightteam-playoff-makes-more-sense-but-is-it-worth-the-complications
“2. Scheduling. It’s a real concern because the college presidents aren’t going to allow any more second-semester football.
The playoff will produce the longest seasons (in terms of days) in history. The 2020 and 2025 seasons will end Jan. 13 — the latest end ever to a season.
If the season can’t be lengthened on the back end, then that means the quarterfinals are going to be backed up on the front end — to around Christmas time.
In the current structure, teams already are going to be arriving in town for the semifinals shortly after Christmas.
They told us never on a playoff. Would they dare schedule games around Christmas?”
Also: http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2012/06/mid-american_conference_commis.html
“Steinbrecher would love to see an eight- or 16-team playoff system.
Surely, the MAC would have its best opportunity at participating in a system expanded to that level. Unquestionably, the MAC would receive a large chunk of money through revenue sharing in that model.
“But I don’t think that would be right for the student-athletes,” Steinbrecher said. “It doesn’t fit within the academic calendar we have, it doesn’t fit within the current number of games we play in the regular season. You’ve got to match the fantasy with the reality.””
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Nice post, but your playoff answer again mentions your preference for quarterfinal bowl games.”
I’m not sure it’s his preference as much as his belief of what is plausible given the current situation. The P5 want the bowls involved.
“I do think that is one thing that is a red line non-starter for presidents–second semester football. It messes with the academic calendar and it potentially exposes schools to ineligibility issues (many legit draft prospects drop out of school for the spring to focus solely on training for the combine/workouts).
I personally believe presdients will sooner schedule games closer to Christmas then kick the CFB schedule deep into January.”
December games are a worse academic threat than January games. They don’t want students not focused on finals. That only leaves late December, and nobody wants important games then. ESPN would tell them that’s a black hole for ratings and not offer much money. Besides, they already agreed to move the NCG to the second week of January. The only real change would be adding a second game at the same basic time and then 1 more game a week or two later.
LikeLike
FCS plays on December 14th. Think Division III played its championship on December 21 last year.
I could see quarters either the 2nd week of December or the first week of December with the season pushed a week forward.
LikeLike
I-AA, D-II and D-III are completely different things in terms of size and scope.
I really don’t see the I-A schools moving playoff games to the next weekend which is graduation weekend at many schools. As for moving things up, they won’t eliminate the bye week. They won’t drop a game because they need the money. I highly doubt they want to start the week before Labor Day, either. They could do any or all of those things, but they really don’t seem likely to me.
Bowl games have been a round a long time and they’ve always waited until 12/20 or so to start. Not enough people can travel before then. That’s another problem.
The third problem is that the NFL starts Saturday games in December about when bowl season begins.
It’s not that starting the playoffs sooner doesn’t make sense in isolation, I just don’t see it working in practice.
LikeLike
The NFL is an issue with semi-finals with January 1 quarterfinals. The final game will be played on a Monday, but semis on a Monday followed by a Monday final would be challenging for the fans.
LikeLike
That lesser division playoffs are different in size and scope don’t have bearing on the fact that those games occur smack-dab in the middle of finals, and in the aggregate, impact many more student-athletes with far smaller odds of playing in the NFL–ie, the type of kids who would be taking finals more seriously because of the stakes involved.
There is simply no way that any basis for opposing December playoff games will be the December graduation weekend, which is the stepchild of graduation ceremonies. Indeed, many schools allow December graduates to walk in May/June for the reason.
Bowls do start around 12/20, but that is even closer to finals that Christmas day/Dec26 games.
NFL does not like doing Saturday afternoon games in December, but you do correctly note that CFB will not want to go head to head with the NFL, especially with marquee playoff games. NFL wins, always.
It could work if the quarterfinals are a Dec 25 tripleheader with the semifinal bowl games on January 1st, and the CCG the first Monday thereafter so long as there is a week minimum in between. Plus, it would piss off Marc Cuban (not a justification mind you, just a good way to get him worked up with all his playoff advocacy–be careful what you wish for)
LikeLike
bullet,
“The NFL is an issue with semi-finals with January 1 quarterfinals.”
Yes, it is.
“The final game will be played on a Monday, but semis on a Monday followed by a Monday final would be challenging for the fans.”
I don’t think they would care about that. They would be planning for corporate/neutral fans for the most most part. There will be a few thousand rich fans that can afford it and get the time off, and that’s all they need. TV is where the money is, and they aren’t bowls that need to drive tourism. I think they’ll want the smaller stadiums that are the trend in the NFL for the semis and NCG to make it easier to fill.
LikeLike
There’s no doubt they plan for corporate in the finals. But the semi-finals will be the ones hurt if they have to play on Monday. They aren’t going to be that corporate two rounds in a row (and the January 1 bowls have a bit of that already).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“That lesser division playoffs are different in size and scope don’t have bearing on the fact that those games occur smack-dab in the middle of finals,”
Of course it does. It’s much easier to accommodate a smaller event than a larger one.
“There is simply no way that any basis for opposing December playoff games will be the December graduation weekend, which is the stepchild of graduation ceremonies.”
I named the weekend because that means the end of finals week. The presidents have zero intentions of messing with finals week.
“Bowls do start around 12/20, but that is even closer to finals that Christmas day/Dec26 games.”
Yes, but late December games aren’t rejected for academic reasons. TV doesn’t want them on or near Christmas and fans don’t want to travel then.
“It could work if the quarterfinals are a Dec 25 tripleheader with the semifinal bowl games on January 1st, and the CCG the first Monday thereafter so long as there is a week minimum in between.”
TV would pay a lot less if you forced that on them. Maybe in the 12/20-12/23 time frame, but not on 12/25. The question is if you can guarantee a window that doesn’t impact finals and is far enough from Christmas. I think the presidents object to a full blown week of game prep during finals week, which is why bowls start when they do. I’m just not convinced that window would satisfy all the people that matter.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There’s no doubt they plan for corporate in the finals. But the semi-finals will be the ones hurt if they have to play on Monday.”
Why do they care? They aren’t bowls that need to drive tourism, nor is ticket revenue a major revenue stream. It’s all about the TV money.
“They aren’t going to be that corporate two rounds in a row (and the January 1 bowls have a bit of that already).”
Why not? The semis will be a big enough deal that they can go corporate, especially in a smaller stadium (60-70k).
LikeLike
“Of course it does. It’s much easier to accommodate a smaller event than a larger one.”
No it does not. its a big event for the schools playing in it.
“I named the weekend because that means the end of finals week. The presidents have zero intentions of messing with finals week.”
Never claimed they were. But you did mention “graduation weekend” as an event, which does not imply anything about finals week.
“Yes, but late December games aren’t rejected for academic reasons. TV doesn’t want them on or near Christmas and fans don’t want to travel then.”
The Hawaii Bowl is Xmas eve, and several games on Dec 26, which would require travel either on Xmas Day or Xmas Eve. Also, the new Bahamas Bowl will be Noon on Dec 24th, likely resulting in Christmas in the Bahamas for all fans, players, families, etc.
“TV would pay a lot less if you forced that on them. Maybe in the 12/20-12/23 time frame, but not on 12/25. The question is if you can guarantee a window that doesn’t impact finals and is far enough from Christmas. I think the presidents object to a full blown week of game prep during finals week, which is why bowls start when they do.”
Its not being forced on TV–I would imagine Fox would bid through the nose to broadcast those games and steal them out from ESPN, who might use this lull as a pretext to avoid competition with its NBA on Dec 25th package.
Presidents might object to a week of prep during finals, and that’s a significant complication, except that finals are over by 12/20, so there would be 5 days minimum post finals for preparation. That’s assuming finals ends that late, and that classes with athletes do not have finals earlier, as a finals period traditionally runs 10-14 days, so classes with athletes could have finals schedule at the beginning of the finals period.
“I’m just not convinced that window would satisfy all the people that matter.””
Not everyone that matters will be satisfied. For example, coaches matter, and they swear up and down that a longer season into January hurts recruiting. Presidents matter, and they would probably just as soon prefer the BCS or the prior bowl system so they can focus on other issues. TV networks would prefer all prime time games, but the new playoff has an afternoon game on NYE every year.
I don’t pretend my opinion on this matter is not without its issues. I just think its might be more realistic that quarterfinals would be in December, closer to Xmas (if not on Xmas Day itself) than we think, and that the presidents might actually have a firm line against second semester football stretched out deep into January. Could an insane monetary offer get presidents to set aside those concerns? Certainly. But any monetary increase generated by an 8 team playoff gets split by what, 65 teams, not factoring in if conferences get a cut, or the non-P5 schools get some? Per school, the number we’re potentially talking about could be much smaller than we perceive it to be.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“its a big event for the schools playing in it.”
So what? That doesn’t make it literally big, just emotionally big.
“The Hawaii Bowl is Xmas eve, and several games on Dec 26, which would require travel either on Xmas Day or Xmas Eve. Also, the new Bahamas Bowl will be Noon on Dec 24th, likely resulting in Christmas in the Bahamas for all fans, players, families, etc.”
And you think a playoff would settle for the sort of rights fee those games get from ESPN? The Hawaii Bowl averages a 2.1 rating and pays $650k per team.
LikeLike
Are we confident that quarterfinal games would generate incrementally more money compared to the aggregate number of non-playoff bowls currently in existence? The true value of the playoff is likely in the semifinal and championship games versus quarterfinals. I think 4 teams provides a good enough balance with trying to crown a true champion and generating fan interest for all the other bowls that create a significant amount of intrigue and post season access to a wide number of fan bases.
LikeLike
I don’t think we are sure of that. I know one Texas guy who works in media who doesn’t believe it adds a lot of value.
On the other hand, you can look at the dramatically different ratings of various bowl games and speculate that a bowl game that matters would get a lot better ratings.
LikeLike
“So what? That doesn’t make it literally big, just emotionally big.”
And literally big for schools not used to hosting larger events, relative to their size.
“And you think a playoff would settle for the sort of rights fee those games get from ESPN?
Certainly not.
“The Hawaii Bowl averages a 2.1 rating and pays $650k per team.”
It would generate much more and pay much more and cost ESPn much more if it had 1 vs 8.
LikeLike
@Kevin:
“Are we confident that quarterfinal games would generate incrementally more money compared to the aggregate number of non-playoff bowls currently in existence? The true value of the playoff is likely in the semifinal and championship games versus quarterfinals. I think 4 teams provides a good enough balance with trying to crown a true champion and generating fan interest for all the other bowls that create a significant amount of intrigue and post season access to a wide number of fan bases.”
I am not at all confident that adding 4 teams would pay out that much more to make it worth while. I think the PTB will find that 4 is the best balance of preserving the regular season while providing enough certainty as to a “true” national champion. I think the media will seize on 4 vs 5 because its conflict they can sell and market, and that might create the perception that the public is clamoring for 8. But I, and others on this board like Brian believe that the playoff, since it is a reality, is best at 4, and that 8 will kill what is unique, fun, and special about CFB in order to satisfy the vague concept of determining the “best” while relegating the regular season to a mere seeding exercise.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure it’s his preference as much as his belief of what is plausible given the current situation. The P5 want the bowls involved.”
He’s entitled to his belief, certainly, and it is plausible, I just dont think its likely. I think presidents and AD’s will sooner do on campus quarterfinals to ease the expense on fans travelling to potentially three different neutral sites in a short amount of time, with the semifinals being at pre-designated bowl games.
“December games are a worse academic threat than January games. They don’t want students not focused on finals.”
Christmas games are not a worse academic threat. Finals end at least a week earlier, and coaches need not worry about second semester eligibility.
“That only leaves late December, and nobody wants important games then. ESPN would tell them that’s a black hole for ratings and not offer much money.”
Have they outright stated this? I never heard that ESPN would actually tell them that. I think its a chicken vs the egg problem–are tv sporting events poorly rated because of the weak quality of the games or the time period? The NBA on ABC does well, and CFB could easily match those ratings.
“Besides, they already agreed to move the NCG to the second week of January. The only real change would be adding a second game at the same basic time and then 1 more game a week or two later.”
The CCG will range from January 8 to the 13th, and was designed to be on the first Monday after the semifinals with a minimum of a week in between. The real change with more semifinals later would be the clash with the NFL playoffs, which are king. the second weekend in January is Wild Card Weekend, and there is no room for CFB playoffs on TV, especially if the NFL expands its own playoff. Having semifinals off the weekend (Monday) risks asking fans to travel on workdays. Conflicting with the last week of the NFL season would likewise not work out so well for CFB. So it seems easy to say that all thats being done is adding 2 more games, when in fact, its the scheduling those games that is the issue.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Your heart is in the right place regarding the fans, but just look at the history of how these things go. The ticket buyers that the powers-that-be really care about are the corporate sponsors and high-dollar ticket buyers that will sellout games regardless of which teams are playing. The big dollars aren’t coming from the plebeians like us – they’re coming from large corporations, investment banks and law firms buying up Jerry World or Rose Bowl suites for several years in a row without caring whatsoever about the teams involved. That has always been the advantage of neutral sites – you can sell those suites for years in advance along with hotel packages, tie-ins with surrounding attractions (i.e. theme parks in California and Florida) and long-term sponsorships in large markets as opposed to having a couple of weeks to sell tickets to an on-campus location that are disproportionately in college towns that don’t have the requisite hotel rooms and amenities.
I totally understand the *fan* desire to have on-campus football games for the playoffs. It makes perfect sense from the die-hard on-the-street fan perspective. However, it just doesn’t make sense from the large dollar industrial complex that, whether we like it or not, surrounds college football today. I also agree with Brian that, when faced with the choice, the presidents would decide in an 8-team playoff that having 4 semifinal teams playing later into January is better from an academic perspective than attempting to cram 8 teams into a Christmas Day schedule… not to mention that TV ratings are better on New Year’s Day, the peak vacation period is *after* Christmas Day heading into New Year’s (which is why the top bowls all want to be on New Year’s Eve or Day), and the top bowls are completely incorporated into the playoff to maximize their value instead of being appendage consolations.
Now, I’ll throw this suggestion out there even though I don’t think it would ever happen: if you’re pushing for on-campus sites, the better argument is to flip the order. That is, keep the quarterfinals using the top bowls on New Year’s Eve/Day. That’s when everyone likes to travel, people still have the month of December to plan their vacation, the players and fans are rewarded with a great experience in a nice destination (maybe it’s just me, but I’m bothered by the prospect that Power 5 teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences get to go to places like Orlando and San Diego for New Year’s while the champs spend the holidays in Tuscaloosa), and the bowl system is preserved (and, IMHO, strengthened compared to what it is now). Then, the *semifinals*, with the short one week turnaround, are played at the on-campus sites of the 2 highest seeded teams remaining.
That provides an incentive for fans to still travel to the quarterfinal bowl games (as less people will put off the bowl game trip that’s guaranteed to be in a place like Pasadena or Miami if the semifinals are at on-campus sites). This also puts some extra incentive back into the regular season for teams to be ranked in the top 2 (as opposed to “merely” the top 4 or 8) so that you can get those semifinal home games (assuming that you advance from the quarterfinals). The national championship game would then be played at a neutral site thereafter with ticket sales more akin to the Super Bowl (i.e. that game is going to be sold out regardless of who is playing and there’s a higher percentage of corporate sponsor ticketholders compared to fans from the respective participating teams).
LikeLike
Unfortunately, Mother nature disagrees with the January home games.
Some of the northern schools winterize their stadiums. And January is often really nasty weather. In December you’ve got a better chance of passable weather and you don’t have your stadium status pending for 6 weeks.
LikeLike
@Frank-
Thanks for your reply. You frame this as taking the fan’s side, but its actually thinking like a President. As I linked to above, reporters, AD’s, and presidents have repeatedly states on record that they do not want second semester football, which would be the case with mid January games. One of the reasons would be academic eligibility issues, as if a football player plays in a CCG during the second semester and is then academically ineligible, a championship (and related money) would likely be forfeited.
Also, the January weekend calendar is occupied by the NFL, which would win any head to head matchup. Monday night games might appeal to TV, but if Monday night were truly the best night for TV sports, the NFL would not have switched its emphasis from MNF to NBC’s Sunday Night Football (which gets better ratings than MNF did in the final 8 years or so of MNF on ABC).
Further, FBS is the only subset of CFB that does not have a playoff–and all other subsets have a playoff that occurs in December, wrapping up before Christmas. Most presidents have at one point worked at one of those lesser schools and are familiar with the playoff. They may resist implementing it for the FBS level for a whole host of reasons (tradition, alumni resistance, bowl money, etc…), but if they decide to implement one, Presidents (who do not spend as much time thinking about sports as we think) will sooner opt for the familiar and the easy vs second semester football potentially creating an isolated, spread out, NCG in late January–when hype for a NCG would take a back seat to Super Bowl buildup anyways..
Its not just the fans I am thinking of, its also the ultimate decision makers.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, I understand what the presidents have said… and what they have said makes no sense. The aversion to, at the very most, two teams playing for the national championship in the second semester under the scheduling that I’ve outlined has long been puzzling to me. It sounds much more like a post-hoc justification for the timing of the current system than indicating any desire to push the playoff/bowl calendar to earlier in December if there were an 8-team playoff. 2 national championship participants playing in the maybe the first week of the second semester is supposedly so sacrilegious (considering that the basketball season stretches from Midnight Madness in October to the first Monday in April) that the powers-that-be would straight up destroy all of their built-up equity in the New Year’s Day bowls that they went out of their way to include in the current 4-team playoff system? I don’t buy that for a second.
Plus, I think you are overestimating both the TV audiences and ticket-buying audiences for games on and around Christmas Day. The week leading up to Christmas (or at least the period leading up to when the typical school holiday vacation period starts) is both (a) one of the worst TV audience periods of the year and (b) one of the worst times for people to travel or take time off (as they’re right about to go on a week or two holiday break). That’s why the Big Ten and SEC have very purposely avoided signing any bowl tie-in with a game date prior to December 26th for at least the past decade. The proof is in the pudding: the two most powerful conferences explicitly avoid Christmas Day games or earlier. They want NOTHING to do with them. Once you see December 26th as the very earliest date that you’d ever get the Big Ten or SEC to consider games, then what’s the point of pushing the playoff up for a few days when you can instead preserve the exact same bowl system with the very elite games being played on December 31st and January 1st?
Plus, even taking the “fan’s side” when considering costs, the week between Christmas and New Year’s is the WORST (ABSOLUTE WORST) time of the entire year to need to plan a trip on short notice. No one is going to be able to watch a game on Christmas and then procure playoff game tickets, plane tickets and hotel rooms to places like Pasadena and Miami without paying EXORBITANT costs compared to if they had even a few weeks to plan it out.
Taking any potential quarterfinals outside of the bowl system is much more of radical change than I think you’re giving it credit for. The powers-that-be want to structure a playoff as an appendage to the bowl system as opposed to a replacement. Taking the top 8 teams completely out of the bowl system will effectively kill it. Now, there are plenty of people that are more than willing to watch the bowl system die because of its inefficiencies, which is all well and good. I completely understand the argument about scrapping the bowl system altogether (even though I don’t personally agree with it). However, I don’t buy that the university presidents have any desire to do that, and if push comes to shove, they’ll live with 2 teams playing during the second semester as opposed to crushing the equity that they’ve built up with the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc.
LikeLike
@Frank-
Thanks for the reply. You make some good points and some weaker ones.
1) Comparison of CFB and MBB is not useful, as the football powers that be has explicitly cites the excesses of the MBB season/tournament as something they want to avoid, the complete devaluation of the regular season.
2) Any 8 team configuration will destroy the bowl system as it presently exists. By simple definition, having 3 weeks of games will weaken the value of any one particular weak that is not the championship round. Whether the bowls are semifinals or quarterfinals is immaterial because of their lesser value regardless.
However, historically the bowls have had value for fans and TV, serving as a warm weather destination for cold weather schools. The Rose Bowl was started as a promotional tool by midwestern transplants living in Pasadena to advertise the weather and beauty of So Cal. Bowls historically had no value, as until the 1960’s, the final poll rankings were released in early December (the Heisman being in early December is a vesting of that). So value on the field will surely decrease with 8 teams, regardless of how configured, but there would still be some value for non-CFB playoff schools and fans if the bowl games are in great locales.
3) I did not actually advocate, as you insinuated, for taking 8 teams out of the playoff altogether. I rather propose the semi’s be two bowl games–like they will be starting this year. You do however correctly note the flaws of my proposal, namely the short turn around increased costs, and so forth. However, that will also exist in any 8 team configuration, as the first two rounds will be approximately 7 days apart and potentially at two different neutral sites. At least, as you note, that fans will have the time off between Xmas and NYD to travel to games, unlike in early/mid/late January.
4) The B1G was affiliated with the Little Ceasars Bowl, which had Dec 26 games. B1G and SEC bowls are clustered closer to NYD as a recognition that fans need an incentive to travel to bowl games, one in addition to having a team play in a game. The B1G overhauled its bowl game roster as a reaction to declining fan interest and desire to travel to repeat destinations at inconvenient times. Your 8 team playoff will not serve as a counterweight to rising costs, but rather emphasize them. Under either of our plans, the Kraft Hunger Bowl will have no value but for an excuse for some to visit No Cal. Then again, thats the only value of the Kraft Hunger Bowl as it is.
5) II would argue that Xmas Day games presents a chicken vs egg problem, in that lesser events are broadcast, leading to lower ratings, leading to even worse events, leading to ever worse ratings. However, NBA on ABC/ESPN has had record ratings each of the past few years (http://www.nba.com/2012/news/12/26/christmas-tv-ratings/ , http://deadline.com/2013/12/ratings-rat-race-nba-games-up-on-espn-down-on-abc/ ) such that another network like Fox might bid to get a foothold on that day and broadcast some games. The NFL has had tremendous success on Christmas Day, so there is an audience out there potentially for games (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/12/26/bears-packers-christmas-night-game-on-sunday-night-football-earns-12-6-overnight-household-rating/114683/)
6) Ultimately, we personally agree that the bowl system should survive. We disagree on the implementation of a 8 team playoff on the bowl system. I simply do not believe the bowl system will have any real value in an 8 team playoff, regardless of how configured. Your proposal relegates 3 bowls to quarterfinals, then tacks on potentially 2 more neutral site games. Not many fans consider quarterfinals to be anything to write home about, let alone must visit destinations. Bowls as semifinals give more value to those hosting the games. Besides, three semifinals bowl games would do nothing more than emphasize the lack of value and use for any nonquarterfinal bowl game.
Both your and my proposal would significantly devalue the bowls, and render non-playoff bowls even less useful. The only difference is the degree. Every single criticism of my proposal (of which there are many legit ones) applies with equal force to yours. Both have logistical issues, both put added stress and costs on fans. But at least mine keeps games in its traditional time period while being mindful of the academic calendar, which, until further notice, seems to be of real value to presidents.
LikeLike
Don’t think XMas is a chicken or egg problem. Its just not a good time to do it for TV, players or fans. The quarters would need to be the 1st or 2nd week in December if January 1 was used for semis.
An 8 game playoff definitely weakens the bowls. Having the quarters in December further weakens the bowls. I’m one who’s fine with that. The bowl system makes the NCAA look pristine. And do we really need 6-6 teams in bowls? I remember a time when bowls were rewards. Go back to the 60s and there were just Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, Gator, Sun, Liberty, Bluebonnet and Tangerine. Peach started in 68. Then the flood started in the 70s.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I think presidents and AD’s will sooner do on campus quarterfinals to ease the expense on fans travelling to potentially three different neutral sites in a short amount of time, with the semifinals being at pre-designated bowl games.”
I don’t think anyone that matters cares about a fan that wants to go to all 3 games. Either be rich or don’t do it. Three times as many fans can go if they all go to just 1 of the games.
“Christmas games are not a worse academic threat.”
No, I was referring to just the early and mid-December dates. Post 12/20 or so, academics is not an issue.
“Have they outright stated this? I never heard that ESPN would actually tell them that.”
No. There are lots of things they’ve never outright stated. They didn’t outright state which schools conferences should add in expansion, either.
“I think its a chicken vs the egg problem–are tv sporting events poorly rated because of the weak quality of the games or the time period?”
It’s possible, but they know a lot of people are busy Christmas eve and Christmas with non-sports activities. ESPN has all the bowls but 1 and none of them are on Christmas. Considering how low a rating they need to make money from a bowl, why don’t they have any on a national holiday? They play on Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. Are they really that respectful of religion?
“The real change with more semifinals later would be the clash with the NFL playoffs, which are king.”
The clash would only be on the weekend and I specifically said not to play then.
“Having semifinals off the weekend (Monday) risks asking fans to travel on workdays.”
So? The idea is to get locals to buy tickets and let rich fans travel if they want. The TV money is much more important than ticket sales, and the game isn’t designed to drive tourism like a bowl game.
As for the NCG, there’s a dead weekend before the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
“I don’t think anyone that matters cares about a fan that wants to go to all 3 games. Either be rich or don’t do it. Three times as many fans can go if they all go to just 1 of the games.”
They could, or games could be half-filled, look bad on TV, and do poorly in the ratings. Also, the bidding cities do actually care about fans coming. They arent bidding for a 5k Amway convention.
“No, I was referring to just the early and mid-December dates. Post 12/20 or so, academics is not an issue.”
Lots of presidents come from FCS or the lower divisions where there are December playoffs–and that’s in conference where getting an education is more important, as the odds of a pro career for lesser division athletes are far smaller than FBS student athletes.
“No. There are lots of things they’ve never outright stated. They didn’t outright state which schools conferences should add in expansion, either.”
So, we don’t actually know that ESPN has told schools Xmas would be bad from a TV perspective, or resists because it would compete with their 5 game NBA package? What would Fox say, looking to make a splash and being historically the least traditional of the major networks, and the one I could see overbidding on airing football on a national holiday?
“It’s possible, but they know a lot of people are busy Christmas eve and Christmas with non-sports activities. ESPN has all the bowls but 1 and none of them are on Christmas. Considering how low a rating they need to make money from a bowl, why don’t they have any on a national holiday? They play on Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. Are they really that respectful of religion?”
Part of it is tradition and respect for religion and risking a backlash. That’s a big reason the NFL avoids Xmas eve and Day (but not Xmas night). But ESPN proudly hypes and airs I believe 5 or 6 NBA games on Xmas, starting around Noon, and stretching to almost 11pm. Not to mention, Xmas is a very popular movie day, especially in the afternoon and evening. So its not like the day is nearly as sacrosanct now as it has been in the past, and certainly not nearly the same as Xmas eve (which would be a terrible night for games).
“The clash would only be on the weekend and I specifically said not to play then.”
All weekends have games. Be it Week 17, the WC, of the Divisional rounds. CFB will not go head to head with any NFL games. Its why we have Jan 2nd bowls when NYD is on Sunday.
“So? The idea is to get locals to buy tickets and let rich fans travel if they want. The TV money is much more important than ticket sales, and the game isn’t designed to drive tourism like a bowl game.”
The idea is not to get locals to buy tickets–its to get fans and alumni and students to buy tickets. Its why thousands of tickets are allotted to schools in the first place. TV money is more important, but TV folks will also say they prefer to broadcast a sold out game that has a great atmosphere. They arent spending these sums of money to broadcast lesser looking events. The same applies to weather events (especially snow–TV loves televising snowy football games–heightens the drama and look on TV).
“As for the NCG, there’s a dead weekend before the Super Bowl.”
There’s also a dead weekend after the Super Bowl. And its in February, sweeps month for the networks,
LikeLike
Frank O’Harris
LikeLike
Unless the academic eggheads are willing to put into place motions to separate CFB and MCBB from the school activities, there will be further moves to compromise with the NCAA model. It’s a Catch-22. Go the Ivy League route and risk potential losses of exposure (since Ivy League schools aren’t hurting for exposure) and donations. Heck, in a time when even a Big Ten school is going to China, of all places, to ask for donations, I don’t know how another major Division I school would want to make a principled stand on college athletics.
LikeLike
Question:
Mentioning Vanderbilt and Missouri……. I agree it’s not likely, but what would need to happen for them to consider moving to the B1G?
LikeLike
Speaking as a Missouri fan, I think last year’s football success makes it far less likely.
I always thought there was a sweet spot where MU to the B1G was still a possibility. Not less than 5 years, as that would be admitting the SEC move was a mistake. Not more than 10 years, as by that time we’d have built up some rivalries and inertia would work to keep us in the SEC. But maybe in the 7-9 year range, if the football program had fallen apart without Texas recruiting and it looked like we would be Kentucky without elite hoops, then maybe the door to the B1G would be open as the place we were always meant to be, assuming the B1G was still interested. But last year’s success, I think, gives the fanbase hope that we can compete in arguably the best football conference in the nation, and there would be a lot of resistance from the powers that be to a move to a conference that so recently snubbed us.
So maybe, maybe, maybe, if the money was there, the CIC is there, and the football program struggles badly for the next 5-7 years, there is a chance. But it’s like a Dumb & Dumber, one in a million chance.
LikeLike
A lot of Missouri fans, students, and alumni are not exactly thrilled with the $EC. It’s not just about football “success.” The once proud basketball program is dying a slow death. They can’t fill the student section. Sometimes they don’t even come close. Other sports are having issues. At a recent function, the baseball and softball coaches complained about the travel. They fly commercial, and it’s difficult to get to some road games. Multiple flights , bus rides, and the time involved are brutal. They feel that all of the focus is on football. Go figure….
LikeLike
For those other sports, do there tend to be “pods” or preferential scheduling based on proximity, or does Missouri tend to have more games (e.g. home and homes) with its SEC East football peers in those non-revenue sports as well? If the latter is true, it brings back questions about Missouri being content with a grouping of Arkansas, TAM, LSU and other schools not further than Oxford, Lexington and Nashville.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind – I think the only SEC sports that utilize divisions are football and baseball.
LikeLike
“…preferential scheduling based on proximity, or does Missouri tend to have more games (e.g. home and homes) with its SEC East football peers in those non-revenue sports…”
They don’t do either in wrestling…
LikeLike
In basketball, the SEC gave each school one permanent rival with who you had a home/home with every year, and you rotated home/homes with everyone else. They recently voted to change that, and we will have 3 permanent rivals. I don’t think they’ve stated when that would start (probably 2015-2016), and I know they haven’t announced who the new rivals will be.
It’s particularly odd in softball. There aren’t divisions or any permanent rivals, so there are years Ole Miss won’t play Mississippi State as a conference game, though I think they set up mid-week non-conference competitions.
Getting back to Mizzou, I’ve heard some blame part of the attendance on the new arena, which has a whole lot of seats close to the floor which were bought by big-time donors who don’t show up often, killing the atmosphere.
LikeLike
The arena itself is fine, but the fact that the lower bowl is expensive and sold out to wealthy donors and corporations who fail to show up to 60% of the games is a pretty big problem.
LikeLike
The arena itself is fine, but the fact that the lower bowl is expensive and sold out to wealthy donors and corporations who fail to show up to 60% of the games is a pretty big problem.
Seeing this at venues across the nation in multiple sports. With all that TV money you would think they would freeze or lower prices at the live event but folks in charge seem too driven by more money. Makes me wonder if the sports bubble is in the near future. Folks that attend some live games seem more loyal than TV only fans.
LikeLike
Wait, there are sane and rational Mizzou fans?
LikeLike
Being called sane and rational by the likes of you isn’t really a compliment.
LikeLike
You assumed that comment referred to you.
LikeLike
I never thought the football would die out w/out Texas recruiting – MU simply had to dominate the “state of St.Louis+Metro East” instead of having the B1G West schools carve away at its talent. It appears to be making strides in that direction and milking its H/H aided access to Florida and Georgia.
LikeLike
Greater StL has the population of Kansas (and that’s being generous). They’re not going to be a football power by relying on StL talent.
LikeLike
@kylepeter – It would have to be some type of unforeseen nuclear collapse of the SEC that we couldn’t even imagine the circumstances of (i.e. SMU-type death penalty to half of the league). Barring that, the money is so large that we’re reasonably assured that both the SEC and Big Ten are going to be protected.
LikeLike
Well if one of those schools finds themselves recruiting rapists and armed robbers to compete, a president may decide a change of address could be a good thing. Vandy can’t be happy about the recent situation with their football players, although that hasn’t been a recurring problem.
LikeLike
Any words on O’Bannon? The judge was supposed to issue her decision this week.
LikeLike
@FtT: Thanks for the new post. Love out to you, as usual.
LikeLike
Go Terps! Go Nats (Bryce Harper hit a 13th-inning walk-off to beat the Mets and boost their NL East lead to 4 1/2 games)!
LikeLike
@vp19 – Enjoyable rant from Matt Williams yesterday about suggestions that Bryce Harper get sent to the minors. Haven’t seen speeches like that to the media from MLB managers much since Ozzie Guillen left the scene.
LikeLike
A better comparison might be that Maryland is to basketball recruiting as Louisiana is to football recruiting based on the per capita take.
Enjoyed the read overall.
LikeLike
This is very interesting:
LikeLike
Atlanta Journal Constitution article makes reference to a couple of new tweaks I hadn’t heard before, but they don’t really explain. Says before any autonomy proposal can pass, 12 of 20 members of the “new” board of directors must approve. Current board had the 11 FBS conferences and 7 others. Not sure who is on the new board. And the board of directors can veto the legislation (although that is supposed to be rare). Sounds like we could be back in the same situation in a year over some issue. Kind of like the Big East and its bb/fb split or the Israelis and Palestinians.
LikeLike
He looks very nervous and unhappy.
Has anyone thought about what is going to happen to the weaker schools, like Purdue, in the P5? Purdue has deemphasized sports over the last few decades in favor of promoting academic excellence. They might baulk at the increased outlays required under the autonomy rule. Could they even afford them? Would Purdue and similarly situated schools consider dropping out of the P5? The Ivy model is pretty good for schools that promote academics.
PS. Conflict of interest disclaimer: I am an alumnus of Purdue.
LikeLike
“They might baulk at the increased outlays required under the autonomy rule. Could they even afford them? Would Purdue and similarly situated schools consider dropping out of the P5?”
No. P5 schools make enough that cost won’t be a back breaker.
The potential classification of some college student/athletes as employees, and treating them different than other student/athletes, has a greater disruptive potential.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Has anyone thought about what is going to happen to the weaker schools, like Purdue, in the P5?”
Yes. I’ve seen articles about it. The short answer is that they’ll find a way to keep up. OSU is only looking at $1.65M per year for FCOA and they have more teams than anyone else. Meanwhile, the B10 is expecting a huge revenue bump in 2017 and everyone is expecting big playoff money.
“Purdue has deemphasized sports over the last few decades in favor of promoting academic excellence.”
They’ve been stealing money from the rest of the B10 by doing that, too.
“They might baulk at the increased outlays required under the autonomy rule. Could they even afford them?”
Yes. They may have to trim some other costs, but they’ll be fine.
“Would Purdue and similarly situated schools consider dropping out of the P5?”
Not if they listen to their accountants.
“The Ivy model is pretty good for schools that promote academics.”
It’s great if you have lots of rich alumni that will build a giant endowment for you and you don’t need any publicity from your sports teams.
LikeLike
Good points.
I was at Purdue when Griese was quarterback, and people still remembered Lenny Dawson. It is painful to watch them now.
LikeLike
@Brian – Agreed. No one should be fooled by the faux consternation being put up by “weaker” P5 schools about any costs involved here. The Purdues and Wake Forests of the world have PLENTY of money to adjust to whatever the new NCAA landscape looks like. They might have to shift some money from paying bloated administrative and coaching staffs and building new weight room palaces, but make no mistake about it: THEY HAVE THE MONEY.
Big Ten schools will be making more TV money than many MLB, NBA and NHL teams when their new TV deals are signed and that’s without having to pay millions of dollars in player salaries. So, even if universities start having to pay athletes, they’re still working with a vast pool of revenue with relatively low (or no) costs for top talent. I hope fans don’t fall for any whining about money that we might hear from P5 university presidents – they’re the ones that wanted to maximize revenue in the athletic sphere. Personally, I have no issue at all with colleges wanting to make as much money as possible. However, that also means that they can’t pretend that they’re not running a business just like the NFL, MLB or NBA with different type of branding.
LikeLike
The pro team vs. college comparison is somewhat apples and oranges. While the pros pay about half their revenue to the players they typically (in most cases) do not pay for their stadiums and any significant capital expenditures. Plus they do not have to fund 15-20 or so other sports teams as College AD’s are required. I have valued NFL franchises for ownership gifting/estate planning purposes and have seen the unique stadium deals with local sports authorities and who is responsible for what etc…
LikeLike
“However, that also means that they can’t pretend that they’re not running a business just like the NFL, MLB or NBA with different type of branding.”
I beg to differ. They are running a part of a non profit business – completely different. It is their failure to promote and fund the overall athletic departments they are running as well as they might that gives the impression they are running pro FB/BB franchises. They are still running athletic departments of educational non profit entities. It just so happens the public has an appetite for some of their offerings, and media has seen an opportunity to profit by purchasing the rights to feed that appetite.
LikeLike
Frank you say in the article “…I don’t see anyone leaving from the SEC at all with their own gushers of TV money coming in (more on that in a moment) ” However, I don’t see where you wrote anymore about that. Can you elaborate?
LikeLike
@stangm – Ah, yes. That’s a holdover from my original draft – I thought that I’d get to addressing the SEC Network in this post, but it was already getting long. I’ll be talking about it in my next post.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11320309/majority-power-five-coaches-want-power-five-only-schedules
A plurality of P5 coaches want a P5-only schedule.
Poll results:
30 (64%) for P5-only
23 (35%) opposed
12 (19%) undecided
P12 – 7 for / 1 opposed / 4 undecided
SEC – 7 / 5 / 2
B12 – 6 / 4 / 0
B10 – 6 / 6 / 2
ACC – 4 / 6 / 4
ND – opposed (not playing Navy was a “deal-breaker”)
* Note that the hypothetical included lowering the bowl eligibility standard
LikeLike
Most hated CFB team by state in another inaccurate Reddit map. Still interesting, though.
LikeLike
Looks like Michigan wins.
