Frank the Tank Summer Mailbag Part II: Ice Bucket Challenge, SEC Network, O’Bannon Lawsuit and Big East Stature in Autonomy

Posted: August 21, 2014 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

Every once in awhile, there’s a bandwagon worth jumping onto, so I’ve taken the Ice Bucket Challenge (you can see my son dousing me with my daughter filming here on YouTube) and made a donation to the ALS Association. I challenge all of the readers here to do the same. Also, if you haven’t done so already, please watch this great ESPN piece on former Boston College baseball player Pete Frates, who inspired the Ice Bucket Challenge. Onto some of the last mailbag questions of the summer:

This is referring to a list of “Winners and Losers” from the great Mr. SEC regarding the SEC Network. Generally, I agree with his overall premise: the SEC Network is going to be extremely successful and fill the coffers of the likes of Ole Miss and Mississippi State as well as the Alabamas and Floridas of the world. I’m actually more optimistic about SEC TV ratings than Mr. SEC (which he listed as a “loser”) since many of the SEC Network games will be ones that would otherwise have been in the old ESPN Regional syndication package or as part of individual schools’ third tier rights deals similar to how the BTN largely took the Big Ten’s old ESPN Regional syndication package to a national audience. The BTN hasn’t really impacted the national ratings of the best Big Ten games (and instead expanded the audience for lower tier games), so I’d expect the same with the SEC.

On the other hand, ESPN has been using a bit of puffery when it states that the SEC Network is “available” in 90 million homes. Being “available” is quite different than actually being subscribed to in those homes – the SEC Network could be “available” in a home but such home may not be able to receive it on a basic tier or without having to buy a sports pack. A network only gets a fee if it’s actually subscribed to in a home instead of being merely available. For example, the mothership ESPN itself is has nearly 100 million actual subscribers, so it’s getting $5.00 or more per month for every single one of those households. (That’s why ESPN is very literally the most powerful media company on Earth today, and that’s saying something considering that it’s part of the ubiquitous Walt Disney Company that has been eating my credit card over the past several months with a spring break trip to Disney World, buying Disney Princess, Frozen, Marvel and Star Wars toys for my kids’ birthdays, etc.)

To be sure, the BTN is just as guilty of trumpeting of the artificially high “available homes” number in many of its press releases. There will inevitably be a lot of comparisons between the SEC Network and BTN, but at the end of the day, they have similarly-sized geographic footprints where their networks are carried on basic cable on very high rates and then will be carried at lower rates and/or on sports packs outside such footprints. The SEC Network essentially gets the SEC back on more of an even TV revenue playing field with the Big Ten… at least until the Big Ten enters into brand new first tier/high second tier national TV deals in a couple of years that most observers believe will completely blow away any other college sports deal signed up to this point.

l received several questions about the Ed O’Bannon case, where the NCAA was found to be in violation of antitrust law for prohibiting players from receiving compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses (i.e. video games, apparel, etc.).

My general feeling over the past several years is that the NCAA has been unbelievably and incredibly misguided and naive about student-athlete compensation issues. Regardless of fans’ feelings on either side of the debate about whether student-athletes should be paid, it continues to boggle my mind from a practical standpoint that the NCAA’s argument has essentially been reliant on tradition (“It has always been done this way!”) with an all-or-nothing zero sum approach. The problem is that once you find even isolated examples where players bring more than “nothing” in terms of market value, the entire crux of the argument breaks down in front of a judge. That’s exactly what occurred in the O’Bannon case.

Still, if the NCAA looks at the O’Bannon ruling from a rational practical standpoint, it’s actually a positive ruling for them where the judge allowed for a trust fund cap of $5,000 per year. Of course, the NCAA won’t look at it that way – it will continue to make the all-or-nothing zero sum argument on appeal because it doesn’t have any sense to take what was essentially a compromise ruling and run with it. Now, the NCAA opens itself up on appeal to the argument that even the $5,000 trust fund cap shouldn’t apply and there ought to be unlimited compensation available to student-athletes, which could very well happen with the liberal and labor-friendly U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I’ve been fairly upfront on this blog that I’m an ardent free marketer when it comes to college sports: conferences and schools should be free to make whatever arrangements that are best for them to maximize revenue and, in turn, student-athletes should be able to seek compensation commensurate with their free market value from such conferences and schools in the same manner. (Antitrust economist Andy Schwarz had an excellent breakdown of college athlete compensation issues on Deadspin earlier this month. I’m firmly on the side of “Team Market” as opposed to “Team Reform”.) Even if you personally don’t agree with me (and based on the comments on previous posts, I know that many of you don’t), the reality is that the O’Bannon case is only the start of the college sports world heading in that market-based direction.

The Big East won’t ever end up as part of the Power 5 conferences from an NCAA autonomy perspective. FBS football is such a dominant and driving force with respect to NCAA autonomy issues that having the Big East (or any other non-football league) as part of the “cartel” is a non-starter. The Big Ten and SEC don’t want conferences that aren’t dealing with football to have any say over what are largely football-driven decisions. That being said, the Big East isn’t really any worse off than the Group of 5 non-power FBS conferences within the NCAA structure itself. The marketplace is really where the Big East can distinguish itself – the league (despite low ratings) have an excellent TV deal with Fox that pays it more for only basketball than what any of the Group of 5 conferences (including the American Athletic Conference that has the remnants of the old Big East football league) are getting paid for TV rights for both football and basketball. The Big East also has a new non-conference challenge set up with the Big Ten next season, which indicates that it is considered to be a power conference for basketball purposes. It’s not an easy world out there for leagues that aren’t part of the Power 5, but the Big East may very well be the healthiest of any of them despite not playing any FBS football.

Enjoy the last days of a “Fancy”/”Rude” summer* and be sure to take the Ice Bucket Challenge if you haven’t done so already. Only one more week until the college football season starts!

(* You won’t be able to make it through this list of top songs from each summer for the last 20 years without either laughing uproariously at or being mortified about what we were listening to back in the day. There are some badly dated duds every year, but I have fond memories of the summers of 1992, 1997 and 2007.)

(Video from YouTube)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Go Hawks!!!

    Like

  3. Carl says:

    We’re Irish!

    Like

  4. RAndom guy says:

    It might be nice to point out how many homes the SEC/Big10 network are “in”, not just available in. SEC will be “in” over 75M homes, which is huge.

    Like

    • @Random guy – Putting these two separate reports together from today, the Big Ten Network is “in” approximately 60 million homes, while the SEC Network is in the “mid-60 million home range”:

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-sherman-media-0822-20140821-column.html

      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2014/08/21/verizon.aspx

      So, it’s consistent with what I’ve stated – the Big Ten and SEC have similarly-sized geographic footprints and their respective network subscriptions reflect that.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Right. But the SECN charges 40% more in footprint and 250% more outside of footprint, so it should make maybe 50% more money.

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          SEC network is only .25 outside footprint. BTN is, I believe, .15 or .20

          Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          But for who? Definitely ESPN, but how much for the conference? We’ve had a couple sources say the ESecPN is a media rights purchase (Larry Scott: a massive one) with possibly a LHN like share above a threshold (Forbes, 2013). Carriage definitely helps, but it’s not like BTN or P12N. Those can directly link carriage and rates to income.

          Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          Who cares which conference network makes more? For tier 3 content, they don’t have overlapping audiences so it’s not like they are competing for the same viewers. So if the SEC is successful charging a higher rate then the BIG can use them to increase their own rate at the negotiating table.

          Like

          • @Psuhockey – Yes, when we’re comparing similar products, it’s ultimately a matter of timing just like it is with TV rights deals. The SEC actually has a lower first tier TV rights contract than the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 right now, but I wouldn’t ever claim that the SEC is less valuable than those conferences. It’s simply a matter of the SEC deal being older. Invariably, ESPN went to cable providers and said, “For the SEC Network, we want what you’re paying for the BTN plus 10-20%.” In a few years when the current BTN carriage deals expire, Fox will go to cable providers and say, “For the BTN, we want what you’re paying for the SEC Network plus 10-20%.” That cycle will continue indefinitely. What matters more is how the conferences compare to each other in the long run – the Big Ten and SEC are clearly on a tier above the other Power 5.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            not 10-20%. 40%.

            Also, you’re leaving out the fact that the BTN had to scratch and claw for years to get onto as many TV sets as they’re on now, and the SECN blew by that number in a week.

            Also, the SECN is free to continue to up their fees over time as well.

            Really takes a lot of omissions and leaps to spin it like the BTN is and will be as profitable as the SECN, unless the landscape changes significantly.

            Getting a good carriage fee in NYC would help a lot of course. We’ll see how that goes.

            Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            Really takes a lot of omissions and leaps to spin it that the SEC is and will be as profitable as the BIG when in fact it has never actually happened.

            Why not wait until the actual dollars figures come out before talking smack. When the SEC finally out earns the BIG, then you can crow.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            OK, it hasn’t happened yet. What has happened is that the SECN is in more homes than the BTN and at a 30-50% higher rate per home. So it’s only a matter of time.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            It’s also kind of hilarious that you contend the fact that the BTN struggled to get carriage whereas the SECN did not is proof of your contention that the SECN is more valuable than the BTN.

            Let’s just continue ignoring the fact that the BTN was the first of its kind and is the very reason the Pac-12 Network and SECN even came into existence. They proved it was a workable model and were willing to fight as long as it took to make it so. All conferences benefit from what the Big Ten had the initiative to accomplish.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, that’s part of it. But it also seems to be true that 1) ESPN is a force to be reckoned with, and 2) grassroots demand for the SECN was pretty damn high. Both of those factors would seem to set the SECN apart from the BTN and would bode well for the SECN continuing to demand higher fees going forward.

            Like

        • Wainscott says:

          That also assumes that every in-footprint carrier is paying the same fee, and that every out of footprint carrier is also paying the same rate.

          Like

          • FrankTheAg says:

            @wainscott

            Given that all the carriers agreed to terms (minus one) isn’t it a safe assumption that the in-footprint and out-of-footprint rates are standard? Why would ESPN cave to one carrier and not another?

            I think you’d expect divergent rates if negotiations were prolonged and more uniformity when they were agreed upon quickly.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            @FrankTheAg:

            Honestly, I don’t know if it is a safe assumption or not. Its certainly possible the rates are uniform; its just as possible that each cable carrier has different negotiating positions, strengths, weaknesses, and market service areas, and are able to get different deals, especially when the rates are private.

            Its possible that as it got closer, ESPN was more interested in getting carriage to demonstrate wider acceptance and the good publicity that comes with it than sticking to a firm carriage fee.

            As for out of network, each provider will carry SECN differently on a different tier, and presumably paying differently as well.

            Like

        • Andy says:

          Right, there are some assumptions in my estimate. I’m assuming a 50/50 split as has been repeatedly reported. I’m assuming that rates will be pretty standard and at the levels that they’ve been reported but maybe there will be some minor variation, I don’t know. I’m also relying on what I’ve read about BTN fees, which were that it was $1 in footprint and 10 cents outside of network. Maybe that’s a little off.

          So 50% more money is a broad guess. Maybe it’s 30%. Maybe it’s 60%. Probably somewhere in between.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      One thing is for certain. ESPN did an incredible job selling it. They got basically everyone for startup.

      Like

  5. vp19 says:

    Go Terps (will be at UCLA tomorrow night for the women’s soccer opener, which I believe will be Maryland’s first-ever event as a Big Ten member)! Go Nats (10 in a row after their fifth walk-off in the past six games)!

    Like

  6. Transic_nyc says:

    It’s not too early to discuss some basketball. Big Ten conference schedule is out now (BTN Live devoted a segment on that this evening):

    http://btn.com/2014/08/21/big-ten-announces-mens-basketball-slate/

    Like

  7. Mike says:

    I’m a little disappointed that you only have the Oscar Gamble ‘fro online.

    Like

    • @Mike – Ha! I don’t post my picture that often, so it’s funny to see when people realize that I actually look nothing like Oscar Gamble. That Gamble avatar is one of my favorite baseball card pictures and I’m a huge White Sox fan, so I’ve kept it for years.

      Like

  8. Nathan says:

    Add de add add add ad

    Like

  9. ccrider55 says:

    “Now, the NCAA opens itself up on appeal to the argument that even the $5,000 trust fund cap shouldn’t apply…”

    The judge did that, not the NCAA. She said you can’t set a cap…but you can…at $5k? A non decision.

    “NCAA’s argument has essentially been reliant on tradition (“It has always been done this way!”) with an all-or-nothing zero sum approach.”

    You believe that tradition can’t still represent an honest and current desire regarding how to administer the athletic component to their educational offering? Something old is not necessarily in need of change. In fact, longevity usually represents something important enough to have resisted it.

    Like

    • Fundamentally, the problem the NCAA has with the OBannon ruling isn’t the ruling itself, but the opinion behind it. At the end of the day, they could almost certainly live with $5k per player per year being allowed (since schools can still say no).

      They CAN’T, however, live with an opinion that basically says “all your legal defenses are bogus, and the only reason I’m not totally blowing you up is due to the narrow factual holdings that getting paid = exploitation, and that the public doesn’t like players getting paid a lot.” Especially since there are multiple other suits that have far broader reach than OBannon’s relatively narrow reach of NIL (name, image, likeness) rights. Kessler, for instance, would have an absolute field day with this precedent if appeals doesn’t overturn it.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Yes. She said the cap could be no lower than $5000. She is basically leaving it for another judge to blow that up later. Its set up for an endless series of suits. And unless the legal reasoning is challenged, ultimately, there are no limits.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      “Now, the NCAA opens itself up on appeal to the argument that even the $5,000 trust fund cap shouldn’t apply…”

      The judge did that, not the NCAA. She said you can’t set a cap…but you can…at $5k? A non decision.

      Yes, it’s the weakest part of her decision—a number plucked out of nowhere. But the trouble for the NCAA is: if the rest of her opinion is upheld, the $5k cap is sure to rise or be eliminated entirely, at some point.

      “NCAA’s argument has essentially been reliant on tradition (“It has always been done this way!”) with an all-or-nothing zero sum approach.”

      You believe that tradition can’t still represent an honest and current desire regarding how to administer the athletic component to their educational offering? Something old is not necessarily in need of change. In fact, longevity usually represents something important enough to have resisted it.

      You’ve misread FTT’s point. The NCAA was accused of doing something illegal. When your behavior is alleged to be unlawful, “We’ve always done it that way” is not an acceptable defense.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Really the biggest weakness for the NCAA is that the student athletes are compensated. Its just not in cash and not taxable. If you define them as employees and not as primarily students, the defenses fall apart. Then you are getting into something similar to what they did with the assistant coaches and tried to limit salaries. They lost that case.

        The new governance structure puts student-athletes on boards. It may help eliminate some of the blindness the NCAA has had towards student-athlete needs. But these suits were coming anyway. Their actions just soured the public attitude towards them.

        Like

  10. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    I’m up in B1G country at a conference in Minneapolis. Downtown is very nice. Target Field is great. The Minnesota State Fair is a spectacle. I saw my first butter sculpture. Frank, I also watched a very nice show about Red Grange on the BTN.

    My fraternity brother that lives here says that the SECN is on the same Comcast package as the BTN.

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      Its interesting that you mention Comcast, and Andy in the previous thread mentions he has it on Comcast.

      I have to believe that Comcast put the SECN on a lower tier nationwide partly because of its purchase of NBCU and the Consent Decree with the Justice Department before the government approved that takeover. Since Comcast has its own sports network (NBCSN), I suspect that Comcast actually had a weaker bargaining position than we realize because of those agreements that it could not use its power to discriminate against other sports networks, and ESPN exploited Comcast’s weakness to the fullest (as it should have) to get not only peak rates in-footprint but to get the network on a lower tier outside the footprint.

      Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Welcome to Minnesota, Alan! Hope you enjoy your stay in the Land of 10,000 Lakes!

      BTW, the SECN is on my Dish Sports-pack with BTN, FSN, LHN, Golf Channel,… I dunno if that is something nationwide or not…

      Regarding the SECN… I don’t know why so many (not just on this blog) are making this out to be some kind of competition (w/BTN, etc)… If you are a sports fan (esp. a college sports fan), we should all recognize how nice it is to be able to see such a WIDE variety of sports/sports stuff on these new (or relatively new) outlets… Wasn’t too long ago that only marquee teams/games were televised. Now even non-revenue stuff is easy to see on the tele. That is nothing but good for the universities, for the respective sports, and for the fan… Regardless of any conference affiliation…

      Like

      • Had a Burger at Annie’s in Dinkytown, a beer at the Big 10 Bar, and walked through the knoll today. Tomorrow, Im heading up to Duluth and then Lake Itasca. I can’t get over how narrow the Mississippi River is up here. Also the Twins put up 20 runs on Detroit tonight. Having a great time in Minny!

        Regarding your point about the BTN and the SECN, I agree.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        mnfanstc,

        “Regarding the SECN… I don’t know why so many (not just on this blog) are making this out to be some kind of competition (w/BTN, etc)…”

        Because the CFB media coverage (mainly ESPN) and the playoff make every other conference the enemy. What’s good for the SEC is bad for the B10 and vice versa. You are incented to root for bad things to happen to other schools and conferences.

        “If you are a sports fan (esp. a college sports fan), we should all recognize how nice it is to be able to see such a WIDE variety of sports/sports stuff on these new (or relatively new) outlets…”

        But most CFB fans aren’t college sports fans, they’re CFB fans that also watch march madness. And most of them have no interest in watching the lesser CFB games, either.

        Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          Hi, Brian…

          I guess I feel a little bit sorry for those who either don’t or won’t open their minds regarding some of the other sporting events.

          To be fair, I have a hard time finding interest in soccer, but that’s me. And IMHO baseball is too slow to watch on TV. But, if I can, I’ll watch men’s hockey, basketball, and wrestling. I’ve found that B1G women’s volleyball is also pretty interesting and very competitive.

          There are many fun things to do in life; of course, with sports/sporting events being among the nice reliefs from the daily trials of work…

          Like

      • UGADawg says:

        Go UGA Dawgs!
        Excellent point there about all fans of college football win with the creation of SECNETWORK. Fortunately, both the B1G and SEC have been able to boost each others presence and income. Let’s face it, us SEC fans would not be enjoying this great new channel without B1G pacing the hard road before us. You guys helped make it easy.
        I will gladly watch the B1G network if they have a good game on the tube, but I do have a concern about the production quality of many of the B1G network shows. I was listening to a very interesting Iowa Hawkeye podcast that had a guy by the name of Steve Deace who brought up some interesting points of difference between the 2 networks when you watch them side by side. Based on what I’ve seen and points he brought up, I do agree that the B1G Network will have to invest more money and improve their production quality if they don’t want I be lagging behind. Curious about this threads thoughts on that.

        Like

  11. FYI, my thoughts on one of the NCAA’s key legal arguments and how bogus it is:
    http://compu-picks.com/General_Interest/20140820_OBannon_PartOne.html

    Like

  12. urbanleftbehind says:

    “Enjoy the Fancy/Rude summer”

    Is it me or did R Kelly relocate from your old haunts and become a Haitian-American named Jason Derulo?

    Like

    • Fabian says:

      I am honestly surprised at how few schools sell beer at games. Maybe my experience has been clouded by the many years of playing at the Metrodome (where as an off-campus stadium, Gopher fans have been able to drown their sorrows since 1982), but to look at football tailgating culture and then clutch your pearls thinking about selling beer in the stadium seems disingenuous at best.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        Its a liability issue for schools.

        If an on-campus stadium sells beer to someone under 21, that’s a problem for the school. If they sell too much beer to someone underage who gets sick, that’s also their problem.

        If they do not sell beer, and someone sneaks it into a parking lot tailgate and gets sick, then its probably not the university’s problem.

        Like

        • Fabian says:

          Seems the same liability would carry over to the University-owned parking lots as well. I think the problem is more one of optics than anything else.

          But if there is anything that it is a deterrent to in-stadium underaged drinking, it is the $8 hit you take for every 16 ounce beer.

          Like

        • Mike says:

          Its a liability issue for schools.

          It is a concern but not an overriding one. My experience is the other problems with drinking (poor behavior, fighting, DWI post game) are what concerns schools the most. Law enforcement doesn’t mind a stadium full of people who don’t have access (unless snuck in) to alcohol and have 3 to 4 hours to sober up during a game. Especially, in the smaller college towns where a majority of fans are not staying the night.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        One factor I think many people forget – thousands of fans at every game don’t tailgate at all. There are plenty of people who don’t drink at all on a game day, especially in the more conservative parts of the country. Not every fan is looking for a way to have more beer, and some of the old rich alumni really push back at being surrounded by drunks.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          There are plenty of people who don’t drink at all on a game day, especially in the more conservative parts of the country

          I don’t think this is a red/blue state problem. The conservative south is known for tailgating just as much as Wisconsin is.

          Not every fan is looking for a way to have more beer, and some of the old rich alumni really push back at being surrounded by drunks.

          In my experience, families with young children object the most being around drunks.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “I don’t think this is a red/blue state problem. The conservative south is known for tailgating just as much as Wisconsin is.”

            I was thinking more rural versus urban, and certain flavors of religion look down on drinking more than others making a regional difference.

            “In my experience, families with young children object the most being around drunks.”

            But the rich people (usually older) are who the ADs listen to because they donate so much.

            Personally, I hate being surrounded by drunks at a game. It’s uncomfortable enough without people stumbling into you, leaning on you and/or spilling beer on you. I can do without the drunken yelling, too. It’s one reason I like OSU’s policy of enforcing open container laws during tailgating. If you can’t have fun without drinking to excess, stay home or go to a bar.

            ADs have to evaluate the tradeoff. Plenty of people will still get blitzed before the game, but now they can keep feeding that buzz during the game. On the other hand, many will drink less before the game knowing they can get a few during it. I believe the stats so far show fewer legal problems during games. The limited number you can get during the game should also mean that DUIs aren’t much more common if at all, either.

            I don’t really care if they sell beer, with one caveat. Anyone who spills their beer on someone (without being bumped) should be kicked out. Nobody wants to go home smelling like stale beer because you’re a drunk.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I was thinking more rural versus urban, and certain flavors of religion look down on drinking more than others making a regional difference.

            I’m curious which side (rural or urban) you feel drink more? I agree with you about the religion thing.

            On the other hand, many will drink less before the game knowing they can get a few during it. I believe the stats so far show fewer legal problems during games.

            I haven’t seen any numbers, but in my experience alcohol availability during a game has a little effect on how much someone will drink before. I’ve heard this as a justification for in stadium sales but I would very surprised if it is indeed true. Enough schools have dropped alcohol sales in the past citing problems that I’d be surprised if the fewer legal problems trend holds.

            The limited number you can get during the game should also mean that DUIs aren’t much more common if at all, either.

            As I understand it, if someone is already legally drunk, it only takes two 24 ounce beers (or 4 12oz) over a four hour period for them to stay there. Even with limited availability, it doesn’t take that many beers over a four hour game to get/stay legally drunk.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            It looks more like an added source of $$$ for Go5 schools with limited TV revenue. Very few P5 schools, but a good distribution of north/south, urban/rural: 5 in OH, 5 in TX, 3 in LA, 2 in AL. Most of these schools will follow the pros (no sales in 4th Quarter), or sell beer at the concessions directly behind the student sections.

            Like

  13. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.freep.com/article/20140821/SPORTS06/308210124/michigan-football-doug-nussmeier-gardner

      Maybe here’s one reason for their recent struggles.

      “Before coach Nuss got here, I never identified a Mike (linebacker). Now I’m identifying the Mikes and know where the pressure is coming from. So if I am going to have to be hot, I’ll know how to protect myself or throw hot to a receiver and communicate that with them. It’s been amazing for me.”

      Isn’t identifying the Mike basically QB 101? And he wasn’t doing that before?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.omaha.com/huskers/shatel-big-ten-s-problem-is-attitude-not-injury/article_0f775f4d-3d45-55af-9dea-c736edd53ca1.html

      A NE writer blames the attitude of B10 people. Maybe midwestern humility is hurting our national perception.

      So we read that the Buckeyes are now out of the running for the Big Ten and the playoffs.

      Must be contagious. We also read that Michigan State’s chances are shot now, too, because the Spartans play damaged-goods Ohio State.

      What’s that? The College Football Playoff has been settled. The champions of the Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and ACC will be invited. The entire Big Ten is going to be shut out of the playoff. Yes, that includes you, Nebraska, and you, Iowa.

      Typically, I would expect such theories to be espoused from SEC country. The folks down south may be on top, but they have a strange obsession with the Big Ten. They will take shots at the great white north whenever possible. Why bother?

      But not this time. This time, the doom and gloom came from several Big Ten outlets, including the Chicago Tribune and Big Ten Network.

      There’s a saying: If you don’t take yourself seriously, nobody else will.

      It’s not the job of Big Ten sportswriters and media to pump up the conference. But to write off the entire league in August tells me this conference has an image problem, and most of the locals are buying in.

      But people like to pile on the Big Ten. And the Big Ten doesn’t push back.

      In the SEC, you would hear about there being six or seven contenders for the playoff. That someone would get left out, the injustice of it all.

      But Wednesday, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “Sorry … no team from the West will get there.”

      But here’s the thing. Nebraska goes up to East Lansing on Oct. 4. NU might lose to Fresno State or Miami. And MSU might not get a lot out of beating the Huskers.

      But what if Michigan State beat, say, Georgia on Oct. 4? You’d hear all about the great victory over the vaunted SEC.

      Nebraska beat Georgia last January in the Gator Bowl.

      The Big Ten doesn’t get credit for that. Because it doesn’t do it nearly enough. But also, because the Big Ten doesn’t give itself credit. Dare to dream.

      Mostly, I get tired of the SEC overselling itself and the Big Ten underselling.

      The SEC is very good, at pigskin and marketing. Nobody kept score on which was the best conference before 2006. But SEC coaches and their media markets have beaten us over the head with it for eight years. Mostly, they’ve taken credit for what Alabama, Florida, LSU and Auburn have done.

      And now they have the ESPN machine on their side. The SEC Network looks good, but it’s no different from any other conference network out there. The SEC didn’t reinvent television.

      What the SEC really leads the nation in is pride. Regional pride.

      In the Pac-12, in California, they aren’t talking about the playoff. They might be in Texas or Oklahoma, but not Kansas or Iowa or North Carolina. In the Big Ten, you’re as likely to hear people talk about the campus or library as they are the football team.

      The SEC is radio talk show host Paul Finebaum writing a book titled, “My Conference Can Beat Your Conference: Why the SEC Still Rules College Football.” There’s a passage in that book that says it all.

      “People outside the SEC look down on the South’s obsession with college football. I look up to it. The SEC is college football’s industrial giant. It makes us Southerners proud again. It helps define us. It makes us a family. College football is our great equalizer. You’ve got Harvard, Wall Street and Independence Hall. We’ve got the Iron Bowl, Main Street and Kyle Field.”

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Humility,huh? That’s funny, considering the main complaint about Big Ten fans from non-Big Ten fans is how arrogant they are.

        Like

      • kmp59 says:

        The SEC is obsessed with the Big Ten? So says the writer who mentions the SEC 14 times in his column.

        Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        ACC fans are at least as self-depicating as Big Ten fans. There’s very much a “Thank God for Florida State and Clemson because of the rest of us suck” attitude among many fans, at least in North Carolina.

