With our first regular season of the College Football Playoff over, I’ve got to paraphrase the ESPN commercials that have been running all year: I’M IN. It’s not perfect, as I’ve had my issues with the CFP committee and my optimal dream is to have an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the 5 power conference champions (assuming that they are all “one true champions”), but from a pure unattached sports fan perspective (outside of sweating out whether my 6-6 Illini would actually have a bowl slot), having multiple teams from multiple conferences still legitimately in the hunt on Championship Saturday with a whole slate of games with massive stakes is a huge improvement over the old BCS system. There have been too many years where fans have been left with entrenched teams at #1 and #2 in the BCS rankings and/or several power conferences completely out of the national title chase for the last anticlimactic month of the season from a national viewpoint. That definitely wasn’t a problem this season – it felt as if though there were multiple de facto playoff games every week with a broad cross section of teams from all of the 5 power conferences (although the unrequited love for the SEC West got be suffocating after awhile). This is what I was hoping for when I wrote my “BCS Final Four” proposal four years ago that ended up looking a lot like what the new CFP system turned out to be today. It would have been nice if the Rose Bowl could have still received a traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup, but most sports fans aren’t going to be complaining about Oregon vs. Florida State and Alabama vs. Ohio State on New Year’s Day in a survive and advance doubleheader.
Of course, in the blog/Twitter niche that I’ve staked out, the question that I’m getting the most right now is whether the CFP committee’s snub of the Big 12 and its co-champions of Baylor and TCU will spur that conference to finally expand. Indeed, Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby has stated that the league coming up empty in playoff bids “will certainly be catalyst for discussion and [the Big 12 will] have to weight whether this is substantial enough to add institutions.” Now, I have been an advocate of Big 12 expansion (with Cincinnati and BYU as the top two choices) and believe that the conference badly wants two obvious non-power conference teams to rise up on their own as expansion targets (in the way that Utah and TCU had made names for themselves a few years ago in the Mountain West Conference) no matter how much they tout their company line about being happy at 10 members. However, the effect of College Football Playoff bids on conference realignment is a red herring. The Big 12’s weak TV markets, population demographics, and recruiting areas outside of the state of Texas are really what the conference needs to worry about addressing through expansion in the long-term. Conferences don’t expand to get more playoff teams; instead, conferences expand to make more money. Those might be related issues, but they aren’t one and the same. Ohio State completely taking Wisconsin out to the woodshed had more of an effect on Baylor (or TCU or whoever the Big 12 wanted to name its champ)* not getting into the playoff than the lack of a Big 12 conference championship game.
(* To be sure, I’m happy that the CFP committee didn’t end up rewarding the hypocritical and contradictory statements that Bowlsby has made over the last 6 months, whether that snub was intentional or unintentional. The misguided arrogance to have an entire league marketing campaign based on “One True Champion” touting the round-robin schedule and then blatantly backtrack to attempt to get two schools into the playoff by naming co-champions was rightly punished by the karmic sports gods.)
Even when looking at conference realignment through the prism of the new playoff system, most writers and fans have had the Big 12 expansion analysis backwards: The financial value of a conference championship game isn’t tied to how it helps (or hurts) a conference in getting into the new College Football Playoff. Instead, the critical question is how much the new College Football Playoff adds to the financial value of a conference championship game itself. The Big Ten signed a contract with Fox a few years ago that was worth over $24 million per year just in TV rights alone for the conference championship game. Remember that contract was signed in the BCS era where the ratings for conference championship games that didn’t involve a potential national championship game participant were often mediocre. With the top 4 CFP system, though, the chances are vastly increased that every conference championship game will have national title implications every year, which in turn drives up the value of those games significantly. (The SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 conference championship games all drew great overnight ratings over the weekend, even with the Ohio State-Wisconsin game being completely non-competitive after about the first half-hour.) If consolation Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl games are worth $40 million each to their participating conferences, then the conference championship games are arguably worth even more in this new system. The conference championship games are de facto playoff games that can be guaranteed every single year and easily monetized with 100% of the revenue controlled by the applicable conference. Sure, a league like the Big 12 could regularly end up having an important game on the last weekend of the season, such as the Baylor-Kansas State game this past Saturday, but the Big 12 can’t sell that matchup ahead of time for $50 million or more in the way that the Big Ten will likely be able to do with its conference championship game when it enters into a new TV contract in a couple of years. If/when we start seeing money being thrown around at those levels, then the financial argument for expansion becomes much more compelling for the Big 12 (whether it’s actually helpful for on-the-field playoff bids or not).
Considering all that has transpired over the past few days, it makes some comments last week on a Nashville radio station about the prospect of the Big 12 adding Cincinnati and Memphis (which I also discussed on Twitter on Friday) all the more interesting. I’m pretty cautious about giving too much credence to these types of rumors since sooooooooo many have turned into nothing over the years, but I’ll say this particular scenario is at least one that I’ve heard about separately prior to Friday. So, I’d put it in the plausible category – it might be a bit surprising if the Big 12 heads down that road, but it wouldn’t be shocking. IF the Big 12 decides that it wants/needs to expand (which is really the threshold question above everything else), then the reality is that (a) it’s not realistic at all that the Big 12 is going to poach anyone from the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 or ACC and (b) there’s no perfect football power-in-waiting available at the non-power “Group of Five” level. This means that Big 12 expansion candidates are inherently going to have some flaws and aren’t going to make hearts palpitate for the average fan. However, it’s very possible that any two random schools picked off the street could pay for themselves with how much conference championship games can be worth in the new CFP world.
Readers of this blog know that I have quite a bit of respect for Cincinnati and wrote in the Big 12 Expansion Index that it’s the one “obvious” expansion choice for the Big 12 (to the extent that there are any obvious choices at all). Memphis didn’t fare quite as well in that analysis from a year ago and it was mainly based on its historic football ineptitude. That being said, I’ve also always acknowledged that any school with a great basketball fan base (i.e. UConn, Memphis, San Diego State, New Mexico, etc.) could do wonders for its conference realignment prospects if it could merely be competent in football. (I’d also say the same thing about quality academic schools in attractive locations, as well – see how much Tulane and Rice could be worth if they could string a few winning seasons together.) Memphis with a solid football program can certainly be a financially viable addition and it’s in a recruiting rich area for both football and basketball players. While its market is in SEC territory, it’s a split area for football (mainly between Tennessee and Ole Miss), has shown to be unified for Memphis basketball, and it’s a region that isn’t oversaturated with power school competition (much like Cincinnati where it’s a great recruiting region with “only” Ohio State as an in-state competitor and it’s located on the outer geographic band of the flagship’s sphere of influence). In contrast, the states of Texas, Florida and North Carolina are overloaded with power conference schools already, which is a negative for the prospects of schools like UCF, USF, Houston and East Carolina even if they have a lot of other positive conference realignment attributes going for them.
This certainly isn’t a proverbial slam dunk. Like I’ve said, the threshold question is whether the Big 12 wants to expand at all (as they are awaiting feedback on their proposal to the NCAA to allow for leagues with less than 12 schools to hold a conference championship game). At the same time, Memphis isn’t suddenly a no-brainer addition – there are plenty of open issues, particularly whether its academic reputation would satisfy Texas and if its football success this past year is sustainable. Looking at conference realignment in a vacuum, the two most valuable Group of 5 schools are arguably BYU and UConn, so who knows how the Big 12 views either of those schools. I’ll re-state my firm belief that BYU would be a fantastic fit for the Big 12 both on-the-field and financially, but acknowledge that it’s the most unpredictable school that I’ve seen over the past few years of conference realignment both in terms of its own actions and how the rest of the Big 12 perceives the school. If the Big 12 expands and BYU is somehow passed over, then it would be a clear inverse of the Michael Corleone credo: “It’s not business, it’s just personal”. UConn is in a tough spot because it’s not a very good fit at all for the Big 12 culturally or geographically, yet it still needs to push hard for a place in that league since it doesn’t have any other power conference options forthcoming in the near future. It’s all an interesting set of circumstances right now. The last couple of spots in the Big 12 might be the final power conference additions that the college sports world will see in this generation, so the stakes are massive for those schools that have a viable chance.
(Image from Wikipedia)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
1st ROCK CHALK
LikeLike
Colorado State is looking to surprise everyone. They are coming off a 10-2 season, are within 65
miles of a top 20 tv market (Denver) and just approved a $225 million dollar on campus stadium.
College officials are remaining quiet when subject of Big 12 comes up but they didn’t push for a new stadium to host teams like New Mexico and San Diego State.
LikeLike
If I’m the Big 12, I’d forget about geography and take the strongest brand names and fanbases. I’m thinking BYU and UConn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not sure I understand the appeal to UCONN. Cultural/geographic affinity may not be the overriding concern, but it still must be a factor for the long term success of the conference. Contemplating UT to B10 is a geographic outlier – but culturally there is a lot of similarity with other schools of the B10. I don’t see that with UConn and B12. B12 may still want to sit tight. If playoffs expand to 8 teams, then not having a title game may prove to be a benefit.
LikeLike
From an administrative and fiscal POV, might UCONN also decide to gradually divest of its football program and instead prepare for a football-optional AAC or largely devoid of football A-10 for the 2 basketball teams and other sports?
I could only see UCONN getting into the ACC with a “trade” – UConn would replace Pitt which would be sent to the Big XII. At this point, Pitt is a shadow of its former football self and does not do much for the football ACC powers. However it does provide a market enhancement (not expansion per se) for the Big XII via a renewed rivalry and a travel partner for WVU. The ACC would become the unquestioned #1 amongst basketball conferences, with only Pitt as a price (a relative break-even from the football POV of Florida St, Clemson, Miami, GT and VaTech). BYU would be the other target in that scenario. If BYU proves hard to work with – Cincy or (but not both) Memphis make sense as the link to Pitt/WVU.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pitt would’ve been a perfect addition to the Big 12 along with Louisville but they screwed the pooch on that, Cincinnati & Memphis are still solid additions in terms of the programs viability as a whole while not screwing with the current TV rights. Cincinnati & Memphis have options for their Tier 3 rights and I think both could get really good TV deals with FOX Sports Regional Networks or a local cable outlet like Time Warner Cable.
LikeLike
BYU would be a great choice, but the conference already has a enough logistical nightmares dealing with WVU (which because of a lack of a major airport nearby requires teams to fly to Pittsburgh and then take a long bus ride to Morgantown) without having to deal with the headaches of a school in a third time zone in a non-contiguous state that refuses to play on Sundays.
LikeLike
Which is why many suggest that BYU is most realistic as a FB-only addition. But there’s a potential objection there as well from the BBall Big12 schools, since it means that Big12 FB brand equity is effectively subsidizing a big part of the brand equity of WCC BBall.
LikeLike
I always thought that if BYU joined as a football only member that they would look for a quality all-sports non-football school. I’ve seen Creighton suggested, and I think that’s a pretty good add if it gets you BYU football with Cincinnati. That would be a nightmare scenario for Memphis right now.
LikeLike
Does Creighton nation crap about a lot of road games now being much farther east than Terre Haute (Indy State from the old MVC)? At least there’d be no mountain driving involved in trips to Austin.
LikeLike
Though if Creighton likes where it is and the BE drags its feet on expansion, would the Billikens of SLU be of interest as the basketball-only?
LikeLike
BYU and Cincy are the two best
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Tulane really would be a no-brainer but for its generally-terrible on-field football product. Good academics, major market, national alumni, new stadium. Its just been either irrelevant or awful for all but 1 great year 16 years ago. Give Tulane Stanford’s football resume since 2009 and you have, with Cincy, the 2 newest members of the B12. (TCU used similar recent success to get into the B12, so recency matters).
LikeLike
Is it really a major market? Especially in a one university state?
LikeLike
New Orleans is a major market.
LikeLike
Nielsen lists New Orleans as the 51st market in the country, edging out Buffalo, Providence, Fresno and Wilkes-Barre.
Click to access Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf
LikeLike
New Orleans doesn’t have many people. Its metro area is about the size of Louisville/Raleigh/Hartford/Richmond/Jacksonville/OK City. Less than half the size of StL/Tampa/SD.
LikeLike
Used to be a “mid major” market. Not so much anymore.
LikeLike
Rice has all of the pros you list here for Tulane, except better.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers! Beat the Irish!
LikeLike
I still think the Big 12 is going to push really hard for CCG reform so they can do one with the current 10 team setup. There’s just no need to buy the cow (expansion) and dilute the brand at 12 teams when they can get the milk (CCG) for free with autonomy reform.
LikeLike
That isn’t going to happen; the other conferences aren’t about to give the Big 12 a pass.
LikeLike
The ACC supposedly wants this reform as well (since the ACC divisions are a train wreck and would be WAY better off without them). The SEC has been making noise about not liking the fact that matchups like Florida-Bama are only two times in 14 years, and would be able to bump that number by killing divisions and going to 3-5 fixed rivalry games a year instead. The Pac-12 could plausibly benefit from going to a pod structure (NW, CA, AZ/Mtn), though there I suspect that the AZ/Mtn schools would be pissed about losing LA access.
Honestly, the only P5 league I could see taking any kind of strong stand against it is the B1G, and I really doubt that they even care (plus, at 14 teams they too have the “teams from opposite divisions don’t play each other often enough” problem).
LikeLike
The championship games and division standings add flavor to the whole season. It would be crazy to do without them. The B1G does not have an inter-division problem – going to a 9 game conference schedule, they will play inter-division teams roughly every other year (6 intra-division games and 3 of 7 inter-division games every year). The SEC needs to go to a 9-game conference schedule and do away with the guaranteed inter-divisional game.
LikeLike
Honestly, the SEC just needs to fix their divisions
SEC West
Arkansas
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Missouri
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
SEC East
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Permanent Rivals
Arkansas/Alabama
LSU/Florida
Mississippi/Auburn
Mississippi State/Kentucky
Missouri/Georgia
Texas A&M/South Carolina
Vanderbilt/Tennessee
LikeLike
We’ll have to see. The ACC supported it because they want to loosen the division restrictions or eliminate them entirely. Will the B10, P12 and SEC say no? I don’t know. Would the G5 schools say no? I don’t know.
LikeLike
The ACCs CCG reform doesn’t say you no longer need 12 for a CCG. That rule would stay the same. Their rule change is that you wouldn’t need 2 divisions.
LikeLike
I think the ultimate reform here is “you can do what you want wrt CCG’s”. I just don’t see how any league has a financial interest in preventing another league from offering a CCG.
Moreover, I don’t think ANY of the other P5 leagues have a financial or political interest in pushing the Big 12 to absorb more mid-majors and expand the P5 club (which is an obvious potential consequence of intransigence here).
LikeLiked by 1 person
DirtyJersey,
“The ACCs CCG reform doesn’t say you no longer need 12 for a CCG. That rule would stay the same. Their rule change is that you wouldn’t need 2 divisions.”
Have we seen the actual wording? They were working together, so I’m guessing it was more general language about deregulating CCGs. The ACC has talked about both not needing divisions and not needing to play a full round robin in each division.
Everything I’ve seen is more like this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24483893/acc-supports-deregulation-of-conference-championship-games-would-change-postseason-structure
The ACC has submitted NCAA legislation that would “deregulate” football conference championship games sources told CBSSports.com.
The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need — per NCAA rules — to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game.
That would benefit the ACC and other conferences which have expanded to the requisite minimum of 12 teams (and two divisions) to stage a championship game. Theoretically, with passage of the legislation, any of those conferences could play in one division and still stage a championship game.
If the new legislation is adopted a league could match its two highest-ranked teams. That might enhance a conference’s ability to get as many teams as possible into the new four-team playoff.
“Theoretically, we could say we’re going to take the two highest in the BCS rankings and have them play at the end of the season,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.
ESPN.com first reported last month the league’s intent to forward such legislation that would give the ACC “flexibility” in who plays in its conference title game. The legislation was submitted in collaboration with the Big 12, Bowlsby said Friday night.
The measure is thought to have wide-ranging support among FBS conferences because it is largely non-controversial. It is known that the 10-team Big 12 would prefer deregulation if it ever decided to play a championship game with its current 10-team alignment. The league staged a championship game from 1996-2010.
…
“You wouldn’t any longer have to have 12 (teams),” Bowlsby said. “You wouldn’t any longer have to play a full round-robin in your subdivision. That would actually afford us the opportunity to have a playoff between two selected teams by whatever process we would want to select.
“I doubt we’re going to do that but we would likely have the prerogative.”
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“I think the ultimate reform here is “you can do what you want wrt CCG’s”.”
I think that is what the ACC/B12 legislation is. See my reply to him below.
“I just don’t see how any league has a financial interest in preventing another league from offering a CCG.”
CCG = more money. Of course leagues have an interest in not letting their competitors make more money. And certainly the G5 have a financial incentive to prevent any changes that would make it harder for one of them to join a P5 league via expansion.
“Moreover, I don’t think ANY of the other P5 leagues have a financial or political interest in pushing the Big 12 to absorb more mid-majors and expand the P5 club (which is an obvious potential consequence of intransigence here).”
Except that expanding the B12 dilutes the B12’s payout of playoff money. That helps the ACC keep up financially. It might also dilute the B12’s TV money a little, again keeping the ACC closer. For the 2 P5 leagues at the greatest risk of losing teams in the next round of expansion if there is a next round, keeping the other guy close financially is important.
Beyond that, there’s always a slight incentive for the other P5 leagues to restrict the revenues of their competitors. If your schools have a financial edge, that can help on the field/court.
LikeLike
Brian: “Have we seen the actual wording?”
As far as I am aware, what we have seen are various media characterizations of the proposal. The characterizations sourced to the ACC focus on what the ACC wants, but that does not imply that there are two different proposals, and if, per the ESPN coverage, “The legislation was submitted in collaboration with the Big 12, Bowlsby said Friday night.”, then it is an ambit claim of total deregulation.
ACC’s statements seem to suggest that if they can’t get the numbers for the proposal for their ambit claim, then they might accept an amendment that deregulates choice but not the 12 threshold, but with the Big12 behind this one, may as well go for total deregulation first. Even if it fails to get the numbers, the vote itself will define where the opposition lays and who they have to talk to about what amended version would be able to pass.
LikeLike
And to be clear, I’m not saying anyone will fight this necessarily, only that they have potential reasons to fight it. I doubt the other P5 conferences care all that much, frankly.
LikeLike
I think every non king member of all power conferences have reason to not give those already advantaged an ability to be ignored for a bigger brand in a CCG invitational. And I see no reason for the B1G, PAC, or SEC to vote for a membership number threshold that they are meeting. The ACC would also not, except as a quid pro quo for support for the inter conference Bowl game preceding the bowl games, instead of a CCG.
LikeLike
I’m not saying anyone will fight this necessarily, only that they have potential reasons to fight it.
My sense is that the leagues, commissioners, and ADs are far more collegial with one another than some of these posts suggest. One obvious example is the way the P5 commissioners all treat the Notre Dame athletic director as an equal. Casual fans routinely predict rule changes that will make it harder for ND to survive as an independent. Those changes never happen; if anything, the opposite.
Clearly, if the ADs and commissioners were ruthless, there a hundred ways they could screw Notre Dame. And with ND’s abundant financial advantages, it would clearly be in their narrow interest to do so. But they don’t.
If indeed it’s true that the Big XII as currently structure will often be at a disadvantage in playoff seeding, then voting no on the CCG reform rule basically tells them that they have to go out and poach at least one other conference. And as we all know, expansion usually triggers many other events. There are a lot of leagues (other than the P12, B1G, and SEC) who would strongly prefer that that not happen.
I doubt the other P5 conferences care all that much, frankly.
If they’re looking ahead, the other P5 conferences just might have use for a de-regulated CCG themselves some day. And if it isn’t that, there’ll probably be something they want, where they can say to the Big XII/ACC, “Rembember when we gave you that CCG rule you needed? Now, here’s something we need…..”
LikeLike
I would be a little surprised to see the twelve team requirement go. I doubt the other P5 conferences* want to give up their advantage over the Big 12. The G5 membership shouldn’t want it, because that will be another barrier for any of them to join a power conference.
*I know the ACC is also in favor of deregulation, but they are looking to get rid of divisions.
LikeLike
I would be a little surprised to see the twelve team requirement go. I doubt the other P5 conferences* want to give up their advantage over the Big 12.
The power conferences are far more collegial than the casual fan imagines. They really don’t go out of their way to screw each other.
The atmosphere right now is de-regulatory. :eagues don’t want other leagues telling them what to do, if it’s avoidable. If the other four conferences give the Big 12 what it wants, there will be a vote somewhere along the line where the Big 12 will reciprocate.
To put it another way, if the other four P5 leagues tell the Big 12 no, the Big 12 will remember that the next time someone needs their vote.
LikeLike
The power conferences are far more collegial than the casual fan imagines. They really don’t go out of their way to screw each other.
I agree, but they aren’t beyond protecting their own interests either.
LikeLike
Sure, if this actually hurt the other P5 leagues. But it really doesn’t.
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“Sure, if this actually hurt the other P5 leagues. But it really doesn’t.”
Of course it does. OSU wouldn’t have gotten in if the B12 had a CCG. The other 4 P5 conferences benefit from the B12 not having a CCG to make a final statement in.