LikeLike
Hmmm…I would have thought for sure that State Penn would “win” in NJ. Maybe its residents need a reminder. 😉
And Ohio State and not UF in Georgia?
LikeLike
Apparently, that map is based on Michigan and Ohio State fans voting too many times. Here is the updated map, with Kansas and Missouri hating each other, as God intended.
LikeLike
seems like they didn’t get rid of the Louisville spam votes. UK the most hated team in Kentucky?
LikeLike
Its not like Texas where you have nearly a dozen schools in FBS.
LikeLike
Who do Kentucky fans truly hate? They may have split their votes among several schools (Louisville, Bama, Florida, Tennessee, Duke/UNC?) while the rest of the state, including Louisville and non-Kentucky fans, were more united in their hatred of UK.
LikeLike
No, its Tennessee and maybe UNC or Duke. And other than Louisville fans, they don’t hate UK.
LikeLike
IU, especially for older fans. I can see the argument that there would have been a split from the UK side between IU and UofL, but the UK numbers still dwarf UofL’s total numbers.
LikeLike
Who do Kentucky fans truly hate?
In football by age
Indiana / Tennessee = Old School
Louisville = Younger generation
In basketball by age
Indiana = Old School
Duke = Middle Age
Louisville = Kids
LikeLike
MgoBlue!
With that said, I call B.S on Michigan being the most hated in the state of Michigan. Michigan fans are almost ubiquitous throughout the state (Ask Walmart). I guarantee you OSU is the most hated football team in Michigan. An MSU banner will never get messed with in Michigan, but an OSU …anything….is going to be short lived. This ‘survey’ sounds like it was the victim of a few zealous MSU fans.
LikeLike
Whoops. Didn’t see the second spam free map. That’s much better.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/08/06/boy-who-won-espy-for-td-run-has-cancer-recurrence/13702545/
Sad news. NE’s most famous RB has a recurrence of brain cancer.
LikeLike
Tragic
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/university-seeks-to-eliminate-use-of-redskins-name-at-game-in-minneapolis/2014/08/06/89da18e2-1db6-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html?wpmm=AG0003386
The U of MN is trying to bar the Redskins from using their name when they play the Vikings @ MN this year.
he University of Minnesota is working with the Minnesota Vikings in an effort to keep the Washington Redskins’ name from being used in “promotional and game date materials” during the NFL teams’ Nov. 2 game at the school’s stadium in Minneapolis, according to an Aug. 1 letter from university President Eric W. Kaler to U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.).
…
McCollum alleged that the Redskins’ presence at the university’s stadium would violate the institution’s Board of Regents’ policy on affirmative action, diversity and equal opportunity. She also noted that the stadium was built with funding from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux.
LikeLike
This isn’t unprecedented — for years, the U of M declined to name the North Dakota team when they came in for a hockey game, and when the Big Ten Hockey Conference started, said they were unwilling to schedule a non-conference game with them until they changed their name.
LikeLike
I so hope Minnesota looses this fight.
LikeLike
I hope they win. I’m not a fan of celebrating derogatory racist epithets.
Mind you, I don’t have a problem with “Fighting Sioux” (or “Fighting Illini”; what’s Michigan’s problem? The logo?)
LikeLike
It’s probably just an easy way to stick it to a rival.
LikeLike
It’s one thing if you believe in a cause, and fight for that cause, using your own time and money…
It is a whole different deal when PUBLIC money (i.e. taxpayer dollars, state government official(s) time, public university employee(s) time) is used to fund someone’s cause——Regardless of how worthy that cause may or may not be…
LikeLike
@Frank The Tank – Frank, What do you believe is Delaney’s end goal as far as expansion? Does he envision a 20 team conference one day? One of the issues with getting Oklahoma may be the politics of involving Oklahoma State. If in fact there was an opportunity for Delaney in the future (late 2010’s or so) to snag Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas from the Big 12, but only if Oklahoma St could tag-a-long to OU, would he bite the bullet on OSU?
LikeLike
texmex,
Obviously I’m not Frank, but …
“What do you believe is Delaney’s end goal as far as expansion?”
I don’t think he really has one. The presidents guide him on this. I’d guess he’s torn on the idea of getting UNC from the ACC (he’d love to have them in, but as an alumnus he’d hate to pull them from the ACC). Without the SEC expanding, I don’t think he sees a pressing need to expand any more.
“Does he envision a 20 team conference one day?”
I doubt it. He knows how unwieldy that would be and how much it would hurt the rivalries and relationships between the members to be spread so thin.
“One of the issues with getting Oklahoma may be the politics of involving Oklahoma State. If in fact there was an opportunity for Delaney in the future (late 2010’s or so) to snag Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas from the Big 12, but only if Oklahoma St could tag-a-long to OU, would he bite the bullet on OSU?”
His opinion wouldn’t matter because the presidents would refuse OkSU. It’d be tough to get them to even accept OU.
The other thing to remember is that Delany is 66. I’m not sure he has many plans beyond signing the new TV deal that will start in 2017. The GoRs don’t expire until 2025 (B12) and 2027 (ACC), and I think the B10 will have a new commissioner by then.
LikeLike
“It’d be tough to get them to even accept OU.”
Understatement. ARWU world rank in the 301-400 group, nationally 109-131 group.
LikeLike
True, but counterbalanced by being a FB king that could drive TV revenue. I think they’d say no but others disagree.
LikeLike
The 20 school conference idea was always a completely wacko notion. It gained some popularity on here but it was always extremely unlikely. It’s far too impractical.
LikeLike
Good posts. My thoughts:
1. I think you way over-value the chances of an 8 team playoff. The school/conference leaders are very concerned with the regular season importance and I think an 8 team playoff starts to very much put that at risk. I understand that the CCG are basically playoff games at that point, but at the same time a lot fewer games before late November feel due or die for top teams. You also start to risk the regionalization you have in basketball (not to the same extent, but still there) if every major conference is in automatically.
Beyond that, if use the 4 major bowls, I do not think at this point we get Big Ten vs. PAC-12 in the Rose automatically. They’ve too emphasized seeded playoff for me to think they’ll go back now.
2. I think the Big 12 may actually make it at 10 teams (although expansion is possible). They don’t have the markets everyone else does, but they won’t with expansion either. Their niche is going to be the “one true champion.” They are just different enough right now to get attention and that might be more valuable than 2 extra schools they can realistically get.
LikeLike
Markets aren’t important unless you have a conference network. Compelling matchups are important. Expanding with lesser programs can work with a BTN. It hurts in other models.
LikeLike
I’m afraid I don’t understand the reasoning behind your first point, i.e., school/conference leaders are very concerned with regular season importance and that an eight-team playoff would put that at risk.
First off, the mantra that “every game counted” during the BCS era IRT the national championship was false. Nearly half of the teams in Division 1-A/FBS didn’t have a realistic chance to get into that game in the first place because of their conference affiliations.
A perfect example of that was the Mountain West Champion 2008 Utah Utes football team. The Utes went 12-0 during the regular season, but ended up #6 in the BCS Rankings before beating #4 Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. In sum, they did everything right, but were penalized because they were a member of a non-Power 5 Conference and didn’t have the strongest strength-of-schedule
In an eight-game playoff and using the BCS rankings as a guide, the 2008 Utes games would count in terms of getting to that national championship game (the 2009 BCS playoff had Florida beating Oklahoma 24-14). As the #6 seed, they would have played #3 Texas in the quarter final.
Secondly, even if a program was in a Power 5 conference, once a team had gotten to two losses, their chances for getting into that BCS game were very unlikely. If a program had three losses, then they were essentially out of it and the rest of their games really didn’t matter to them vis-a-vis the national championship.
But in an eight-game playoff, a team can drop a couple of games but still have an opportunity to win that conference championship (either through a CCG as the division winner or not in the case of the Big XII). That gives more teams the opportunity to be viable in the post-season later in the season. They might end up a lower seed in the end, but it wouldn’t mean they were going to be shut out early from a chance at the NC.
This situation is roughly akin to baseball. In my lifetme, the game has gone from just the two league winner going to the World Series to a playoff that involves division champions and wildcard teams. The regular season still matters in baseball, but the number of teams isn’t limited to just two or four anymore.
I strongly suspect college football will go to that eight-team playoff because all the Power 5 conferences will want at least one of their teams in the postseason competing for the national championship. Beyond that, I have to imagine the money will just be too great for the schools and conference leaders to say no. Finally, using baseball as an example, they’ll realize that the accepted truth that “every game counted” just doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny.
LikeLike
@cutter – That has always been my view. As I’ve said before on this blog, it’s a different shift of how the regular season “matters”. What I believe Eric is referring to is those epic do-or-die games that we might see a handful of times per season (i.e. Auburn-Alabama last year) at the very top level. In that respect, he’s correct that the 8-team playoff could conceivably lessen the impact of those games. However, an 8-team playoff also makes a significantly larger number of other games matter much more nationally. Every single divisional race in the power conferences, for example, becomes extremely important with national championship implications (as getting to your conference championship game is effectively getting to a de facto playoff game). This is what the NFL does very well with its divisional races and is a large part of why fans still feel (a) every game matters from week 1 despite having more games and a larger playoff field (out of a pool of only 32 total teams) compared to college football and (b) all but the very worst teams still have *some* hope very late into each season. An at-large field of only 3 teams (or even only 2 teams if you also include a spot for the best Group of 5 champ) is also still so small that even the #1-ranked team can’t afford to take a conference championship game off.
Up until now, college football has been eliminating about 95% of the field from the national championship race within the first couple of weeks of the season. The 4-team playoff nudges it up a little bit, but there’s still a completely subjective component to determining the playoff participants. There needs to be a balance where there is an objective way to get into the playoff without the use of polls or committees (i.e. winning your power conference), some leeway to include some elite teams that didn’t win their conference (at-larges) and keeping the field limited enough that it doesn’t impede the regular season. I could understand the argument that a 16-team playoff would destroy the regular season, but have a very hard time seeing that as the case with an 8-team playoff. We’re talking about whittling down a pool of 120-plus FBS teams or even practically a pool of 65 Power 5 teams to 8. This is far from the open nature of the NCAA Tournament where the regular season is rendered irrelevant outside of seeding purposes.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I’m afraid I don’t understand the reasoning behind your first point, i.e., school/conference leaders are very concerned with regular season importance and that an eight-team playoff would put that at risk.”
They are concerned with it. Look at the attendance problems they have already. If the games start to matter less, will even fewer fans attend?
“First off, the mantra that “every game counted” during the BCS era IRT the national championship was false.”
Of course it was. Essentially all absolute statements like that are.
“Nearly half of the teams in Division 1-A/FBS didn’t have a realistic chance to get into that game in the first place because of their conference affiliations.”
I disagree. They had to go undefeated and have at most 1 other undefeated or elite team to have a shot. It was always a long shot, but it was a realistic chance. Moreover, I’d argue that their SOS didn’t deserve a better chance. If you only play 1 good team per year, you should have good odds of going undefeated. That doesn’t mean you deserve a NCG slot.
“A perfect example of that was the Mountain West Champion 2008 Utah Utes football team. The Utes went 12-0 during the regular season, but ended up #6 in the BCS Rankings before beating #4 Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. In sum, they did everything right, but were penalized because they were a member of a non-Power 5 Conference and didn’t have the strongest strength-of-schedule”
They had the bad luck of being undefeated in a year when the AQs were loaded with elite teams. Those AQs ahead of them were all 1 loss steams against much, much tougher schedules. Three of them played a CCG, too (AL’s only loss was in the CCG to then #4 UF, UF got upset by MS but beat AL in the CCG, USC had their usual dumb loss @ OrSU but breezed through the rest, and the B12 had their triangle of 11-1 teams).
Just because Utah didn’t make the NCG despite going 12-0 doesn’t mean their games didn’t count.
“Secondly, even if a program was in a Power 5 conference, once a team had gotten to two losses, their chances for getting into that BCS game were very unlikely. If a program had three losses, then they were essentially out of it and the rest of their games really didn’t matter to them vis-a-vis the national championship.
But in an eight-game playoff, a team can drop a couple of games but still have an opportunity to win that conference championship (either through a CCG as the division winner or not in the case of the Big XII). That gives more teams the opportunity to be viable in the post-season later in the season. They might end up a lower seed in the end, but it wouldn’t mean they were going to be shut out early from a chance at the NC.”
I think you guys are talking past each other because you view “games that matter” differently. I’d say the 8-team playoff would mean more games matter somewhat, but all games would matter less than they used to. A first loss would have almost no meaning, so games with undefeated teams would not matter. A second loss wouldn’t be crippling, so games for 1-loss teams still wouldn’t be do or die. In other words, September and October games would mean a lot less to most good teams. That is the path to where MBB is today.
LikeLike
To explain my point better, I guess let’s put it this way. In the BCS era, in any week of the season, if a #1 or #2 team lost, they were probably out of the national title picture. Meanwhile there were several fanbases watching, hoping those teams would lose and knowing that every chance for them to lose was precious.
As an OHio State fan, I can tell, I watched a lot of the top teams play throughout the season knowing we probably needed those loses to get into the championship or just hoping to improve doubt. If we’re in just because we are Big Ten champs, suddenly, I will care a lot less about whether Alabama or USC or Texas or whomever wins or loses games throughout a season.
Even when the Buckeyes weren’t competing the limited championship field, makes the games involving the top teams just seem really big even if they aren’t always playing the toughest competition. It will feel much less like that with an 8 team playoff.
LikeLike
And the fan base of the lesser teams use to be able to hope for a huge upset that was of national consequence. Even the lowest had the opportunity to influence directly and imediately the championship. A large playoff field makes that a “well they can’t let that happen again” consequence that will be shrugged off. “It’s how you do in the playoffs” mantra that has infested the pro game comming to a school near you.
LikeLike
Agreed. I remember quite a few upsets of #1 or #2 teams in college football for precisely that reason. The sheer magnitude of taking out a team that is otherwise on course for being of 2 teams in the championship made those events a lot bigger than I think they could possibly be with 8 teams (honestly I think even four will diminish them, but at least not to the same extent).
Frank, I guess those are the two types of games I was talking about.
1. The monster type games you talked about between top teams throughout the season.
2. The other games involving top teams that still hold a lot of extra intrigue because of the potential to completely shake up the national title race.
I just think that the number of games that are naturally appealing to a national audience (as opposed to regional ones) in college football is a lot less than in the NFL. It’s been the system in place that puts such emphasis on the top teams that’s really let the sport get so many national games throughout the season.
LikeLike
I wonder if there will ever be an 8 team playoff system. Only one of the 5 conferences has to die in the next 12 years to have a simple 4 team system of conference champions. The CCG would be playoff games. The SEC might complain but I don’t think the BIG, PAC, or however survives out of the ACC/Big 12 will care about getting two teams into a playoff system.
I think there is more consolidation on the horizon. The question will be if it comes before an 8 team playoff system.
LikeLike
TV doesn’t want an Alabama 2011 left out or a Texas 2008. The power schools don’t want a champ only playoff. Repeat after me 100 times, “A champion only playoff will never happen.” It doesn’t happen in any other sport the NCAA plays.
LikeLike
TV doesn’t want an Alabama 2011 left out or a Texas 2008. The power schools don’t want a champ only playoff
If conferences were allowed to get rid of divisions, then there wouldn’t be an 2011 Alabama and 2008 Texas problem. Conferences would love two guaranteed spots in the eight team play off that used CCGs for the first round.
It doesn’t happen in any other sport the NCAA plays.
Football (BCS anyway) is the only sport the NCAA doesn’t crown a champion. Football as a special case isn’t unheard of.
LikeLike
Television also doesn’t want a meaningless regular season and meaningless championship games. Throw in the fact that if the playoffs expand to 8, non p5 schools will get in and I can assure you the p5 doesn’t want to share the money with anybody in the p5.
Also, not expanding the schedule by another week will make the eggheads happy. That is why the only conference to cop a fit would be the SEC IMO. Delaney would gladly sacrifice a 2nd team, which history shows the BIG usually gets, to keep it at a conference champion only affair.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“Throw in the fact that if the playoffs expand to 8, non p5 schools will get in and I can assure you the p5 doesn’t want to share the money with anybody in the p5.”
The Go5 already gets a guaranteed major bowl slot plus a bigger share of the playoff money than they got from the BCS (P5 get $50M each, Go5 get $75M combined). Teams the make the semis only get an extra $6M. Why would the P5 care if that system expanded to 8 teams and the Go5 got $6M for being in it?
LikeLike
Also, TV looking back probably would want Alabama out in 2011 since the rating were such a disaster that the whole 4 team playoff came out because of it.
LikeLike
The ratings were a disaster because the first game was b-o-r-I-n-g and the second game was more b-o-r-I-n-g and more ugly and there was only one conference involved. Having a 2nd conference team is different when they are more than 2 teams.
They wouldn’t change their position a bit.
LikeLike
If further consolidation is in the offing (and even it it isn’t/) why couldn’t UT and FSU just decide to partner up and form a new conference with the 5/6/7/8/9 other most valuable football programs from the ACC/Big XII (+ND and/or BYU?) if such a conference were guaranteed an automatic bid to the 4 team play-off and bowl tie-ins?
LikeLike
why couldn’t UT and FSU just decide to partner up and form a new conference with the 5/6/7/8/9 other most valuable football programs from the ACC/Big XII
The Big 12 and ACC GORs expire at different times. Tough for Texas to not commit to the Big 12 any longer than the few years between the two. If Texas wants to create a new conference with the best of the ACC, it can’t have the Big 12 dissolve before the ACC teams are ready to move.
LikeLike
There might be a conference with the best of the Big 12, ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac 12. That’s the nightmare scenario for the bottom half of the P5.
LikeLike
Huh? I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.
LikeLike
@bullet – It is, but with the various GORs in place, there isn’t a much of a chance this can even happen for 20 years.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
I assume he’s talking about a 36 team (give or take) superleague. It’s basically the CFB version of the NFL.
It’ll never happen because the conferences don’t want to drop anybody.
LikeLike
No it would be something like:
USC
UCLA
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn St.
Nebraska
Alabama
Florida
Florida St.
Notre Dame
Maybe a 16 team conference, but most likely around 10-12. They could play only around 6 conference games so they don’t beat up on each other too much. It would essentially be a joint independent group of many of the highest value programs. The $ would be enormous.
LikeLike
Yeah, right. The UC system is going to allow the Bears to drop while their Cub (UCLA’s original mascot) gets promoted?
With a whole bunch of national kings already in what market value do would UNL or OU provide?
Duplicates in Fla? And in LA (but no LSU)? And only PSU from Ga north through the entire rest of the eastern seaboard?
Too much Texas thinking…
LikeLike
You aren’t going to have USC all alone. Most likely teams will come with a friend.
I have little doubt this sort of thing has been discussed on some scale. Whether it will actually happen is a different matter.
You over-rate LSU based on recency. They are in the 2nd tier. The teams I listed other than UCLA are the 1st tier.
LikeLike
No one in the PAC or B1G (or the SEC for that matter) is going to consider this. I realize as a UT guy you just don’t get the strength, power, and benefit of strengthening and supporting similar associated institutions that don’t happen to be kings. There is a reason the number of power schools has not diminished during consolidation. And schools have been joining larger conferences, not getting booted. The benefit of the SuperSuper conference can be achieved, through inventory, with scheduling agreements, and keeping post season matchups between them rarer and desirable. It also wouldn’t risk diminishing some of the kings through conference losses and render currently important OOC matchups to just one of many conference games.
LikeLike
bullet,
“No it would be something like:
USC
UCLA
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn St.
Nebraska
Alabama
Florida
Florida St.
Notre Dame
Maybe a 16 team conference, but most likely around 10-12. They could play only around 6 conference games so they don’t beat up on each other too much. It would essentially be a joint independent group of many of the highest value programs. The $ would be enormous.”
The money would be a lot bigger at 36 teams since they could have an 8 team playoff (4 at least). It would also provide a lot more inventory. Also, would the other schools agree to fill out their schedules without a big chunk of the money?
I think the next 20 teams add more by bringing fans/eyeballs than they dilute things. It certainly would make it easier to sell their “conference” network everywhere. Besides, having some lesser brands that can lose some games would help build up the top teams.
Or maybe they split the difference and take the top 24 or so.
LikeLike
@cc The Pac already split once. USC and UCLA got guarantees when the new TV contract was signed.
I’m not saying this is likely to happen, but it is a whole lot more probable than the scenarios of B1G and SEC going to 20.
There was a link on here a while back of something along the same general lines being proposed 40-50 years ago.
LikeLike
The PAC dissolved, not split. ” Following “pay-for-play” scandals at California, USC, UCLA and Washington, the PCC disbanded in 1959.” Now we’re institutionalizing what was anathema to the point of in effect kicking out USC, UCLA, Cal, and UW at a time when being independent was common and very viable.
The airplane conference was the proposal following the PCC breakup. “those four and Stanford started talking about forming a new conference, retired Admiral Thomas J. Hamilton interceded and suggested the schools consider creating a “power conference.” Nicknamed the “Airplane Conference”, the five PCC schools would have played with other major academically oriented schools, including Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, Penn, Penn State, Duke, and Georgia Tech among others. The effort fell through when a Pentagon official vetoed the idea and the service academies backed out.”
Quotes from wiki, for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA guarantees were for two years only, and for 2M extra those two years in order to transition to a different budget under completely equal sharing of all media revenue, and transferring those media rights to the conference, if the new media deal was under a threshold number. The guarantee was not necessary, in hind sight (or Larry Scott’s foresight).
LikeLike
LSU is a better program than half of your top 12, bullet. Including Texas, btw. Huge fan support, great facilities, maybe the best blue-chip talent available in their primary recruiting area (Houston to Mobile).
Auburn would easily qualify as well. This concept that success in the 70’s, 60’s or earlier means something to this era of football is flawed thinking.
LikeLike
No, the concept that only the past 5 years matters is flawed thinking. Actually Notre Dame has really only had 1 good season since Holtz, but they are still very valuable and can still get top players.
Look at LSU 1980-1995. They can have extended droughts, worse than anyone on that list. The SEC 4-LSU, Tennessee, Georgia and Auburn are right at the top of the next tier.
Now opinions can differ on LSU, but I don’t think the past dozen years means they are ahead of Notre Dame and many others on that list.
As for Texas, even with the last 4 years, if you look at the whole BCS era, Texas is still top 4 or 5 in wins, final AP ratings and number of times ranked. Alabama is 2nd ten on almost all those categories. Saban is probably the best coach in the game, but he will eventually retire and Alabama won’t always be #1 or #2.
LikeLike
JS,
Nothing prevents it.
However, they’d have to get those schools to agree and figure out how to deal with the 2 year gap between the B12 (2025) and ACC (2027) GoRs expiring. There are also all the travel issues. And don’t forget that ND doesn’t want a full conference schedule.
LikeLike
Couldn’t Texas and Oklahoma simply refuse to sign a gor extension and wait for the ACC schools to be free in 2028? For ND, wouldn’t a 6 game conference schedule consisting of Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech and Pitt be preferable to their 5 game ACC slate? If ND wasn’t interested perhaps add BYU or GT and Clemson. As for travel concerns, every school (except BYU and perhaps ND) would have a travel partner (sort of) and wouldn’t the money from such a conference be enough that travel expenses wouldn’t matter anyway?
LikeLike
JS,
“Couldn’t Texas and Oklahoma simply refuse to sign a gor extension and wait for the ACC schools to be free in 2028?”
Sure. But then they have to hope they can sign a solid temporary TV deal and that the others will stick around until 2028. Also, the ACC could jack up it’s exit fee again in 2025 in an attempt to keep teams from leaving.
“For ND, wouldn’t a 6 game conference schedule consisting of Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech and Pitt be preferable to their 5 game ACC slate?”
A 7 team conference? How does that work for all their other sports? Or are you saying ND gets something like their ACC deal but has to play 6 instead of 5?
“As for travel concerns, every school (except BYU and perhaps ND) would have a travel partner (sort of) and wouldn’t the money from such a conference be enough that travel expenses wouldn’t matter anyway?”
Money can’t slow time. All those non-revenue teams will have to travel a lot and that means many very late nights. Presidents, ADs and coaches all hate that.
LikeLike
@JS – they could but there would be problems. The Big 12 conference has a responsibility to negotiate the best deal it can for its members. That deal isn’t three years. So the Big 12 will negotiate for a deal longer than those three years. Even with out a GOR, when Texas or OU announced their move, Baylor (or KSU, ISU, etc) would sue the new conference (or FSU) for tortious interference like Baylor threatened to do when A&M left.
LikeLike
Baylor’s threat was an idle one. It delayed the process but it was never going to prevent it from happening. Texas and Oklahoma won’t factor in a Baylor lawsuit if they decide to change conferences.
LikeLike
@mike
Baylor’s threat was an idle one that didn’t stop the process. It slowed things down for a week or so but was never a risk to stop it. OU and Texas won’t be threatened by a Baylor lawsuit if or when they decide to exit the B12.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“I wonder if there will ever be an 8 team playoff system.”
Unfortunately, yes. Too many fans want it, which means there is too much money available to leave on the table.
“Only one of the 5 conferences has to die in the next 12 years to have a simple 4 team system of conference champions.”
Except they refused to make being a champ a condition already. If they didn’t want that with 5 major conferences, why would they want it with 4? Who wants to see 2012 WI in the semis?
“I think there is more consolidation on the horizon. The question will be if it comes before an 8 team playoff system.”
The GoRs start to expire in 2025. The 12 years playoff contract ends after the 2025 season. I personally think the 4 team playoff lasts all 12 years, so both may happen at about the same time.
LikeLike
Frank:
Do you think the success of BTN in the Northeast media markets makes it more or less likely that the Big Ten will expand?
LikeLike
Maryland and the ACC settle. ACC keeps $31,361,788.
http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detail/agreement_08-08-14_lryjmo
LikeLike
Surprising. Did not expect Maryland’s fee to be that high in the end. 31M seems like way too much for a fee they didn’t agree to and immediately left behind (especially considering ACC was in the wrong to be withholding those profits in the first place, yes?).
LikeLike
Anyone without B1G- or Terp-colored glasses could see that it would be this high–roughly in the middle of the amount Maryland agreed it owed and the amount that the ACC thought Maryland owed. A good settlement is equally disappointing to both sides, as this one likely is.
LikeLike
Says the SU fan who suddenly loved the ACC once SU joined it. No chance you are anti-UMD. It must be everyone else that is biased.
Predictions were all over the place. ACC fanboys routinely said the ACC would get the full $52M. UMD/B10 fanboys said UMD would pay only the old fee. Lots of reasonable people had varying guesses in between the two, generally in the $25-35M range. I don’t think it’s fanboyish for someone to think $25M was reasonable and that $31M is too high.
I thought there was a decent chance they won in court and paid only $20M, but then they’d have all their dirty laundry aired and huge legal fees. I thought $30M was about the cutoff for where they would settle (I’d heard rumors that UMD’s goal was about $25M), so I do think this fee is a little high. It was probably easier to have nobody write a check than to get either side to agree to pay anything.
LikeLike
I was in the camp thinking they would likely pay the old exit fee, possibly 25M. I didn’t expect to see it go over that. Though based on what bullet said below, the settled upon amount makes some sense.
LikeLike
And I think you might have been right if they wanted to play hard ball. My sense is that they’d rather get it over with than fight over it and risking losing a lot more or having a lot of bad press.
LikeLike
I don’t recall anyone saying that the ACC would get the full $52M. I certainly did not.
Instead, it was pro B1G folks who were saying that it would be $20M or less…. with enthusiasm… in the hopes of prying UNC and/or Virginia from the ACC.
My thought–as a litigator–was that once it got into litigation, the number would be 2 x revenue, plus/minus some amount, depending on how the evidence developed. Apparently, Maryland was able to marshal (no, not the Marshall that defeated them in the Military Bowl) enough evidence to get this slightly below 2X. Either way, it is a classic lose-lose for all sides.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“I don’t recall anyone saying that the ACC would get the full $52M.”
You didn’t read many ACC blogs or message boards then. I’m not saying they were informed or were the majority, but it was said a decent amount.
“Instead, it was pro B1G folks who were saying that it would be $20M or less”
The lowest number I recall ever seeing was $17M because that was reported as the old exit fee. I think those fans thought that UMD could win outright in court so they wouldn’t settle for more. Most people don’t really understand how legal battles and settlements of this scale go.
“in the hopes of prying UNC and/or Virginia from the ACC.”
That wasn’t why they were saying $17M. They thought that if the fee was “only” that that UNC and UVA might become available.
“Either way, it is a classic lose-lose for all sides.”
Nobody ever wins once the lawyers get involved.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the former fee around 20M? 11+M more rather than 30M more seems a low/mid range compromise.
LikeLike
If the TV payout was X, Maryland expressly agreed to 1X, while the ACC voted (with Maryland voting against it) to increase it to 3X. The settlement is pretty close to 2X. For the ACC, avoiding any more attorney fees likely justified going below 2X. For Maryland, keeping it at 2X with legal fees is a pretty good deal too. Both sides win. Or, more accurately, both sides lose. Time to move on to the on-field stuff.
LikeLike
Forbes article from 2012 characterization of the new fee: “The new fee is a huge increase for the ACC, up roughly 250% from a year ago.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/09/19/accs-new-exit-fee-punitive-or-par-for-the-course/
LikeLike
They settled for exactly the amount the ACC had withheld. Just as a lot of people predicted. And only about 6 weeks after the last amount was withheld. Neither side writes a check and they both walk away.
It was a pretty obvious compromise (not that I thought of it-I saw others suggest it back in the first part of the year).
LikeLike
Baltimore Sun article
Dead on, bullet. The ACC withheld all revenue and Maryland was not about to write a check no matter what. As many predicted, the settlement was for the amount withheld.
LikeLike
It’s more important to both entities to be able to move forward, than continue a nasty fight with an uncertain ending. Completely agree with the statement that it is the obvious compromise. UMD can now fully focus on life in the B1G. The ACC really needs to close the revenue-potential gap (start a channel, integrate ND, improve the brand)
As an ACC fan, the lure of poetic justice prevailing over the money grubbing / tradition destroying Terps with a full $52m payout…was compelling.
As a business guy, I would have been shocked if this dispute was not settled. Originally wrote that $37m was the best compromise (the mathematical split). Once the ACC truly stabilized as viable long-term P5 conference, the total withhold amount of $31m became the better end-game. The ACC’s ability to enforce a self-help remedy (recouping monies due to UMD) seems to have helped stabilize the ACC.
LikeLike
This settlement would seem to further bolster the stability of the ACC and make it even less likely that the SEC or B1G will expand again.
LikeLike
I think it just means if you are going to leave, do it in one year. The established exit fee is “TV revenues collected but not yet distributed”. That is exactly what NU, CU, MU, A&M and UMd all lost in the transition to new conferences.
Of course GORs change all of that anyway.
LikeLike
Judge rules for O’Bannon.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24653743/obannon-judge-rules-ncaa-violates-antitrust-law
LikeLike
Nike/Reebok/Adidas/rich boosters are rejoicing.
Did the rest of scholarship awarding NCAA schools just get told their costs are going to be what the Go5 was being denied?
“Wilken said the injunction will not prevent the NCAA from implementing rules capping the amount of money that may be paid to college athletes while they are enrolled in school, but the NCAA will not be allowed to set the cap below the cost of attendance.”
LikeLike
No, I think it means the schools can cap income, perhaps even figured when added to scholarship amount, at full cost of attendance. Hope she provides a formula for figuring cost of attendance.
LikeLike
I think she was saying they can cap it at FCOA while they’re in school, but any residual money would have to be paid after they left school (like money for using their likeness or something).
LikeLike
Money from jersey sales would be a few hundreds of dollars.
Even so it opens the door to boosters, marketeers, etc. Professionalization, that the Courts have said was a legitimate and beneficial thing for the NCAA to prohibit.
LikeLike
No one will ever know how many athletes will ultimately receive more compensation for playing sports as a result of this ruling. The ruling simply allows athletes to be paid from one more pocket.
Receiving compensation from a state institution will come with many restrictions. As ccrider55 notes, the most important outcome is that boosters will have another outlet to funnel funds for athletes.
In a footnote, Judge Wilken mentioned that that individual players might be able to receive payment for individual jersey sales. If so, once the path around all legal restrictions is identified, jersey sales can incorporated into booster networks to funnel dollars to current and future recruits. Still, until this ruling can provide $175,000 to junior college transfers, this ruling is simply an extra source of cash for boosters to provide recruits — truly “chump change.”
Do the bottom P5, excluding the SEC and Big 12, really have boosters pay tens of thousands to prospective recruits — I don’t know. So maybe this ruling helps recruits who might attend Washington State, IU and Wake Forest. I don’t think the ruling affects the current market or market process for paying athletes for many years for those who are actively paying their players today.
Reading this and other blogs, it appears that the thrust of the response is that this is a first step
towards addressing the hypocrisy of universities and the NCAA. It is such a modest start that I actually think it will do more harm than good — it inoculates the NCAA for a tiny fee. Look at the rest of this thread — 8 game playoff, season from August to the end of January, bottom P5 convincing state legislatures that the taxpayer must pay for endless facility upgrades to compete with Oregon and Alabama — happily playing the role of the Washington Generals with other people’s money – and so on.
$5000 feels like a parking ticket. When the fine is much greater, then maybe it will be viewed as more than a nuisance fee.
LikeLike
$5000 per athlete is more than a parking ticket for most schools, especially since Title IX is likely to expand it to all athletes, not just men’s football and basketball. A lot of Go5 and lower level P5 schools may just provide a cut of license fees which will turn out to be far below the $5K per year limit the NCAA can impose. It is clear that individual schools do not need to participate, but it will take more litigation to determine if conferences can set rules on participation.
The statement on the value of scholarship opens the NCAA to all types of litigation on both the value and quantity limits on scholarships. Why should AL, MI, OSU, TX, USC etc. be limited on the number of football scholarships offered? Why can’t Go5 or even Div II schools offer full cost of attendance scholarships; or Div. III offer any scholarships? Looks a lot like a restraint imposed by a monopoly.
LikeLike
Mack,
“$5000 per athlete is more than a parking ticket for most schools, especially since Title IX is likely to expand it to all athletes, not just men’s football and basketball.”
I linked this article earlier:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24654805/qa-what-the-obannon-ruling-means-for-the-ncaa-schools-and-athletes
What exactly did the judge rule?
Wilken’s injunction has two components: A) The NCAA can’t cap the amount of a scholarship below the actual cost of attendance; and B) The NCAA can’t ban schools from creating a trust fund to pay players equal shares for use of their NILs.
For the trust fund, the NCAA and schools are allowed to cap the amount, but it can’t be lower than $5,000 for every year an athlete remains academically eligible. The schools can’t conspire to fix these amounts at a set price, thus creating competition.
Wilken’s injunction, although a win for the O’Bannon plaintiffs, could have been worse for the NCAA. The $5,000 number could have been higher. The injunction doesn’t allow athletes to receive money for endorsements, citing efforts by the NCAA and its schools to protect against “commercial exploitation.” And the injunction doesn’t prevent the NCAA from creating rules that prohibit athletes from selling their NIL rights individually.
The explanatory articles I’ve seen indicate that the $5000 applies to NIL (name, image, likeness) revenue and can be split equally over the team. Individuals don’t have the rights to endorsements or selling their NIL rights separately. I don’t think Title IX can demand that the money go to athletes who aren’t selling their NIL rights (non-revenue sports). Title IX is about offering equal opportunities to the athletes, not guaranteeing an equal outcome. The law doesn’t force outside businesses to spend as much on each sport.
To me, that means the Tier 1 money should be safe. The bigger issue will be conference network money. While they can probably use ad timing to indicate how much of the ad value is due to which sports, and use ratings to also break it down, the number of hours spent showing various sports is also relevant since people pay for the network. Right now multiple schools don’t break conference network money down by sport. They may have to in order to avoid a huge Title IX bill.
“A lot of Go5 and lower level P5 schools may just provide a cut of license fees which will turn out to be far below the $5K per year limit the NCAA can impose. It is clear that individual schools do not need to participate, but it will take more litigation to determine if conferences can set rules on participation.”
Conferences can always set rules like that. If you don’t like it, move to another conference or go independent.
“The statement on the value of scholarship opens the NCAA to all types of litigation on both the value and quantity limits on scholarships. Why should AL, MI, OSU, TX, USC etc. be limited on the number of football scholarships offered?”
Because the benefit of a level playing field outweighs the downside. Besides, there are a lot more I-A schools now and the smaller schools still offer scholarships except for D-III.
“Why can’t Go5 or even Div II schools offer full cost of attendance scholarships;”
The Go5 can. The FCOA would be permissive legislation for D-I, meaning any school could do it. A D-II school would have to move up to do it, I believe. Since there is no TV money available at that level, there is no restraint in not offering FCOA.
“or Div. III offer any scholarships?”
Those are the D-III rules. There are methods for moving up if you want to offer scholarships.
LikeLike
“…that the $5000 applies to NIL (name, image, likeness) revenue and can be split equally over the team.”
So it’s the team/school’s, not the individual’s image/likeness?
“Individuals don’t have the rights to endorsements or selling their NIL rights separately.”
If not, why wasn’t this dismissed outright? Why should the next Manzel’s likeness benefit the senior fourth string walkon who graduates and only is on the team with him two years any more than a swimmer that is a potential Olympian?
“I don’t think Title IX can demand that the money go to athletes who aren’t selling their NIL rights (non-revenue sports).”
T9 demands equal treatment, and the only prong that’s been accepted is proportional participation and spending. The source of the money is irrelevant, only that it is distributed equally.
This attempt to distinguish between varsity athletic sports is ludicrous. You separate them and I know I’ll not be donating to FB or BB. It’s been bad enough to see sports dropped for “lack of funds” while incomes and FB expenditures have exploded, but to be relegating the rest to IM and club stature…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So it’s the team/school’s, not the individual’s image/likeness?”
Basically. I think that’s in part because they are team sports, so a network can’t broadcast (or a game show) just 1 player. She also said the NCAA could still prevent individuals from selling their NIL rights (no endorsement deals).