        I agree that the Big Ten is undersold. Michigan State was an outstanding team last year and should be this year as well. Ohio State is still loaded with talent even without Braxton Miller. Wisconsin is very good, too, and would compete well in any league. But everyone focuses on the losses to the SEC. Interestingly enough, the Pac-12, the other league touted as above the rest, has no tie-ins in bowl games with the SEC, so both avoid losses to each other.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Season Matchup Result Spread
          2000 No. 3 Alabama at UCLA UCLA, 35-24 Alabama by 7
          2001 No. 17 UCLA at No. 25 Alabama UCLA, 20-17 Alabama by 2
          2002 Auburn at No. 19 USC USC, 24-17 USC by 7
          2002 Miss. State at No. 15 Oregon Oregon, 36-13 Oregon by 13
          2003 No. 13 LSU at Arizona LSU, 59-13 LSU by 11
          2003 No. 8 USC at No. 6 Auburn USC, 23-0 Auburn by 3
          2003 Oregon at Mississippi State Oregon, 42-34 Oregon by 3
          2004 Oregon State at No. 4 LSU LSU, 22-21, OT LSU by 18
          2005 No. 5 LSU at No. 15 ASU LSU, 35-31 ASU by 1
          2005 Arkansas at No. 1 USC USC 70-17 USC by 30
          2006 Arizona at No. 8 LSU LSU, 45-3 LSU by 15
          2006 No. 9 Cal at No. 23 Tennessee Tennessee, 35-18 Cal by 2
          2006 No. 6 USC at Arkansas USC, 50-14 USC by 7
          2006 Wash. State at No. 4 Auburn Auburn, 40-14 Auburn by 14
          2007 No. 15 Tennessee at No. 12 Cal Cal, 45-31 Cal by 6
          2008 No. 18 Tennessee at UCLA UCLA, 27-24 (OT) Tennessee by 7.5
          2008 No. 3 Georgia at Arizona State Georgia, 27-20 Georgia by 7
          2009 No. 11 LSU at Washington LSU, 31-23 LSU by 17.5
          2009 UCLA at Tennessee UCLA, 19-15 Tennessee by 8
          2009 Arizona State at No. 21 Georgia Georgia, 20-17 Georgia by 7
          2010 No. 7 Oregon at Tennessee Oregon, 48-13 Oregon by 10.5
          2010 No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 1 Auburn Auburn, 22-19 Auburn by 3
          2011 No. 3 Oregon vs. No. 4 LSU LSU, 40-27 Oregon by 2.5
          2012 ASU at No. 21 Missouri Missouri, 24-20 ASU by 7
          2012 Washington at No. 3 LSU LSU, 41-3 LSU by 24
          2013 Washington State at Auburn Auburn, 31-24 Auburn by 14
          2013 Tennessee at No. 2 Oregon Oregon, 59-14 Oregon by 28

          Like

  14. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/21/report-missouri-violated-title-ix-laws-not-investigating-rape-allegation

    The University of Missouri violated Title IX laws by not conducting an investigation after a student accused a football player of raping her, according to a report from ESPN’s Outside the Lines.

    The student reportedly told an academic adviser about the rape, which allegedly occurred in 2008, but assistant football coaches told the parents of the football player, Derrick Washington, that criminal charges were unlikely.

    University officials confirmed to Outside the Lines that a Title IX investigation was not conducted.

    Washington was also involved in three other incidents while at Missouri.

    In 2010, a woman’s soccer player who was arrested for fighting with Washington’s girlfriend at a bar alleged that Washington punched her in the face. The woman’s soccer player spoke to her coach, who said her scholarship was at risk because of her arrest, according to a police report. From ESPN’s investigation:

    The report stated, “Her coach made her feel as though she would not have any problems with her scholarship if she declined to prosecute Derrick Washington for assaulting her,” and that, “If Mr. Washington was arrested, the incident would make the news and the situation with her scholarship might change.”

    The soccer player said she lost her scholarship but had it reinstated with the help from an attorney.

    In 2011, Washington was convicted on a deviate sexual assault charge and sentenced to five years in prison after he sexually assaulted a woman who was asleep in her bed, an incident that occurred weeks after the alleged bar assault of the women’s soccer player. As part of a first-time offenders program, Washington served four months and registered as a sex offender.

    In 2012, Washington received a 90-day jail sentence as part of a guilty plea to misdemeanor third-degree domestic assault after he beat up his girlfriend, an incident that occurred in 2010 just 13 days after he was charged for the bedroom incident. He served the 90 days simultaneously with his other sentence.

    During his three years at Missouri, Washington rushed for more than 2,000 yards and 28 touchdowns. Washington was selected as a team captain and sent to represent the Tigers at Big 12 media days in 2010.

    Like

    • Andy says:

      Incredible and shameful levels of spin and omission in the OTL story. Much longer and more accurate story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

      http://m.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/eye-on-the-tigers/washington-disputes-allegations-uncovered-by-espn/article_2ff880b9-55e0-50cd-9bc8-67736265e301.html?mobile_touch=true

      Cliffs Notes:

      The alleged victim was a stripper, they were having consensual sexual activities. In her version she then told him to stop and he didn’t stop right away until she pushed him. In his version he stopped pretty much immediately. Either way she goes to the police. They investigate thoroughly and decide not to prosecute the Mizzou player, who at the time had no prior arrests or allegations against him. Part of the reason they decided to drop charges is because the alleged victim admitted that her ex-boyfriend had been pushing her to try to blackmail the football coaches about this.

      So where Mizzou is admitting fault is that like a lot of schools (USC, Arizona State, Tulsa, and many more) back in 2008 they hadn’t yet set up a system for automatically doing a separate Title IX internal investigation in addition to the investigation performed by law enforcement. Mizzou implemented these problems years ago but 6 years ago this had not been done yet.

      As far as the soccer player, OTL fails to mention that this allegation has been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. What actually seems to have happened is that the soccer player was involved in a bar room brawl with several other people, and violently attacked Derrick Washington’s then girlfriend. Accounts vary on if Washington struck the soccer player or not, but in any case the point in contention is the soccer player’s conversation with her coach. The coach was not somehow trying to protect the football player, why would he? He was trying to protect his own player, basically by telling her “think hard before you try to escalate this legal issue with getting hit by the football player, because you were punching people too, and if you get charged with assault and battery then by rule I’d have to revoke your scholarship. But if you just let it go and don’t get charged (which is what she ended up doing) then you can stay on the team”. Think what you want of that advice but it’s night and day different from what OTL tried to imply.

      I’m sure the usual people will say I’m being a homer by correcting OTL’s spin. Just read the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s story if you care. If you don’t then just let it be. Or troll me if that’s how you get your kicks. The St. Louis Post Dispatch has a long history of negative stories about Mizzou so don’t think that they set out to whitewash this either. That’s just where the facts led them.

      This is just one of many OTL stories that miss the mark badly.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      *”Mizzou implemented these problems years ago but” should read “Mizzou started doing these title IX investigations years ago but”

      Like

  15. Brian says:

    http://fansided.com/2014/08/22/college-football-5-teams-living-reputation/#!bIhZfx

    5 ranked teams living on their reputation. Warning, it’s a slideshow.

    Here are the 5:
    1. UT
    2. ND
    3. NE
    4. USC
    5. UGA

    Like

  16. greg says:

    Washington was selected as a team captain and sent to represent the Tigers at Big 12 media days in 2010.

    In 2010, a woman’s soccer player who was arrested for fighting with Washington’s girlfriend at a bar alleged that Washington punched her in the face.

    In 2011, Washington was convicted on a deviate sexual assault charge and sentenced to five years in prison after he sexually assaulted a woman who was asleep in her bed, an incident that occurred weeks after the alleged bar assault of the women’s soccer player.

    In 2012, Washington received a 90-day jail sentence as part of a guilty plea to misdemeanor third-degree domestic assault after he beat up his girlfriend, an incident that occurred in 2010 just 13 days after he was charged for the bedroom incident.

    SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC!

    Like

    • Andy says:

      Yeah… a player ends up sexually assaulting someone, he’s kicked off the team, and goes to jail.

      I mean it sucks but it can happen to literally any team at any time. You get some of these inner city kids from rough backgrounds and sometimes they commit serious crimes.

      So what else can you do beyond kick them out of the program when it happens? Build a time machine and unrecruit them?

      I mean, it’s one thing to criticize a program for covering up crimes or keeping players after they’ve been charged with serious crimes.

      But if you have a kid on your team who commits a crime and then you boot him, that’s pretty much all that can be done. What’s to criticize?

      Yeah, it’s happened to Mizzou 3 times in six years: Derrick Washington, Michael Dixon, and Dorial Green-Beckham. All three were accused of violence against women. All three were booted.

      Now DGB’s gonna go play for Oklahoma. If you’re going to point fingers that’s where you should be pointing. They’re appealing to get a known woman abuser eligible this year.

      Like

  17. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/21/army-black-knights-jeff-monken

    Turning around Army football comes with a cost. Is it worth it?

    Like

  18. Brian says:

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/uclanow/la-sp-ucla-neuheisel-warns-against-playoff-20140821-story.html

    Rick Neuheisel warns that the P12 may be hurt by the playoff, especially this year. His concerns:

    1. P12 is the only league playing 9 games + a CCG, so they are more likely to have a 2-loss champion.

    2. The P12 is loaded with veteran QBs in 2014, making upsets more likely. Again, meaning the champ is likely to have more losses.

    3. Especially in year 1, the committee will feel pressure to not skip over an undefeated team or a 1-loss champ to take a multi-loss champ.

    Like

  19. Brian says:

    http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/predicting-where-gameday-will-go-in-2014.html

    Predicting where GameDay will be each week this season. I think he overestimates how Machiavellian ESPN is in choosing games, though. He frequently has ESPN skipping the best game because ESPN doesn’t want to help Fox, NBC or the P12, but they’ll willing help CBS (over ABC) apparently. I know ESPN is in bed with the SEC, but I’d need to see evidence of them doing this in the past to believe they’d skip the top game that often.

    Like

  20. Brian says:

    http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/uncategorized/b1g-first-round-qb-drought-does-it-even-matter.html

    Does the B10’s drought of 1st-round QBs matter (last one was Kerry Collins in 1994)? ESPN also talked about it today.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/105926/elite-qbs-could-be-missing-piece-for-b1g

    Some say yes, as the lack of elite QB play is what has held the B10 back in its recent decline and I agree that has been part of it. A lot of it was the run-first offenses the conservative coaches ran, though.

    Others say no, because it’s a dumb way to measure college QB play. This also has a lot of validity as Tom Brady and Drew Brees both came after Collins and they’ve turned out all right. There was also a Heisman winner in Troy Smith. B10 QBs have won 5 of the Super Bowls since 1995, more than any other conference. Last season, only the ACC had more NFL starters than the B10.

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      It does not matter in reality, but it may matter in perception of the conference overall.

      What colleges ask of QB’s and what pro scouts/GM’s look for in QB prospects are not necessarily the same.

      Like

    • bob sykes says:

      The spread offense doesn’t help matters. It emphasizes running over passing, while the rules favor passing over running.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It depends on the flavor of the spread. The Air Raid style emphasizes passing. The read option style emphasizes running. In general, college tends towards running in part because it’s easier to find athletes that can run the ball than find excellent decision makers for throwing the ball.

        Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      QB talent, or any position for that matter, has often been talked about for the decline in the BIG football of late but that is a symptom not the cause. The BIG has been down due to coaching the last decade. Tressel was an above average football coach but easily dominated the conference 2000’s. Look at the coaching talent in the 90’s: Saban, Carr, Alverez, Tiller, Barnett and under 70’s Paterno. By the 2000’s these guys were old and recruiting drastically changed in the internet age. Their programs became stale and in the case of Purdue, died. Yet none of them were fired, except Paterno about a decade too late. Saban and Barnett left. Just to show you how old and stale the coaching got in the BIG in the 2000s, they actually had some stupid gentleman’s agreement not to poach each other verbals.

      Meyers and now Franklin have brought SEC-like recruiting to the BIG. Dantonio is like Alverez in his ability to coach up 3 star recruits into stars. Hoke and Pelini need to be fired but hopefully those schools bring in the right hires to help turn the conference around. College football is all bout coaching and the SEC had them for the 2000’s and BIG needs to catch up.

      Like

  21. Brian says:

    http://www.dishsportsvalue.com/

    Dish is blacking out some FS1 sports events.

    Like

    • @Brian – This is actually Fox blacking out specific games (all Big 12 and Pac-12 games so far) to provide leverage in a carriage dispute. The BTN threatened to black out Nebraska games if Nebraska carriers didn’t start paying the in-market rate (as opposed to the lower out-of-market rate when Nebraska was part of the Big 12), but it never got to that point since everyone signed up.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Okay. I wrote it that way because that’s how Matt Sarz said it in a tweet.

        Matt Sarzyniak @mattsarz

        Had not heard about this. RT @PortlandChris1 http://www.dishsportsvalue.com/ Dish is blacking out college football games on FS1

        Like

        • Brian says:

          He’s got a series of relevant tweets – https://twitter.com/mattsarz

          Odd side item is that FOX College Sports’ live games became available on Dish systems about 6-8 weeks ago.

          As I was conversing w/someone else, either FOX is making the rounds to get more $ for FS1 & Dish called bluff or FOX told them “no games”

          This has to be where it gets awkward w/Pac-12. Has business deal for signage, sponsorship w/Dish as part of P12 Nets but other games from your conference are now unavailable because of a dispute w/entity that pays ~47% of your primary rights fees.

          Flipside for P12 is that you still have your games on ABC/ESPN & can push P12 Net on fans, I guess.

          Caught one exchange from Dish’s Twitter service team from about a day ago. Sounds like they were caught off guard about this.

          Like

      • kmp59 says:

        How does this dispute arise? Didn’t Dish (and other carriers) sign a carriage agreement for FS1 just a year ago? So FS1 has the ability to go back a year later and demand higher fees and withhold games if that demand isn’t met? Does this mean other carriers have agreed to raise their fees for FS1?

        Like

        • Mack says:

          The contract Dish has for Speed must be specific enough that Fox is able to withhold the football content. I expect Dish refused to agree to a fee increase when the channel changed to FS1.

          Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “Didn’t Dish (and other carriers) sign a carriage agreement for FS1 just a year ago?”

          No. Fox asked for a bump, but nobody expected them to get one until the existing contract (for the channel previously called Speed) at least got closer to expiration.

          Like

  22. bullet says:

    Georgia Tech just got 2 more years of probation.
    They implemented new software that monitored their calls to recruits. Coaches didn’t think, with the software, they needed to log calls that didn’t get answered by the recruit. However, NCAA rules require they do or additional calls are not allowed. This was self-reported by Georgia Tech.

    Didn’t see this morning’s AJC article up yet on the site, so I can’t link it. But if there is ever an argument for scrapping the NCAA rule book and enforcement mechanism, Georgia Tech is the poster child for it. Their last probation and vacating on an ACC title was because 1 player took $312 of clothing from an agent and the AD told the coach the NCAA was investigating it when the NCAA didn’t want him to.

    Meanwhile, the NCAA is apologizing to Miami and ignoring North Carolina and Auburn.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “Georgia Tech just got 2 more years of probation.”

      Well, they self-imposed it in agreement with the NCAA.

      “They implemented new software that monitored their calls to recruits. Coaches didn’t think, with the software, they needed to log calls that didn’t get answered by the recruit. However, NCAA rules require they do or additional calls are not allowed. This was self-reported by Georgia Tech.”

      You left out three critical parts of this.

      1. The GT compliance director told the coaches they didn’t need to log the calls. You can’t have a compliance guy not knowing the rules and telling coaches the wrong thing.

      2. The report also gave further detail on Spencer’s misdoings. Between April 7, 2011 and January 8, 2012, he sent 217 impermissible texts to 18 prospects. He told NCAA enforcement staff that there was no excuse for the texts, that he knew it was a violation but did it anyway, in one case because of a relationshp with a prospect that was deemed to have “a significant humanitarian dimension.” Most damaging, Spencer told investigators he would have stopped had he known that the school was monitoring his text usage.

      3. The NCAA came down more harshly on three women’s basketball assistant coaches on the staff during the investigated time period — Octavia Blue, Janie Mitchell and Sam Purcell. While they also unknowingly made impermissible calls, once they became aware of the violations, they “made a conscious decision to not report the violations to the compliance staff or to inform (coach MaChelle) Joseph,” the report read. All three offered explanations, “but each generally admitted they knew not reporting the violations was wrong,” according to the report.

      The NCAA called it failure to monitor, which sounds about right.

      “Didn’t see this morning’s AJC article up yet on the site, so I can’t link it.”

      http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/ncaa-cites-georgia-tech-for-failure-to-monitor/ng7dn/

      The institute also subjected itself to an additional two years of probation (on top of its four-year probation penalty assessed in 2011) because of a former assistant football coach’s willful disregard of text-messaging rules and also because of 461 impermissible calls and 256 impermissible text messages to prospects made by coaches in football and men’s and women’s basketball coaches in 2011 and 2012. There will be no further penalties, such as vacated wins or scholarship reductions.

      Since they were already on probation and multiple coaches admitted to knowingly breaking the rules, I think GT was lucky to get away with just more probation.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      The point is that not logging incomplete calls is an NCAA violation. That is simply absurd.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Not if there is a limit on the number of permissible contacts it isn’t (and if you don’t limit them, the kids will never have time to eat, sleep or study because coaches will bother them 24/7). Even a call that doesn’t end in a conversation has recruiting value (it tells the kid you were “thinking about him”). Besides, as you saw most of the problems were willful violations. That’s why I don’t see GT as a great example. They broke the rules knowingly.

        There are good reasons why the NCAA rulebook became so thick.

        Like

    • vp19 says:

      This would be a boon to folks caught in the crossfire in Iowa (Chisox, Cubs, Royals, Cards) or Las Vegas (claimed as territory by five different MLB teams).

      Like

      • @vp19 – It’s even worse than that in Iowa since the Twins and Brewers also that state as a “home” market, too. Of course, it looks like MLB still wants you to have an authenticated cable account with the applicable regional sports network in order to access games online, so it may not be as helpful as it would seem on paper. The big issue with a state like Iowa is that the markets there generally only carry one of either Comcast SportsNet Chicago (Cubs and White Sox) or Fox Sports Midwest (Cardinals), yet all of the other teams that claim Iowa as a “home” market still get blacked out. If MLB Extra Innings just moves to a cable authentication model (which you honestly shouldn’t have to pay for if you have a cable subscription, anyway), then it still won’t help those fans.

        Now, I understand why this is occurring – MLB teams are getting rich off of regional sports network revenue much more than national TV revenue, so they want their RSNs to be in as wide of an area as possible. This means that the teams don’t want fans to be able to see their games on an a la carte MLB Extra Innings package when those teams could be making much more off of basic cable RSN subscriber fees. I sympathize with the teams with respect to their direct home markets, but the situation in a supposedly neutral territory like Iowa where so many far flung teams are claiming that territory is ridiculous. There has to be some type of reasonableness test or at least something similar to the way that the NFL defines primary (the DMA that the team is actually located in) and secondary markets (any portion of a DMA is within 75 miles of the team’s stadium).

        So, a possible compromise would be that a team can protect its primary and secondary markets with MLB Extra Innings blackouts, but it can’t stake claims beyond that. This would ensure that, say, the Cubs and White Sox aren’t putting their CSN Chicago carriage at risk in the Chicago DMA and adjacent markets (i.e. Rockford, South Bend) while giving the people in far flung locations (such as Iowa) full access to MLB Extra Innings without unreasonable blackouts. You can add this to the laundry list of action items that I’d take if I were the Commissioner of Baseball. Next up: Playoff changes!

        Like

        • greg says:

          MLB blackout map:

          Iowa does indeed get the shaft.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Map showing which Major League Baseball teams have local blackout rights in which areas of the United States. Areas where only one team (or two teams with identical blackout areas) has blackout rights are solid colors as indicated on map. Areas where multiple teams have blackout rights are symbolized as stripped areas with each team having blackout rights being represented by appropriately colored stripes. Not pictured: Hawaii: Oakland Athletics, Seattle Mariners, San Francisco Giants, San Diego Padres, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and Los Angeles Dodgers. Alaska: Seattle Mariners Puerto Rico: unknown US Virgin Islands and Guam: All teams

            (emphasis mine. Text from Greg’s link)

            Sucks to be in Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Las Vegas also has 6 teams blacked out, same as the states of IA and HI. OK, AR, and Buffalo have 4 teams blacked out. From a quality standpoint, CT is the only state that has both the Yankees and Red Sox blacked out.

            Like

  23. Brian says:

    http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/New-Big-Ten-Officiating-Rules-30515555

    A Q&A with Bill Carollo, the coordinator of B10 officials.

    Q. What areas are you looking for overall improvement in 2014?

    Carollo: “I am looking at three areas. No. 1, it was on defensive pass interference. That’s my first area. No. 2 was on line play: chop blocks, offensive holding, even defensive holding. No. 3 was hurry-up offense. We’re not very good at that. We don’t see it every single week. It puts pressure on the defense, but it puts pressure on the officials. We’re not quite ready. Offenses just keep coming the whole game. We’ve got 200 plays, and that’s a fast-paced game.”

    Look for B10 officials to finally start calling holding.

    Like

  24. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I thought the SEC and ACC’s decisions not to include BYU as a team that counts toward their leagues’ required minimum of one power conference opponent per year were weird. Notre Dame counts as one for both the SEC and ACC, even though they still are not a member of a football league. BYU is independent. What gives?

    I know for me, I would be pretty disappointed if my favorite team only played on power conference opponent in non-conference play. That said, I would be happier with three cupcakes and a game against BYU than three cupcakes and a game against a Wake Forest, Washington State, Indiana, etc. BYU is just as challenging as the average P5 opponent.

    I just don’t get it. It’s not as though everyone is going to be scheduling Michigan, USC, etc., so this isn’t going to be aiding strength of schedule as much as it might appear to be doing.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      The sarc-y side of me is saying “now you know why Romney lost, especially FL and VA (plus he barely (50.8%) won NC running 8 pts behind the winning R governor candidate), when I was thinking he’d squeeze out a 280-300 EV victory”. Mormons still thought of as cultists by Southern Baptists?

      Its a shame that the PAC has this principled stand against them and that the B-12 found BYU officials a pain to deal with. The PAC in particular and the B-12 (except for WV) should lobby citing travel issues (e.g. not a lot of other P5 schools within 1,000 miles); BYU is in some ways a mirror image of ND – an iconic religous university with a larger-than-regional following, so I do see your point. There may be the thought that opening the door to BYU may be opening the door to another P-conference to form, with its multiple (SDSU?, Fresno, UNLV or UN-R) more mouths to feed.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      “I thought the SEC and ACC’s decisions not to include BYU as a team that counts toward their leagues’ required minimum of one power conference opponent per year were weird. Notre Dame counts as one for both the SEC and ACC, even though they still are not a member of a football league. BYU is independent. What gives?”

      ND is a major brand, BYU isn’t. ND is a P5 school, BYU is a MWC school. Declaring independence doesn’t magically elevate BYU’s status.

      “I know for me, I would be pretty disappointed if my favorite team only played on power conference opponent in non-conference play.”

      That really depends on the schedule. FSU has a locked P5 rival OOC so of course they tend to play more than 1 P5 team OOC. Basically they have a 9 game locked schedule (8 ACC + UF) and 3 OOC games. That’s where the B12 and P12 are now and the B10 soon will be. Beyond UF, how often does FSU play 2 P5 teams OOC? Never. I think 10 of 12 is a realistic goal for most P5 teams. But if you already have 9 conference games, that means only 1 P5 team OOC.

      “That said, I would be happier with three cupcakes and a game against BYU than three cupcakes and a game against a Wake Forest, Washington State, Indiana, etc. BYU is just as challenging as the average P5 opponent.”

      Yes, BYU can beat many P5 teams now. But who says they’ll stay that good? There are worse P5 teams, but at least they are P5 teams so they are on a level financial playing field. Besides, the weaker P5 teams need to be able to schedule other weak P5 teams. That’s why the rule is so broad.

      “I just don’t get it. It’s not as though everyone is going to be scheduling Michigan, USC, etc., so this isn’t going to be aiding strength of schedule as much as it might appear to be doing.”

      Appearance is everything. The ACC and SEC were being mocked by fans of other conferences for all their non-P5 cupcakes, and there is a fear that feeling will carry over to the playoff committee, so they acted.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        And in the case of the SEC, it was clearly substantially more cosmetic than anything else, since if you look at this season’s schedule, its something like four schools that don’t play a P5 school OOC … the Mississippi’s, TX A&M, and Vandy. Vandy is because the effort to establish an ongoing series with Wake Forest got knocked aside by the SEC scheduling of Vandy with the Vols, and AFAIU, TX A&M is the normal consequences of a conference realignment and they will shortly be back to playing P5 schools OOC.

        So the long term impact of the rule is basically that the Mississippi’s don’t get to play an all-cupcake OOC schedule any more.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Exactly. Much the same is true for the ACC. They were grand statements signifying almost nothing.

          Like

        • m(Ag) says:

          I know reporters are claiming every non-conference series involving 2 ‘Power 5’ schools is about the playoff, but I don’t think the playoff has caused any changes in scheduling practices.

          It seems clear the SEC mandate was about the SEC Network, as the conference now cares about the quality of Mississippi State’s non-conference schedule. The ACC followed because it didn’t want to be the only one without such a guideline and it hopes to have its own network soon.

          Of course, it’s not just about TV rights; schools are more amenable to scheduling home-and-home match-ups because of the drop in attendance for ‘buy’ games and because the cost of those ‘buy’ games has gone up.

          In addition, profitable neutral-site games have increased steadily. Atlanta has gone to 2 a year and Houston recently added one. Nashville is starting one and there are ‘one-off’ match-ups coming up in Green Bay & at an auto-racing track in Tennessee.

          Again, I see no evidence the playoffs have changed anything.

          Like

          • greg says:

            I think we’ve reached the tipping point on home games, of which playoff scheduling is a small, yet valid, part. The reasons now pushing for stronger OOC games includes playoff SOS, conference network programming strength, popular sentiment, but lastly, and probably the most important, is the struggles that schools are seeing with ticket sales. Strengthening OOC games not only increases ticket demand, but should somewhat suppress supply as more teams replace one-off buy games with HaH deals.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            Just to expand on Greg’s answer, the playoff has encouraged the scheduling of P5 schools for SOS purposes. Remember, SOS is determined by opponents and the opponents’ own SOS. So playing Indiana yields a benefit for SOS vs a non P5 school because even if Indiana is bad, its own SOS will reflect a tougher conference schedule than it would for Wyoming or Boise State or BYU.

            Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        ” Beyond UF, how often does FSU play 2 P5 teams OOC? Never.”

        It’s not often at all, but this year FSU plays Notre Dame and Oklahoma State. 11 P5 teams, plus The Citadel.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “ND is a major brand, BYU isn’t. ND is a P5 school, BYU is a MWC school. Declaring independence doesn’t magically elevate BYU’s status.”

        BYU was and is comparable to many P5 programs; but they were in the Mountain West Conference. Declaring independence wasn’t to magically elevate the status – it was to distance itself from the inaccurate and demeaning MWC label.

        Independence matches BYU’s past and current status much better than the former affiliation.

        From a competition standpoint, BYU would fit right in with most Autonomy 5 conferences. From a facilities and resources standpoint, same. From an attendance and fan base perspective, BYU would be in the top-half of the PAC 12, Big 12, and ACC.

        For what it’s worth, Oregon State and Washington State would fit right in with the MWC. The PAC 12 affiliation is the key difference. See also Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Iowa St., etc.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bradleysmith1212,

          “BYU was and is comparable to many P5 programs;”

          But not to ND which was the comparison being made.

          “but they were in the Mountain West Conference. Declaring independence wasn’t to magically elevate the status – it was to distance itself from the inaccurate and demeaning MWC label.”

          How is it inaccurate to say a program that just left the MWC is a MWC level program? Did BYU have some recent period of utter domination of the MWC that I missed? Both Utah and TCU have had losing records since joining P5 conferences, and they were the best MWC teams.

          Demeaning is in the eye of the beholder. Idaho would love to be called a MWC level team.

          “Independence matches BYU’s past and current status much better than the former affiliation.”

          Army and Navy are also independent, but almost nobody claims they deserve P5 status. Each independent is treated differently. ND has earned a status that BYU hasn’t.

          “From a competition standpoint, BYU would fit right in with most Autonomy 5 conferences. From a facilities and resources standpoint, same. From an attendance and fan base perspective, BYU would be in the top-half of the PAC 12, Big 12, and ACC.”

          But ND gets special treatment because they fit in with the other kings. The P5 don’t get paid what they do for the middle of the pack programs, they get it for the top ones.