LikeLike
This year Ohio St (probably) wouldn’t have gotten in given a Big 12 CCG. Next year, who knows? Plenty of time there are CCG upsets; if anything, my guess is it generally hurts rather than helps the higher ranked participant. Hell, in 2008 and 2009 Florida and Bama would have both made the CFP if there was no SECCG.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly: when the Big XII had a championship game, the favorite lost on a number of occasions, knocking them out of a major bowl or even the BCS CG. This year, the Big Ten unquestionably was the beneficiary of the Big XII’s lack of a CCG. In another year it could be exactly the opposite.
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“Plenty of time there are CCG upsets;”
Only in the B12, really. The SEC title game has had relative few upsets. The other 2 are too new to draw a conclusion.
“if anything, my guess is it generally hurts rather than helps the higher ranked participant.”
But with larger conferences and a larger playoff, there are greater odds of both teams being in the running for the playoff. This year the TCU/Baylor winner would’ve been locked in. Even the weakest conferences had 2 top 15 teams playing. The ability to boost your resume is more important than the risk of getting beaten.
“Hell, in 2008 and 2009 Florida and Bama would have both made the CFP if there was no SECCG.”
They probably would’ve both made it anyway. The committee isn’t going to punish a top 2 team for losing a CCG to another top 2 team. All that would change is their seed. The loser probably would drop to #3 to avoid the instant rematch.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree. SEC title game upsets include:
2009 Bama over Florida
2008 Florida over Bama
2005 UGA over LSU
2001 LSU over Vols
1999 Bama over Florida
1994 Florida over Bama
six out of 23 is a fairly notable ratio. Just because the last five have held to form doesn’t mean that upsets are gone for good.
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“2009 Bama over Florida
2008 Florida over Bama
2005 UGA over LSU
2001 LSU over Vols
1999 Bama over Florida
1994 Florida over Bama
six out of 23 is a fairly notable ratio. Just because the last five have held to form doesn’t mean that upsets are gone for good.”
You’re including 2 games where #2 beat #1, and in both cases #1 would have stayed in the top 4 most likely. In 2008, AL dropped to #4 in the polls and the BCS. In 2009, UF dropped to #5 but was behind 12-0 TCU and UC. Would the committee have put a MWC and BE team ahead of them? I doubt it, based on FSU being #3.
LikeLike
Might still could push for CCG reform so they don’t have to go with divisions at 12. They have a serious division problem if they have to split up 6-6.
LikeLike
First in the CFP.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B12 wants to expand either – that said they will have to if it is the only way they can get a conference championship game. What we see has transpired here over the weekend is that 100% of the powers that be in the big12 now feel that the pros of a CCG outweigh any cons.
If they get their waiver, no expansion at least not at this time. If they do not get their waiver I think UC gets the nod- then the question is BYU, UCF, or Memphis. I think Boise and uconn are out based on geography alone. BYU is even a stretch with geography.
LikeLike
push for a 5 team playoff, having a play in game.
Only teams eligible for the play in game are teams who have played less than
13 games. (ND, Big12, Ole Miss’ MissSt of the world, …the sun belt)
LikeLike
Indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At that point, why not go to 6 and lock in the 5 champs to keep all the stakeholders happy? Top 2 get a bye as a reward.
LikeLike
Yes, please
LikeLike
I still prefer an 8-team playoff with five automatic power conference champions (all determined via 12+ member CCG), with three at-large entrants. What happened yesterday shows that the power of “brand names” still holds sway — substitute Purdue for Ohio State, and Oklahoma and Texas for Baylor and Texas Christian, and does anyone think the Big Ten still gets in and the Big 12 left out?
With five automatic conference champs, you’re in no matter whether you’re Florida State or Wake Forest, Michigan State or Indiana, Southern Cal or Washington State, Texas or Iowa State; for the power 5, it would at least invalidate the power of brand names. IIf ESPN doesn’t like that, tough.
And I’m all for Big 12 expansion (sorry, Texas). Cincinnati and Memphis (while I’m not entirely sold on the Tigers) make reasonably good “bridges” to West Virginia in the Big 12. Brigham Young puts you in three time zones, rather unwieldy for a conference (and I haven’t even considered its other baggage), while Connecticut simply is too far away.
LikeLike
vp19,
In this scenario, would you stipulate a spot for the best Group of 5 champion?
LikeLike
I think the G5 teams would demand it (if it could happen without giving them an auto spot, then it might be functional… but politically that’s likely a non-starter). And yet, that would be a major problem. Just look at this year, where the top G5 team is probably the same Boise squad that lost by 22 against Ole Miss, lost by 14 at Air Force, and their best win was… Colorado State? This year is a bit of an outlier where there aren’t any particularly good non-P5 teams, but it’s not like there always is a G5 squad that deserves a playoff bid.
LikeLike
Matthew,
That is my concern too. I think you need to include them, but you just never know if a team will be worthy of inclusion and I would hate to take a spot away from a much better team. I don’t know how you reconcile inclusion and “worth.”
LikeLike
#8 doesn’t deserve a spot. So why not reserve one for a G5 champ?
Probably because TV doesn’t want it. So they probably get 1 of 12 and have to be one of the top 3 wildcards.
LikeLike
Add criteria for G5 candidates — either an unbeaten record or a top 10 ranking.
LikeLike
anthony london,
“That is my concern too. I think you need to include them, but you just never know if a team will be worthy of inclusion and I would hate to take a spot away from a much better team. I don’t know how you reconcile inclusion and “worth.””
The easiest method is to set a minimum ranking for an autobid to apply and use that cutoff for everyone. So say any conference champ must be in the top 15 (or 20 or whatever) to get the autobid, and if they aren’t then they get a major bowl slot instead. That way a terrible B10 champ won’t get in either, so it’s fair.
LikeLike
Top 10 is a step backward from BCS “bowl buster” of top 12 or top 16 and better than an AQ.
LikeLike
But the cutoff gets you back to subjectivity.
LikeLike
Humans will be involved at some point, so every selection process is subjective.
LikeLike
I think the CFP committee very deliberately set some precedents this weekend:
First, 1-loss teams that win a P5 CCG are very likely to be taken ahead of 1-loss teams that are champions of a P5 conference without a CCG. The CCG victory, in other words, is going to be valued very highly as a neutral-site win over a highly-credentialed team.
The other key precedent, set throughout the season with regard to TCU and Baylor, was that the committee would value out-of-conference P5 wins, and conversely ignore non-P5 wins. TCU hammered a pretty fair Minnesota team and Baylor had no comparable win.
So would a one-loss OU or UT be vaulted over a hypothetical one-loss Purdue B1G CCG champion? Maybe, but in so doing I suspect the committee have to consciously would look to the out-of-conference schedules to make their case. In 2015, e.g., UT has two P5 OOC games, Notre Dame and Cal. OU keeps its Tennessee date, this time at Neyland.
I don’t think school brand-name is enough to affect the choices materially, The gold is in the CFP brand itself, and it won’t mess with what has been a runaway success this year, where the playoff has really animated all discussion of the sport on the field.
LikeLike
“The other key precedent, set throughout the season with regard to TCU and Baylor, was that the committee would value out-of-conference P5 wins, and conversely ignore non-P5 wins. TCU hammered a pretty fair Minnesota team and Baylor had no comparable win.”
I don’t see that at all. That’s what it appeared they were doing all season, but then in the final poll they jumped Baylor over TCU. At this point I honestly have no idea what the committee was thinking. The logic of dropping the #3 team to #6 in a week where they won by 52 points (against a team that Baylor beat by only 21) is beyond me.
Mind you, I’m not advocating TCU over Baylor (or tOSU for that matter). I just don’t understand the logic. It’s as if the committee suddenly realized on the last weekend that Baylor won head-to-head two months earlier.
I also don’t understand the logic of dropping Florida State from 3 to 4 in the next-to-last week. Yes, they had another close win, but they beat an SEC team, and that same week three other ACC teams beat SEC schools. The ACC’s relative worth should have risen that week, yet FSU dropped in the rankings (and then magically jumped back up the next week).
LikeLike
If you remember that the committee is looking at a school’s whole body of work up to that point each week, then the decisions make sense.
Before the last week of the season, I can see how they can see TCU having a better body of work than OSU or Baylor up to that point in time. However, in the last week, Baylor added to their body of work and tOSU really added tot heir body of work, while TCU didn’t really have the chance to.
So the final rankings at the top look fair.
LikeLike
There is no logic and they had to discard several things they had said previously. FSU did not look better than TCU in that last week, yet they jumped over them. They said this wasn’t a resume test, yet TCU dominated ISU as much as could be (the same ISU who beat Iowa) and still fell behind 3 teams who had better last week adds to their resume.
LikeLike
They dominated a 2 win team. Well then.
Look, the #3 ranking was media fodder only. The only ranking that mattered was last Sunday and tOSU was the correct choice. They won more games, had the tougher over all SOS, finished the best (10 straight Ws) and got the bid. BU tried to back into it with an easy OOC and the committee rightfully said, “Hell no”. TCU was not the B12 champ to any rationale viewer despite Bowlsby’s ridiculous comments.
LikeLike
It’s not so much about “looking good” but accomplishing more, and beating a good GTech team is more of an accomplishment and adds more to your body of work than beating a bad ISU team.
LikeLike
singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,
“I don’t see that at all. That’s what it appeared they were doing all season, but then in the final poll they jumped Baylor over TCU. At this point I honestly have no idea what the committee was thinking. The logic of dropping the #3 team to #6 in a week where they won by 52 points (against a team that Baylor beat by only 21) is beyond me.”
You have to stop thinking of this like the polls. TCU was #3 at the end of that previous meeting, but at the next meeting everyone comes in unranked. TCU didn’t get dropped, FSU, OSU and Baylor got elevated. All 3 beat top 15 teams (impressively in OSU’s case) and became conference champs that Saturday. TCU added nothing to their resume in beating ISU except getting a minority slice of the B12 title. And once Baylor and TCU’s resumes got so similar, the head to head result between them elevated Baylor.
“Mind you, I’m not advocating TCU over Baylor (or tOSU for that matter). I just don’t understand the logic. It’s as if the committee suddenly realized on the last weekend that Baylor won head-to-head two months earlier.”
TCU had already beaten KSU and Baylor hadn’t. Add in TCU’s win over MN and their resume was sufficiently better than Baylor’s for the H2H result not to apply before this weekend.
“I also don’t understand the logic of dropping Florida State from 3 to 4 in the next-to-last week.”
The committee thought TCU looked better and had a better resume at that point.
LikeLike
The logic they stated seems like the actual logic of that … the resume to date of TCU was better, simply because TCU had a weakling in the last week and Baylor had a contender. Mind, if there was no regular season FB allowed in the CCG week, that result would have been in that week’s rankings.
Given Baylor’s opportunity to rectify that in the last week, prudence should have dictated not putting TCU in the 3rd spot
LikeLike
The committee isn’t supposed to look ahead.
LikeLike
Yes, it isn’t supposed to, and in an ideal world it wouldn’t. But in an ideal world all of the regular season games would finish on the same weekend, so four contenders with their regular season schedule finished and two with their round robin regular season left to complete, with the inherent factor that one will be playing stronger competition than the other in finishing the round robin, wouldn’t be an issue in the last “dummy” CFP ranking.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Yes, it isn’t supposed to, and in an ideal world it wouldn’t.”
And from the few comments they’ve made, they didn’t look ahead. That’s why TCU went ahead and then dropped behind at the end. They can’t take a win for granted and SOS only applies to teams you’ve actually played.
“But in an ideal world all of the regular season games would finish on the same weekend,”
Why is that ideal? That would definitely punish independents and the B12 for not having a shot at a CCG because out of sight is out of mind.
“so four contenders with their regular season schedule finished and two with their round robin regular season left to complete, with the inherent factor that one will be playing stronger competition than the other in finishing the round robin, wouldn’t be an issue in the last “dummy” CFP ranking.”
The level of competition is a factor every week of the season. It’s impossible to give everyone an equally difficult schedule each week. This is why we have a committee. It’s also why people will eventually further ruin CFB by forcing a larger playoff so the subjectivity is reduced.
LikeLike
It’s pretty easy to see why Baylor was able to move past TCU the last week, but you have to believe the two teams were close the week before (and I see no reason they weren’t) When you look at the committee’s own rankings, Baylor had only played # 3 & # 20; while it went 2-0 in those games, it also had a loss to a team that would probably be in their 25-35 range (West Virginia). TCU, meanwhile, had victories over # 9, #20, and two teams in their 25-35 range (West Virginia & Minnesota); of course, it also had a loss to #6.
So TCU had a worse best win, but a better loss (especially since it was a close road loss), and 2 more wins in the 25-35 range. That’s 2 close resume’s, but TCU had played 2 more games against good competition than Baylor and had the same number of wins.
After the last weekend, Baylor had wins over #6 & #11, and went 1-1 over teams in the 25-35 range (OU & WVU), while TCU had a win over #11, a loss to #5, and went 3-0 over teams in the 25-35 range. TCU’s resume over ‘top’ teams got worse (not because it beat ISU, but because OU fell), while Baylor’s got better despite OU’s fall.
LikeLike
First, looking at the standings again, I forgot Minnesota had snuck back into the top 25 in the last poll. So TCU gets 1 more (barely) top 25 win and 1 fewer 25-35 win.
I also should say I don’t think the committee cares about ‘punishing’ teams for their non-conference schedule. Baylor finished #5 & Mississippi State at #7 despite neither team having a quality non-conference game. The committee did seem to judge teams on overall schedule (a game against Oregon is a game against Oregon, whether or not they’re in your conference).
By not having any strong non-conference games on its schedule, Baylor cost itself a chance to add one more quality win to its schedule, but it still would have made the playoffs if some of the other Big 12 teams had won their non-conference games. If the Longhorns had beaten BYU & UCLA it would have significantly improved its resume, as well as all the Big 12 teams that played it. If KSU had beaten Auburn, that would have made Baylor’s win over them more impressive (as well as reducing the resume of the SEC schools that played Auburn). If Oklahoma State had beaten FSU or WVU had beaten Alabama, the Big 12 might very well have finished the year with 2 teams in the top 4, as the resumes of both Baylor & TCU might have been viewed as superior to Ohio State’s.
I don’t think the committee thought quite as highly of the middle teams in the Big 12 as some computer rankings did. With this schedule I think Baylor either needed to finish the season undefeated or finish 11-1 with a blowout win over TCU (rather than a 3 point last-second home win) to edge past Ohio State. I don’t think the committee cared much whether you blew out middling teams, but it gave bonus points for dominant wins over good teams, like OSU’s win over Wisconsin.
LikeLike
m(Ag),
“I also should say I don’t think the committee cares about ‘punishing’ teams for their non-conference schedule. Baylor finished #5 & Mississippi State at #7 despite neither team having a quality non-conference game. The committee did seem to judge teams on overall schedule (a game against Oregon is a game against Oregon, whether or not they’re in your conference).
By not having any strong non-conference games on its schedule, Baylor cost itself a chance to add one more quality win to its schedule, but it still would have made the playoffs if some of the other Big 12 teams had won their non-conference games. If the Longhorns had beaten BYU & UCLA it would have significantly improved its resume, as well as all the Big 12 teams that played it. If KSU had beaten Auburn, that would have made Baylor’s win over them more impressive (as well as reducing the resume of the SEC schools that played Auburn). If Oklahoma State had beaten FSU or WVU had beaten Alabama, the Big 12 might very well have finished the year with 2 teams in the top 4, as the resumes of both Baylor & TCU might have been viewed as superior to Ohio State’s.
I don’t think the committee thought quite as highly of the middle teams in the Big 12 as some computer rankings did. With this schedule I think Baylor either needed to finish the season undefeated or finish 11-1 with a blowout win over TCU (rather than a 3 point last-second home win) to edge past Ohio State. I don’t think the committee cared much whether you blew out middling teams, but it gave bonus points for dominant wins over good teams, like OSU’s win over Wisconsin.”
I largely agree with you. I think they rewarded tough wins, OOC or not. That’s slightly different from punishing weak OOC schedules. I do think they took OOC schedule intent into consideration, though. Just as a late tiebreaker for close teams, though. I think the message was that you better play 10 P5 teams to make sure you have enough tough games. We’ll see if the SEC continues to get away with only 9 since their reputation is so strong. The P12 and B10 (soon) will be fine, and the B12 should be if they just schedule 1 decent OOC game like TCU did.
As for the middle of the B12, I think the problem is the lack of OOC games. With only 3, and at least 2 of those being cupcakes for most of the teams, there aren’t many external measuring sticks. The P12 avoids that by having tough OOC games. The B10 is headed that way. Some B12 schools already do it, but Baylor has been notorious for their OOC scheduling of patsies.
LikeLike
And yet Baylor ended up ahead of TCU despite no good ooc wins.
Ohio St. ended up ahead of TCU with ooc wins vs. Cincinnati, Kent St. and Navy, the loss to Virginia Tech and a closer game vs. TCU’s big ooc opponent.
I think the one thing the committee proved is that it will use any measure it wants to justify what it wants to do. And it will discard those measures when they want to. Best example is jumping Alabama from #5 to #1 with a “controlling” win over Mississippi St. Conversely Mississippi St. only dropped to #4 because they stayed close to Alabama.
There was no consistency.
LikeLike
bullet,
“And yet Baylor ended up ahead of TCU despite no good ooc wins.”
Baylor beat #6 and TCU didn’t. Baylor had the tiebreaker to be B12 champion and TCU didn’t.
“Ohio St. ended up ahead of TCU with ooc wins vs. Cincinnati, Kent St. and Navy, the loss to Virginia Tech and a closer game vs. TCU’s big ooc opponent.”
OSU played and beat more teams, more I-A teams, more bowl eligible teams, more teams with a winning record, more ranked teams and more ranked teams away from home. OSU had road wins over #8 and #25 and a neutral site win over #18. TCU had no wins over ranked teams away from home (#11 and #25 were their ranked wins). OSU ended up a true conference champ, too.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing TCU or Baylor vs. Ohio St. here. We could do that ad nauseum. There are cases for all 3. I was responding to his comments about the committees criteria and the consistency of application. Note that Long avoided the question on ESPN about how FSU jumped TCU. He had a justification for OSU.
LikeLike
I’m just showing there is clear logic behind all the changes in the final rankings. People have to get out of this poll mentality that once you are #3 you own that spot forever. Some of the criteria couldn’t apply until this weekend (championships). Others didn’t apply because of disparate resumes (H2H wins). Yet other criteria got a whole new set of data (resumes received major wins added to them).
Why shouldn’t Baylor beating KSU, OSU beating WI and FSU beating GT while TCU beat ISU impact the rankings? TCU was only #3 because they played their tough games earlier.
LikeLike
They said it WASN’T based on “resumes” or “deserving.” It wasn’t some computer formula. They weren’t going to use an RPI type formula. I don’t see any way without those you jump FSU or Baylor over TCU based on the last week. TCU did beat KSU 41-20, dominating them, while Baylor won 38-27 in a tough game. In fact, TCU did have common opponents with 4 of the 5 contenders. They won at WVU 31-30 while Baylor lost 41-27 and Alabama won 33-23 in Atlanta. They beat Minnesota at home 30-7 while tOSU won 35-28 on the road. And they had 10 common opponents with Baylor.
I can see the argument for jumping Ohio St. ahead of TCU (now I think you need to look at the whole season and not over-emphasize one game-you need to look at how mediocre Ohio St. looked the 3 games before WI), but there just isn’t an argument where you can say FSU or Baylor was behind TCU one week and ahead of them based on the last week–unless you are using metrics like resumes that the committee said it wasn’t using.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They said it WASN’T based on “resumes” or “deserving.””
They said a lot of things. They were supposed to pick the 4 best teams. Looking at resumes and stats and using the eye test are how they did that. Having more good wins builds confidence that you’re a really good team. Otherwise all you’d get is the eye test and 4 SEC West teams in the playoff because they looked fast.
“It wasn’t some computer formula. They weren’t going to use an RPI type formula.”
They didn’t use any computer formulas or any SOS metric. They gauged that for themselves based on basic numbers like the number of ranked teams they beat, the number of winning teams they beat, etc.
“I don’t see any way without those you jump FSU or Baylor over TCU based on the last week.”
I do. Anybody can look good against 2-10 ISU (except Iowa, apparently). That game showed me nothing. Winning under pressure at a neutral site against a top 15 team shows me a lot. If the teams were really close last week, and the committee said they were, that’s enough to jump teams up. In addition, the KSU game made the resumes even enough to compare Baylor and TCU and so the head to head win came into play. Before beating KSU, TCU had shown more on the field than Baylor so they were ahead of them. After that game, Baylor deserved to be ahead based on the tiebreaker. In addition, the previous rankings couldn’t account for conference championships and those were explicitly listed as a tiebreaker for similar teams.
I think the problem is that people see the ordinal rankings and forget that doesn’t mean the teams are equally spaced in the committees eyes. Just like the polls, some ranks are closer to each other. The committee may have felt this:
1. AL 100
2. OR 97
3. FSU 91
4. OSU 90
5. Baylor 89
6. TCU 89
7. MS St 83
While the previous week, maybe it was this:
3. TCU 89
4. FSU 88
5. OSU 86
6. Baylor 85
“I can see the argument for jumping Ohio St. ahead of TCU (now I think you need to look at the whole season and not over-emphasize one game-you need to look at how mediocre Ohio St. looked the 3 games before WI),”
OSU beat 3 ranked teams in November and December, none of them at home. OSU also crushed one mediocre team, beat another mediocre team by 14 and a bad team by 15 points in November.
TCU beat 1 ranked team at home in November. They also beat a mediocre team by 1 and a bad team by 4 in addition to blowing out a mediocre and a bad team.