“If not, why wasn’t this dismissed outright? Why should the next Manzel’s likeness benefit the senior fourth string walkon who graduates and only is on the team with him two years any more than a swimmer that is a potential Olympian?”
Because it’s a team game. You win as a team, you lose as a team, and now you earn as a team. Besides, I don’t think walk-ons are covered by her decision.
“T9 demands equal treatment,”
No, it doesn’t. It demands equal opportunities/treatment from the school. The school isn’t paying for the NIL rights, businesses are. Businesses aren’t subject to T9. The FCOA will apply across the board, but the trust fund won’t unless ESPN starts paying a lot more for WBB and other sports.
“and the only prong that’s been accepted is proportional participation and spending. The source of the money is irrelevant, only that it is distributed equally.”
That’s when it was all viewed as the school’s money. This decision says that a chunk of it is the players’ money.
“This attempt to distinguish between varsity athletic sports is ludicrous.”
Why? Many schools already do.
“You separate them and I know I’ll not be donating to FB or BB.”
Which is great, since most donors direct their money specifically to those two sports.
“It’s been bad enough to see sports dropped for “lack of funds” while incomes and FB expenditures have exploded, but to be relegating the rest to IM and club stature… ”
They always should have been IM and club sports to match the interest level in them. Why waste money on travel and recruiting? Just play locally with local students.
LikeLike
Agree on how T9 should be applied. 30+ years fighting the “misapplication” suggests other interpretations hold sway.
LikeLike
“They always should have been IM and club sports to match the interest level in them.”
Hundreds of teams in multiple top ten or more most participated in sports have been axed. Go buy tickets to Bengals or Browns games. They sink all their money into the sport you care about. Become a LeBraun groupie in the winter spring. No need to worry about the educational component to athletics in college, and who it would be limited to…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Hundreds of teams in multiple top ten or more most participated in sports have been axed.”
They probably have. Many were probably demoted to club sports. One reason is that the sports lacked fan interest and lost a lot of money as a varsity sport. They lose a lot less as club sports. Schools felt the money was better spent on CFB and MBB (it’s not a T9 problem).
The thing people forget is that the number of men on scholarship has increased continuously, keeping pace with enrollment. Are wrestling programs constantly being cut (and gymnastics and tennis, etc)? Yes. But other teams are being added (lacrosse, etc).
I’d be happy to see many non-revenue sports demoted to club status but with scholarships. There just is no need for national travel and expensive NCAA tournaments for these sports. Play the local schools regardless of size and move on.
“No need to worry about the educational component to athletics in college, and who it would be limited to… ”
Hey, a court just told us that doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
If there are more men on scholarship, its because there are more schools, not because individual schools are adding men’s scholarships. That is simply not happening. PSU’s hockey addition is very rare.
LikeLike
The $5000 is a floor, not a cap. And I can’t imagine a cap of $5000 won’t be challenged and defeated if her ruling holds. I can’t see how antitrust won’t defeat an effort by the NCAA to force players to agree to a joint trust fund unless a NCAA-wide student-athlete union agrees to it.
Has anyone seen a definition of what her NILs covers? I have read she let the NCAA rule out endorsements.
There’s video games, but I don’t see how that gets done unless the NCAA gets involved again and I’m sure they won’t.
There’s autographs.
There’s posters (but would that apply to a team poster?).
There’s jerseys with your name. But jerseys with your number wouldn’t seem to be NIL (so you just don’t sell jerseys with a name). But could they license the sale of some sort of jersey on their own?
There’s TV, live and replays.
LikeLike
Speaking of posters, do they get a share of game program sales? Those have pictures and names.
Even some tickets have pictures.
LikeLike
bullet,
“If there are more men on scholarship, its because there are more schools, not because individual schools are adding men’s scholarships.”
So? Schools are swapping sports, dropping sports to spend more on football, or moving up and adding sports. The end result is more teams. And it’s not just men’s sports that are suffering.
http://www.nwcaonline.com/nwcawebsite/docs/saving-wrestling-files/pdf-.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Here’s the relevant quotes on both sides:
The number of NCAA championship sport teams in 2011-12 exceeded the previous all-time high from 2010-11, with increases coming from both men’s and women’s championship sports.
…
Compared to the 1981-82 academic year, the average NCAA school now sponsors approximately two more women’s teams and one less men’s team.
…
As is the case with women’s sports, there have been more men’s basketball teams sponsored than any other men’s sport. The next most highly sponsored sports for men are, in order, cross country, baseball, golf, soccer, tennis, outdorr track and field, football and indoor track and field.
…
In 2011-12, there were 68 men’s teams and 46 women’s teams dropped at NCAA member institutions. Since 1988-89, there have been 2,816 men’s teams dropped and 1,989 women’s teams dropped with each specific academic year having more men’s teams dropped than women’s teams except the 2010-11 year when 10 more women’s teams than men’s teams
dropped sports. … The sport with the highest number of men’s teams dropped in 2011-12 was golf with 12 teams eliminated, followed by wrestling and cross country. The men’s sport that has been dropped the most since 1988-89 is indoor track and field with 299 teams discontinued in the NCAA. Some of the other sports with large numbers of men’s teams dropped are tennis, golf, cross country, and outdoor track and field.
…
The result of NCAA schools simultaneously adding and dropping teams in 2011-12 was an increase of 119 men’s teams and an increase of 185 women’s teams. Since 1988-89, there has been a net gain of 629 men’s teams and 2,888 women’s teams in the NCAA.
…
Most of the net losses in men’s sports have come in Division I. Since 1988-89, there has been a net loss of 317 men’s teams in Division I. By comparison, since 1988-89 there has been a net gain of 740 women’s teams in Division I.
…
Conversely, the only women’s sports with a net loss of teams in 2011-12 were ice hockey (-1), and skiing (-1). Since 1988-89, the women’s sport with the greatest net loss of teams is gymnastics (-40). The only other women’s sports with double digit net losses of teams since 1988-89 are fencing (-22) and skiing (-21).
In 2011-12, the men’s sport with the greatest net gain was basketball with an increase of 16 teams. Historically, the men’s sports with the greatest net gains since 1988-89 are indoor track and field (143), lacrosse (130) and cross country (123). Other men’s sports with notable net gains
since 1988-89 are outdoor track, soccer, baseball, golf and basketball. On the other hand, the men’s sport with the greatest net loss of teams in 2011-12 was wrestling with a net loss of four teams. Since 1988-89, the men’s sport with the greatest net loss of teams is wrestling (-108). Other men’s sports with notable net losses of teams since 1988-89 are tennis (-61), rifle (-46), gymnastics (-37), skiing (-26), fencing (-25) and water polo (-20).
“That is simply not happening. PSU’s hockey addition is very rare.”
The sports are shifting, mainly to allow the I-A schools to spend more on their revenue sports while keeping the same number of teams.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The $5000 is a floor, not a cap.”
It’s the floor for where the cap can be set by the NCAA. Does anybody think they’ll set it higher than that?
“And I can’t imagine a cap of $5000 won’t be challenged and defeated if her ruling holds.”
I can. The law is a fickle thing.
“I can’t see how antitrust won’t defeat an effort by the NCAA to force players to agree to a joint trust fund unless a NCAA-wide student-athlete union agrees to it.”
It’s only joint within your team.
“Has anyone seen a definition of what her NILs covers?”
It may be in the full decision, but from context I’m guessing she means TV money and anything else the school has been making off of it.
“I have read she let the NCAA rule out endorsements.”
Yes, as well as saying they can stop a player from individually selling his NIL rights.
“There’s autographs.
There’s posters (but would that apply to a team poster?).
“There’s jerseys with your name. But jerseys with your number wouldn’t seem to be NIL (so you just don’t sell jerseys with a name). But could they license the sale of some sort of jersey on their own?”
No. They don’t have rights to the jersey. Jersey sales are really quite small in terms of profit for the school, though. Nike makes most of that money. Still, I’m guessing at least part of the jersey money will go into the pot.
“Speaking of posters, do they get a share of game program sales? Those have pictures and names.”
I don’t think news (like a roster) counts. Even short bios with head shots probably are OK. And again, this is a small source of money anyway. Revenue is basically ticket sales, TV money and donations with 15% other.
LikeLike
“The result of NCAA schools simultaneously adding and dropping teams in 2011-12 was an increase of 119 men’s teams and an increase of 185 women’s teams. Since 1988-89, there has been a net gain of 629 men’s teams and 2,888 women’s teams in the NCAA.”
Any accounting for the shifting from NAIA to NCAA? Near 600 schools in the 70’s now down to around 250. Did those schools average less than one sport/gender and feel compelled to move to the stronger more financially NCAA? That would be an extraordinary decision.
LikeLike
Sorry, really bad math. 2 men’s and 6 women’s in 350ish migrating schools. Point is there has been an occasional add hear and there, but nothing like the admitting of new members with existing programs, and requiring some adds in order to qualify. If you really believe losses are not and haven’t occurred I’ve got a bridge to sell. In just wrestling 170 D1 and about 250 programs overall have been dropped since the ’70s. Gymnastics? T&F? Swimming? Etc.
LikeLike
In the short term, all this ruling means is that schools and their booster networks will have to tacitly cooperate more closely depending on the needs of the school. Again, at schools — I don’t know how many — football players already receive more than $5000 in “illegal” cash and perks from boosters — do you think Cam Newton’s dad simply pulled out of a hat his bid of $175,000? If the sports dept wants to pay $5000, and can’t afford it, then boosters can allocate some of their funds to the the university’s budget. The big loophole will be when individual players can keep money from t-shirts, and so on. Then boosters at certain university’s can ensure that any promised amount of money is delivered to players to purchase their signature on a NLI and their continued participation.
Think about historically “aggressive” football programs who view NCAA sanctions as a “parking ticket” — for example USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Auburn. What will be fascinating for me would be if one could learn about the marketing presentations made to premier recruits on the licensing fees that they are guaranteed if they sign with one or the other — and of course, Oregon will be a player.
LikeLike
Good find Brian.
But as cc says, there has been a huge increase in NCAA membership from the NAIA. There also have been a number of commuter schools add sports programs-for example, just in the Atlanta metro there are Clayton St. and Kennesaw St. There are several others in Georgia who are new to sports or the NCAA with at least 3 private schools joining in recent years.
In that article of yours it mentions: “Compared to the 1981-82 academic year, the average NCAA school now sponsors approximately two more women’s teams and one less men’s team.”
LikeLike
I couldn’t readily find NCAA membership history, but I did find football.
1981 Division I 187, Division II 121, Division III 189-497 total
1995 Division I 227, Division II 138, Division III 200-565 total
2010 Division I 237, Division II 152, Division III 238-627 total
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Point is there has been an occasional add hear and there, but nothing like the admitting of new members with existing programs, and requiring some adds in order to qualify.”
Your math just doesn’t fit the NCAA’s report.
2011-12:
68 men’s teams dropped
119 net increase in men’s teams
Therefore 187 men’s teams were added
16 MBB teams were added, which basically means 16 schools were added. Did the NCAA add 16 schools with almost 12 men’s team per school? I don’t think so. Multiple schools moved up to a higher division or found more money and added more sports in addition to 16 new additions. At the same time, many schools dropped some men’s teams.
The point is, there was a substantial increase in teams. That’s a good thing, even if the teams aren’t in the sports you happen to prefer. D-I has lost men’s teams as the money devoted to the revenue sports has climbed. But other divisions are adding men’s teams.
“If you really believe losses are not and haven’t occurred I’ve got a bridge to sell. In just wrestling 170 D1 and about 250 programs overall have been dropped since the ’70s.”
So what? Just because you like a sport doesn’t mean the rest of the country agrees. Schools are moving towards other sports (soccer, lacrosse, etc). Wrestling has lost more teams than any other sport. That doesn’t mean men’s sports in general are suffering.
“Gymnastics?”
Maybe the USOC should help fund the sport rather than using colleges to do all the work.
“T&F?”
Both indoor and outdoor T&F have gained men’s teams over the years. In fact, indoor T&F has gained more men’s teams than any other sport since 1988.
LikeLike
bullet,
“In that article of yours it mentions: “Compared to the 1981-82 academic year, the average NCAA school now sponsors approximately two more women’s teams and one less men’s team.” ”
Yes, they have shifted things due to T9 and the rising costs of revenue sports. But as you noted, there are a lot more members now so the total number of men’s teams has increased. Why should I care which school the team is at? Certain sports have suffered, but other have gained. Boxing, horse racing and baseball used to be by far the biggest sports in the US. Times change.
LikeLike
There are a lot more people in the US and in colleges than 33 years ago. The US population was 226 million in 1980. Now its 318 million. Opportunities for male athletes have decreased.
LikeLike
And as cc pointed out, the NAIA lost about 350 schools. So many of the NCAA “adds” were really just transfers.
The study shows 273 I, 190 II and 278 III men’s basketball teams, which is virtually every school with men’s athletic programs, in 1981-2 for a total of 741. In 2012-3, those numbers were 346, 311 and 414 for a total of 1,071. Many of those 330 schools merely moved from the NAIA.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There are a lot more people in the US and in colleges than 33 years ago. The US population was 226 million in 1980. Now its 318 million. Opportunities for male athletes have decreased.”
According to the NCAA, the number of male participants has tracked with population growth for them.
Besides, you start with the huge assumption that the old state was the correct one. Who decided that the number of opportunities for male athletes in the 60s and 70s was the correct ratio? The FB teams used to be much bigger back then. Do we need to go back to unlimited rosters for them?
LikeLike
Well I disagree with your assumption that only revenue sports matter.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Well I disagree with your assumption that only revenue sports matter.”
It’s not my assumption, it’s my interpretation of the decisions of ADs. I don’t want any sport cut, but I don’t see the need for national travel and championship tournaments in all of them. Give the athletes scholarships but play the local schools.
Let pro sports leagues or the USOC pay if they want a minor league system. That isn’t the role of universities. I think club and IM sports can fill the educational role of athletics just fine in most sports.
LikeLike
Apparently the dollars involved in NCAA is enough to siphon the majority of NAIA schools, who are closer to what you seem to favor. Follow many, or donate any to an NAIA school/program?
There is no need, only a desire for championships in any sport. FB can play regionally and locally just as well. And the travel cost savings for a FB team could sponsor another sport or two. The sole justification (for me) to the obscene amounts of dollars in FB/BB is that it helps fund the whole department. If not, then it really becomes a pseudo pro sport in disguise.
LikeLike
Club teams play for national championships as well. Many schools have club teams in addition to varsity teams. For example, Texas has baseball, women’s soccer, men’s & women’s tennis and women’s volleyball as club sports, all of which are also varsity sports. And there are about 30 others, including M&W gymnastics, M&W crew, M&W lacrosse, men’s soccer, men’s volleyball & wrestling.
LikeLike
And lest I forget, the international champion club Quidditch team (yes, people really do run around with brooms between their legs).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Apparently the dollars involved in NCAA is enough to siphon the majority of NAIA schools, who are closer to what you seem to favor. Follow many, or donate any to an NAIA school/program?”
Almost as many as I do NCAA schools.
“FB can play regionally and locally just as well.”
And they used to. Back when conferences were smaller and in one region, and OOC play was against other local schools. The exceptions were bowl games.
“The sole justification (for me) to the obscene amounts of dollars in FB/BB is that it helps fund the whole department. If not, then it really becomes a pseudo pro sport in disguise.”
To me it’s because the money comes from fan interest, and you have to spend money to make money that way. I like that some of the profit is applied to other sports.
LikeLike
Brian:
“And they used to. Back when conferences were smaller and in one region, and OOC play was against other local schools. The exceptions were bowl games.”
FB has traveled, and quite a bit considering the fewer number of games. You might check tOSU results history. From the start of the forties on they had games with PAC schools, B8, SWC as well as some independents.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/OhioState.htm
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“FB has traveled, and quite a bit considering the fewer number of games. You might check tOSU results history.”
I know OSU’s history much better than you do.
“From the start of the forties on”
So that’s a bunch of decades ignored.
“they had games with PAC schools, B8, SWC as well as some independents.”
Some, yes. But most of those games were at OSU, so we weren’t traveling. Pitt is the school we’ve played the most OOC not counting bowls. We’ve also played MO a lot. And MAC teams in the past 25 years or so.
LikeLike
“But most of those games were at OSU, so we weren’t traveling.”
I assumed we were talking about conferences and teams – plural. Traveling occurred even if the game was at OSU.
The thirties had OSU H&H’s with USC, Penn. and NYU, and games with TCU, Vandy and (redacted) at home. Eight game seasons. Played Auburn at Montgomery, Al in ’17 in seven game season. (The first model T’s weren’t a decade old yet. Paved highways were few, and developing in haphazard unorganized fashion) Air travel today (and really since the late fifties/early sixties) makes most any game on the continent as easy as a conference game back then.
LikeLike
And you think OSU is representative of all CFB?
Let’s look at a different example: Ole Miss
I picked them since they are a non-king SEC school, but I had no knowledge of their OOC history.
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/all-opp.pl?start=1940&end=1969&team=Mississippi&sort=g&mingames=0
1940-1969:
They only played a few schools much at all (more than several SEC teams, actually), and all are fairly close.
Memphis – 20
AR – 19
UH – 17
TN-Chattanooga – 12
Everyone else was 4 games or less. There are a handful of northern schools, but most are in TX or the southeast.
LikeLike
So you pick the least traveling school from the least traveling conference?
“And you think OSU is representative of all CFB?”
You said travel didn’t happen except for bowls. I said it did. I didn’t say everyone did.
Try looking at GT, OrSU, SMU, Iowa, Minn, Cal. I’m pretty sure they were involved in significant travel games at a time cross country trips were a week long train ride.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So you pick the least traveling school from the least traveling conference?”
Are they? As I said, I just picked a mediocre SEC school with no advance knowledge of their scheduling.
I just looked at Syracuse (random northeast school), and they largely stayed in their region, too.
It seems like areas with plenty of schools mainly stayed regional except the B10. The P8/10 traveled because they had to. The SWC did so to a lesser extent.
LikeLike
I am a little confused by the ruling. It says schools can now offer compensation in addition to tuition aid (which would presumably mean compensation in addition to the scholarship). However, it says the NCAA can set a limit which may not fall under the full cost of attendance. Does this mean schools can only offer compensation alongside the scholarship to reach the full cost of attendance, or can schools offer the full cost of attendance in compensation on top of the scholarship?
This would introduce some discrepancies between schools with higher tuition and for out of state vs. in-state students.
LikeLike
This is her first foray into NCAA governance. Many have been lost in that quagmire.
LikeLike
She’s been lost the whole time.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11328442/judge-rules-ncaa-ed-obannon-antitrust-case
In a partial victory for the NCAA, though, Wilken said it could set a cap on the money paid to athletes for use of their name and images, as long as it allows at least $5,000 per athlete per year of competition for players at big football and basketball schools.
LikeLike
The camels nose under the tent…
LikeLike
I’m not sure where she is pulling her numbers from. Why 5000? How would one go about changing these numbers, assuming they stick, in the future with inflation and changing economic realities? Is it fair to bind all players to a 5000 per year maximum?
While I agree in general with the ruling, I am just not sure about the specifics.
LikeLike
To reach full cost of attendance … “cost of attendance” to the scholarship student in that sense are costs over and above what is provided by the scholarship.
LikeLike
Boom goes the dynamite?
I am baffled by this ruling.
LikeLike
It doesn’t really matter until the appeals are exhausted. Even then Congress could potentially step in and give an exemption.
LikeLike
I’m not clear on how the judge can arbitrarily come up with a max of licensing revenue of $5000 per year? Isn’t the point of the lawsuit to remove any restraint of trade? How is this within the judge’s scope of setting the dollar limit? Now, the funds players receive while they’re in school as it pertains to cost of attendance is more clear as that can be calculated on a per school basis. But the funds going to a trust from licensing is very unclear to me
LikeLike
The EA Sports settlement initially had $5000 as a cap, IIRC. Maybe that number got introduced into the O’Bannon trial somehow.
LikeLike
Brit Kirwan sees UMD’s move from the ACC to the Big Ten as a step forward
http://m.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2014/08/08/brit-kirwan-sees-marylands-move-from-the-acc-to.html?r=full
Kirwan understands the nostalgia of Terps fans who will miss the ACC rivalries and the tradition that the university helped build during the last 60 years; the University of Maryland was a founding member of the ACC.
“We had this long tradition in the ACC, and there was this sense of tradition and traditional rivalries within the ACC, and for some people giving those up was not an easy pill to swallow,” he said. “As people have thought about it and come to understand the benefits of the Big Ten those feelings have dissipated.”
LikeLike
ESPN’s legal analyst Lester Munson’s take on the O’Bannon ruling.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11329099/why-ed-obannon-ruling-haunt-ncaa
LikeLike
I usually see anti-trust as competition for business. This isn’t described that way, but it is saying the NCAA violated anti-trust laws for labor. Rather than price-fixing, its wage-fixing. Of course, the NCAA argues that its not wages.
I don’t see how her $5,000 limit stands. Even if it stays all the way through appeals, that will be overturned in time. Its an extreme example of a judge legislating.
LikeLike
I don’t like the NCAA’s chances on appeal. I ultimately think congress will have to weigh in. Not sure this makes it all the way to the Supremes.
Also unsure how this 5k will work. Does every D1 school have to abide? Would the NIL revenues be pooled at the NCAA level and be distributed evenly? Or is it the duty of each school or conference? Could a school like Texas use it as a recruiting advantage by offering more than the 5k? Too many questions left open with this ruling.
I am of the belief that there is not much value in NIL except for a few players. The school brands create the value for the most part. It was evident to me when at the B1G luncheon last week. Very little desire for former player autographs versus the head coaches. College is a coaching game and less a players game. For a player on the 3 deep to get paid for NIL seems ridiculous but for me preferable over just the QB’s etc.
Overall a slippery slope but could be much worse and I don’t think the ruling will have a significant affect on fan interest.
LikeLike
“Could a school like Texas use it as a recruiting advantage by offering more than the 5k?”
No, she said the amount could be NCAA capped at 5k…right after she said the NCAA couldn’t set the cap a zero. There must be something magic about 5k.
I find the question unanswered. Can the NCAA and the schools set their own rules, or not? The current answer is yes…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24654805/qa-what-the-obannon-ruling-means-for-the-ncaa-schools-and-athletes
A Q&A on the decision.
Where did the $5,000 number come from?
From the NCAA’s own witnesses and current rules. Wilken pointed out that witnesses at trial — namely former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson and Stanford AD Bernard Muir — testified they would have fewer concerns about paying players if the compensation was capped at a few thousand dollars per year. Wilken noted this range is also comparable to how much money the NCAA currently permits athletes to receive if they qualify for a Pell Grant and the amount that tennis players may receive prior to enrolling.
Wilken’s ruling reflected caution and, perhaps, an incremental step for what the future may bring. (More on that later with the Jeffrey Kessler lawsuit.) Wilken responded to concerns about college players getting hundreds of thousands of dollars. So instead of sending a signal either way on how she feels, she’s letting the market do it for now.
No one has debated the legality of the cap. Wilken seemed hesitant to do too much too soon. Interestingly, Wilken is not saying the cap would be legal under antitrust law. Instead, Wilken made clear her injunction would prohibit any cap if it’s below $5,000 or below the cost of attendance (a figure that will vary by school). For now, it’s basically up to the schools and the NCAA to create a cap at their own peril. That antitrust question got delayed for another day.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1432037.html
Some pitfalls the committee has to watch out for.
LikeLike
One pitfall I haven’t seen mentioned is the small group effect. Basically, you frequently have 2 or 3 people in a group steamroller the rest. This is probably a strong enough group of personalities that won’t happen, but it is a possibility.
I think the discussion is important. That makes for a better decision when you opinions can be challenged. Juries usually do a pretty good job for that reason. They sometimes have the opposite problem of the 2 or 3 steamrolling. You have to watch for getting 2 or 3 ignored and they just keep voting no and you get deadlocked.
The emphasis on “best” bothers me. That’s just another way of saying the “eyeball test.” Which means you think someone looked good when you watched them last week.
LikeLike
And as the article points out with strength of schedule, there is such a small sample size and so few top teams playing each other, its really hard to judge “best.” Its easier to determine who is “most deserving” although there can be differences of opinion on that.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/05/college-football-television-media-roundtable
A roundtable discussion about CFB in 2014 and its media coverage with SI.com writers.
LikeLike
The best read was number 12; ‘Who is your nightmare reporting team?’ I think nearly everyone can agree with that.
LikeLike
I disagree with all of them. Its any crew with Bret Musberger.
LikeLike
I know I’m thrilled he got pushed to the SECN which I will never pay for.
LikeLike
@largeR – Agreed. Any announcing crew with Chris Berman is in and of itself the worst possible team. Adding Lou Holtz and Mark May on top of him?! That would be ESPN saying, “Let’s intentionally put together the worst possible team that would dwarf the historic ineptitude of the Chicago Cubs.”
LikeLike
Look for other ACC schools to take a look at leaving now that the case is over.
This conference is a regional conference with half of the teams in the Carolinas and
Atlanta being one of the few major markets. NO major network to come in the future.
ND only went to the ACC because Swofford bent over and gave them what they wanted
in order to get a football brand. That’s why FSU and Clemson are not happy.
It’s funny. The ACC raided the East twice, killed the conference, and now has become like
the conference they help destroy.
Look for the SEC and BIG to pick the bones off this conference in the near future.
Also, Oklahoma doesn’t need to attached with OSU should they choose to move.
The GOR means nothing for teams who choose to leave. Especially if the grass in greener
in the SEC, BIG, and Pac12.
LikeLike
A bit early to be that deep in the bottle, isn’t it?
LikeLike
djbuck,
“Look for other ACC schools to take a look at leaving now that the case is over.”
Why do you think the settlement would impact other schools? They’ve always known they’d have to pay the full new exit fee. The GoR is still in place, too, so nobody can afford to leave unless they believe they can break the GoR.
“This conference is a regional conference”
Stretching from MA to FL is a large and populous region.
“with half of the teams in the Carolinas”
5 of 15 is not half.
“and Atlanta being one of the few major markets.”
Top 50 media markets – 1. NYC (SU and Duke), 7. Boston (BC), 8. Atlanta (GT), 9. DC (UVA and VT), 13. Tampa (FSU), 16. Miami (Miami), 19. Orlando (FSU), 23. Pittsburgh (Pitt), 24. Charlotte (UNC), 27. Raleigh-Durham (UNC), 36 Greenville (Clemson). 38. West Palm Beach, 41. Harrisburg (Pitt), 43. Norfolk (VT), 46. Greensboro (UNC), 47. Jacksonville (FSU) and 50. Louisville (UL)
“NO major network to come in the future.”
We’ll have to see. There’s been rumors they may get some extra money instead, or ESPN may decide to do it.
“ND only went to the ACC because Swofford bent over and gave them what they wanted
in order to get a football brand.”
Yes, but they got them. That’s better than anyone else managed.
“That’s why FSU and Clemson are not happy.”
They aren’t happy because UF and SC have a big financial edge.
“Look for the SEC and BIG to pick the bones off this conference in the near future.”
The GoR holds until 2027.
“Also, Oklahoma doesn’t need to attached with OSU should they choose to move.”
We will never know unless they actually do it. Politicians can do weird things.
“The GOR means nothing for teams who choose to leave.”
You’re going to have to explain that. They lose all rights to their home games. That means they don’t bring much value to their new home, so the other schools would lose money if the pie is split in more ways. Otherwise, the school will get essentially zero TV money until the GoR expires. There’s a point where the cost may become worth it (2 or 3 years early maybe), but nobody is leaving 10+ years of TV money on the table.
LikeLike
djbuck,
That ship sailed 16 months ago when the ACC signed its GOR. UVA, VT, FSU, Clemson and all the other ACC schools voluntarily signed-on. If the schools were waiting for the UMD-ACC settlement, they would not have signed a GOR. Need to wait a decade to legitimately restart that rumor.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 were to add BYU and CInci as Frank suggested, how do you split the divisions?
East/West?
Cinci
WVU
Iowa State
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
BYU
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
KSU
LikeLike
You’ve just hit on the other reason besides money that the Big 12 won’t expand. Finding divisions that make everyone happy.
LikeLike
For the most part agreed. The one big cavet to that is that we have yet to see a conference deal with the difficult question of divisions before expanding (which you’d think they’d all do, but they leave the tough questions for later). That said, all the teams in the conference know that expansion means the end of annual games vs. Texas and/or Oklahoma for many/all. I don’t think they’ll agree to that unless the TV money is there (which I don’t think it will be).
LikeLike
What if they’re allowed to have a championship without divisions, as the deregulation proposal would allow?
LikeLike
@Andy – It’s an interesting question. If I were running the Big 12, I’d split it the way that you have it here and then assign every school a protected cross-division rival (most importantly Texas-Oklahoma). However, I constantly hear that UT and OU want to be in the same division.
LikeLike
The other complication is that all other schools would want more games in the state of Texas, which would make a North/South split untenable. Its why those schools pushed for TCU’s addition in the first place.
LikeLike
The reality of the matter is College Football Expansion is over until the 2020’s. The two Big Conferences (The SEC & Big 10), can essentially wait until Schools become available that will bring in additional revenue. An obvious example would be Oklahoma for football and say a Virginia or Virginia Tech to add to the SEC “Footprint” (meaning more SEC Network $$$$$$$), or OU and Kansas for the Big 10 (football and hoops). If the day comes that OU, gets AAU Status, I could see the Sooners, leaving the Big XII for the Big 10, but that is years off.
LikeLike
OU isn’t even remotely close to AAU status. Odds are it will never happen.
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with OU’s efforts to improve its academics and research, but as this article notes, there are a bunch of better schools with better reputations and good research that are not in the AAU.
The best OU’s own facts page can claim is that “OU has achieved the Carnegie Foundation’s highest tier of research activity classification, the first time a public institution in Oklahoma has received this outstanding recognition.” (http://www.ou.edu/publicaffairs/oufacts.html). Problem is that highest tier is populated by better schools that are not yet in the AAU.
http://chronicle.com/article/As-AAU-Admits-Georgia-Tech-to/65200/
Bottom line: OU is not getting an invite to join the AAU anytime in the near or medium term, certainly not within the next 20 years (after that, its folly to even guess, due to the many variables at play).
The B1G’s actions would speak louder than words. If Oklahoma is ripe for the taking and the B1G passes for AAU schools, it will demonstrate that AAU membership is as important as B1G leaders have claimed over the years. If the B1G would take OU, then we’ll know that the academic portion of expansion has significantly decreased in importance relative to success and brand name in athletics.
LikeLike
If Oklahoma is ripe for the taking and the B1G passes for AAU schools, it will demonstrate that AAU membership is as important as B1G leaders have claimed over the years. If the B1G would take OU, then we’ll know that the academic portion of expansion has significantly decreased in importance relative to success and brand name in athletics.
Remember that the Big Ten would accept (non AAU) Notre Dame as a full member if they were willing to join. The AAU requirement can be waived for the right school, and the COP/C knows which schools they’re willing to accept.
LikeLike
“The AAU requirement can be waived for the right school, and the COP/C knows which school they’re willing to accept.”
There. Fixed that for you.
LikeLike
Thanks! it may very well be just Notre Dame on the non AAU list, but I would be surprised if it is just ND. I haven’t heard many on here object to Miami (FL) because of academics.
LikeLike
Yes, but Notre Dame is also widely acclaimed academic institution that’s less focused on academic research (until recently, anyways).
Using US News as shorthand, UND is #18.
Forbes has UND as #17.
ARWU has UND in the 201-300 level; OU is in the 301-400 level.
Times Higher Ed ranks UND at #90 worldwide (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking/institution/university-of-notre-dame)
Bottom line, Notre Dame is an exception partly because of its unmatched brand power in CFB, but also because its a top level academic institution overall, despite its weaker academic research rankings. In UND’s case, not being an AAU member does not tell the full story (Dartmouth is also not an AAU member, as it historically has deemphasized the type of academic research that the AAU values. But Dartmouth is undoubtedly one of the top schools in the country).
LikeLike
I don’t know if OU is acceptable or not to the COP/C. They may very well not be. However the same argument about ND could be made for OU:
Bottom line, Oklahoma is an exception partly because of its unmatched brand power in CFB, but also because its a large land grant university, despite its weaker academic research rankings. In OU’s case, not being an AAU member does not tell the full story.
LikeLike
It can be made, just not well.
OU is not in any way unique. Its not anywhere near the brand UND is, and its not an academic peer. There are other, better land grant schools out there.
LikeLike
OU is not in any way unique
OU is unique in that they might be available three or four years before any other candidate. There’s a lot for them to figure out with Oklahoma St and the Red River Rivalry but they are (and Texas) the next big brand that will conceivably be available.
Its not anywhere near the brand UND is, and its not an academic peer. There are other, better land grant schools out there.
Although I agree ND is a bigger football brand, Oklahoma is about as close as you can get to ND. I agree they’re not on the same level academically, but are they close enough to make the cut for the COP/C? Take a look at their US News and World Report rankings (>90, <109):
Auburn
Colorado School of Mines
Florida St
U Denver
UMass Amherst
U San Diego
Binghamton U (SUNY)
Drexel
[redacted]
New Hampshire
Iowa St
Loyola U (Chicago)
NC St.
St Louis U
Kansas
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Its a current Big Ten member and a few AAU schools. IMHO, Oklahoma's academic profile* probably just over the line of acceptable.
*If only they knew the N on Nebraska's helmet didn't stand for "nowlege"
LikeLike
“OU is unique in that they might be available three or four years before any other candidate”
Based on what? B12 GoR expires in 2027, same as ACC GoR.
“Oklahoma is about as close as you can get to ND”
Not for the B1G’s purposes of combining brand power with TV market presence. Many have linked to Nate Silver’s old analysis that demonstrated UND’s strength in urban areas around the country, as week, as having the brand power to get its own national broadcast TV deal. OU is a great brand, in a top tier with Alabama, OSU, Michigan, Texas, etc…, and among the best brands that may be available one day. But UND is on a singular tier by itself.
“are they close enough to make the cut for the COP/C? Take a look at their US News and World Report rankings (>90, <109)"
B1G leaders have repeatedly referenced AAU membership as a requirement, both as a shorthand for academic quality and for internal AAU reasons (strong voting bloc). A non-AAU school would truly have to be both special on the field and have an academic reputation off of it, even if there is no AAU membership. UND is considered by many to be a top school, even if not the research powerhouse like most B1G schools. The B1G would be able to claim with a straight face that UND is a true fit on and off the field. If Dartmouth were an elite national football power looking for a home, the B1G would likely not hesitate to add the Big Green, notwithstanding the school's absence from the AAU–assuming it wanted to expand so far east. Because its Dartmouth.
I also think academically, Nebraska was a tough sell for presidents, and I would not be surprised if any future addition would have to appease academic as well as athletic interests. Presidents want to make money and associate with top academic schools, and I suspect Delany might have had to twist arms, call in favors, and cajole to get all presidents on board.
LikeLike
Based on what? B12 GoR expires in 2027, same as ACC GoR.
The Big 12’s expires sooner. Search for “GOR” in this thread for references.
But UND is on a singular tier by itself.
Which is why I said about as close as you can get. ND isn’t going to be a Big Ten member any time soon (if ever). You can either wait, or get the next best thing.
B1G leaders have repeatedly referenced AAU membership as a requirement, both as a shorthand for academic quality and for internal AAU reasons (strong voting bloc). A non-AAU school would truly have to be both special on the field and have an academic reputation off of it, even if there is no AAU membership.
I’m not disputing any of this, I just see the line for acceptability a little higher than you do. It is very tough to say the legacy AAU schools of Kansas, Nebraska, and [redacted] are acceptable but a school with very similar academic reputation isn’t because they didn’t join the AAU 100 years ago.
I also think academically, Nebraska was a tough sell for presidents, and I would not be surprised if any future addition would have to appease academic as well as athletic interests. Presidents want to make money and associate with top academic schools, and I suspect Delany might have had to twist arms, call in favors, and cajole to get all presidents on board.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t matter. There are not any perfect candidates for the Big Ten. Every school out there (ND included) is going to be a tough sell to somebody.
LikeLike
I stand corrected on the B12 GoR, it expires in 2025.
“Which is why I said about as close as you can get. ND isn’t going to be a Big Ten member any time soon (if ever). You can either wait, or get the next best thing.”
True that UND is not joining the B1G anytime soon, if ever. Dispute if OU is the next best thing. If the strategy is a BTN market focus, OU is not the next best thing. If the strategy is overall football brand, then OU is certainly in the top tier of potentially available schools. Whether OU is the “next best thing” to UND I don’t know if I agree.
” I just see the line for acceptability a little higher than you do.”
That’s fair. Reasonable minds and persons can disagree on this issue. I do set the bar higher based on what I’ve read, heard, and observed from the B1G during the expansion period.
“There are not any perfect candidates for the Big Ten. Every school out there (ND included) is going to be a tough sell to somebody.”
Yes and no. Yes that there are no perfect candidates and that some schools may be a tough sell to some. No in that the comments I read from presidents after UNL was added seemed to indicate that UNL was invited because it was (then) an AAU member with great football, even if it would become the “worst” of the COP/C schools (and soon thereafter lose AAU status), The AAU label allowed presidents to plausible (if not honestly) claim that UNL was an academic peer. No such claim could be made about OU using the stated preferred metric of B1G leaders. As such, absent other, equally demonstrative proof of academic quality, I don’t think presidents will go below UNL for any future schools.
But I will freely admit that its possible that B1G presidents could overlook that for OU. I just discount the likelihood that they actually would.
I do think UND would be an easier sell assuming there was genuine interest from UND at joining. That just does not exist.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Which is why I said about as close as you can get. ND isn’t going to be a Big Ten member any time soon (if ever). You can either wait, or get the next best thing. ”
I think this is a tough discussion to have because the presidents don’t like to speak publicly about what would be acceptable to them. There are rumors that feelers from OU were rebuffed. There are rumors that the COP/C told Delany never to bring a school like NE (academically) to them again. On the other hand, the football at OU is a huge temptation for a league that has lacked CFB power lately. We really don’t know where the COP/C would draw the line between money and academics. We do know they put money and academics ahead of football this last time (UMD and RU).