          “For what it’s worth, Oregon State and Washington State would fit right in with the MWC. The PAC 12 affiliation is the key difference. See also Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Iowa St., etc.”

          Sure affiliation helps. Nobody said otherwise. But that doesn’t change what BYU is, and what they are isn’t what ND is (which is I what I said to begin with). Not being ND in FB isn’t a put down.

          Like

  25. acaffrey says:

    FYI. The Confidential is running three different fantasy football games/contests. One is a simple, pick the 4 playoff teams contest.

    The other two are ACC-centeric. The second is an actual fantasy football, individual player selection contest. The third is a survivor pool.

    If you think you know football, please feel free to enter one or more of the contests. The fantasy football contest is organized so that if you miss a week, all is good. We are competitive folks, but reasonable.

    See here for details: http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2014/08/25/the-three-confidential-fantasy-football-games-contests/

    Like

  26. Wainscott says:

    NFL and DirecTV on the verge of an extension of NFL Sunday Ticket through 2021:

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/08/25/Media/DirecTV.aspx

    Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://247sports.com/Article/The-biggest-Big-Ten-football-games-of-the-2014-college-season-30521763

    The biggest game each week involving a B10 team, with a paragraph about each game.

    Aug. 30 – Wisconsin vs. LSU (at Reliant Stadium in Houston), 9 p.m., ESPN
    Sept. 6 – Michigan State at Oregon, 6:30 p.m., Fox
    Sept. 13 – Penn State at Rutgers, 8 p.m., Big Ten Network
    Sept. 20 – Miami (Fla.) at Nebraska, 8 p.m., ABC/ESPN
    Sept. 27 – Minnesota at Michigan, TBD/TBD
    Oct. 4 – Nebraska at Michigan State, 8 p.m., ESPN/ESPN2
    Oct. 11 – Penn State at Michigan, 7 p.m., ESPN/ESPN2
    Oct. 18 – Nebraska at Northwestern, 7:30 p.m., BTN
    Oct. 25 – Michigan at Michigan State, TBD/TBD
    Nov. 1 – Maryland at Penn State, TBD/TBD
    Nov. 8 – Ohio State at Michigan State, 8 p.m., ABC
    Nov. 15 – Nebraska at Wisconsin, TBD/TBD
    Nov. 22 – Wisconsin at Iowa, TBD/TBD
    Nov. 28 – Nebraska at Iowa, TBD/TBD
    Nov. 29 – Michigan at Ohio State, TBD/TBD

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Interesting article.

      Goes along with the monitors FSU and others are wearing to avoid over-taxing the body to reduce injuries.

      Like

  28. Brian says:

    http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/AUG14/DBAugust23.html

    Home field advantage for each school per Phil Steele.

    Tied for #1: AL, Boise, LSU, OU, OR, OSU, SC and WI

    Like

  29. Wainscott says:

    Blueprint for a Rebuild: Interviews with Bill Snyder, Stoops, and others on how to rebuild a program.

    http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2014/8/20/5990929/college-football-coaches-programs-bob-stoops-bill-snyder

    Though, Snyder did not rebuild KSU as much as build it from decades of futility.

    Like

  30. Brian says:

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/08/quick-lane-bowl-unveiled-detroit-lions/

    The Detroit Bowl has a sponsor – Ford Motor Company’s Quick Lane Tire & Auto Center. The bowl will be known as the Quick Lane Bowl.

    Like

  31. Wainscott says:

    This is hilarious:

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      Not that this is at all surprising. I’m sure Indiana, Virginia, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Colorado, and other weak P5 programs all had numerous inquiries about future home and home series.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      I’m sure ku will dodge them all and continue to lose to Rice instead.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        Not really sure Mizzou fans should claim OOC scheduling superiority. Mizzou’s future OOC schedules leave much to be desired thus far:

        http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/sec/missouri-tigers.php

        Like

        • Andy says:

          You mean because they’re empty? Okay… We’ll see what happens once they’re finally filled. The SEC put a freeze on adding new non-con games until recently. The only series Mizzou has added so far has been Purdue.

          Over the last 15 years or so Mizzou has played Ohio State twice, Clemson twice, Michigan State twice, Arizona State twice, Ole Miss twice, Indiana twice, Illinois 6 or 8 times, Syracuse, UCF, New Mexico, etc. Not spectacular but not embarrassing either.

          Like

        • Andy says:

          Also, Wainscott, for a guy who claims to not be a Kansas fan you sure do talk about them a lot, and you sure do bash Mizzou a lot…

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            By sharing a very funny story about how KU football is perversely in demand for being a bad P5 program?

            Mentioning them because it’s fun to goad a Mizzou homer is the only reason why I mention KU on here when otherwise not in the news. I have no personal allegiance or connection to KU, and I’m not a fan or non-fan of its teams.

            Like

    • m_Ag_id@yahoo.com says:

      I could see 5 calls to KU

      Missouri has an historic rivalry with them, & you might see UK, Vandy, & the 2 Mississippi schools calling them. I don’t think anyone else would try and schedule them except as a 2nd P5 school on their schedule (and I think Mizzou might only look at them that way.

      Like

      • Mack says:

        The other two were probably Tennessee and Arkansas. Both programs are down in recent years, and a win against a weak opponent works better than a loss against a strong opponent; both schools will have enough of these in conference play.

        As far as Missouri, Kansas is the most desired OOC opponent by the school and alumni (ask Andy). Tradition outweighs SOS for this. Kansas may have ended the series as much because they were tired of getting beat by Missouri every year as they did because the game went OOC.

        Like

        • m(Ag) says:

          In the last year or so, Arkansas has set up Home & Homes with Texas Tech, Michigan, & TCU, and it still has an upcoming game with the Longhorns that was set up years ago. Unless they’re looking for a 2nd ‘P5’ game, they’re not going to schedule Kansas.

          Right now, UT is supposedly finalizing a contract to play Georgia Tech in 2017 (http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/08/georgia-tech-tennessee-2017-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game-nearly-set/). If that is confirmed, they already have 1 P5 team scheduled every year all the way through 2018. I assure you the administration in Knoxville does not think the team will still be down in 2019, which is the year they ‘need’ to get a P5 team on the schedule.

          Again, the ‘7 teams’ is almost certainly an exaggeration. I would think it’s less than the 5 schools I named. But it’s a rumor on twitter, so people think took it as fact.

          Like

      • Wainscott says:

        I highly doubt Mizzou called KU. Too much bad blood there. Those two school’s ain’t playing football against each other anytime soon outside of a bowl game.

        Like

        • m(Ag) says:

          I don’t know that they ‘called’ them, but they have publicly stated they’d play them again. However, MU often has 2 home/home series going at the same time, so even if KU agreed to play them, I wouldn’t be surprised if MU would have another game against a P5 team in the same year.

          Of course, MU officials have also talked about trying to play Illinois, another traditional rival from a border state. It was somewhat amusing when KU & Illinois instead scheduled a series against each other. Pretty much a public declaration that neither school sees themselves on the same level as MU.

          Like

          • Wainscott says:

            “Pretty much a public declaration that neither school sees themselves on the same level as MU.”

            How is that? To me, its a public declaration that the two schools wanted to play each other and both had room in the schedule.

            As for the public statements, that’s more for PR. Now, if Mizzou did call KU to schedule games, I’m sure KU would, if it even took the call, very quickly shoot it down and end the call. Such is the evident depths of KU’s anger at Mizzou. But I don’t put as much stock in public expressions of interest from anyone. Plus, if Mizzou did call, I’d expect Mizzou to leak the existence of such a call to the press as a extra tweak at KU (knowing KU won’t play them anyways, so might as well have some fun at KU’s expense)

            Like

          • greg says:

            Missouri is completing HaHs this year with Toledo, UCF, and Indiana, which is clearly a public declaration that they see themselves on the same level as those teams. 2015 at Arkansas State.

            Like

  32. gfunk says:

    I’m sorry if anyone has posted the “Niche College Rankings” very bottom.

    The BIG got all 14 members in the top 100, but two fall outside of the A+ range: Rutgers (73) and Northwestern (76).

    The rest of the P5 faired better in terms of schools with an A+ rating, lowest rated schools.

    The SEC got all members in the top 55 with an A+ rating.

    The Big12 got all into the top 59 – A+ rating.

    ACC got all members in the top 62 – A + rating. ND, not included, landed in the top 15.

    The Pac12 had two outside of the A+ range: Cal (64) & Wash St (65).

    ** Methodology & BIG under microscope **

    Methodology is cited. It is what it is. I think the “Student Survey Response” played a part in brining down the BIG’s numbers – Rutgers & Northwestern especially – plus the fact that these schools have certain reputations to shake. Notice the rest of the BIG places in the top 58 (12 teams), which would put it right behind the SEC and ahead of other P5 conferences.

    Two indisputable facts: BIG has the best all-around attendance. So this list can partly suck it. And I think the BIG does the best in the Director’s Cup, overall depth – perhaps the Pac12 edges the BIG. But if so, barely.

    PS I didn’t calculate average ratings per conference.

    https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/best-athletics/

    Like

    • gfunk says:

      Upon further review, see “NCAA Championship Score” under methodology. This metric really hurt a school like Penn State, which has won quite a few NCAA titles, but not in the 8 sports measured. This metric hurt a lot of schools with stronger than perceived, that is this rankings. athletic departments.

      Like

  33. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/106035/in-playoff-era-will-rose-stay-as-sweet

    How will the Rose Bowl fare in the new CFB world?

    An interesting tidbit from the sidebar (on whether the Rose will host the NCG someday):
    One potential holdup is cost. Jenkins said the estimated price tag of hosting a national title game is between $13 and $15 million, with the host site not receiving any revenue from the game. That’s a change from the BCS era, when the host sites kept a chunk of the pie.

    Like

  34. Brian says:

    http://bridgemi.com/2014/08/um-soars-msu-doesnt-on-freshmen-test-scores/

    An article about ACT scores in the B10 (25th and 75th percentile, by school and overall). It’s focused on UM and MSU, but discusses broader issues applicable to other schools.

    ACT scores for Big Ten freshmen in the 25th percentile of their class rose from 22.6 points on average in 2001 to 25.1 points last year, a 2.5 point increase. Those in the 75th percentile rose from 27.9 to 29.8 (A max ACT score is 36).

    There’s a nice interactive plot of the numbers since 2001, too.

    Like

    • @Brian – Very interesting data here. Northwestern and Michigan are unsurprisingly #1 and #2 in the Big Ten for top test scores, but the school that has really jumped up in terms of selectivity over the past decade is Ohio State. Illinois and Wisconsin were a clear tier above Ohio State for ACT scores back in 2001, but Ohio State has now eradicated that gap. This may explain much of Ohio State’s rise in the U.S. News rankings over the past few years. Ohio State rose to #52 last year, which had them tied with both Texas and Washington (who have long been perceived to be top “Public Ivies”).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I’m guessing they are admitting a lot more out of staters. With the declining student population, its hard to raise standards unless you decrease attendance-and that hasn’t been the case.

        Like

      • Kevin says:

        I often wonder what this increased selectivity will do on the athletic side in terms of fan interest. As the changes have occurred in the student body I think many of these kids are less well rounded where many did not participate in athletics in HS and may lack interest in athletics overall. I think we are already observing it to some extent with late arriving students or overall disinterest.

        Out of state students have less interest in athletics of their school than the in state students in my opinion.

        The B1G schools use to be a bit less selective on the undergraduate side while maintaining highly selective grad schools.

        My thought is that part of the reason for increased selectivity is just sheer numbers. Many of kids of the baby boomer generation are now attending college and more and more kids are attending college while the schools have maintained or even slightly reduced undergrad enrollments.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          The sheer number of assumptions you make in your comment is staggering.

          And, regarding your overall opinion that out of state students are less interested in athletics than in state students. Has this opinion has been informed by some fact/occurrence/data?

          Like

          • Kevin says:

            @Wainscott. It’s my opinion. Not factual based research. It is what I observe on campuses when I recruit future employees. Anecdotal opinion. Many current students would share similar opinions. Obviously it’s a not a scientific survey.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            That’s fair.

            I disagree with most of what you said, but my disagreement is also based on my opinion/interpretation/anecdotal evidence, so there are room for both views.

            I do agree that B1G schools are now more selective, though;

            However, on the point of more kids attending college, peak college (ie: peak number of high school graduates was actually in 2009, and that number is slowly declining now (though projected to match 2009 levels by the mid 2020’s.). http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/12/college-enrollment-falls-for-second-year-in-a-row .

            Like

        • Andy says:

          Mizzou’s enrollment over the last decade has grown from 25k to 35k, while their ACT average has climbed from 25 to 26. Had they stayed at 25k enrollment they may have gotten their ACT average up to 27 or 28 just by being more selective. But they made the institutional decision to grow, but only at a pace where they didn’t have to sacrifice student quality. It’s a balancing act. They’ve got a ways to go before hitting that 40-50k 27-28 ACT average that a lot of the Big Ten schools have. That seems to be the sweet spot.

          Like

          • Ross says:

            I think the change in interesting to watch. The difficult part is getting a real assessment on how schools compare with one another. Rankings are inherently biased, and some seem to rely on certain numbers that either mean little without context or are easily manipulate (for example, I believe it was Clemson that had all their graduates return money they gave them before graduation, which immediately boosted them several positions).

            This is one area I think people miss with expansion. Athletics drive up applications. It’s basically been established at this point that having successful seasons in major sports sees an increase in applications. Simply being seen matters. Exposure is huge for a lot of schools, even already established ones. That’s something that doesn’t get discussed enough with the conference networks, I think. There is a lot of immeasurable value in simply being on TV and getting that viewership. I think both the SEC and Big Ten made very good moves in that regard in the last round of expansion. Students of NY/NJ and Maryland will serve the Big Ten well, as will Missouri and Texas for the SEC (and vice versa).

            It’s so difficult to move in the rankings, since it isn’t as if the schools ahead of you are slacking. UK has made a much bigger commitment to research in recent years, for example, but it remains to be seen if they can actually make a big jump over other schools (I sadly have my doubts).

            Moving to that ideal range will take a long time for Missouri. Essentially doubling your student body while increasing scores multiple spots will be a big task.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Exposure is what the Longhorn Network was about. Texas was interested if it cost them money. Noone was sure it would make any money. That’s why A&M’s AD refused to consider going in with Texas on it. The former UT AD, commenting about the SEC Network, said (rough quote)–They will make a lot of money, but they will only be 1/14th of it. We will be on 24 hours a day.

            Now none of these networks are going to get great ratings, but they are 24 hour a day infomercials. And the schools are getting paid for it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            What value is a 24 hr infomercial if no one watches? I’ve already watched more SECN in its first two weeks than LHN since it started, which I’ve basically only seen briefly as I surf by to another channel.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Mizzou spent about a billion dollars expanding their campus, increasing capacity from around 25k to around 42k. Now the goal is to fill it to capacity. Empty capacity basically means lost money, kind of like empty seats on an airplane. At the same time, Mizzou doesn’t want to open up enrollment and take less qualified students. So the strategy has been to recruit heavily for out of state students. Mizzou currently has around 5,000 students from Illinois and another 2,000 or so from Texas. Joining the SEC was as much about expanding Mizzou’s exposre nationally as it was about money or sports. Need to attract as many applicants nationally as possible.

            Expanding capacity to 42k was an institutional decision made for a number of reasons. They wanted to improve research capacity, and also to gain more influence with the state legislature after Missouri State had made a big push to increase enrollment and got it up over 20k about ten years ago.

            Like

          • FrankTheAg says:

            Bill Byrne refused to “go along” with the LHN for two reasons. First he wanted a conference network.

            http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/27699/aggies-ad-weighs-in-on-big-12-network

            http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/big-12-creating-a-television-network_b86087

            Second, he was unwilling to go along with Dodds on a joint A&M/UT network as the deal was structured to to split expenses 50/50 but Dodds wanted content and revenue to favor UT by as much as 70/30. Byrne discussed this openly at a few A&M alumni meetings and implied it when he told the DMN, ““Three or four years ago we talked about doing a joint flagship channel,” Byrne said. “I liked the idea, but our fans should know me better than to think I would pass on a $150 million deal for Texas A&M. That never happened.”

            http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20110901-texas-ad-texas-am-turned-down-network-offer-with-longhorns.ece

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @cc
            You aren’t the target audience.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @franktheag

            Byrne likes to stretch the truth a lot. When asked about a “Lone Star Network” his response was something like, “I never turned down a $15 million a year network,” which was true. He turned down an opportunity to participate in a network that no one knew if it would make any money.

            Texas and Nebraska funded the conference network study. Noone else was interested. Not Byrne. And note that he didn’t “say” A&M was offered 30% of the network. It was like his never turned down a $15 million a year network comment. Byrne is just trying to defend his bad decisions.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            Maybe im not UT’s target, but why do they need the WWL if they only want local fans and alumni? I’m pretty sure my money is as green as everyone else’s. That it the target for ESPN, unless you’re suggesting they are just donating and spending a billion. Or that preventing the P16 is saving them far more than that.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            ESPN wants everyone. UT wants, fans, alumni, parents, potential students. ESPN wants to maximize profit. UT wants to maximize exposure. So UT probably would have offered a lower price if they were determining the carriage rate.

            If UT was playing like they were the first decade of this century, the games would draw more of “everyone” and more of “fans, alumni, parents, potential students.”

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I fit many of those criteria.

            My point, as you know, is that a single school doesn’t have the inventory to come anywhere close to supplying a 24/7 channel adequately. If there were a B12N I’d probably have seen far more of UT. Every in conference away game in every sport, as well as the home games, would be the network’s to broadcast.

            It is what it is.

            Like

          • FrankTheAg says:

            @bullet – Just because Byrne’s public comments dispute your input doesn’t mean he stretches the truth. His comments simply conflict with your input above. Quit spinning or post something better than your opinion. Fact is, Byrne supported a conference network and wasn’t interesed in being a secondary partner in the LHN.

            To classify this as a “poor decision” given the facts as the stand today is completely misguided. Bryne was correct in rejecting the LHN since it has limited exposure and is a failure.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Note that a tsunami of international applicants have driven down acceptance rates (and driven up test scores) at many B10 schools (especially those well-known for engineering like UIUC, PU, UMich, UW-Madison, & UMinny in some fields).

      The admission rate in to CS in Engineering at UIUC is now in the single digits.

      Like

  35. bob sykes says:

    When I first joined the OSU faculty in 1972, it was primarily an undergraduate teaching college with some faculty who did research. The resulting low ranking drove the Trustees and senior administrators nuts, and there ensued a 30 year war to change things. Substantial externally funded research became necessary for promotion and tenure and even hiring. Salaries became dependent on getting external research funding. One junior faculty member I know was told by the engineering dean that the research quota was $300,000 per year, or more. Open admissions was replaced by ever increasing ACT and SAT test scores. My youngest daughter was rejected for admission.

    By the time I retired in 2007, OSU was a regular research institute with few vestiges of its former self. Trustees, administrators, and senior faculty are happy. Junior faculty lead lives of desperation and fear. Collegiality is remember fondly by emeriti faculty. Whether the new OSU serves the people of Ohio is another matter. They wanted a college for their kids, not a research institute.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bob sykes,

      “Whether the new OSU serves the people of Ohio is another matter. They wanted a college for their kids, not a research institute.”

      A few points:
      1. They also used to pay enough taxes to make OSU inexpensive and open to everyone. Now they don’t want to do that, so the school has to largely fund itself through research, out of state students and tuition hikes. They could have the old OSU back if they were willing to pay for it.

      2. The regional OSU campuses do a good job of serving a lot of the people that the main campus now rejects. Many of those students prosper more from staying local on a smaller campus with more students like them.

      3. More research leads to more high tech companies in the state. That means high paying jobs for the residents.

      Like

      • Mark says:

        Disagree with Brian on this one.

        1. Taxes are plenty high to have an Ohio State that serves Ohio students. The school has been under construction for 25+ years with no end in site – they spend money at a crazy rate. Plus the current tuition is much higher than KY or IN, and those states have lower taxes

        2. Most students don’t want to go to regional campuses, they are forced there. Not sure how this is a benefit.

        3. Can you name any high tech companies that are in Ohio due to OSU? What high tech research has OSU done to help Ohio?

        Like

        • @Mark – Long-term, though, pretty much all of the Big Ten schools *have* to move to a model where more out-of-state and international students are going to be part of the enrollment just to tread water. It’s no longer a choice or an aim to be elitist. The Midwest’s projected youth demographics are weak compared to all other regions of the country, so smart institutions are solidifying their reputations today in order to ensure that they’re not caught holding the bag 20 years from now when college enrollment is lower (along with much fiercer competition). Ohio State shouldn’t be lowering its standards in order to fill some type of in-state quota. Instead, the other Ohio public universities should be raising their games so that they become viable academic alternatives to Ohio State, which is what would really provide a broad array of opportunities to Ohio residents across-the-board.

          In a related note, I had a conversation with an Illinois admissions person a few weeks ago about this same topic/different state: Illinois residents that complain that their kids aren’t getting into Illinois and blame out-of-state and international students (i.e. “the kids that went to New Trier and got a 32 on their ACT and didn’t get into U of I”). He said that U of I is actually admitting more Illinois students than ever, but those students have higher grades and test scores than the previous generation. As a result, the kids that Illinois is accepting have a lot more options and are fiercely competed over by many colleges. So, the Illinois admissions office is much more concerned about the in-state students that they’ve accepted choosing to go to places like Michigan, Wisconsin or Washington University in St. Louis as opposed to placating any in-state students that they’ve rejected. With Ohio State’s ACT scores now in line with Illinois and Wisconsin, I could see how Ohio State’s admissions office is likely looking at their in-state/out-of-state balance situation in the exact same manner.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Mark,

          “1. Taxes are plenty high to have an Ohio State that serves Ohio students. The school has been under construction for 25+ years with no end in site – they spend money at a crazy rate. Plus the current tuition is much higher than KY or IN, and those states have lower taxes”

          http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/cfb-1997.pdf

          In 1996 (as far back as I could find in a quick search), state funding was greater than total tuition and provided 48% of the general funds budget. The state provides 9.5% of the funding for OSU now. Student fees provide 18%. That’s why they keep raising tuition and recruiting out of state students who pay more tuition. It’s also why they put such a focus on research.

          http://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php#budget

          “2. Most students don’t want to go to regional campuses, they are forced there. Not sure how this is a benefit.”

          First, many of them do want to go there. OSU magazines and publications are full of quotes and stories from/about them. Second, they are sent there because better students beat them out for slots at the main campus. Third, many of them transfer to the main campus after a couple of years taking their basic classes for a lower tuition than at the main campus while getting time to adapt to college. Fourth, many of the rural students aren’t ready for the culture shock of going to Columbus in one fell swoop.

          Finally, many students should want to go to a good school. That doesn’t mean they all should get in. Wanting to go and being ready to go aren’t the same thing. Deserving to go is yet another thing. Besides, without continually expanding, how is the main campus supposed to avoid becoming more selective? The main campus undergrad enrollment is up almost 24% since 2000, but it was the same basic size in 1969 as in 2000 (it grew and then shrank back in between those years). Meanwhile, the state has grown and the percentage of children seeking a college degree has gone way up. Should OSU grow to 60,000 undergrads or should they get more selective? Doesn’t having a good school serve Ohio? Now the top students don’t feel compelled to leave the state to get an elite education. Or does serving Ohio solely mean letting any idiot with a diploma go to whatever college they wish for pocket change?

          “3. Can you name any high tech companies that are in Ohio due to OSU?”

          Minor companies like Honda, GE and Battelle pay for a ton of research at OSU. OSU is one of the major medical research hospitals in the nation, bringing lots of high tech jobs.

          http://research.osu.edu/files/2011/06/Ohio-State-Industry-Partners.pdf

          That’s a map and list of the companies OSU works with in research.

          “What high tech research has OSU done to help Ohio?”

          A lot. How about the giant research hospital that is developing new treatments for various diseases and conditions? How about important research in collaboration with Honda and GE, keeping large high tech employers in state and employing Ohioans? They put hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy, too.

          http://development.ohio.gov/bs_thirdfrontier/default.htm

          The government and voters of Ohio seem to see the value of OSU research as they approved the Ohio Third Frontier program which is a $2.1B program with a lot of the money supporting collaborative research between OSU and Ohio companies.

          The $2.1 billion initiative supports existing industries that are transforming themselves with new, globally competitive products and fostering the formation and attraction of new companies in emerging industry sectors. Ohio Third Frontier provides funding to Ohio technology-based companies, universities, nonprofit research institutions, and other organizations to create new technology-based products, companies, industries, and jobs.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Mark, I have to agree with Brian.

          Many kids choose MiamiU for their well-regarded b-school. Many kids choose Cincy for their various highly-ranked programs (in the arts and architecture, mostly, but also others) as well as their well-regarded co-op program. OhioU has a renown honors college. Both MiamiU and OhioU supposedly have an Ivy-style atmosphere (in terms of a college setting). There are other publics in OH with programs that I have heard people extol.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Not having those big grad programs can be an advantage for an undergraduate who doesn’t have to take all of their freshmen and sophomore level classes from Teaching Assistants and wait until their Junior or Senior year to have some classes from Professors.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “Not having those big grad programs can be an advantage for an undergraduate who doesn’t have to take all of their freshmen and sophomore level classes from Teaching Assistants and wait until their Junior or Senior year to have some classes from Professors.”

            I went to OSU and never had that experience. I had 1 class taught by a TA, and that was my required English class.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            But OSU is a massive school with over 7k freshmen each year. Surely your singular experience of unknown vintage may not be representative of the norm regarding TA taught classes?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Aha ~ your anomalous personal experience at OSU is likely to color your perception.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Brian’s experience at OSU was pretty similar to mine at Texas. The only class I had taught by a TA was the introductory English class. Now I had some mass 200-300 student underclassmen courses that had T/TH lectures by the professor with 30 person “labs” taught by TAs on M/W.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Wainscott,

            “But OSU is a massive school with over 7k freshmen each year.”

            Shouldn’t that make them more likely to rely on TAs, not less likely? If a large state school isn’t the type that relies on TAs, which are the schools with large grad programs that do? The elite private schools?

            “Surely your singular experience of unknown vintage may not be representative of the norm regarding TA taught classes?”

            Where is the evidence that the norm is to have all of your freshmen and sophomore level classes taught by TAs? I’ve heard that claim made about large schools, but usually not by alumni.

            As anecdotal evidence, of course my experience may not be representative. Even at OSU at the time, it may well have varied by college. However, the large grad programs with all the research money are medicine, science and engineering and I was in engineering. A history major may have had a different experience, but I’m not sure the large grad programs doing research can be blamed for any such difference.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “Aha ~ your anomalous personal experience at OSU is likely to color your perception.”

            All I did was state my personal experience as a counterpoint to your blanket statement. I didn’t use it as a basis to make a larger argument.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I had one class taught by a TA/grad student at NU. It was one of the best classes I had there.

            The guy is now a professor at SOAS.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          Miami really is pretty highly regarded overall. It doesn’t have the graduate programs like Ohio St., but it is on pretty much all the “public ivy” lists. Ohio St. doesn’t make many of those. The original list included Miami, the U of California campuses, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Vermont and William & Mary.

          Now Miami and Ohio U. are different from the “regional campuses” referred to. Those are like Ohio St. University at Lima, Mansfield, etc.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Miami really is pretty highly regarded overall. It doesn’t have the graduate programs like Ohio St., but it is on pretty much all the “public ivy” lists. Ohio St. doesn’t make many of those. The original list included Miami, the U of California campuses, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Vermont and William & Mary.”

            https://ink.niche.com/public-ivies-bigger-better/

            OSU didn’t make the original list (1985), but they were in “Greenes’ Guide to Public Ivies” published in 2001.

            In their 2001 book “The Public Ivies: America’s Flagship Public Universities,” Howard and Matthew Greene took Moll’s initial 1985 list and expanded on it to include 30 of the best public colleges and universities, dividing them by regions including Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, Southern, Western, and Great Lakes & Midwest.

            I’ll take top 30.