OSU crushed 4 teams in September and October plus dominated the 1st half of another before winning in OT. TCU blew out some mediocre/bad teams plus had a close win over a solid team.
I don’t see where looking at the whole season really changes anything. Both teams looked really good quite often, but each had some off weeks, too.
“but there just isn’t an argument where you can say FSU or Baylor was behind TCU one week and ahead of them based on the last week–unless you are using metrics like resumes that the committee said it wasn’t using.”
Resumes aren’t really a metric. They give you an idea of what each team has done without becoming too numerical.
The committee never said it wasn’t looking at resumes. They explicitly have talked about valuing certain games. They said TCU had a better resume so their head to head loss to Baylor hadn’t been a factor yet.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oregon-2-playoff-rankings-tcu-4th-010201326–ncaaf.html
TCU still has Baylor beat in the College Football Playoff rankings – even though the Bears got the better of the Horned Frogs on the field.
The Horned Frogs moved up to fourth in the rankings released Tuesday night, while the Bears were up to seventh, closing the gap between themselves and their Big 12 rivals.
”For the third consecutive week, the committee looked at the overall body of work, their strength of schedule, and looked at the number of top 25 wins,” committee chairman Jeff Long said. ”TCU has two top 25 wins and Baylor has one. And TCU’s loss is a top-10 loss. When you put all those factors together, we still think at this time TCU has a better resume and was voted that way ahead of Baylor. ”
LikeLike
Brian
Using Massey’s composite computer ratings, here are TCU and Ohio St.:
TCU #3
6 L 58-61
13 W 41-20
22 W 37-33
31 W 31-30
32 W 30-7
42 W 48-10
54 W 42-9
78 W 82-27
93 W 34-30
97 W 55-3
124 W 56-0
FCS W 48-14
Ohio St. #4
9 W 49-37
17 W 59-0
32 W 28-21 (note that OSU’s 3rd best opponent was TCU’s 5th and TCU
beat them worse)
40 W 50-28
50 W 52-24
55 L 21-35
56 W 56-17
63 W 31-24 OT
65 W 42-28
66 W 34-17
70 W 55-14
86 W 42-27
120 W 66-0
Overall TCU was 2nd in offense and 16th in defense. Ohio St. was 4th and 23rd. TCU had 5 70+ schools vs. 3 for Ohio St., but had stronger opponents at the top, the ones who really can challenge you. Ohio St. struggled with 63 PSU, 66 Navy, and 86 Indiana. Only KU gave TCU fits below #31 WVU. You call WVU mediocre as they were 7-5, but they only lost to TCU by 1, beat Baylor by 14, lost by only 6 to Kansas St. and by only 10 to Alabama in Atlanta. Their other losses were to Oklahoma (by 12) and Texas (by 17). TCU also won 42-9 over Oklahoma St (#54) who only lost by 6 to FSU. TCU crushed KSU. Ohio St. destroyed Wisconsin.
IMO, a lot of bowl eligible Big 10 teams wouldn’t have been in the Big 12 so your metric of bowl eligible doesn’t mean much. The Big 12 was 3-0 vs. Big 10-mid pack WVU beating mid-pack Maryland, Top team TCU beating top half Minnesota and Winless ISU beating top half Iowa.
People can view things differently, but I see TCU’s work much more impressive than Ohio St.’s. All those mediocre results vs. teams ranked in the 60s doesn’t say top 4 to me. I think TCU stands toe to toe with Alabama and Oregon. I think Ohio St. and FSU will get crushed (but FSU could be like that MNC Ohio St. team that always found a way to win).
We’ll get to see how Ohio St. does. Unfortunately we won’t get to see how TCU does against them. TCU does play Ole Miss, but in that type of bowl you don’t know if both, one or neither team is really ready to play. TCU winning 50-7 or losing 50-7 doesn’t tell you as much as the results of the playoff games.
LikeLike
Here’s TCU and Baylor
vs. each other 58-61 61-58
Kansas St. 41-20 38-27
Oklahoma 37-33 48-14
W. Virginia 31-30 27-41
Texas 48-10 28-7
Oklahoma St. 42-9 49-28
Texas Tech 82-27 48-46
Kansas 34-40 60-14
Iowa St. 55-3 49-28
SMU 56-0 45-0
FCS 48-14 70-6
Minnesota 30-7
Buffalo 63-21
Baylor was #1 in scoring but #43 in defense (TCU was 2 and 16). Baylor just looked a lot more vulnerable on defense. Baylor won head to head, but TCU won by more against 7 of the 9 opponents and Baylor won by only 3 at home with good breaks on the calls at the end. The resumes are close, but it looks like there is enough of a delineation that a win by the amount of the home field advantage doesn’t convince me. And while I think TCU stands toe to toe with Alabama and Oregon, I think Baylor would get rolled like Ohio St. and Florida St. FSU deserves to be in the playoff, but I really don’t think they are a top 6 team. Baylor and Ohio St. are close.
LikeLike
Didn’t format well. TCU played Minnesota and Baylor played Buffalo.
LikeLike
TCU lost by only 3 at Baylor.
Baylor lost by 14 at WVU (#31) who gave lots of good teams fits.
Ohio St. lost by 14 at home to #55.
Huge advantage for those two on the worst loss category.
LikeLike
bullet: “but there just isn’t an argument where you can say FSU or Baylor was behind TCU one week and ahead of them based on the last week–unless you are using metrics like resumes that the committee said it wasn’t using.”
Resume isn’t a metric, even if its a thing that some metrics attempt to measure. That is, saying you are not going to use those metrics that claim to rank the strength of each team’s resume is not the same as saying you are not going to evaluate the resume for yourself, independent of any resume metric.
LikeLike
bullet,
You’re complaining about the use of metrics to evaluate resumes and then you quote computer rankings?
“(note that OSU’s 3rd best opponent was TCU’s 5th and TCU
beat them worse)”
TCU played them at home in the TX heat in September while OSU played at MN in the snow in November. Not exactly the same environment.
OSU’s 11th > TCU’s 8th
OSU’s 12th > TCU’s 9th
TCU’s was tougher at the top but OSU’s was much deeper.
“Overall TCU was 2nd in offense and 16th in defense. Ohio St. was 4th and 23rd.”
They were within less than 1 ppg of each other in both stats. Considering that MOV is explicitly not a factor and that this easily can come down to when coaches choose to pull the starters, I’d call them roughly even.
“Ohio St. struggled with 63 PSU, 66 Navy, and 86 Indiana.”
OSU beat Navy by 17 and IN by 15 and led PSU 17-0 before letting down after the QB sprained his knee.
“Only KU gave TCU fits below #31 WVU.”
TCU only won by 4 against #92.
“You call WVU mediocre as they were 7-5”
Yes, I do. And they looked mediocre when I watched them, too.
“IMO, a lot of bowl eligible Big 10 teams wouldn’t have been in the Big 12”
With 3 cupcakes OOC, how tough is it to beat ISU, KU and TT? The B10 didn’t have 3 teams with less than 5 wins and we have 4 more teams (3/10 vs 2/14 = 30% vs 14%).
“so your metric of bowl eligible doesn’t mean much.”
It’s not my metric, it’s one I saw mentioned by the media and maybe Long.
“The Big 12 was 3-0 vs. Big 10-mid pack WVU beating mid-pack Maryland, Top team TCU beating top half Minnesota and Winless ISU beating top half Iowa.”
And cellar dweller IN beat the SEC East champ MO.
“People can view things differently, but I see TCU’s work much more impressive than Ohio St.’s.”
That’s fine, but much of the nation agrees with me. That doesn’t make me right, but it shows a lot of people from different parts of the country and supporting different teams think the same way.
“I think TCU stands toe to toe with Alabama and Oregon.”
On any given day, I think any of AL, OR, FSU, OSU, Baylor and TCU could beat each other.
“(but FSU could be like that MNC Ohio St. team that always found a way to win).”
There’s nothing mythical about it. The only two undefeated teams in the country played and OSU won. Everyone was convinced Miami was the best team, so you can’t claim OSU had a lucky path like BYU did back in the 80s.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Baylor won head to head, but TCU won by more against 7 of the 9 opponents and Baylor won by only 3 at home with good breaks on the calls at the end. The resumes are close, but it looks like there is enough of a delineation that a win by the amount of the home field advantage doesn’t convince me.”
Unfortunately, head to head is an official tiebreaker for similar teams in the playoff race. I don’t think Baylor is better than TCU, but I think by the rules the committee is supposed to follow they had to put Baylor ahead of TCU.
And since you wanted to spout numbers, here’s F/+:
1. AL
2. OSU (O – 4, D – 7)
3. OR
5. TCU (O – 20, D – 6)
8. FSU
9. Baylor
The teams are close no matter how you look at it. My point is that your claims that no logic can explain the changes are just wrong. You may disagree with the result, but that doesn’t make it illogical.
LikeLike
Head to Head win should always be the tie-breaker for these sort of things, TCU blew the lead & game to Baylor, how is that Baylor’s fault? It’s almost a playoff game with-in itself and that’s how it should be.
LikeLike
Head to head is valuable. But there are degrees of its value. Winning on the road means more than winning at home. Winning by 14 or even 7 at home means more than winning by 3. So Baylor gets a benefit of a doubt, but its slim. And I think the rest of the record and watching the teams gives TCU a bigger margin than Baylor’s head to head.
Briles’ talking points point out the weakness of his case. He talks about leading Texas 28-0 at a point midway through the 4th when TCU lead 34-10. TCU dominated Texas the whole game. Baylor lead 7-0 midway through the 3rd. They added TDs with about 11 minutes to go and 6 minutes to go.
Don’t know the context, but I heard Bowlsby said he would have voted for TCU over Baylor.
Now if we had an 8 team playoff with 5 autobids, then yes, Baylor should have gotten the autobid. If we only had conference champs and there had to be a single choice, then yes, it s/b Baylor. But that’s not the system we have.
LikeLike
vp19,
“What happened yesterday shows that the power of “brand names” still holds sway”
No, it doesn’t. That’s one possible interpretation of yesterday’s events, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
“substitute Purdue for Ohio State, and Oklahoma and Texas for Baylor and Texas Christian, and does anyone think the Big Ten still gets in and the Big 12 left out?”
Yes. Purdue would have the better resume, and it was already ahead of Oklahoma. Texas’s B12 schedule was front-loaded with the harder games but ended with a whimper (2-10, 0-9 ISU). Meanwhile, FSU, Purdue and Oklahoma all played top 15 teams so they bolstered their resumes significantly. The committee has been saying for weeks how close 3-6 are, and 3 of the 4 teams got a major victory on Saturday. Only on this last vote could conference champion status be applied, too.
The brand power conspiracy theory would make more sense to me if ESPN got to pick the top 4. The committee has nothing to gain by favoring one team or conference over another. They don’t care what the ratings are.
LikeLike
I think there is definitely an argument for bias. Not conspiratorial bias, but simply familiarity bias. As Art Briles said, Rice was the only one born in the south (she’s a Bama fan). Someone else pointed out the age of the members and their possible bias against high flying offenses. Of the 12 members, you had the Air Force Commandant, the former Big East commissioner as the AAC rep, Oliver Luck of WV representing the Big 12 and everyone else had Pac 12/Big 10 or SEC ties (Clemson’s AD spent a dozen years at LSU and S. Carolina before moving to GT and then Clemson).
Long said the committee listened very closely to the former coaches. Who were they? Alvarez and Osborne from current Big 10 schools and Willingham from ND and Pac 12 schools. Rick Neuheisel (UCLA ex) commented that the Pac 12 got a lot of respect from the committee (which included Willingham, Rice-Stanford, Haden-USC and Jernstedt-NCAA but an Oregon grad-so fully 1/3 of the committee).
LikeLike
Briles:
https://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11995404/college-football-playoff-art-briles-baylor-bears-says-playoff-committee-no-big-12-voice
During a Sunday morning appearance on “SportsCenter,” Briles suggested ex-coaches R.C. Slocum, Mack Brown or Spike Dykes would be more qualified to evaluate programs in the state and region. He argued that Archie Manning stepping down from the committee in October because of health reasons might have ultimately hurt Baylor’s chances.
“When Archie Manning went off, I said we’re in trouble,” Briles said. “I know Archie. He’s a friend. He understands football down here. When he went off that committee, we were in trouble. We need a voice. We need a voice.”
(my comments-while Luck is from WV and his son played for Stanford, Luck did get a law degree from Texas (and his son went to HS in Austin), and played for the Oilers and lived and worked many years in Houston before taking the WV AD job).
LikeLike
His son went to HS in Houston.
LikeLike
Thought he graduated from Austin Westlake. Must have him confused with someone else. Maybe I was thinking of Drew Brees.
LikeLike
Brees went to Westlake. Luck to Houston Stratford.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think there is definitely an argument for bias.”
Unless you actually look at their history of rankings. TCU didn’t get to #3 because the committee was biased against the B12 or TCU.
“As Art Briles said, Rice was the only one born in the south (she’s a Bama fan). Someone else pointed out the age of the members and their possible bias against high flying offenses. Of the 12 members, you had the Air Force Commandant, the former Big East commissioner as the AAC rep, Oliver Luck of WV representing the Big 12 and everyone else had Pac 12/Big 10 or SEC ties (Clemson’s AD spent a dozen years at LSU and S. Carolina before moving to GT and then Clemson).”
Maybe the problem is that they weren’t biased and TCU and Baylor just didn’t quite deserve to get in. Is the goal really to try to find biased people to add to the committee?
“Alvarez and Osborne from current Big 10 schools and Willingham from ND and Pac 12 schools.”
And Osborne is unfamiliar with the B12? Willingham has a pro-OSU bias?
Funny how we didn’t hear any of these bias complaints until OSU passed TCU. When the B10 looked like the odd man out the B12 seemed just fine with the committee.
LikeLike
Bowlsby isn’t complaining. But I know a lot of us Longhorns were pretty nervous seeing Osborne and the Arkansas AD on there and the heavy MW/West Coast flavor of the committee. Osborne just hates Texas. Texas didn’t let him fill his team with illiterates and they beat Nebraska 9 of 10 times they played in the Big 12.
And you are missing the point. When you ask someone from the southeast who is better, Alabama or Oregon, how many do you think will say Oregon? Conversely, ask the same question in Oregon. You see the regional voting in the Heisman race every year. That doesn’t mean they are unethical. They truly believe in their opinions and they have the most familiarity with those in their area. We all have biases.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Bowlsby isn’t complaining.”
I didn’t say he was. But Briles is, and the committee composition hasn’t changed. Where were his complaints when TCU was #3?
“But I know a lot of us Longhorns were pretty nervous seeing Osborne and the Arkansas AD on there and the heavy MW/West Coast flavor of the committee. Osborne just hates Texas. Texas didn’t let him fill his team with illiterates and they beat Nebraska 9 of 10 times they played in the Big 12.”
Fans see bias everywhere and expect it all the time. There is zero actual evidence that Osborne voted in a biased manner. Fans worrying about it doesn’t make it real.
“And you are missing the point.”
No, I’m disagreeing with your point.
“When you ask someone from the southeast who is better, Alabama or Oregon, how many do you think will say Oregon? Conversely, ask the same question in Oregon. You see the regional voting in the Heisman race every year. That doesn’t mean they are unethical. They truly believe in their opinions and they have the most familiarity with those in their area. We all have biases.”
Fans don’t watch all the games from major teams in edited form to remove broadcaster bias. Fans aren’t asked to specialize in certain conferences that they don’t have ties to. Fans aren’t former coaches, ADs, Secretaries of State, etc. These people agreed to put alot of time and effort into an objective attempt to rank these teams. Comparing them to people who drink more beers than they watch games is demeaning.
The committee has access to the edited video for all the games and each conference had specialists. Barry Alvarez and Mike Tranghese were the point people for the B12.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol
The committee has assigned two members to be the “point persons” to gather material about the teams in each conference and the independent teams. The process will assure that each team is fully reviewed and that no information is overlooked. The point persons will ensure that (1) the committee has complete, detailed information about each team, and (2) the conferences and independent institutions have an effective and efficient channel for providing facts to the committee. The committee wishes to be clear about the role of the point persons. They are not and will not be advocates for teams in any conference or for any independent institution. They will not speak on behalf of any conference or institution during the committee’s deliberations or represent any conference’s or independent institution’s interests during those deliberations. Their function is to gather information and ensure that it is available to the committee. Their role as a liaison to a particular conference or independent institution is purely for the purpose of objective fact-gathering. The point persons will communicate with conference staff members on three teleconferences during the regular season. The point persons will accept objective factual information from a conference and may actively seek such information from a conference during a teleconference. They may take subjective viewpoints provided by a conference comparing the performance of one conference institution to another. They will ensure that all information provided by a conference is presented to the committee for its consideration. Outside of the three teleconferences, there will be no contact between the point persons and any conference staff member, or vice-versa; all information will be relayed through the CFP staff. Following are the point persons for 2014-15:
American – Mike Gould and Pat Haden
Atlantic Coast – Tom Jernstedt and Steve Wieberg
Big Ten – Pat Haden and Condoleezza Rice
Big 12 – Barry Alvarez and Mike Tranghese
Conference-USA – Tom Osborne and Condoleezza Rice
Mid-American – Barry Alvarez and Tyrone Willingham
Mountain West – Oliver Luck and Mike Tranghese
Pac-12 – Mike Gould and Tom Osborne
Southeastern – Oliver Luck and Steve Wieberg
Sun Belt – Dan Radakovich and Tyrone Willingham
Independents – Dan Radakovich and Steve Wieberg
LikeLike
You ignored my point about the Heisman voting and its regional nature.
I think part of the Big 12’s problem may have been a basketball guy from Providence who destroyed a football conference was one of their point people. Another was a guy who doesn’t like spread offenses.
LikeLike
No, I just find the comparison of Heisman voters to the CFP committee silly. The voters have no obligation to be objective or to watch anyone other than their favorite team/conference. That is so far removed from what the committee is doing that it’s like comparing kindergarten to graduate school.
Think what you like, but there is zero evidence to suggest there was a problem beyond the B12 teams not having the merits of the top 4. They played fewer games, weaker OOC games and no CCG. Why is there a need to assign bias or ineptitude or antipathy to the committee just because you disagree with the results?
If OSU didn’t get in, I wouldn’t be blaming Alvarez for being angry about OSU crushing WI in the CCG. I wouldn’t claim Osborne didn’t want the East to get a leg up on the West. I wouldn’t look at anyone else on the committee and assume they hated OSU or the B10 for some arcane reason. I’d look at the VT loss and shake my head about what a shame it was.
Maybe Baylor should schedule someone OOC tougher than Buffalo next time. Maybe both of them should drop I-AA teams, especially if they insist on playing SMU.
LikeLike
Briles has been complaining about the committee from the start since Baylor was ranked behind TCU after winning head to head due to its WV loss. His rants have gotten worse and more media attention since the KSU post-game, and the latest one is really over the edge. Patterson (TCU coach) has not been complaining.
LikeLike
Frank,
Let’s say an 8-team playoff is eventually adopted. How would you change the logistics of the current season? I think schools would have to sacrifice a non-conference game and the first four games would have to be played on campus. I don’t know how hard a sell that would be for the “powers that be.” I actually think hosting that initial round on campus would lend itself to the tradition of college football and enhance the sentiment around the CFP, but that’s just me…
I am a BIG guy, so congrats to all of the BIG schools going to bowl games. Having said that, let’s try to win them and, if we can’t win them, let’s be competitive (talking to you right now Wisconsin, that was a terrible performance in the BIG Championship game…)
LikeLike
@anthony london – I don’t think the logistics would change at all. The way I’d do it simply the following:
Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
I’ve seen plenty of debate on whether on-campus sites would be viable, but I’m 99% certain that the factors of (a) preserving the bowl system, (b) maximizing TV ratings and revenue (both of which greatly favor playing more games in January instead of December), (c) maximizing corporate suite and luxury seat ticket sales (which are unfortunately much more important than the tickets sold to plebeian fans) all favor neutral sites and (d) avoiding final exams in December (which, when push comes to shove, I believe that the university presidents would be much more concerned about interfering finals for 8 schools in December than having 2 schools play a title game one week later than they do now). Under my proposal, it would actually be a throwback (i.e. traditional Rose Bowl matchup) while still expanding the playoff.
The way to push through change in college football is to make it as easy as possible. The less that you disrupt the current system, the better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank,
Under your scenario, you still have three games to play at least two weeks into January, not just one week. I remember reading somewhere that University Presidents are trying to limit football bleeding into the second semester. Not to mention the fact that this scenario bumps up against the NFL playoffs. That’s not a good option, even if it means playing games during the week.
With regard to December, I think if games are at the schools early enough, tickets will be sold. Most school stadiums have corporate and luxury seat options. Those options don’t exist to the level of neutral sites, but the atmosphere at neutral sites isn’t the same either. While this does not immediately impact revenue, over time I believe it will. I am repping the plebes…. Yo!!!
Change is inevitable. I never thought I would see a CFP in my lifetime, yet here it is. I think you incorporate the bowl system as long as you can, but it should not get in the way of an expanded CFP.
LikeLike
Bleeding into the second semester for 2 schools just isn’t a real issue. I suspect it is primarily an excuse. If not, they just haven’t thought through it much.
Finding time slots for the semi-finals where you don’t compete with the NFL, is however, an issue.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Bleeding into the second semester for 2 schools just isn’t a real issue.”
For fans. The presidents seem to disagree.