If I had to guess the COP/C most wanted list, it’s got to be something like this:
1. ND (king with fans all over, especially in the northeast)
2. UT (king in a huge state)
3. UNC (king in a large and growing state)
In other words, I think UT is the next best thing.
LikeLike
If the strategy is overall football brand, then OU is certainly in the top tier of potentially available schools. Whether OU is the “next best thing” to UND I don’t know if I agree.
Outside of the B1G, SEC, and PAC schools the best (IMHO) brands are:
1. ND
2. Texas
3. OU
For any conference, any attempted addition of these schools would be problematic with OU probably the least problematic of the three. IMHO, OU is a longshot to get a Big Ten invite, but is the best brand the Big Ten could conceivably get. I just don’t see ND or Texas ever becoming Big Ten members.
No in that the comments I read from presidents after UNL was added seemed to indicate that UNL was invited because it was (then) an AAU member with great football, even if it would become the “worst” of the COP/C schools (and soon thereafter lose AAU status), The AAU label allowed presidents to plausible (if not honestly) claim that UNL was an academic peer. No such claim could be made about OU using the stated preferred metric of B1G leaders. As such, absent other, equally demonstrative proof of academic quality, I don’t think presidents will go below UNL for any future schools.
I’m wary of reading too much into comments after the fact. For the Big Ten the simplest way to justify UNL’s academics (since they’re not a top 50 school) was to point to the AAU status. If Notre Dame was added, they would point to their high ratings. If Oklahoma was added, they would point to its fit as a large land grant university. I do agree with you, it is highly unlikely that any school outside of the top ~100 will ever be added.
LikeLike
I think this is a tough discussion to have because the presidents don’t like to speak publicly about what would be acceptable to them.
I agree. Unfortunately, it will be over ten years before we find out any of the answers.
There are rumors that feelers from OU were rebuffed.
I saw a report back during the A&M departure saga that Oklahoma approached the Big Ten with Oklahoma St. That was rebuffed. I haven’t seen anything about OU solo. My thinking is OU will do everything it can to find a home with OSU. Without OSU, it will be tough to maintain both Bedlam and RRR and have any variety (i.e. Nebraska, ND, FSU) to their OOC schedule. IMHO, OU will think about going solo only if it is in danger of being left behind.
Also, we’ve also seen the report that Big Ten did its homework on OU, so we know there is some interest.
There are rumors that the COP/C told Delany never to bring a school like NE (academically) to them again.
Those rumors may be right, but we also know that [redacted], Kansas, and OU was considered after the Nebraska add. If they had said that, that analysis would have been a waste of time. Nebraska isn’t MIT, but it is still a top ~100 school that won’t ever be confused for the Lincoln school of Lug Nuts. I expect the COP/C to be snobbish about who they admit, but the top 100 or so, is still pretty selective. Any farther and your options get very limited.
We do know they put money and academics ahead of football this last time (UMD and RU).
That’s one way to put it, but you can also argue that they were also the best two schools* that met academic requirements available at the time. They also just happened to be highly rated.
*The Big 12 had a GOR, ND just joined the ACC and UVA/UNC/Duke weren’t coming.
If I had to guess the COP/C most wanted list, it’s got to be something like this:
1. ND (king with fans all over, especially in the northeast)
2. UT (king in a huge state)
3. UNC (king in a large and growing state)
In other words, I think UT is the next best thing.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I just don’t see any of those three in the Big Ten. The next best thing to ND that I think has an (outside) chance of actually joining the Big Ten is OU. I should have been more clear with my earlier “next best thing” comment.
LikeLike
@Mike – I agree. Of course the Big Ten would love Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, but they might be impossible to obtain. As a result, I’m a firm believer that the Big Ten would add Oklahoma in a heartbeat (regardless of AAU status) IF they could come without Oklahoma State. Similarly, the Big Ten would add Kansas IF they could come without Kansas State. So would the Pac-12, for that matter. The issue is that OU and KU can’t really leave their little brothers behind and, as long as the Big 12 is still considered stable, they can’t necessarily upset the proverbial apple cart. An OU/KU expansion for the Big Ten would have a TON of juice nationally for both football and basketball, and short of adding the entire state of Texas as a market via UT, that may be a larger revenue driver for the B1G compared to simply adding more markets on paper for the BTN when it comes to going to 16 schools. That type of football/basketball combo could turn the BTN into a legit national network beyond what it is today. I salivate at the thought of adding OU to the Big Ten West division for football and then having KU play everyone in the conference for hoops every year.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Also, we’ve also seen the report that Big Ten did its homework on OU, so we know there is some interest.”
Due diligence does not equal interest in my mind.
“I don’t disagree with you at all. I just don’t see any of those three in the Big Ten. The next best thing to ND that I think has an (outside) chance of actually joining the Big Ten is OU. I should have been more clear with my earlier “next best thing” comment.”
I don’t see OU as any more likely than UT, probably less because of their academics.
Possible B12 pairs for the B10:
1. UT/KU – 2 kings with great/solid academics
2. UT/OU – 2 kings but only 1 has great academics
3. OU/KU – 2 kings but with smaller states and weaker academics
LikeLike
@Mike:
Btw, the [redacted] references kill me every time.
LikeLike
A question for Frank,
You say that another conference can not rise to “power conference” status and join the Big 5, which I agree with, but if there is a real effort to only schedule power conference schools could a new conference be created that could have enough clout to be included? Say the AAC and MWC with BYU merge, or the schools that are willing and able to provide for full cost of tuition from the bottom 5 conferences (which would mostly be made up of AAC and MWC) merged could that be enough? As it is between the AAC and MWC there are 18 states represented (including Florida, Texas, California, Pennsylvania and Ohio), thats a lot of potential political clout which would probably be their only life line since the conference wouldn’t exactly be sexy by any means, though they still have some decent teams.
There are 128 BCS teams this coming season, that is probably way too much, but diversity and range is something I love about college football. Teams like Northern Illinois, Boise State can have a shot at rising up. This is a reason I love soccer in Europe, every year a couple of nobodies move up to the top league and have shot at at least staying around for awhile and building some sort of legacy. I would love to see that in the NFL, it would be great if San Antonio, Salt Lake City, or Omaha could start professional football teams and have a shot at moving up to the NFL… now that will never happen as dropping down a division can ruin your franchise, but in college football nobodies can become somebodies and I’m worried that may disappear.
LikeLike
@Zach S. – The history of the old Big East basically says that it’s extremely unlikely to happen. The Big East when it had Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Rutgers and West Virginia was already a “tweener” league compared to the other 5 BCS leagues when it came to revenue and power, and you’d be hardpressed to find five schools in all of the G5 with the collective value of those Big East defectors. That’s why it would still be a tough sell for a “best of AAC/MWC” hybrid to gain much more traction. By the time any schools within the AAC or MWC could rise up to that value, they’d likely get picked off by a P5 league (such as the Big 12). Now, I do think that there are individual schools within the Group of 5 that have power conference credentials. Independent BYU is a power team without a power home. UConn’s basketball program is so dominant that it ought to have power status a la football-challenged Indiana, Kansas and Duke, but it is stuck with the Big Ten and ACC not looking to expand. Cincinnati has great history in a large market and top football recruiting territory, but is at the whims of what the Big 12 wants to do. UNLV is sitting on a potential goldmine in a large market with zero pro sports or P5 competition, yet has been completely inept at football. However, the problem is that none of those schools are headliners that can drive a conference – if blue bloods Pitt and Syracuse couldn’t do that with massive revenue Louisville in the old Big East, it’s hard to see it occurring with a “best of the rest” league.
LikeLike
The other part of the problem is that the “best of the rest” is never really static. You could theoretically make a league of lets say BYU, Boise, Fresno, SD St, Cincy, UConn, USF, UCF, ECU and three others, but there’s no special reason to think that this 12 would be the same 12 that’d be the strongest non-AQ types in five, much less 10, 15 etc. years. Now, maybe if the non-AQ’s totally combined and did some sort of weird promotion/relegation thing where every year it was the best 12 teams in one league, then maybe you could make a case that it might at least be slightly credible on a comparative basis.
But even then you’d have problems:
– you’ll miss the random non-AQ team that catches major fire in a given season;
– the non-AQ’s don’t especially want to join up in one super organization;
– say goodbye to most long term geographically based rivalries,
– if you’re sorting groups of 12 or so every year just by power, you’re doing to get some nasty geographic arrangements with ugly travel situations;
etc.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11338781/ncaa-seeks-clarification-ed-obannon-ruling
The NCAA asks the judge to clarify a few points in her decision.
Attorneys wrote that they want the clarifications to ensure that there are no violations of the permanent injunction Wilken imposed, which allows players at big schools to have money generated by television contracts put into a trust fund to pay them when they leave. Wilken said the body that governs college athletics could set a cap on the money paid to athletes, as long as it allows at least $5,000 per athlete per year of competition. Individual schools could offer less money, she said, but only if they don’t unlawfully conspire among themselves to set those amounts.
LikeLike
ESPN’s CFB pre-season power rankings.
http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11292760/2014-espn-college-football-top-25-power-rankings
By conference.
SEC (7): #2 Bama, #5 Auburn, #9 South Carolina, #12 Georgia, #13 LSU, #18 A&M, and #19 Ole Miss
Pac-12 (5): #4 Oregon, #8 UCLA, #10 Stanford, #14 USC, and #20 Washington
Big XII (4): #3 Oklahoma, #11 Baylor, #24 Texas, and #25 TCU
B1G (4): #6 Ohio State, #7 Michigan State, #17 Wisconsin, and #22 Nebraska
ACC (3): #1 Florida State, #16 Clemson, and #21 North Carolina
Ind: #15 Notre Dame
American: #23 UCF
LikeLike
What a horrible web page.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/tag/_/name/2014-power-rankings-preseason
In the power rankings by conference, the results are different.
NE is ahead of WI in the B10, for example. Duke is #3 in the ACC. TAMU is 10th in the SEC.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1432580.html
Some B10 thoughts and predictions.
LikeLike
written by Pete Fiutak. so many words to say so little.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24658889/big-ten-preview-expert-predictions
Here’s some predictions from CBS.
LikeLike
The SECn is definitely on the right track with the ‘warts-and-all’ approach (if they carry through).
BTN is like watching an infomercial. I’m afraid the SECn is going to leave BTN in the dust, not only in its visual presentation but on the entertainment side as well. I see an extreme make-over in BTN’s future after the SECn’s inaugural season.
LikeLike
I had not thought about it, but, this does not surprise me. As much as I loath ESpin, they are very very good at producing quality, visually interesting TV. That will spill over to the SECn. Sadly, FOX is terrible at those things and the BTN shows it.
As for a BTN revamp: don’t know. the BTN and SECn aren’t really competing against each other. most everyone will have both.
LikeLike
BTN’s Mark Silverman always said that their benchmark was ESPNU. I personally don’t see much difference in production quality between BTN and ESPNU including studio sets etc.. I think BTN does a good job with the live game production (although I understand that is outsourced).
If BTN spent millions on great studio sets I don’t think that is going to affect viewership. If BTN ever decides to grab more Tier 2 content then I think they need to improve their quality. But with their current line up I think they are fine. SECN will have more Tier 2 content.
LikeLike
Overall, ESPN does a much better job than Fox.
LikeLike
Do you feel the same way about the NFL product as well? I can see for college football that being the case although I think the National Fox broadcast is good with Gus Johnson.
The NFL production appears to be fairly similar for all broadcasters. Although I might give a slight edge to CBS. I think FOX has the top ratings for the pre-game show still.(not that I watch)
LikeLike
Haven’t watched that much NFL lately. But there is a noticeable difference in the quality of college broadcasts. Fox doesn’t have a Musberger, but it doesn’t have too many really good people either. And the cameras and replays just aren’t nearly as good.
LikeLike
@Kevin – For the most part, the Fox productions of NFL and over-the-air MLB games have been good and stand up well compared to the other networks. However, I do believe they are noticeably worse at college football coverage compared to CBS and ABC/ESPN. (NBC is “meh” for college football, although that might be the tint of them being Notre Dame-centered broadcasts.) I’m also a little concerned about how Fox will cover some of the new high profile events that they’ll be covering in the near future, such as the US Open starting next year and the 2018 World Cup. Say what you will about ESPN, but their World Cup coverage was spectacular this year. Fox certainly has the money to plow into high production values, so it’s completely their choice.
LikeLike
Well, since we aren’t able to have a lot of Big Ten football teams polled at this time at least we have a lot of women’s volleyball teams polled.
http://www.avca.org/divisions/division-one-women/poll-8-11-14di/
1. Penn State
6. Wisconsin
7, Nebraska
8. Purdue
11. Illinois
12. Minnesota
16. Michigan State
Michigan also received points.
LikeLike
Big 10 went from being a nobody in volleyball to the strongest conference in just a few years, yet somehow can’t compete in baseball (while Maine, Kent St., Wichita St. and Louisville make College World Series).
LikeLike
They’re improved at stick ball the last few years.
LikeLike
They play volleyball indoors. February weather isn’t a factor for them.
LikeLike
@ Frank
I think it is too late for the Big 12 to expand. Louisville and Cincinnati were probably the best adds after the Big 12 had added West Virginia but the Big 12 chiefs waited too long and they went to the ACC. The problem now for the Big 12 is Twofold.
#1 Added schools do not bring added value. No 10 + 2 = 16 type math is available from teams possible
#2 Current schools carry too little value outside of the Big 3 of Texas and Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.
As example, the B1G can build hockey value while the PAC and SEC can build baseball value based on quality as well as quantity. What secondary sports does the Big 12 dominate to fill the non football programing? When you run 24 / 7 / 365 you get a voracious appetite for live programming.
LikeLike
The B12 has no conference network to leverage whatever secondary sport(s) have value. It needs multiple schools inventory to reach a critical mass.
LikeLike
The Big 12 schools sell it separately.
Duffman doesn’t seem to realize the Big 12 had 3 schools in the College World Series and Texas has more appearances than anyone.
Oklahoma St. leads the Big 12 in national titles as they have numerous wrestling and golf titles to go along with cross-country, basketball, equestrian and baseball.
The Big 12 isn’t hurting in the non-revs. 5 different current members have titles in 15 different team sports over the last 10 years (you would add a couple more sports with CU and A&M). Their website shows 552 individual champions, which I could quickly find champs from every school but WVU in the last 3 years. Fox Sports SW has bought that inventory from 6 of the 10 schools.
LikeLike
That’s not leveraging. That’s being divided and picked over for some content. It is decent in the absence of the ability to have a conference network, but not as good for the conference as a whole.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I think we are talking about different things. Nobody denies (and I absolutely admire) the success of B12 members in a number of sports. Point is that other than at UT/OU and maybe KU there is likely little marketable value to them except individual fan base for their own. There is no community value that would benefit the rest of the conference, and would drive demand. Can wrestling, soccer, T&F, etc achieve this individually? Not currently. But the accumulation of sports over the whole conference would make a B12N exponentially more in demand than the limited and differing offerings of individual schools. For me it’d be must have. Im looking foreword to the ESecPN even though I think it increases the motherships influence over college athletics. I’m not going to look for Sooner Network, and I have avoided the LHN so far.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are describing the conference network model. The Big 12 decided not to do that. It chose schools with strong football programs instead of schools with big populations in their states. The Big 12 is simply not set up for a model that depends on a bunch of people who have no interest in you paying a subscriber fee. West Virginia is pretty strong in WV and gets eyeballs everywhere, but its not going to get you on basic cable in Ohio, Virginia or Maryland and probably not Pennsylvania. It gets you on in WV. The Big 12 works better with individual schools working their deals and putting more on Tiers I and II.
LikeLike
“…sounds like you are describing the conference network model. The Big 12 decided not to do that.”
UT decided, and the B12 acquiesced. Those with networks aren’t at any disadvantage in primary contract value.
Nobody expects to get on basic out of footprint immediately, but with OU, UT, KU, and the rest pooled Texas through the lower Midwest would be a lock. I’d think the big ego’s would feel they could easily expand those boundaries with the increased inventory available.
LikeLike
At this point, the basic problem with doing a Big 12 Network is similar to the problem the ACC Network idea had: the relevant/valuable properties have already been sold. The league would have to buy back content from ESPN/Fox in order to start a self-owned network, or ESPN/Fox would have to buy back content from the other (or majorly sacrifice the content they already had) in order to do a joint venture type network. I suppose a third path would be for ESPN and Fox to own a Big 12 network together, but that’d basically be dysfunction junction.
LikeLike
bullet, I think ccrider has a better observation below than yours. Nobody is arguing the value in Austin, Norman, and Lawrence but after that it is not so rosy. You referenced the CWS and not every school in the Big 12 even has a team. You referenced wrestling and golf but that is not where the media will go. If I were to create a pyramid, those sports would be at or near the bottom. Team sports play best on TV and take away 3 teams and most of the value is gone. Sure they added TCU but even then I doubted the football values. How valuable are the Frogs in M or W basketball? How many teams in the B12 have a hockey team? How many have a lacrosse team?
Here is the B12 – current members – in the CWS, Big 3 in BOLD :
Texas (35,6) : 1949 – 2014 // clearly the lead dog in the Big 12
Oklahoma State (19,1) : 1954 – 1999, 1959 was CWS year. 15 years since last appearance
Oklahoma (10,2) : 1951 – 2010, CWS in 51′ and 94′
Baylor (3,0) : 1977, 1978, and 2005
TCU (2,0) : 2010 and 2014
Iowa State (2,0) : 1950 and 1970 (no longer has a baseball team, folded 2001)
Texas Tech (1,0) : 2014
Kansas (1,0) : 1993
Kansas State (0,0) : never been to CWS
West Virginia (0,0) : never been to CWS
The other 4 conferences can leverage up multiple teams across multiple sports. Not the B1g 12, and to get maximum media value you are going to have to reach critical mass. Too many schools are boat anchors and not stars.
LikeLike
Lacrosse? Are you serious? Giant TV sport.
LikeLike
No. A smaller, more regional sport that will be able to create some value through multiple teams (even not so good ones). Individually they would have almost no value until a playoff/championship run, and then only for that period.
LikeLike
And Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. have as many appearances in the CWS as the entire Big 10 (and that’s only if you include Nebraska’s Big 12 time as Big 10). Texas has more. Big 10 has 1 appearance from a current member since 1984. IU’s trip was the first since Michigan in 1984. 4 of the Big 10 members have never been, 5 have been only once, IU in 2013, Iowa in 1972, MSU in 1954 and Wisconsin and Rutgers in 1950.
The Big 10 has only 4 sports with more than one team winning a championship in the BCS era-all giant TV spectacles-fencing, women’s hockey, men’s gymnastics and wrestling (which at least gets a little TV time). The Big 12 also has 4 with 4 fewer teams-football and 3 other TV ratings champs-equestrian, women’s outdoor track and golf. Although volleyball and men’s cross country make it 6 if you count former members.
Your comment about boat anchors just isn’t based on reality. Its based on your personal prejudice.
Don’t think there is really a lot of difference in the sports other than football and basketball in TV value. NHL doesn’t even have a major network TV contract. It had no national coverage for a period of about 15 years. So if the pros are limited in TV value, its hard to see colleges being much more than filling air time.
LikeLike
…Put in proper place…
Bullet:
I think we are talking about different things. Nobody denies (and I absolutely admire) the success of B12 members in a number of sports. Point is that other than at UT/OU and maybe KU there is likely little marketable value to them except individual fan base for their own. There is no community value that would benefit the rest of the conference, and would drive demand. Can wrestling, soccer, T&F, etc achieve this individually? Not currently. But the accumulation of sports over the whole conference would make a B12N exponentially more in demand than the limited and differing offerings of individual schools. For me it’d be must have. Im looking foreword to the ESecPN even though I think it increases the motherships influence over college athletics. I’m not going to look for Sooner Network, and I have avoided the LHN so far.
LikeLike
No one has brought up women’s basketball, which you could argue now trails only football and men’s basketball in fan interest. It’s bigger (both in attendance and in number of Division I schools participating) than men’s soccer, men’s lacrosse, women’s volleyball, wrestling or baseball.
LikeLike
bullet,
My comment about boat anchors was not about prejudice but about actual numbers. Golf and wrestling will not over time build up the audience numbers of baseball and softball. Look at Alan’s post about LSU selling 400K tickets at home. It is not prejudice as you imply but I think an affinity of the american viewing public to prefer team sports over individual sports. I never said football would be replaced by lacrosse but said lacrosse had the capacity to grow their sport and provide content. If it helps lets pick 10 college sports and rank them by overall demand.
1 Football
2 Basketball (Men)
3 Basketball (Women)
4 Baseball
5 Ice Hockey (Men)
6 Volleyball (Women)
7 Soccer (Women)
8 Golf (men)
9 Tennis (Men)
10 Wrestling (Men)
Not saying this is the exact rankings but based on observation and experience it feels like it is at least on the right track. The problem is not that the Big 12 has 3 baseball teams folks might want to see (30%) but that they have 70% of the conference with no real appeal. This is not rocket science and explains why the BTN and now the SECTV will work while the LHN continues to struggle. if it helps, my thoughts on the matter boil down to 2 simple observations :
#1 Can a conference get to critical mass – say 50% interest level – to lift the programing interest as whole at the national level.
#2 Can a conference succeed overall – not just 2 or 3 teams – in a specific team sport to create viewing demand. This should be obvious as folks seem to tune in to watch top level winners for the greatest demand. Folks will tune in across the country to watch Kansas basketball but folks inside the state of Kansas may not tune in to watch Kansas football. Nobody in Kansas may tune into watch Kansas golf or Kansas tennis.
You can argue all day long but it still does not change that fact that most of the rest of the nation will not watch teams in the Big 12 not named Kansas, Texas, or Oklahoma. If they did it seems fair to take the next logical step that the media deal for the Big 12 would not lag behind as it currently does.
ccrider correctly got the point
A smaller, more regional sport that will be able to create some value through multiple teams (even not so good ones).
In the B1G it may be Ice Hockey, in the ACC it may be Lacrosse, in the PAC and SEC it may be Baseball. What can the Big 12 call their own regional sport?
LikeLike
Your assumptions are wrong. Big 12 fans feel the same way about 70% teams of the Pac 12, Big 10 and ACC not really worth being watched. And TV ratings in football show the 4 conferences not named SEC pretty close with the Big 10 only slightly ahead. All 4 way behind the SEC.
As for baseball, the Big 12 is very strong and has lots of interest. Most recent attendance figures I found were through March 25th:
SEC 1-5, 8, 11, 15, 21, 25
Big 12 6, 10, 17, 22
ACC 7,9,16,18
CUSA 13, 14, 23
Pac 12 19, 20
BW 12
MVC 24
LikeLike
bullet, you are still internalizing the discussion. Most of the folks in the USA live on / near the east or west coast. It is not about what folks in the Big 12 footprint watch, it is what the majority outside that footprint watch. Folks outside that footprint will watch Nebraska as they are a brand. The Big Red Thrashing Machine is not rejoining the Big 12 anytime soon. The same applies to the other big state schools that have departed the conferences Texas and Oklahoma were in.
Private schools not named Notre Dame or Stanford are not solid replacements for the departed state schools. Like it or not most of the american viewing public are sheep and familiarity + winning affects their viewing choices.
If baseball becomes a viable sport in the Big 12 (all 10 schools play it and the conference can get more teams in the CWS each and every post season) then content is being generated that will be watched on the east and west coast. That is how you get your media values up. Here are the Big 12 states ranked by population.
#2 TX – now must be shared with TAMU and the SEC
(big drop to rest of conference states)
#28 OK
#30 IA – shared with B1G member Iowa
#34 KS
#38 WV
When the vast majority of your conference footprint sits OUTSIDE the Top 25 it is a problem. This is not me saying the Big 12 has long term issues in keeping up, it is the US population as a whole. Adding BYU and Cincinnati will not fix this problem and staying at 10 will not fix it either. When the Big 12 added TCU and WVU while the ACC added Notre Dame, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse it is not difficult to see how the ACC went up and the Big 12 went down. Before realignment the Big 12 was a strong contender with the SEC for the top of the pecking order. Now they have fallen to the bottom. You can be angry with me for pointing this out but your anger should be directed at the leaders who let it happen.
LikeLike
Duffman;
9 of the 14 Big 10 schools are pretty much nobodies outside the Midwest as far as football. 10 of the 14 ACC schools. With the decline in CU and WU, its 10 of 12 Pac 12 schools.
Iowa has been pretty decent, but they aren’t a brand in football, except in the Midwest. You may feel the same way about Kansas St. and Oklahoma St. but they matter in Big 12 territory.
Again, you have your opinions, but the reality is that ratings for the P2-5 are pretty similar no matter how little you think of the rest of the Big 12. And the competitiveness across many sports is unquestioned. I concede there’s not much lacrosse or hockey, but there’s plenty of strength in spring sports.
Show some facts, not just your opinions.
LikeLike
@bullet – College football TV ratings actually consistently show that the SEC is a clear #1, the Big Ten is a clear #2, and then the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 are next with smaller gaps between them (but in that order). Recall the Nielsen data I posted here a couple of years ago:
http://frankthetank.me/2012/02/27/sports-data-from-nielsen-tv-viewership-for-college-conferences-and-pro-sports-social-media-buzz/
The most recent report for 2013 (which you can download at Nielsen) had the exact same football TV ratings rankings (with the ACC having a wider lead over the Big 12 and Pac-12, but still substantially far behind both the SEC and Big Ten). College basketball ratings also consistently have the Big Ten as a clear #1, the ACC as a clear #2, the SEC and Big 12 have a small gap between them (but in that order), and the Pac-12 a clear #5. There is simply much more depth for the SEC in football, the ACC in basketball, and the Big Ten in both football and basketball compared to the other P5 leagues. You might be correct that Iowa isn’t necessarily the biggest national brand name, but you’re talking about maybe the #6 or #7 football brand in the Big Ten behind Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Michigan State is about on par with Iowa football-wise, and either of those schools would be the clear #3 brand in the Big 12 if you were to move them there (much less the 4 kings in Big Ten plus more noveau riche Wisconsin). More importantly, even the football dregs of the Big Ten bring *something* in the form of large markets and/or solid basketball fan bases. That’s the main advantage that the Big Ten has – there really isn’t any institutional fat. The only states with multiple schools are in Illinois, Michigan and Indiana, each of which dwarf the second highest population state in the Big 12 of Oklahoma. In contrast, the Big 12’s media value is almost entirely summed up by Texas (all sports), Oklahoma in football and Kansas in basketball. Everyone else in the league is either duplicating those flagships’ markets, competing with another more popular in-state flagship (Iowa State vs. Iowa) or bringing in a tiny market (West Virginia) with none of them bringing much national cache. That dichotomy reflects in the objective ratings data that we have seen for many years.
I’m not going to argue about whether the quality of Big Ten football on-the-field has been subpar to the Big 12 over the past several years. That’s certainly a reasonable conclusion from Big 12 partisans. However, the TV ratings, revenue, bowl tie-ins and virtually every other off-the-field metric show that the Big Ten’s only real competition in business and media power is the SEC.
LikeLike
Note that the SEC also doesn’t really have any institutional fat with the exception of Mississippi State. Among the other shared states in the SEC, Auburn has enough national brand name history to bring value despite sharing its home state with Alabama, while Vanderbilt has the academic credentials and a direct physical presence in a major market (Nashville). It’s like a properly diverse stock portfolio – the SEC and Big Ten have such a diverse mix of national brands and top markets that they have multiple ways of being successful even when their biggest names are in down periods. That’s the difference between those two conferences and the rest of the P5 (and why it’s no accident that they continue to make the most TV money, sign the best bowl deals, have commissioners that effectively run college sports, etc.).
LikeLike
What’s truly amazing is how badly the Pac 12 under-performs relative to its potential. Presence in all major west coast markets (and all major markets west of the Rockies except for Las Vegas), some top shelf brands, recent on field success, and yet, its ratings in both football and (especially) basketball are so far below the SEC and B1G. Only WSU and Ore State could be considered institutional fat.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“What’s truly amazing is how badly the Pac 12 under-performs relative to its potential. Presence in all major west coast markets (and all major markets west of the Rockies except for Las Vegas), some top shelf brands, recent on field success, and yet, its ratings in both football and (especially) basketball are so far below the SEC and B1G. Only WSU and Ore State could be considered institutional fat.”
I think there are easy explanations for a lot of it.
1. Colleges in major cities (USC, UCLA, UW, Cal, Stanford, ASU) always suffer do to the large number of alternatives. There are pro teams and other things to steal fans.
2. The west coast culture isn’t as focused on college sports. You don’t have all those non-alumni fans providing fervent support like you do in the SEC or B10.
3. Poor business decisions by the conference left the P12 will minimal TV exposure for decades compared to their success. That makes it hard to get fans nationally.
4. The time zone separation from most of the population in the US means many of the games out west weren’t seen by most fans. Out of sight, out of mind.
LikeLike
To expand on Franks two posts above, I like the fat and lean way he expressed it.
I might go a step farther to use a compliment system and depth at multiple sports.
Using Mississippi State as the example Frank outlined. They are not a football power but the SEC already has several football powers. They are not a basketball power – but they have been good enough to reach the Final Four – so they can at least be a competitor. They do however have a solid baseball program and just announced a new 40 million dollar park they will be the envy of semi pro teams. Now translate that to iowa State in the Big 12.
Cyclones look similar to Mississippi State in football
Cyclones look similar to Mississippi State in basketball
Cyclones do not have a baseball team but Mississippi State has a top level one
Looking at the Big 12 without drinking the Big 12 Kool Aid I just do not see enough balance across enough team sports to get to that compliment critical mass you see in the B1G, SEC, and ACC. The PAC seems to at least have it and may be able to capitalize on it as they develop their network.
LikeLike
@Brian:
Those are the main reasons, yes. But its still striking the extent to which they under-perform. Scott has a lot of work ahead of him to try and undo decades of bad decisions.
LikeLike
Using Mississippi State as the example Frank outlined. They are not a football power but the SEC already has several football powers. They are not a basketball power – but they have been good enough to reach the Final Four – so they can at least be a competitor. They do however have a solid baseball program and just announced a new 40 million dollar park they will be the envy of semi pro teams. Now translate that to iowa State in the Big 12.
Cyclones look similar to Mississippi State in football
Cyclones look similar to Mississippi State in basketball
Cyclones do not have a baseball team but Mississippi State has a top level one
Like many here, you’re ignoring women’s basketball, where ISU is among the nation’s attendance leaders, has won several Big 12 titles and is a regular NCAA participant. Miss State is usually an SEC also-ran.
I should also note ISU finished 38th in the 2013-14 Directors’ Cup, MSU 52nd.
LikeLike
TV times for the B1G-ACC Challenge games
Monday, Dec. 1
Nebraska at Florida State, 6 p.m. (ESPN2)
Rutgers at Clemson, 6 p.m. (ESPNU)
Tuesday, Dec. 2
Pittsburgh at Indiana (6 p.m., ESPN2)
Minnesota at Wake Forest (6 p.m., ESPNU)
Syracuse at Michigan (6:30 p.m., ESPN)
NC State at Purdue (8 p.m., ESPN2 or ESPNU)
Illinois at Miami (8 p.m., ESPN2 or ESPNU)
Ohio State at Louisville (8:30 p.m., ESPN)
Wednesday, Dec. 3
Michigan State at Notre Dame (6:15 p.m., ESPN2)
Virginia Tech at Penn State (6:15 p.m., ESPNU)
Iowa at North Carolina (6:30 p.m., ESPN)
Virginia at Maryland (8:15 p.m., ESPN2)
Georgia Tech at Northwestern (8:15 p.m., ESPNU)
Duke at Wisconsin (8:30 p.m., ESPN)
LikeLike
Random aside, but it was 20 years ago today that the MLB players’ strike began.
LikeLike
@frug – In the alternate universe in my dreams, the White Sox take down a monster Expos team in a 7-game World Series in 1994. I’ll never quite get over that lost season.
LikeLike
How many homer would Griffey have had that year…?
LikeLike
Matt Williams actually lead the majors and was ahead of Maris’ pace when the strike occurred.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11313564/mlb-1994-baseball-strike-effect-tony-gwynn-matt-williams-montreal-expos
This article actually discusses Williams chase of the home run record, Gwynn’s run at .400 and the Expos’ miracle season.
What’s really amazing though is that I think the real story was Greg Maddux. When the strike hit had a 1.56 ERA and had already thrown 202 IP and 10 complete games. Projected out to a full year, that is probably the greatest pitching season in MLB history. And while he might have slowed down given another 10 starts, the fact he was basically just as good (if not a little better) in 1995 means there is no guarantee he would have.
LikeLike
I’ll show my age.
How can you not know about Bob Gibson?
1968 22-9 1.12 ERA, 34 starts, 28 CG, 13 shutouts, 268 strikeouts
He (and a few others) were a reason the mound got lowered.
LikeLike
Nolan Ryan also had a great strike season in 1981. Didn’t get any run support, so he was only 11-5 in 21 starts. 1.69 ERA in 149 IP with 140 SO. Had 5 CG and 3 shutouts.
LikeLike
Gibson 1968 ERA+: 258
Maddux 1994 ERA+: 271
Maddux 1995 ERA+: 260
Gibson did have 11.2 war, while Maddux’s was 8.5 when the season was halted. Maddux may have caught him, maybe not.
LikeLike
As a Braves’ fan I always assumed the Braves would have gone 38-10 down the stretch, beat out the Expos for the NL East title and then one the first of back to back World Series.
LikeLike
TNT helped create Braves fans country wide.
LikeLike
I fear in that alternate universe Washington still would be deprived of baseball, waiting for Cuban Pete to kick the bucket.
LikeLike
The Reds got the shaft in both the 81 and 94 strikes. They lead their division in 1994 and had the best record in baseball in 1981 but didn’t even make the playoffs. 1981 was the year where they had split seasons and had not only unbalanced schedules, the teams didn’t even play the same number of games.
LikeLike
And how about that?
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11354603/rob-manfred-voted-next-mlb-commissioner
20 years later the man who single most responsible for the strike is elected the new commissioner.
LikeLike
Whoops.
Meant to say
“20 years later the man who was single most responsible for the strike is not elected the new commissioner.”
Tom Werner, who had the backing of Jerry Reinsdorf and a few others, was the primary engineer of the strike.
LikeLike
@frug – As a White Sox and Bulls fan, it really irks me that Jerry Reinsdorf has openly been out to “break the union”. I’m actually someone that thinks Reinsdorf has been a good owner overall, but he’s totally off base on thinking that MLB should go anywhere near the days of labor fights every couple of years. What’s even more perplexing is that Reinsdorf is personally closer to Bud Selig than any other owner, yet Jerry publicly led the charge against Bud’s preferred successor.
I noted on Twitter that I long for the day when there will be a Chicago owner that actually treats his/her team like it’s located in the nation’s third largest market as opposed to a low cost mom-and-pop operation. Ironically, Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz, who is the son of the late Bill Wirtz that was named the very worst owner in all of pro sports by ESPN a few years ago, has turned out to be the one guy that actually attempts to treat his team as if it’s in a big market. (That being said, it’s a little easier to do with the hard NHL salary cap level.)
Regardless, I’ve got a whole laundry list of MLB issues for Rob Manfred to tackle! He has quite a bit of work to do.
LikeLike
Frank,
As an owner, I think Reinsdorf is right to want to break the union. The MLBPA is by far the strongest union in pro sports and they do their very best to destroy the game. If MLB broke the union, Reinsdorf would make more money.
LikeLike
@Brian – It’s not so much that taking on the union in of itself is bad if it’s necessary (as it may very well be necessary for a lot of businesses). There are unions out there that are demanding that their workers get higher salaries than what they would otherwise receive in the free market. That’s unsustainable for a business in the long-term and they are more than economically justified to fight them. However, the MLBPA (and, for that matter, the other pro sports unions) isn’t in that camp. They’re pushing back against owner measures to suppress salaries compared to what they would otherwise receive in the free market (i.e. salary caps, revenue sharing between large market and small market franchises, luxury tax payments, etc.). Mike’s example of LeBron James is a great one – $21 million is a great deal of money in a vacuum, but the fact of the matter is that he’s VASTLY underpaid compared to what he would have otherwise received in a true free market structure. If my mere presence adds several hundred million dollars to the franchise value of the Cavaliers, Indians or Browns (which we have seen with LeBron in particular in both Cleveland and Miami), it’s completely in line with free market principles for me to receive a significantly large cut of that money. MLB players see how even the very best superstars in the NFL and NBA (all of whom have vastly higher Q ratings with the American public than anyone in MLB) have artificially low salaries and rightfully don’t want anything to do with salary caps. I have a lot of issues with how MLB is run these days (and I could do an entire series of posts these days), but I won’t ever complain about player salaries. The owners are making hundreds of millions of dollars off of players with very unique irreplaceable skillsets (which should be contrasted with unions in other industries that might be taking inefficient market measures to protect people with very replaceable skillsets at high costs) – there shouldn’t be any limit to how much those players make.
LikeLike
@Frank – Its not too late to join the north side of the force.
LikeLike
@Brian –
The MLBPA is by far the strongest union in pro sports and they do their very best to destroy the game.
The MLBPA may be the strongest union period. I know there isn’t much love for unions in this country anymore, but I can’t see how they’re doing their best to destroy the game. The MLBPA has a vested interest in baseball’s success.
If MLB broke the union, Reinsdorf would make more money.
The costs of breaking the union may be so high, that in the end he may make less money. The reason the MLBPA is so strong is that their middle and upper tier players have played or expect to play so long that they’re not willing to accept (unlike the NBA and NFL players) league friendly deals. They know they can hold out for a fair (or at least fairer) deal. I have no problem with players getting the best deal that they can. It is an absolute crime that LeBron James only makes 21 million (IIRC) and the NBA and Cavs get to pocket everything up what his salary should be.