            “Now Miami and Ohio U. are different from the “regional campuses” referred to. Those are like Ohio St. University at Lima, Mansfield, etc.”

            Yes, exactly. Plus, Ohio also has all those other MAC schools (Akron, Bowling Green, Kent State, Toledo) and UC. And a ton of small schools, too. I don’t understand why OSU should be expected to be an open admissions school with only Ohio residents.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            My comments that Miami was rated when Ohio St. wasn’t on at least one list, and a rather elite list, was really targeted at Frank’s comment about the other Ohio universities raising their game. Miami is already there academically.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “My comments that Miami was rated when Ohio St. wasn’t on at least one list, and a rather elite list, was really targeted at Frank’s comment about the other Ohio universities raising their game. Miami is already there academically.”

            I know. I was expanding on that to bring it all back to the original discussion of what OSU’s role should be. Miami has been a great school for a long time, better than OSU for most of their history. Now that OSU-Columbus has moved up, it’s old role is being filled by the regional campuses and the MAC schools besides Miami.

            Like

    • Mark says:

      I agree with Bob’s opinion. Many Ohioans feel that OSU no longer serves the state as well as it once did and admits too many out of state and out of country students. There are many disappointed alumni each year as their kids are rejected for admission. Much different from Kentucky or Indiana where it is easier to get into the state schools. Will be interesting to see what happens in 20 years – will the general public turn against the school their kids can’t get into?

      Like

  36. Wainscott says:

    NHL in Vegas? Bettman will find a way to screw it up.

    http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/08/26/report-nhl-expansion-las-vegas-done-deal

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      Like I said, Bettman will find a way to screw this up:

      http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/08/26/report-toronto-seattle-quebec-city-join-vegas-2017-nhl-expansion

      Because one way to make the NHL a worse product is to have even more diluted rosters.

      Plus, 34 teams? Don’t they now complain about unbalanced divisions/conferences with 30? How will 34 fix that? Why not just go to 36 then? Or why not expand to 32 and relocate 2 existing teams?

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        I think in the end it will be two expansion franchises followed by one relocation. The NHL, though about as poorly run league as there is, cannot be that stupid to add four new franchises. My prediction would be Vegas and Seattle with expansions and Florida moves to Quebec. Although a second team in Toronto makes the most sense, the Leafs would never accept it.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          There was talk of the Leafs accepting it with the help of a large check from any prospective owner/strong arming by other owners who think a second Toronto team would generate more money than other potential options.

          Your plan is rational, and I agree that would be the best way to go. But we all know Bettman is stubbornly insisting on a team in Arizona and in South Florida, despite regular monetary losses and weak attendance. The theory behind those two clubs is sound (capture snowbirds and new residents from the north while trying to generate new fans over time), but in reality the strategy, as applied to hockey has failed. (not working all that much better in baseball for that matter).

          Of the 4 potential cities, the 2 with prospective owners willing to pay the highest expansion fee will get expansion teams (probably second Toronto and Vegas/Seattle), and the other 2 would get relocated teams (probably not Arizona and Florida, so maybe Nashville and Columbus?

          Personally, I’m surprised Portland, Ore isn’t on the list of potential cities.

          Like

      • JS says:

        A 4 team expansion and the formation of 4 separate, time zone based conferences consisting of 8/9 teams each would be a big improvement on the current alignment; make half the regular season schedule and the first two rounds of the playoffs intra-conference and it becomes a HUGE improvement. (If the players union whine about imbalance just have a play-in game among the 4th and 5th place finishers in the 9 team conferences.)

        Dare I dream the Blackhawks play zero games in the Pacific time zone every 3rd year?

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          But the quality of play, already reduced because of expansion and some competition from overseas leagues, an extra 4 teams will really highlight the mediocrity and further devalue the play in the regular season.

          Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          That might be by necessity, as it would be hard to schedule home-and-homes (2 games each) with possibly 26 “OOC” teams without cutting back significantly on the intra-conference schedule. I think a more likely scenario is where, depending on previous season’s finish, you have a system like the NFL where, using the 2013-14 Blackhawks as an example would have H/H against the other 3rd-place and 6th place in division teams (12) plus guaranteed H/H matchups against the remaing 6 (12) teams in one whole division. The balance would be intraconference which would be 8 games per conference opponent (56) – a total of 80 games for an 32-team league. Going to 34 or 36 would complicated that given the inherent inbalances and odd numbers.

          Like

          • JS says:

            For scheduling purposes, a 32 team league with 4 eight team conferences is perfect. A h/h with two conferences and a 4h/4a split with the third (all rotating yearly) is 40 games, with the balance of 42 games consisting of 6 games each against 7 conference opponents. Every team basically plays the same schedule and visits 27 of 31 road arenas every season, missing a city outside its conference only once every eight years. With 34 teams, it is still possible to visit half the league (h/h vs conference 1, h/h one half of conference 2, one game home or away for the balance vs conference 2 and an even or 4/5-5/4 h/a split for conference 3 making for 40 games) or schedule a h/h with conference 1, visit conference 2 and host conference 3 for 34/35 games with the balance of the schedule consisting of intra-conference games. Not as neat perhaps but less travel for teams and more games within their home time zone.

            Like

  37. Michael in Raleigh says:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/slideshow/2014/08/25/sneak-peek-inside-the-new-college-football-hall-of.html

    This is a slideshow of the new College Football Hall of Fame in Atlanta. It’s very interactive and impressive. I apologize if this has been posted already.

    Like

  38. Wainscott says:

    Good and Bad of Neutral-site games:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24682314/why-neutral-site-games-help-and-hurt-college-football

    Interesting bit I did not know:

    “The media rights of neutral-site games belong to the conferences. But which one when there’s a non conference neutral-site game?

    “That gets worked out by the conferences as they have discussions,” SEC executive associate commissioner Mark Womack said. “I sense there’s an interest of exploring more of these opportunities from bowl cities. They have their challenges. They have to raise the dollars to make it worthwhile for the institutions to give up a home game for the neutral site team. Then there’s the television issues.”

    That point was emphasized last year in a league-wide memo Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany issued after the Wisconsin-LSU series was finalized in 2013. According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Delany’s letter said the Big Ten supported neutral sites as long as at least half of the series occur in Big Ten territory and under the league’s television agreements. Any arrangement would be “disapproved” if a Big Ten team was not the home team in at least half of the games or if it was a one-game event outside the league’s TV umbrella.”

    Like

  39. Wainscott says:

    Very interesting move by Stanford here. Very risky, but could yield a big return:

    Like

  40. vp19 says:

    Maryland is adding a new Cowboys Stadium-like message board to what’s now known as xfinity center (the building formerly known as Comcast), and since the wrestling and volleyball coaches are quoted in the release, those teams’ matches probably are moving to the main arena to join the Terp basketball teams. (Byrd Stadium also is getting a scoreboard upgrade.) http://www.umterps.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209621081&DB_OEM_ID=29700

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      As it should be. Penn State was not given due process in the first place, and the players and coaches had absolutely nothing to do with what that sicko did. Continuing these bowl bans and scholarship reductions will not do a single thing towards healing Sandusky’s victims, nor will it prevent sexual abuse anywhere from happening.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Michael in Raleigh,

        “As it should be.”

        Not necessarily. A reward for going above and beyond what was asked has already been given.

        “Penn State was not given due process in the first place,”

        They chose to plea bargain. You voluntarily give up due process when you do that.

        “and the players and coaches had absolutely nothing to do with what that sicko did.”

        But the NCAA blamed the university and its fans for creating an environment where keeping the football program’s image clean was more important than immediately and decisively dealing with said sicko. Therefore, the NCAA punished the school. The players all had the chance to leave without penalty and/or chose to join PSU after the punishment was announced. They can’t play the sympathy card now.

        “Continuing these bowl bans and scholarship reductions will not do a single thing towards healing Sandusky’s victims, nor will it prevent sexual abuse anywhere from happening.”

        So? It’s punishment. Prison doesn’t heal victims either.

        Like

        • Carl says:

          Brian:

          > Not necessarily. A reward for going above and beyond what was asked has already been given.

          First of all, the Penn State BoT wanted the penalties – indeed, they wrote the consent decree. Second, Penn State has made no meaningful changes. This is all part of the charade and deceit.

          > They chose to plea bargain. You voluntarily give up due process when you do that.

          The “they” who chose to plea bargain didn’t want due process and still don’t. (If you were paying attention, you’d know that they are right now actively fighting it.) This is also part of the charade and deceit.

          Keep watching, Brian – you still have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Carl,

            “First of all, the Penn State BoT wanted the penalties – indeed, they wrote the consent decree.”

            And?

            “Second, Penn State has made no meaningful changes.”

            That’s not what the independent investigator says.

            “The “they” who chose to plea bargain didn’t want due process and still don’t.”

            So? The point is that PSU wasn’t denied due process. PSU chose not to have due process.

            “If you were paying attention, you’d know that they are right now actively fighting it.”

            I know, and I couldn’t care less. You don’t get to take back your guilty plea.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            > So? The point is that PSU wasn’t denied due process. PSU chose not to have due process.
            > …
            > I know, and I couldn’t care less. You don’t get to take back your guilty plea.

            Brian, I get that you want to pretend superiority, but not only are you grossly missing the point, you are also misrepresenting the truth. The people who pled guilty DO NOT WANT to take the plea back – even with Pennsylvania appellate court judges telling them them that the “plea deal” was likely illegal and won’t stand up in court.

            There are many others, however, who believe there was and is a real, ongoing coverup, and those people want the truth to be made public. The PSU BoT (along with the governor, Freeh, and the NCAA) have been fighting this at every turn. But the truth – at least much of it – will come out.

            The reason I sometimes engage you on this, Brian, is to make public note of your nonsense criticisms.

            Keep watching.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Carl,

            “but not only are you grossly missing the point, you are also misrepresenting the truth.”

            No, I’m not. On both counts.

            MiR complained that PSU didn’t get due process. I pointed out that they rejected it in favor of a plea deal. That doesn’t miss the point, nor is it not true.

            You, on the other hand, are talking about factions within PSU that are not relevant to what we were discussing.

            “There are many others, however, who believe there was and is a real, ongoing coverup,”

            Conspiracy nuts are everywhere. It keeps aluminum foil sales high.

            “and those people want the truth to be made public.”

            Lots of people want to know the “truth” about Area 51, too.

            “But the truth – at least much of it – will come out.”

            Uh huh.

            “Keep watching.”

            As you’ve been saying for literally years without anything big coming out.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            Brian:

            > No, I’m not. On both counts.
            >
            > MiR complained that PSU didn’t get due process. I pointed
            > out that they rejected it in favor of a plea deal. That doesn’t
            > miss the point, nor is it not true.

            Nice try, Brian, but that’s not all you have said. For example:

            “I know, and I couldn’t care less. You don’t get to take back your guilty plea.”

            Brian, although your equivocal use of the words “Penn State”, “you”, and “they” often imply that those who want due process for Penn State have already given up that right by making a “plea deal”, this is, in fact, patently untrue. You have been making the same false and misleading arguments for a couple years now.

            Furthermore, while it may be your opinion that one group of people is allowed to give up the right to due process for another group of people, so far no Pennsylvania court has ruled that way regarding the Penn State BoT’s “plea”. Moreover, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has said that the consent decree is likely illegal and that the Penn State BoT likely breached their fiduciary duties in allowing it. Related issues are in dispute in the Paterno et al. v. NCAA case.

            Yes, you are indeed both grossly missing the point and misrepresenting the truth.

            > Conspiracy nuts are everywhere. It keeps aluminum foil sales high.

            Brian, I understand that you like to pretend superiority and are willing to try ridicule to support your pretense. Nonetheless, you have no idea what you are talking about in this case.

            Make fun all you want, but keep watching. Maybe you’ll learn something.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Carl,

            “Nice try, Brian, but that’s not all you have said.”

            It’s all that I said before you interjected your irrelevancies.

            “Brian, although your equivocal use of the words “Penn State”, “you”, and “they” often imply that those who want due process for Penn State have already given up that right by making a “plea deal”, this is, in fact, patently untrue.”

            I’m not implying anything. I’m saying PSU made a plea deal. What various factions at PSU now want or think is irrelevant to that. Whether the current powers at PSU would have made the same decision is irrelevant. Whether the process seemed right or fair or legal is irrelevant to that. I’m simply stating what actually happened. If the courts invalidate the consent decree, which is largely pointless as the punishment would end before the appeals would, it still wouldn’t change what happened.

            “Furthermore, while it may be your opinion that one group of people is allowed to give up the right to due process for another group of people,”

            There is no other group of people, just PSU. It is a single legal entity, and there are people invested with the power to make legal decisions on its behalf.

            “Moreover, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has said that the consent decree is likely illegal”

            Likely illegal is a meaningless statement from a court. Unless the courts with jurisdiction (plural because there would be appeals) rule the consent decree invalid, it’s legal.

            “Make fun all you want”

            I will. How do the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group factor in to all this? Did aliens abduct that missing DA?

            “but keep watching”

            Yawn.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            > There is no other group of people, just PSU. It is a single
            > legal entity, and there are people invested with the power
            > to make legal decisions on its behalf.

            No, Brian, you are wrong.

            Although it is true that Penn State is a single legal entity and its BoT is invested with the power to make legal decisions on its behalf, it is not true that there are no other groups of people relevant to the “plea” (the consent decree).

            That’s part of the basis on which the Paterno plaintiffs were granted standing and Penn State had to be formally added as defendants in that lawsuit.

            Both the judge in the Paterno et al. v. NCAA lawsuit and the judges in the Corman and McCord v. NCAA lawsuit have acknowledged this.

            > Likely illegal is a meaningless statement from a court.
            > Unless the courts with jurisdiction (plural because there
            > would be appeals) rule the consent decree invalid, it’s legal.

            Brian, it *was* from a court with jurisdiction – an appeals court in a legal decision about the case.

            You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

            > I will [make fun]. How do the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group
            > factor in to all this? Did aliens abduct that missing DA?

            Well, that just might be your best strategy here.

            I’ll continue to point out your factual mistakes and nonsense arguments.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            > There is no other group of people, just PSU. It is a single
            > legal entity, and there are people invested with the power
            > to make legal decisions on its behalf.

            “No, Brian, you are wrong.

            Although it is true that Penn State is a single legal entity and its BoT is invested with the power to make legal decisions on its behalf,”

            So you agree with me, but I’m wrong.

            “it is not true that there are no other groups of people relevant to the “plea” (the consent decree).”

            It is true in the context of the original discussion. You’re the one trying to shoehorn other groups into the discussion because the plea is relevant to them. The plea wasn’t what was being discussed, PSU’s due process was what was under discussion. No other group is relevant to that even if the plea impacted the other group.

            > Likely illegal is a meaningless statement from a court.
            > Unless the courts with jurisdiction (plural because there
            > would be appeals) rule the consent decree invalid, it’s legal.

            “Brian, it *was* from a court with jurisdiction”

            That’s only 1 phrase from the sentence. A court just saying something is likely illegal is meaningless in terms of the law. A court issuing an injunction or declaring the decree invalid or something similar would actually mean something.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            Okay, Brian, since you are now claiming that your words make sense in a previous context, let’s examine that context carefully.

            Carl:

            > it is not true that there are no other groups of people
            > relevant to the “plea” (the consent decree).

            Brian:

            > It is true in the context of the original discussion.

            First of all, your claim (“There is no other group of people”) was NOT made in the context of the “original discussion”. Second, your claim was made in your *third* reply – and in direct response – to *me* about a point that was NOT part of the original discussion.

            And, again, the claim itself is false. There are other groups of people that are legally relevant to the “plea”, as multiple trial and appellate judges have already acknowledged.

            Carl:

            > Moreover, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has
            > said that the consent decree is likely illegal and that
            > the Penn State BoT likely breached their fiduciary
            > duties in allowing it.

            Brian:

            > Likely illegal is a meaningless statement from a court
            > [even from an appellate court in a written decision in
            > the case].

            Ah, yes, of course – appellate courts waste time writing meaningless statements about important matters in a case when explaining their decisions. (Is this the kind of thing you tell your clients?)

            Brian, I don’t mean to impugn your legal acumen, but that’s a nonsense argument. (Not to mention that it was a claim made to *me* and not part of the “original discussion”.)

            Maybe you should stick to making fun.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          A reward for going above and beyond what was asked has already been given.

          But as I recall, you didn’t agree with that reward either — even though, in the criminal justice context (which appears to be the analogy you’re relying on), convicted criminals frequently do get “time off for good behavior”.

          If you accept the premise that a punishment can be reduced for good post-conviction behavior, I see no reason in principle why it could not be done a second time.

          They chose to plea bargain. You voluntarily give up due process when you do that.

          If someone holds a gun to your head, and says “Your money or your life,” and you choose to hand over the money, I would not exactly call that “voluntary”. Whether or not you agree with the punishment, there is no rational argument that Penn State had any realistic choice over whether to accept it.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “But as I recall, you didn’t agree with that reward either”

            No, I didn’t. Once you select a punishment, you should stay the course. Good behavior after the fact shouldn’t change the punishment.

            “even though, in the criminal justice context (which appears to be the analogy you’re relying on), convicted criminals frequently do get “time off for good behavior”.”

            Because jails have a crowding issue.

            “If you accept the premise that a punishment can be reduced for good post-conviction behavior, I see no reason in principle why it could not be done a second time.”

            I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it shouldn’t necessarily be done.

            “If someone holds a gun to your head, and says “Your money or your life,” and you choose to hand over the money, I would not exactly call that “voluntary”.”

            If a DA holds the death sentence out as an option and you choose life in prison instead, I consider that voluntary.

            “Whether or not you agree with the punishment, there is no rational argument that Penn State had any realistic choice over whether to accept it.”

            Of course there is. Plenty of people have made that rational argument online and elsewhere. Even a subset of PSU’s own fans have said they shouldn’t have accepted it, which means they think it was a voluntary choice.

            You trot out that “no rational argument” line a lot for things that people frequently discuss. Disagreeing with you doesn’t automatically make people irrational.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The NCAA wasn’t following normal procedures or being rational (even by NCAA’s limited standards of being rational and following procedures). So death penalty or plea bargain IS like someone holding a gun to your head. You read more and more about the NCAA members being disturbed about the Penn St. process. You had a small group of emotional presidents (or worried about publicity if they weren’t hard on PSU) getting ready to tar and feather and run PSU out of town on a rail. The NCAA was judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner. So it is really nothing at all like a DA plea bargaining.

            And if you take the more sinister publicity concerns, well the public isn’t focused on it as much anymore (not that the public’s opinion has changed much) so they can be more lenient now.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            convicted criminals frequently do get “time off for good behavior”.”

            Because jails have a crowding issue.

            The possibility of a commutation of sentence is an ancient custom, long predating the over-crowding of jails.

            “Whether or not you agree with the punishment, there is no rational argument that Penn State had any realistic choice over whether to accept it.”

            Of course there is. Plenty of people have made that rational argument online and elsewhere. Even a subset of PSU’s own fans have said they shouldn’t have accepted it, which means they think it was a voluntary choice.

            The fact that you can find someone who says it, does not make it rational: the Flat Earth Society still exists. Fans, of course, are renowned for views unhinged from reality.

            As I recall, PSU’s president at the time accepted the NCAA’s judgment unilaterally, and when challenged, told the rest of the board that he believed he had no other choice.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “The NCAA wasn’t following normal procedures”

            True.

            “or being rational”

            Really? Back that up with proof.

            “So death penalty or plea bargain IS like someone holding a gun to your head.”

            Except that it has been upheld as permissible by courts, while holding a gun to their head hasn’t been.

            “You read more and more about the NCAA members being disturbed about the Penn St. process. You had a small group of emotional presidents (or worried about publicity if they weren’t hard on PSU) getting ready to tar and feather and run PSU out of town on a rail.”

            So your complaint is that presidents were jumping on the public opinion bandwagon, and your evidence is that presidents are now jumping on the public opinion bandwagon headed in the other direction?

            Also, it is pure speculation what the NCAA was getting ready to do. PSU struck a deal before anything happened. The “death penalty” was discussed, but the public was discussing that before the NCAA did. You and everyone else have no idea what the final punishment actually would have been if PSU hadn’t signed the decree. PSU has claimed one thing, the NCAA board has claimed another and the actual truth is probably different from both of those positions.

            “The NCAA was judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner.”

            It always is. But in this case there was no jury, prosecutor or executioner since PSU pleaded guilty to the judge before any hearing took place.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “The possibility of a commutation of sentence is an ancient custom, long predating the over-crowding of jails.”

            Yes, but frequently doing it was never an ancient custom. That came about as jails filled up faster than people wanted to pay to build new ones.

            “The fact that you can find someone who says it, does not make it rational:”

            The fact that you disagree with it doesn’t make irrational.

            “As I recall, PSU’s president at the time accepted the NCAA’s judgment unilaterally, and when challenged, told the rest of the board that he believed he had no other choice.”

            So? Is that supposed to be proof of something? Just because someone said it doesn’t make it true.

            Like

  41. Wainscott says:

    Interesting:

    http://regressing.deadspin.com/august-is-a-sports-wasteland-the-nba-or-nhl-playoffs-sh-1627157035/+kylenw

    While I think the author overstates the success the NHL would get by changing its season so that the playoffs are in the summer, I happen to think this could definitely benefit the NBA.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The obvious downside is that so many people take vacations that it could hurt TV ratings and possibly ticket sales. Also, the NHL would really struggle to maintain quality ice in some of these arenas in July and August. AC can only do so much.

      Like

  42. Transic_nyc says:

    At least we didn’t embarrass ourselves on the first night. 🙂

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s a reasonably important win for the B10. Experts had low expectations for both teams this year, so the B10 getting a road win over the P12 is a nice bump.

      SC fans certainly aren’t too happy right now.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Also, Temple crushed Vandy, putting another dent in the SEC East’s reputation. Meanwhile, MS didn’t look very good until the 4th quarter.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          Vandy has sucked 95% of the last century. What else is new?

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Kind of hard to put a dent in the SEC East’s reputation by beating Vandy or Kentucky. On the same day perennial SEC cellar dweller Vandy was beat by perennial old Big East / “The American” cellar dweller Temple, SEC-Eastern pre-season #12 Georgia beat ACC-Atlantic pre-season #16 Clemson, 45-21.

          With Georgia and Clemson both being ranked, its the latter result that’s going to get wider coverage.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Getting blown out by Temple always hurts, but I never claimed Vandy was vital to the East’s image. The West was already seen as so dominant over the East. Vandy showed the lack of depth in the East (they were decent under Franklin) and East favorite SC showed the top isn’t as strong as the experts thought.

            UGA’s win helped, obviously, but it remains to be seen how Clemson will be viewed. Was that just Clemsoning at its best? Will know a lot more about the East in 2 weeks after UGA@SC.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Actually that was a much closer game than the score. Georgia scored 3 TDS in 3 minutes in the middle of the 4th to break open a 3 point game that had been going back and forth.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            And two weeks later, SC, UGA, TN and Vandy all have a loss with UF vs UK in OT. That’ll make 4 teams with an SEC loss already in the East. MO hasn’t played anybody yet, but has SC and UGA in 2 and 3 weeks respectively. If MO doesn’t sweep those, the East won’t have an elite team to compare to the West’s champ.

            Like

  43. Wainscott says:

    Fantastic article on Jerry Jones:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11420510/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-wants-known-football-man

    Per the article, AT&T Stadium is virtually debt-free.

    Like

    • Mack says:

      The taxpayers of Arlington, TX still owe about a quarter-billion on the stadium. After PSLs, suite sales, and naming rights the Cowboys made a tidy profit on the full cost of the stadium. The $325M in taxpayer money and tax-free stadium status that saves $500M over 20 years are bonuses. That is why Forbes valued the team at $3B+ even though it has been almost 20 years since they won a Super Bowl. There was a good quote from Jimmy Johnson in the article about that: “What anniversary is this one?” Johnson asked, laughing. “They’re always having some kind of anniversaries down there. … I guess because they don’t go to Super Bowls anymore.”

      Like

  44. Wainscott says:

    CFB’s 2014 all-name team:

    http://athlonsports.com/college-football/college-footballs-2014-all-name-team

    Some favorites:
    Chris Blewitt, K, Pittsburgh
    Dee Liner, DL, Alabama
    Lion King, DL, Eastern Michigan

    Like

  45. Mike says:

    Interesting thesis on baseball’s decline


    The main issue, though—and something that McGrath curiously doesn’t bring up—is probably just that baseball is now dealing with the consequences of having spent a solid decade telling anyone who would listen that baseball is awful and no one should watch it.

    Let’s take a normal 25-year-old, born in 1989. He would have spent his formative years as a sports fan in the immediate aftermath of a canceled World Series, hearing that greedy players were destroying the game and that the dynastic Yankees team dominating the sport was such an affront to its competitive integrity that drastic measures had to be taken to give other teams any kind of chance at winning. He would have heard about the commissioner touring the country threatening to abolish various teams, some of them successful ones. He would have seen the league enthusiastically cooperating with a congressional investigation that all but treated many of its most famous players as criminals; the league touting an owner-written report claiming that those players were frauds, cheats, and liars; and the league and the government working together with small-time con men to destroy the very best of those players.

    From the perspective of owners, all of this made sense. A majority of owners had an interest in (falsely) claiming that their teams just couldn’t compete, because they wanted to rig a system where they would be all but guaranteed profits.
    […]

    http://deadspin.com/whats-wrong-with-baseball-1628473196

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      The author might be over-thinking it. Other sports have had labor issues (NBA, NHL, almost NFL), messy off-field player situations (Kobe, Ray Lewis), dynasties (Kobe’s Lakers, Patriots), health issues with congressional hearings (concussions), and greedy owners.

      Perhaps baseball, as a sport and game, is simply not as well suited for either TV or the modern, fast-paced, social-media, ADD culture as other sports (especially football) are? Perhaps the sheer number of games demands more daily attention than modern fans are prepared to devote?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I heard on the radio (PBS, I think) that last year 29 of 30 teams average at tendency was more than the highest (or top three…something like that) during the Big Red Machine days. Baseball isn’t an easy comparison to NFL or NBA due to its much more regional nature, and that it isn’t in vogue right now.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Has any sport (other than perhaps the moribund NHL-I don’t follow them enough to remember) had a championship cancelled? Has any sport had as much of the regular season disrupted? 1972, 1981, 1994 (maybe more). Has any other sport had its records questioned?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Football and basketball records are not even able to be compared in many cases with far more changes in what constitutes a record. Baseball added eight games (5.2% increase) to the season and lowered the mound a bit.

          Like

  46. ccrider55 says:

    So…was Manzel the reason aTm was valuable last year? Is a Fr, in his first start erasing Mr. Autograph from records, now what provides them value? Or is it the team the school and coaches put on the field. This looks to me the perfect example of where the value lies. Next man up.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Sumlin, please dont join Jerrah’s circus next year.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think they will get anywhere close to last year’s TV ratings with an 8-4 record without JM. He was fun to watch and controversial. But he was an exception. Don’t think we’ve ever had more than 2 Heisman winners playing in a single season.

      Like

  47. Carl says:

    For those of you who have wondered whether there really is an ongoing FBI investigation in the case …

    Ryan Bagwell ‏@Bagwell4Trustee

    U.S. Attorney ordered to release records of Penn State investigation. Confirms FBI investigation ongoing. http://bit.ly/1nK4c06

    12:12 PM – 29 Aug 2014

    Like

    • bullet says:

      What are they investigating? The 3 stooges of Penn St. or the 1000 stooges of the NCAA?

      Like

      • Carl says:

        > What are they investigating? The 3 stooges of Penn St. or the 1000 stooges of the NCAA?

        Well, let’s think about this a minute. A convicted pedophile starts a children’s charity in 1977, but the first publicly known report of abuse is from 1998 — twenty-one years later. Pedophiles aren’t born in their mid 50’s. Now, is it more likely that the FBI is investigating allegations of victim payoffs, kickbacks, and money laundering through the charity going back to the 1970’s, or that they are investigating Area 51, the Illuminati, and the Bilderberg group? Oh, I almost forgot the aliens who abducted that missing DA.