LikeLike
I almost think, they could’ve kept the BCS system and had the AP Poll back in the Harris Poll out and no Coache’s Poll but CFB Committee Poll. That way if a Group of 5 conference champion ended up in the Top 8 they get an Automatic qualifying bid. In the end I suspect they’ll go to 8.
The Power 5 Conference Champions get automatic-bids, the highest-ranked Group of 5 Conference Champion gets an automatic-bid and have 2 at-large bids and allow the CFB Committee to seed however they like.
LikeLike
can they trade West Virginia for Louisville, and cash considerations?
LikeLike
The Big 12 should fold with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St going to the Pac 12/16 and the SEC absorbing Kansas (Mizzou’s historic rival and perennial BB power) and West Virginia. With 6 out of 10 members voting to disband and return the grant of rights to member schools, why not? Texas is playing second fiddle to A&M now that the Aggies are in the SEC and Big 12 is down to 2 majors and 8 minor powers. The average quality of Big 12 member schools will only deteriorate with the additions of mid-major programs such a Cincinnati, Memphis and/or BYU. Even Boise State, which has cache on the field, only has 33,500 seats in their stadium. They would be one of the smallest markets in any power conference.
So – don’t dilute the membership any more. Jus give it up, get us down to 4 power conferences where the B1G and Pac can meet in the Rose Bowl while the SEC and ACC mix it up at the Sugar Bowl. The winners meet in the NCG. Whats not to like with that?
LikeLike
I’m sure that Baylor, the Kansas schools and Iowa State would be totally cool with this approach and not launch a major lawsuit or take advantage of the bylaws that prevent anyone from leaving for about a decade.
LikeLike
Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and K State can all go to the Mountain West. I don’t know how 4 schools can force 6 schools to stick to the status quo if they don’t want to. Would they sue? Maybe. Would they win? Not if league rules allow for a majority vote to make such a change.
LikeLike
This is kind of funny. You wish to kick out of the P5 the #5, #6 and #11 schools in the nation.
LikeLike
They are good at the moment, not long term, and their respective fan bases couldn’t fill a Wal-Mart parking lot.
LikeLike
You’re not kicking out teams from playing in a power conference. Want to dissolve the Big 12? Do it this way:
To Pac: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State — the only realistic expansion choices for the Pac.
To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas — the only other AAU Big 12 members aside from Texas. Yes, both are lackluster in football, but no more so than Purdue or Indiana…and both are solid in basketball.
To SEC: West Virginia, Kansas State. Both border SEC member states.
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian. They fit the private school angle of much of the ACC, while giving the conference a foothold in Texas.
LikeLike
The basic problem is that no other P5 league wants most of the Big 12 membership. Texas and Oklahoma don’t want to split, and whatever leagues don’t get those two would have zero interest in getting stuck with the rest of the league. If you presume TX/OK to pac-16, then B1G/SEC/ACC basically get junk. If you presume TX/OK to SEC, then P12/B1G/ACC basically get junk. etc.
At some point a league has to actually WANT the teams that are on the table. And no one wants the rest of the Big 12. And just to be clear, adding two out of BYU/Cincy/SMU/Memphis/ECU/UConn/etc. does not in any way shape or form solve that problem.
LikeLike
@MatthewSmith – I agree with you, except that the Pac would take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech in a red hot second to get Oklahoma and Texas. The package deal would be accretive to Pac coffers and it would be a win for all Pac players – especially Okie State and Tech.
LikeLike
Right, the Pac-12 would probably take that set of 4 (rhetoric aside, I really do think they’d be very happy at a Pac-16 including the Red River pair and 2 of whoever). But if the idea is finding everyone in the Big 12 a home (i.e. vp19’s post), then whoever doesn’t get the TX/OK set is clearly going to say no. At which point you’re back to blowing up the Big 12 and having a bunch of unhappy people plus probably lawsuits and/or shenanigans from the Texas legislature.
LikeLike
Matthew: If Baylor and TCU were guaranteed spots in a P5 conference (the ACC, in my scenario) with the ensuing money, why would they sue? Remember, in 2003 Virginia Tech bumped Syracuse from the #12 slot in ACC expansion because Tech officials feared that if it remained in the Big East, the conference (at least for football) would go under, leaving the Gobblers’ football program homeless. Under your scenarios, schools such as Iowa State (which draws better for football than many in the ACC, and rates among the nation’s attendance leaders in both men’s and women’s basketball) would be set adrift, whereas Wake Forest and Boston College would survive.
LikeLike
TCU was 3rd in win % in the last decade. They probably are still top 3 going back to 2000. KSU has been good for the last quarter century.
As for the fan bases, KSU averaged over 50k from 2010-2013, Baylor 42k and TCU 42k. All 3 are undoubtedly higher if you included this year.
That puts TCU and Baylor ahead of Maryland, Syracuse, BC and Northwestern, among others. KSU is also ahead of Arizona, Cal, Illinois, ECU, Minnesota, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, Colorado, Utah, Oregon St. and Indiana, who is just ahead of Baylor.
So if KSU can’t fill a WalMart parking lot, what does that say about the bottom 7 in the Big 10 in attendance? And the 7/12 of the Pac 12 and 7/14 of the ACC who KSU also outdraws.
LikeLike
@bullet –
TCU was 3rd in win % in the last decade. They probably are still top 3 going back to 2000. KSU has been good for the last quarter century.
TCU had a huge amount of empty seats for their game against Iowa St. They should be very concerned that their fans are not showing up when they are good.
LikeLike
@Bullet – With all of their “success,” TCU and KSU’s attendance looks all the worse. Kansas is a small state and adding a piece of Kansas City, MO still doesn’t provide sufficient viewers when it comes time for TV contracts. TCU is probably the third favorite team in Fort Worth, behind the ‘Horns and Aggies. Baylor (and Iowa state) are dilutive to any P5 deal that relies on viewers or fans.
Do you think the Big Ten would offer Northwestern a spot today if they didn’t already have one? Or Purdue? Maryland and Rutgers were added due to the TV markets of NYC, DC, and Baltimore and the idea that a B1G platform in the east will grow the fan bases in such rich markets, along with viewership. I expect that to be borne out.
Essentially small market teams with little potential for organic growth, KSU, ISU, TCU and Baylor are all very well suited for the Mountain West. None of their names was ever seriously mentioned in the expansion rush of the past five years, save for TCU to B12, which shows the #5 conferences desperation. Now they are talking Cinnci and Memphis, really? Would the SEC, B1G or Pac 12 ever consider the Bearcats or Tigers for membership? Please.
LikeLike
vp19,
“You’re not kicking out teams from playing in a power conference. Want to dissolve the Big 12? Do it this way:
…
To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas — the only other AAU Big 12 members aside from Texas. Yes, both are lackluster in football, but no more so than Purdue or Indiana…and both are solid in basketball.
To SEC: West Virginia, Kansas State. Both border SEC member states.
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian. They fit the private school angle of much of the ACC, while giving the conference a foothold in Texas.”
Why on earth would these 3 conferences do this? It makes zero sense for them.
LikeLike
TCU has played in a P5 conference for 3 years. Record so far? 22-15. That’s solid but only solid.
What they did in the MWC isn’t really relevant.
LikeLike
Northwestern and Purdue to the Big 12, Virginia and North Carolina to the B1G.
LikeLike
If I had my druthers, Mark, I’d send Northwestern and Purdue to the SEC in exchange for Mizzou and Kansas (that they picked up from the B12). Then, the SEC could send Northwestern and Vandy to the ACC – the biggest winner in the B12’s demise – for Virginia Tech and NC St. Every school just mentioned may well support the move (and would have to, perhaps requiring a few bucks for the Wildcats and Commodores). The ACC and B1G would remain the same size while the SEC would go to 16 teams.
LikeLike
Um, no, Northwestern would not support leaving the B10 (unless it’s for the Ivy League), regardless of the money.
Dream on.
LikeLike
The only Big 12 teams the SEC would want are Oklahoma and Texas. *maybe* Kansas, but probably not.
The B1G would probably only want Texas.
If the Pac 12 took UT/TT/OU/OSU, then the Big 12 would live on. It would just backfill from the AAC and MWC.
Maybe:
Big 12 East:
UConn, Cincinnati, WVU, ISU, Kansas, KSU
West:
Baylor, TCU, Houston, SMU, Colorado State, BYU or San Diego State
LikeLike
Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and K State can all go to the Mountain West. I don’t know how 4 schools can force 6 schools to stick to the status quo if they don’t want to. Would they sue? Maybe. Would they win? Not if league rules allow for a majority vote to make such a change.
I’m sure it’s on the Internet somewhere….but I think you’ll find it takes a strong super-majority, like 70%, to disband the league. Obviously, the rest of the schools wouldn’t agree to that. And as others have noted, the other leagues aren’t going to pitch in, and take programs that UT and OU decide they no longer want.
Until the 2020s, any school leaving would be bound by the grant of rights, which pretty much eliminates the realistic possibility of any kind of move before that time.
LikeLike
Iowa State obviously would be screwed (MAC? as a good rival for NIU as I predicted back in the mid-00s) as would K-State (MWC?). I think Baylor could make a good case for being in the SEC as well as the ACC, TCU a little less so (maybe also a drop back into MWC, unless the ACC wanted to make a larger play for the Texas market).
LikeLike
Remember what Frank the Tank says. Think like a university president. Baylor may be good on the field, but they bring NOTHING to the SEC. No fan base, no market (Waco, TX!), and A&M already puts Texas in the SEC Network footprint.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of Baptist. Enough to buy their way in, if need be.
LikeLike
“Remember what Frank the Tank says. Think like a university president.”
University presidents don’t think “those four schools can go screw, I don’t care about them.”
B12 dissolution is very unlikely.
LikeLike
It’s sad when people are talking about disbanding a Power 3 football conference. Big 12 already has the product, they just need perception to change. This is a marketing and leadership problem.
LikeLike
@Dennis Flowstein – I definitely don’t believe that the Big 12 will be disbanding, but this isn’t just a marketing and/or leadership problem for the Big 12. The conference has been masking its severe demographic deficiencies because of the strength of the state of Texas (which in turn is the reason why the University of Texas is able to maintain such outsized power over the league). When you look beyond the state of Texas, though, the Big 12 has the worst long-term demographic outlook of any power conference BY FAR. That’s the real long-term issue for the Big 12 (much more so than whether teams make it into the top 4 playoff) and why expansion can’t be just looked at through the lens of the playoff structure or even the current TV money split.
LikeLike
The other problem is, there simply aren’t any reasonable expansion candidates that would solve the Big 12’s demographic issues. Cincy is a hugely far behind 2nd fiddle in Ohio (not to mention a poor geographic fit)… and that may very well be their BEST option at this point.
LikeLike
And not a demographic growth area, either … the growth in Ohio is IN Central Ohio, right at the heart of OSU’s regional dominance.
LikeLike
To that point, if I were Santa Ono, the first person I send a direct message tweet after receiving a Big 12 invite is John Swofford.
LikeLike
Frank, why does everyone here want to screw Iowa State, whose fan base is larger (and more loyal considering the product, particularly in football, over the years) than the likes of Wake Forest and Boston College? No one is throwing out ISU (or anyone else) from the P5.
LikeLike
It’s just business, vp19, nothing personal. It’s a relatively small school in a small state that does not attract sufficient viewers to move the needle in a TV contract. Save for the Hawkeyes, no one is clamoring to travel to Ames for a game or to see the Cyclones come play in their stadium. It might not seem fair, but it’s just business.
LikeLike
Wake/BC are in a stronger position because they’re in a more stable league that’s in much less danger of imploding than the Big 12 is (though it’s notable that both the Big 12 and ACC have been raided, so it’s not like the ACC is super-stable either). If everything blew up and league compositions started from scratch, Wake would probably be the first cut, as there’s no way that NC even needs three much less four P5 teams, and Wake is the blatantly obvious cut.
LikeLike
@Matthew Smith I agree completely about Wake Forest’s position along with the ACC as compared to the Big 12. I’m not sure what the problem is with a 25% upset ratio in the SEC championship games. Isn’t that part of the game? If you can’t win your conference championship game, you shouldn’t be able play in the national championship game – or even the semifinal. If ‘Bama or FSU lost last Saturday, they wouldn’t be semi-finalists for good reason.
LikeLike
Frank… this is why I say the Big XII should go after USF and UCF. You get two teams on an island… and that is less of an island for West Virginia. Two good sized markets… Tampa and Orlando. Two good recruiting areas. You then have Texas/Florida areas for the conference to recruit. You can zipper the league pretty nicely with:
#1 Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas, USF
#2 Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, West Virginia, Kansas State, UCF
Teams play 5 in-conference, one permanent rival (above/below in #1/#2 list~~~West Virginia getting Iowa State is a coup, but they are also on their own island and deserve something), plus three more schools, for a total of 9 conference games. TCU and Baylor would play Texas at least 1/2 the time, everyone gets a Florida team~~at least one trip to Florida every other year. Everyone gets at least one trip to Texas every year. #1 is brand top heavy with Texas and Oklahoma, but #2 would be able to have someone rise up and challenge most years. You could flip around a lot of the teams too and still come up with ways to keep people mostly happy.
As an ACC guy, I would MUCH rather the Big XII stay out of Florida and focus on Cincinnati (a distant #2 in Ohio), BYU (Utah), Memphis (#3 in Tennessee), etc. Doesn’t that mean something?
I think BYU and UConn are the best brands.
Cincinnati and Memphis have had success… but BYU more success at football historically and UConn far more success at basketball over the past 25 years.
LikeLike
And, really, you could rotate the cross-divisional rivalry between the teams not involving Texas/Texas Tech… Kansas/Kansas State…. and USF/UCF. If you had to.
And I am SURE that USF and UCF would split a Big XII check for the first several years. Doing so happily and with a significant boost in revenue.
LikeLike
I think the likelier evolution will be the slow musical chairs we’ve witnessed over the last few decades. Most likely scenario is a few years down the road, whether or not the Big XII has expanded or not, UT and OU choose status and money and head out to the PAC, taking along Tech and OSU for political and on-field reasons.
At that point, SEC and B1G decide to go to 16 as well — maybe for no other good reason than another of the big conferences went to 16, maybe because the money is there — with the former snagging a couple of ACC schools and the latter KU and another ACC school (I’m in the camp that believes the Notre Dame ship has sailed, but who knows). Which ACC schools go where depends on who moves first, and doesn’t make all that much difference in the end, but just for the sake of argument let’s say B1G goes first with UVA and KU, and SEC takes UNC and another NC school. Or if the politics of that don’t work, VaTech and FSU…who goes really doesn’t matter to dynamics at play.
Then, probably very quickly, the remaining 11 ACC schools would at least go back to 12 with WVU/UCONN, take your pick. If the ACC sees a need to keep up with the Joneses, MAYBE make a splash to 16 with the leftover of UCONN/WVU, a pair of Texas schools (in the likely event TCU and Baylor are still relevant in football and baseball), and some wildcard for half-academics, half-football reasons…maybe ISU if they’re REALLY lucky
LikeLike
Ideally there would be four power conferences, not five. The Big 12 will likely be the one left standing when the music stops. I do not envision ACC raids once the B12 is gone and the ACC grant of rights isn’t going away. I suggested that the B12 will end with a vote of (at least) 6 member schools out of 10, which solves the B12 grant of rights problem (which is a serious obstacle left unaddressed).
The ACC would be the biggest winner of a B12 collapse, since they are somewhat on the bubble with B12. I can see all 4 conferences pitching in to an orderly unwinding of the B12. Perhaps, the ACC would need to allow Virginia Tech & NC State to go to the SEC if they agree to take Kansas and WVU, which provides the deciding 2 “yes” votes to a B12 dissolution (the 4 to the Pac being the other yes” votes). That would take the SEC to 16 teams, along with the Pac, and both could implement a pod system that would greatly improve scheduling.
LikeLike
Rich Baxter,
“Ideally there would be four power conferences, not five.”
I disagree. CFB was much better to me when there seven power conferences (ACC, BE, B8, B10, P10, SEC, SWC), multiple independents and a multitude of decent mid-majors.
Four power conferences isn’t ideal for anything. A 4-team playoff still has to leave room for independents, so you can’t give autobids. An 8-team playoff is no better off with 4 conferences than 5, either.
The Big 12 will likely be the one left standing when the music stops. I do not envision ACC raids once the B12 is gone and the ACC grant of rights isn’t going away. I suggested that the B12 will end with a vote of (at least) 6 member schools out of 10, which solves the B12 grant of rights problem (which is a serious obstacle left unaddressed).
“I can see all 4 conferences pitching in to an orderly unwinding of the B12.”
Why would they agree to do that? Nobody wants to get stuck with most of the B12 teams.
“Perhaps, the ACC would need to allow Virginia Tech & NC State to go to the SEC if they agree to take Kansas and WVU, which provides the deciding 2 “yes” votes to a B12 dissolution (the 4 to the Pac being the other yes” votes).”
There is zero chance the ACC “allows” any such thing to happen.
“That would take the SEC to 16 teams, along with the Pac, and both could implement a pod system that would greatly improve scheduling.”
Pods are more problematic than you think, especially in the SEC. The P16 would also have LA issues.
LikeLike
how would the big 12 align divisions? seems like a big problem with expansion.
LikeLike
The Texas and Oklahoma schools would likely want to stick together, and there is no neat East-West division, so I would expect TX/OK on one side and the “rest” (call them “north” most likely) on the other.
LikeLike
It will be a huge problem for the underlings. Teams not in Texas need games in Texas for recruiting and while everyone needs games against Texas and OU to sell tickets. No one wants to trade those games for Memphis and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Recruiting is why, if expansion is agreed upon, I believe most B12 schools would press for UCF+USF rather than Cincy+Memphis.
LikeLike
It would be a problem.
I don’t think they are expanding, but if they do, its probably the 5 Big 8 schools in one group, Texas, Baylor and Texas Tech in the other and TCU and WVU depend on who 11 and 12 are.
LikeLike
ISU, Kansas, Louisville(WV), Memphis, Houston, Baylor
KSU, OSU, OU, TexasTech, UT, TCU
I don’t agree with the argument that the big12 has a demographic problem if you neglect Texas.
That’s like saying the B1G has a demographic problem if you neglect the north east,
or SEC has a problem if you ignore the south east.
The state of Texas is very large.
LikeLike
The OK and TX schools in the B12 West.
Everyone else in the B12 East.
If you look on a map, all the non-OK/TX schools besides KSU are clearly to the east of all the OK+TX schools, and KSU is really roughly even with the OK schools.
Look, if the SEC can put Mizzou in the SEC East, the B12 definitely can split up East/West.
LikeLike
Why not split the Texas schools to keep everyone happy?
LikeLike
Ask the ACC how well the zipper has worked out.
LikeLike
The ACC did not do a zipper. It did a mishmash collection of schools on each side.
LikeLike
it was a zipper with added complication/incompetence
LikeLike
What about UC and Nebraska? While Nebraska officials make like all is well with the Big Ten, many fans yearn for the old geographical rivals of the Big 8 and the steamy love-to-hate relationship with Texas. A few important things have changed since 2011:
1. The Longhorn Network went over like a lead balloon. Does Texas really consider 3rd tier TV rights important enough to forgo regaining some national cache by pulling Nebraska back?
2. After seeing the other conferences go with more equitable revenue sharing, the little 9 might be willing to stand up to Texas.
3. The Big Ten, after its dramatic reach west to get Nebraska, doubled down on its eastern front, picking up Rutgers and Maryland, two schools Nebraska shares no history with. The B1G basketball tournament will be held in NYC, a reach for most Nebraska fans to attend. The best conference tourney (Big 12), held 3 hours from Lincoln in Kansas City, seems like a really fond memory.
Yes, the Big 12 can regain a championship game with any two marginal schools, but mending fences with Nebraska, while not likely, would actually re-elevate the conference image and provide some comeuppance to Czar Delany.
LikeLike
Or how about Nebraska and _ _ _ _n _ _ _ , had the bowl placement stars not aligned to FranktheTank’s liking?
I think we saw the imbalance inherent in an E-W split of the B1G on full display last Saturday night. It would be enough to make me panic and sweat, were I a Cornhusker partisan. I dont know how much pull Nebraska would have, but I think that’s the school, plus their west division partners, that may be begging for an all out push by the B1G for Texas and OU for talent access.
LikeLike
@KSbugbeater – University presidents make these decisions. The only school in the Big 12 that wouldn’t accept an invite to the Big Ten on-the-spot is Texas (and that’s because UT craves control even more than money). There is absolutely no sane administrator at Nebraska or any other school in the other 4 power conferences that would go to the Big 12. In the conference realignment landscape, the Big Ten and SEC share the top of the totem pole while the Big 12 is clearly at the bottom. (Note that this doesn’t have anything to do whatsoever with the results on-the-field, as the Big 12 can still produce good-to-great football teams leveraging Texas-based recruits.)
LikeLike
I’m not sure any of the Texoma schools would go to the Big 10. I’m pretty sure TCU, Baylor and Texas wouldn’t. Texas Tech would be idiotic to do it w/o Texas or Texas A&M going with them, but an egotistical president might make the mistake that he can recruit Texas from Lubbock playing Big 10 schools.
Geography matters in many ways-student-athlete travel time, travel $, alumni base.
LikeLike
Except that the B1G really doesn’t want Tech or really anyone from the Big 12 other than Texas and MAYBE Oklahoma (and the B1G probably feels like this would be a semi-acceptable reach… I’m not saying they’re necessarily right, but I think this is how they feel about it). Remember, this was the whole “Tech problem” discussion back when Texas to B1G was being discussed.