LikeLike
” It is an absolute crime that LeBron James only makes 21 million (IIRC) and the NBA and Cavs get to pocket everything up what his salary should be.”
I dunno if LeBron is the best example. His salary might be lower than what it could be in uncapped free agency, but he gets 2x his salary in endorsement deals (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/01/22/lebron-james-endorsements-breakdown-by-the-numbers/).
Not to mention the CBA was agreed to by the players and the owners. Nobody forced the players to agree to a CBA with salary/contract length limits.
The weakest union has to me be the NFLPA. Highest grossing league in the most popular sport in the nation and the players cannot unite to fight for guaranteed contracts?
LikeLike
Mike,
“The MLBPA has a vested interest in baseball’s success.”
No, they have an interest in the current players’ success. They don’t care about the future of the game.
“The costs of breaking the union may be so high, that in the end he may make less money.”
I didn’t say he went about it the right ways, just that he’d benefit if it was broken. I don’t think there’s a practical way to break it now based on how strong it is.
LikeLike
Speaking of Reinsdorf, Murray Chass takes him on:
http://www.murraychass.com/?p=7831
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It’s not so much that taking on the union in of itself is bad if it’s necessary (as it may very well be necessary for a lot of businesses).”
All unions need to be fought tooth and nail at all times. They’ll do their best to bleed the industry dry like a parasite. See the UAW for a wonderful example.
“However, the MLBPA (and, for that matter, the other pro sports unions) isn’t in that camp. They’re pushing back against owner measures to suppress salaries compared to what they would otherwise receive in the free market (i.e. salary caps, revenue sharing between large market and small market franchises, luxury tax payments, etc.).”
I think that’s an unfair characterization. Revenue sharing helps more teams be able to pay their players big money as well as provide more competition which should increase ratings and therefore salaries across the board. Salary caps are similarly aimed at improving competition. The NYY can only employ so many players at once.
“Mike’s example of LeBron James is a great one”
The unique thing about the NBA is their max contract system. The stars get less money so that the rest can get more. Their union agreed to it, presumably because more players benefit from that method than by letting the stars eat up the whole cap. It’s the other players holding down LeBron’s salary, not the owners.
LikeLike
The major league owners deserve everything the MLBPA dishes out to them for there 95+ years of collusion on the reserve clause.
LikeLike
@Brian’s various posts
The MLBPA is by far the strongest union in pro sports and they do their very best to destroy the game.
The first have is unquestionably true, the second is debatable. Yes the MLBPA has done some shortsighted things, but that is just as true (and probably truer) of the owners (more on that in a moment)
If MLB broke the union, Reinsdorf would make more money..
Possibly, but it depends on the cost to break them. The last time the owners tried to break the union (1994) the owners lost $800 million and got no significant concessions from the players.
“The MLBPA has a vested interest in baseball’s success.”
No, they have an interest in the current players’ success. They don’t care about the future of the game.
How is that any different than the owners? Jeff Loria completely obliterated the Montreal Expos, strip mining it for cent he could get in the short term no matter how damaging to the franchise. Then after he sold the team to MLB (at a massive mark up) the league (for reasons that boggle the imagination) let him buy the Marlins where he has done the exact same thing.
Meanwhile, Time Warner cut itself a sweetheart deal on the Braves’ local broadcasting rights just before selling the team completely screwing over the franchise. And just like with Jeff Loria, the other owners (who could have blocked the deal) did nothing because they didn’t want to set a precedent for league interference.
All unions need to be fought tooth and nail at all times. They’ll do their best to bleed the industry dry like a parasite.
Yeah, I miss the good old days when workers didn’t have any rights at all. The Jungle really was a paradise.
See the UAW for a wonderful example.
The UAW made some mistakes no question, but management deserves a huge amount of the blame as well. It was management that insisted cranking out SVU’s and other gas guzzlers and scoffed at foreign car companies that pumped R&D money into hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles because every knows that Americans don’t care about fuel efficiency. Except gas prices suddenly skyrocketed and the Big Three were stuck with a bunch of vehicles that no one wanted to buy.
Really, the US automakers have behaved a lot like the Raiders in their last decade under Al Davis. A small insulated group of industry lifers who are hell bent on running things the same way they did 30 years ago not because it is the best way to do things but because if it worked once it will work again even though the world has changed.
LikeLike
frug,
“The first have is unquestionably true, the second is debatable. Yes the MLBPA has done some shortsighted things, but that is just as true (and probably truer) of the owners (more on that in a moment)”
The idiocy of the owners wasn’t part of the discussion.
“Possibly, but it depends on the cost to break them. The last time the owners tried to break the union (1994) the owners lost $800 million and got no significant concessions from the players.”
Trying to break it and breaking it are 2 different things.
“How is that any different than the owners?”
Where did I say it was different for the owners?
“Yeah, I miss the good old days when workers didn’t have any rights at all.”
Yes, because that’s the exact equivalent of fighting the unions. There is absolutely no middle ground, right?
“The UAW made some mistakes no question, but management deserves a huge amount of the blame as well.”
Yes, like agreeing with the UAW.
“It was management that insisted cranking out SVU’s and other gas guzzlers and scoffed at foreign car companies that pumped R&D money into hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles because every knows that Americans don’t care about fuel efficiency.”
Click to access NADA_Market_Beat_2014_07.pdf
Top selling auto segment now – CUVs by far
2&3. Small and medium size cars
4. Pickups
5&6. SUVs and luxury cars
As a comparison (7/2014 sales numbers):
Gasoline – 1,330,926
SUVs – 106,811
Non-gas/diesel – 55,945
Diesel – 41,237
The auto companies made what consumers were buying, then the recession hit and auto sales died. Seven light trucks are in the top 15 for current model sales, with 3 of the top 4 being American pickups.
LikeLike
The Texas Rangers were something like 10 games (52-62) under .500 but leading the AL West at the time. I think we would have seen the NY Yankees “pushed” into the World Series over the Sox or Cleveland (’94 was the true beginning of the new dynasty) as a way to balance the effect on TV ratings of another Canadian team.
LikeLike
The Rangers had a worse record than all 10 of the AL East and Central teams.
LikeLike
And if we want to talk about great pitching seasons, try Steve Carlton in 1972. He won 27 games for a team that won only 59, meaning that he won almost 1/2 of the Phillies’ games that season, He had a 1.97 ERA, pitched 346 innings with 30 complete games and 8 shut-outs, and had 310 strike-outs with only 87 walks. One of the greatest pitching seasons that I can remember.
LikeLike
According to Baseball-Reference, that year Carlton was worth 12.5 WAR while the rest of the team combined was worth 5.9, meaning he was more than twice as valuable than the entire rest of the team’s roster.
Probably the best individual season by a player on crappy team in any major sport ever.
LikeLike
Nolan Ryan’s 1987 was an odd year. It was his 3rd lowest ERA of his 27 year career at 2.76, easily leading the NL. Also easily led in strikeouts with 270. He went 8-16. The Astros scored 14 runs in his 16 losses.
This article talks about his stats and goes through the crazy stretch of 22 starts where he went 3-12 and where the Astros kept finding ways to deprive Ryan of a win.
http://charesapril.com/2009/08/closer-look-nolan-ryans-perplexing-1987.html
LikeLike
I don’t know if any of this is new news or not.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/b1g-additions-lead-to-richer-iowa-coffers-20140811
Iowa forecasts a boost of nearly $4.44 million in conference revenue to more than $30.7 million for fiscal year 2015, according to documents filed with the state’s Board of Regents. The jump coincides with the Big Ten’s additions of Rutgers and Maryland, which begin play this month.
In a Sept. 22, 2013 meeting of the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors, the group voted to approve amendments boosting increased television rights fees. The changes, which were spurred by the expansion, affect three years of agreements with ESPN (2014-2016) and 14 years with BTN (2014-2027), according to information obtained by The Gazette.
Iowa budgeted $25.455 million from league sources in fiscal year 2014 and received about $26.3 million.
LikeLike
@greg – Interesting find. The jump in conference revenue may not be solely tied to TV rights and the BTN. Remember that the new CFP money will be coming in for the first time this year, too.
LikeLike
I believe Michigan was using over $32 million in their 2015 budget
LikeLike
Frank-
Michigan’s FY 2015 Athletic Department budget released two months ago project conference distributions at $31.982M for that fiscal year. The sources of funds are as follows:
Television: $22.256M
NCAA Basketball Distribution: $3.982M
Football Bowl Games: $4.716M
Other: $728K
The reported FY 2014 conference distribution was $27.045M. The sources of funds for that fiscal year are as follows:
Television: $19.902
NCAA Basketball Distribution: $4.079M
Football Bowl Games: $2.337M
Other: $727K
The deltas between the two fiscal years are as follows:
Television: +$2.354M
NCAA Basketball Distribution: -$0.097M
Football Bowl Games: +$2.379M
Other: +1K
See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-14/2014-06-X-14.pdf
The total conference distributions between the FY 2015 budget and FY 2014 actuals increased by $4.637M.
LikeLike
@ Alan,
I love Box, but the pictures coming out of Starkville look unreal!
http://www.msubulldogclub.com/
Click on the video in the link
LikeLike
duff – if the cow bells pull off that deal, Dudy Noble will not only rank ahead of my beloved Alex Box Stadium/Skip Bertman Field, but also just about every minor league stadium and about six major league stadiums. For their sake, I hope the Bulldawgs make those renovations. That would make for a great road trip every other year.
LikeLike
I heard the budget was 40 million. What was the budget for the new Box? Much of this goes back to the observation of the growth of non football revenue streams. If a media runs 24 / 7 / 365 and continually consumes live / original programming then that has to grow from somewhere. If the SEC schools are generating 20 – 30 million in extra revenue per year they seem to be spending it on more than just football budgets.
Tying back to a long running observation and the future of college baseball and softball as growth areas this seems to indicate at least somebody is heading that way in their long term planning. In short if a school like Mississippi State is doing this, what will the bigger schools be doing next?
LikeLike
duff – LSU’s new Alex Box cost over $40 million. Remember that until Skip Bertman began the LSU baseball program dynasty, Miss State under Ron Polk was the top program in the SEC.
Baseball at LSU makes more money on ticket sales than the men’s basketball team, and sold more than 400,000 tickets last season. That’s more tickets sold than most FBS football teams. The SEC, the Big XII schools in Texas, Florida State and Clemson have shown that baseball doesn’t have to be a money loser.
Baseball and softball can fill up Spring programming on a conference network. The SECN will show 75 baseball games next Spring. The only fans that will get less baseball are LSU fans, as Cox televised the vast majority of my Tigers’ games.
Miss State is also expanding their football stadium to 61,000 with lots of premium seats. The Bulldogs have done a great job with what they have and where they are located.
LikeLike
Can’t they pick up the games not on SECN or elsewhere ESPN chooses?
LikeLike
cc – as of now, the answer is no. Cox is hopeful but not optimistic. They may be available on ESPN3. If so, Smart TV sales will go through the roof next Spring in Baton Rouge.
LikeLike
It sounds like virtually all games not picked up for broadcast on the ESPN family or SECN will be available on the internet through the SEC or WatchESPN apps.
LikeLike
In addition to the broadcast games, every school is supposed to produce a certain number of games to air through the WatchESPN app (SEC Network Plus, I think it’s called). For the fall, SECN officials have said that the schools have already planned to air a good deal more than is required of them. I think this will be a competitive thing, as all schools want as many of their games available in each sport so they can tell recruits how much their family & friends will be able to see them compete.
I would be surprised if LSU doesn’t decide to make producing their baseball games a priority for the digital side. Regardless, LSU fans with computers should see far more conference road games than previously.
LikeLike
Chromecast and other such devices would be hot items if they were to have a special offer next month.
LikeLike
Following up on this:
Check out Texas A&M’s women’s soccer schedule this year: http://www.12thman.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27300&SPID=93233&SPSID=632676&DB_OEM_ID=27300
The only games in the entire regular season that aren’t currently scheduled to be available to someone with a computer are: 1 game vs. Arizona (in Tempe), 1 game at Ole Miss, and 1 game at Arkansas.
If you navigate from that web page to the volleyball schedule, there’s more non-conference away games that won’t be available, but there’s still only 4 conference games fans aren’t schedule to be able to see with a computer (all of them also away).
I’d be surprised if there are many conference baseball games fans won’t be able to see come spring.
LikeLike
That looks like a pro stadium. Miss State fans should be ecstatic.
LikeLike
@Frank: What is your alma mater doing in its endzones?
LikeLike
Those end zones are courtesy of the Nike Swoosh and their rebranding. I like it. The old script was just an orange copy of the 1980s New York Giants helmets (which have long since been tossed for the superior old school “NY” logo).
LikeLike
I dunno, as I look at that and debate taking either the red pill or the blue pill.
LikeLike
Awful Announcing’s multi-part series on Year One at FS1.
Part 1.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/fox-sports-1-lost-the-expectations-game.html
LikeLike
Part 2.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/the-biggest-breakout-stars-of-fox-sports-1s-first-year.html
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank – Question for your SEC Network post. Which network do you expect to pay better on a per-school basis – BTN or SEC Network?
According to this article, by the SEC not owning the network they can include advertisers (such as beer and liquor) that BTN cannot:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/3/4295242/sec-network-big-ten-network-comparison
This article states cable companies will be paying $1.30 per SEC subscriber compared to under $1 for BTN.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx
LikeLike
I’m guessing the BTN will be stronger than the SECN…outside of football season.
LikeLike
Fall = football, edge to SEC but strong 2nd place to B1G by population centers
Winter = basketball + hockey, B1G in 1st, ACC in 2nd, SEC somewhere after that
Spring = baseball, edge to SEC with ACC and PAC after that
Summer = dead space
Looking at it by quarters
LikeLike
Fall-Football
Based on last few years its BIG edge to SEC. Competitiveness 2nd are Big 12 and Pac 12. Big drop to BIG and ACC. Markets and numbers make it a 4 way tie for 2nd.
Winter
Women’s basketball-Big 12, SEC and ACC. Then Pac and B1G.
men’s basketball & hockey-B1G, ACC 2nd, BE and Big 12, Pac and SEC behind
Spring baseball-edge to SEC with Big 12, ACC and Pac all 3 close behind. Then CUSA, Big West, Sun Belt not too far back. Then Atlantic Sun, Southland and a few other conferences. B1G does field teams.
Other spring-Pac with SEC, ACC and Big 12 tied for a distant 2nd. B1G distant 5th.
LikeLike
Winter: B1G walks away with wrestling, the third or fourth biggest income producer for the NCAA because of the finals. B12 second with EIWA and ACC challenging through sheer numbers.
If NCAA wrestling tournament wasn’t held first weekend of march madness it’s strength would be magnified. ESPN has gone from tape delayed excerpt format of finals only a decade age to live coverage the whole tournament. With espn3 every individual match (aprox 640) was available live this year.
LikeLike
Spring does have a cheesecake factor (I’m thinking softball) in which the Pac- and SEC- are clearly miles above the other conferences.
LikeLike
Softball is closer to beefcake than cheesecake.
LikeLike
In addition to softball (which others have mentioned), the SEC also does extremely well in women’s gymnastics. Though it’s only offered by about 7 schools, there have been times when every school in the conference was ranked in the top 25. Schools like Alabama get fairly big crowds for it, and ESPN has televised some regular season matches on ESPN/ESPN2 in the past several years.
The SEC Network will have no shortage of events to choose from in the spring, and that’s ignoring the more niche sports in which the SEC has multiple good teams, like track, tennis, equestrian, and swimming.
LikeLike
Huh?
http://www.rantsports.com/clubhouse/2014/06/23/hot-bikini-pictures-of-former-college-softball-star-jace-williams/#slide12
LikeLike
m(Ag) says:
August 14, 2014 at 10:55 am
In addition to softball (which others have mentioned), the SEC also does extremely well in women’s gymnastics. Though it’s only offered by about 7 schools, there have been times when every school in the conference was ranked in the top 25. Schools like Alabama get fairly big crowds for it, and ESPN has televised some regular season matches on ESPN/ESPN2 in the past several years.
The SEC Network will have no shortage of events to choose from in the spring, and that’s ignoring the more niche sports in which the SEC has multiple good teams, like track, tennis, equestrian, and swimming.
Not sure if you meant to imply women’s gymnastics is a spring sport? While I think some SEC schools average 10K – 15K attendance averages, pretty sure it is a winter sport.
greg says:
August 14, 2014 at 9:55 am
Softball is closer to beefcake than cheesecake.
I take it you have not watched Michigan softball? Some are big but some are not, and quite attractive.
LikeLike
Check out the CA and AZ schools, too. I doubt there are many beefy gals at BYU, Utah, etc.
LikeLike
Josh,
I’ll hedge my comment. Assuming we’re talking down the road (once both have reached a plateau – SECN from being new and BTN from growing the footprint) and ignoring the different business models:
SECN will do better in footprint, but they’ll be about the same in non-footprint regions (B10 has more alumni spread out everywhere, SEC has more FB success). Much of the country will receive both out of footprint in the same sports tier.
The details of the ESPN/SEC deal haven’t been leaked so it’s hard to judge too well (50/50 is the rumor). Really long term the B10 has the advantage of getting full ownership if they want it while the SEC doesn’t.
LikeLike
“The details of the ESPN/SEC deal haven’t been leaked so it’s hard to judge too well (50/50 is the rumor).”
Then there is this from a recent interview of Larry Scott:
“But the commissioner points to a critical difference between his networks and the others.
The SEC handed its channel over to ESPN in exchange for a massive rights fee and the Big Ten entered into a roughly 50-50 joint venture with Fox Cable Networks.
The Pac-12 has maintained full ownership, creating and operating its networks.”
LikeLike
That assumes ownership is worth something. I’m of the opinion that revenue is what is worthwhile, considering odds are you’d never sell your stake in a network anyway.
LikeLike
I was addressing the rumor of the SECN’s 50/50 financial arrangement. My point was a conference comish, who probably has access to better info than any of us is categorizing the SECN as a purchase of rights, just like a T1 contract, but with a dedicated channel to distribute the large volume of inventory. He did describe it as a “massive” rights fee.
To your misguided assumption, they only need half the revenue (above costs) to realize the same income as a 50/50 partnership.
I certainly would hope they won’t be selling the network. That would mean live sports had ended. Or even less likely, sports broadcast (through whatever incarnation) had lost almost all value. T1’s will have lost their value, too. Having your own one means you can decide how you want to use it, without outside commercial owner’s input/insistence. You keep 100% after production costs. You can use it is a way some may feel is not the most immediately profitable manner (they don’t have a stake or a say unless they are a PAC prez). And you can leverage a potentially future 1B entity without selling it.
Will it work out? Who knows. It’s the only example. They chose the tougher path after considering the “safer” options. They judged the rewards greater than the risks. Direction, control, and independence are factors not monetary measured in the short term. It’s the method I favor, but that certainly doesn’t mean other methods may be what others prefer, for whatever reasons.
LikeLike
On the other hand, partnering with a successful, for-profit company like ESPN means they’re probably better at what they do, meaning they’ll probably make more money. Right now, hours before the SEC Network has even started, I turn on my TV and see that on Comcast Bay Area out in California on the mid-tier package I get the SEC Network but I do not get the Big Ten Network. To me that’s a pretty big sign that ESPN knows what they’re doing. ccrider, I know you’re one of the biggest apologists on the planet for all things Big Ten, and that’s fine. I’m a bit of a homer myself, so I understand. But personally I’d bet good money that over the long haul the SEC Network makes quite a bit more money for the SEC than the BTN makes for the Big Ten. Part of that is because of SEC football, but most of it is because of ESPN.
LikeLike
How is my muted criticism of BTN being a partnership and support of an actual conference network (the conference owns and controls it) being a B1G homer? I’m as much a PAC guy as a B1G fan, having been west for over forty years.
As to which method makes more, that depends on what you are looking to gain. I’m not convinced tha wholy owned won’t be able to generate comparable returns (100% of 10 > 50% of 19). But, as I’ve repeatedly said, the benefit of having a strong partner is also the potential detriment of having a differently motivated co-owner. And if Scott is right ESPN is the sole owner of the SECN, which brings us back to what this was about originally. Not which method was better, but what exactly is the nature of the SECN’s financial arrangement.
LikeLike
I suppose the goals I have in mind would be having a successful network with high viewership that provides a lot of exposure for the league and its member institutions, as well as generating the maximum amount of revenue for those institutions.
But maybe to you purity of content is more important than all of those things.
Or maybe you’re just a homer and you’ll defend whatever your favored institutions do regardless.
LikeLike
“I have in mind would be having a successful network with high viewership that provides a lot of exposure for the league and its member institutions, as well as generating the maximum amount of revenue for those institutions.”
Exactly right. But what happens when generating revenue conflicts with wanting to provid exposure in areas corporate for profit partners don’t find as profitable? In one model there is no conflict, only a decision. In another there will need to be negotiations, unless the schools there simply turn decisions over to the partner…adopt ESPN’s goals as their own.
LikeLike
“I suppose the goals I have in mind would be having a successful network with high viewership that provides a lot of exposure for the league and its member institutions, as well as generating the maximum amount of revenue for those institutions.”
That’s the goal of each conference network. The issue is more which business strategy/form is the best way to achieve that goal–a wholly owned conference network (Pac12), a 50/50 split ownership (BTN/Fox), or a partnership on a conference wholly-owned by another network (SECN).
In both of the latter two cases, the non-network partner (Fox & ESPN) will always have a conflict of interest, as the returns from a conference network will always pale to those of a wholly-owned channel (FS1, Fox Broadcast, ESPN, ESPN2). There are legitimate questions, as Alan and others have touched on in the past as to the level of game the SECN will get on a week in, week out bases, as ESPN will very, very rarely prioritize SECN over ESPN/ESPN2 in assigning games to networks.
Further, unlike the Pac Network, both BTN and SECN splits profits between two different entities. If the Pac can get its network to get the same carriage fees in a similar number of homes, it will make about 2x as much as the B1G and the SEC will get from their own networks.
So yes, everyone has the same goal, but there are different means of pursuing and achieving that goal. Yes, the SECN is in approx. 90m homes at launch, and has a reported top carriage fee of $1.40. But does that guarantee the conference will make more than the B1G or the Pac from their own networks? Without firm details on all three networks, such as which cable providers are paying what in the footprint and outside the footprint, we’re simply not in a position to say.
LikeLike
At some point you’re letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. By compromising up front, the SEC has positioned itself for much more overall success. Maybe on some of the details it won’t be perfect, but the overall picture is what matters most.
LikeLike
“By compromising up front, the SEC has positioned itself…”
Undeniably.
“… for much more overall success.”
To be determined.
Would would it be called a compromise?
LikeLike
As in, sharing power with ESPN allowed them access to the considerable power of ESPN and Disney Corp. Yes, the results are to be determined, but so far so good.
LikeLike
There’s no right or wrong. A conference can make money by owning 100% of the network (like the Pac-12). A conference can make money by owning 49% of the network (like the Big Ten). A conference can make money by owning 0% of the network (like the SEC). When it comes to the annual conference revenue number that we see every year, the ownership structure isn’t as relevant as the success of the execution.
However, ownership DOES have a lot of tangible asset value, so it would be a gross misnomer to say that whoever gets the higher rights fee annually must automatically have the best model. Someone asked earlier whether ownership was relevant outside of being able to sell the network. Of course it’s relevant! The valuations of these sports networks are actually extremely high. The Yankees, for instance, recently sold their most of their stake in the YES Network to Fox with the network valued in the neighborhood of $4 billion… which is more than the value of the New York Yankees baseball team itself. So, with ownership stakes, the Big Ten and Pac-12 have equity in billion dollar-plus assets. Think of it as having each Big Ten and Pac-12 school getting around $100 million added to their endowments with the value increasing over time. That (outside of control) is a very direct incentive to have equity ownership. In contrast, the SEC is the equivalent of a very high salary employee of ESPN with a generous profit-sharing bonus, but the SEC Network has an asset value of $0 on their balance sheet. This might not be reflected in the annual conference revenue figures, but having equity in a sports network can bring in some eye-popping asset valuations these days.
LikeLike
And look, the SEC got a great deal if it’s true they’re receiving 50/50 of the profit from the SEC Network. However, there is no question in my mind that the SEC would have wanted a substantial equity stake in the network on top of that. That option simply wasn’t there for the SEC because their TV rights were already committed to ESPN for the next decade. The SEC is effectively getting a large bump in the rights fees that they had already sold off. If the SEC were on the open market, they absolutely would have demanded an equity stake.
LikeLike
Frank, it’s not at all like getting $100M added to the endowment of all of these schools. Those “assets” are tied down and the schools don’t see a penny from them. Unless they actually sell the network, the University of Illinois will not have one penny added to their endowment from their stake in the Big Ten Network.
Would the SEC trade places with the Big Ten as far as media rights? I really don’t think so. I think the SEC sees the value in partnering with the biggest brand in sports. They’re already seeing what that brings with it.
Let’s not forget that the entire reason the Big Ten created the BTN was because ABC/ESPN/Disney didn’t want to pay what the Big Ten was asking. So we already know for a fact that they couldn’t get the deal the SEC just got. Seems like the SEC likes it just fine.
It’s looking very likely that the SEC Network will make considerably mroe than the Big Ten Network. And unless the Big Ten member schools sell of their stake in that network for some reason (which would presumably reduce their annual profit shares going forward), I don’t see any monetary benefit in ownership. Perhaps there’s some content-control benefit, for whatever that’s worth. In that case the SEC just has to trust that ESPN will do the right thing as far as content and advertising.
LikeLike
“Let’s not forget that the entire reason the Big Ten created the BTN was because ABC/ESPN/Disney didn’t want to pay what the Big Ten was asking. So we already know for a fact that they couldn’t get the deal the SEC just got. Seems like the SEC likes it just fine.”
LOL. That was 9 years ago, and the success of BTN is the only reason there even is a SECN. So we don’t actually know as a fact that the B1G could not get the deal the SC just got, because the B1G created the space in the first place that made the SEC’s deal possible.
LikeLike
Alright. Well, just as Frank asserts that the SEC would want the B1G’s deal if they could get it, I would assert the opposite. I think if the Big Ten could get this sweet of a deal with ESPN they would have taken it. They started the BTN because they couldn’t get a sweet deal from ESPN/ABC.
LikeLike
@Andy. What makes you think the SEC deal is so sweet? The Big Ten’s deal is supposedly similar in profit sharing but the Big Ten has a rights fee on top. I would suspect in 10 years the Big Ten’s payout from it’s conference network will be similar or more than the SEC’s payout.
LikeLike
@Andy – Your timeline is backwards. The “sweet deal” that the SEC received back in 2008 from ESPN was specifically because Disney was mortified that the SEC would start its own network like the Big Ten. John Skipper of ESPN has said that it was a bad mistake that his predecessor didn’t offer enough and allowed the BTN to be created. Regardless, ESPN will be paying plenty for the Big Ten first tier rights in a couple of years. ESPN actually has the non-CBS SEC rights at a relative bargain basement price for the next decade. The SEC Network is only allowing the SEC to catch up to the TV revenue that the Big Ten has been enjoying for several years already (until the Big Ten blows those numbers out of the water again with new first tier TV deals in a couple of years).
LikeLike
Also, it’s absolutely ridiculous to think that an equity stake worth tens of millions of dollars or upwards of $100 million is meaningless just because you can’t realize the gains until you sell it. What?! Does that mean $100 million worth of stock is meaningless to a school because they can’t convert it to cash until they sell it? $100 million worth of real estate? A patent owned by the school worth $100 million? I hope that you’re not in finance.
LikeLike
The SEC Network is in more homes at a substantially higher dollar amount per home, and is getting much, much higher promotion than the BTN ever has. Time will tell but it sure looks like the SEC Network will make considerably more money than the BTN. Big Ten schools can hang their hat on “ownership” if they choose to do so, but I don’t see any way they see one dime from that “ownership”, so for all purposes it may as well not exist.
LikeLike
Frank – as I wrote several months ago, the SEC’s priorities have never been ownership. The conference owns nothing, not even the building in which its offices are housed. The conference is certainly interested in money, but its more interested in exposure. All the schools make up for whatever money they may have left on the TV table by required seat donations.
Unless I’m missing something, the main value of any regional or conference sports network is programming. At the end of the SEC/ESPN deal to carry/operate the SECN, the SEC will still own the programming rights. All the SEC schools have either installed of upgraded their media facilities as part of the SECN at their expense. ESPN does own the main studios in Charlotte.
I’m not trying to be argumentative and maybe I’m missing something, but when the B1G/Fox deal expires what will the B1G’s “equity share” include besides future programming?
LikeLike
Alan:
Obviously not Frank, and am guessing as to facilities that fox may have that would possibly revert to the B1G. However your point about media rights is primary. The SECN is a media rights deal that requires p purchaser (ESPN in this case) who then, at a not insignificant profit, resells to a distributor. For the BTN upon expiration a middle man is not required. The network is owned by the same as own the content. Does having a partner like Fox make the network more than twice as valuable? Not that it would happen, but what if ESPN decides to not renew? I did note in another post a couple months ago that the SEC schools were in fact investing in infrastructure that one day could be the foundation of a conference owned network. The possibility (and the reality in other conferences) certainly is an incentive to not lowball bids, or pay enough to prevent another conference network competing in the college sports broadcast arena. (or influence the makeup of that arena. LHN?)
This whole discussion spun off of a mention of the rumored 50/50 split. I noted that the PAC commish had differentiated the SECN from the BTN describing it as a “massive media rights fee” as opposed to a “roughly 50/50 joint venture.”
LikeLike
Alan:
When the Fox-BTN deal ends in 2032, the B1G will become 100% owners of the network.
Should the ESPN/SEC deal end, I’m not sure who owns the copyrights to the old broadcasts or past programming . The SEC would be a free agent though, and assuming it maintains it’s present strength, could realize a substantial price increase from another network (Fox?) who would want to partner in a new SECN.
This assumes cable tv operates as it does now on 20 years. Not a guarantee by any means.
Andy: Look up the Mets and SNY for a lesson in the value of an ownership stake in a network. The Mets have borrowed hundreds of millions against SNY for operating expenses. That’s one way ownership equity is realized-by borrowing against it.
LikeLike
“Not that it would happen, but what if…” LOL @ ccrider. That’s your argument in a nutshell right there.
LikeLike
Wainscott if you honestly believe that the Big Ten is ever going to sell its network to somebody and make billions of dollars then I’ve got a conference network to sell you…
This example with the Mets is 100% irrelevant.
LikeLike
“Wainscott if you honestly believe that the Big Ten is ever going to sell its network to somebody and make billions of dollars then I’ve got a conference network to sell you…”
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are rusty. I was giving an example of how one could monetize an asset without selling it. Stated nothing about my belief of how much the BTN would fetch if sold.
“This example with the Mets is 100% irrelevant.”
Except that its an example of a team monetizing its own channel without selling it.
LikeLike
So you’re excited about Big Ten schools theoretically having a little bit more to borrow against, eh? How much do these schools need to borrow, anyway? They’re already multi-billion dollar institutions with multi-billion dollar budgets overall, and $85-120M in annual athletics revenue and hundreds of millions in athletics assets. Not to mention state governments backing them. You really think they can’t already borrow as much as they would need to without this? How often does a school need to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars for athletics? Because that’s the only scenario where what you’re saying would matter one iota. So again, the argument comes down to “Not that it would happen, but what if…”
LikeLike
Ownership has mattered when adding schools. It has allowed the legacy conference members to get increased distribution payouts during the “buy-in” phase. We don’t know what the terms are for the SECN relative to the SEC. If they truly have a profit split or profits interest they effectively have implicit ownership.
It is more likely that their agreement is set up as a “media rights” deal that pays distributions to the SEC based on profit hurdles of the SECN.
If it was truly a profits interest it would essentially have similar economic rights as ownership. Other than of course buying or selling a present value of their economic interest.
LikeLike
@Andy – I actually think you make some good points here at times and are certainly passionate, but on this particular issue, you’re dead wrong and completely losing any semblance of objectivity. If the SEC were truly on the open market today like the Big Ten was in 2006 (when it made the decision to create the BTN), they would absolutely, 100% have demanded a large equity ownership stake in the SEC Network. That’s what the Big Ten wanted from Fox. That’s what the NFL wanted when it created the NFL Network. That’s what the Yankees wanted when it created YES. That’s what the Lakers wanted when it created the new Time Warner network in LA. That’s what effectively every large market MLB team that has had a new regional sports network deal come up over the past several years has wanted (including the Dodgers, Mets, Giants, Phillies, Red Sox, Cubs and White Sox) and many of them want even MORE equity when their current deals expire (see the Cubs) or are itching for the moment when they have the ability to obtain such equity (see the Braves). A very large rights fee wasn’t good enough for any of those entities – if they were truly on the open market, they all demanded and received equity stakes as a central part of their TV deals.
The issue for the SEC was that their TV rights were already sold off to ESPN, so they weren’t ever on the open market. As a result, they had no leverage at all to demand any equity like every single sports entity that I listed above. You’re acting like the SEC had some type of choice to ask for equity from ESPN and made to the decision to pass on it, which is simply NOT true. They never had the choice at all.
Now, if the SEC truly has a 50/50 profit sharing deal with ESPN, then that’s absolutely a great financial deal for the SEC and kudos for Mike Slive for negotiating that outcome. I’m not disputing that. The SEC will get paid and it’s possible that they may actually make more TV revenue than the Big Ten. However, that still doesn’t mean that they preferred that to having equity, considering that the most valuable sports league (NFL), the most valuable MLB team (the Yankees), the most valuable NBA team (the Lakers) and the SEC’s biggest financial competitor in college sports (the Big Ten) ALL explicitly obtained significantly valuable equity stakes in their respective networks ON TOP of massive annual rights fees when they were on the open market. This wasn’t some type of either/or proposition – all of those entities are getting the massive rights PLUS equity in assets worth billions of dollars. It continues to blow my mind that you consider large equity stakes in networks that are literally worth billions of dollars to be insignificant. This is one issue where your SEC-colored glasses are legitimately getting the best of you. The SEC might have made the best of the options *available* to them, but the point is that the equity option didn’t exist to them in the first place.
LikeLike
” So again, the argument comes down to “Not that it would happen, but what if…””
Its not an argument, its a demonstration of one potential benefit of ownership. Whether or not schools would do it is separate from a mere example.
Only time will tell if full ownership (Pac12), half ownership (B1G) or no ownership and 50% of profits (SEC) will be the most lucrative. Jury is out and will be out for a while.
“So you’re excited about Big Ten schools theoretically having a little bit more to borrow against, eh? ”
Would love to see how listing a potential ownership benefit translates into “excitement”
“How much do these schools need to borrow, anyway?”
I have no idea. I don’t work in university finance.
“They’re already multi-billion dollar institutions with multi-billion dollar budgets overall, and $85-120M in annual athletics revenue and hundreds of millions in athletics assets.”
Billion dollar corporations routinely borrow, especially now with interest rates so low. Apple has $160 billion (NOT A TYPO) in cash on hand. and did two bond sales in the last 2 years totaling almost $30 billion (not a typo).
GE uses short term debt to fund regular expenses because money is so cheap. GE!
So yes, multi-billion dollar institutions with multi-billion dollar budgets are always looking to monetize assets.
“Not to mention state governments backing them.”
Such support is only decreasing. Hence the rise in tuition.
“You really think they can’t already borrow as much as they would need to without this?”
Maybe they could, but this is just another potential asset.
“How often does a school need to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars for athletics?”
Considering numerous schools return some profits back to the university, it would be a means for the school, of which the athletics department is a part, could potentially generate additional returns without raising tuition or begging for state aid that likely isn’t coming.
“Because that’s the only scenario where what you’re saying would matter one iota.”
Not quite.
LikeLike
So in other words, “we know it won’t happen, but what if…”
If you have to stretch your imaginiation into extremely unlikely scenarios to find a benefit then it’s not much of a benefit.
LikeLike
@Andy – It’s not a stretch. The Yankees, for example, sold off their stake in YES to Fox earlier this year for at least a couple of billion dollars. Previous to that, it had the exact same 51/49 ownership structure that Fox has with the BTN. Once again, the Yankees, who are the most valuable sports franchise in the US outside of the Dallas Cowboys, are actually worth LESS than the YES Network. That should tell you how much sports network valuations are these days. Fox and others may very well offer a lot of money to buy out their partners. That doesn’t mean that the Big Ten will accept those offers, but just like real estate, if the offer is so high that you can’t pass it up, then it could happen. The New York Yankees were willing to give up control of their network to Fox for a massive wad of cash, so who knows. At least the Big Ten has that option in its pocket (which, once again, are ON TOP of rights fees as opposed to in lieu of them as you have suggested).
LikeLike
“If you have to stretch your imaginiation into extremely unlikely scenarios to find a benefit then it’s not much of a benefit.”
Just because you cannot comprehend it does not make it “extremely unlikely”.
And I’m not discussing scenarios, just one potential benefit of owning a conference network. There are others.
LikeLike
We don’t know quite what the deal is. I’m pretty sure its not a fixed rights fee. I’ve seen on more than one occasion an AD or president make the comment that they don’t know quite what to budget for the SECN this year. Its obviously some sort of profit deal.
And Texas didn’t get true “equity.” Of course, they do have a 70% interest in profits if and when they reach a certain amount of cumulative profits ($295 million I believe was the figure.
LikeLike
I think you are imagining a difference that isn’t really there.
How much is the SEC Network worth to ESPN in 2035 if the SEC decides they don’t want to renew with ESPN? There’s virtually no value without the conference rights. If you “sell” your share of the network, you are really agreeing to stay on the network for an extended period and simply selling some of your future cash flow.
LikeLike
Frank, it’s one thing for one pro franchise and one owner to sell of his tv rights, it’s another for a collection of 14 state universities to do the same and split the process fourteen ways. Just way more complicated. Its extremely unlikely. And even if it did happen, that would mean the end of the BTN revenue stream for the Big Ten, and it would presumably tie the Big Ten down to the BTN with no option of leaving and zero revenue coming in, otherwise why would Fox buy out the Big Ten’s share? What would be in it for them? And I’m not saying that this ownership stake is in lieu of rights fees. I’m saying that the Big Ten’s partnership with Fox is likely worth a lot less than the SEC’s partnership with ESPN, but because the Big Ten is tied down with this 51% ownership of the BTN with Fox, they aren’t able to shop themselves around and join up with a better partner in ESPN, so they will likely lose out on annual revenue compared to the SEC.