        So who’s the FBI investigating?

        I’ve been told that conspiracy nuts are everywhere and that it keeps aluminum foil sales high. On the other hand, maybe this document from 2012 provides a little context:

        http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/openness/DOJ_subpoena.pdf

        BTW, Gordon Zubrod is the guy who prosecuted Kids for Cash.(*)

        Oh, come on, who am I trying to fool? The PSU BoT’s hand-picked investigator, who announced that he was going to investigate all the way back to 1975, has already exposed the whole sordid affair, and it started in 1998 — Joe Paterno’s vacated wins are proof of that — when the local DA decided not to prosecute after the state made successful prosecution impossible …

        (*) Here’s what Zubrod said about Kids for Cash (thetimes-tribune.com/news/prosecutor-d-elia-s-downfall-kickstarted-kids-for-cash-probe-1.1107444):

        Mr. Zubrod described the kids-for-cash case and related investigations that have led to more than 30 arrests as part of a decade-long process aimed at rooting out organized crime’s influence on public institutions in the U.S. Middle District, which covers 33 counties in Pennsylvania.

        “It is one of a series that has been going on, a very intense series by the FBI and the IRS and our office from the late ’90s on to focus first of all on the connection between organized crime and public corruption, which is very real in this district, and then, secondly, step by step taking out each pocket where there is a power and people who think they can’t be touched,” Mr. Zubrod said.

        “This is now the third judge that’s been prosecuted in this case. The idea as some said during trial that these people are powerful and can’t be touched, I hope that’s been broken. But the circle is much wider than that and we have to keep going at it.”

        Like

  48. Richard says:

    16 (almost) straight hours of Big ten football tomorrow! Pretty good games too (PSU-UCF, OSU-Navy, NU-Cal, Wisconsin-LSU).

    Wooooooo!

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I think its more a reflection of our society at large and media’s desire to be controversial in order to get attention, coupled with the idiots that ESPN hires. Don’t think there is any conspiracy.

      Rivalries and “hate” don’t have to be toxic. When its left on the ball field its fine.

      Like

  49. ccrider55 says:

    I don’t buy it.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140828184733.htm

    I’m going to spend as much time as needed with my phone searching for a study to prove the opposite…

    Like

  50. The AP and Coaches’ polls are out.

    http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=209630808

    AP by conference

    SEC (8): #2 Bama, #5 Auburn, #6 Georgia, #9 A&M, #12 LSU, #15 Ole Miss, #21 South Carolina, and #24 Mizzou

    Pac-12 (5): #3 Oregon, #11 UCLA, #13 Stanford, #14 USC, and #17 Arizona St

    ACC (4): #1 Florida St, #21 North Carolina, #23 Clemson, and #25 Louisville

    B1G (4): #7 Michigan St, #8 Ohio St, #18 Wisconsin, and #19 Nebraska

    Big XII (3): #4 Oklahoma, #10 Baylor, and #21 K-State

    Ind: #16 Notre Dame

    Coaches’ by conference

    SEC (8): #2 Bama, #5 Auburn, #8 Georgia, #12 LSU, #13 A&M, #17 Ole Miss, #21 South Carolina, and #22 Mizzou

    Pac-12 (5): #4 Oregon, #10 Stanford, #11 UCLA, #14 USC, and #16 Arizona St

    Big XII (4): #3 Oklahoma, #9 Baylor, #20 K-State, and #25 Texas

    B1G (4): #6 Michigan St, #7 Ohio St, #18 Nebraska, and #19 Wisconsin

    ACC (3): #1 Florida State, #23 North Carolina, and #24 Clemson

    Ind: #15 Notre Dame

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Missouri to the BIG is dead. It didn’t happen when they were available and it definitely won’t be happening now.

      Consequently, here is another big reason Rutgers and Maryland were added to the Big 10:
      http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/19/americas-richest-and-poorest-states/2/
      Maryland is the richest state in the US and New Jersey is the 2nd richest state. I am sure each and every Big 10 school would love to add students for both those states at out-of-state tuition costs. I wonder if there was a way to track the impact of conference affiliation and the number of out of state students to other conference schools. An example would be did the number of Pennsylvania residents to Big 10 schools increase when PSU joined the conference? Did the BTN have any effect due to increase exposure? That would be interesting to see.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Also noteworthy is that Florida and Georgia are NOT amongst the 10 poorest states. SC and Tennessee, despite this ranking, have pretty good pockets of wealth in them (coastal areas, Nashville, Oak Ridge-Knoxville). Notice how several SEC West states are in the bottom 10 also. Damn right Missouri is not going anywhere, not even changing divisions.

        Like

    • Andy says:

      Hilarious that West Virginia fans are still spinning conspiracy theories that puts Mizzou in the B1G and WVU in the SEC. Not happening.

      I can see how a lot of people want it though. In retrospect I think most would agree that the B1G should have added Mizzou and kansas along with Nebraska to go to 14, and then expanded eastward later if they felt like it. Too late now though.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        “Hilarious that West Virginia fans are still spinning conspiracy theories that puts Mizzou in the B1G and WVU in the SEC. Not happening.”

        Now now, its not like there is much else to do in West Virginia, outside of singing “Take Me Home Country Roads”.

        “In retrospect I think most would agree that the B1G should have added Mizzou and kansas along with Nebraska to go to 14, and then expanded eastward later if they felt like it. ”

        A big unknown. Benefits and negatives to both. Negatives: Mizzou & KU would do comparatively less for the BTN and national TV deal than RU & UMD. RU & UMD a better academic combo than MU/KU. Positives: Mizzou better in football than either RU or UMD, KU a triple-major/elite basketball brand. Would have meant better raw content for TV. Is quality of content better than quantity of content, or to markets now reign supreme (trumped only by elite-level brands).

        Presented with these options, do the presidents opt for more money or for better content with far less market expansion?

        Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          The money, political power structure, and the home of the major media companies reside on the east coast. Moving into Maryland and New Jersey was a no-brainer compared to more Midwestern schools if you are taking a broad outlook of conferences outside of the normal sports realm.

          The competition in higher education will only increase in future. Tuition is rising to the point of being prohibitive and will make the competition for wealthy qualified students greater in the future. The federal budget is so far out of whack that federal research grants will be even harder to get. Yes Maryland and Rutgers suck at sports but Maryland and New Jersey residents have a ton of money and the states a ton of political power. Having access and exposure to such things is huge for the BIG going forward.

          Last conference realignment isn’t finished. It may be dormant until the GORs come up but more consolidation is inevitable IMO. Who knows what the BIG will look like in the end. Missouri and Kansas look like nice adds but compared to Texas and OU or UVA and UNC, they would be a wasted spots.

          Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        I guess that depends on how “most” is defined. It may mean “most” Missouri fans. It certainly means “most” of the people on this board named “Andy”. I do not know if it includes “most” B1G fans, but certainly might. It definitely does not include “most” of the people who count, the presidents of the B1G schools.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          How about most Big Ten fans who care about sports. Which I’m guessing is most Big Ten fans. Sure the wonks on here are more concerned about academics and conference network subscription rolls. But the danger is if the B1G is seen as a crappy league then the whole thing falls apart.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Good point, Andy. The B1G is about to collapse and disband. Maybe Missouri will join and save everything.

            Like

  51. swesleyh says:

    Interesting article from the Oklahoma newspaper columnist. Not the first article written questioning the LHN as being good for the overall health of the B12. Expansion link above is even more critical of the LHN. Questions in my mind are two fold. If the LHN continues to lose money for ESPN, how long before ESPN buys out the contract. If LHN contract bought out by ESPN, would the B12 explore a conference network? How many B12 teams constitute a conference. In other words, if Kansas sought the B1G and was accepted and UT, OU, TT and OSU sought the PAC and were accepted, would the remaining five members have a law suit for the GOR? And the BTN is accused of televising “rumdum” games. LOL

    The SEC Network is televising some of the conference’s best games, notably the Texas A&M-South Carolina opener last Thursday and Arkansas-Auburn on Saturday. The Big Ten Network will reap the conference schools a combined $3 billion over 25 years while it promotes the conference 24/7/365. The Pac-12 Network, despite distribution problems, is part of the most lucrative media contract in the nation.

    The Big 12 could have been out in front of the conference television idea. Weiberg heavily promoted it. Tried to sell it. He was consistently rebuffed.

    “I don’t know that we ever put it to a formal vote,” Weiberg said. “But it was obvious you couldn’t get there.” Conference bylaws required nine votes. But there were never more than eight in agreement, and even Kansas, wondering how it would affect its hoops, had serious questions.

    “Hard to find that super majority consensus around it,” Weiberg said.

    And now conference networks are all the rage, with the ACC considering joining the club. Meanwhile, Texas and its Longhorn Network contract safely keep the Big 12 from considering a conference channel for 17 more years.

    Weiberg resigned from the Pac-12 earlier this year and moved back to his native Kansas, in the Wichita area, for family reasons. He’s consulting, still helping the Pac-12 and working on a University of Oregon project. He knows more about conference television networks than any man in America.

    “I think they have been successful, by and large,” Weiberg said. “They’ve been sources of revenue for the schools, but they’ve also been great exposure vehicles. Lot of games don’t get on. Especially for the Olympic sports. Great to have an ongoing, year-round conversation about intercollegiate athletics and the conference.”

    The conference networks can come in many shapes. Fox Sports owns 51 percent of the Big Ten Network. ESPN is a partner with the SEC, as it is with The Longhorn Network. The Big Ten televises mostly rumdum football games. The Pac-12 offers some decent games. The SEC puts on showdowns, complete with Brent Musburger calling the action.

    Who knows what a Big 12 Network would have looked like? It was not an original idea, Weiberg said. He knew the Big Ten was considering a network. He knew media companies had inquired with the Big 12 about a possible startup.

    Instead, we have BevoTV and no A&M. We have pay-per-view and no Nebraska. We have West Virginia and no Missouri.

    “I’m disappointed there have been membership changes, having worked in the conference nine years,” Weiberg said.

    He takes the high road. “I think the conference came out of it in good shape,” Weiberg said. “Bob Bowlsby is an outstanding commissioner and will do an outstanding job going forward. It’s hard to predict the future, from legal challenges to just the whole nature of the way the structure is put together.

    “Challenges cause some institutions to question and engage, which could lead to more change. I think the Big 12 has come through it in a good spot. Has a chance for a bright future.”

    A chance. That’s where the Big 12 is. It has a chance. The other leagues have a certainty. We should have listened to Weiberg.

    Berry Tramel: Berry can be reached at (405) 760-8080 or at btramel@opubco.com. He can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including FM-98.1. You can also view his personality page at newsok.com/berrytramel.

    Like

    • Transic_nyc says:

      “How many B12 teams constitute a conference. In other words, if Kansas sought the B1G and was accepted and UT, OU, TT and OSU sought the PAC and were accepted, would the remaining five members have a law suit for the GOR?”

      Perhaps it would require the reshuffling of both the B12 and ACC to sort out the mess. Let’s say the Big Ten take in Virginia and Kansas and the SEC take in UNC and Duke. The ACC then becomes the “best of the rest” Power 4 conference, with FSU, VT, Clemson, Louisville, Syracuse and adding West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State. Losing the Heels and Blue Devils would be tough but the others would have no other place to go. The ACC would have a foothold in the state of Texas, reunite the two backyard brawls (not to mention geographic contiguity on the Eastern seaboard), plus some of the Chicago and Kansas City markets with ISU and KSU, respectively. It would be a conference much more inclined towards football than the current ACC is today.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      swesleyh,

      “If the LHN continues to lose money for ESPN, how long before ESPN buys out the contract.”

      Why buy out of it when they can amortize the loss? Besides, UT has zero incentive to let ESPN buy their way out. If things go too poorly for them, there’s probably a clause in the deal they can use.

      “If LHN contract bought out by ESPN, would the B12 explore a conference network?”

      You’d think so, but maybe not. OU and KU and some others are making decent money on tier 3 right now. Would they make more by having KSU, OkSU and ISU involved and sharing equally?

      “How many B12 teams constitute a conference. In other words, if Kansas sought the B1G and was accepted and UT, OU, TT and OSU sought the PAC and were accepted, would the remaining five members have a law suit for the GOR?”

      I’m guessing that the answer is that only 1 school has to stay to collect on the GoR. The other 9 could vote to disband the conference, but I’m betting the GoR has some language preventing that as a way to avoid the penalty. That 1 remaining school would have the rights to home games from all 10 schools.

      “The SEC Network is televising some of the conference’s best games, notably the Texas A&M-South Carolina opener last Thursday and Arkansas-Auburn on Saturday.”

      That was week 1, partially/largely as a way to pressure companies to carry the SECN from the start. Not every week is like that. Look at this week:

      12:00 – FAU @ AL (extra channel = Ark. State @ TN)
      3:30 – EMU @ UF (extra channel = Nicholls @ Ark)
      7:30 – Sam Houston St @ LSU (extra channel = Lamar @ TAMU)

      Here is CFN’s pre-season guess of the best games in the SEC that week:

      http://cfn.scout.com/2/1402842.html

      1. Ole Miss at Vanderbilt
      2. East Carolina at South Carolina
      3. Missouri at Toledo
      4. Arkansas State at Tennessee
      5. San Jose State at Auburn
      6. Ohio at Kentucky
      7. UAB at Mississippi State
      8. Florida Atlantic at Alabama
      9. Eastern Michigan at Florida
      10. Lamar at Texas A&M
      11. Sam Houston State at LSU
      12. Nicholls State at Arkansas

      That’s the 5 worst games, plus #4 on an overflow channel.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “I’m guessing that the answer is that only 1 school has to stay to collect on the GoR. The other 9 could vote to disband the conference, but I’m betting the GoR has some language preventing that as a way to avoid the penalty. That 1 remaining school would have the rights to home games from all 10 schools.”

        Doubt UT, OU, etc would have signed a GOR that gave essentially veto power to any single school. It may be greater than a majority, but I doubt unanimity is required. Remember, it was the others trying to get UT on board and I doubt they drove the hardest bargain possible

        I’d think the remaining schools would have to quickly reconstitute enough numbers to qualify as a conference under NCAA rules. And they would need to be able to fulfill the obligations of their media contract. Difficult to do if leaving teams new schedules take no account of how time, date and location effect B12 media obligations.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Why not? Have you considered that they all intend to be bound for the life of the TV contract?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I agree. I was only saying that it would be unlikely for them (UT) to have handcuffed themselves in the event that all but one (any one) was in agreement to disolve the conference. I wouldn’t expect anything to bubble up until official talk of renewing the GOR begins, if even then. ESPN’s LHN deal runs past the B12 GOR.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “Doubt UT, OU, etc would have signed a GOR that gave essentially veto power to any single school. It may be greater than a majority, but I doubt unanimity is required.”

          I said it was a guess. Feel free to disagree. I think the little guys demanded security. If it isn’t literally written in the GoR, then they have to have it via a lawsuit for tortious interference. The big boys can probably buy them off, but I think the little guys made sure they were protected for the duration of the GoR knowing that the B12 may crumble then if things don’t change.

          “Remember, it was the others trying to get UT on board and I doubt they drove the hardest bargain possible”

          While I think they had to drive the hardest bargain possible. After all, even OU wanted to have UT locked in.

          “I’d think the remaining schools would have to quickly reconstitute enough numbers to qualify as a conference under NCAA rules.”

          I think the GoR covers them even if they don’t reform. They would have to get back to 6 to compete as a conference, though.

          “And they would need to be able to fulfill the obligations of their media contract. Difficult to do if leaving teams new schedules take no account of how time, date and location effect B12 media obligations.”

          The TV deal would die to membership changes if UT and OU both left. That’s why the remainder would sue for tortious interference as their TV deal suddenly lost all value.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “While I think they had to drive the hardest bargain possible. After all, even OU wanted to have UT locked in.”

            So…the strategy to entice a reluctant commitment is to offer/insist on the strictest terms possible? As you say I don’t know. But I’d be more interested in what conference dissolution required. The conference is the holder of the rights and I can see UT granting them in support of their serfs, err, the B12.

            “I think the GoR covers them even if they don’t reform. They would have to get back to 6 to compete as a conference, though.”

            Doesn’t the GOR grant the rights to the conference? If it no longer exists how can the rights be delivered?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “So…the strategy to entice a reluctant commitment is to offer/insist on the strictest terms possible?”

            I think this might be a semantics problem. The hardest bargain possible might not be very strict if UT was really reluctant. I’m saying they little guys got all they could in the deal, much like the ACC did with ND (eventually got 5 games when ND wanted 3). What we don’t know is how strict those terms are. I gave my guess and you gave yours. We may find out in 10+ years.

            “But I’d be more interested in what conference dissolution required.”

            I would too, but the usual rule is a supermajority of some sort. It’s more than 5 and less than 11. I doubt they agreed to 60%, so I’d guess they went with at least 75% or 8 teams. Whether it’s 8 or 9 doesn’t really matter since Baylor, TCU, ISU and KSU have no place to go. I don’t think WV has a home outside the AAC either, but maybe they could be a #16 somewhere. TT and OkSU might get to follow their big brothers.

            Basically, UT, OU and KU are the only ones other conferences might want. A couple more might find good homes, but only as a tag-along or complementary school. I don’t see how critical mass would be reached for going elsewhere when the little guys benefit more by staying put and collecting the money the schools that leave would owe them.

            “Doesn’t the GOR grant the rights to the conference? If it no longer exists how can the rights be delivered?”

            The NCAA won’t recognize a conference of less than 6 teams. That’s not the same as it not existing.

            Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      In the age of conference networks there is no way schools like Oklahoma are going to allow themselves to get left behind for twenty years. They’ll be gone, GOR be damned, within five years if no B12 network comes to fruition (it wont). The question is, will Bowlsby take the reigns of the Big Ten or SEC when Delany and Slive retire. He has B1G history, so I’m guessing there.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        At this point I see the main function of the Longhorn Network as a tool for ESPN to control Texas’ future and, therefore, how the final conference reshuffling shakes out.

        If, as expected, the last big reshuffling would result in the ACC or the B12 going away, ESPN is going to make sure the survivor is the ACC (which is completely tied to ESPN) as opposed to the B12 (where they control less than 1/2 of the content).

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          And in that ACC-as-survivor scenario, what becomes of Notre Dame?

          Like

          • Phil says:

            There is no reason that things couldn’t end up with ND in the same hybrid situation they are now. Maybe things end up with both Texas and ND being hybrid members of the ACC.

            However, if the Big12 did go away, it would remove the only other viable conference option for ND to have a hybrid arrangement. Would the ACC then put pressure on them to join fully, knowing that ND’s only options are full membership in a p5 conference or going fully independent in football again (with a major downgrade in the possible home for their non-football sports)?

            Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            I have seen Texas to the ACC in a deal like ND mentioned often but I don’t see it.

            One, Texas is very different than the majority of ACC schools. Texas is a large state flagship institution where as most ACC schools are smaller private schools. Notre Dame fits in line with that group more so than Texas.

            Two, letting another school in as a partial member could upset other members. Its one thing to allow Notre Dame a sweetheart deal but Texas doesn’t have the same cache. How would UNC feel about another program getting all the benefits of membership without sharing any of their resources.

            Third, I don’t think the ACC is on death’s door anymore where they have to make exceptions for specific schools. As much as realignment has been about football, the ACC is not a football driven conference. I think most of their schools are content with being lousy so they won’t have to keep up with the arms race in the most expensive college sport. Unless the weight of fully funded scholarships for all sports bankrupts their athletic programs, like Maryland, I don’t see them chasing the dollars.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Psuhockey,

            “I have seen Texas to the ACC in a deal like ND mentioned often but I don’t see it.”

            It seems like a reach to me, too, but UT would add a huge market for the ACCN (assuming there is one and the LHN gets folded in or both exist) and some football oomph. It also gives UT a solid home for hoops, baseball, etc.

            “One, Texas is very different than the majority of ACC schools. Texas is a large state flagship institution where as most ACC schools are smaller private schools. Notre Dame fits in line with that group more so than Texas.”

            The ACC has a bit of everything. Small and private (WF, Duke), medium and private (Syracuse, Miami, BC), medium and public (UL, UVA, Clemson, GT), medium-large and semi-private (Pitt), medium-large and public (UNC) and large and public (VT, NCSU, FSU). It has state flagships and non-flagships. It has elite academic schools and weak ones. ND matches the ACC profile, but UT would, too.

            “Two, letting another school in as a partial member could upset other members.”

            Very true. On the other hand, they might welcome the money and the big football games. That would be 10 games per year for the ACC, so each team would see both UT and ND in 3 years.

            “Its one thing to allow Notre Dame a sweetheart deal but Texas doesn’t have the same cache.”

            Not the same, no, but UT has a lot of cache.

            “How would UNC feel about another program getting all the benefits of membership without sharing any of their resources.”

            Unknown. But maybe they prefer that option to losing more ACC schools to the B10 or SEC. The status quo may not be an option.

            Like

      • Kevin says:

        Bowlsby is no spring chicken. Will be interesting to see the landscape in 5 years or so when we likely will have new leadership at the SEC, B12 and B1G. Probably the ACC as well. Not sure Delany wants to be commish in his mid 70’s like Slive.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          He’s 62. Slive, Delany and Swofford are old and probably won’t be commissioners in 5 years.

          It will be Scott, Bowlsby and the 3 new commissioners who will be driving decisions about the playoffs and any expansions.

          Like

      • frug says:

        In the age of conference networks there is no way schools like Oklahoma are going to allow themselves to get left behind for twenty years.

        Left behind? They already make notably more than the ACC and a bit more than the PAC (and more than just a “bit” when you consider they have lower travel costs than any of the PAC teams).

        Like

  52. greg says:

    On his radio show last night, Kirk Ferentz again said that he thought the B1G would be going to a 10 game schedule. Given that he normally brags about his ignorance on such things, its surprising he has mentioned it twice.

    Not much in this link but speculation. It mentions the bidding war required on buy games, but a 10 game schedule doesn’t get rid of buy games, it gets rid of OOC HaH.

    http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/3-and-out-20140904

    Like

    • Wainscott says:

      Not necessarily in Iowa’s case. Failure to play the Cy-Hawk would create significant political issues for Iowa from ISU alumni & fans in the Legislature.

      But then again, I’m of the personal belief that a 13 game regular season is on the horizon

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Perhaps IA is quietly pushing for the move to 10 games so they can drop ISU?

      I still think people overplay the 5/4 split issue. As long as the whole division faces the same split, there is no real disadvantage. Teams are going to play a 5th road game anyway, all this does is keep them in conference half of the time.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        I agree, the 5/4 split is a non-issue. I just don’t see a 10th came in the cards. It will almost completely eliminate home and homes with quality opponents. Perhaps it would even eliminate neutral site games for schools with huge stadiums.

        Like

      • Wainscott says:

        I thought the 5/4 split was as much, if not more, about getting to 7 home games, which is much trickier to do when having to schedule 3 ooc home games in a year, than it is about intra-conference competitive balance. 7 home games pays (or 6 and very lucrative neutral-site game) helps fund the athletic budgets. And schools like Iowa are not going to be in the same demand as a King program for the lucrative neutral-site games, and don’t have a sexy venue nearby to compensate for that (like Wisconsin with Lambeau)–absent, of course, setting up bleachers at the Field of Dreams for football.

        Like

        • Wainscott says:

          See: http://www.bcinterruption.com/2013/1/29/3927200/big-ten-expansion-football-10-game-conference-football-schedule

          “Everybody has their own perspective and set of issues,” Brandon told The Detroit News on Monday. “From Michigan’s perspective, I go into those meetings with one strong, very strong belief that we need to play a minimum of seven home games a year. Whatever structure we come up with has to result in seven home games. If not, that’s a huge negative to me.”

          “Most of us need seven home games in order to make our local budgets,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said. “Is there a way to overcome that? I don’t know. We’ll have to look at that. The conference is aware that it’s an issue.”

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Wainscott,

          “I thought the 5/4 split was as much, if not more, about getting to 7 home games, which is much trickier to do when having to schedule 3 ooc home games in a year, than it is about intra-conference competitive balance.”

          I don’t see the problem.

          1. You schedule home and home series to complement your conference schedule and get to a 5/5 split.
          2. You buy 2 games from weaker I-A teams.

          “And schools like Iowa are not going to be in the same demand as a King program for the lucrative neutral-site games,”

          The Atlanta games aren’t all about kings. UNC, NCSU, WV, Boise, VT and Ole Miss have all been in those games, and UL and GT will be.

          IA would be a strong choice if there was a midwestern game (Chicago, St. L, KC, MSP, etc).

          “and don’t have a sexy venue nearby to compensate for that (like Wisconsin with Lambeau)”

          Not as close, no, but those cities I listed aren’t that far away. IA fans would fill any of them.

          I think a B10/B12 kickoff game in KC or St. L every year would do pretty well. So would B10/ACC in DC. No midwestern city has stepped up to run such a game, though.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Oh, wait. I think you meant the 5/4 was done to allow for 7 home games in stead of having 10 games. I was talking about people complaining about it (in the linked article, the author complains about it) and seeing 10 games as an answer to the problem.

            You can schedule either way and still get 7 homes games. With 9 you also get a home and home OOC. With 10, you just buy two OOC home games or play 1 neutral site game every year.

            Like

          • Wainscott says:

            “Oh, wait. I think you meant the 5/4 was done to allow for 7 home games in stead of having 10 games.”

            I was talking about the complaints and issues in going to 10 games while maintaining 7 home games. I don’t think going to 10 helps that goal of 7 home games at all absent a related increase to a 13 game regular season, esp with strength of schedule considerations.

            Indeed, going to 9 has created those issues on a smaller scale, as in years schools have 4 conference home games, they’ll have to juggle schedules to get to 7 home games. Indeed, OSU in 2017 have only 6 home games, a fact Gene Smith had to accept as its the first 9 conference game slate due to existing contracts with OOC schools. Its something he said OSU could handle if its infrequent. But juggling those scheduling issues is very difficult in practice.

            ” With 10, you just buy two OOC home games or play 1 neutral site game every year.”

            Its not that easy in practice. B1G no longer scheduling FCS schools. Finite amount of non-P5 schools out there that will be in higher demand, making it more expensive to purchase games. If other conferences also go to 10, with 12 game regular season, makes it far easier said than done.

            Very, very hard to have a non-H2H with another P5 school outside of a neutral-site game.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Wainscott,

            “Indeed, OSU in 2017 have only 6 home games, a fact Gene Smith had to accept as its the first 9 conference game slate due to existing contracts with OOC schools. Its something he said OSU could handle if its infrequent. But juggling those scheduling issues is very difficult in practice.”

            Actually, OSU fixed that by dropping the series with UNC about 3 weeks ago and adding UNLV at home in 2017 instead. Now that problem won’t rear it’s head until 2023 since Smith just added @ND that year as part of the stupid new series with ND.

            “Its not that easy in practice.”

            Isn’t it?

            “B1G no longer scheduling FCS schools. Finite amount of non-P5 schools out there that will be in higher demand, making it more expensive to purchase games.”

            Yes, it costs more now. But they are about to make a huge jump in TV money so they can afford it.

            “If other conferences also go to 10, with 12 game regular season, makes it far easier said than done.”

            I doubt the MAC, SB, etc will go to 10 any time soon since they can make so much on selling a game or two.

            “Very, very hard to have a non-H2H with another P5 school outside of a neutral-site game.”

            Even the home and home would die for many schools. It’s why I really don’t want 10 game schedules.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Brian: “I doubt the MAC, SB, etc will go to 10 any time soon since they can make so much on selling a game or two.”

            Quite true. Looking at the schedule for Kent State … OSU AND Virginia? What’s going on there?

            “The biggest transformation will be moving the softball diamond from the Dix Stadium Complex to the area behind left field at Schoonover Stadium. The 400-seat stadium will feature a dedicated entrance plaza and ticket booth. The project also includes an indoor training facility that will be utilized year round by both teams and features a softball clubhouse containing a locker room, showers, team meeting area and team lounge.”
            http://ksubuildingchampions.com/schoonover-complex/

            … ah, yes, so there’s a reason for that.