LikeLike
Wow, totally off. Every school in Big 12 would join Big Ten for the athletic contracts they hold with ESPN, Fox, and their ownership of BTN; plus the added academic prestige that would come for being involved with AAU schools and the CIC. Texas is only one that wouldnt need the bump in prestige and as mentioned before, they have money and yearn for control.
LikeLike
Every school in Big 12 would join Big Ten for the athletic contracts they hold with ESPN, Fox, and their ownership of BTN; plus the added academic prestige that would come for being involved with AAU schools and the CIC. Texas is only one that wouldnt need the bump in prestige and as mentioned before, they have money and yearn for control.
LikeLike
Don’t kid yourself. TCU and Baylor would jump to the B10 in a heartbeat.
Remember that TCU was willing to fly their volleyball, soccer, and swimming teams all over the western half of the US (none close to them) just for a slight conference upgrade back in the day (and they were leaving a conference with nearby schools Houston, Tulane, and Memphis).
LikeLike
Given the chance every Big XII schools outside of Texas and, possibly, Oklahoma would join the Big 10 immediately. They wouldn’t a choice. Insuring themselves a permanent seat at the power conference level supersedes any of the other concerns you listed (especially since the extra tens of millions of extra $’s in conference distributions would more than cover the last revenue from higher travel expenses and lost donations).
LikeLike
And its not just the Big 10. All the non-UT/OU schools would also jump at SEC or PAC invites (ok maybe, WVU would turn down the PAC, but the others wouldn’t think twice about it)
LikeLike
@KSbugeater
In addition to what Frank said…
The Longhorn Network went over like a lead balloon. Does Texas really consider 3rd tier TV rights important enough to forgo regaining some national cache by pulling Nebraska back?
The LHN just got carriage, its going to make money. Texas didn’t go through all of that just to give up the LHN just to get Nebraska back. Nebraska is great and all, but no one is worth that.
2. After seeing the other conferences go with more equitable revenue sharing, the little 9 might be willing to stand up to Texas.
Outside of third tier, the Big 12 already has equitable sharing.
3. The Big Ten, after its dramatic reach west to get Nebraska, doubled down on its eastern front, picking up Rutgers and Maryland, two schools Nebraska shares no history with. The B1G basketball tournament will be held in NYC, a reach for most Nebraska fans to attend. The best conference tourney (Big 12), held 3 hours from Lincoln in Kansas City, seems like a really fond memory.
I doubt most Nebraska fans care where the basketball tournament is played unless it is in Omaha. The three hour drive to KC is nice, but NY is just a three hour flight away.
LikeLike
Texas has guaranteed control over their 3rd tier rights, and that control is explicitly why they didn’t abandon the league when they had that option. How do the other nine schools “stand up to Texas” when the obvious consequence of seizing 3rd tier rights (if indeed bylaws even allowed such a move) would be Texas (and very likely Oklahoma as well) bailing on the league and dooming it to becoming an afterthought?
LikeLike
KSbugeater,
“What about UC and Nebraska?”
They’re both happier where they are. CO had been wanting to join the P12 for decades. NE wanted into the B10 for quite a while, too. Besides, NE is about to get paid when the new TV deal starts.
“While Nebraska officials make like all is well with the Big Ten, many fans yearn for the old geographical rivals of the Big 8 and the steamy love-to-hate relationship with Texas.”
Fans don’t matter. You’d have to pry B10 membership out of any NE president’s cold, dead hands.
“A few important things have changed since 2011:
1. The Longhorn Network went over like a lead balloon. Does Texas really consider 3rd tier TV rights important enough to forgo regaining some national cache by pulling Nebraska back?”
Yes. You’re talking about over $10M per year and UT never cared much about NE.
“2. After seeing the other conferences go with more equitable revenue sharing, the little 9 might be willing to stand up to Texas.”
They have equal sharing now. The conference chose not to lump 3rd tier rights in.
“3. The Big Ten, after its dramatic reach west to get Nebraska, doubled down on its eastern front, picking up Rutgers and Maryland, two schools Nebraska shares no history with. The B1G basketball tournament will be held in NYC, a reach for most Nebraska fans to attend. The best conference tourney (Big 12), held 3 hours from Lincoln in Kansas City, seems like a really fond memory.”
Hoops will not drive any decisions for NE.
LikeLike
By UC, I meant Cincinnati. I agree that Colorado probably isn’t going back to the Big 12.
As a Nebraska alumnus and fan, I was pretty happy with the move to the Big Ten because it meant solid financial footing and more big market exposure for our teams (setting academic perks aside, since that facet has since been revealed to be secondary). That hasn’t completely changed for me. However, if the Big 12 could promise the same amount of revenue as the Big Ten and a guarantee of rights from all members, the Nebraska chancellor following Perlman would have to consider the offer. A new UN system president will be named soon, and he or she might have different priorities, such as reducing air travel for nonrevenue sports to shrink the university carbon footprint.
Big Ten folks should be proud, but I think some of you are dismissing the idea of Nebraska leaving too quickly out of an inflated sense of conference gravity. I know it’s far-fetched, but more home schedules like this year (Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers) would have any Nebraska administrator wondering what they signed up for. At least when KU came to Lincoln for their biennial beating we had some familiarity and shared tradition.
LikeLike
Well it looks like your school signed up for annual beatings by the Gophers to me . . .
Maybe if you actually had a winning record (conference or all-time) over Minnesota, you can dismiss games against them as not worth your while.
LikeLike
KSbugeater,
“By UC, I meant Cincinnati.”
Sorry.
“However, if the Big 12 could promise the same amount of revenue as the Big Ten”
If they could do that, they wouldn’t need to expand.
“and a guarantee of rights from all members,”
If they could get that, they wouldn’t need to expand.
“the Nebraska chancellor following Perlman would have to consider the offer.”
Why? Why would they change again for no net gain and a worse academic environment?
“A new UN system president will be named soon, and he or she might have different priorities, such as reducing air travel for nonrevenue sports to shrink the university carbon footprint.”
Academics will always trump air travel for Olympic sports.
“Big Ten folks should be proud, but I think some of you are dismissing the idea of Nebraska leaving too quickly out of an inflated sense of conference gravity.”
I think the idea of any school leaving a major conference right after joining it is unlikely, and even less likely for no monetary gain.
“I know it’s far-fetched, but more home schedules like this year (Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers) would have any Nebraska administrator wondering what they signed up for.”
You forgot 2011 and 2012 already?
2011 – OSU, MSU, NW, IA
2012 – MI, PSU, WI, MN
2014-2015 are the makeup years for teams that haven’t played NE much lately before the 9 game season starts.
2015 – WI, NW, MSU, IA
That seems okay.
2016 – IL, PU, MN, UMD
2017 – OSU, WI, IA, NW, RU
2018 – IL, PU, MN, MSU
2019 – OSU, WI, IA, NW, IN
Looks like the odd years are great and the even years need a strong OOC game.
2016 – OR
2018 – CO
LikeLike
You’re willing to give up all the sundry academic beneifts of the B1G (the CiC, etc.) over football home scheduling? Leaving the Big Ten for an altered Big 12 (where there’s no guarantee you wouldn’t again be under the thumb of Texas) would be the dumbest conference move a big-time school has made since South Carolina petulantly left the ACC in 1971 without a landing spot for any of its teams.
LikeLike
Nebraska doesn’t want to go back…
1) And Nebraska was right there with Texas and IMG Exploring NU’s options before ultimately going to the big ten.
2) revenue sharing was never an issue for Nebraska in the Big XII.
3) Until the past 2 years, your average Nebraska fan didn’t care much about conference basketball tournaments and still overall football drives the bus there.
LikeLike
has Nebraska become the permanent host for the B1G baseball tournament?
LikeLike
No, they will likely have to share Omaha with the Big East Conference for baseball.
The Big Ten will sell way more tickets, but Creighton plays their home games there so MECA (the organization that runs the stadium) has a good working relationship there already and wouldn’t shut them out every year.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
I think the CFP is incredibly well-led and rational, but I do wish that in creating compelling semifinals that would have honored the Rose Bowl tradition in a situation where they were handed the opportunity to do so. Oregon-Ohio State in Pasadena on New Year’s afternoon just has a “rightness” about it that should not have been ignored. I think one could also make a very good case for Oregon as No. 1 after the weekend’s games. As a side benefit, Alabama-FSU in the Sugar would also be extremely fan-friendly and help generate a great atmosphere in the stadium that would translate over TV.
LikeLike
Have you heard any Buckeye fans or people in Pasadena complain? Get over it.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Have you heard any Buckeye fans or people in Pasadena complain?”
Yes, I have.
LikeLike
Not complaining to be in the CFP, but definitely would rather play in the Rose Bowl when its a semi-final host. And Oregon should be #1 anyway.
LikeLike
Agreed. It would have been nice to preserve or see tradition where it could be preserved. I think it would create better atmosphere too. I’m real curious to see how the Rose Bowl atmosphere will be this year. And that matters for a made for TV product. The Sugar Bowl will be fine and would have been fine with AL – FSU.
There is nothing to get over vp19 – just would have been nice to see.
LikeLike
My guess it that the committee felt putting OSU in top four was enough of a stretch, and jumping them up to 3rd, and avoiding top-seeded Alabama, was too much. As much as I’d like to see a traditional Rose Bowl lineup, I can understand why OSU wasn’t sent to Pasadena. It would also be difficult to justify the lone undefeated FSU facing the #1 seed in a near home game.
LikeLike
Some would argue that OR is the better team and deserved to be #1 instead of AL, also solving the problem.
LikeLike
Yep. I definitely believe that UO should have been seeded #1. So does the Badger fan at work.
LikeLike
That would have been a pretty easy change if they wanted. Also easy to justify since Oregon beat #7 badly and it was the one team who beat them.
LikeLike
The computers have Alabama at #1.
LikeLike
Massey’s composite of about 40 computer ratings has them this way:
1. Alabama 1.88
2. Oregon 2.70
3. TCU 4.38
4. Ohio St. 4.75
5. Baylor 6.76
6. FSU 6.78
7. Ole Miss 7.70
8. MS St. 8.28
9. Michigan St. 9.64
10. UGA 11.70
A fair number of people and computers put Oregon at #1.
LikeLike
This goes to show why the folks in charge would not be comfortable relying on computers entirely. No one would tolerate a playoff that left out an undefeated power conference champion.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think its fair where they rate FSU, but until someone beats them you can’t say they aren’t just saving it until it is necessary. FSU has to be in.
LikeLike
BYU would provide quality program instantly. no growing needed.
LikeLike
The issue with BYU isn’t growth, its pruning the parts that make it unlike nearly every other university.
LikeLike
How many of candidates have a national title, heisman winner, and a stadium that fills 64k each week? just one: byu
LikeLike
SMU could move to the Cotton Bowl. They used to fill it up. They meet the other two criteria.
LikeLike
They actually played at Texas Stadium pre-death penalty. And the never filled it up. Not even when A&M or the Horns showed up.
LikeLike
I’m talking about the 40s and 50s. And they did fill up the Cotton Bowl. It was known as the House that Doak built (Doak Walker their Heisman winner).
LikeLike
SMU didn’t move to Texas Stadium until 1978.
LikeLike
And then the Cowboys came to town in the early 60’s. Even Rice could fill its 70K stadium in the 50’s, but the Oilers put an end to that also.
LikeLike
I wasn’t seriously suggesting they could fill it again. Just pointing out that they at one point met his criteria.
LikeLike
I see one of four scenarios happening with the Big 12. The most likely one involves Cincinnati and Memphis joining the conference, in which case West Virginia would no longer be a geographic outlier, and the Big 12 could have a conference championship game in football. The second most likely scenario would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State joining an east division of the Pac 16. The third one would involve Texas and Oklahoma joining the west division of the Big 10, while the last (and least likely) scenario would have Texas becoming independent yet attached in football and joining the ACC in all other sports (just like Notre Dame). I hope they keep the Big 12 together by adding Cincinnati and Memphis. It seems better to have more conferences and teams with a realistic chance to win a football national title. Breaking up the Big 12 would reduce the number of teams with any realistic shot, because virtually no additional expansion would occur, and some of the current Big 12 teams would not be able to join one of the remaining four power conferences. Hook ’em Horns, and long live the Longhorn Network!
LikeLike
Uconn was passed over by the ACC for Cuse and pitt, then Lville later. Each time we heard stories about getting blocked by Bc or FSU wanted the better current fball team or whatever. Think about this for a second, if uconn was in contention each time but kept getting passed over, they must have been worth the $20mil to the ACC each time to be in the convo.
All we heard about was how the b12 needs schools who can bring value equal or above and only a few could. Even though it seems uconn football is a huge rebuild right now, we wvu fans know they care($) and will be competitive again.
I think uconn brings equal to or positive value to the TV contract. The question is can we get them and Cincy in quickly. Cincy will take anything and uconn will not say know to a upgrade league and money wise vs where they are now, but we need to be careful the b1g doesn’t grab uconn earlier then planned to block the b12 from gaining value like the ACC dud with Lville. That’s what I’m worried about.
My second option is BYU and BSU for fball only.
3rd option is to make a rule that all 10 members can not schedule FCS teams and only one non BCS school per year. Basically boost SOS/RPI major league.
LikeLike
I just do not understand what UConn would bring to any conference (other than the ACC, which passed). Hartford-New Haven is the number 30 TV market. There is no impact in Boston and no impact in New York City. While UConn has been winning men’s and women’s basketball championships, those have not been major stories in NYC. A few years ago, when RU played a regular season game against Louisville, the Empire State Building was lit up in red (scarlet?). Nothing like that has ever happened for UConn national bball championships.
Connecticut also is not a major recruiting area. There are very few D-1 players out CT on an annual basis.
So, no major TV market and no recruiting advantage.
We all know the rumor that BC claims some sort of informal veto keeping UConn out of the ACC. That makes sense, not just because of bitterness between the schools, but I could see BC wanting to keep all of New England.
No AAU and nothing special (in football) – no B1G.
As to the Big 12, why would they want a major geographical outlier that does not add to the picture in major ways? Both BYU and UCF make more sense if geography is irrelevant. In addition, as other posters have said, the culture of Connecticut is completely out of tune with any other team in the Big 12. I mean Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, WVa – Connecticut?
There has been enough discussion regarding whether RU and UMd actually fit in the mid-western culture of the B1G. UConn to the Big 12 is real culture shock.
UConn has to hope to someday, somehow, get into the ACC – or else understand that the football program exists at a secondary level.
LikeLike
bEEEEERme,
“Think about this for a second, if uconn was in contention each time but kept getting passed over, they must have been worth the $20mil to the ACC each time to be in the convo.”
No, that doesn’t have to be true. It means the schools they did pick were worth that. UConn may have been passed over because it was worth less than the others to the ACC.
And remember, a school’s value is different to each conference. The travel for adding UConn makes them an almost impossible choice for the B12.
“Even though it seems uconn football is a huge rebuild right now, we wvu fans know they care($) and will be competitive again.”
When were they competitive before? They were co-champs of the BE twice and have never won 10 games in I-A. If that’s their ceiling, they don’t add much in FB.
“but we need to be careful the b1g doesn’t grab uconn earlier then planned to block the b12 from gaining value like the ACC dud with Lville. That’s what I’m worried about.”
You can stop worrying. The B10 has zero interest in UConn in the foreseeable future. If UConn gets an AAU invitation that might change, but that would be decades from now if ever.
LikeLike
UConn was passed over for very smart reasons: other than the ACC they’re not a great fit with anyone else. The ACC can grab them if and when they’re ready to. Louisville, on the other hand, was on the Big 12’s radar, has great athletics (they spend some serious cash there), and isn’t horrible academically. Better to grab them (and deprive the BigXII another expansion target) while they’re still able to be grabbed.
LikeLike
“see how much … Rice could be worth if they could string a few winning seasons together.”
Three in a row, now. We’re working on it.
LikeLike
Well I saw someone pretty reliable on another board say the Big 12 asked for detailed info (probably just normal due diligence) from 5 schools last year-Rice, Houston, Tulane, Memphis and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine most of the BXII wanting more Texas teams.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine most of the BXII wanting more Texas teams.
Except as a fallback measure if UT,TTU, OU and Okie State headed to the Pac.
LikeLike
I say…Eggheads unite! Rice to the PAC!
LikeLike
I get a feeling about the Big 12 like I got about the Big East five years ago: that it’s dead in the water, and about to be picked apart by the other conferences.
LikeLike
@gregalthoff – The main difference between the old Big East and Big 12 is that Texas alone can keep the Big 12 alive and the Longhorns currently have the financial and control incentives to stay put. At the same time, the two other most valuable brands in the league (Oklahoma and Kansas) have their “little brothers” that they may be politically forced to protect (Oklahoma State and Kansas State, respectively). Any school besides Texas with multiple power conference options would choose any of those other leagues over the Big 12, but that doesn’t mean that the Big 12 can’t hold on if only because it’s a marriage of convenience.
LikeLike
Wow. Sounds fun. Louisville should erect three statues of Tom Jurich, for good measure.
LikeLike
While Louisville is definitely better off in the ACC than the Big East, it is worth noting that the Big XII makes more than the ACC. Substantially more in fact and maybe more stable in the long run.
LikeLike
Pingback: A comprehensive list of all articles related to BYU and Big 12 expansion rumors « BYU Insider
Cincy and Memphis??? How about BYU and UNLV? Might hear some guff about Saints and Sinners but both schools have a lot more to offer than incy and Memphis.
LikeLike
It will put them in all four time zones as well. That’s pretty tough.
LikeLike
If UNLV had any sort of notable football success, it wouldn’t be a half bad option.
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2014-12-08/college-football-playoff-big-12-expansion-champions-bob-bowlsby-cincinnati-memphis-byu
Big 12 officials recently met with administrators from the University of Cincinnati, a source close to the university told Sporting News. That is not an indication membership will be offered to the Bearcats in the immediate future — only that they would be a candidate were such an expansion to be undertaken.
LikeLike
Let’s not forget about Boise State. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/08/3530388_boise-state-bowl-notebook-could.html?rh=1
BSU & Oklahoma could be a fun rivalry
LikeLike
I doubt the B12 is looking to add the Boise market as a fix to their problems.
LikeLike
B12 issues aren’t fixable by focusing on markets as much as good programs/teams.
LikeLike
Actually, Boise State opens up the Big 12 to the Pacific Northwest, including the Seattle market.
LikeLike
Uh, pretty much no one in Seattle cares about Boise.
LikeLike
The speaker/headphone company? Seattle doesn’t like good sound?
LikeLike
Boise is a poor man’s West Virginia (less alcohol, worse weather, longer travel, and in the opposite direction to boot). And I’m not remotely sure the Big 12 is actually all that happy with the Eers at this point.
LikeLike
Their only salvation is 1. The Pac not taking on the Texahoma group; and 2. Reorganizing their state’s public university structure such that Boise and not the Moscow Vandals is the flagship.
LikeLike
If by “salvation” you mean a Pac-12 invite, Boise’s only salvation would be:
1 – Pac-12 becomes run by incompetents (and Tom Hansen is now well gone)
or
2 – Pac-12 implodes, and the leftovers keep the name and invite Boise
I don’t see either as being particularly likely though.
LikeLike
Texas and OK must both like being the kings of their conference (present play excepted) but I doubt they like being tethered to their junior state schools. But both can kind of buy their time until something more favorable pops up. Between the costs of playing, the concussion issue, the separation of the haves and have nots, and just overall academic reforms, the college football landscape in 10 years may look markedly different. But so long as college football is still being played, there will always be a place for UT and OK. And so long as college basketball is still being played and each state gets two senators – KN will be ok.
For all the other schools in the B12 – who knows what the future holds.
LikeLike
Screw geography
the Big XII should take the best available 2-4 teams out there and just share travel cost in a zippered conference.
BYU, UCF (or Cincinnatti),
Rice & Tulane (for AAU) if Big XIV
Once back at 12, Big XII divisions should be zippered to allow “equivalent” access, exposure and travel. Each division should be anchored by OU and UT. There should be one to two annual cross division games to maintain rivalries. Each team will then play 5 division games, 2 annual cross division games, and 2 rotating cross division games. Listed are first annual cross division games.
WEST : EAST
KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
OU: OSU
TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
ISU : UCF
BYU : WVU
Should the Big XII go to Big XIV (the Big XII already owns the rights to “Big XIV”), then it should be Rice and Tulane. Firstly why 14? The only reason would be to generate a dramatic increase in conference athletic volume and inventory for sales rather than just an incremental increase to 12 from 10. Rice and Tulane because they are both AAU programs and academics do matter to University Presidents. As #11 and #12 were taken based on competitiveness, there won’t be a need to go to 14 for strength of schedule, but it will generate an opportunity to improve on academics. Never the less, a Big XIV is very unlikely.
KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
OU: OSU (2nd cross division game versus TCU?)
TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
ISU : UCF (2nd cross division game versus Rice)
BYU : WVU (2nd cross division game versus TTU?)
Rice : Tulane (2nd cross division game versus KSU?)
Each team would then play 6 division games, 2 annual cross division games and one rotating cross division games to keep conference games at 9 total.