LikeLike
bullet gets it exactly right with his last post. explained it better than I did.
LikeLike
Just a FYI, here in Milwaukee (I have Time Warner Cable) and I am now getting the SECN. It is only available in Standard Definition and not in HD. It is buried near the BTN overflow channels and the PAC12 which its only available via sports tiers.
LikeLike
When someone living in Milwaukee says BTN, is it the Beer Television Network, the Bratwurst Television Network, or the Big Ten Network?
LikeLike
SEC Network is on channel 611 on DirecTV. (BTN is on channel 610.) I have the Choice Package. In my very limited viewing so far, I’ll give credit that it does look like ESPN put some legit production value investment into the network. Studio hosts seem fairly good, although that’s one area where the BTN has been very strong with Dave Revsine and Gerry DiNardo. It would be impressive if the SEC Network actually has a permanent reporter at every school, but I’m not sure if that will be the case or if it’s just a showcase for the first night (as they’ve used some national ESPN and SportsCenter guys for reporting that I can’t see them doing very much).
One thing that I’ve noticed is that the SEC Network will be broadcasting the Kentucky basketball overseas games in the Bahamas this week, which is something that I’ve long wanted the BTN to do with its basketball teams when they take foreign trips. It’s solid summer programming during an otherwise completely dead time of year for a college network that would draw some interest considering the strength of our basketball fan bases.
LikeLike
It would be impressive if the SEC Network actually has a permanent reporter at every school, but I’m not sure if that will be the case or if it’s just a showcase for the first night (as they’ve used some national ESPN and SportsCenter guys for reporting that I can’t see them doing very much).
Seems I read somewhere each school had to make financial commitments to on site as part of the SECN deal so it would appear each school may indeed have a full time local reporter. The more interesting thing is they appeared to be mostly young females so ESPN can cater to the young male audience demographics. If so it was a pretty smart marketing move.
One thing that I’ve noticed is that the SEC Network will be broadcasting the Kentucky basketball overseas games in the Bahamas this week, which is something that I’ve long wanted the BTN to do with its basketball teams when they take foreign trips. It’s solid summer programming during an otherwise completely dead time of year for a college network that would draw some interest considering the strength of our basketball fan bases.
Smart move indeed as it seemed they had some exhibition soccer games pre football as well. With the B1G’s dominance of volleyball last year in the NCAA’s maybe a good move by the BTN would be several exhibition volleyball games in the dead parts of summer to provide some live programming.
LikeLike
…this morning Dan Patrick asked Finebaum who the playoff #5 team will be…
I’m so glad we expanded. It solved any controversy…
LikeLike
Did anyone ever argue a 4 team playoff would be devoid of any controversy?
LikeLike
It was said anyone with legitimate claim to #1 would be included. Now, before the season even begins, a well respected national sports show is already setting the narrative as who will be left out (4 vs 5). The media push to eight hasn’t even waited for the first four selections to promote a speculative problem.
LikeLike
It was created with everyone aware that 4 vs 5 would be the hot debate.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I do think there are natural reasons why the debate is already occurring:
(1) By simple math, at least one of the power conference champs is guaranteed to be left out of the 4-team playoff. A lot of people (including me) have a problem with this because winning your conference is pretty much the only thing in college football that can be solely determined on the field without the use of opinion polls or committees. Teams only have so much control over who they schedule as non-conference opponents, their strength of schedule (as a great opponent one season can turn into a terrible opponent the next season) or where they’re ranked in the preseason, but conference championships are objectively verified on the field. I don’t think there’s a wide desire to give auto-bids to the Group of 5 conferences, but there’s definitely going to be a continual push for expansion of the playoffs to at least include all 5 power conference champs (which naturally leads to an 8-team setup).
(2) There’s also a recency argument since a lot of people recognize that last season would have been a hellish scenario for the selection committee for the 4-team playoff. It was one of those years where determining #1 vs. #2 was actually much easier than determining a top 4. Should Alabama have been let into the 4-team playoff over the Big Ten, Pac-12 and/or Big 12 champs? Was 1-loss Big Ten champ Michigan State more worthy of a spot than 1-loss Big 12 champ Baylor? If you’re talking about choosing the “best” team, should 2-loss Pac-12 champ Stanford have taken the #4 spot since they could have very well been favored in hypothetical matchups against both MSU and Baylor? Ohio State had their one loss in the Big Ten championship game – why did they get docked much more in the rankings compared to Alabama, who didn’t even win their division?
For many years, college football fans were comfortable with the notion of subjectivity determining championships, but that’s simply going to be less and less popular of a position. Fans are generally much more bothered when a worthy team is shut out of a chance for the championship on a subjective basis than letting in an “unworthy” team in once in awhile on an objective basis. As long as the “unworthy” team got into the playoff by some type of objective standard (i.e. winning a conference championship), then that’s a lot more justified in people’s minds.
LikeLike
Completely understand and agree. I guess my complaint is we seem to have drama discussion for the most part rather than sports commentary. They couldn’t even wait for the new system to start, let alone yield results (which very well may have 4/5 issues).
On the subject of broadcast platforms, I’m less and less concerned with the perceived differences in network broadcasts. I am entertained by the sport. The presentation is window dressing. The entertainment wing has coopted sports. Remember when you could watch a play develope in a single camera angle? Now we have personal portrait shots all the time. I understood tha need for some close ups when 19″ TV’s were the norm. But on 48″+ screens? show the play (hint: in involves most of the team). And if I automatically change stations (radio or TV) with first mention of Manziel that’s anything more than describing actual play (again: drama and entertainment promotion).
Sorry to rant. I just want content and competent announcers. I do have a mute button, but then the croud noise is gone.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Personally, I don’t really care about the announcers one way or the other on broadcasts. I roll my eyes whenever I see suggestions that “Getting rid of Announcer X!” is the key to drawing more viewers. If I’m interested in the game, then I’m going to watch that game regardless of who is calling it. However, I very much care about the overall production values – big games should *look* like big events and that takes a lot of capital investment (just like big movies shouldn’t be recorded using iPhone cameras). CBS and ABC/ESPN do a great job on that front with college football, but Fox doesn’t seem to hold up with them. It’s not that Fox is incapable because I think they do a fine job with both the NFL and MLB. This probably matters even more for the second tier games. I feel like the 11 am Central Time Big Ten game on ESPN still looks like a major event because the network provides great production values, whereas I don’t think the same feeling would be there if that same game was on at the same time on FS1. It’s important to sports leagues (whether pro or college) because that absolutely reflects on the perception of their product by general viewers.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“For many years, college football fans were comfortable with the notion of subjectivity determining championships, but that’s simply going to be less and less popular of a position.”
How is this new system less subjective? It’s a group of people in a room picking 4 teams for any reason they want. The end result is just a weakly determined champ of a 4 team tournament (play the games 10 times – how many times does the same team win the title?).
For all its flaws, at least the BCS added a measure of objectivity with the computer polls.
“Fans are generally much more bothered when a worthy team is shut out of a chance for the championship on a subjective basis than letting in an “unworthy” team in once in awhile on an objective basis.”
No, fans are bothered when their team is left out. If it was objective, then they bemoan the lack of subjectivity that humans could bring to make the obviously correct decision. If it was subjective, then they bemoan the lack of objectivity that would have made the obviously correct decision. Fans don’t agree on who is worthy, and plenty of them complain about unworthy teams being given a chance.
“As long as the “unworthy” team got into the playoff by some type of objective standard (i.e. winning a conference championship), then that’s a lot more justified in people’s minds.”
That’s not the reaction I recall to some bad BE champs making the BCS, and that wasn’t a playoff spot.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@ccrider55 – Personally, I don’t really care about the announcers one way or the other on broadcasts. I roll my eyes whenever I see suggestions that “Getting rid of Announcer X!” is the key to drawing more viewers. If I’m interested in the game, then I’m going to watch that game regardless of who is calling it.”
That’s you. Not everyone feels the same way. I will most definitely not watch a game if I hate the announcers. At best I’ll watch on mute, but then your attention tends to wander so I’ll generally just check the score every so often. Musburger drove me away from prime time games and Gus Johnson makes the B10 CCG unwatchable. There is literally nothing I would watch with Berman covering it (luckily he sticks to the NFL mostly).
“CBS and ABC/ESPN do a great job on that front with college football, but Fox doesn’t seem to hold up with them. It’s not that Fox is incapable because I think they do a fine job with both the NFL and MLB.”
I think Fox lacks people in touch with CFB. CFB fans expect something different than fans of other sports and I’m not sure their producers have that feel yet.
LikeLike
Unless it was a Texas or Georgia game or a bowl game, I would not watch with Musberger. And I would really have to want to see the bowl game.
LikeLike
“winning your conference is pretty much the only thing in college football that can be solely determined on the field without the use of opinion polls or committees”
There will still be times we have 2 or 3 teams tied for a division championship (or overall championship, in the case of the Big 12). The tiebreakers don’t necessarily pick the best team.
In fact, I’m wondering what the new tiebreakers are. Oftentimes a 3-way tie was only broken by BCS standings. I remember talk last year that new tiebreakers needed to be added by some conferences, but I haven’t read anything about that during the offseason.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Did anyone ever argue a 4 team playoff would be devoid of any controversy?”
Probably. Lots of people argued that the controversy would be much less.
LikeLike
I don’t recall any arguments that there would be less controversy, only that the nature of the controversy would shift from #1 vs #2 to #4 vs #5.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I don’t recall any arguments that there would be less controversy, only that the nature of the controversy would shift from #1 vs #2 to #4 vs #5.”
The implication (when it wasn’t stated outright) was that the controversy is less important because it’s for 4th place and not 2nd (as with the frequent comparisons to the NCAA tourney and #36 at-large vs #37). That’s less controversy to me.
LikeLike
Are using less in quantity of the controversy or the degree or the controversy? Because you seem to be referencing the degree (4 vs. 5 not the same as 1 vs 2), where I was referencing the quantity (the same amount of debate between 1/2 vs 4/5.
A 4 team playoff was always going to have controversy. Whether you consider 4/5 a lesser debate vs 1/2 is a different issue.
LikeLike
I don’t see how you can realistically separate the two. The amount of controversy increases with the degree of the controversy. If there’s a lesser degree, then fewer people care, people argue less vehemently and there’s less controversy.
LikeLike
But that’s not actually true, as people will fixate on a different aspect just as vehemently. Indeed, the playoff was never designed to eliminate controversy, only to shift it’s focus. That you may not personally think the stakes are as high does not as a result end all debate on 4/5.
LikeLike
Frank: question for your next blog:
IF college football does expand to 8 teams, which is more likely:
a) the quarterfinals being played on the first Saturday of bowl season (either on campus or at 2nd tier bowl sites) , followed by the semis on NYD or NYE and the finals a week to ten days after.
b) the quarterfinals being played on BOTH NYE and NYD, the semis a week or so after that and the finals a week or so after the semis.
My gut reaction is choice “a”. However, I think the public is going to fall in love with the New Year’s binge and want 4 meaningful games over the holiday..not just two.
LikeLike
“I roll my eyes whenever I see suggestions that “Getting rid of Announcer X!” is the key to drawing more viewers.”
Does that sentiment apply to the Hawkeroo?
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/the-10-best-coaches-youve-never-heard-of.html
A little history lesson on coaches.
LikeLike
Tom Osborne was in Bob Devaney’s shadow for decades. Frank Leahy I don’t consider an unknown either. Not sure I would put Fielding Yost in their either.
Dana Bible is well known in the Southwest, but may fit in this list. He was very important to Nebraska, Texas A&M and Texas.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/08/ohio-state-north-carolina-cancel-2017-18-football-series/
OSU and UNC cancelled their home and home in 2017-8. The shift to a 9 game schedule was blamed. UNC replaced OSU with Cal already. The rumor is OSU has a team lined up as well and it will be announced soon.
OSU still has OU in 2017 and TCU in 2018.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/08/14/buckeyes-to-play-oregon-st-unlv-drop-tar-heels/14068553/
OSU added UNLV in 2017 and OrSU in 2018. Presumably OSU will buy a MACrifice to fill out their 2017 and 2018 OOC slates and have 7 home games (OU in 2017, @TCU in 2018).
OSU also moved back their series with BC 2 years, leaving 1 road OOC game in the even years (when OSU has 5 home B10 games) from 2016-2024 and all home games in the odd years (when OSU has 5 road B10 games including @MI).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/11350227/venric-mark-northwestern-set-transfer
Venric Mark is transferring from NW. This after he just said he’d accept his 2 game suspension for breaking team rules.
A news release stated Mark, an All-America punt returner and second-team All-Big Ten running back in 2012, is transferring because of personal reasons to play closer to his home in Houston. Mark learned of his university-issued suspension in June and appealed, but told reporters Tuesday, “There’s no point in pouting. I’m going to embrace it.”
New developments that surfaced earlier this week prompted Mark’s decision to transfer, a source told ESPN.com. He missed most of the 2013 season with leg injuries but received an extra year of eligibility from the NCAA.
…
Coach Pat Fitzgerald added: “We love him, and there is no doubt that we’re going to miss him as both a person and player. But this is unquestionably what is best for Venric and those closest to him.”
How much does this hurt NW this year?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11339820/power-5-propaganda-already-being-spread-college-football-playoff-era
P5 propaganda and fact-checking it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/105234/a-b1g-fight-against-perception-problems
A look at the B10’s perception problem.
LikeLike
FS1 to air a pregame show at midnight on Saturday morning. I’d post a link to the announcement but wordpress does not like Fox links for some reason.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11347961/how-cfb-playoff-committee-learn-past
Objective (based on an ESPN stat) versus subjective (eye test) playoff brackets for the past 10 seasons, and discussions of the issues the committee would have faced.
LikeLike
Of all of those, 2005 stands out at what would have been an absolute dream for the playoff: USC, Texas, OSU, & PSU. The brands, the geographical location and power of each school. The then-beloved Paterno back in the spotlight after a few seasons rough patch, a stacked USC, VY lighting up CFB, and OSU as well. That would have been something.
LikeLike
Issues:
2004 – Undefeated Utah (beat no ranked teams) or 1-loss UT that only lost to #2 OU
2005 – none
2006 – Humans and computers only agree on 2 of 4.
2007 – Humans and computers only agree on 2 of 4.
2008 – 3 undefeated teams left out
2009 – 2 undefeated non-AQs (with impressive wins) versus 1-loss SEC champ
2010 – 1 undefeated, multiple 1-loss champs/co-champs and a 2-loss champ for 2 spots
2011 – none because USC had a post-season ban
2012 – 3 P5 1-loss teams for the last spot
2013 – none
LikeLike
2012-one person’s “eye” test. The mock committee CNNSI put together didn’t even include Kansas St. in its top 8 because of its “bad” loss to Baylor. “Bad” losses seemed to be pretty important to that group.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11353432/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-announces-recusal-policy
The full recusal list is out, plus the committee went through mock exercises of doing the whole process of seeding teams (presumably from previous years).
LikeLike
Mediacom to carry the SECN.
http://secsports.go.com/article/11354530/mediacom-carry-sec-network
“Mediacom Communications Corporation is the nation’s eighth largest cable television company and one of the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities in the United States, with a significant customer concentration in the Midwestern and Southeastern regions.”
LikeLike
From the link above.
“Mike Slive, Commissioner of the Southeastern Conference said, “We are pleased to have Mediacom join the SEC Network in advance of our launch on Thursday. Mediacom customers, which include viewers in seven SEC states, join more than 90 million homes with access to the Network.””
LikeLike
That just leaves Verizon. I’ve heard Verizon should come on board soon.
LikeLike
Now that everybody has a network does anybody have an updated penetration and revenue composite? Say total homes / footprint revenue / non footprint revenue / ad revenue. From observation it seems like the B1G and the SECN will be putting some real distance from the ACC. B12, and PAC.
LikeLike
There are three networks. One a day old that we have no certainty as to its financial arrangement (other than it will make money). One that turns two today. And the one that blazed the trail.
Until the B1G new T1 and payouts from SECN arrive the PAC should be include with, or just behind those two.
http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2014/05/17/big-ten-remains-no-1-revenue/9207957/
LikeLike
If you go by the Sport Business Journal’s reported rate cards, the SEC is making $1.40 per household within the footprint and $0.25 outside of it. Of course they might not be getting the full rates with every provider, but I would bet that they are getting full rate or very close to full rate within the footprint given the rabid SEC following.
The SEC has ~27 million cable/satellite households within their footprint, which implies annual cable rate revenue of ~$455 million from SEC country.
Out of footprint revenue is harder to predict since SECN will be on a premium cable package, but of the ~63 million cable/satellite households (~90 million households with SECN availability less the ~27 million inside the SEC footprint), maybe we assume that half will have a premium package and therefore pay the SECN rate of $0.25 (again, could be less than that, but out of footprint is small potatoes anyways), implying an additional ~$95 million of cable rate revenue, with total cable rate revenue of ~$550 million.
Add in some advertising revenue (1/3 – 1/2 of cable rate revenue?) and you get maybe an additional $180-280 million. So you are at roughly $750 million in total annual revenue.
Now of course that is just revenue and there will be costs to operate the channel. The LHN contract assumed $15 million in production costs and $11 million in overhead. SECN would obviously be higher than that, but it probably wouldn’t be that much x 14 schools.
It has been assumed that ESPN and SEC will split the profits 50/50, but that is just an estimate.
LikeLike
@Tim-
Nice analysis.
Overhead costs are a real wildcard, as I read that ESPN and SEC will each get 50% of the net profits. Take the $750 mil figure, I simply cannot guess how much the net would be. A few years back, the BTN had $242m in revenue and $79 mil in profits (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-network-had-record-revenue-in/article_e05a998c-a390-11e1-99b2-001a4bcf6878.html ). Would a similar ratio be fair to apply here? Factor in not only the hard costs (studios, wiring, school facilities) but also the on-air talent, production costs, and the like. Any accountants on here know of a standard ration for calculating profits?
Also, advertising rates also is a wildcard, as the advertising money pales to that of carriage fees. Especially outside of football.
LikeLike
It’s going to be closer to 100M than 90M within a week or so once Verizon comes on board.
Let’s say pessimistically ad revenue is only 15%, so $690M total. Let’s say, very conservatively, that operational costs are about 40%. So then we’re down to $414M. Split that 50/50 it’s $207M. Divided by 14 is $14.8M, added to the $21M that SEC schools make now gets you to about $36M. The new playoffs should mean at least another $2M per school for the SEC. So $38M is probably on the low end of what SEC skills should get once the SEC Network gets going. High end is probably more like $48M.
LikeLike
@Tim Horton
If you want to do some calculations, the BTN is available in 90 million households but actually subscribed in around 57 million.
Note that not everyone in the footprint will have the channel. These channels aren’t on the very basic package and often aren’t on the 2nd level package. You don’t have to get the sportspak, but you often have to get the 3rd level package.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, I think that “available households” figure that, to be fair, both the BTN and SEC Network have used quite a bit in its press releases and media interviews is quite misleading. Contrary to the bloviations from both conferences, neither the BTN nor SEC Network are actually subscribed in 90 million households (unlike ESPN, TNT, CNN, etc.). It appears to be generally the same setup of a very high subscriber fee within their respective geographic footprints and then a very low subscriber fee and/or relegation to the sports pack outside of those footprints.
Ultimately, all the arguments between the Big Ten people here and the SEC guys like Andy are probably irrelevant in the large scheme of things. The BTN and SEC Network look like they’re getting high fee subscriptions in similarly-sized geographic footprints with similar low fee availability outside of those footprints and, in turn, will likely churn out about the same amount of annual revenue. I do think the equity ownership matters quite a bit, though – there’s a reason why every single sports entity that has had the power to demand it since the creation of YES and the BTN has done so.
LikeLike
That’s right, Frank, wave your hand away dismissively at $1.40 per household vs $1.00 per household in footpring and $0.25 per household vs. $0.10 per household outside of footprint. Basically the same, right? 40% higher and 250% higher, basically the same? Looks like thanks to partnering with Disney/ESPN, the SEC Network will be in more households as well. Like I said, I’m using Comcast Bay Area mid tier and I get the SEC Network, but would have to subscribe to a higher tier and pay another $20 per month to get the BTN.
No, it’s not the same.
LikeLike
Ban the Andytroll, FtT. He can’t be polite even to you.
LikeLike
yep, buckeye, you can’t handle the truth so just go ahead and ban me instead.
LikeLike
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Could this man’s former employer be the first “dropped school” of the P5 Autonomy era?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24656518/jim-grobe-regrets-not-taking-nebraska-job-staying-at-wake-forest
Lots of sour grape in that article by Mr. Grobe.
LikeLike
I thought he sounded more upset with himself than anyone else.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine any school in the P5 will be dropped — but if one does, it will be a small private institution such as Wake that traditionally doesn’t draw well for football, not a public university.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11355980/california-lt-gov-gavin-newsom-wants-athletic-director-contracts-tied-academic-success-rates
CA’s Lt. Governor wants to tie all UC and CSU AD’s contracts to graduation rate and APR. He thinks it should be grounds for termination if they don’t hit certain benchmarks.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24661067/prediction-machine-simulation-florida-state-over-oregon-in-title-game
PredictionMachine.com’s 2014 season predictions (each game simulated 50,000 times):
Semifinals: Florida State 39, Ohio State 27; Oregon 38, Alabama 34
CFP Title Game: Florida State 41, Oregon 34
In the simulation, Baylor misses the playoff as a one-loss Big 12 champion and Wisconsin finishes the regular season with a high win-total but loses to Ohio State team in the Big Ten title game. Bessire has also provided the full list of conference title game results.
ACC: Florida State 42, North Carolina 17
Big Ten: Ohio State 33, Wisconsin 30
Big 12: Baylor (no championship game)
Pac-12: Oregon 45, UCLA 33
SEC: Alabama 34, South Carolina 31
CUSA: Marshall 28, UTSA 24
MAC: Toledo 27, Bowling Green 24
MW: Utah State 29, San Diego State 23
Sun Belt: Louisiana Lafayette (no championship game)
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources–notre-dame-investigating-potential-academic-fraud-that-could-involve-football-players-174318867.html
ND is investigating academic misconduct by 4 FB players (3 starters and 1 reserve). Supposedly a tutor did their work for them (in exchange for sex is one rumor) in 2012, so ND may vacate their wins, and the players are suspended/dismissed/expelled.
LikeLike
This is huge. I’ve heard rumors that it could go back a few years. That is unsubstantiated at the time however.
LikeLike
Interesting calculations about potential SECN revenue. One question: As I understand it, virtually all of what will be on the network had previously been sold in various “rights” packages — which then had to be reacquired in one way or another to assemble the new network. Presumably those former arrangements were generating some revenue which, now that they have been superseded, will be lost. Obviously, the network will be a big net plus for revenue. But won’t there also be some degree of offsetting loss? And does anyone have any idea what that would be?
LikeLike
Maybe the SECN bought back the rights from ESPN. Hollywood (Disney owns ESPN) has always had creative accounting where movies can gross over $1B and still lose money. That is why all the top stars demand a percent of the revenue, not profit. We will not really know how good the SECN deal is for the schools until the SEC announces what they expect the distributions to be and that may not be until they are made, and even then the SECN may not be broken out.
LikeLike
It’s not buying back from ESPN, but the various regional networks. For instance, Florida had a fairly substantial agreement with Sun Sports as Frank pointed out a long while ago. Getting those rights back so you could create the SEC Network definitely would have cost a decent chunk of money.
LikeLike
I don’t see any way the Big12 survives its ‘grant of rights’ period in tact. Not in the age of conference networks. Oklahoma (at least) is going to end up in a network conference within the next few years, and probably WV.
LikeLike
If nothing substantial changes in the landscape, IMHO, it will be a year or so before the GOR expires before we have another “Big 12 missile crisis.” I don’t see anything happening before it.
LikeLike
I agree with you. From what I’ve read,
Oklahoma and Kansas have interest in the BIG and
vise versa. The Gor will mean nothing other than a bigger buyout.
Same goes for being tied to Okie St. That went out the window
when Texas A&M left. Also FOX, knows the money is in the BIG.
LikeLike
If the B1G takes OU and KU, especially after taking NU, and with the way Indiana has slipped academically, then they will no longer have a leg to stand on as far as academic elitism. The B1G will have four schools that would rank below the 6th or 7th school in the SEC.
LikeLike
Any moves now seem moot for the next decade or so. Basically the Big 12 is on double secret probation. If the non Big 3 schools can up their brand status it may survive. If not the top school will be absorbed into the Big 4.
LikeLike
Politically, it will be next to impossible to evict any school from the power 5 conferences. I expect the ACC and Big 12 members left behind will merge into a #4 conference
LikeLike
I expect the ACC and Big 12 members left behind will merge into a #4 conference
Have felt this all along. Even suggested the ACC left become the East division and B12 left become the West division .
LikeLike
LOL. And a 16-team B1G with OU & KU would still have 12 schools above the 6 or 7th school in the SEC. The B1G’s academic superiority over the SEC would remain just the same.
But you’re not bitter or anything. No. Not at all.
LikeLike
Oh, no doubt the Big Ten would still be better than the SEC, but how much does that say? What they’d lose is their claim as an exclusive group of top level academic schools. Instead they’d just be a better academic version of the SEC.
LikeLike
2 of those four schools would still be in the AAU, which is equal to half the amount of the total AAU schools in the SEC.
Outside of Florida and Vanderbilt, the SEC has no academic reputation.
LikeLike
A&M and Mizzou are both AAU. Georgia and Kentucky have decently high research levels. Half a dozen SEC schools are as good as or better than Indiana and Nebraska. Throw in Tennessee, LSU, and South Carolina as schools that really aren’t any worse than Kansas or Oklahoma.
LikeLike
How can that happen? The Big 12 owns those TV rights now for everything except the 3rd tier rights. Buying them back (which is very different than agreeing on exit penalties) could cost a $100 million + if you do it with this much of the contract left.
I think the Big 12 is very underrated. It will do well as a 10 team conference.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Is Austin fighting back?
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2014-08-15/texas-governor-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charge
I kid…sort of. Can’t imaging this ever originating near College Station.
LikeLike
Its a Democrat/Republican thing. Bryan/College Station is pretty conservative and Republican, so it wouldn’t happen there.
Travis County (Austin) has a long history of liberal Democrats going after Republicans on thin ethics charges. Since Austin is the capital, that’s where these things get investigated. This looks like the most ridiculous yet.
I’m no fan of Perry. But indicting him for vetoing a bill? Its hard to imagine they couldn’t get rid of that woman heading the ethics commission given her behavior in jail and afterwards after her DUI (that outrageous behavior is what lead to him veto the bill).
LikeLike
There was a writer in the Atlanta paper-Galloway-talking about what used to be called the Georgia Ethics Commission. They changed to name to the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission. And Galloway said it fit as it had become a place for politicians to attack their rivals by filing frivolous charges. They would file, get headlines and by the time the case was settled the damage was done. Galloway is moderately liberal and was explaining some behavior by the Republican governor to expedite his case. His comment was, Wouldn’t it be nice if it could become an ethics commission again?
LikeLike
I could see vetoing a bill legalizing driving drunk, but I see no association between a bill and public employee behavior. Not saying he can’t veto bills for no reason at all. Glad the author of the bill of rights didn’t get a riding while drunk citation before it was adopted. 🙂
LikeLike
Even Axelrod thinks its pretty flaky.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/16/cruz-backs-perry-calls-indictment-highly-questionable-while-wash-dems-crank-up/
“Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy,” Axelrod tweeted. [Obama’s former political adviser]
Cruz made the same comment I made earlier about Travis County having a history of these politically motivated charges.
When you can get indicted for doing your job in politics, you are going to drive anybody worth having in those jobs out. You’d be left with a choice between two different versions of Rick Perry.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1097657.html
All-time final AP poll points total by school:
1 Oklahoma 995
2 Michigan 943
3 Ohio State 941
4 Alabama 940
5 Notre Dame 932
6 Nebraska 782
7 USC 773
8 Texas 741
9 Penn State 665
10 Tennessee 659
11 LSU 584
That’s a big gap between #5 and #6 (150 pts, 19%), indicating 5 historical superpowers. The gaps between 8-9 (76 pts, 11%) and 10-11 (75 pts, 13%) are also significant.
As it turns out, the top 5 got there in different ways. OSU did it by consistently being near the top, while others were more up and down but with more periods at the top.
Notes:
1. The AP poll started in 1936, or else MI and ND would have a lot more points. Other schools like MN also suffer from having strong periods not count.
2. The size of the poll has fluctuated over the years.
1936-1961 – 20
1962-1967 – 10
1968-1988 – 20
1989-2013 – 25
That’s a lot of teams getting punished for being good in the 60s.
3. The scoring system (1st = 25, 2nd = 24, … 25th = 1) rewards 1 really good year more than consistent success.
4. The final poll came out before the bowls in 1936-1964 and 1966-7.
5. ISU is by far the worst P5 program with only 8 points (tied for #122).
LikeLike
Re: my notes
1. Nothing much anyone can do about this.
2. To correct for the AP poll only having 10 teams in 1962-1967, I looked up the UPI polls for those years. I put their 10 highest teams not in the AP top 10 as #11-20. Below are the added points for each school:
Arizona 8
Arizona State 19
Arkansas 13
Baylor 6
Colorado 19
Duke 12
Florida 28
Florida State 26
Georgia 19
Georgia Tech 15
Houston 16
Illinois 18
Kentucky 8
Memphis State 12
Miami (Fla.) 18
Michigan State 6
Minnesota 12
Mississippi 29
Mississippi State 15
Missouri 32
N. C. State 9
New Mexico 10
North Carolina 7
Northwestern 10
Ohio State 27
Oregon State 17
Penn State 22
Princeton 13
Purdue 12
Syracuse 59
Tennessee 12
Texas Tech 15
Tulsa 18
UCLA 15
USC 18
Utah 12
Virginia Tech 6
Washington 23
Wyoming 11
Adjusted top 10:
1 Oklahoma 995
2 Ohio State 968
3 Michigan 943
4 Alabama 940
5 Notre Dame 932
6 USC 791
7 Nebraska 782
8 Texas 741
9 Penn State 687
10 Tennessee 671
The net result is OSU passing MI for #2 and USC passing NE for #6.
I think the bigger impact is for schools like Syracuse (jump from #44 to #29) and some of the lesser programs.
It would be a lot more work to do the same thing for #21-#25, and the wider time range at 20 teams means fewer programs were punished for succeeding at the wrong time.
LikeLike
here’s a site that has a history on AP polls:
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/total_points.cfm#.U_AqZ0hflCM
LikeLike
Is this the year that Rutgers moves past Villanova? Catching up to Fordham has to be a goal too, eh?
LikeLike
After ISU, the other P5 outliers for all time poor AP poll results were:
SEC: Vanderbilt (19 points)
ACC: Wake Forest (22), Virginia (66)
B1G: Rutgers (40), Indiana (63)
P12: Arizona (46), Utah (75)
All other P5 schools are in the top 64 with KS/KY tied at the bottom (96). Five former majors are in the top 64 from points earned in the 40’s/50’s (Army, Navy), or while SWC members (SMU, Houston, Rice). Boise State and BYU cracked the top 64 from points earned as non-majors.
LikeLike
Re: #3
Another way to look at things is by the total number of final poll appearances (UPI adjusted again for 1962-1967) and the average ranking:
1. MI 57 (out of 78), 9.46
2. OSU 55, 8.44 (was 53, 8.25)
3. OU 54, 7.49
4. AL 51, 7.53
4. ND 51, 7.90
6. NE 48, 9.69
6. USC 48, 9.19 (was 46, 8.25)
8. UT 46, 9.22
9. TN 43, 9.96 (was 42, 8.25)
10. PSU 42, 10.05 (was 40, 8.25)
Of course, this sort of average removes your bad seasons rather than punishing them.
To make up for that, I treated every unranked season as if the team was ranked #30. Based on this, I calculated the average final rank for each team:
1. OU 14.5
2. OSU 14.8
3. MI 15.0
4. AL 15.3
5. ND 15.6
6. USC 17.2
7. NE 17.5
8. UT 17.7
9. TN 19.0
10. PSU 19.3
Unfortunately there’s no way to correct for bias in the poll or to adjust for the bowl games in the pre-70s.
LikeLike
Army and UChicago also suffer by the lack of pre-1936 consideration. (Granted, UChicago wouldn’t anywhere near the top of the list, but it would be on it, which would be some recognition for its once-rich football history).
LikeLike
Well, I just dropped off my son at The Citadel. He’ll also be on the track team. I can’t believe I’m now an empty nester.
LikeLike
When he first showed interest there, did “The Lords of Discipline” pop into your mind for a few seconds?
More seriously, were you concerned about the male/female ratio at all (7% women)? Do you think he’s a natural fit for the cadet life (or maybe he needs it)?
LikeLike
My nephew just started 2nd year down the road at CofC. Do you still have my email?
LikeLike
Brain – he’s wanted to serve our country for years and The Citadel was the only college that he wanted to attend. The Citadel has one of the highest four year graduation rate in the country and as duffman’s nephew would attest, the College of Charleston’s girls more than make up for the lack of girls at The Citadel. Making the track team was an added bonus.
LikeLike
Well all that and they have a cool “social” house on the beach.
LikeLike
Alan,
Good for him. I think cadet life can be a great thing unless you are a bad fit for that lifestyle. If you’re just going to fight it, then you shouldn’t be there.
LikeLike
I grew up in SC. My brother went to CofC and I have vacationed in that town many times over the years. Splendid city. You are right about there being a TON of girls at CofC. The Citadel is no joke, so your son will be well trained. Best wishes to him in the grueling “knob” year. Safe travels back to Louisiana, Alan.
LikeLike
Speaking for myself, I thank your son for his service to our nation.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-college-football-realignment-0817-20140816,0,2485597.story
An article that opines on the aftermath of the last realignment cycle.
LikeLike
A couple of interesting thoughts from a Los Angeles POV.
After years of pillaging, plundering and back-stabbing — some of it during the season! — one of college football’s most distasteful chapters is happily ending.
I’m not sure, but I think he’s anti-realignment.
Conference realignment, which dirtied up an entire decade starting with the Atlantic Coast Conference raiding the Big East of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College, is finally setting in wet cement.
The irony: It took the league that started it to stop it.
The ACC, which somewhat recklessly set off the dominoes when it frontally attacked the Big East, found itself vulnerable after it completed its redesign by adding Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.
The Big Ten countered by stealing Maryland from the ACC with maybe a thought of going after Georgia Tech. The Big 12, decimated by what the ACC started, might have had a retribution eye on Florida State and\or Clemson.
He’s one of the few to say the ACC started things. And he mentions GT as the other ACC target for the B10, not UNC or UVA.
The Big Ten’s gurgling stops after adding Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the former Big East. The Big Ten now has 14 schools, divided into East and West divisions, a huge branding improvement from the fiasco of “Leaders” and “Legends” divisions.
Maryland and Rutgers join the more difficult East division, which includes Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.
This is not Tom Harmon’s Big Ten. Michigan’s home schedule this year “features” Appalachian State, Miami (Ohio), Utah, Minnesota, Penn State, Indiana and Maryland, with Rutgers on the road.
The question is whether any football game at the Big House this year tops the 109,318 who attended an August soccer exhibition featuring Manchester United and Real Madrid.
I agree that MI’s home slate is a little soft this year and that the new division names are an improvement.
Rutgers, really, is Big Ten worthy? And they said pigs would fly first.
He’s not the first to say this.
LikeLike
Since the Rutgers pig is the only P5 school within a 200 mile plus radius of New York City (which includes all of NJ, Eastern PA, etc.), eventually we will see if the pig really can fly. It may never get off the ground, but the potential is there. Only time (maybe a long time) will tell.
LikeLike
“…eventually we will see if the pig really can fly.”
Doesn’t need to to serve the purpose. If it does, that’s gravy.
LikeLike
When the Big Ten realigned the divisions with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers, they also changed the schedule and this year’s game against Michigan State that would have normally been played in Ann Arbor will be in East Lansing for a second year in a row. That’s one reason why the 2014 home slate appears to be a little weak.
Michigan’s home schedules going forward through 2019 will be as follows:
2015 – Oregon State, UNLV, Brigham Young (replacement for Notre Dame), Northwestern, Michigan State, Rutgers, Ohio State
2016 – Hawaii, Central Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Penn State, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana
2017 – Cincinnati, Air Force, Michigan State, Rutgers, MInnesota, Ohio State. UM plays Florida in Dallas, TX to open the season (replacement for Notre Dame)
2018 – Arkansas, SMU, Nebraska, Maryland, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana
2019 – Iowa, Rutgers, Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan has one open slot in 2018 and two openings in 2019. UM AD David Brandon stated early last week that two more home-and-home series have been set up with major programs and will be announced shortly. Will those games take place in 2018/19 and be part of a second-home-and-home non-conference set up? Or will they take place the next decade in the years where no major non-conference games are scheduled (2024, 2027 thru 2029)?
Michigan has home-and-homes with Virginia Tech (2020/1), UCLA (2022/3) and Oklahoma (2025/6). It looks like Brandon is going away from play MAC teams (although Ball State is on the schedule in 2020 via the connection with Hoke) and bringing in Mountain West and American Athletic Conference teams instead.
LikeLike
“they also changed the schedule and this year’s game against Michigan State that would have normally been played in Ann Arbor will be in East Lansing for a second year in a row.”
I also recall reading once that UM specifically wanted MSU at home in years they host OSU so that MSU is never the biggest home game on the schedule. Part of the big brother/little brother instate rivalry thing.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24662082/inside-the-college-football-hall-of-fame-playground-in-atlanta
A detailed piece about the new CFB HoF in Atlanta which opens on Saturday.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24664628/power-and-water-shut-off-huskers-bell-paid-bills-with-bartender-gig
A story intended to make you sympathize with the athletes, but the point I noted is that he had time to work a job just fine to help pay his bills (and his parents are rich, so he could’ve just asked for the money if it was such an imposition to work).