            Like

  53. FLP_ndrox says:

    http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/090414aab.html

    No mention of the OSU-ND series in 8yrs?

    I’d think it indicates Ohio State isn’t thinking a ten game conference slate is coming.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      This is the first I’ve heard of it.

      It’s in 2023, paired with OSU/UT so OSU is at one and hosting the other.

      My initial thoughts:
      1. It’s a terrible, horrible, incredibly bad idea and Gene Smith should be fired for doing it. It’s bad enough ND weaseled out of their B10 rivalries. Now OSU is rubbing it in by taking up 2 games that MI or MSU or PU could have? It’s not like OSU and ND have significant history.

      2. It’s even worse to do it the same years as the UT series. OSU will be playing at least 4 kings those 2 years, (MI, PSU, UT, ND) and probably a 5th (NE). That’s a schedule destined to ruin a season.

      3. I hope this is one of those series that gets cancelled long before it is supposed to happen.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Thoughts:

        1. I don’t have a problem at all with the two playing and like it (although not the timing). Notre Dame was clearly looking for a big name opponent there and it’s likely either Michigan wasn’t available (likely for reasons listed below) or didn’t want it. Similarly, if they scheduled Ohio State, it’s quite possible that they wouldn’t have been looking for a game with Michigan State or Purdue (king status in all). Beyond all that, no reason to hold grudges on any of this. Notre Dame has never been a Big Ten member and is free to schedule as they wish.

        2. The game @ Notre Dame in 2023 (likely a necessity for the Irish) means that Ohio State (or any Big Ten East team who ended up playing them), is only going to have 6 home games. In odd years in the 9 conference game schedule, east teams have 4 conference home games and 5 road games. Add in a non-conference road game and that makes it 6 road games. I’m fairly stunned Ohio State agreed to that given they just cancelled the series with North Carolina for that reason. My guess is that for a few special occasions they’ll do it, but I also wouldn’t be stunned to see the Boston College series dropped and 8 home games the following year or if the Texas series is moved and there are 8 home games in 2022.

        3. The 2023 schedule is murders row. There are 5 road Big Ten games and the out of conference schedule is currently vs. Boston College, vs. Texas, @Notre Dame. That’s all power 5 conference teams.

        4. Either we see changes in the schedule or Ohio State really thinks strength of schedule will be heavily used by the committee. I think the committee will try, but still not use it like they could so this probably doesn’t help national title hopes.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Eric,

          “1. I don’t have a problem at all with the two playing and like it (although not the timing).”

          The timing (as you address in more detail below) is clearly the worst part of this.

          “Beyond all that, no reason to hold grudges on any of this. Notre Dame has never been a Big Ten member and is free to schedule as they wish.”

          No, but OSU is a B10 member and I think it makes us look like a bad citizen when we play ND while watching others lose their rivalry with ND.

          “2. The game @ Notre Dame in 2023 (likely a necessity for the Irish) means that Ohio State (or any Big Ten East team who ended up playing them), is only going to have 6 home games. … I’m fairly stunned Ohio State agreed to that given they just cancelled the series with North Carolina for that reason. My guess is that for a few special occasions they’ll do it, but I also wouldn’t be stunned to see the Boston College series dropped and 8 home games the following year or if the Texas series is moved and there are 8 home games in 2022.”

          I’m hoping something changes. Dropping to 6 home games just to play ND is a bad business decision.

          “3. The 2023 schedule is murders row. There are 5 road Big Ten games and the out of conference schedule is currently vs. Boston College, vs. Texas, @Notre Dame. That’s all power 5 conference teams.”

          It’s a good way to not make the playoff due to losing multiple games.

          “4. Either we see changes in the schedule or Ohio State really thinks strength of schedule will be heavily used by the committee. I think the committee will try, but still not use it like they could so this probably doesn’t help national title hopes.”

          OSU has no basis to think the committee would use SOS that strongly.

          Like

      • cutter says:

        Thoughts:

        1. Shortly after the Michigan-Notre Dame series was cancelled in 2012, UM announced it was going to have a home-and-home with Virginia Tech during the 2020/1 seasons. Within the last few weeks, UM Athletic Director David Brandon announced a second home-and-home series with a Power 5 Conference opponent for those two years with the Washington Huskies. See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/michigan-wolverines.php

        If the current schedule rotation for the Big Ten holds and Nebraska replaces Wisconsin as UM’s annual Western Division opponent after 2019, then this is what Michigan’s schedule will probably look like in 2020 and 2021

        2020 (7 Home / 5 Road)

        9/5 – at Washington
        9/12 – Ball State
        9/19 – Virginia Tech

        Eastern Division Home Opponents: Penn State, Maryland, Indiana
        Eastern Division Road Opponents: at Ohio State, at Michigan State, at Rutgers
        Western Division Home Opponents: Nebraska and one TBD (Purdue? See below)
        Western Division Road Opponents: at one TBD (at Minnesota? See below)

        2021 (6 Home / 6 Road)

        9/4 – Home TBD
        9/11 – at Virginia Tech
        9/18 – Washington

        Eastern Division Home Opponents: Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers
        Eastern Division Road Opponents: at Penn State, at Maryland, at Indiana
        Western Division Home Opponents: one TBD (Northwestern? See below)
        Western Division Road Opponents: at Nebraska and at one TBD (at Wisconsin? See below)

        From 2016 to 2019 (when the Big Ten first starts its nine-game conference schedule), Michigan plays Wisconsin plus the following two other Western Division teams:

        2016 – Illinois, at Iowa
        2017 – at Purdue, Minnesota
        2018 – Nebraska, at Northwestern
        2019 – at Illinois, Iowa

        If that schedule rotation holds (and assuming Nebraska replaces Wisconsin as the annual Western Division opponent for the 2020 thru 2023 seasons), then the Western TBD teams in 2020 would be Purdue and at Minnesota and the 2021 programs would be Northwestern and at Wisconsin.

        2. Why would Michigan want to have two Power 5 teams on its future non-conference schedule? Why would UM be willing to play just six home games in 2021? Will Michigan do this in other years?

        My best assessment on the situation is that on reason Michigan wants to bolster its home schedule in order to make the season tickets more valuable to the customers. UM has already started going away from playing MAC teams after this season with the exception of the Ball State game in 2020 (Brady Hoke’s alma mater and his first head coaching job). Michigan is instead scheduling teams from the Mountain West (Air Force, UNLV, Hawaii) and American Athletic (Cincinnati, USF, SMU). The public and student ticket prices are on the higher level of the spectrum for college games and because of the realignment and expansion of the conference, games with Michigan State and Iowa that were supposed to be played in Ann Arbor in 2014 were (1) played in East Lansing two years in a few and (2) replaced with another team. That means ticket demand has been particularly soft this season (which is also due to a negative reaction from students over their new ticket policy plus the 7-6 season last year).

        The other reason I suspect that is happening is that the television networks want to see more interesting match ups to broadcast. We all know that the Big Ten is going into its football and men’s basketball rights negotiations in the fall of 2015, and if the conference can show a future schedule of more challenging non-conference games, the more attractive the package. Also, if Michigan and Ohio State are willing to give up a home game every other year, it may indicate that the television package is likely going to be very lucrative and that the two schools’ AD’s may be willing to give up that game revenue in return for a more robust non-conference schedule.

        Finally, of course, there’s the strength of schedule component involved in the four-game playoff. Playing two Power 5 Conference teams in the non-conference portion plus the Big Ten schedule and a conference championship game should be enough in most cases to satisfy the playoff committee members IRT SOS if Michigan were being considered.

        We’ll see what happens in the future. David Brandon did indicate a few weeks ago that there was a second announcement due for a home-and-home series in the coming years. Michigan will be playing Arkansas (2018/9), UCLA (2022/3) and Oklahoma (2025/6) and Brandon recently said there are contracts and verbal agreements in place through 2027 (see link below). So will Michigan have a second Power 5 Conference team in those years or will he have a team lined up to play a home and home for 2024/7? We’ll find out.

        http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140904/SPORTS0201/309040127/0/sports0201/Michigan-s-Dave-Brandon-We-ll-miss-Notre-Dame-game-neither-team-needs-other-

        As far as the Ohio State-Notre Dame home-and-home is concerned, I could make a joke about the Buckeyes dating the Wolverines’ former psycho girl friend, but that really wouldn’t be relevant. The two teams have played before, they’re nationally known and there’s really no reason why they shouldn’t play one another. Since Notre Dame became a semi-independent with the agreements to play 5 ACC teams, Navy, USC and Stanford annually, they’re certainly looking for one major home-and-home opponent per year among the four they do have to schedule and the Buckeyes certainly fit the bill. On a related note, Notre Dame may be looking at moving its two games with Texas in 2019/20 because the Irish also have a game with Georgai in 2019–see http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/06/notre-dame-wants-to-postpone-2019-20-texas-games/

        Since ND is tied up contractually with the ACC through the last 2020s, it pretty much means there’s no present option for them to join the Big Ten in the near future either, so the conference doesn’t have to maintain any real relationship with Notre Dame by scheduling multiple B1G teams with them each year. That’s not to say having ND plus one other program wouldn’t be great additions at #15 and #16, but that’s not a likely scenario in the near term at this point.

        Like

      • Blapples says:

        @Brian Honestly, I don’t understand the fascination with winning games if it’s against Fargo Tech or the like.

        Give me Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and a couple good P5 opponents every year and I’d be a happy Buckeye. That still leaves 5 games that should be wins on talent disparity alone.

        Playoff contending teams shouldn’t be aspiring to only playing one or two teams with a pulse each season. If you look around the country, more teams are beefing up their OOC SOS. Gene Smith is doing his job at giving OSU some marquee opponents if the B1G can’t get its shit together (outside of Michigan State currently).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Blapples,

          “Honestly, I don’t understand the fascination with winning games if it’s against Fargo Tech or the like.”

          Winning is more fun than losing. Winning sells more tickets. Winning gets you a better postseason. Winning helps recruiting. Winning increases donations.

          And there is some slight chance there are teams between the level of the kings and Fargo Tech.

          “Give me Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and a couple good P5 opponents every year and I’d be a happy Buckeye. That still leaves 5 games that should be wins on talent disparity alone.”

          9-3 every year gets OSU coaches fired. That sort of schedule will lead to a lot of 9-3 seasons (some better, some worse). You may be happy, but a whole lot of other Buckeyes wouldn’t be.

          “Playoff contending teams shouldn’t be aspiring to only playing one or two teams with a pulse each season.”

          And there couldn’t possibly be a middle ground between “one or two teams with a pulse” and MI, PSU, NE, WI, MSU, ND and UT in one season?

          “If you look around the country, more teams are beefing up their OOC SOS.”

          How many are scheduling UT and ND (or equivalent king programs) in the same year OOC?

          Like

          • Blapples says:

            “Winning is more fun than losing. Winning sells more tickets. Winning gets you a better postseason. Winning helps recruiting. Winning increases donations.”

            Watching a high profile game between top 10 opponents is more fun than beating a team you’re favored by 20 over. High profile games sell more tickets and get better ratings among TV viewers. Beating a tougher SOS gets you a better postseason. Playing tougher competition shows your donors where you stand in the CFB arms race and donations will increase if you’re not up to snuff.

            “9-3 every year gets OSU coaches fired.”

            And? Are you the coach’s agent? Why do you care? If he’s not getting it done, get him out and find someone better.

            “That sort of schedule will lead to a lot of 9-3 seasons (some better, some worse). You may be happy, but a whole lot of other Buckeyes wouldn’t be. And there couldn’t possibly be a middle ground between “one or two teams with a pulse” and MI, PSU, NE, WI, MSU, ND and UT in one season?”

            Michigan State is currently the only elite team on that list. Ohio State would be favored in every other game, some by double digits. Why are you so scared of that schedule? We have no idea what these teams will look like in 10 years. I hope they’re all good so I can look forward to 6-7 great games that season. But if they go 9-3 against that slate, they probably weren’t a Top 4 team anyway, so they don’t deserve to be in the playoffs.

            “How many are scheduling UT and ND (or equivalent king programs) in the same year OOC?”

            USC has them both in 2017-2018. USC has ND and Alabama in 2016. USC has ND and Tennessee in 2021-2022. USC and Ohio State are just ahead of the curve. Almost everyone is getting at least one good P5 OOC opponent, and when you look at the B1G’s perception, it’s not outrageous to expect Ohio State to have two.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Blapples,

            “Watching a high profile game between top 10 opponents is more fun than beating a team you’re favored by 20 over.”

            Not for me, especially not if I’m paying for tickets and a trip to see it.

            “High profile games sell more tickets and get better ratings among TV viewers.”

            Until you start losing a lot of games every year, and then season ticket sales drop.

            “Beating a tougher SOS gets you a better postseason.”

            Not so far it doesn’t. The playoff hasn’t proven it will, either. Besides, SOS without a lot wins hurts you.

            “Playing tougher competition shows your donors where you stand in the CFB arms race and donations will increase if you’re not up to snuff.”

            No, they won’t. Winning increases donations. Losing hurts donations.

            “And? Are you the coach’s agent? Why do you care?”

            He gets fired because the fans are upset. Since I’m one of those fans, that means I’ve spent years seeing OSU lose lots of games and being upset with my team. I’d much prefer to lose 0 or 1 game every year and not be upset at OSU all the time.

            “Michigan State is currently the only elite team on that list.”

            And of course this year’s performance is the best predictor of future success.

            “But if they go 9-3 against that slate, they probably weren’t a Top 4 team anyway, so they don’t deserve to be in the playoffs.”

            Or they could have a more reasonable schedule and go 11-1 and miss the playoff but not aggravate as many fans.

            This isn’t the NFL, where 11-5 is a great season.

            “USC has them both in 2017-2018. USC has ND and Alabama in 2016. USC has ND and Tennessee in 2021-2022.”

            So the answer is one. And that team is a rival with one of the two OOC foes. And that team is the only traditional king in its own conference, not one of four. And that team is in a conference that requires tougher schedules to fill the stadium.

            “Almost everyone is getting at least one good P5 OOC opponent,”

            And almost nobody is getting two kings, let alone playing 5 total kings. And then playing 6 road games to do it.

            “and when you look at the B1G’s perception, it’s not outrageous to expect Ohio State to have two.”

            Yes, it is. We don’t know what the B10’s reputation will be in 10 years.

            Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24694209/college-football-playoff-identifies-fact-gatherers-for-each-conference

    The playoff committee has assigned two point-people for each conference. They are the ones expected to have deep knowledge of all the team in that conference and share it with the other members.

    • American: Mike Gould, Pat Haden

    • ACC: Tom Jernstedt, Archie Manning

    • Big Ten: Pat Haden, Condoleezza Rice

    • Big 12: Barry Alvarez, Mike Tranghese

    • Conference USA: Tom Osborne, Condoleezza Rice

    • Mid-American: Barry Alvarez, Tyrone Willingham

    • Mountain West: Oliver Luck, Archie Manning

    • Pac-12: Mike Gould, Tom Osborne

    • SEC: Oliver Luck, Steve Wieberg

    • Sun Belt: Dan Radakovich, Tyrone Willingham

    • Independents: Dan Radakovich, Steve Wieberg

    2 P12 people for the B10. Interesting.

    Like

    • BePcr07 says:

      It looks like Dan Radakovich has an easy job this year! The Sun Belt has a slim chance of getting anyone into the access bowl and there are only 4 independents and Army is generally irrelevant!

      Like

  55. GreatLakeState says:

    Hate the B1G? Hard to find a more loathing tone than this gem from Rolling Stone. I don’t quibble with facts. Big Ten football is average. But why, if the MSU loss is the B1G’s last stand, is an Oklahoma loss not the B12’s last stand? Or FSU loss the ACC’s last stand? Especially considering the Big Ten had a pretty good first week. You would think, with the B1G being much more liberal than the SEC that Rolling Stone would feel some kinship. Nope. Get your bookmark ready Andy.
    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-big-tens-last-stand-michigan-state-and-oregon-in-college-footballs-new-era-20140905

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Yes, everyone seems to be talking about the MSU/OR game that way.

      They are right that it’s our last chance to make a major statement OOC, but we have 48 OOC games to make statements with. If we keep winning a high percentage, that’ll say something, too.

      http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/94889/sec-extends-lead-in-power-rankings-2

      ESPN’s conference power rankings dropped the B10 a little despite having the second best OOC record, largely because of Miller’s injury (OSU dropped in the AP poll). Still, we’re way ahead of the ACC who dropped even more after a bad opening week.

      The B12 is seen as having more depth, and that might be true. You can’t judge it after 1 week with any accuracy.

      Like

  56. Wes Haggard says:

    Interesting statement on Game Day just a few minutes ago. Flat out said the the national perception for the B1G is that of a weak conference. Surprised me. Powerful fan support, alumni numbers and TV ratings, but if a show as popular as Game Day says it, could be some truth to this perception. Went on to say that today’s match ups of Michigan-Notre Dame, Oregon-Michigan State and Ohio State-Virginia Tech could make the B1G’s rep today or ruin it. I am thinking that the B1G will win two out of the three led by Michigan State to solidify the conference a spot in the Final Four. PAC seems solid, everybody hates the SEC so they seem in, two out of three goes a long way to put the big in. Florida State has a leg up as the defending champion. Could be a one loss B12 team could be on the outside looking in. B12 touts their equality so a one or two loss champion is a possibility. What do you guys think?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      It all depends on the teams. If Ohio St., USC, Florida St., Oklahoma and Mississippi St. are all 1 loss champs, most likely, the SEC sits on the sidelines.

      I also think Game Day saying it doesn’t mean anything other than that’s the perception of the talking heads at ESPN.

      Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      After today, perception appears to be reality.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      The B1G screwed themselves badly with realignment. I mean, really, Rutgers and Maryland?

      Oklahoma wanted to join. Mizzou wanted to join. You could have had a B1G that looked like this:

      West:

      Oklahoma
      Nebraska
      Mizzou
      Wisconsin
      Iowa
      Illinois
      Minnesota

      East:

      Ohio State
      Michigan
      Michigan State
      Penn State
      Northwestern
      Indiana
      Purdue

      That’s a damn good league.

      Now it’s week 2 and the B1G is basically shut out of the playoffs.

      Just an amazingly bad day for the B1G. Unbelievable.

      And Texas is getting curb stomped at home by BYU.

      Wow.

      Meanwhile the Pac 12 and SEC are both looking very strong.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        And in response to people way up thread from a conversation from a few days ago (and no I don’t come on here every day so sometimes my responses are delayed) who are saying that I’m wrong for saying that most B1G fans would have preferred Mizzou and either Kansas or Oklahoma to Rutgers and Maryland, the logic seems to be that because Rutgers and Maryland are high tier two schools and the Big 8 schools are mid tier two schools, and because New Jersey has a high population, that somehow Big Ten fans care about that more than sports. I highly doubt that. Sure, the wonks on this site care about academic rankings and conference network subscriber rolls. But the truth is 1) Mizzou and KU at least are AAU so they pass that threshold, 2) Missouri actually has 300k more people than Maryland, but most importantly 3) the absolute most important factor is that you have a league that is good at sports that people actually want to watch on tv. Adding Rutgers and Maryland undeniably made the B1G worse at sports. Your average national fan now views Big Ten sports as worse than the SEC, worse than the Pac 12, probably worse than the Big 12, maybe even worse than the ACC at this point. Take Mizzou and Oklahoma and the B1G is easily in the top 3 and maybe top 2. Now you all may make a couple million extra bucks per school per year from the BTN by taking Rutgers instead of Oklahoma (Maryland over Mizzou is a wash), but what’s the cost of that couple million bucks? The Big Ten has a bad reputation now. That hurts recruiting. It hurts ratings. It hurts attendance. Etc etc. Are Rutgers and Maryland going to draw attendees to games? Eyeballs to TV sets? Of course not. You wonks on here care about Rutgers’s upside and Maryland’s proximity to legislators, but your average fan doesn’t give a hoot.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          Well, that settles the issue. The presidents of the B1G schools and all of the experts and advisors that they hired are and were absolutely wrong. The addition of Missouri would clearly have made the B!G the preeminent athletic and academic conference in the county – no the world – make that universe. It is a shame that they were all too stupid to understand what Andy knows.

          As an aside, yes it is true that the B1G is being viewed poorly in football (particularly with the ugly start to this season) because of the addition of the two east coast schools. RU and UMd have ruined this season for the B1G. It has nothing to do with an Ohio State QB getting hurt, or Michigan State and Michigan unfortunately getting clocked today. Nope it is the two new schools.

          The wonks care about academics and network subscriber rolls. I agree with you that this is odd. Why should a conference of major universities care about academics or money? A group of major research universities actually care about academics?

          Academics certainly have never been a concern for the SEC, and should not be for the B1G. Good analysis. Thanks.

          You have again made your point brilliantly, Andy.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            “Well, that settles the issue. The presidents of the B1G schools and all of the experts and advisors that they hired are and were absolutely wrong.”

            Yeah, pretty much. The presidents and their advisors decided to swing for the fences and go after Notre Dame and Texas and Virginia and UNC and Duke and they whiffed on all of them. And while they were busy whiffing the SEC picked up Mizzou and A&M, and the ACC picked up Syracuse, Pitt, Louisvillle, and Notre Dame.

            The B1G was stuck with the leftovers.

            Pretty big screwup.

            As Gordon Gee has revealed, there was a minority that saw the correct path, but they were ignored.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            As for academics, it’s not like Mizzou, Kansas, and Oklahoma are weak schools. All have enrollment over 30k. Mizzou’s enrollment is 35k this year. Mizzou and KU are AAU. Mizzou and Oklahoma have ACT averages that rank above half a dozen B1G schools. They’ve all got endowments of well over a billion dollars. Are they as good as Maryland and Rutgers? No. Are they passable? They’re really no worse than Nebraska, and at least Mizzou is objectively better than Nebraska academically, and probably Indiana too.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Andy, there are several possibilities. 1. (Most likely) Your bitterness over the snub of Missouri has blinded you to all else. 2. You are a troll and just want to stir up passions. 3. You have no clue what you are talking about. I hope it is not number 3.

            The B1G probably went after ND and Texas, but for various reasons those were not possible scenarios, including the animosity between ND and various B1G schools and the Longhorn Network. That ignores whether UT had to bring along a little brother school.

            The B1G may have gone after UVA and UNC and, if so, yes they refused to bolt from the ACC. We do not know. It is very unlikely that the B1G went after Duke, unless they were a package with UVA and UNC. Duke is a great academic and basketball school, but it is a small private university and probably does not deliver the State of North Carolina, much less any other state.

            Missou was picked up by the SEC after the B1G made it clear that Missouri was not getting an invitation. I also believe that there has never been an indication that the B1G went after aTm. Texas A & M fits far better with the SEC anyway. Be glad that this gives Missouri a recruiting window into Texas.

            Finally, Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt. Are you seriously implying that the ACC grabbed these away from the B1G? None of these three would ever be taken by the B1G. Pitt offers the most by far, but the B1G would gain nothing by taking Pitt. The other two are not and never would be B1G targets for many reasons.

            Your fantasies are interesting – sometimes. Generally you are blinded by anger regarding Missou, so you say whatever you can to drag down the B1G, particularly RU and UMd.

            As I said before, be thrilled by being in the SEC. If not you could be coming here worrying about the possible demise of the Big 12 and where Missouri would land. That would really be pathetic.

            Why can’t you be happy? Things for Missouri could be much much worse.

            Like

        • vp19 says:

          Andy, Andy, Andy, you just don’t get it. The Big Ten has for decades been much more academically-oriented than its counterpart conferences, what with the CIC having been around since the late ’50s. And its overall athletic programs are as strong as any other league’s with the possible exception of the Pac (which dominates several regional sports such as water polo).

          “Adding Rutgers and Maryland undeniably made the B1G worse at sports.”

          Your skepticism regarding Rutgers — a very late arrival to the big-time athletics game — is justified, but Maryland has shown it can compete on a national level for several decades now (and it’s won NCAA championships in men’s and women’s basketball more recently than any other B1G member).

          “Your average national fan now views Big Ten sports as worse than the SEC, worse than the Pac 12, probably worse than the Big 12, maybe even worse than the ACC at this point. Take Mizzou and Oklahoma and the B1G is easily in the top 3 and maybe top 2.”

          For football, you have a point, but you wrote “sports,” not football. However, Maryland has a stronger overall athletic program than Mizzou even after cutting several programs, and has the AAU membership Oklahoma lacks (and won’t get anytime soon). You can argue Nebraska no longer is AAU, but had that been the case in 2010, there’s no guarantee Big Ten presidents would have reached out to Lincoln. They might have chosen Missouri, which was a victim of bad timing.

          But at least your school landed on its feet; enjoy life in the SEC, where one wishes they put the same sort of zeal into improving their states’quality-of-life issues (see their national rankings in health and related topics — it’s not very good) that they do into college football.

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Except by the time that Mizzou would have been in the mix for #14, when the Maryland opportunity arose … Mizzou had already been picked as #14 for Texas A&M, as the SEC’s equivalent of Maryland becoming available happened first, so Mizzou wasn’t an option.

          So its pointless to compare Whomever plus Mizzou to Maryland plus Rutgers, since Whomever plus Mizzou was not an actual alternative to Maryland plus Rutgers.

          The actual comparison is whether #12 should have been Nebraska or Mizzou … and in that context, does your average Big Ten fan give a hoot about Mizzou’s athletic prowess? Its not as if adding Mizzou instead of Nebraska would have HELPED the Big Ten’s reputation on any rational third party assessment. When you are choosing between a King that has hosted not one, but two dynasty runs, and the second within the last couple of decades, and a mid-tier program that’s sometimes been OK and sometimes not so much … and the mid-tier program brings nothing special on any of the other issues make greasy snake-oil salesmen academic politicians happy … its really a slam dunk for Nebraska. Especially when part of what makes it a slam dunk has an expiration date attached, after which it gets a little bit more complicated.

          Now, I’ve read the response to this before … “Oh, yeah, sure, take Nebraska, but at the same time the Big Ten *should* have taken …” … but no matter how hard the argument is bent and folded and mutilated, it never converts Mizzou into a #13 add for either the SEC or the Big Ten, so it always leave the “what if” hanging on a prospective #13 opportunity ACTUALLY PRESENTING itself, and in the event it was the Texas A&M opportunity that presented itself first, so its off to the SEC for Mizzou.

          Instead of playing endless regret games about Mizzou not being seen as a #13 add by either the Big Ten or the SEC, what you should be doing is enjoying the down period of the SEC East while it lasts … if two out of the Vols, Gaters and Dogs get clicking at the same time, that division will be tough. If all three are clicking at the same time, it becomes a meat grinder.

          Like

      • rocknsoul says:

        Andy I see some of your points, and have for a long time since I’m old enough to remember when the Pac12 dominated the Rose Bowl for nearly two decades straight (70s and 80s). But the season is still young:

        What if OSU wins and VT goes on to compete for the ACC title? The game is still close, and much of the 4th still to play. Actually OSU just tied.

        What if LSU runs the table in the SEC? Thus Wisconsin’s loss aint so bad.

        Then what if OSU and Wisconsin play for the BIG championship? Suddenly the BIG winner has a legitimate argument for a playoff spot if the ACC, Big12 and even Pac12 winner has one loss.

        The above are still possibilities. But I don’t feel too confident LSU and VT run the tables in their respective conferences. VT was very average last year. But who knows.

        What cannot be denied is how close so many BIG games were today, outside the major losses by the Michigan schools. Neb can right the ship by winning their next two big, esp against Miami. But that was a damn near humiliating loss.

        I’ve been saying for years, the BIG suffers from average prep football talent – but should dominate the basketball side, which they don’t – so many Final Fours, runners up, not enough championships.

        Like

        • rocknsoul says:

          Well, Andy, have a big tall beer and enjoy. The BIG is really awful this year. It would take a miracle for this conference just to get a team in the playoff – divine intervention to win it all, if ever again.