LikeLike
Great line by Bryce Petty (Baylor QB) in this:
http://www.newsweek.com/manifest-destiny-and-college-football-playoff-why-big-12-got-left-behind-290156
Entering last weekend Long’s Selection Committee had TCU ranked third, Ohio State fifth and TCU sixth (unbeaten but otherwise unimpressive Florida State was fourth). By Sunday afternoon TCU had beaten hapless Iowa State by 52 points, but found itself having plummeted from top to bottom, behind both the Buckeyes and Bears in the final rankings.
The Bears, who had wondered last week why they were three spots behind a conference opponent they had beaten two months earlier, i.e. TCU, leap-frogged the Horned Frogs. And so did Ohio State, a team that had the least impressive resume of the three entering Saturday’s play. Asked to explain the logic of all three teams winning and yet all three of them reversing positions relative to one another, Baylor quarterback Bryce Petty provided the sport’s quote of the year. “That’s above my paygrade,” said the fifth-year senior. “All I’m not paid to do is play.”
His truth is marching on.
LikeLike
Funny line if not pathetically wrong. Isn’t Petty on a scholarship and receiving a free education at Baylor? For his sakes he better pay attention in class because I can foresee him struggling mightily in the NFL like RGme and all other Big 12 QBs before him.
LikeLike
Still think BYU has the inside track, mainly because of what they bring:
1. Name recognition as the best-known school not in a “Power Five” Conference.
2. A Worldwide audience of Mormons the Big 12 would love to have.
3. BYU having their own TV network.
4. Giving the Big 12 a Mountain Time Zone team that makes for more flexible scheduling, including the occasional 10:30 PM ET game on FOX or 11:30 PM ET game on ABC if either decided to do a late night game.
That is why BYU becomes very attractive.to the Big 12.
One other longshot I can see for the Big 12 is Temple. While Temple doesn’t have the fan support, they are the one FBS school in the northeast that does not have a major conference tie-in and with Rutgers now in the Big 10, they are the closest to New York that isn’t the case. Bringing in Temple gives the Big 12 the Philadelphia and possibly New York TV markets, Nos. 5 & 1 respectively. That’s why Temple would be attractive to the Big 12.
LikeLike
wallyhorse,
“4. Giving the Big 12 a Mountain Time Zone team that makes for more flexible scheduling, including the occasional 10:30 PM ET game on FOX or 11:30 PM ET game on ABC if either decided to do a late night game.”
The P12 spent the entire off-season fighting with the networks to reduce the number of late games. Nobody watches them and they’re hard on the teams and the fans.
LikeLike
Maybe, but there are a lot of Millennials (whom ad buyers crave) on the east coast who are often up at that hour and will watch those games.
The schools have to realize the days of controlling time slots are over. If FOX/ESPN/ABC want games in the 11:30 PM ET time slot, they will get them even if the conferences object (and that even includes the Big 10 down the road occasionally having to do a 10:00 PM CT/11:00 PM ET game for basketball if the networks want).
LikeLike
wallyhorse,
“Maybe, but there are a lot of Millennials (whom ad buyers crave) on the east coast who are often up at that hour and will watch those games.”
They may be up, but the ratings say they don’t watch the games.
“The schools have to realize the days of controlling time slots are over.”
No, they aren’t. Schools will take less money to have decent start times. The G5 schools may cave, but the P5 schools know better.
“If FOX/ESPN/ABC want games in the 11:30 PM ET time slot, they will get them even if the conferences object (and that even includes the Big 10 down the road occasionally having to do a 10:00 PM CT/11:00 PM ET game for basketball if the networks want).”
They’ll get them from west coast teams that don’t care if the east coast watches, like they do now. The B12 doesn’t want most of their own fans to not watch their games.
LikeLike
Frank;
Heard anything related to Notre Dame news? On Sirius College sports radio this morning they said they had heard some news out of Notre Dame but couldn’t say what. They said stay tuned to ESPN or Sirius XM or CNNSI. They used the word “disturbing” so I doubt its realignment related.
LikeLike
Pinn Stripe
LikeLike
Thoughts:
1. The talk of a lack of a CCG hurting the Big 12 is very short sighted. Let’s not forget that if Alabama or Florida State lost their CCGs, then the SEC/ACC would have lost their represenatives and we’d be saying how a CCG hurt them. Also if one of those two is out and Ohio State wins a close one instead of dominating, then the Big 12 could also have had 2 teams in. The Big 12 lost far more teams to the BCS title bowl than it gained in the BCS era (a stat that would look a lot worse if the ending forumla had been used the first few years as the computers kept a couple CCG loosers in when they had more influence).
2. I agree with Frank that the Big 12 wants to good candidates to emerge.
3. I really don’t think there is any harm in waiting. If they want a CCG a petition will probably now work given the goverence restructure. Even without one, it’s a bad idea to expand unless you are sure on the candidates. Maybe Cincinnati has emerged to place they want it combined with BYU and that makes expansion viable. If they aren’t to that place though just wait. You can always expand later, but choosing the wrong teams now is a lot bigger issue.
LikeLike
Eric,
“1. The talk of a lack of a CCG hurting the Big 12 is very short sighted. Let’s not forget that if Alabama or Florida State lost their CCGs, then the SEC/ACC would have lost their represenatives and we’d be saying how a CCG hurt them. Also if one of those two is out and Ohio State wins a close one instead of dominating, then the Big 12 could also have had 2 teams in.”
It’s a double-edged sword, but it’s always better to have a chance to move up. You’re more likely to have your top team not in the top 4 than to have a top 4 team lose the CCG and drop out of the playoff.
The B12 had 5 upsets in 15 years.
1996 – NR > #3
1998 – #10 > #2
2001 – #9 > #3 – B12 still made the NCG
2003 – #15 > #1 – #1 still made the NCG
2007 – #9 > #1
But 6 times a top 7 team won (all top 4 actually – the B12 never had a team #5-7 in their CCG).
The B12 had some bad luck, but the SECCG has had fewer upsets proportionately.
1994 – #6 > #3
1999 – #7 > #5
2001 – #21 > #2
2005 – #13 > #3
2008 – #2 > #1
2009 – #2 > #1
Out of 23 games, that’s 6 upsets (2 real ones and 4 minor ones) – 26%. I doubt the 2008 and 2009 losers would even have dropped below #4. On the other hand, 19 times (73%) a top 7 team won the game. 4 times a team #5-7 won the game. That means the SEC would have gained under the playoff rules.
“The Big 12 lost far more teams to the BCS title bowl than it gained in the BCS era”
#1 won once, #2 won 4 times and #3 won once and made the NCG.
LikeLike
The risk/reward still seems a lot greater to me without a CCG. Baylor and/or TCU winning a CCG would not have guaranteed either a spot, but loosing certainly would have kicked them out. The co-champ status didn’t end up helping this year, but that co-champ status would have looked great if you were comparing either Big 12 co-champ vs. a non-champ of a different conference or if the one who would lose a tie-breaker was far and away the more impressive one (saying for example you have Texas at 11-1 with a loss to Oklahoma State and Oklahoma State at 10-2 with a loss to West Virginia and out of conference to UCLA, Texas is a lot better off being co-champs than being outside the CCG entirely).
The ability to get a 2nd team in also needs to be considered.
LikeLike
The risk/reward leans the most positive if it is the two highest ranked schools playing, since the winner benefits. What would have knocked the SEC out if Bama had been upset would have been the fact that the SEC West dominated the rankings, and the boost that Mizzou would have received would have been from too far back. Which means that the first order of business is for the Big12 to get behind the ACC proposal to regulate the *choice* of CCG participants.
LikeLike
But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter who was playing in the SEC, ACC, or PAC-12 championships. In all 3 cases, one team would be in with a win and out with a loss and the other was likely out either way. Mississippi State would have been unlikely to move back up either at that point. I’ll grant that usually won’t be the case in all of the CCGs, but I think it will hurt just as much as help as it will mean more favorites loosing (although partially offset by more underdogs in the CCG making it in).
Regardless, I don’t think having a CCG or not having one is a huge advantage (which means adding one or not adding one for playoff purposes is pointless), but I’m definitely in the camp that says not having one is a small advantage in the long run.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Baylor and/or TCU winning a CCG would not have guaranteed either a spot, but loosing certainly would have kicked them out.”
They would’ve played each other (no divisions), so the winner most likely would’ve been #4.
“The ability to get a 2nd team in also needs to be considered.”
Usually that’s a divisional runner-up.
LikeLike
To refer to the “risk/reward” of a CCG, seems to me misguided. Under current rules, the Big XII cannot play a CCG. They would need to expand, which means more mouths to feed.
It also means some portion of the conference would need to tolerate a worse regular-season football schedule (i.e., less access to Texas/Oklahoma) every single year. As FtT has pointed out in the past, university presidents tend to prefer predictable things (a good schedule every year) over lumpy and unpredictable things (a playoff bid every few years or so).
On top of that, there are other fixes besides expanding. Baylor could stop playing such a joke of a non-conference schedule.
Expanding is a permanent decision. By the mid-2020s, we could very well have an 8-team playoff, and then the whole problem goes away. Had such a system existed this year, the Big XII would have placed two teams, and then we would’ve been talking about what a genius Bob Bowlsby was.
Anyhow, the decision whether to expand could take a while, and by this time next year we’ll have another playoff data point. It could easily be another league that gets “screwed” next year, and that will take some of the pressure off the Big XII.
LikeLike
Thoughts:
1. The talk of a lack of a CCG hurting the Big 12 is very short sighted. Let’s not forget that if Alabama or Florida State lost their CCGs, then the SEC/ACC would have lost their represenatives and we’d be saying how a CCG hurt them. Also if one of those two is out and Ohio State wins a close one instead of dominating, then the Big 12 could also have had 2 teams in. The Big 12 lost far more teams to the BCS title bowl than it gained in the BCS era (a stat that would look a lot worse if the ending forumla had been used the first few years as the computers kept a couple CCG loosers in when they had more influence).
2. I agree with Frank that the Big 12 wants to good candidates to emerge.
3. I really don’t think there is any harm in waiting. If they want a CCG a petition will probably now work given the goverence restructure. Even without one, it’s a bad idea to expand unless you are sure on the candidates. Maybe Cincinnati has emerged to place they want it combined with BYU and that makes expansion viable. If they aren’t to that place though just wait. You can always expand later, but choosing the wrong teams now is a lot bigger issue.
LikeLike
To that end, San Diego State will make its fifth consecutive bowl game. The football programs has had at least 8 wins in each of the past five years. Geographically speaking, San Diego is closer to Austin than Morgantown (I $h*t you not. Google map it) with the SDSU campus just a short 20 minute from Lindbergh field.
LikeLike
If the PAC did stay within its current footprint for expansion, SDSU would be a nobrainer. However I think that usc/ucla’s desire to block the so cal market for themselves plus the uc system’s social justice leanings probably mean Fresno State gets an invite first.
LikeLike
No Cal State school will be anything but an affiliate member in a non revenue sport, at least as long as the U C schools are members. And the U C schools were apoplectic about allowing even that.
LikeLike
The odds of the Pac-12 expanding in the next decade are basically zero. The have basically the same set of crappy expansion options as the Big 12, and also don’t have any financial reason at all to expand.
LikeLike
If the PAC did stay within its current footprint for expansion, SDSU would be a nobrainer.
Except for the Big XII adding TCU, no conference has expanded within its footprint. The whole point of expansion, if you expand, is to add territory. TCU was an exception not likely to be replicated. SDSU has had some decent success, but it didn’t win a Rose Bowl, or finish in the top 10 in three consecutive years from 2008-2010, as TCU did.
LikeLike
There is an argument that the Big 12 should go west, not east, and add 2 California schools (San Diego State & Fresno?) instead of looking to UCF & USF. Rather than fighting the ACC, SEC, and everyone else in Florida for attention & recruits, they would only be fighting the Pac 12, which is locked into 2 metro areas in the state of California. This would probably be their best chance to reverse the drop off in recruiting that has happened to the Big 12 since realignment.
There’s two main problems, however. It’s very, very far from West Virginia, and Fox (which shares the rights to both the Big 12 & Pac 12 with ESPN) would be unenthusiastic about trying to divide the West Coast football fans.
LikeLike
Most of the Big 12 is doing better in recruiting, notably Baylor, Oklahoma St. and TCU. Texas and OU aren’t doing as well, but Texas and OU aren’t winning as much as they did, especially Texas.
I tend to agree that USF and UCF are fool’s gold. Its a pretty saturated market for media attention and recruiting. And in reality, I don’t think any Big 12 teams other than WVU or ISU would do significant Florida recruiting even with them in the conference. #4 or #5 in any state, like USF and UCF are, is not a good position to be in.
LikeLike
I’d add the spread to 4 time zones as a major problem.
LikeLike
The potential entry of BYU into the P5 also poses an additional concern regarding player compensation costs. As a result of campus conduct codes, BYU has many players with spouses plus dependents. As a condition for entry, could BYU insist compensation elements be expanded into areas such as disability/surviving spouse payouts, partial financial/housing and tuition aid. ?
LikeLike
From both a long-term and short-term perspective I like BYU and Colorado State for the Big 12. Clearly CSU has to make a good hire to replace McElwain (although a Big12 bid would help that) and they need to get the on-campus stadium built (and readily expandable to 50k+). Cincinnati and UCF are next on the list, with schools like New Mexico, UNLV, Memphis, USF after that and needing to show they can build and sustain success in football (and basketball in USF’s case).
LikeLike
Colorado State has some huge negatives that I don’t think it can overcome. CSU’s new on-campus stadium is probably several years away, and as now conceived, would be the smallest stadium in the league. They’ve had a great year under Jim McElwain, but it remains to be seen if their success can be sustained under the next coach.
I think it’s a practical certainty that the Big XII’s next expansion will include a school in the Eastern time zone, to give West Virginia a nearby rival. In FtT’s Big XII Expansion Index, he gave Cincinnati 90 out of 100 possible points, to 43 points to Colorado State. Now, some of the merits are arguable, but not when they are that far apart. Cincinnati is the better choice in just about every dimension, and obviously there’s no question the Bearcats would accept in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
And Colorado doesn’t generate a lot of viewers. CSU generates less. Denver is a pro sports market.
LikeLike
The serial devaluation of unbeaten FSU*, TCU outranking Baylor and the selection of OSU for the final spot all serve to establish the fact that the committee values accomplishment above all else. Which means that all else being equal a 12-1/11-2 P5 conference champ trumps an 11-1/10-2 Big 12 team every time. Is this something the Big 12 (especially UT and OU) can live with? My guess is no, and with the value of a championship game greater than before (and sort of ridiculous if staged after a playing a round robin schedule) the Big 12 expands sooner rather than later.
* I can’t ever recall an undefeated major conference king falling in both esteem and (especially) rank the way FSU did this year. I was surprised the public seemed to accept it as well as it did.
LikeLike
Bowlsby, after talking to Luck, said it “had a bearing.”
LikeLike
jog267,
“* I can’t ever recall an undefeated major conference king falling in both esteem and (especially) rank the way FSU did this year. I was surprised the public seemed to accept it as well as it did.”
Just because the polls always worked that way doesn’t mean that the fans agreed with it. We just accepted that was the way they worked. If undefeated G5 schools can practically be ignored, why should a P5 school automatically be #1 just for being undefeated. Who you beat and how you win matter to most people.
LikeLike
T. Boone Pickens has been quoted about saying SMU & Memphis are fits. With McMurphy getting news that the B12 will add Cincinnati & Memphis, I think SMU & Rice would be good fits, as Rice will give the Big 12 the athletes that Stanford, Notre Dame & Northwestern along with adding good universities.
Big 12 North
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
Big 12 South
Baylor
Memphis
Rice
SMU
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
It pretty guarantees a trip to Texas every year and they could sign a 5-game scheduling agreement with BYU and start a Big 12 vs. WCC scheduling agreement in other sports if they wanted. But I’ve been an advocate for Cincinnati & Memphis once Louisville was off the table. I think it’s two solid additions and once they get the Big 12 money flowing in, I think they can be breakout star programs.
I also suspect when the contracts for the CFB Playoff can be looked at in 5 years, they’ll move to a 8-team playoff. The Power 5 Conference Champions will get an Automatic bid, along with the top-ranked Group of 5 Conference Champion getting an Automatic bid and 2 at-large bids. It would most likely force the remaining independents to join a conference as well.
LikeLike
I think McMurphy actually said the opposite and there was no expansion planned according to anyone he talked to.
Regardless, I’d say there is about a 0.1% that SMU or Rice would be invited to the Big 12. They don’t need more Texas schools, adding them now does not make the conference sound more appealing, and all in all there are little chance they wouldn’t subtract from the average payouts rather add to it.
LikeLike
SMU, Rice, Tulane are on a collision course with Wake Forest for a “Magnolia League” G5 or FCS conference. Other members might be fcs private schools in the carolinas and stetson. Schools like Emory, Rhodes, Spring Hill might move up divisions for that.
LikeLike
1) Tulane, having just built a new on-campus stadium, is not dropping down to any “Magnolia League”. Neither is SMU.
2) Emory does not play football.
LikeLike
Emory is undefeated in football.
At least that’s what the T-shirts they wear say.
LikeLike
Wash U probably has t-shirts that say “Emory is winless in football”
LikeLike
“Regardless, I’d say there is about a 0.1% that SMU or Rice would be invited to the Big 12. ”
So, you’re saying there’s a chance.
LikeLike
Frank, et al:
What are the odds that the Big 12 looks to add two teams in football only?
BYU would be the obvious candidate for a football only add since they already have a home for non-football sports in the WCC. Plus the We-Won’t-Play-on-Sunday edict won’t be an issue for football. The geography drawback with BYU would be lessoned as well for a football only setup.
Not sure who would be paired with BYU in a football only capacity though. Boise State, if they can find a home for their other sports? Air Force?
Or could they add one school in all sports (Cincinnati, Memphis, whoever) and BYU in football only? 11 members isn’t bad for basketball or non-revenue sports.
I think the Big is battling perception right now as much as anything. They don’t want to be thought of as the “5th” power conference league. It could hurt them in recruiting, in contracts and at the polls.
LikeLike
I wonder if Cinci could get admitted into the new bigEast, if football was invited to the big 12 football only along with BYU? (WV would want the same arrangement)
LikeLike
I wonder if Cinci could get admitted into the new bigEast, if football was invited to the big 12 football only along with BYU? (WV would want the same arrangement)
As Arch Stanton noted, the Big XII has no reason not to invite Cincinnati in all sports, if they get invited at all. Odd numbers aren’t a problem in the other sports.
I doubt that the new Big East wants anything to do with schools that play FBS football, given that conference’s history, and Cincinnati is not a cultural fit.
And if WV dropped down to football-only, where would its other sports go? (The Big East doesn’t want them either.)
LikeLike
One thing I find amusing is that margin of victory is the basis of all the CFP arguments, but everyone cried that “the BCS computers” shouldn’t use MOV as it encourages running up the score. TCU and OSU sure ran it up this week.
ESPN cfb podcast reported that “the BCS computers” would have come up with the same top 4, but in different order. FSU would have been #1.
LikeLike
Technically the committee wasn’t allowed to consider MOV either. They could use relative scoring stats, though.
As for running it up this week, I think both TCU and OSU could’ve scored more if they wanted to do so. OSU only attempted 6 passes in the second half and was using it’s 3rd string RB in the second half of the 4th quarter. We were already on our 3rd string QB, so we couldn’t really pull him. TCU called off the dogs in the 4th quarter and pulled their starters. They made no attempt to score when they got deep in the red zone late in the 4th.
LikeLike
One poster above referenced having a play-in game. I thought of a having a mandatory Big XII champ versus NonP5 qualifier in the same schedule spot as the CCGs – the preposterous (Pre-Postseason) game.
Yesterday, a certain school might have interest in such a concept, in light of it not being in a conference, much less having a conference championship game.
Down the road, Notre Dame could find themselves in the same predicament as TCU and Baylor if the Irish are in contention. Notre Dame has no opportunity for a 13th game since they are unaffiliated with a conference. While Notre Dame typically plays a tough schedule, they must hope those teams are strong in the years they meet the Irish. Also, Notre Dame will need the ACC to bolster their play on the field since the Irish will play five ACC teams per year.
If Notre Dame goes undefeated, they should be in the playoff no questions asked. However, where the Irish should be worried is what if they are 11-1? For instance, a Notre Dame team that was 11-1 with their only loss being to a six-loss team would probably not make the playoff this year.
Head coach Brian Kelly mentioned in his bowl press conference how this is a “fluid situation” and he will talk with athletics director Jack Swarbrick to make sure Notre Dame is making the right decisions with regards to scheduling. After the first year of the selection committee process, the Irish should be worried about what it will take for them to reach the playoff in the upcoming years.
LikeLike
Source: Patrick Leiva Rant Sports, http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/2014/12/08/notre-dame-should-be-concerned-over-college-football-playoff-selection-committee-process/
LikeLike
After the first year of the selection committee process, the Irish should be worried about what it will take for them to reach the playoff in the upcoming years.
These concerns seem to me over-blown based on one year of data. Baylor was #5, but they were hurt by a double whammy. They didn’t have a CCG, and their non-conference schedule was really weak. With the schedule ND plays, if they’re 11-1, I think they are highly likely to make the playoff, as long as their loss doesn’t come too late in the season.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 were to add Cincinnati and Memphis, they could split into north and south divisions with Oklahoma State going to the north and Memphis in the south. Stillwater is actually further north than Memphis. Of course, in order to keep the Bedlam rivalry going, a team would be required to play the same respective inter-divisional opponent each season (i.e. – SEC). For example, Texas would play West Virginia each year, Oklahoma would play Oklahoma State every year, and so on. We could even have the two perennial basketball powers (Kansas and Memphis) play each year on the gridiron. The conference would actually be somewhat competitively balanced if it looked like this:
North Division South Division
West Virginia……………………………Texas
Oklahoma State……………………….Oklahoma
Kansas State……………………………Baylor
Cincinnati………………………………..TCU
Iowa State……………………………….Texas Tech
Kansas……………………………………Memphis
Any thoughts? Frank the Tank — what do you think?