LikeLike
I have no sympathy. $800 a month above school costs? Team meals, per deim travel money. How are the rest of the team managing to keep their lights on?
I don’t go to see a player. I go to see the school’s current team, whoever happens to be in the jersey. The coach actually has a bigger impact over a period of time than any transient playing
LikeLike
Sounds like a money management problem. The one place I do sympathize is the summer. They need to allow the players to take the summer off and not have “voluntary” workouts, so they can get a job and have spending money.
As for the rest, my parents couldn’t help my sister her first year at UK (and we had moved from Lexington) and she tells stories of flipping a quarter to see if she or her cat ate that day. There are a lot of students who struggle a lot more than athletes who are upset because they don’t have money for a midnight pizza. And there are students who work very hard. And there are revenue sport athletes who don’t work very hard at school. That’s one of the prime arguments by Ed O’Bannon.
LikeLike
I’m fine with giving them time off in summer, but I should point out that the other player in the article had a summer internship.
LikeLike
Wasn’t it unpaid?
LikeLike
That was his choice. He could have done something else and gotten paid but he chose to help further his non FB post education career.
LikeLike
bullet,
As ccrider55 pointed out, he chose an unpaid internship. The bigger point is that he had time for an internship over the summer, so it is possible.
People sometimes seem to forget these are young men who often make bad choices about time and money management. They may not have time or money for things the way they choose to live now, but that doesn’t mean different choices wouldn’t change things. They all seem to have plenty of time and money for video games, smartphones, online media, etc.
LikeLike
One of the complaints is that a lot of them don’t have time for it and they don’t have any money to spend.
If they do have the time, proclaiming poverty is just a lousy argument. Especially if they allow scholarships to cover incidentals. Finding a job over the summer is easy for them. The problem is the jobs the alumni gave them sometimes didn’t involve any work.
But that is the sympathy card a lot of them are playing.
Some of them say they don’t care about being a student. There are options, especially for basketball players. Reality is that the overwhelming majority are well compensated. Just because FedEx makes billions, doesn’t mean every delivery driver should make 500k. With a few exceptions, these players don’t have a lot of value when they are in college. Those that do, leave early.
The thing about college sports is that it is not about profit and loss. Neither are pro sports, but they can sell the franchises and make money. So its difficult to say what the fair market value is.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/whatever-happened-georgia-jasper-sanks/ng3hC/
Good article on Jasper Sanks, a UGA running back from the beginning of the Richt era.
He talks about basically being spoiled from junior high and how drugs get pushed onto athletes by dealers at an early age. He got kicked off the team for failing his 3rd drug test. He takes responsibility.
Although he says he likes Saban’s approach on discipline. Saban says he’s never seen a player kicked off a team amount to anything. Guess he hasn’t paid much attention. Auburn’s Cam Newton and Nick Marshall got kicked off Florida and Georgia, respectively, and LSU’s Mettenberger got kicked off Georgia. Randy Moss managed to do it twice, to lose a scholarship at Notre Dame and get kicked off FSU’s squad before landing at Marshall.
Mark Richt took it easy on 4 players who forged checks from UGA earlier this year. He has since had to kick 3 of them off the team for other violations, one an aggravated assault.
LikeLike
I understand going to see the team, but we all are much more likely to go for a great team than a good team, a good team than an OK team, and an OK team than a bad team.
The players pay for themselves for the school many times over because their success is what keeps allows schools to continue to bring in lots of fans for years. If that success slips away, so do the fans (a portion at a time).
LikeLike
The players didn’t hire the coaches, trainers, nutritionists, tutors, create a national sport governing association, arrange games and travel, build large stadiums and staff them, and market all these in order to afford and compete in them at a high level. High enough to improve the players chance at playing professionally, which often is the deciding factor for recruits.
Warning, dumb analogy. But…
Neil Armstrong did not create the interest or importance of Apollo 11. He played a critical roll but was in no way indispensable. He was simply the best choice at the time. He had the benefit of a decade of work by many thousands of people, and hundreds of millions of dollars. He did the job he signed up for.
LikeLike
They didn’t do all that, but all of the people that did got paid market based wages for those jobs. The players in the NFL don’t do all the work either, but the value of their skills are quite high based on the pay they receive (and it’s very conceivable that many on the rookie contracts are undervalued given the set-up doesn’t allow for free access for everyone to negotiate with everyone). Further some of what was paid to others at the college level was indirect attempt to compensate players (like coaches because they are good recruiters and fancy facilities to attract recruits).
I’m a big believer that we need to recognize that student athletes for major football/basketball programs are legitimately both somewhat students and somewhat employees. It’s not one or the other, but both. They are there so the school can achieve a level of success to keep people interested, but they also take classes and are expected to maintain some level of academic success.
Since their role is dual, treat it like a dual role and not like this is some extra circular activity. Don’t pay them, but let them go for the Olympic model where they can get endorsements or secure funding from outside sources (above the table and reported, maybe even not allowed to use till after school).
Note: It should also be noted that many of colleges best athletes, the ones most valuable to so many programs, are ones who will never make it in the NFL. That they are worth millions to a school does not imply they will be worth the same at the NFL level and thus the things they generate money for the most in their entire lives is one thing they will never be paid more than a scholarship and spending money for.
LikeLike
I look at it from the standpoint of other students. Virtually all athletic programs are subsidized by the students. Most football programs are subsidized by the university (obviously they think there are other benefits-donations, higher quality students, etc.). But the point is that there isn’t some huge pot of money that the athletes aren’t getting. Its coming from the students and donors at most FBS programs, including many of the P5. Anything they get isn’t coming out of coach’s or AD’s salaries. Its coming from students and from student-athletes who aren’t football or basketball players, whose programs will be cut.
LikeLike
Not that they will do this, but they ought to look at their APRs and they will probably see that the worst are football and men’s basketball and make freshmen ineligible in those sports.
Then at least in basketball, the ones who have no interest in school will go the JC route or go pro in Europe or the minor leagues. Unlike Frank, I think that will show that its not the players who generate the vast majority of the money. College basketball will be just fine. Top players add, but its marginal overall. Its the competition that is key.
And in that scenario, the NCAA has a more convincing argument that there is an alternative to playing with them and that they aren’t just bringing in employees.
LikeLike
I think they all have finally figured out that some of what they were doing was very problematic. Jerseys with players names, posters of players (as opposed to a poster of the entire team), video games. Those are either gone or they have to figure out a way to compensate them.
They won in O’Bannon on endorsements, although there’s no guarantee that limitation stays. I find it hard to believe the Supreme Court will continue to say they are employees but you can limit what they can do in order to foster even competition. Either its a horse or its not. There may be some other rationale (conflicts with university endorsements), but the judges competitive reasons for limiting these things can’t stand long term.
LikeLike
I get athletic departments being subsidized and if I believed that it was normal students paying for the athletes I’d be against any expansion, but I don’t see it that way at all.
If the football programs were not worth millions to the schools, they wouldn’t be playing at this level. There are a lot of reasons no one is dropping down to FCS and a ton of schools are coming up. While athletic departments as a whole might loose money, the football programs usually make it.
Beyond that, major football/basketball are dollar for dollar one of a schools best forms of advertisement and that’s what the schools treat it as. Colleges send out recruiters all over the country trying to get high school kids to come to their schools. They send out a ton of mail, e-mails, and have big departments for this. After all that though, the name recognition that football provides even at the MAC/Sunbelt level is worth a small fortune. Think about it like this, if you were a high school student and starting a college search, which would check out first, San Diego State or San Diego? Miami (OH) or Ohio Wesleyan? Now major football might not get kids to come to your school, but name recognition means you are a lot more likely to get at least looks.
LikeLike
Eric,
“There are a lot of reasons no one is dropping down to FCS and a ton of schools are coming up. While athletic departments as a whole might loose money, the football programs usually make it.”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24666953/ad-deficit-may-cause-hawaii-to-drop-football
As a counterpoint, HI’s AD says they may drop football.
LikeLike
Fullerton dropped FB about two decades ago over costs, in spite of having just completed an on campus (small) stadium.
LikeLike
This is an incredibly complicated mess.
There are only a handful of players who theoretically have individual name value, independent of the school. How do they get compensated? Say Jameis Winston and FSU have another great season (by the way, I root for FSU (two sons’ alma mater, Wisconsin – oldest son’s alma mater, and RU. Somehow I wound up with a team in 3 of the P5). Winston wins a second Heisman. His name and likeness are worth big dollars – but what about his receivers, or linemen? How much does the offensive right tackle get paid? The tackle who will be a second or third round pick in the NFL draft, but is not a major name, absent being on FSU?
Of the 65 P5 schools are there really more than say 200 players – in all sports combined – who have individual name value?
Does the right guard,who is a better player than the left tackle, get paid more? Are they paid for performance? What about the defensive tackle? Assume none of them are top of the first round draft picks. Payment for performance really does sound like a professional sport.
If they not paid for performance, on what basis?
The real zinger is still Title IX. Does anyone really think that football players and mens’ bball will get money, while the All American woman’s soccer player gets nothing? Based on what – football revenues compared to soccer revenues? Sounds like a violation of Title IX to me.
For that matter, what about the female sprinter who will may make the Olympics, and is a top flight NCAA athlete. She generates zero income, but will she get less than the starting outside linebacker, who is just good enough to start, but will never play at the next level. The female sprinter is a far superior athlete compared to the linebacker, so with Title IX in mind, why should she get less than he?
LikeLike
This is why I favor no direct payment, but let the endorsements/booster gifts happen above the table. They will compensate players closer to their actual worth to the team far more than any set-up the colleges come up with.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“The real zinger is still Title IX. Does anyone really think that football players and mens’ bball will get money, while the All American woman’s soccer player gets nothing? Based on what – football revenues compared to soccer revenues? Sounds like a violation of Title IX to me.”
Not to me, necessarily. The schools aren’t paying the players. The schools are making a trust fund filled by TV revenue, etc and passing the money on to the players.
“For that matter, what about the female sprinter who will may make the Olympics, and is a top flight NCAA athlete. She generates zero income, but will she get less than the starting outside linebacker, who is just good enough to start, but will never play at the next level. The female sprinter is a far superior athlete compared to the linebacker, so with Title IX in mind, why should she get less than he?”
Because she generates zero revenue. Her scholarship can’t be less, but the schools are not responsible for whether outside businesses find value in her performance.
LikeLike
I’m really surprised with the acceptance by many of the differentiation of students because of an external commercial interested in profiting off particular members. We have athletic departments, not a FB/BB dept, and another “all the rest” dept . To me the justification for bigger stadiums, better media deals, etc was/is to reduce the cost of the department to the school and the general student population. Dividing them is just asking for a new set of law suits, led by T9 folks but joined by many non rev men’s sports supporters. What is the percentage of athletes that aren’t in those two sports? That’s a significant number to alienate.
LikeLike
Here’s what Kristi Dosh has to say about O’Bannon and Title IX.
LikeLike
Supports the common sense idea from people who have followed Title IX over the years that you can’t do it only for football and men’s basketball.
There have been some suggestions of a pool for all the student-athletes. I don’t know how the football and basketball players would react to that. Sooner or later one would sue. Not sure one wouldn’t do it even if it were allocated by sport.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Supports the common sense idea from people who have followed Title IX over the years that you can’t do it only for football and men’s basketball.”
For FCOA, yes. I don’t see anything that clearly says TV revenue from FB and MBB must be given to every athlete. Only the NIL rights of the FB and MBB players are involved in those deals, and the school isn’t paying the athletes but rather passing on the money from the TV networks. If the schools set it up so that TV pays the money directly into the trust fund, I don’t see any legitimate claim from other athletes.
It’s different if the school is not making money on athletics, however. If all the money comes into the AD including support from the university in general and then the athletes get money it probably would need to go to everyone.
“There have been some suggestions of a pool for all the student-athletes. I don’t know how the football and basketball players would react to that.”
They’d be extremely angry and they should be.
LikeLike
“If the schools set it up so that TV pays the money directly into the trust fund,”
“The schools are making a trust fund filled by TV revenue, etc…”
If the they set it up then they are involved. If the school didn’t exist there would be no fund. T9 folks will fight, and they have a pretty long streak of winning, which is easier to do when cloaked as politically correct increased opportunity. Even when it hurts women, like when at Irvine or Davis when several women were allowed (by the coach) to join the wrestling team. Not only did it not help proportionality numbers, they were required to be included in the number as men and made the numbers worse.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“If the they set it up then they are involved.”
So? Is there some relevant legal point to that?
“If the school didn’t exist there would be no fund.”
Correct, because there would be no team. What’s your point?
LikeLike
I’m surprised no one pointed out that this is a legal way to profit off your name, image, or likeness.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll
Pre-season AP top 25 is out:
1. FSU (57)
2. AL (1)
3. OR (1)
4. OU (1)
5. OSU
By conference:
SEC (8) – 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 18, 21, 24
P12 (6) – 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 25
ACC (3) – 1, 16, 23
B10 (4) – 5, 8, 14, 22
B12 (3) – 4, 10, 20
Other (1) – 17 (ND)
LikeLike
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/a-look-at-fox-sports-1s-past-and-future-with-gm-coo-david-nathanson.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=a-look-at-fox-sports-1s-past-and-future-with-gm-coo-david-nathanson
We just got through the 1-year anniversary of Fox Sports 1. COO David Nathanson was interviewed about his opinion on the channel so far.
AA: Looking ahead, there’s NBA, the Big Ten and the English Premier League rights that will be up for bid just ahead. Are those rights being looked at by Fox as potential building blocks for Fox Sports 1?
DN: First and foremost, we’re very satisfied with the portfolio of rights we have and particularly what we’re going to add to it this year. But this is without question the most competitive sports landscape arguably in history and so we will always look at what else is coming down the pipeline, what’s available from a rights perspective and then ultimately, we have to make smart decisions based on our long-term goals, our economic goals and strategic goals.
We’ll look at everything and we’re certainly aware of what’s available in the marketplace, but we’re also aware that we deliver something very unique to our rights partners both in terms of our reach and both in terms of our focus on their rights to really elevate them and grow them year after year and we want to make sure we continue to do that.
So we’ll do it and we’ll look at everything in the marketplace, but we’ll do it in a very calculated fashion.
LikeLike
They have a much smaller carriage fee than they wanted (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2013/08/15/FS1-pricing.aspx). They’ll need more high profile inventory to renegotiate their carriage fee.
I’d be surprised if ESPN let either its present NBA package or its present B1G package from getting to the open market, where Fox would most certainly overbid.
Recall that Fox overbid for NASCAR just to get some programming, despite NASCAR’s ratings decline. (http://www.sportingnews.com/nascar/story/2013-08-15/nascar-tv-coverage-network-contract-fox-sports-1-nbc-deal-ratings) . Hence, since most TV deals tend to enclude an exclusive negotiating period, I’d anticipate ESPN locking up the B1G and the NBA before Fox has a chance to even present such a bid to either entity.
LikeLike
I think part of it is the same thing that faced the ACC and SEC. They had existing contracts. They couldn’t just say we’re adding this, give us more money (although they tried). Time will tell whether they get more when they renew.
LikeLike
A carriage, not a fee issue, but the Longhorn Network has gotten on virtually everywhere. But in many cases, it took until the contract with ABC/Disney/ESPN was up. About the only two places LHN isn’t on are DirecTV, which renews with ESPN in December and Comcast, which renewed just a few months after LHN debuted and won’t renew for another 2 or 3 years. Fox faces that contract issue with their fees.
LikeLike
bullet – ESPN piggybacked the LHN on the SECN in negotiations with carriers..
LikeLike
Piggybacked it with ESPN. That’s how it got on with Time Warner last year. Also, LHN wasn’t an issue with Dish. SECN was one of the last things agreed to (along with Hopper). Didn’t help with Comcast or DirecTV.
LHN pretty immaterial in the scheme of things. 35 cents in one state and minimal elsewhere. SECN is bigger money to the carriers.
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh agrees with you. Although she hurts her good credibility by using Clay Travis as a source for financial projections. She also says the SEC Network will have the 4th largest subscriber base of sports networks (87 million), missing the difference between availability and subscribers.
She likes Travis’s $19.7 million in SEC network revenue per school by 2017 (after noting that projections are all over the place). She also says she has seen similar Big 10 network projections. I also find it hard to believe that the BTN would nearly triple in 3 years.
She says LHN, SECN, and several other ESPN properties (WatchESPN) were packaged in the DISH and a couple of smaller network deals. However the DISH deal was for ABC, Disney, ESPN AND all the rest. At least one of the smaller network deals (the group Suddenlink was part of) was also a renewal of ABC, Disney, ESPN. Meanwhile, Comcast and DirecTV haven’t taken LHN yet, so I don’t think the SECN has helped.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I am fairly confident Delany has said that they will go to open bid. Obviously anything can change but I thing they will go to open bid.
LikeLike
@Kevin:
Oh, I didn’t recall seeing that. Certainly its in the B1G’s interest to let it go to an open bid, but I could also foresee ESPN making an offer good enough in the exclusive negotiating period to get acceptance. The B1G does benefit from ESPN’s promotional muscle and established presence in CFB that presidents could foreseeably value more than up front cash from a struggling competitor to ESPN.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if ESPN let either its present NBA package or its present B1G package from getting to the open market, where Fox would most certainly overbid.
…
Hence, since most TV deals tend to enclude an exclusive negotiating period, I’d anticipate ESPN locking up the B1G and the NBA before Fox has a chance to even present such a bid to either entity.
The only way the Big Ten doesn’t let their rights go to the open market is if ESPN shows up with a “godfather” bid. There was a report not too long ago that said both sides were working on it and ESPN was confident it would happen.
LikeLike
Totally agree on all accounts. ESPN has the means to offer enough of a premium to prevent any open bids on what it considers prime inventory such as this.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that Fox outbid ESPN for the rights to the first 5 CCG’s.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
It takes two to tango. Perhaps the B10 will insist on letting their rights get to market to ensure they get full market value. It’s not like ESPN can unilaterally decide the B10 will sign early.
LikeLike
Its obvious that the B1G would have to agree to forego free agency. That was assumed in my comments.
Now, perhaps Delany & Co are dead set on going to the open market (certainly possible). Perhaps ESPN will present the type of “Godfather” offer that Mike noted in order to get the B1G locked up before it becomes a free agent. Both are possible. Mike also noted that the sides were negotiating and that ESPN was confident it would happen. Its not as frequent that such rights get to the free agency stage.
LikeLike
The thing is that open market big isn’t guaranteed to be higher. It probably usually is, but ESPN doesn’t always know the end result either and can certainly end up overbidding initially thinking they are underbidding. There is risk either way.
LikeLike
Eric,
“The thing is that open market big isn’t guaranteed to be higher. It probably usually is, but ESPN doesn’t always know the end result either and can certainly end up overbidding initially thinking they are underbidding. There is risk either way.”
In that scenario, all the B10 has to do is wait until the exclusive period ends. Then they turn to Fox and ask if they’ll top ESPN’s bid and by how much. If Fox says yes, by X%, then you go back to ESPN and offer them the chance to match that.
LikeLike
Is the NBA considering expansion to both Seattle and…Louisville?
http://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/7/23/5927745/nba-expansion-seattle-louisville
Would Louisvile work long term as a pro-city? I’m skeptical. Just because a city/region is basketball mad does not necessarily translate into fan support (Kansas is basketball-crazed, but KC lost its team years ago, and despite a new arena, was passed over for OKC to host the Hornets after Katrina). Indiana loves its hoops, but the Pacers have always have had a mixed bag of support from fans (team has come close to moving a few times, attendance fluctuates drastically from year to year). Crazed college fans don’t necessarily drop allegiances and preference for college teams, especially when the college teams are top programs.
LikeLike
The Kentucky Colonels were pretty successful on and off the court. They just got left out of the merger. John Y. Brown really didn’t want to pay the price. He didn’t get the Colonels in and didn’t get the sweet deal the St. Louis Spirits owner got. The Colonels got $3.3 million cash to be bought out. St. Louis got a perpetual royalty, which has generated over a quarter billion dollars. Wiki reports there was a tentative settlement for a “majority” of those rights in January for $500 million.
LikeLike
@Bullet:
Were the Colonels really that popular at the time, or have they benefited from a nice, glossy historical perspective? The NBA went through numerous rounds of expansion since the late 70’s merger, and L’Ville was not a serious player for any of those teams (primarily due to TV market concerns.
LikeLike
The Colonels were that popular.
Louisville metro is roughly 900k. Memphis is the only market that’s close to that small.
LikeLike
I’d think the biggest problem is proximity to Indy (114 miles). Louisville could pull some fans from miles Cincinnati, but that’s 100 miles away.
Probably the best location (if the Pacers didn’t already exist) would be to put a team in Cincinnati and let them pull fans from Indy, Columbus, Dayton and Louisville.
LikeLike
Honest Q’s:
1) Is Ohio ripe for another team, at least while LeBron is with Cleveland? The state has 3 big cities/metro areas (Cle, Col, Cin) but only 1 basketball team.
2)Setting aside LeBron, is CIncy a desirable destination for a team? Cincy lost a team years back and its not like the NBA has shown much interest in returning.
3) Without an Indy team, would Indy fans gravitate towards the Bulls over a Cincy team?
LikeLike
1. The NFL is in Cleveland and Cincinnati, so the NBA should be able to manage it. Cincinnati is much more of a hoops city anyway.
2. I doubt it, especially with the Pacers out there.
3. Some would, especially those to the southeast. The point is, there are a lot of sizable cities pretty close to Cincinnati. Combined, that makes for a fairly large market.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Here is a great New York Times county-by-county NBA fan map based on Facebook likes:
Note that this was done prior to LeBron rejoining the Cavs. Hamilton County (which covers Cincinnati) looks to be a classically neutral fairweather NBA fan town: its top fan bases were the Heat, Lakers and Bulls (which happen to be the 3 teams that are popular in the widest number of areas nationally outside of their own home markets). The Cavs didn’t seem to have any residual fan base despite sharing the same state. I’m sure that will change with LeBron being back, but it looks like it would solely be a LeBron-based phenomenon (considering the Heat were the most popular team there previously) as opposed to any kinship with a Cleveland team.
If I’m looking at traditional pro franchise expansion/relocation metrics, NO, Ohio is NOT ripe for another NBA team (or any other type of pro sports team, for that matter). Indianapolis actually has the better demographics right now with a relatively fast-growing population compared to the rest of the Midwest. On paper, places like previously forsaken Seattle and Vancouver have all of the necessary demographics already there that an NBA team would want. I also believe that an NBA franchise in Las Vegas would make a KILLING. If I were a billionaire, I’d buy that right on the spot. Of course, you can have the greatest market in the world and it’s irrelevant if you don’t have the “proper” stadium (meaning one that’s new enough with the requisite number of high-end luxury suites). Even then, that might not be enough. Kansas City has the proper arena and that market is almost the exact same size as Cincinnati and Cleveland with a much stronger population growth rate, but they haven’t been able to fill it at all with either an NBA or NHL franchise.
LikeLike
To be clear, I wouldn’t advocate the NBA move into Cincinnati. I just mentioned that it was more central than Louisville and might have a better chance of surviving.
By market size, the best cities are Seattle, St. Louis and Pittsburgh (all top 25 TV markets). Cincinnati is #34 (between #33 SLC and #35 Milwaukee in terms of size) so it’s not outlandish.
LikeLike
But the growing major metro area in Ohio is Columbus. Cleveland and Cincinnati have a long history of not following each other’s sports teams, but placing a team in Columbus is more complex with respect to Cleveland or Cincinnati team support.
LikeLike
With Cincinnati you have to realize that Dayton with 950k in the metro is only 45 miles up the road. So Cincinnati is really 50% bigger than Indy or KC. That’s why they can support the Reds. I-75 all the way to Dayton is filled with cars on nights the Reds play.
With Cleveland, you’ve also got Akron with 700k. They used to be considered one metro, but the census bureau split off Akron in 2000.
LikeLike
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/ncfrecruiting/on-the-trail/post/_/id/57783/grad-transfer-rule-on-elite-hs-qbs-minds
Now HS QBs are entering college with the graduate transfer rule in mind. They are planning to graduate in 3 years so they have the option to transfer before their senior year without sitting out. I’m happy to see kids planning for an education, but planning to graduate in 3 years often means picking the easiest path instead of the best path.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/94329/top-10-rank-does-not-portend-playoff-spot
Where the AP pre-season top 4 finished in the final regular season AP poll since 2007:
1-4 – 7 (25%)
5-10 – 6 (21%)
11-25 – 11 (39%)
unranked – 4 (14%)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24666147/can-congress-yes-congress-help-ncaa-find-solutions
A lengthy discussion of possible Congressional involvement in NCAA sports.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions
Jerry Palm’s bowl predictions:
CFP:
Rose – FSU/OSU (1/1)
Sugar – AL/OU (1/1)
Championship – ??? vs ??? (1/12)
Committee bowls:
Cotton – UGA/UCLA (at-large vs at-large) (1/1)
Orange – Clemson/Auburn (ACC #1 vs SEC/B10/ND) (12/31)
Fiesta – OR/WI (at-large vs at-large) (12/31)
Peach – SC/UC (at-large vs at-large) (12/31)
B10 bowls:
Cap1 – MSU/LSU (1/1)
Outback – NE/TAMU (1/1)
Holiday – IA/USC (12/27)
Gator – MI/UF (1/2)
Fight Hunger – UMD/ASU (12/30)
Pinstripe – NW/Pitt (12/27)
Heart of Dallas – MN/Marshall (12/26)
Detroit – not filled (12/30)
LikeLike
Don’t know if this has been posted since it was from the end of July in the Des Moines Register from Randy Peterson
“RUMORS/PREDICTIONS
LONGHORNS TO BIG TEN? Lobby chatter at the annual Big 12 media gathering this week in Dallas: Don’t think for a moment that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is done expanding his already expansive conference. Think Texas. Think Texas Longhorns.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/2014/07/23/media-timeout-burnham-is-on-twitter-texas-to-big-ten/13060983/
LikeLike
As much as we like to the think the GOR will keep conference expansion from happing for the forceable future this *might* not be pie-in-the-sky thinking. The GOR may not be worth the paper its written on if there’s no conference to enforce it. Assuming that the B1G pluck UT the BigXII may not survive to cash in on Texas’ television rights. If Texas leaving appears to be a fait accompli then the other 9 schools are going to be scrambling in the background not to be left behind (the old Big East fiasco all over again). That means if the B1G wants them they can probably grab KU or OU as well. That pretty much has to trigger a renegotiation of the rights packages they have with ESPN and Fox which will end up paying out substantially less. At that point every other school is going to scramble to get into the PAC/SEC/ACC while the going is good. There might not be much of a conference around to try to enforce the GOR.
LikeLike
The GOR may not be worth the paper its written on if there’s no conference to enforce it.
I agree with the statement, if the Big 12 dissolves the GOR is useless. I takes 7 (or 6 I can’t remember) votes to dissolve the conference. That means you have to find acceptable homes for that many schools or convince a member or two to act against their own interest and regulate themselves. If they don’t, the underlings of the Big 12 can keep millions of dollars the from any departing schools rights, the Big 12 TV contract, and the CFB playoff contract to NOT dissolve the Big 12. Basically, the all underlings need to do backfill the Big 12 with G5 schools and keep cashing checks until the TV and playoff contracts expire.
Assuming that the B1G pluck UT the BigXII may not survive to cash in on Texas’ television rights
Keeping Texas’s rights, the current Big 12 contracts, and playoff money > MWC (or AAC) payouts. Any departure will be backfilled in just for this reason alone.
That pretty much has to trigger a renegotiation of the rights packages they have with ESPN and Fox which will end up paying out substantially less.
If they do, Baylor will sue anyone that leaves for tortious interference just like they threatened to do to A&M and the SEC in 2011.
LikeLike
Nathan,
“As much as we like to the think the GOR will keep conference expansion from happing for the forceable future this *might* not be pie-in-the-sky thinking.”
I don’t think it’s a matter of us wanting to think that, but rather that we’ve never heard a reasonable explanation of how you could break a GoR at a feasible cost.
“The GOR may not be worth the paper its written on if there’s no conference to enforce it. Assuming that the B1G pluck UT the BigXII may not survive to cash in on Texas’ television rights. If Texas leaving appears to be a fait accompli then the other 9 schools are going to be scrambling in the background not to be left behind (the old Big East fiasco all over again). That means if the B1G wants them they can probably grab KU or OU as well. That pretty much has to trigger a renegotiation of the rights packages they have with ESPN and Fox which will end up paying out substantially less. At that point every other school is going to scramble to get into the PAC/SEC/ACC while the going is good. There might not be much of a conference around to try to enforce the GOR.”
For the P5 conferences, the only desirable B12 schools seem to be UT, OU and KU. Is anyone really looking for the other 7? Maybe WV or OkSU as a partner for OU. The point being, as long as there are 6 schools, they can collect on UT’s TV rights. They can probably also sue UT (and any others that leave) for any lost TV revenue due to ESPN and Fox adjusting the contract based on membership changes. That’s better for them than all scrambling to new homes in lesser leagues. Instead, they can wait until 2025 and then scramble for new homes.
If there’s anything to these rumors, it’s more likely to be advance groundwork for trying to add UT in 10 years or so. If it were to happen, it seems likely that UT would demand at least one partner. That’s something the B10 has been sensitive to, helping PSU out by grabbing more eastern schools. I’d expect UT to want OU (keeps their main rivalry in conference), but possibly they’d ask for TT instead (or in addition). The B10 would likely prefer UT and KU, but would probably have to compromise.
B18 = UT and OU
B20 = UT, OU, KU and ???
A 4th school would be tough.
West:
Other B12 schools – academic and/or revenue issues
East:
ACC schools – bound under GoR
AAC schools – academic and/or revenue issues
LikeLike
Why on Earth are you guys still talking about a Big 20?? That was one of the dumbest ideas ever. It will never happen. Let it go.
LikeLike
B18 = UT and OU
B20 = UT, OU, KU and ???</i?
A 4th school would be tough.
West:
Other B12 schools – academic and/or revenue issues
East:
ACC schools – bound under GoR
AAC schools – academic and/or revenue issues
Wait a minute — unless two other schools we don’t know of are increasing the B1G to 16 members, these scenarios would be B16 and B18, not B18 and B20. This would be a longshot, but I could see ISU tucked into a B18 scenario for these reasons:
* B1G presidents would call for AAU ISU as a counterweight to non-AAU Oklahoma.
* Iowa legislators put pressure on U of I to add Ames to the B1G. It agrees under some conditions, specifically that the schools go into different divisions for football.
LikeLike
LMAO wow that’s crazy. you’re a hoot.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Wait a minute — unless two other schools we don’t know of are increasing the B1G to 16 members, these scenarios would be B16 and B18, not B18 and B20.”
Obviously an error on my part. I’ll assume you knew what I meant, though.
“This would be a longshot, but I could see ISU tucked into a B18 scenario for these reasons:
* B1G presidents would call for AAU ISU as a counterweight to non-AAU Oklahoma.
* Iowa legislators put pressure on U of I to add Ames to the B1G. It agrees under some conditions, specifically that the schools go into different divisions for football.”
I’d give that zero chance of happening. IA is a small state and adding ISU adds no revenue. IA might get pressured into voting for it, but the other 13 members would never agree.
And putting them in separate divisions? No way. One major goal of the latest divisions was to keep rivalries together. IN/PU is the only major rivalry split, and that was unavoidable for an E/W split. Why would the B10 want to have to lock IA/ISU as a crossover game (unless everyone else was getting a locked game, too)?
LikeLike
A couple of things.
First, there was a reason that I put asterisks around the work *might*. The chances of all of this happening are still pretty low. I was just saying that the GOR may not be as iron clad a conference binder as everyone thinks.
Second, I still think there’s a not zero percent chance that the B1G do something this audacious. Most of the comments assume that 6 or 7 teams have to have homes found for them before any move can be made. I think there’s a scenario where this isn’t the case; albeit its not very probable, but is, I believe, possible.
The least complicated move (if they are indeed going to make any move) for the B1G to make would be to offer Texas membership, letting them join in a year or two and claim that they’re going to abide by the BigXII GOR (I’d expect UT to try every legal angle to get out from under it, but the B1G would officially stay neutral). That mean, other than whatever $ they can wring out of UT’s third tier rights / LHN they wouldn’t be realizing the full value of UT’s rights for roughly ten years (worst case scenario, I’ll get to this below). But, as everyone points out these are “100 year” deals. Maybe the B1G doesn’t have a problem with less than optimal $ for 10 years if it guarantees 90 years of UT in the B1G free and clear.
So, the other 9 members of the BigXII get to share UT’s TV $$ for the next 10 years. Does anyone honestly believe that the BigXII maintains its status once the current contracts expire? The only schools of note it could realistically add are BYU or Cincinnati, and neither of those would come close to replacing the value of UT. For all intents and purposes the BigXII would be facing a future as a conference with clout somewhere between the power conference and the “Group of 5” conference and forever getting closer to the latter and not the former, and every member would know it. The minute Texas announces that they’re out the door every other school, while publicly stating their loyalty to the BigXII, would be canvasing the SEC, PAC, B1G and ACC to make sure that they have a place to land. Again, worse case scenario is they all cling onto the life raft that is UT TV $, but the second the GOR is expired the conference will implode. But since no one wants to get caught out of landing in a power conference I can see schools jumping early to ensure a place at the Big Boy table, even if it means a loss of $ in the short term. If enough do it, then there is a chance that the whole thing blows up sooner than later.
LikeLike
“That mean, other than whatever $ they can wring out of UT’s third tier rights / LHN they wouldn’t be realizing…”
It’s not UT’s third tier rights, it’s ESPN’s.
LikeLike
Nathan,
“First, there was a reason that I put asterisks around the work *might*.”
Is that supposed to be some sort of universal symbolism? Did it not still mean “might” after you put asterisks there?
“I was just saying that the GOR may not be as iron clad a conference binder as everyone thinks.”
“Second, I still think there’s a not zero percent chance that the B1G do something this audacious.”
It wouldn’t be the B10 doing something audacious, it would be the schools.
“The least complicated move (if they are indeed going to make any move) for the B1G to make would be to offer Texas membership, letting them join in a year or two and claim that they’re going to abide by the BigXII GOR (I’d expect UT to try every legal angle to get out from under it, but the B1G would officially stay neutral).”
Why would UT give up 8 years of TV revenue? UT could agree to move 10 years from now and not lose a penny. The B10 isn’t going to cover that for them when they could just wait for the end of the GoR and get them for free.
“So, the other 9 members of the BigXII get to share UT’s TV $$ for the next 10 years. Does anyone honestly believe that the BigXII maintains its status once the current contracts expire?”
No, but it doesn’t matter. They get 8 years with an extra $2M from splitting up UT’s check.
“The minute Texas announces that they’re out the door every other school, while publicly stating their loyalty to the BigXII, would be canvasing the SEC, PAC, B1G and ACC to make sure that they have a place to land.”
Most of them can canvass all they want. Nobody wants them.
“Again, worse case scenario is they all cling onto the life raft that is UT TV $,”
No, that’s the only case. Anything else would be giving up money for no reason.
“but the second the GOR is expired the conference will implode.”
Yes. But they can arrange a landing spot in advance without actually leaving.
“But since no one wants to get caught out of landing in a power conference I can see schools jumping early to ensure a place at the Big Boy table,”
Nobody wants ISU, KSU, OkSU, TT, Baylor, TCU or WV. Jumping early wouldn’t change that.
LikeLike
I’ve seen people on a few boards posting about getting around the grant of rights by a massive Big 12 raid, but I simply don’t see it for multiple reasons.
1 For right now, Texas will be responsible for a sum well beyond their ability to pay if they leave the Big 12. They will only leave if they are 100% sure they can get it down to something reasonable.
2. Who is going to be taking all these Big 12 teams? Outside of Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe Kansas, I don’t see any of them who would be taken outside of necessity or out of a package deal that included getting Texas/Oklahoma.
3. Are we sure teams leaving the conference can even still vote on dissolving it? The legal entity for the Big East never died despite loosing almost all it’s members (it’s now been renamed the American).
4. Let’s say multiple conference did get together and raid the Big 12 till it was possible for a vote to dissolve. While inviting one school to join a new conference might only be looking out for your own interest, I’m pretty sure that colluding with other conferences to destroy another would be considered something very different and probably illegal. While the Big 12 might have been raided by the Big Ten, PAC-10, and SEC, there was no evidence before that they were working together or doing anything besides trying to strengthen their own conferences.
5. Even if there are no legal issues, why would other conferences help destroy the Big 12 if they aren’t the ones getting Texas/Oklahoma. If you are the SEC, you don’t want to see the Big Ten or PAC-12 get stronger by adding those teams. Same applies with those conferences to the SEC. You certainly aren’t going to help them do it.
The one and only way I see the Big 12 being raided in the next couple of years is if you find a power conference home for all 10 members and that is I believe completely impossible.
LikeLike
Quite logical and opposite of what you usually hear on this.
The only way it happens is if the Big 12 schools are the initiators and somehow sell the others on the value of having 4 conferences and finding homes for all 10 schools. I don’t see any allocation of schools that would make Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas happy as well as making the other conferences happy. And I don’t see the incentive for the Big 12 to sell itself off in the first place.
LikeLike
Yes, well, in theory, assuming the B1G wanted to lose TV rights to Longhorn home conference games in football and men’s basketball, and have the money for those games go to the Big 12,, the GofR would not be a bar. Would still get TV rights to road games, Plus, the LHN might give Texas rights to 1 conference home football game. Possibly even a neutral site OOC game.