          Like

        • gfunk says:

          Frank, delete the two post attempts that I made under username Rocknsoul, I haven’t been on here much lately & forget my ACTUAL username: Gfunk. I’ll re-post them.

          Like

      • vp19 says:

        Dear Andy,

        There is life beyond football. Or has being in the SEC made you forget that by now?

        Like

  57. Mack says:

    It goes through the B1G. NE and IA needed last minute touchdowns to pull out home buy game wins against McNeese State and Ball State; MD needed a 4th quarter comeback against S.FL; Purdue lost to Central Michigan. In the big prime time games MSU and MI lost, and OSU has not had a lead the entire game and looks like it will also lose. A very bad day for B1G football.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Don’t forget that NIU beat Northwestern for the first time in history.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      Northwestern loses to NIU, Maryland struggled with USF, Rutgers won a close one over FCS Howard, Penn State unimpressive in their win over Arky State, Illinois struggled badly but beat WKU, Minnesota managed an 11 pt win at home over MTSU. Really the only solid win today fro the B1G was Wisconsin’s 34 pt win over FCS WIU.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      And OSU goes down at home 35-21 to unranked Va Tech.

      Like

  58. Bob Marley says:

    The Big 12 should add BYU (Football-only), Cincinnati (All-Sports) & Creighton (All-Sports except Football). It would solve the Sunday issue with BYU and Iowa State would have a true-travel partner in all other sports with Creighton while West Virginia gets the partner it needs to make this new Big 12 work. This would be the wisest move from the Big 12 and it would get them Championship Game TV money, probably a boost in the Tier-1 & Tier-2 TV contracts and a boost in basketball.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Interesting out of the box thinking.

      Like

    • Tim Horton says:

      I’d love to see BYU join the Big 12 in some capacity. That is too good of a program to get left out of the national conversation simply because they aren’t a part of a conference.

      I realize they have a Sunday and time zone problem, but Big 12 needs to find a way to make it work.

      Like

  59. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I’m just glad the ACC isn’t the red headed step child this year… so far. Wins at Ohio State and vs. Oklahoma State; a loss by league’s #2 at Georgia; a close loss to UCLA by one of the league’s worst teams; a bad loss by the worst team in the league at ULM; and otherwise wins all around against remaining competition. I will take it.

    What Big Ten fans are experiencing are what ACC fans had year after year after year after year. I would so rather it be the obnoxious SEC having a bad day like this, but it’s nice for once that someome other than the ACC isn’t the butt of every college football joke. It probably won’t last because there are a lot of potential L’s lsft against SEC teams and the ACC usually beats itself into a bunch of 5-3 league records, but for now, the ACC isn’t the worst. Woo hoo!

    Long term, the Big Ten will win because they’ll pay more for coaches, player benefits, etc., than the ACC ever could. But I’ll enjoy this for a little while.

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      The big ten has a recruiting problem. Some of it is on bad coaching, especially Pelini and Hole, but the conference as a whole has poor natural recruiting grounds. MSU lost because of Mariota and not having a counter talent. Wisconsin lost because of depth. Adding New Jersey and Maryland will help but I am not sure the conference can win consistently without better pipelines into Florida and or Texas.

      Like

  60. DITB says:

    WTF happened last night?

    I admit that I did not do my part and watch all of the games due to sheer fatigue, an active 2.5 year old and twin 11 month old boys will do that to you, so MSU, MI and OSU lost? WTH!!! On top of that, my beloved Boilers got CRUSHED by Central Michigan, not that there is anything wrong with Central Michigan, but still. That game wasn’t even close… NW lost to NIU,Iowa almost lost, Nebraska should have lost… What has happened to BIG football? These losses can’t be blamed on weather. I mean we have facilities, coaches, and athletes, right?

    Wow… What has happened to BIG football? More importantly, can we turn this around?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      DITB,

      “WTF happened last night?”

      Just last night? I’d say the whole day went about the same way.

      “so MSU, MI and OSU lost?”

      Badly, yes. All 3 teams had big questions entering the season and those areas got exposed. In addition, OR and ND look to be high quality teams (unsure about VT). Plus, traveling to OR is a tough thing to do.

      “On top of that, my beloved Boilers got CRUSHED by Central Michigan, not that there is anything wrong with Central Michigan, but still.”

      Actually, there is something wrong with CMU. They were predicted to be mediocre in the MAC (4th in their division). PU looks to have no talent (blame Hope for that) and still lacks an identity (blame Hazell in part). They look years away from being competitive.

      “NW lost to NIU,”

      NW is 1-9 since Game Day came to town for the OSU game. They kept claiming the union stuff wasn’t a distraction, and they don’t generally have a huge margin for error based on a limited quantity of talented depth. Losing Mark right before the season hurt a lot.

      “Iowa almost lost,”

      Great idea to lock in Ferentz for over $3M per year for the next decade. They are a developmental program, but they’re starting really slowly this year.

      “Nebraska should have lost…”

      I think those 700+ yards last week went to their heads and they took this game for granted.

      “What has happened to BIG football?”

      NCAA issues, bad coaches, weak recruiting, and a lot of coaching turnover recently.

      “I mean we have facilities, coaches, and athletes, right?”

      Facilities yes. The coaching is spotty with many newish coaches and several weak coaches. The athletes generally lag the better conferences by a little bit, especially in depth. The B10’s tighter recruiting rules hurt us.

      “More importantly, can we turn this around?”

      Eventually, yes. PSU will bounce back once they get a full roster. Meyer will get OSU back. MI will replace Hoke and improve. NE will either improve or replace Pelini. Andersen’s systems will get fully implemented with his type of player soon. Ferentz will retire and Iowa will get new blood. IL and PU have to find more talent and better coaches. RU, UMD and MN did OK and IN had a bye.

      Like

      • DITB says:

        Brian,

        Kids change everything…

        Sadly, I have to agree with all of your points. I think the conference needs new blood everywhere. The same people are looking for the same people and there is no “innovation” in the conference. Given our lack of recruiting and talent, we need something to provide an edge. Our current system isn’t delivering that.

        I really didn’t know Central Michigan was picked to be 4th, man that hurts…

        Like

  61. bob sykes says:

    No B1G team will be in the playoffs this year.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      B1G undefeated OOC schedules :
      Rutgers – @ Washington State / Howard / @ Navy / Tulane
      Penn State (not eligible) – Central Florida / Akron / Umass / Temple
      Maryland – James Madison / @ South Florida / West Virginia / @ Syracuse
      Indiana – Indiana State / @ Bowling Green / @ Missouri / North Texas
      Nebraska – Florida Atlantic / McNeese State / @ Fresno State / Miami (FL)
      Illinois – Youngstown State / Western Kentucky / @ Washington / Texas State
      Iowa – Northern Iowa / Ball State / Iowa State / @ Pittsburgh
      Minnesota – Eastern Illinois / Middle Tennessee / @ TCU / San Jose State

      Maybe the Terps have the best shot at this point if they run the table?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bob sykes,

      “No B1G team will be in the playoffs this year.”

      That was always a slim chance at best, especially after Braxton Miller got hurt. That left the MSU@OR game as the B10’s only chance to impress people, and winning on the road at a top 5 team is very hard, especially 3 time zones away.

      OSU has a better chance next year because we’ll return a lot more starters than we did this year. We lost so much on offense that Miller carrying us was our only hope. The D also has a ton of fresh faces this year plus a new DC.

      Like

  62. duffman says:

    Week 2 and the undefeated ranks are already thinned in the Big 5!

    ACC —- 9 of 14 remain or 64.29% remain
    Atlantic : Louisville 2-0, NC State 2-0, Florida State 2-0, and Syracuse 1-0 // 4 of 7
    Costal : Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, and Virginia Tech all 2-0 // 5 of 7

    Big 12 —- 6 of 10 remain or 60.00% remain
    Kansas State, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Texas Tech all 2-0
    TCU and Kansas both 1-0

    B1G —- 8 of 14 remain or 57.14% remain
    East : Rutgers 2-0, Penn State 2-0, Maryland 2-0, and Indiana 1-0 // 4 of 7
    West : Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota all 2-0 // 4 of 7

    PAC —- 9 of 12 remain or 75.00% remain
    North : California, Washington, Oregon, and Oregon State all 2-0 // 4 of 6
    South : Southern Cal, Arizona, Utah, Arizona State, and UCLA all 2-0 / 5 of 6

    SEC —- 11 of 14 remain or 78.57% remain
    East : UK, MU, and UT all 2-0, UF and UGA both 1-0 // 5 of 7
    West : OM, AU, TAMU, BAMA, MSU and LSU all 2-0 // 6 of 7

    .

    .

    non Big 5 :
    AAC : Cincinnati is 0-0 // 1 of 11 remain or 9.09%
    CUSA : Marshall is 2-0 // 1 of 13 remain or 7.69%
    IND : Brigham Young 2-0, Notre Dame 2-0. and Army 1-0 remain // 3 of 4 or 75.00%
    MAC : Central Michigan and Northern Illinois are both 2-0 // 2 of 13 remain or 15.38%
    MWC : Nevada and Wyoming are both 2-0 // 2 of 12 remain or 16.67%
    SUNB : NM State & LA – Monroe = 2-0, S AL & TX St = 1-0 // 4 of 11 or 36.36%

    Like

  63. Tim Horton says:

    Big Ten football may be at an all-time low after yesterday. The national media is lambasting the conference right now, and for good reason.

    Like

  64. duffman says:

    B1G : The changing of the Brands

    For all the doom and gloom B1G talk, maybe we need to view this another way. Southern Cal was the sole owner of the PAC brand but their fall opened up Oregon and Stanford in the national discussion every year. If Alabama does not have their dark years would Florida or LSU have gained their day in the sun? The Big 12 seems mired in backing Texas and Oklahoma when Baylor and Kansas State have been carrying the load lately. Does the B1G follow the blind path the Big 12 has followed or do they flip and got the path of the PAC and SEC?

    Penn State has imploded. The Big Red machine is showing some rust. This means the same old hope for Ohio State and Michigan and they have just been looking like Oklahoma and Texas lately. Maybe it is time for a new school or two to emerge, even if it means less UM and OSU exposure, just to insure the long term health of the B1G brand overall. Who in the “pack” of the B1G can benefit from better national exposure if it helps the B1G brand overall stay in the national press in a positive light?

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Duffman, I think that team is supposed to be Michigan State.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        I think Michigan State is supposed to be one of them but it needs to be more than just Michigan State. Maybe a rotation of 6 – 8 schools.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You mean like WI’s run of three straight Rose Bowls? How about IA’s run of 3 straight 10+ win seasons in the early 200s plus a 2 year run late in the decade?

          2001-2006 – at least 1 non-king won 10+ games
          2007-2008 – 2+ non-kings won 9 games
          2009-2013 – at least 1 non-king won 10+ games

          Teams that stepped up – IA, IL, MSU, NW, WI

          If the 4 kings would all take their turns (last 10+ win season: OSU – 2013, NE – 2012, MI – 2011, PSU – 2009) it would help.

          Like

  65. The Coaches’ poll is out.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/coaches

    By conference.

    SEC (8) #2 Bama, #5 Auburn, #6 Georgia, #8 A&M, #9 LSU, #15 Ole Miss, #22 Mizzou, #23 South Carolina

    Pac-12 (5) #4 Oregon, #10 USC, #12 UCLA, #14 Arizona State, #16 Stanford

    ACC (4) #1 Florida State, #19 VA Tech, #24 Clemson, #25 North Carolina

    B1G (4) #13 Michigan State, #17 Wisconsin, #18 Ohio State, #21 Nebraska

    Big XII (3) #3 Oklahoma, #7 Baylor, #20 K-State

    Ind #11 Notre Dame

    Games featuring ranked teams against P-5 opponents next week include:

    #6 Georgia at #23 South Carolina

    Purdue at #11 Notre Dame

    Tennessee at #3 Oklahoma

    #12 UCLA v. Texas at Arlington

    #10 USC at BC

    Like

  66. gfunk says:

    Andy (aka Mizzou fan),

    I agree with your criticisms of the BIG, though not your tone & the simple fact that you’re not a player-coach or inside administrator. You do come across as sour apples. Mizzou will have more success in the SEC, esp in terms of athletic performance in football – far better recruiting footprint than the BIG, the best football conference in terms of venues, rivalries and fanatical fans & more money, esp in 5 years. Notice the SEC doesn’t need conference exit fees, at least from what I know – they know their future is permanently bright. Nice to have the best prep football players nearby – you think.

    Here are simple facts, as a BIG fan for 3 plus decades now:

    **Very few Rose Bowl wins in the 70s, 80s, 2000’s and now the second decade of the 2000 millennium. The 90s was a golden decade for the BIG in the post-segregation era (70s).

    **Blue-chip recruits have been slimmer to come by in the BIG region, outside Ohio mainly, for a long, long time. I can’t say much for NJ or MD, they have decent history producing players but not in a BIG perspective – not yet. Pa has produced some great players but on a per capita level they would be mid-tier in the SEC, esp on a per-capita level – which is so understated on message boards and general sports journalism contexts. Michigan and Illinois, though large states, lack infrastructure and tradition to produce great high school football, esp in relation to Black Americans. The reality of rural or suburban Black communities in the Midwest, Northwest, Rocky Mountain states and Northeast doesn’t exist on the same level as the Southeast, where such has been the norm for 100 plus years. Space, place and culture matter – typical arguments and social science realities in academia for decades now.

    **The academic elitism and to some degree integrity held by BIG administrators, and unfortunately too many Internet BIG fans is long-term, deeply embedded in cultural realities – I refer to it as yesteryear thinking. It’s no lie the BIG avoided sending more than 1 team to bowl games for many decades. The reasoning was based on academic principles. Meanwhile, other institutions in P5 conference created a tradition of playing bowl games.

    **The BIG is really an underdog conference in football for many of the reasons above. Its academic reputation, historical precedents (first major conference), passionate fans, revenue production are factors that have created a mythical perception, but behind the numbers a typical person can conclude the conference, under actual membership, has won 1.5 NCs since 1970 – dead last among the current P5.

    **The BIG does produce excellent NFL players at a high rate, esp considering the mediocre recruiting footprint. I call this the cold weather factor. Such weather absolutely penalizes teams on the collegiate level due to a traditionally strong, sun-belt based bowl system, the lack of a credible playoff system & of course prep football infrastructure which has greater dependency on the collegiate level, developmentally speaking. We all know in the NFL that cold weather games are more typical – late season & playoff games often go through traditionally strong franchises based in the colder states: Pitt, Green Bay, Denver, Baltimore, New England, Chicago, Minnesota (once upon a time), Buffalo, both NY teams, Philly, etc. Thus many BIG alum, as well as from schools in other conferences located in colder climates of a footprint do succeed at the next level. Technique and application changes in a colder climate. Speed no longer kills – strength, stamina, angles and mental toughness become more essential.

    Interestingly, I noticed a Neb fan point out that the BIG is a “basketball, w. volleyball, wrestling” and I’d add hockey conference. Notice the weather correlation? As for basketball, I’d argue the BIG dramatically underachieves and too often loses stellar blue chips to other schools and conferences – guess where? Warmer based schools. I think athletes in general thrive in warmer climates, esp for training purposes – even the indoor-based athletes. One only has to look at the Final Fours yet lack of NCs in BIG basketball, both sexes, but especially the men who have at least 2x more runners up than NCs since 1985 – that’s 3 NCs & 7 runners up.

    It is what is: the BIG is terribly overrated in football & far too many fans flex elitist, economically biased arguments to validate their opinions, really insecurities. I don’t apologize for them – as even a BIG fan, I dislike it as much as you do. But, in total the BIG = best fans in all of college sports – they continue to root for an underdog conference, esp in football. I also think the BIG has done more essential, progressive measures to ensure the amateurism of college athletics/student-athletes. In fact, I don’t think any other conference comes close amongst the P5. But the academic arguments are going to become increasingly meaningless in the years to come. The NCAA is dying & look at the direction set by the O’Bannon case.

    But the BIG better beware if a super-division is in the works. A lot of non-P5 FBS schools will have legitimate claims to be included in a super division format because they can factually hang with many teams in the BIG, weaker programs of other conferences as well. Expect Congress to get involved & I think many elected officials will target the BIG’s lack of relevance on the gridiron as case and point. The problem the BIG will bump into is right here, often on this site: arrogant fans that justify arguments based on money as apposed to actual field performance, the latter being a realm they can’t defend.

    In saying all this, the BIG isn’t totally knocked out of the playoff:

    If LSU runs the SEC table, other conferences produce 1-loss champs and Wisconsin dominates the BIG – they Badgers are likely in. You can’t exactly dismiss LSU yet – plenty of strong history. But I suspect they’ll lose. And what if VT wins the ACC? Does OSU look as bad as they seem at this point. In other words, the season is still young for the more elite teams. College football often surprises the fans. But, the majority of the BIG is just bad & it’s not a trend anymore (post-90s), it falls into a norm established in the 70s & post-segregation.

    PS This writer is not responsible for bad grammar : ). Frank, get a spell check tool on here : ).

    Like

    • largeR says:

      @gfunk
      Thanks for your time and effort. I enjoyed this a lot; especially after yesterday!

      Like

    • Andy says:

      My tone is a bit trollish because this board trolled Mizzou so much in year’s past that I have a chip on my shoulder. Maybe I take it a bit too far but I think I show pretty much restraint especially on weeks like these.

      As for me not being a player, coach, or athletic director, ok? I guess you are one? Either way I never claimed to be one. I’m a Mizzou alum, a Michigan alum, and low level administrator at a Pac 12 school. I’m an avid college sports fan and have been for over 30 years. I follow this stuff as a hobby. What I say is mostly fact based opinions, unlike a lot of what’s written on here. But I don’t claim to be any kind of authority.

      But yeah, despite opening your essay by calling me out, I agree with what you said otherwise.

      The B1G as an athletic conference is in trouble. They had a chance to fix it. Adding Nebraska helped but they should have gone further. Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, those were opportunities for the B1G to make some gains. Well, less Kansas because their football is so bad. Missouri and Kansas aren’t any worse than Nebraska academically. They’re probably better actually. And Oklahoma is about on par with Nebraska. It was doable.

      But they got cute. Chased after the NYC market and some better, but by no means elite, academic institutions. And now they’ve further watered down an already weak league that badly needed strengthening.

      At this point the B1G is in very bad shape. Even if OSU, PSU, UMich, and Nebraska recover you’re still looking at a conference with at least 7 and maybe 8 or 9 really crappy football programs. That’s a bad situation to be in.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        “Chased after the NYC market and some better, but by no means elite, academic institutions.”

        And when I say this I mean that’s what they did after Missouri was already in the SEC. Before that I think they were chasing Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, Duke, etc. All of those would have been great for the B1G but obviously it didn’t work out for them. So in a way this situation is a result of them aiming too high.

        But even after Missouri, Texas, Notre Dame, UNC, and Duke were all off the table they still could have gone for Oklahoma and Kansas instead of Rutgers and Maryland.

        Subscription fees are great and all but in the end this has to be about fan interest, entertainment value, and prestige. The B1G has set themselves up to be the #5 conference of the “Power 5”.

        Like

        • gfunk says:

          I don’t think Wisconsin or Michigan State are remotely crappy football teams. Let’s not blow the MSU loss out of perspective – media commentary aside, Oregon was 1) at home, 2) the higher ranked team by 5 spots, 3) lost less than MSU from last year’s teams. I mean Andy, this overstatement is precisely why you get tons of crap on here. Oregon has been on an upswing for much longer than MSU in the post-segregation era, BCS as well & solidified themselves as a national program after making waves in the Pac10 then Pac12 – starting in the 90s & they were oh so close to winning it all against Auburn. MSU hasn’t played for NC in decades & has long been second tier in the state of Michigan.

          So if you re-read my post – as a Mizzou fan you can hitch the coattails of SEC recruiting, but not in the BIG. Thus Md & Rutgers make more sense for 13-14 than Missouri because both have better high school football – but in the context of conference play Missouri holds a big edge because of SEC membership. You also seem to consistently forget the BIG went for Neb, which was easy decision for no. 12. I think all conferences were reluctant to go past 14. The SEC naturally went first because it doesn’t have dilution risks compared to other P5 conferences – so much regional prep talent. When the BIG went for 13 and 14, Missouri was gone – reality check!

          I know, cliche coming here: “football drives the bus” but the BIG is fine as an overall athletic conference.

          I know football is as American as apple pie, but so is this nation’s ability to give up on something if it doesn’t work or fall in its favor. CF popularity runs the risk of being regionalized, people will continue to support the NFL. I know plenty of folks here in Minnesota who care less about CF, but love the Vikings. It’s really simple: no passion if you can’t root for a local team, no care if they don’t feel a system is fair.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Not sure where you think I said that MSU is a crappy football team.

            I said the B1G has 7 or maybe 8 or 9 crappy football teams. Out of 14. That leaves plenty of room for MSU to be good.

            But compare that to the SEC that has maybe 2 or 3 crappy football teams out of 14. Or the Pac 12, that has maybe 3 crappy teams out of 12. Or the Big 12, that has maybe 2 or 3 crappy teams out of 10.

            As far as football, I agree that Mizzou is better off in the SEC. That seems pretty clear at this point. And as far as football, the B1G should have added Nebraska, Mizzou, and Oklahoma in 2012. All would have agreed.

            And yes, football does drive the bus.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…the B1G should have added Nebraska, Mizzou, and Oklahoma in 2012. All would have agreed.”

            I missed the part where the Okla Board said OkSU was on its own, or where UT was no longer the target, or when OU was granted double secret AAU membership, or where corn fields and tumbleweeds provide the demographic makeup the conference specified it was attempting to improve.

            These are academic institutions. Athletics are a part of the equation, but academic minded chancellors and presidents make the decisions, not fans. And they think of the conference in the same way.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, there would have been debates, but OU, as an institution, wanted to join the B1G. No, they’re not AAU. But neither is Nebraska. And OU isn’t any worse academically than Nebraska. Really depends on if the B1G wants to be a good football conference or not.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “No, they’re not AAU. But neither is Nebraska.”

            UNL was when admitted.

            “And OU isn’t any worse academically than Nebraska.”

            Yes, they are.

            They also have a sibling that they care about. And the horned one they benefit through association with, possibly as much as B1G membership.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ok, so maybe they’ll all post at once at some point. Trying to post and they’re not going through. I’ll try reformatting:

            Oklahoma’s USNews rank is the same as Nebraska’s at 101. Their ACT average is 1 pt higher. Their enrollment 6k higher. Their endowments are the same size.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ^That was supposed to be a response to CCRider desputing my claim that Nebraska isn’t any better than Oklahoma academically. I mean, in somethings they are, in others they aren’t. Neither is AAU. Neither is elite. They’re both just regular state schools.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            ARWU vs fish wrap…

            UNL ARWU world rank just outside the top 200.
            OU ARWU world rank outside the top 400.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Okay, so if matching Nebraska’s 201-300 ARWU designation is the new gold standard criteria for B1G membership then Oklahoma would not qualify, but the following schools would:

            Missouri
            Florida State
            Louisiana State
            Cincinnati
            Kentucky
            Oregon
            South Carolina
            Tennessee
            Washington State

            You sure you want ARWU to be the only criteria to use?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Qualifying wasn’t the question. You asserted OU and UNL were basically the same.
            201-300 is a better rank than 401-500. By quite a bit.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I also said that by some criteria they’re better and by some they’re worse.

            ACT average OU is better
            Enrollment size OU is B1Gger
            USNews Ranking is exactly tied
            Endowment size is tied
            Both are identically not AAU
            ARWU NU is ahead somewhat.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Is ACT at average better? Or only “somewhat” better?
            Is it surprising Texahoma might have more prospective students?
            Equal endowment without benefit of oil $’s.
            AAU. No. One was, and was one vote switch short of remaining a member. The other hasn’t been, and isn’t close to admission.
            Why keep citing the fish wrap? I find that not identical at all.
            We apparently differ on the defination of “somewhat”. 2X is somewhat?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Oil money is worse than corn money? If so, why? Is Rice a crappy school because Oil money? UT?

            ACT average at OU is a full point higher than at Nebraska.

            A lot of people like the smell of fish wrap I suppose.

            Nebraska is AAU because they got in 112 years ago when the criteria was completely different and nobody bothered to kick them out until they lagged so far behind the rest of the AAU that it simply couldn’t be ignored anymore.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ***correction, Nebraska WAS AAU.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Rice got its start from Cotton and real estate money. Spindletop and the discovery of oil in Texas hadn’t happened yet.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, but OU was founded before they found oil as well. Don’t you think both have their share of oil money at this point?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “Oklahoma’s USNews rank is the same as Nebraska’s at 101. Their ACT average is 1 pt higher. ”
            What does that have to do with anything? Big Ten President’s are interested in buyer’s guide ratings for where their kids should go to school, they are interested in academic prestige. Turning to the USNWR undergrad rankings to measure the prestige of a school’s graduate programs is like the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp because its so much darker over by where he dropped them.

            Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Academics, and money too, might be the only things that will save the conference in the end. As much as those things mean nothing on internet boards compared to results on the field, they are paramount to the majority of college administrators. Notre Dame faculty and administrators were heavily in favor of joining the Big Ten only to be shot down by boosters.

      Expansion is the only thing that can save the Big Ten football. You are right that they have been overrated for awhile. PSU was actually brought in in part to improve the football but in reality has failed miserably as the program has been in steep decline since the mid-90s. Besides Ohio State, they are the only team with significant talent levels within a 4-6 hour drive radius with little competition. The conference must expand into better recruiting grounds. They have zero shot of making in roads south without local ties due to the poor perception of the conference.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        If access to the South is what makes or breaks a conference, why not just throw a bone to Memphis (State), or give some SWAC school a golden lottery ticket? A more reasonable approach would be to swing and miss with UVA (likely would take it), UNC, NCSU, GTech, and FSU as your reach school.

        Like

        • gfunk says:

          From my consistent observations of annual recruiting rankings: the key recruiting states in the south are Fla, Ga, La (first tier), Va, NC, Al, SC & maybe Tenn on the next tier. Tx is Southwest, but the SEC now has aTm. Inroads to Tn therefore don’t help much, they have a borderline blue blood program, Vandy, and probably 2 other FBS schools, minimum. In saying this, the whole Southeast ranks high in per capita talent & the rise pf the ACC, which I’ve warned people on here for years now, makes it really hard for the BIG to crack the Southeast.

          What blows my mind here are the fans who root for teams with these built in advantages – Andy your looney posts are welcome – but rooting for Goliath, it’s just so unoriginal & it takes very little talent and knowledge to do so. I mean Jesus H Damn Christmas, the SEC does what is supposed to do considering the riches of talent. I rarely, if ever, go on a high horse about Minnesota hockey when we play against programs that don’t have equivalent prep hockey talent. I was impressed with Union beating us last year for the NC. NY doesn’t have Mn prep hockey, and Union is a tiny liberal arts college. Good for damn them, though I’m still bitter : ). We are an under-achieving hockey program, despite 5 NCs. In other words, that’s how much talent we have in this state when it comes to prep hockey, thus expectations are high like other blue blood programs in a particular university.

          The bigger question is: Do colder climate states want to compete with the Sun Belt? Is it so damn important to have consistently powerful college football programs in the colder states? If so, money please. At least one year-round facility in each state, with two fields and a league system that is more privatized ABSOLUTELY changes the game – but it is a BIG IF. Money is the biggest obstacle next to the fact that less and less people care. I just think plenty of cold weather states are fine with an NFL team, in part because these teams have the resources to pay for most things outside full costs for a stadium. The farm system of college football is popular, but the expectations have decreased so long as we get our quality draft picks and continue to attend the biggest church on Sundays: our NFL teams. It no longer really matters where these kids played college football. What’s more important is how do these draft picks perform in a Chicago Bears or Minnesota Vikings uniform. God, even my average non-football neighbors know the odds cold weather football teams have at the collegiate level. CF has always had a more salient local passion, thus an advantage for schools especially surrounded by fertile recruiting (pardon Illinois here, they don’t capitalize on their basketball talent – see definition of “anomaly”, a handful of other schools fall in this category as well).