LikeLike
I’d swap out K-State and I-A state for TCU and Memphis, becoming more E-W, so that the eastern schools have a recruting touchstone in both the Dallas and Mississippi/Memphis metro areas.
LikeLike
Under the hypothetical situation that those two teams were added and the divisions were divided as such, there is no reason to have any of those cross-over rivalry games each year other than OU-OSU.
Not one of them is compelling or preserves any tradition.
The Big Ten protects the Indiana-Purdue cross-over only, the Big 12 could do the same with Okie and Okie State.
LikeLike
I don’t know how many Big XII members have to approve an expansion. If I’m OKSt, KState, Kansas, or ISU, I am very unhappy with those divisions, with the implied loss of access to the state of Texas.
LikeLike
Maybe Bullet can opine as to having all Texas schools in one conference and if the non-TX schools would vote for that. Might be hard to do.
I would assume Cincy, Memphis, and West Va. would be in the same division, and possibly Iowa State in that division, too.
Maybe this (which would right now be rather unbalanced):
WV
Cincy
Memphis
Iowa State
Kansas State (rival with ISU)
Okie State
Texas
Oklahoma
Baylor
TCU
Tx Tech
Kansas
If Texas schools get split up, Id expect Texas and TCU to be in separate divisions (to guarantee other schools one game against a bigger market Texas school)
LikeLike
I’d actually go with the following set up assuming Cincinnati and Memphis are added:
EAST
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Memphis
Cincinnati
West Virginia
WEST
Iowa State
Kansas State
Kansas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
Texas and Oklahoma will want to be in the same division so any scenario where they are split isn’t going to happen. Oklahoma State will also have to be in the same division as Oklahoma. An all southwest division will lead to imbalanced divisions, so you have to split up the Texas teams. I think you have to keep Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State in one division since they share a long history together. At the same time, having three Texas teams in their division increases their ability to recruit Texas and overcome their respective lack of in state talent, which is the weakest of any team in the league. (West Virginia doesn’t produce much talent, but they can also go into neighboring Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia). On the other side, UC, WVU, and Memphis would not need Texas as much for recruiting. They also have no history with the rest of the league and are in relatively close proximity to each other. All of the primary rivalries are preserved without the need for locked cross over games, so you could have an 8 game schedule and play everyone home and home 50% of the time. Or you could go to 9 and play everyone more frequently. You could argue that Texas would want to play Tech, TCU, and Baylor every year, but for UT these are all secondary rivals at best. Both divisions are balanced. OU and UT are the power brands and ratings drivers, but the WEST has TCU, Baylor, and Kansas State to counterbalance and offer up a potential championship game with highly ranked teams.
LikeLike
I just don’t think you can put Texas and Oklahoma in the same division, especially with all the Texas schools too. That’s both kings and the best recruiting ground all together. There would be a few years the other division was better, the but the Texas/Oklahoma division would recieve far more media attention even when they were equal and would have a lot easier time thriving. This is magnified much more for the Big 12 now than it is in the Big Ten West now or was in the Big 12 North (which at least still had Nebraska).
LikeLike
Bowl swag list. Never thought of the tax implications in the new Bahamas Bowl
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/12/05/Colleges/Bowl-gifts.aspx
LikeLike
To follow up on Alan’s posts, someone on ShaggyBevo compiled TV ratings through the end of November using Sports Media Watch. His numbers by conference for games on major networks (don’t know his definition of that term):
Conf. Avg rating /viewers/#games/Avg. viewers
SEC / 2.6 / 211.0 / 50 / 4.2
ACC / 2.1 / 120.5 / 36 / 3.3
B10 / 2.0 / 154.0 / 48 / 3.2
B12 / 2.0 / 85.1 / 27 / 3.2
PAC / 1.6 / 98.2 / 38 / 2.6
I’m guessing he included the late night Pac games on ESPN which didn’t have good ratings. FSU was the school that topped viewership.
LikeLike
And to think, the SEC could have had FSU (and its gangbuster TV ratings) if it really wanted.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Completely agree that basketball schools with established fan bases have potential to use football success to improve realignment prospects. However, it takes not mere “competence” for schools like Memphis/UConn/New Mex, etc…, it would take TCU levels of sustained success and some major bowl/playoff wins and some luck to move up. TCU, since 1998, is 156-55. It has produced superstar players, major bowl wins (including the Rose)–and still only got into the B12 by sheer dumb luck (conference needed a Texas team, it was the best one available). Utah got in to the Pac primarily due to its market location in SLC, and its serious football success (the original BCS Buster I believe, 2 total BCS bowls).
Those basketball schools you mentioned have serious potential (as well as the second state school in some growing states, like Colorado State), but they would normally need more than one-off winning seasons and appearances in minor bowls to get it done. Memphis may get lucky if the B12 decides expansion is immediately necessary, but we’re only talking about Cincy as a lock because of the school’s football run (and back to back BCS bowl appearances) a few years back. Memphis, if it gets invited to the B12 would be an exception to the rule requiring major football success to get a promotion. Indeed this was Memphis’ first 9 win season since 2004, and first winning seasons since like 2007 (a 7 win season).Indeed, if Memphis wins its bowl game this year, it will be its FIRST EVER double digit win season.
Memphis’ wild card is Fred Smith, FedEx CEO, multi-billionaire, Memphis resident. If he wants to go all T Boone Pickens on the school and promise the conference millions in generous sponsorships and such, that could very well trump Memphis’ pedestrian football program.
LikeLike
Using that logic, following Cincinnati, then it is
Boise State (1.75* BCS since 2006), though maybe Shea McLellin should count against them somehow.
followed by BYU; the Cougars would be higher, but their MNC was 30 years ago, cemented against a then 6-5 mediocre Michigan team, steady if not spectular winning since then, decent collegegiate star power and NFL output at QB, DL, LB, OL (give them a demographic pass for skill positions, if you will).
LikeLike
Yes, and if you look, Boise was Big East bound before the league died on the basis of its football success, and managed to get a special deal from the MWC to return. BYU got a tv deal from ESPN that allowed it to go independent in football. Boise on the strength of recent football success, BYU the bigger name based on a national title in the ESPN era, a Heisman winner, and overall consistent success since then.
Strictly in terms of football success, setting all other factors aside, the strongest candidates are probably Cincy and Boise. Factoring in things like markets, geography, basketball, academics, etc., Boise probably gets dropped a few notches, definitely below BYU.
LikeLike
BYU has a fanatical national following based on religious affiliation that is absolutely, positively, guaranteed never to disappear. If Boise has a few 6-6 seasons, their popularity would tank.
LikeLike
Just think, if it were an 8 team playoff, we’d be debating the merits of Michigan State, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State for the 7 and 8 seed.
LikeLike
That’s absolutely true, but the stakes are a lot lower when you’re debating “Who’s #8?” than “Who’s #4?”
LikeLike
Oh, totally agree. I was going for “faux-excitement”, which does not translate well on message boards.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Yes, that’s correct. That has always been tension in college football – how many teams “deserve” to be in the championship discussion and what the heck does “deserve” even mean? As long as there aren’t auto-bids for at least the 5 power conference champs (which inherently means that we would need a playoff field larger than 4 teams), the latter question will invariably come up every single year. I understand some of the romanticism of retaining this model and the focus on the horse race starting from week one of the season, but for most people, there’s a much larger crime when a “deserving” team is locked out of a playoff field that is structurally too small compared to allowing in an “undeserving team” for the last spot or two in a larger playoff.
LikeLike
In an 8-team playoff, the rankings might matter a lot more. Then you would have the “unfairness” of Alabama being #1 and playing Gof5 team, while whomever is #2 gets to play an 11-1 P5 team that dropped to #7.
LikeLike
A playoff should have qualifiers, not auto bids. Yes, I realize that 5+ doesn’t go into four. And some “feel” they “deserve” more than one entrant, but conference champ as a requirement would reduce much of the unquantifiable arguments to which conference champ gets left out.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I guess that’s my core issue: why should any power conference champ get left out due to unquantifiable arguments? The ONLY thing that schools (outside of independents) can 100% control on-the-field is whether it wins its conference championship. That’s it. It can’t control the rankings. It can’t control the strength of its conference. Even further, it can’t really control its non-conference strength of schedule (or at least guarantee that it has a good slate from year-to-year). Football isn’t like basketball where schools can fairly easily adjust their non-conference strength of schedule from year-to-year. Florida State got criticized for supposedly “not playing anybody” and they had a non-conference schedule of Notre Dame, Florida and Oklahoma State! There’s no one on this planet that could have predicted several years ago when this year’s schedule was coming together that Florida State would have been better off playing Mississippi State and Minnesota! Now, you can guarantee yourself a *weak* non-conference schedule like Baylor did this year, but it was clear that FSU had every intent to have an insanely difficult non-conference schedule this past year and look what happened.
I’m not a proponent of an NCAA Tournament-style open access football playoff, but I’ve never bought the argument that an 8-team playoff was anything close to that. There should be some mechanism where at least some of the field objectively gets into the playoff purely based on what was done on-the-field as opposed to style points, how the strength of schedule happened to turn out this past season, etc. The unquantifiable arguments should be left to decipher among those few schools that didn’t win their conference or independents.
At the same time, though, if you’re only going to have a 4-team playoff, then all that people are doing by attempting to impose a conference champ qualifier in that system is trying to be a “little bit pregnant”. Either all power champs should be in or there shouldn’t be a mandate for them because schools like Notre Dame (whether we like it or not) still exist and the powers that be (which includes the power conference commissioners and ESPN) would rather have 1000 Notre Dames in the playoff than a Group of 5 school that gets in because of a conference champion rule. Once you go down that road, then Notre Dame also shouldn’t actually get *preference* over a school like Mississippi State that happened to be stuck in the toughest division in the country. The only way that you can treat everyone equally in a 4-team playoff is to remove any mandates for conference champions (even though they should certainly receive preferential treatment). The analysis shifts quite a bit in an 8-team playoff since that means all 5 power conference champs can be automatically accommodated.
LikeLike
but how many games is too many for college kids to play each season?
15 games? 16 games? 17 games? Where does it stop?
LikeLike
But automatic qualification does not necessarily reward a body of work as much as a body of one game. If Mizzou had knocked off Alabama, it deserves the SEC spot in a playoff simply because of its division? (Mizzou chosen because its the lowest ranked division winner–not trying to troll anyone)?
Automatic qualifiers will create situations where wholly undeserving teams will get a shot at the title. Its not exactly working in the NFL this year (potential 6-10 NFC South winner hosting a playoff game? yikes.) In an 8 team playoff, the stakes of that undeserving team competing are far greater than when an otherwise unqualified MBB team gets hot and wins a conference tourney.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – To answer your question in the first paragraph, YES. The conference championship game in and of itself IS a playoff game in that scenario (just as the NCAA Tournament rewards conference tournament champions but not regular season champs). That’s why I don’t understand a lot of consternation of an “undeserving” team winning a conference championship game where people have this fear about a survive-and-advance playoff game letting an “undeserving” team into… more survive-and-advance playoff games.
Look – my whole view on an 8-team playoff is that it’s not a zero sum proposition. There should be auto slots where every power conference team (whether it’s Alabama or Wake Forest) has 100% control on-the-field whether it gets into the playoff. Then there should also be a small less-than-a-handful of slots for those “deserving” teams that aren’t conference champs. Sure, having a crappy NFC South-type division winner sneak in might cause some heartburn on some level, but the thing is that it was still 100% determined on-the-field with 100% objective criteria that everyone agreed to and isn’t dependent upon the opinions of how 12 random people sitting in a room in Irving, Texas are swaying on a particular day.
There are two countervailing interests in any postseason format (or even if we were in an old school poll system without any championship game): (1) the transparency of the system to determine a champion and (2) the desirability of the outcome of that determination. A lot of new school fans value the former over the latter (“If it’s not determined on-the-field with every single possible conference champ involved, then it’s a complete sham”), whereas many traditional fans believe the latter takes precedence over the former (“All I care about is seeing the best team being crowned using whatever criteria that I deem to be most important”). You can have a 100% transparent system, yet have undesirable outcomes (i.e. the NFC South example that you gave). You can also have a completely non-transparent system and have desirable outcomes (i.e. many national champions crowned by pollsters in the pre-BCS era).
So, what’s more important? Transparency of the system or the outcome of such system? Being the measured person that I like to believe that I am, I think that there’s got to be a balance between the two, which is why I feel an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the 5 power conference champs has been the optimal model for a long time. That would balance transparency (where 5 teams that would get into the playoff completely on-the-field without any types of rankings or opinions involved) with a reasonably desirable outcome (i.e. we’re not trying to pretend that the Sun Belt champ has any business automatically having a chance at the national championship). A 16-team playoff with auto-bids for all conference champs would actually be more transparent, but the outcome is so much less desirable (at least IMHO) that it ought to be rejected. By the same token, if all that someone values is the outcome, then he/she is willing to shift criteria from year-to-year (or even week-to-week) in order to implement a self-fulfilling prophecy, which (once again, IMHO) isn’t should be how a champion ought to be determined, either.
LikeLike
Further to my last point, when push comes to shove, I believe that transparency ultimately has to be valued over the outcome. The college football power structure has complete control over how transparent it wants its postseason system to be (or not be). Ultimately, though, it can’t try to force certain outcomes because it’s impossible to predict what might transpire in a given season. The whole reason why so many fans have gotten angry about the college football postseason system over the years is that there were too many seasons where the process was BOTH non-transparent AND had an undesirable outcome (i.e. multiple teams with an argument for the national title). You can’t control an undesirable outcome, but shame on the powers that be if they can’t put into place a transparent system.
LikeLike
Right on, Frank, If you win one of the Power 5 conferences, you should be in the playoff, even if you’re not one of the “brand names.” (However, I would not lock in conferences for the first round; if an 8-4 team somehow wins its conference, seed it eighth, no matter which conference it represents.) I sense most of the opposition for this 8-game playoff format comes from fans of the teams of the “usual suspects.”
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Further to my last point, when push comes to shove, I believe that transparency ultimately has to be valued over the outcome.”
I’d argue the exact opposite. Transparency is nice, but getting the correct outcome is paramount. If you get the outcome wrong, no amount of transparency remedies that. If you get the outcome correct, the transparency doesn’t matter all that much.
I’ll agree that it’s easier to control transparency than outcome, but that doesn’t make transparency more valuable than the outcome.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12003942/picturing-year-college-football-playoff-eight-teams
1. AL vs 8. MSU – Saban’s current school versus his old one. First coach to smile loses.
4. OSU vs 5. Baylor – first one to 70 wins
2. OR vs 7. MS St – P12 vs SEC, but not the match-up the fans really want.
3. FSU vs 6. TCU – let’s see what FSU’s D can do against a real offense
I’d predict:
AL > MSU, but close
OSU > Baylor, because OSU plays some D
OR > MS St, because Mariota > Prescott
TCU > FSU, because FSU hasn’t faced many top teams and you can’t fall behind TCU and win without a lot of luck
Semis:
OSU > AL, because I’m biased (and AL’s D isn’t quite as elite as usual against the top offenses)
OR > TCU, because Mariota is that good
OSU > OR, because I’m biased
LikeLike
1: everyone in the big12 leadership is being roasted for the lack of the Louisville invite last time around. UL, UC, and WVU would have been great for B12, but “the state of Texas” got in the way.
2. Everyone in the B12 leadership knows one super member is leaving in 4-7 years. So there is a big push to 14 members, but the problem is besides cincy there arent any good targets.
3. I believe that Cincy would take a entry plans ala UNL but a couple years longer. But what other targets are there? Memphis is out of the question even though it is in the perfect territory. so BSU, NIU, UCF, and Arkansas. Maybe if you were desperate UCONN.
Conclusion: Take the two best now for the B12, Cincy and wildcard. Then pick up any G5 team that comes up in the next 5 years because either OU or KU is going to be picked up by SEC/B1G soonish. Tulane becoming the next Stanford is the best case scenario, and BYU is the best national option.
LikeLike
cookiemonster,
“2. Everyone in the B12 leadership knows one super member is leaving in 4-7 years.”
They do? Despite a GoR that lasts longer than that? OU will willing leave UT behind? KU can leave KSU behind (because nobody wants KSU)? These schools are willing to risk being responsible for the collapse of the B12?
LikeLike
“Then pick up any G5 team that comes up in the next 5 years because either OU or KU is going to be picked up by SEC/B1G soonish.”
Are you saying that there will be a “have it your way” CCG format in the near future, hence the SEC or B1G need only 1 and not 2 expansion target(s) – perhaps 3 “5-paks” for scheduling purposes?
LikeLike
I think a “have it your way” CCG format is pretty likely. But I don’t think it’s driving expansion. As it is, the B1G’s last two additions have been greeted with a lot of skepticism. Any team you add means that more of the traditional pairings can’t happen as often (e.g., OSU/Illinois, Little Brown Jug).
At this point, it would need to be pretty compelling for the B1G to add another team. Obviously, CCG de-regulation would create the opportunity to add just one, which right now they’re highly unlikely to do. (I won’t say it’s impossible, since the MAC has differently-sized divisions, but it’s awkward.)
LikeLike
Frank should do some monday morning reallignment quarterbacking one of these posts.
What if the ACC had brought in UCF and USF instead of Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and BC?
What is C-USA thinking with such a geographically dispersed league?
What is the benefit for G5 teams of a more spread out 12 or 14 team league as opposed to a geographically compact 8 or 10 team league?
LikeLike
Why would the B1G have any desire to expand beyond 14?
At 14 with a 9 game schedule, we still meet out of division opponents fairly often.
At 16 you may as well be two separate conferences with an out of conference
scheduling arrangement.
LikeLike
Unless you use pod scheduling, in which case 16 works fine.
LikeLike
Pods would work much more easily if the ACC/Big 12 get their wish for no restrictions on the CCG.
Instead of having to create 2 divisions every year by locking up 2 pods into a division, you could instead just treat each pod as 3 locked teams that each school in the pod has to play while liberating the remainder of the schedule. Then just take the top 2 pod winners for the CCG.
LikeLike
But making up 2 divisions works fine with pods. It only has to last for 1 season. The problem with treating pods as divisions is the inequity in scheduling making the selection of the top 2 pod champs unfair.
If you don’t need divisions, then you don’t need pods. Just lock 2 or 3 or 4 rivals for each team and rotate the rest every year.
LikeLike
Why would the B1G have any desire to expand beyond 14?
Any further expansion would need to be extremely compelling, either a geographical win (UVA+UNC) or adding at least one king program, preferably two (Texas/Oklahoma). As Brian has noted, the scheduling gets a lot easier if you can play a CCG without divisions or pods.
Mind you, I am not suggesting that UNC would be the one to detonate the ACC, or that the Big Ten presidents would accept a non-AAU king like Oklahoma. I’m just suggesting that they are not likely to take another “project” like Rutgers. They’re not interested in any more ground-rule doubles.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Any further expansion would need to be extremely compelling, either a geographical win (UVA+UNC) or adding at least one king program, preferably two (Texas/Oklahoma).”
Agreed, the acceptable pool is rapidly shrinking. Once the new TV deal starts, very few schools will bring sufficient value to justify expansion. 14 is too many, anyway.
“Mind you, I am not suggesting that UNC would be the one to detonate the ACC, or that the Big Ten presidents would accept a non-AAU king like Oklahoma. I’m just suggesting that they are not likely to take another “project” like Rutgers. They’re not interested in any more ground-rule doubles.”
It would be interesting to see Frank do another expansion index for the B10 and see how various schools score now. Having gotten an east coast foothold for demographics and markets, have UVA and UNC lost or gained luster as choices? What about UT, KU and OU since the B10 moved east?
LikeLike
The ACC has two Florida schools. No way that FSU and Miami would ever allow the addition of more FL schools. Considering how important FSU is to the ACC, I would imagine that they would have a total veto over UCF or USF
LikeLike
Go Bucks. Beat Bama.
LikeLike
NHL takes a baby step towards potential expansion/relocation to Vegas:
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/12000986/nhl-allows-potential-las-vegas-team-owner-right-conduct-season-ticket-drive
LikeLike
BYU has always been ridiculous and is ridiculous still. They aren’t Texas, and even Texas doesn’t get to declare they won’t play one day a week. (Think about future years’ bowl games or playoffs – I could see networks want to use both Saturday and Sunday if the playoffs expand to 8).
LikeLike
“I could see networks want to use both Saturday and Sunday if the playoffs expand to 8).”
Sunday, against the NFL (either regular season or playoffs)? No.
LikeLike
Seriously? It’s a religious objection. I’m willing to give them that.
For the rare occasion that BYU is in the top eight (you can check, it hasn’t happened all that often), I think they could find a way to schedule them without using Sundays.
LikeLike
It’s not football on Sundays that’s the issue. It’s all the other sports. B12 won’t change baseball, basketball, tennis, track, swimming, etc, etc, schedules for a single school.
LikeLike
BYU is one of the best expansion candidates the Big XII could hope to attract. If they accept an invite, you figure out a way around Sunday scheduling. BYU has been in conferences before. It is not that hard to solve.