The real question- would half a Longhorn season still make more money for the B1G relative to standing pat at 14, or expanding to 16 with two other schools? Would half a Longhorn package still enable the BTN to get in-footprint rates throughout Texas? Would half a Longhorn package be enough to get an even bigger offer from ESPN for national tv deal, with the conference scheduling Texas on the road vs marquee opponents and the weakest teams at home? If the answer to these questions is Yes, then–and only then–could it be realistic.
Still, the odds of this are so low that its perfect fodder for gossip columns and message boards.
LikeLike
I wonder if there are other ways to get around the GOR like you have intimated thru just 3rd tier that makes the BIG money. Let’s say that Texas agrees to join the BIG in 2025 at the end of the GOR. In the meanwhile, the BIG acquires the games on the LHN and rolls that channel into the BTN and enters into a out of conference scheduling partnership. Maybe the LHN is the price ESPN has to pay to keep the BIG’s 1st tier rights in 2017. Then they do the same for Oklahoma’s third tier. So UT and OU 1st and 2nd their still belong to the Big 12 until the GOR ends but the rest belongs to the BIG.
Now if you are the rest of the Big 12 and your conference has a dead on date of 2025, are you waiting around to die or are you trying your best to find a home. Once enough schools find a home, I would imagine they won’t wait around until 2025 to move and the conference would dissolve.
Pretty far fetched.
LikeLike
The B12 will not implode. It will be a stretch for even 5 of the current 10 members to find homes in other P5 conferences. However, the schools that are left are easily a step above what is in the AAC or MWC (attendance, revenue excluding TV contracts, etc.). If TX, OK, and KS leave the B12 (unlikely to happen before GoR expiration) then Cincinnati will finally get its invite (sort of like those Big East invites). The B12 is also likely to go after Navy, Air Force, CT, Houston, Central &/or South Florida. It might even get back to 12 schools. The B12 will take a big hit in its TV revenue but will still be well above the current Go5 conferences.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/editorial-section-media-roundtable-part-i-college-football-broadcasters.html
A roundtable on broadcasters.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/media-roundtable-part-ii-networks-and-programming.html
Part 2 – networks and programming.
None of them like College Football Final (esp. the Holtz/May mock trial) or GameDay. I agree with them.
LikeLike
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-college-textbooks-cost-so-much-2014-8
And fans complain about ticket prices.
LikeLike
Starting to really look like the Bills will remain in Buffalo after all.
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/jim-kelly-wont-partner-with-bon-jovi-in-bills-bid-20140817
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11372218/mid-american-conference-espn-agree-new-13-year-media-rights-deal
Here comes the MACtion. ESPN and the MAC extend their deal through 2026-7.
LikeLike
“The new deal between the MAC and ESPN rewrites the current eight-year deal, which was set to expire in 2017.”
So midway through the contract? Why the hurry, for both sides?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Market is frothy for sports rights right now, but who knows whether that will still be the case in 2 years. That’s why a lot of media observers believe both the NBA and Big Ten will ultimately extend their current contracts (with maybe a smaller package of games carved out to be sold to Fox in both cases) before they are truly in the open market.
LikeLike
The hurry for the MAC was more money now. They get less than $2m total under the old agreement, as their previous contract traded off dollar value for exposure, and now they want to cash in on the value of live sports in general and the fact that ESPN likes the #MACtion November mid-week games. What ESPN’s interest might be is something that may come out in the next few days as it becomes clearer what changes there are in ESPN’s rights versus the current contract.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So midway through the contract? Why the hurry, for both sides?”
The new deal ends the same time as the ACC deal. The old deal ends the same time as the B10 deal. Maybe they are looking at a 10 year deal with the B10 so they’d all end at the same time (the SEC, P12 and B12 deals end 3, 3, and 2 years earlier). That might make it easier for them to know what they have room for and how high to bid for various things.
It also might be a coincidence.
LikeLike
Don’t believe the SEC deal is up until ’34.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/05/31/deal-between-espn-and-sec-conference-likely-the-richest-ever/
LikeLike
But their CBS deal is.
LikeLike
http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2014/8/18/6033251/mac-agrees-to-new-13-year-tv-rights-deal-with-espn
The MAC’s current deal was set to expire following the 2016-2017 season and pays each school around $100,000 a year in TV revenue. According to the AP’s report the new deal reworks the final three years of the old eight-year deal to upping the annual payout to the conference for the full slate of the next 13 seasons.
The deal also apparently gives ESPN some more rights to MAC men’s basketball, women’s basketball and some Olympic sports.
Back in February, ESPN and the MAC announced launched a digital network, this deal ensures that ESPN will have rights to MAC games to feed this digital MACtion network for some time.
The MAC’s payout with ESPN has been painfully low for the length of their relationship. This new deal is supposed to improve the amount of money the MAC receives each year, but a number hasn’t been given yet.
Maybe it was just a desire to get rights for the digital network.
LikeLike
Maybe. “What ESPN’s interest might be is something that may come out in the next few days as it becomes clearer what changes there are in ESPN’s rights versus the current contract.”
Whatever changed, that’d be what ESPN bought ~ we’ll know more details tomorrow. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more Friday night MAC BBall on ESPNU. Not sure about any of the other Olympic sports would get on TV, but there might be more of them on ESPN3 to extend the season of interest for the MAC digital network.
LikeLike
The Press Release:
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/08/espn-and-mid-american-conference-extend-exclusive-multi-platform-agreement-through-2026-27/
Seems to be about the digital content. ESPN is going to help MAC schools with developing production equipment/capabilities.
LikeLike
From ESPN’s standpoint, there’s a chance that they feel they need MACtion to lead into Thursday Night College Football, since CBS won the NFL contract.
LikeLike
I mean, if ESPN views MACtion as counter-programming to the National Football League…
LikeLike
They have the ACC and Pac for TH games.
LikeLike
Coverage of the deal says the same number of midweek FB games as under the current contract, in November as at present. So #MACtion seems set to remain in its current Tue/Wed emphasis.
LikeLike
Digital content, and a little Friday night basketball (I’d guess ESPNU). If I am following correctly, all MAC football games that are not on TV will be on ESPN3. They are working with the MAC schools to ramp up their own production capabilities to stream basketball games and Olympic Sports through ESPN3’s MAC channel at the production quality that ESPN requires. By the end of four years, all MAC BBall games (M&W) seem likely to be on ESPN3 except for the handful on TV. The Time Warner Sports Time Ohio deal is quashed, with STO needing to sublicense from ESPN if they want content that ESPN is not picking up.
Rumored valued around $670K/school, so somewhere around a $500K raise on the previous deal, but for those with access to ESPN3, substantially more access over time for a wide range of sports.
LikeLike
Even stronger indication that its about the ESPN3 content with today’s word that the 10yr extension part of the deal is worth an average of $10m/year … so the bulk of the new revenue coincides with the roll-out of all MAC BBall games available on ESPN3 and the MAC branded front end to ESPN3, if they are not selected for cable (or sublicensed for broadcast/cable).
LikeLike
Some realignment news-Hawaii’s AD is publically putting out the possibility of dropping football if they don’t get support from the state government.
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/hawaii-athletic-director-says-hawaii-football-could-be–going-away-232207654.html
LikeLike
I would hate to be a Hawaii football coach trying to recruit after that remark.
LikeLike
Wait, so come to the wonderful Island paradise full of exotic women and perfect weather with luxuriant beaches isn’t a good enough recruiting spiel?
LikeLike
There are plenty of places with exotic women, perfect weather, and luxuriant beaches that don’t have their AD saying they might drop football.
LikeLike
More relevantly, though: There are plenty of places with exotic women, perfect weather, and luxuriant beaches that have large fan support and aren’t 5+ hour plane flights away from everywhere else.
LikeLike
Will BYU grovel back into the MWC or would an up and comer like North Dakota State get the nod for #12?
LikeLike
“Will BYU grovel back into the MWC”
Probably not:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588418/Ryan-Teeples-For-BYU-a-painful-TV-past-has-led-to-a-continually-fruitful-ESPN-relationship.html?pg=all
LikeLike
an up and comer like North Dakota State get the nod for #12
No. NDSU isn’t even on the radar.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“Will BYU grovel back into the MWC or would an up and comer like North Dakota State get the nod for #12?”
I don’t think BYU wants in. My guess would be that the MWC tries to get UTEP from CUSA (maybe Idaho or NMSU from the SB).
LikeLike
I don’t see UTEP moving without UNT or Rice going along with them. The WAC cut them off from the rest of Texas and their alumni in DFW and Houston. So the MWC would have to go to 14 or settle for NMSU or Texas St.
LikeLike
Then they could arrange for a “home” game each year in Dallas (if not Jerry World, then the Cotton Bowl), San Antonio, or Houston. The Mountain West is decidedly a better league than C-USA in quality of play in football, TV revenue, and basketball quality, not to mention its more favorable geography.
Also, UTEP was a longtime member of the WAC prior to its expansion to 16 and then the split by the Mountain West. They’ve only been in C-USA since 2005. So they have quite a bit of history with Mountain West programs, all of which shared a conference with UTEP at one point or another.
C-USA has lost seven programs since its last TV contract was signed. In their place are seven former WAC, Sun Belt and FCS programs, three of which have no more than six years’ history in even at the FCS level. C-USA is not getting more valuable. The MWC, on the other hand, just improved its TV deal in the past 18 months by getting back on ESPN and making more money, in spite of losing its three best programs.
LikeLike
They would still be ignored by the media. Until they moved to the CUSA, TCU and SMU might as well have been in Idaho with regard to the attention they got in Houston. I imagine the same was true for Houston in DFW.
LikeLike
Would UTSA yield much of a benefit for MWC? Attendance figures looks very good for such a young program. Good market without in-town pro competition.
LikeLike
It’s extraordinarily unclear what the MWC could actually do for BYU. BYU get a much better TV deal than the MWC teams, it has a schedule with multiple name brand opponents, and it is NOT locked into perpetual home and home deals with teams like Wyoming, SJ State, Nevada etc. I think BYU would take an invite to any P5 league in a heartbeat, but since that isn’t going to happen anytime soon, independence is still a preferable alternative to having to deal with 12 lesser programs on a constant basis in financially equal relationships.
LikeLike
BYU and the B12 have talked several times and they haven’t acquesed to the conference’s requirements. No other P5 conference will even consider them.
The MWC isn’t actually an equal sharing bunch. See: Boise’s special deal.
The biggest question for them is scheduling going forward. I believe they are not included in the power group for strength of scheduling purpose like ND. Even if that becomes a problem you need to look at what the top LDS leaders are looking for as opposed to an athletic director. They simply are a different animal.
LikeLike
Technically, the MWC contract (if I understand it right) didn’t specifically give Boise more money, it just gave a greater share to whoever is on national TV more (which right now is Boise; who knows what we’ll see in 2020). But even Boise’s greater share is substantially dwarfed by what BYU gets right now. And since BYU has a direct ESPN deal, and a large fanbase that will travel and watch games, there’s a decent incentive for ESPN to help push along good games for them.
BYU is not given a special P5 status for the leagues who are specifically emphasizing P5 games. But even there, the leagues pushing P5 games are just saying “at least 1 OOC is P5”. That’s a FAR cry from “all our games must be P5”. And even with that, it’s not even all P5 leagues with just that at this point. It’s some cause for concern for BYU, but the bigger thing is it’s just a public slap to the face not that it’s by itself a big problem in the near to medium term.
LikeLike
Are those going to want two significant challenges OOC, a P5 and BYU? Some will but it could get tougher for those who looked at BYU as their premiere OOC to go with a mid level and a cupcake.
LikeLike
Holding a gun up against his head and talking to the State Legislature, “if you don’t come up with more money, I swear I’ll pull the trigger.”
IIRC, there was a scene along those lines in Blazing Saddles.
LikeLike
And he already shot the football coach.
BTW, he has issued a retraction/clarification. He was just trying to convey a sense of “urgency.”
LikeLike
“Now that I have your attention, I want to clarify that what I really meant to say was that, assuming you want us to keep playing football as I’m sure you do, we really do need some more money.”
LikeLike
Isn’t anybody gonna help that poor man?
Shut up! That’s a sure way to get him killed.
LikeLike
Reading this online, it sounds like very bad wording from the Hawaii AD in an attempt to raise money. He quickly clarified, but too late.
LikeLike
Didn’t see this posted and not sure if Maryland is the first, but I have to think this will become a standard in the near future.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/19/maryland-announces-lifetime-degree-guarantee-for-athletes/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11146296/indiana-hoosiers-unveil-student-athlete-bill-rights
UMD isn’t the first, but they are one of the first.
LikeLike
Good to see, would like for Michigan to honor this.
LikeLike
I seem to recall the B10 proposing this as a general idea for the P5. My guess is they will all offer this fairly soon after autonomy becomes official.
LikeLike
Football autonomy may hurt the Go5 schools (not just their football programs, the actual schools) by reducing the applications they receive.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/105655/which-top-schools-play-freshmen-most
Who plays the most freshmen among the top programs?
LikeLike
ESPN had a graphic in that 2012 season showing Ohio St. played the most of any school in the country. I think the figure was 18 (12 lettered per the report). Texas and TCU were one back at 17.
Alabama and LSU were interesting. You would think with their talent that freshmen would be redshirted to get bigger and trained in the offense or defense. But that’s not the case.
LikeLike
bullet – with all the Juniors declaring for the NFL draft, its a necessity. OLs and some DLs are about the only guys at LSU that redshirt anymore.
LikeLike
Many top recruits aren’t going stay for 5 years; they may not even stay 4. You might as well play them as freshmen, even if it’s just on special teams.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer has said that you don’t recruit elite players to redshirt them (OL probably being an exception). I tend to agree, especially with players leaving early. The best players should play regardless of age. The coach has to weigh experience and system knowledge versus ability.
LikeLike
Michigan just announced it was playing a home-and-home series with Washington during the 2020/1 seasons. UM also has a home-and-home series with Virginia Tech those two years.
See http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/08/michigan_announces_home-and-ho.html for an article about the announcement.
If the Big Ten keeps the 2016-9 conference schedule rotation and replaces Wisconsin with Nebraska as Michigan’s annual Big Ten Western Division opponent for 2020-3, here’s what the schedule should look like:
2020 (7 Home, 5 Road)
9/5 @ Washington
9/12 Ball State
9/19 Virginia Tech
Home B1G Games: Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Nebraska, one West TBD
Road B1G Games: at Michigan State, at Rutgers, at Ohio State, at one West TBD
2021 (6 Home, 6 Road)
9/4 Home TBD
9/11 @ Virginia Tech
9/18 Washington
Home B1G Games: Michigan State, Rutgers, Ohio State, one West TBD
Road B1G Games: at Penn State, at Maryland, at Indiana, at Nebraska, at one West TBD
Michigan AD David Brandon’s giving up a home date in 2021 to have two home-and-home series with programs from Power 5 Conferences. UM has Arkansas in 2018/9 and open non-conference dates on the schedule, so it’s possible he’ll do the same thing those two seasons.
I suspect there are three possible reasons for this: (1) Make the home schedule more attractive for ticket sales, (2) Upcoming television negotiations that start in fall 2015 and (3) Strength of schedule considerations for the post-season.
LikeLike
Michigan just announced it was playing a home-and-home series with Washington during the 2020/1 seasons
IMHO – Seattle is one of the better road destinations in CFB. You should plan on going.
LikeLike
http://www.columbiatribune.com/sports/q-a-about-athletics-with-mu-chancellor-r-bowen-loftin/article_6e44480c-d23d-59a5-ae09-ef2d3470f71f.html
From this R. Bowen Loftin interview I learned that maybe the root cause of all of this realignment was actually the Texas legislature. Back in the 90s the plan was for only Texas and Texas A&M to join the Big 8, I guess forming a second Big Ten. Think about that lineup for a minute. 7 out of 10 were AAU schools. And 7 out of 10 of them, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Kansas State, Colorado (Colorado has fallen off the map but Missouri has revived their program and filled that void), were top 25 level programs. With a round robin schedule. It would have been a very sturdy league.
But the Texas legislature forced the Big 8 to take Texas Tech and Baylor, forcing a split into north and south divisions, watering down the league. This made the breakup of the Big 12 all but inevitable, and led to national conference instability.
LikeLike
These things are well known but I don’t think the Texas legislature had any power over the B8’s decision whether or not to accept the “requirement” of TT and BU as partners to UT and aTm. They could have said no.
LikeLike
The Big 8 need to make a move though. Without Texas, that conference was demographically in a bad position. It needed entry into Texas about as badly as SWC schools needed a new home.
Yes, the Big 8 could have said no, but that would have been suicidal. Remember, around this time, Some combo of Nebraska, Mizzou, and/or KU were rumored to be B1G targets, Colorado was flirting with the Pac (and according to some reports did actually get an invite and turned it down as it had committed already to the B12). That’s half of the Big 8 right there. So, saying no to a 4 school demand would likely have been suicidal.
LikeLike
yep
LikeLike
Perhaps. Or maybe the Texas legislature would have had to give first. Admittedly it would have been a bit of a gamble. But where are we now? B8 is down three, and one of the two Texas schools they wanted is gone. I’m not sure the B10jr would have been any longer lasting. UT wouldn’t have it’s “Tech problem”. aTm still would have had little brother syndrome and looked to the SEC. And the non Texas schools would have had half the Texas exposure.
LikeLike
I guess we’ll never know but I don’t find any of those guesses of yours to be very convincing.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to convince someone that “learned that maybe the root cause of all of this realignment was actually the Texas legislature.” Realignment was not caused by them. It influenced the outcome of that particular episode, but it certainly didn’t cause it.
LikeLike
Well, certainly there would have been some no matter what. I was more referring to the dramatic instability of the Big 12, which seemed to shake up the entire national landscape. But then as Mack says below maybe without a Big 12 then all of this would have happened 20 years ago.
LikeLike
Yes. These possibilities have been referenced over the last couple decades, although not “loudly” if at all by the current media. They tend to see something “new”, report on it and maybe attribute it to something recent, and move on to the next “new” thing (new being important). Who knows how things may have turned out had the B12 not happened. But many of the influences, interests, goals, etc. that were around then have not evaporated. It’s a slow process, in spite of what sports commentators say.
LikeLike
There would have never been a Big 8 with 10 members. With no Texas political intervention A&M would have been headed to the SEC and Texas (with Colorado) to the PAC. If not for Stanford, Texas and Texas Tech would have gotten invites to the PAC and the addition of the west Texas support (from TT) would have been enough to overcome the political pressure to create the B12 since it was coming from TT and Baylor. See how Texas has turned out since the 90’s that move probably ranks with the Big East turning down Penn State. It is not like the PAC has a lot of options due to its geography.
LikeLike
Hm, from what Chancellor Loftin is saying it sounds like there was an option of adding UT and A&M to the Big 8. Maybe that happened after the Pac 12 turned down UT and TT?
LikeLike
Texas A&M was never interested in that. They wanted the SEC all along.
But he gets some of his other facts wrong.
“The Big 12 didn’t share equally. Texas was on top by far. Kansas and Iowa State were on the bottom, basically. We were in the middle somewhere at Texas A&M, and so was Missouri. So it wasn’t an equally shared conference as far as revenues were concerned.”
Maybe he just got misquoted, but Kansas did very well. I believe they were first in the last year of the old TV contract in conference distributions. If not first, they were 2nd behind OU. Texas was 3rd.
LikeLike
hm. odd that he would say that then. seems like he of all people should know what was going on with Texas A&M.
LikeLike
He wasn’t president then.
The Texas President, who was in the meeting, and several political officials who were actually in the meetings tell a different story.
Now the Texas president does say the A&M president wasn’t leading the SEC charge. It was the A&M board that was dead set on it until the Lt. Governor “influenced” them.
LikeLike
Texas and Texas A&M had offers from the B8, PAC and SEC (only the B1G was not interested). The B8 being willing to add TT and Baylor, combined with the political pressure that the TT and Baylor supporters were able to put on the decision was made the B8 to B12 proposal the winner. The only interest TT and Baylor had in the decision was their status. If the B8 was not willing to take them, A&M might as well go the SEC (its first choice) and Texas to the PAC. The Texas / TT pairing to the PAC was a way Texas tried to split the political opposition but at that time the PAC required a 10-0 vote to add members and it fell one vote (Stanford’s) short. So the real “what if” is if Texas and TT landed in the PAC 20 years ago with A&M in the SEC. What would have happened to the B8? We might be down to 4 power conferences now. CO and OK to the PAC? MO and NE to the B1G? KSU, OSU, ISU joining with Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU to form the “Little 8.”
LikeLike
@Mack, interesting…
LikeLike
@Bullet:
Can you provide a fuller background of how the B12 plan won out over other plans, focused less on the politics and more on the level of legitimacy and viability of those other plans (ie how close they came to being reality)
LikeLike
Mack,
“So the real “what if” is if Texas and TT landed in the PAC 20 years ago with A&M in the SEC. What would have happened to the B8?”
So let’s play that game. The timing is really important. The B10 agreed to add PSU in 1989-90. The SC and AR joined the SEC in 1992. The B12 was formed in 1996.
If UT and TT joined the P10 in 1996 and TAMU went to the SEC, there would be several key decision points:
1. Does CO also go to the P10?
If yes, they need a partner. UT would prefer OU, but OU might prefer the SEC. The P12 might opt for KU to pair with UCLA in hoops. Little brothers might have disrupted either of those, too.
2. Where does OU go?
UT would want them in the P10. OU would fit better in the SEC. Can OU leave OkSU behind?
3. Does the B10 jump into the game, too?
If so, they be looking at NE, MO and KU (and UT, but too late apparently).
4. Where does KU go?
Both the P12 and B10 might want them.
Here are a couple of options in no particular order:
Option 1
P10 + UT, TT = 12
SEC + TAMU, OU = 14
B10 + NE, MO, KU = 14
B12 = CO, ISU, KSU, OkSU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU, UH (+ BYU =10)
CO didn’t go west due to lack of a suitable partner.
Option 2
P10 + UT, TT, CO, OU = 14
SEC + TAMU, UH? = 14
B10 + NE, MO, KU = 14
B12 = CO, ISU, KSU, OkSU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU
UH was top 40 in wins in 1970-1994 and would provide a second school in TX, so they were my best guess. The SEC might have stolen a school from another conference, but the SEC wasn’t as powerful back then and the BE was still fairly strong.
LikeLike
In option 2 I think it’s more likely that the SEC would have gone after someone like FSU or WVU than Houston.
LikeLike
Brian, the one thing I think you are off on, (for that time anyway) is that there was a period between Arkansas and South Carolina being invited. I think if Texas A&M goes to the SEC at that point, it’s as #12 and South Carolina is out of luck (and actually quite likely helps start up the Big East football conference).
Here’s my own scenario’s of how it played out, starting with what really happened.
1. Penn State to Big Ten. Big Ten tables further expansion talk for a few years.
2. Arkansas to the SEC, which starts the Southwestern Conference scramble.
3. Texas A&M agrees to go to the SEC as #12. Divisions are interesting here. I think 2 cross rivals is a very real possibility and Auburn ends up in the east.
4. Texas goes to the PAC-10. PAC-10 agrees to take on Texas Tech as #12.
5. Remaining Southwest Conference members still mostly join the WAC and then help set-up Conference USA.
6. Big East football conference forms. Instead of Temple, it include South Carolina.
(Does this part seem reasonable? The football conference originally included several partial members. I don’t know that when it formed how highly Temple was placed relative to others and it’s possible they are there as #9 and it might even possible that Virginia Tech is the one not included)
I’m guessing we get a couple years of peace after that, but the Big 8 is still around, loved by it’s fan, but still in bad demographic shape. I’m not all that sure what to predict. It might make it’s way through the 90s, become a BCS conference, and maybe add a couple up and comers or leftovers from the Southwest Conference. It might also see it’s members start searching hard for other choices. Regardless, I’m not sure the PAC-12 or SEC at that point will be willing to go past 12 so unless the Big Ten decides to expand, I think it survives for awhile.
For later expansion, it’s reasonable to think the ACC might look at South Carolina in it’s move to 12, but I think it’s unlikely they add 3 southern teams so probably not Miami, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech. If it comes down to that choice, I think they go to just 10 for awhile with only Miami joining.
LikeLike
Also, numerous reports from that time have Miami rejected by the ACC and Rutgers being considered by the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@Wainscott,
Initially in 1989, Texas agreed to go to the Pac and A&M to the SEC. There was an agreement with the commissioners that A&M and Texas could continue to play Thanksgiving weekend. But Stanford vetoed Texas. Texas and Texas A&M then agreed to stay in the SWC. The presidents were working together. The same was true in 1993. Texas, Texas Tech and the Pac had extensive discussions while A&M was talking to the SEC. Politically, Texas knew A&M and Tech had to be happy with where they landed.
But the Pac decided they wouldn’t take Tech. Big 10 wasn’t interested in expansion at that time. So Texas started talking to the Big 8.
There were lots of discussions. Some involved a full merger of SWC and Big 8. That is probably why the 4 left behind were so shocked when it became the Big 12. The KSU president said they were willing to take all 8. The Texas president said they weren’t. I’m guessing there were a lot of private discussions between Texas and Oklahoma and a few others and not all the schools were involved. KSU is one of the schools that could have been left out (if it happened in 1989 they probably would have been). Probably none of the major schools wanted a 16 team conference.
At that point the A&M president (David Mobley) was looking at the Big 8 as well. But eventually their board decided they wanted to go to the SEC and felt very strongly about it.
The story from the Texas president is that while there was lobbying, they didn’t have “significant political pressure” to take Baylor. Baylor was picked on their own merits (vs. TCU/Houston/SMU/Rice) to be #12. It was already understood that Tech had to go along. But that assumed A&M to the Big 12.
That was the time of arm-twisting. There was a meeting February 20, 1994 with A&M, Texas, the Lt. Governor and a couple of state senators. A&M told the group they were going to the SEC. Texas said they were going with the Big 8 schools. The Lt. Gov. and Senators took the A&M delegation into the other room at that point and “influenced them.” One of the Senators reported Lt. Gov. Bullock told A&M, “You ARE going to the Big 12.” After the meeting the Texas president called the Baylor president and told them they were in.
3 days later the move of Tech, Baylor, Texas and A&M to form the Big 12 was announced.
LikeLike
@Bullet–
Thanks for that! In the late 80’s, who would have gone to the Pac with Texas–Colo? TT? Pac stay at 11?
One other question: That 2/1994 meeting where aTm said it was headed to the SEC was after USC and Ark joined the SEC. Who would have been #14 in that case?
LikeLike
@Wainscott – it appears that the mysanantonio.com article detailing all the backroom talks at the beginning of the Big 12 has been removed. Here’s a cached version you might find interesting:
http://web.archive.org/web/20081024054855/http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html
LikeLike
@Mike:
That’s a great article. Thanks for the link!
LikeLike
In 1989 it probably would have been Colorado with Texas. They did try to get the two of them in 1994 after the Big 12 was announced. However, this was before the SEC announced they were doing a ccg, so they might have waited at 11. There were rumors of Texas and Texas Tech to the Pac and Houston and A&M to the SEC, but I don’t know how much of that was real discussions and how much was just speculation. I’m guessing more of the latter. Texas Tech had more political clout in 1993. The UT president didn’t mention anything about Tech in his discussions of what happened in 1989.
LikeLike
@Wainscott
If Texas and Texas Tech joined a numerically challenged Big 8 and A&M joined the SEC, I think the SEC would have made another run at Miami and FSU, but settled for West Virginia. Missouri makes more sense in a conference network world than in that environment. And I don’t think Missouri would have moved to the SEC then with the Big 10 still at 11.
If there was a Big 12 with Texas, Texas Tech and Baylor, I think BYU would have been #12. Houston was just off probation and in a competitive and attendance slump. The collapse of the SWC came at the worst time for them and SMU.
LikeLike
That San Antonio article is kind of the definitive article on what happened. Although the UT Chancellor (and prior president) Cunningham has his own version (a chapter in a book he wrote) which fills in some of the holes and has a slightly different perspective on the politics. He notes that he got involved and worked on the political activities (then president Berdahl talked to the other presidents). The KSU president was interviewed about it from the Big 8 perspective.
Here’s a short version of that from ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/big12/post/_/id/34237/a-lesson-on-the-history-of-the-big-12
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten discussed expansion in 1991. Targets were Missouri, Kansas, and Rutgers (not Nebraska at the time). If the PAC and SEC were expanding I expect the Big Ten would have probably expanded as well and would have included some mix of Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and/or Rutgers.
LikeLike
The idea of Houston in the SEC is quite something. Even then, at the heights of its Run & Shoot, Ware/Klingler era, it was still a middling, commuter school that culturally would have had nothing in common with just about any other SEC school.
I do agree with Bullet that had aTm gone to the SEC in the mid 1990’s, that FSU & Miami would have been approached, and both would have declined for different reasons (Bowden wanting to own the ACC, Miami wanting a more east coast/north east presence). I dunno if WVU would have been that #14 though, even at the tail end of its Nehlen glory days, it wasn’t a premier brand and WVU would have been in some ways a geographic outlier. But Va Tech was still being built by Beamer and L’Ville was just building a sustainable football program. Might the conference have approached Ga Tech to rejoin, still basking in a relatively recent split national title? A fun little historical debate. Memphis had long wanted into the SEC, but was not doing all that much in football and I believe had some NCAA issues with basketball around then.
LikeLike
There have been many stories of end of the SWC, but the exact truth remains somewhat mysterious. There have been lots of reporters that have written articles about it, citing various people at different schools, and yet no 2 articles seem to agree completely on the events. Whether people’s memories are faulty, they’re remembering rumors as facts, or they’re deliberately changing the story to make someone look better, I don’t know. The San Antonio article is one of the better ones, and is probably mostly correct, but I wouldn’t be surprised.if there weren’t some things not quite true.
Some general things that seem accepted:
1) Both A&M and the Longhorns were ready to end the SWC, but needed Arkansas to go first to take the blame.
2) The Longhorns looked to the Pac 10 first (I don’t think I’ve ever heard Tech being considered until very recently…it doesn’t seem likely that happened), and then to the Big Ten; they were turned down each time.
3) A&M was only interested in the SEC. (If you use the http://football.stassen.com/, you’ll find that, as of the end of the 1995 season, A&M had played more games against LSU than it had against all the schools in the Big 8 combined. And it had played Arkansas more often than LSU)
However, once the Longhorns were turned down by their first 2 choices, they pressured A&M to join the Big 8 with them. They had no desire to join the SEC and knew they needed A&M with them to prop up a Big 8.
4) Eventually the Texas legislature forced the Aggies & Longhorns to take Tech & Baylor with them into the Big 8
5) Colorado actually received an offer to join the Pac 10, but it didn’t come until late in the process. With the Big 8 already expanding, Colorado felt obligated to turn the offer down.
Between 3 & 4, there are some different accounts:
-In some stories, A&M held out for the SEC until the legislature forced them to go to the Big 12 with the other 3 schools. In some other accounts, the pressure by the Longhorns (or, more accurately, the possible disapproval from Longhorn-friendly legislators) convinced A&M to join the Big 8 before anyone tried to force Baylor & Tech on them.
-I’ve also seen accounts that said the Big 8 wasn’t going to stay at 10, but add 2 more non-Texas schools to get to 12. I think BYU & Louisville were the top candidates, but schools like Tulane (then a program that still had some stature), Cincinnati & New Mexico were also being considered.
-I think there are a few more variations of this story I’m forgetting, but you guys haven’t brought them up.
LikeLike
I’ve got a 1993 Petersen’s College Football Mag that said in its review of the SWC-p. 138, “Texas (Big Ten or Pac-10) and Texas A&M (SEC) likely will leave the SWC by 1994 barring a miracle–and likely will take Texas Tech (Pac-10) and Houston (SEC) with them. The private schools must gussie themselves up and look attractive for a merger of what’s left of the Big Eight after Colorado and Missouri defect.” Neal Farmer of the Houston Chronicle wrote the SWC article. I don’t know how attuned he was, but he clearly had heard some things.
Also, UT Chancellor Cunningham says in his book there was a lot of discussion in 1993 with the Pac 10 and Texas Tech (who was fine with the idea) about UT and TT to the Pac 10. The Pac 10 looked at TT, but decided they weren’t interested according to Cunningham. That’s when UT started focusing on the Big 8.
LikeLike
This is all great stuff you guys. Thank you for posting all of this. I don’t know what’s true and what isn’t but it’s all very fun to read about.
FWIW, from the Missouri end, I know rumors were strong that Missouri was close to joining the Big Ten until the Big 12 deal came along. But I don’t know how close it came to happening.
LikeLike
I’ve read variants of the B8/B12 history that also states that BYU and New Mexico were considered for the new conference.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Brian, the one thing I think you are off on, (for that time anyway) is that there was a period between Arkansas and South Carolina being invited. I think if Texas A&M goes to the SEC at that point, it’s as #12 and South Carolina is out of luck (and actually quite likely helps start up the Big East football conference).”
I based my timing on him saying 20 years ago (1994) and when the B12 was formed (1996). By then, PSU, FSU, AR and SC had all moved. Clearly things would’ve been different a few years earlier (1990-1 would’ve been interesting).
“Here’s my own scenario’s of how it played out, starting with what really happened.
1. Penn State to Big Ten. Big Ten tables further expansion talk for a few years.”
Hopefully they still kick themselves over missing out on UT back then.
“2. Arkansas to the SEC, which starts the Southwestern Conference scramble.”
It did, but the SWC survived through the 1995 season.
LikeLike
Arkansas announced for the SEC August 2, 1990. Texas got informal board approval to move to the Pac in August, 1990. But Stanford vetoed the move and Texas and Texas A&M decided to stay in the SWC. They had an announcement August 25, 1990 of that. So the SEC was waiting for A&M after Arkansas, but they decided to stay in the SWC at that time.
LikeLike
BYU and New Mexico were considered if the Big 12 went to 14.
LikeLike
Kansas did well at the end of the arrangement but for the history of the B12, they averaged near the bottom of the conference in TV revenue payments. Loftin is correct in what he said.
LikeLike
A&M wasn’t strong armed into the B12. They were bribed. They agreed to go if Reed Arena was approved, which is one of the dumber deals in the history of college sports. All’s well that ends well.
LikeLike
“The other thing: How many shoplifting cases have you heard about among athletes? It happens all the time. Why? They’ve got nothing. No money. They want a shirt, a pair of shoes. By prohibiting us from giving the athlete anything beyond the bare minimum to survive, we’re taking a young man from across the country or a young woman from across the country or across the world sometimes and tell them, “You’re going to be in abject poverty for four years playing for us. You can’t go home again, and you can’t do things that other students do, because you can’t get a job.” That, to me, is egregious.”
Is he really justifying theft?
Maybe its happening because some schools are ignoring character. That sort of thing doesn’t happen at every school. It happens a lot more at others, like FSU.
LikeLike
1) No, I don’t think that was what he was saying. He was just saying that paying athletes some money makes sense.
2) If you’re implying that Mizzou is lenient on athletes who commit crimes you are mistaken. To our own detriment sometimes we most certainly are not.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-college-footballs-coaches-have-fared-against-top-25-teams-1408489524
How current P5 coaches have fared against Top 25 teams.
LikeLike
Ranking them by numboer of wins
1. Steve Spurrier 62-52-1
2. Bob Stoops 50-23
3. Nick Saban 50-35
4. Frank Beamer 53-50-1
5. Les Miles 40-31
6. Mark Richt 34-31
7. Urban Meyer 25-12
8. Bill Snyder 23-43
9. Kirk Ferentz 19-34
10. R. Rodriguez 16-26
11. Brian Kelly 15-11
12. Mike Gundy 15-20
13. Gary Pinkel 15-37
14. David Shaw 14-4
15. Gary Patterson 14-14
16. Bobby Petrino 14-17
17. Mike Leach 13-38
18. Mike Riley 13-39
19. Mark Dantonio 12-25
20. Bret Bielema 10-20
LikeLike
These are decent maps that help most any serious discussions related to CF, especially history, culture, economics & yes, expansion – that is they’re good reference points.
Some disagreement on my part, esp the overpraise for the Pac12. Per capita high school output in the Pac12 is not really that high – Ca would be middle road in the SEC. In fact, Ca may be a notch below Ohio – some years. Moreover, saturation may be a reality in the Southeast or Southwest, but Fl, which has 3 major FBS schools (not counting rising UCF or USF) is hardly different, numbers wise, than the 4 major FBS schools in Ca shared by the Pac12. Yet, Fl has noticeably higher per capita talent than CA. Think about which state has the most NCs amongst their member universities since 1980. It’s Fl by a landslide (Miami, FSU and UF). Ca has to feed an entire P5 conference. I think it’s wishful thinking that Co, Wa and maybe even AZ will reach La, Ga, SC, Tx, Fl high school talent levels – Al & Miss are pretty damn good hs football states as well. Year round weather is pretty much the Southeast minus Ky and parts of TN, Ca, and Tx (most parts). A place like AZ, during the summer, is awfully hot in the metro areas where football is played – in fact it’s often unbearable. Wa and Co can have extreme weather. Bottom line, these map makers didn’t go into enough details, cultural sort & of course harsh scientific reality. When it comes to maps: “avoid pointillism.”
Take what you want from them. The staff worked pretty hard to get these maps together.
SB Nation’s “25 Maps that Explain College Football”:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/20/6030683/25-maps-that-explain-college-football
LikeLike
Blueprint for a Rebuild:
http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2014/8/20/5990929/college-football-coaches-programs-bob-stoops-bill-snyder
LikeLike
Glad I’m not the guy who has to screen Drew Magary’s email.
http://deadspin.com/notre-dame-was-never-special-and-never-will-be-1624521480
LikeLike
Its an intentionally-overstated headline, but his main point is spot-on. UND has not been immune from scandal, and indeed in that regard, is like any other major program.
Though, the editorial decision to use that headline, which can easily be read as a pre-buttal, does undercut the idea that UND is not special.
LikeLike
This article is a couple years old.
But yes, it is pretty bad.
LikeLike
The author’s links is what are a couple years old (not his comment on ND making a virtue of a cheating scandal).
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2014/08/21/verizon.aspx
Verizon signs on to the SECN, leaving Cablevision as the only major left.
LikeLike