          Like

          • Andy says:

            The SEC has its Davids and Goliaths as well, within their Goliath conference.

            And its not like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska don’t have their share of built in advantages at this point.

            I sympathize with your plight. My wife and both her siblings are Gopher grads. And Mizzou in the 80s and 90s wasn’t any different from Minnesota.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            OSU, PSU, Neb (especially), Mi can have the largest and most beautiful facilities – but the local recruits aren’t in excess outside Ohio. This is utter, statistical fact – recruiting data is undeniably available. All these schools also have average colder climates than even Mizzou or KU.

            You don’t need to empathize with me on Minnesota – it is what it is – I care so little at this point. But I am fascinated in the concept of how the BIG becomes a national conference with the weather and non-local disadvantages. Organizational culture is a very interesting concept that can work – see Oregon, Wisconsin, even MSU and Neb once upon a time. ND of course. Building tradition on the basis of effort , success and belief is impressive, even with all the money.

            Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            “But I am fascinated in the concept of how the BIG becomes a national conference with the weather and non-local disadvantages.”

            I am too. The issue isn’t getting a share of elite players, which looking at the NFL ranks, shows that elite talent does exist in the BIG footprint. However to complete on a national scale, depth is what is needed. The elite teams in the SEC, thru local talent and over signing, have above average players at every position as well as backing up. The over signing advantage will go away eventually with 4 year scholarships but the local talent will not. Wisconsin had enough starters, save for quarterback, to compete with LSU but once injuries occurred, they were sunk. Michigan State was beating Oregon but wore down in the 2nd half. Top programs can come at you in waves and the BIG teams can’t keep up.

            Now, PSU and OSU have enough talent in a local radius to be able to compete against the SEC if they completely dominate the region but every recruit going south or somewhere else is a huge blow where if a couple of top kids from Florida or Texas go to Ohio State, the local teams still have plenty to choose from.

            Universities have in the past built great programs without local recruits. Oregon is the prime example right now. However, Oregon is in a conference with a great recruiting footprint into California. If you compare climate, Southern California blows away Oregon or anywhere for that matter yet the Ducks have been successful stealing recruits from that state. This is why further expansion will help the BIG. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers should help the eastern division teams. The real gold mine for the BIG is Florida and Texas followed by Georgia and Virginia. If the BIG can expand into a few if not all of those states, they can rebound to become a competitive 2nd or 3rd place conference behind the SEC.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Psuhockey: “Now, PSU and OSU have enough talent in a local radius to be able to compete against the SEC if they completely dominate the region but every recruit going south or somewhere else is a huge blow where if a couple of top kids from Florida or Texas go to Ohio State, the local teams still have plenty to choose from.”
            … which is the level where having the balance of the non-Sunbelt State recruiting hotspots in the conference can help. Rutgers will not have the only top level New Jersey recruits playing in the Big Ten, nor will Maryland have the only top Maryland recruits playing in the Big Ten.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Psuhockey,

        “Expansion is the only thing that can save the Big Ten football.”

        I think that overstates it. Expansion can hurt just as easily as help. Better hiring and more allocation of resources would also help football.

        “PSU was actually brought in in part to improve the football but in reality has failed miserably as the program has been in steep decline since the mid-90s.”

        They felt beholden to JoePa and let him stay too long. Once they get past their scholarship restrictions, I think they’ll bounce back quickly. That will help the B10 tremendously. So will MI hiring a better coach. NE could probably use an upgrade, too.

        “The conference must expand into better recruiting grounds.”

        We just did. How about giving it a few years to see the impact?

        “They have zero shot of making in roads south without local ties due to the poor perception of the conference.”

        The B10 has been recruiting the south, especially FL, for years. I know OSU has pulled some stud players (4* and 5*) from the south, and others probably have, too.

        Like

    • DITB says:

      gfunk,

      welcome back…

      DITB

      Like

  67. Transic_nyc says:

    Well, just in time for Sunday, an opinion piece by William S. Husak, Vice President and Director of Intercollegiate Athletics at Loyola Marymount University, on what he believes will be a downsizing of college athletics in the years ahead:

    http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/09/06/downsizing-of-college-athletics/

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Consolidation and contraction is inevitable. There are very few athletic departments in the black today. That debt will only go up once the full-cost of tuition are applied to all sports. The SEC and the BIG are poised to leave others behind by a good 10 mil a year at least in the next 3-5 years. So that will be at least 100 million more than the ACC and Big 12 before the GORs are up.

      Also, networks are paying schools like Iowa State and Wake forest 15-20 mil a year just to show schools like Texas and Florida State. At some point they will stop or the big schools will want that 15-20 going to them. The SEC and BIG have the least schools that bring nothing to the table so they are much more sound.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I don’t completely agree with his vision.

      In the end, athletic departments will offer fewer sports, a diminished quality of the experience and perhaps even fewer roster spots for those sports that remain in a department.

      I believe that conference membership will also decrease. The conferences formed recently with large memberships will settle into finding institutions that are more geographically, budgetary and philosophically aligned. On the horizon will be a new wave of realignment, which may also include either a downward movement toward Division II or another separation within Division I (as has occurred with the Power Five conferences). That movement would not be exclusive to the 285 or non-Power Five institutions, but would also include institutions currently included in the Power Five. Each of these five conferences has institutions that struggle monetarily and are consistently found near the bottom of conference standings in football and other revenue sports. Those at the top of the budget pyramid for a conference, and especially traditional conference powers, could easily question the importance and relevance of a lower-level university athletics program’s worth, and perhaps even view them as a resource drain. It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out in the years to come. The number of conferences will increase, but the average number of schools within a conference will decrease.

      The final downsizing I see is a reduction from the Power Five to Four. Five is an odd number and does not work well in many respects. In years past, the talk centered around four super conferences with 12-16 teams in each. If the rationale was valid in splitting the 10 Division I major football playing conferences in half, it becomes even more valid to eventually justify four conferences with fewer institutions. Whatever that final number may be, it will certainly be fewer than 65.

      I agree we are likely to see some teams cut and others downsized in roster and/or resources. We’ll probably see some schools drop down a division. Further consolidation from the P5 to the P4 is certainly possible once the GoRs expire.

      Would a P4 contain fewer than the 65 schools in the P5? That hasn’t happened so far. The P5 is larger than the original BCS AQs (12+12+11+10+9+8+1 = 63). I could see some ACC and/or B12 schools left behind this time, though, so it’s certainly possible. I have a hard time imagining the B10, P12 or SEC kicking out somebody though.

      I’m also not sure going to more conferences is likely. Consolidation is the current trend. Perhaps he thinks the limited budgets for travel will force all the smaller programs to create smaller conferences. I tend to think the fight for TV money will still drive many of them to go for a bigger conference with more markets.

      Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        P-12 has kicked a school out by disbanding and forming a new league. That is how it rid itself of Idaho in the late 50s. Apparently, the league was disbanded because of “pay for play” scandals at Cal, USC, UCLA, and UW. But given that a new 5-team league was almost immediately reformed, before recapturing all schools but Idaho within a few years, this may have been a subterfuge.

        BIG’s biggest problem is that it has two teams from Indiana, and neither has ever been the best football program in that state! Another big problem is that Illinois’ flagship school is nowhere close to Chicago. (BTW, how did that happen?). Demographics aside, the conference is structurally challenged by these types of issues.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Redwood86,

          “P-12 has kicked a school out by disbanding and forming a new league.

          That is how it rid itself of Idaho in the late 50s. Apparently, the league was disbanded because of “pay for play” scandals at Cal, USC, UCLA, and UW. But given that a new 5-team league was almost immediately reformed, before recapturing all schools but Idaho within a few years, this may have been a subterfuge.”

          A group of 5 formed right away, consisting of 4 of the scandal schools plus Stanford (also known as the 4 CA schools plus UW). It took 3 years to add WSU and 2 more years to add OR and OrSU. The 3 later additions were initially rejected along with Idaho, in part over academic standards. The others persisted in trying to get in while Idaho didn’t, joining the Big Sky instead after a brief timer an independent.

          I’ve seen no account that claims it was subterfuge. They could have just voted Idaho out if they wanted that. My reading makes it seem more like Idaho accepted that they hadn’t been competitive for a while and were willing to play lesser foes instead.

          I don’t see that as kicking someone out, but you may. Besides, you should note that I specifically commented on the BCS era and more recent times. Farther back things get murky, with all the independents, the death of the Big 8 and SWC (nobody was kicked out per se, but U, Rice and SMU never regained power conference membership), creation of NCAA divisions (the Idaho loss was before D-I, D-II, etc, let alone I-A and I-AA), etc.

          “BIG’s biggest problem is that it has two teams from Indiana, and neither has ever been the best football program in that state!”

          No, but one has won multiple national titles in MBB and other sports and the other is an elite engineering school that used to be competitive in CFB (even elite briefly). Not being as good as ND at football is a pretty high bar. How many school can match it?

          “Another big problem is that Illinois’ flagship school is nowhere close to Chicago. (BTW, how did that happen?). Demographics aside, the conference is structurally challenged by these types of issues.”

          Sure it is. But the B10 has very deep ties that go well beyond athletics. They’d rather lose some games than kick out a colleague.

          Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Your tin foil hat is too tight. Disbanding, and reforming over several years to remove Idaho? The Vandals were a founding member of the Big Sky Conference a year before the rest of the “pac” had joined the AAWU to become (informally) the PAC-8.

          Temple remains the only school booted from a power conference.

          Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            I don’t think any team is going to get booted from a power conference. I think any contraction will happen voluntarily. Some schools will say it is just not financially feasible to continue to compete in big time athletics. Maybe I am overestimating the future increase of full cost scholarships, unlimited meals, health insurance, and whatever else get thrown into the mix. However, the majority of schools are in the red now so any added costs will increase that debt. Couple that with rising tuition to the point it will decrease the available pool of students plus a decrease in government funding and borderline schools could have tough decisions to make in the future.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Majority of schools have always been in the red.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            If those costs do not increase to soak up any increases in media revenue … then some other costs will.

            The top programs always have a strong incentive to look for ways to convert most of their surpluses into costs that boost their competitive standing (since they do not get to keep the surpluses, which would just go to the eggheads in the BS factories), only keeping enough cushion to show a small profit to the institution to avoid political problems. Then the programs contending against the top programs have to “spend to keep up”, at the cost of subsidies, “or else we’ll fall behind”. And that filters down the totem pole in normal arms race fashion.

            The big money schools have decided that these particular increases in the funds going to the athlete-scholars (putting first in name what is first in reality) is the politically prudent thing to do, and so everyone else will follow suit according to their standing and capabilities … but if it wasn’t going in that direction, it would go to facilities, or coaches salaries, or marketing, or something else, with everyone else also ending up following suit according to their standing and capabilities.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          “P-12 has kicked a school out by disbanding and forming a new league. That is how it rid itself of Idaho in the late 50s. Apparently, the league was disbanded because of “pay for play” scandals at Cal, USC, UCLA, and UW. But given that a new 5-team league was almost immediately reformed, before recapturing all schools but Idaho within a few years, this may have been a subterfuge.”

          The 5-team league was almost immediately reformed and then the previous schools rejoined in a couple of years for the same reason the original conference was formed, because joining a conference playing those schools made sense.

          “Another big problem is that Illinois’ flagship school is nowhere close to Chicago. (BTW, how did that happen?).”
          That was the University of Chicago deciding to reduce the emphasis on athletics to protect its academic reputation … U Chicago and the Illini in the same Power Conference made quite a bit of sense, until U Chicago adopted the strategy of ACTUALLY having “student athletes”, which implied bowing out of the power conference football arms race.

          Like

  68. hankcarf says:

    According to several sources, the NCAA has lifted the bowl and scholarship sanctions on Penn State.

    Like

  69. The SEC’s TV assignments are out for 9/20. While its not the best example of how ESPN values the SECN with regard to assignments as it relates to The Deuce, it shows that the SECN is more important than ESPNU.

    #1 Florida at Bama CBS 2:30p Central
    #2 Miss State at LSU ESPN 6p
    #3 South Carolina at Vandy SECN 6:30p
    #4 Indiana at Mizzou SECN 3p
    #5 Troy at Georgia SECN 11a
    #6 Northern Illinois at Arkansas ESPNU 6p

    A&M at SMU is part of the AAC’s package and will be shown at 2:30p on ABC/ESPN2

    We’ll see who is higher on the pecking order (SECN or ESPN2) on October 4. My guess is ESPN2, but SECN will get a #3 game a few times a year.

    Like

  70. Transic_nyc says:

    Like

  71. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11489258/ncaa-drops-postseason-ban-penn-state-nittany-lions

    The NCAA has ended Penn State’s postseason ban, effective immediately, and returned the school’s full complement of football scholarships in 2015-16.

    Earlier today the NCAA agreed to let the $60 million fine they issued stay in the state.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      “The NCAA has ended Penn State’s postseason ban, effective immediately, and returned the school’s full complement of football scholarships in 2015-16.”

      While I disagree with the decision to make these changes to their punishment on principle, I’m not upset. In fact, I’m happy for PSU and the B10.

      “Earlier today the NCAA agreed to let the $60 million fine they issued stay in the state.”

      This is a change I have no problem with at all. A fine seemed appropriate, but leaving the money in PA where the victims were makes sense. As long as somebody is being helped with that money, the fine is serving its purpose.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I think they lose that one in court (the money out of state) or in the legislature. So they gave in. More reacting to court challenges instead of doing away with stupid stuff up front.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      What fortunate timing for the Big Ten!

      Under the original sanctions, Penn State would not have been eligible for the post-season until 2016. Perhaps more importantly, PSU will now be able to give out all 85 scholarships right away rather than waiting a few more years as the number of schollies ramped up (originally 65 in 2014, but changed to 75, then 80 in 2015 and 85 in 2016).

      It’s a remarkable coincidence seeing that the conference is due to begin negotiations on its new television contracts in the Fall of 2015. One can only imagine how happy Jim Delany is now that Penn State football will be “back” earlier than originally expected. And who knows? The original projections for conference distributions once the new contracts were finalized was around $42M to $44M per school. With PSU operating with full scholarships, etc. and the B1G featuring a nine-game conference schedule starting 2016, that number could end up at $45M or perhaps $46M per school.

      Don’t we all love how college football works?

      Liked by 1 person

  72. Brian says:

    http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/090814aac.html

    The B10’s statement about PSU. The bowl money fine is still in place for all 5 years, just as the NCAA kept their $60M fine intact.

    Like

  73. gfunk says:

    I didn’t agree with full body of sanctions imposed on PSU, but man, they’re Internet fanbase is horrible, generally speaking. The amount of blame they lay on the BIG, which is broad, sweeping generalizations at its worse coupled with a popular sentiment of bashing the liberal media is beyond incredulous. Hindsight history will reveal this entire chapter of PSU history as a low point for college sports & the blind stupidity & loyalty given to football.

    Can we also say “hypocrites” in resounding fashion – Mitchell is a classic Northeastern liberal & was he ever instrumental in bringing yesterday’s decision to light. I’m afraid that a pattern could emerge out of this euphoria and looney behavior displayed by so many PSU football fans. This pretty much captures these nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Sadly, those individuals are more Paterno fans than Penn State fans. They would gladly burn. down the university to fight for his image. My generation of alumni don’t feel that way at all. They are right to blame the media: the media is what indoctrinated them to believe joe was some kind of saint. In reality he was a man equally capable of both great and terrible deeds. I can’t speak for what he was, but the Joe Paterno of the 2000’s was a selfish old man only caring about keeping his job, and his idiot son employed, to the detriment of the university. That is my only real gripe about the media coverage of the situation. The cover up was not done to protect the image of Penn State football; it was done to protect the image of Joe Paterno and the 3 other administrators. For all the good he did to build the program, he in the end brought shame to it and those 4 men should have all been tried and punished.

      As much as the NCAA had no jurisdiction in this criminal case, the sanctions were the best thing to happen to the university. By accepting a harsh and swift punishment, public opinion has started to soften on the school. Fighting them or drawing this out would have only prolonged the fevered hatred the public felt at the time. The Paterno fans would have gladly accepted a bunker mentality and fought but that would have done damage to the University that would have taken decades to repair. That is why at heart these internet idiots are not true Penn State fans and I hope not alumni. Penn State is more than reputation of one man.

      Lastly the Big Ten hate stems from the cold reception the school received when they joined and getting blatantly screwed by the officials against Michigan since the beginning. Many believe the Penn State is an outsider but if they stepped back they would realize that getting screwed by the officials against Michigan is the most Big Ten thing of all, shared by every other school in the conference.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        I could see PSU fans not wanting to be in the B1G prior to the Rutgers and Maryland additions as they were somewhat isolated. I think going forward that changes quite a bit. They now have 3 schools close enough in OSU, Rutgers and Maryland. And who knows maybe that continues to evolve with other eastern school additions down the road.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Psuhockey,

        “Lastly the Big Ten hate stems from the cold reception the school received when they joined”

        Delany has repeatedly admitted the process was wrong back then, and the surprise led to the negative reactions from ADs and coaches. The B10 fans weren’t overly happy, mostly because PSU wasn’t a midwestern school and the B10 was a midwestern league. Also, the arrogance of PSU fans touting their grand experiment and how only they did things the right way didn’t go over well (much like how ND is viewed by many). They also spent some time telling B10 fans how they were going to dominate us all in football for the foreseeable future (NE fans did the same thing).

        At what point do PSU fans plan to get over what happened almost 25 years ago? Especially considering that the president of PSU was thrilled with the academic gains PSU made because of joining the B10 and the CIC. I’ve always thought part of the problem was PSU having to give up independence. I think that still rankles some of the old school fans who’d rather play their old schedule than a B10 schedule and don’t like group decision making. Being the only eastern school was always a complicating factor since it separated PSU from the others culturally.

        “and getting blatantly screwed by the officials against Michigan since the beginning. Many believe the Penn State is an outsider but if they stepped back they would realize that getting screwed by the officials against Michigan is the most Big Ten thing of all, shared by every other school in the conference.”

        Well said. This is where I think giving up independence hurt. PSU was the big fish in their own pond before joining the B10, and now their just one of many big fish in a much bigger lake. That takes getting used to.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          The other problem is that the Penn State fan base is so singularly focused on football that it has almost never acknowledged what Big Ten membership has done for both PSU’s entire athletic program and the university as a whole. Joining the B1G enabled Penn State to build the Bryce Jordan Center and gave it a legit, big-time conference home for all its athletic teams. (Would PSU have its array of NCAA titles in wrestling and both men’s and women’s volleyball were it still in the Atlantic 10? Almost certainly not.) And thanks in large part to the CIC, research parks have sprung up all around State College. The Penn State of 2014 is a far cry from the Penn State of 1974 or 1984, and the Big Ten is the primary reason why.

          Like

  74. USN&WR 2015 Undergrad rankings are out.

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

    P-5 rankings by conference.

    Pac-12: #4 Stanford, #20 Cal, #23 UCLA, #25 USC, #48 Washington, #88 Colorado, #106 Oregon, #121 Arizona, #129 Arizona State, #129 Utah, #138 Oregon State, #138 Washington State

    ACC: #8 Duke, #23 Virginia, #27 Wake Forest, #31 BC, #35 GA Tech, #48 Miami, #58 Syracuse, #62 Clemson, #62 Pitt, #71 VA Tech, #95 Florida State, #95 NC State, #161 Louisville

    B1G: #13 Northwestern, 29 Michigan, #42 Illinois, #47 Wisconsin, #48 Penn State, #54 Ohio State, #62 Purdue, #62 Maryland, #70 Rutgers, #71 Iowa, #71 Minnesota, #76 Indiana, #85 Michigan State, #99 Nebraska

    SEC: #16 Vandy, #48 Florida, #62 Georgia, #68 A&M, #88 Alabama, #99 Mizzou, #103 Auburn, #106 Tennessee, #113 South Carolina, #129 LSU, #129 Kentucky, #135 Arkansas, #149 Ole Miss, #156 Miss State

    B-12: #53 Texas, #71 Baylor, #76 TCU, #106 Iowa State, #106 Kansas, #106 Oklahoma, #142 K-State, #145 OK State, #156 Texas Tech, #168 West Virginia

    Ind: #16 Notre Dame

    Other FBS schools of interest for realignment purposes:

    #19 Rice
    #54 Tulane
    #58 UConn
    #58 SMU
    #62 BYU
    #103 Buffalo
    #121 Temple
    #129 Cincy
    #149 San Diego State
    #161 USF
    #173 UCF
    #189 Houston
    #189 New Mexico

    Like

    • Craig Z says:

      Nebraska and Missouri are tied. Interesting.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Fluctuates ever year. Over the last 10 years or so Mizzou has randomly jumped around between 85 and 99. Nebraska has jumped around between about 93 and 108. It’s basically a plus or minus 7 any given year. These measurements aren’t very precise.

        Mizzou has trended down a bit though. It’s likely that by expanding enrollment from 25k to 35k over the last 10 years they’ve hurt their student-to-faculty ratio and things like that, which caused them to slide a bit. A new fundraising campaign starts next year at Mizzou to address some of those issues.

        Like

    • I know this is one small variable in the realignment equation, but BYU would land at #2 in the Big 12; tied for #3 in SEC; #6 in the PAC 12; tied for #7 in the B1G; and tied for #8 in the ACC. So, basically, above average for an Autonomy 5 program.

      BYU would also land in the top-3 for home football game attendance in the Big 12.

      Seems like a good fit, IMO.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        USNWR rankings? I don’t think its even one small variable on the realignment equation … academic status and prestige are, but academic status and prestige do not rest on undergraduate buyer’s guide rankings.

        Like

        • James McSnapBack says:

          Don’t underestimate the effect USNews can have on a school’s prestige. Just ask WashU St.

          If there wasn’t a benefit to gaming USNews rankings schools wouldn’t bother with it.

          Like

    • JustSmithinIt says:

      Makes sense…Pac 12 and ACC a level above everyone else, Big 12 and SEC at the bottom, B1G right there in the unsurprising middle of mediocrity

      Like

  75. Transic_nyc says:

    Lost in the news about Penn State and the NFL’s handling of the Ray Rice situation is the news that Donna Shalala will step down next year.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/donna-shalala-former-uw-chancellor-to-retire-as-university-of/article_40fd6eaf-d90f-5e36-83cf-28b0e8197ce4.html

    Football won its fifth national championship a few months after Shalala’s inauguration as Miami’s fifth president. It has not won a title since, and the program is beginning to emerge from a cloud that hung over it for years after a former booster and convicted Ponzi scheme architect went public with tales of lavish spending on athletes in violation of NCAA rules.

    The NCAA investigation ended last year, but not before Shalala — who was complimentary of the NCAA for much of the process, until it became known that investigators working the case were breaking their association’s own rules — lashed out at the governing body for college sports and demanded that Miami be treated more fairly.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Many old Big East fans thought of Shalala as total lying b#tch, piece of garbage. Miami was in big trouble and many people felt that the football program would never recover. Then the BE came along and welcomed UM. It was mutually beneficial. Miami came back and won a national championship while in the BE. Shalala made it clear that Miami knew how much UM owed to the BE. She promised loyalty to the league. A couple of months after that pledge, UM jumped ship with BC. As we all probably know, the third team was supposed to be Cuse at that time, but the Virginia legislature made UV threaten to kill the deal unless VaTech got invited, so Cuse was out.

      The deal made geographic sense for Miami, but it was a major breach of faith. It also made sense for VaTech. To this day, I still cannot understand how the move helped BC, or would have helped Syracuse. Of course, the league change also resulted the terrible bitterness between BC and UConn, exacerbated when the Attorney General of Connecticut (now US Senator Richard Blumenthal) sued BC. There are those who believe that BC has now claimed an ACC exclusive in New England, which will helped keep UConn out of the ACC. (Of course, the ACC football schools – primarily FSU and Clemson – went nuts over the idea of adding another mostly basketball school)

      Like

  76. Bob Marley says:

    The Big Ten wanted to conquer the New York City market, and that’s what they’re trying to do. Also they’ve always had it out for Texas and love Texas. With LHN lagging still, I could see the Big Ten offering the 5-game scheduling agreement with Texas and have them as a member in all sports except football. Let Texas go independent and put their games on LHN.

    Like

  77. Ron Hess says:

    Bob, that will never happen! Didn’t do it for Notre Dame why would they do it with Texas?

    Like

  78. gfunk says:

    Ouch! Yet another top 20 nationally-ranked player out of Illinois leaves the state & BIG altogether. To some degree this makes sense: Brunson has Philly roots: http://247sports.com/Player/Jalen-Brunson-23594

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      The ones from the non-hood suburbs hurt. As for City recruiting, there was always a belief that parents, apart from taking the best “deal”, also wanted their sons to be much farther than 120 miles away from the bad people in their South Side/West Side neighborhoods. When Illinois loses its lifelines into Warren (Gurnee – the mid 80s TF South of the north suburbs), Simeon, and the Peoria system, its ovah.

      Like

      • DITB says:

        Non-hood suburbs? 120 miles away from the bad people in “their south side/west side neighborhoods?” I find your post to be obnoxious, filled with some BIG assumptions.
        Please explain further…

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          1. Mr. Brunson attends Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Lake County, IL easily one of the top ten richer districts in the region as well as a stalwart academic school (#5 Illinois, U.S. News and World Reports 2014 Best High Schools Ranking).
          2. I attended and graduated U of I – Champaign in the early to mid 1990s; at least for non-athlete persons of color, it was often challenging for some to keep their friends visiting from out of town out of trouble. From the 1970s through about the mid-1990s, there were a lot of programs Presidents Award, Bridge) aimed at ratcheting up the numbers of disadvantaged minorities at UIUC. A big unintended consequence was that C-U would be a spot for Chicago thugs and wannabes to party – this is a knock on those who visited the campus on weekends, not on those who were enrolled. While a D-1 athlete may be more regimented and have the sense not to hang with bad influences from back home, I think many of their parents would rather they be further than just a two-hour drive from those influences.
          3. The subject of this reply, because of answer #1 may not have as acute a need to be sheltered away from those mentioned in answer #2. He seems like the polar opposite of another supposed basketball savior from the north suburbs, Jereme Richmond.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            I think Urbanleftbehind is certainly onto something. Chicago is one of many genuinely stressed urbanized areas of the BIG footprint where Black American culture struggles – well beyond a sports topic – this is nothing new in the world of everyday sobering news vis-a-vis education, economics, politics, family social issues, penal system matters. I think its admirable parents want to see their children start anew and break from viscous cycles. On the other hand, I’m a big proponent of thinking & acting locally then globally not “thinking locally and acting globally” – the problem with that mantra is you can’t even begin to understand the bigger picture unless you grasp the subtleties of your everyday, intimate surroundings. I’d never want my daughter stepping beyond the local if she’s yet to learn the fundamental basics of her very own neighborhood. Lesson learned on my end, I was often an ethnocentric snob when I lived and worked abroad. I certainly had to bite my tongue when I lived in the South as well.

            It seems like a lot of cities in the Rust Belt proper as well as new ones in the BIG footprint, Baltimore, Newark & NYC Jersey communities are consistently amongst the bottom tier of various metrics for livability in relation to Black Americans. There is a higher misery index in these communities than much of the other ones around the country. But don’t misconstrue me here, plenty of distressed Black communities beyond the BIG footprint. Brunson will be quite near Philly, which has plenty of issues. He’ll also have games near and in Chicago via the BIG East schedule. But as I said, Brunson is honoring his father’s legacy somewhat – who is a native of Philly. Nonetheless, there is an established norm of Chicago talent leaving the state on an annual basis.

            These are complex matters & I don’t claim to have answers but in my field they often come up in urban regional planning – esp community, social justice and economic planning matters. Many of my peers, me included, absolutely do research along racial-ethnic lines and “The Great Migration” is a legacy for the North that is filled with deep, difficult issues that remain unsolved ,esp with planning.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

          I think this map explains what he’s talking about. Like all cities, some neighborhoods are much more dangerous than others.

          Like

          • DITB says:

            I have read your responses and will comment later. My twins have been puking all night. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a rather difficult subject…

            Like