LikeLike
BYU’s conference has accepted their requirements in the past. Would the B12? Could BYU retain all the rights they currently are granted by ESPN?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I never really bought the belief that BYU isn’t in the Big 12 due to TV rights issues. Out of anyone that could understand having a school TV network, it would be Texas. Believe me – BYU wants to get into the Big 12 *badly* and TV rights won’t get in the way. They aren’t in the Big 12 today only because the conference chose not to expand to 12 outright.
LikeLike
To change the subject a little……..what do you guys think of Neb’s hiring of Mike Riley? To me, it seems like a rather odd choice. 93-80 overall at OSU, 40-32 in the CFL, 14-34 in the NFL….and 61 years old…….Seems to me to be the old tactic of hiring a coach who’s not like the one you just fired….that is, if the O sucks, hire a D coach. If the D sucks, hire an O coach. In this case, hire Mr. Nice Guy because Bo was an asshole. Just don’t see a huge upside with this guy. And I understand that Tom Osborne wasn’t even consulted…..which seems dumb even if you don’t REALLY want his input….at least make a show of seeking it……
Now I understand Nebraska is not Michigan, OSU, Florida, or Alabama as far as potential HCs are concerned……..but this looks more like an Illinois or Iowa level hire……I don’t understand hiring a 61 year old at a “destination” job…..hire the brightest young-and-upcoming 40 year old you can find, and hope he’s there 20 yrs, imo. Thoughts?
LikeLike
Nebraska without its built in links to Texas and years away from its storied past is not a destination job anymore. I would add the caveat “with solid recruiting links to football-rich areas” to your particular set of qualifications. It may have been worth it to wait a week. Dan Mullen would have been worth a swing and miss. Too bad Arizona didnt upset the Ducks, you would have had a better shot at Scott Frost. And though he’s a MAC head coach, NIU’s Rod Carey may have been worth a look too. I think Nebraska panicked and went with the nice guy who could maybe recruit California and some lower star Alabamians.
LikeLike
Nebraska was better before they had all the Texas links. That’s not essential for them, just nice.
LikeLike
Scott Frost would take the Nebraska job any time it was offered. I don’t think he was considered by the AD as it again goes back to “hire the opposite of the guy we just fired”. Pelini was a DC with no head coaching experience when he was hired at Nebraska. They wanted someone who had been a head coach already.
I don’t know how they ended up with Riley, but he must have been pretty high up on the list considering that Pelini was fired Sunday and the Chancellor gave an interview in which he stated that he and the AD met with Riley on Tuesday in San Francisco.
LikeLike
Pelini was actually assembling a good recruiting class (easily the best in the B10 West) before he was canned. So no, UNL isn’t going to get in to the top 10 in recruiting; but they virtually never did even when they were winning national titles under Osborne either.
LikeLike
I agree with your line of thinking in terms of questioning whether Mike Riley can really bring Nebraska to the point where they can challenge Ohio State perennially. He’s basically been a lesser Bill Snyder for Oregon State.
As far as overall upside goes when compared to Bo Pelini, I don’t think he has much in terms of the average expected wins he can achieve at Nebraska by comparison.
But it’s worth taking a chance on seeing whether he can at least bring them to the point where they can put together a 12 win campaign every 3 or 4 years, which was something Bo Pelini couldn’t do. That’s really the kind of program that Nebraska should be. I don’t think they have the recruiting ability that Ohio State (or Penn State/Michigan with the right coach) has where they can put together rosters that should win 11+ games every single year without exception.
The problem with Bo is you knew exactly what you were getting from him: 3rd or 4th best team in the conference, 9-10 wins a year, 3-4 losses per year; 2+ embarrassing blowouts every year, but almost always beating the <0.500 teams on the schedule.
Beyond the obvious temperament issues which Riley won't have, it's worth taking a shot and seeing if Riley's results won't be so consistently average. I'm sure Nebraska fans would be okay with 3 <11 win years if it came with a 12 win year every 4th year.
To me, that's my take on this situation, Riley is probably going to average a similar # of overall wins to Bo, but it'll come without the sideline behavior and possibly might include the odd year or two with a real playoff push.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting argument whether Nebraska is a “destination job”. My sense is that it’s: A) More of a destination than most non-Nebraska fans think; but, B) Less of one than most Huskers think.
Brand names in sports are extremely durable, and I think there are plenty of up-and-comers who’d consider the Nebraska job a step up, even if they’d struggle to reproduce the heyday of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.
They chose Riley in something like four days, which suggests their search didn’t go very deep. Riley’s not a bad coach, but he’s 61, which means even in the best possible case you’re going to be doing this again ina few years. I could imagine choosing him as a credible last resort, but not after four days.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12000860/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-says-no-big-12-title-game-had-bearing-cfp-exclusion
The B12 isn’t going to expand just to add a CCG. They might require a P5 OOC game, though.
Bowlsby said his recent remark that he would have voted for TCU for the playoff was more about believing the Horned Frogs were better positioned to stay ahead of Ohio State in the rankings and not a slight at Baylor.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12002638/an-oral-history-college-football-playoff
An oral history of how we got to a playoff in CFB according to the men that should know.
LikeLike
Good article.
Noone outside Alabama thought Auburn was one of the top two in 2004. Despite all the talk about Auburn, maybe it got the SEC on board, but nothing changed until Scott and Neinas took over their conferences, the BE fell apart and ESPN pushed the disastrous (for ratings and credibility) LSU/Alabama rematch in 2011.
Delany fought the playoff tooth and nail, but his expansion that changed the leadership of the Big 12 and eventually destroyed the Big East provided the votes for the playoff.
LikeLike
5/6 big 10 volleyball teams advance past first round. Only MSU lost, to #1 Stanford. OSU beat #13 UK.
LikeLike
OSU’s OC Tom Herman won the Broyle’s award as the best assistant coach. Not too surprising considering what he did with Barrett replacing Miller and then Jones replacing Barrett.
LikeLike
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/?s=61
The B10 is officially the underdog in all 10 of its bowl games. In other words, don’t expect a strong bowl record. Still, every win will be an upset.
LikeLike
SEC is favorite in 9 of 12 and all but 1 of those by at least 5 points. They are slight dogs in WVU/A&M, TCU/Ole Miss and Miami/SC.
Interesting how big an underdog the Big 10 is in most of those games.
LikeLike
I’ve gone back and forth over the past couple days over whether the Big 12 should do anything… and I think the status quo is the safest option for them in the near-term.
There’s no reason to make any knee-jerk reaction to year 1 of this 12 year 4-team playoff cycle, especially given how stable the current conference configurations are at the moment with grants of rights and such.
In another 3-4 years, we’ll have enough results to paint a picture of where this is going and what if anything the Big 12 lacks vis-a-vis the other conferences with respect to the playoff picture.
LikeLike
When you have five major conferences and four playoff spots, someone is going to lose every year. I see no reason to think it will always be the Big XII. What’s more, even if they expand, there would still be one conference left out every year.
And in some scenarios, the Big XII benefits by not having a championship game. There’s an element of luck in sports. If FSU had lost any of the games they only just barely won, and Michigan had not collapsed in the 4th quarter vs. Ohio State, the Big XII might have put two teams into the playoff. Bowlsby would’ve looked like a genius; Swofford and Delaney would be facing the tough questions this week.
Beyond that, I think revenue and scheduling issues would dominate the expansion issue for the Big XII.
LikeLike
Detroit writer makes the case against Ohio St.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/drew-sharp/2014/12/07/college-football-playoff-ohio-state-baylor-tcu-drew-sharp/20064369/
Its interesting. Should Alabama run over Ohio St., Baylor run over Michigan St. and TCU beat Ole Miss (Alabama’s only loss), it could make the committee look bad. I imagine they are holding their breath hoping Ohio St. looks good. I don’t think its a good matchup for them and I think its the best matchup Alabama could hope for. A 3rd string QB is not what you prefer to expose Alabama’s secondary. You aren’t going to run through their line.
LikeLike
I disagree with the Detroit writer on quite a few counts.
The writer believes that if you relied on football metrics alone, OSU should not have been in the top four. Therefore, he concludes that the committee must have selected OSU for TV ratings and fan travel.
This is simply wrong. Although it is a close call, there are plenty of metrics by which OSU had the better resume. Granted, there were decent arguments for Baylor and TCU, too. But OSU’s credentials are strong enough that there is no reason to believe anything shady went on.
The committee can’t be expected to predict the outcome of games that haven’t happened yet. If all the favorites win their bowl games (i.e., Alabama, Baylor, and TCU), it will not mean that the committee made the wrong choice.
LikeLike
Well, Drew Sharp is probably one of the most (if not actually #1) anti-Big Ten guys in the country even though he’s based out of Detroit. It’s his schtick.
He has Ohio State 7th and Michigan State 13th with Wisconsin/Nebraska unranked in his final ballot.
He’s pretty much known for being more anti-Big Ten than writers stationed outside of the Big Ten footprint that are anti-Big Ten.
Any Michigan/Michigan State fan can tell you that. It’s hard to really take anything he says seriously considering that he’s basically been saying the same things since 2006.
LikeLike
If you want actual proof that Drew Sharp is basically a troll not to be taken seriously, here: http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/detroit-free-press-writer-votes-ohio-state-8-in-ap-poll.html
He’s basically a message board type masquerading with a bigger platform than he deserves.
LikeLike
Yes, and he isn’t biased at all working for a Detroit paper. He’s self-avowed anti-B10 too. From his twitter bio: Author of the hit tune, Ohhhhhhhhh…The Big Ten Sucks.
Let’s examine his logic:
The 12-person College Football Playoff selection committee ultimately caved to the pressures of promoting television ratings and priming the pump for more advertising dollars.
Pressure from whom? Nobody else was in the room. And I’m supposed to believe people like Osborne, Alvarez and Condi Rice worried about a little pressure? It’s not like they get paid to be on the committee and nobody is going to take their jobs away based on their CFP vote. And why would they care about the money? They don’t get any of it.
The committee didn’t care that most of the available performance metrics ranked the 12-1 Buckeyes’ overall body of work lower than 11-1 Big 12 cochampions TCU and Baylor. The Buckeyes didn’t have as many quality wins as TCU and Baylor and were burdened with the worst loss of the three.
There’s no argument about the worst loss, but 7-5 WV isn’t that much better than 6-6 VT.
“Most” of the available metrics? Is there a complete list of them somewhere? I’ve seen several on each side. And how is he weighing championship status in this, since that was an explicit metric they were supposed to use when ranking similar teams?
Quality wins? What qualifies for that?
Ranked teams:
OSU – @ #8, neutral vs #18, @ #25
TCU – home vs #11, home vs #25
Baylor – home vs #5, home vs #11
3 > 2, correct?
I showed the numbers for total games, I-A games, teams with winning records and bowl eligible teams, and OSU leads in all of those as well.
8 win teams (I-AA don’t count)?
OSU – 4
TCU – 3
Baylor – 3
As far as I can tell, he’s factually wrong here or he has an idiosyncratic definition of quality win.
Ohio State is in because of its name. That’s all.
Even you have to admit that a solid case can be made for OSU. That’s more than Sharp can manage here.
Selection committee chairman Jeff Long lauded the strength of the Buckeyes’ schedule for having beaten nine bowl-eligible teams. But if those wins are against Big Ten teams incapable of regularly winning bowl games (Did I mention that .298 bowl winning percentage?), then how impressive is that accomplishment?
Not all bowl games are equal. Look at the match-ups the B10 regularly has. Most other conferences don’t try to challenge themselves as much as the B10 has historically. As I noted earlier, the B10 is the underdog in all 10 of its bowl games this year. The B10 team is often lower ranked and/or has a worse record than its opponent in a bowl because B10 teams bring attendance and TV ratings. And losing a bowl game doesn’t change the fact that you won at least 6 games that year. Besides, since the bowls haven’t been played yet this year I don’t see how bowl history is relevant to deciding how good teams are this season.
Long also credited Ohio State’s 59-point annihilation of Wisconsin in the Big Ten championship game with third-string quarterback Cardale Jones making his first start as a testament to its overall strength. But shouldn’t that have made the Buckeyes’ home loss to barely bowl-eligible Virginia Tech even worse because now you can’t use second-string quarterback J.T. Barrett’s inexperience as an excuse?
And the new RB and the 4 new OL? Game 2 is different than game 13 for them.
But the biggest sham was that Long blatantly rewarded the Big Ten over the Big 12 for a 13th game that the Big 12 didn’t have and was apparently told last year that it didn’t need.
He may not like it, but that doesn’t change the fact that OSU played and won that game. The committee was charged with evaluating their entire resumes, not just the parts Drew Sharp wants them to consider.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told ESPN today that playoff officials assured him that the lack of an extra conference championship game wouldn’t devalue the league champion’s overall body of work. As a result, Bowlsby said the conference didn’t petition the NCAA for a special waiver from the rule prohibiting stand-alone championship games in conferences with fewer than 12 teams.
The lack of the game didn’t devalue their work. The CCG did increase the value of OSU’s body of work, though. It gave OSU another quality win away from home. If they want to blame something, blame their OOC schedules:
OSU – UC, VT, @Navy, Kent St
TCU – MN, SMU, I-AA
Baylor – Buffalo, SMU, I-AA
Those games are part of what made the difference.
LikeLike
I can make a better case against OSU in just one sentence: Late in the season, at OSU, Indiana played OSU to a standstill for 3 quarters.
LikeLike
I can make a better case against OSU in just one sentence: Late in the season, at OSU, Indiana played OSU to a standstill for 3 quarters.
Well, this is the age-old question of whether style points count. FSU repeatedly just barely won over mediocre opposition, but the bottom line was 13-0. By most so-called “advanced football” measures, FSU was not a top-four team. But no one in their right minds would have advocated omitting them from the playoff.
LikeLike
And then lost by 15. You can’t omit that part. It is, after all, a 60 minute game. If you stop after 45 minutes, TCU is undefeated and #3.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/120914aab.html
The official B10 announcement about MBB at MSG.
The Big Ten Conference announced today an extensive agreement with Madison Square Garden to feature the Big Ten Men’s Basketball Tournament in New York City for the first time in 2018, along with men’s basketball and hockey doubleheaders hosted by the legendary arena from 2016 through 2019 and a significant branding presence both inside and outside the building.
…
The 2018 Big Ten Men’s Basketball Tournament will be held at Madison Square Garden from Wednesday, Feb. 28, through Sunday, March 4, with all 14 conference programs competing for the Big Ten’s automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament. The 2018 event will be held one week earlier than previous tournaments, ending seven days before NCAA Tournament Selection Sunday.
Big Ten men’s basketball and hockey programs will also be featured at Madison Square Garden during the regular season, with four consecutive doubleheaders featuring conference competition held in late January or early February from 2016 through 2019. The first doubleheader will feature the Michigan and Penn State basketball and hockey teams playing at The Mecca on Jan. 30, 2016.
In addition, the Big Ten will receive year-round branding opportunities at Madison Square Garden, including signage inside and outside of the facility and select promotion through print, television and social media outlets affiliated with the arena and its tenants.
The double-headers are interesting.
LikeLike
With the relatively vigorous move into NYC, maybe we will find out if Rutgers was really a double as Marc Shepherd wrote, or will turn out to be a long home run. It is really quite strange to believe that the B1G is the football conference with the strongest presence in the NY metro area. Lots of happy B1G alumni. I know that my oldest son who is a Wisconsin alum is thrilled to be able to go to games at RU. He will absolutely go to the Garden if his Badgers are there.
LikeLike
I do wonder what impact having a conference championship tourney a week early will have on conference seeding and bubble teams. Will the recency effect hurt B1G teams (like it may have in the BCS era in football when the conference was off in the first week in December?)
LikeLike
On the other hand, if an underdog makes a deep run through the B10 tourney they’ll have time to recover before the NCAA or NIT starts. I suppose that’s a silver lining.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I’ve never been opposed to the Big Ten playing in NYC (as that is critical for the conference’s long-term plans) and the annual basketball/hockey doubleheaders are a great idea, but I’m a bit miffed that we decided to hold the tourney a week before the other power conferences. Seeing that it’s a one-year deal, I guess that it’s workable and will live with it as a special event. We can’t be doing this every time that we want to go to MSG, though.
LikeLike
Most of the top conference’s for women’s basketball finish their tourneys about a week before its selection Monday so they don’t conflict with the men’s tourneys, causing teams such as Maryland when it was in the ACC to have a two-week layoff before the women’s NCAA began. Given the dominance by a handful of schools in the women’s tourney, it hasn’t seemed to affect them all that much — though I will concede the gap between power conferences and the rest of the field in the men’s game is much, much narrower.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Completely agree on all fronts. Its great exposure to play at MSG, but a week earlier than other major conferences is a problem.
I think Delany is more planting a flag in the event MSG boots the Big East in the future, or will watch how the ACC does at Barclays. I definitely believe this is not the last time the MBB tourney goes to either Manhattan or Brooklyn (ain’t never going to Newark or Long Island).
LikeLike
I’d agree. It’s probably a test run for a contract at MSG orBarclay’s starting in the 2020’s.
In the future, I could see the the ACC alternating between Barclays and Greensboro,
and B1G alternating between Balclays and Chicago/Indianapolis.
LikeLike
Long Island is out of the question for all conferences. No one is going there for anything. Even the Islanders are gone to Brooklyn. The Prudential Center in Newark may well be in the future for the B1G. Why not? The Pru Center is the home bball stadium for Seton Hall, as the Garden is the home for St Johns.
LikeLike
“he Prudential Center in Newark may well be in the future for the B1G. Why not? The Pru Center is the home bball stadium for Seton Hall, as the Garden is the home for St Johns.”
Because its not in NYC. That simple.
LikeLike
http://footballscoop.com/news/bo-pelini-youngstown/
Bo Pelini headed for YSU apparently. It’s always nice to go home, but I can’t imagine he plans to stay for long.
LikeLike
I don’t think Frank Solich intended to be at Ohio U. so long either.
LikeLike
Bo is 15 years younger than Frank was when he was hired by Ohio, and I-AA is a bigger step down.
LikeLike
The fun thing for an OSU fan – we only have 7 SR starters versus 11 SO and FR starters.
LikeLike
2 years ago ESPN had a graphic. The largest number of true freshmen played was at Ohio St. Think the number was 15. Tied for second only 1 back were TCU and Texas. Ohio St. and TCU have done pretty well with those groups. Texas, not so much.
LikeLike
Yes, with Meyer coming in we had a lot of turnover. We’re also just getting past the sanctions so we have extra slots to fill. He recruits a different type of athlete and wanted to replace a lot of the Tressel leftovers. It’s also meant more players transferring since he doesn’t let seniority trump talent like Tressel did. I hope to see things settle down a little soon as he’s about to sign his fourth recruiting class.
LikeLike
So one big problem I have with the 8-team playoff is that a team that wins its division will likely have a tougher road than a team that loses its division. For example, if tOSU had lost the B10 CCG, they likely would have been out while MSU would have been in. Besides the obvious bad incentives, that doesn’t strike me as right.
That’s why I’m more inclined to support a 6 or 7 team playoff with 5 auto-berths. Yes, only 1-2 at-large spots and being #1 or #2 vs. #3 or #4 would be a really big deal, but I think that would award winning.
Or a 12 team playoff with a Round of 6:
SEC, B10, Pac, and ACC CCG winners go automatically to the Round of 6. The 4 best teams that do not play in a CCG (including the B12 and ND) round out the rest of the first round (played during Army-Navy weekend) with the 2 winners heading to the Round of 6. Seed those 6 #1->#6. 3 Round of 6 games on NYE/NYD. Top seed gets a bye while the other 2 play the following week. National title game the week after that.
LikeLike
The 2 games of at-large teams could be a doubleheader at one site. As a sop to the B12, it could always be in Jerryworld (though as a B10 partisan, personally, I’d like to see it in StL or the East Coast sites of NYC/DC occasionally).
This year, that doubleheader would be Baylor-MSU and TCU-MissSt.
The Round of 6 games would always be the Rose (B10 champ vs. Pac champ), Sugar (SEC champ vs. at-large), and Orange (ACC champ vs. at-large).
This year, since ‘Bama is the #1 seed, they play the #2-#3 at-large winner, or TCU-MissSt. in the Sugar. FSU faces the Baylor-MSU winner in the Orange.
This year, if ‘Bama wins they get a bye to the title game. If they lose and UO wins, they get a bye. If both ‘Bama & UO lose and FSU wins, they get a bye. If all 3 higher seeds lose, OSU gets the bye.
The play-in semifinal game rotates between the Fiesta, Peach, and Cotton. Takes place the 2nd Monday of the year (when the title game does now).
Title game takes place on MLK Day.
LikeLike
“The play-in semifinal game rotates between the Fiesta, Peach, and Cotton. Takes place the 2nd Monday of the year (when the title game does now).”
Odd night bowl games worked so well in the BCS era that the meaningful bowls have now been clustered on NYE/NYD. They’ll magically now decide to have two bowl games on a random weeknight at the same time, cannibalizing TV viewers and suffering the same failings as BCS era bowls? Sure.
LikeLike
One bowl game. Who ever said two? You’d have 2 games the same night (and I don’t see why they would have to be at the same time) if you go to a 8 team playoff, though.
LikeLike
I read in an “s” in “the play-in semifinal game” that was not there. My bad.
Still don’t think that CFB will willingly move games off of NYE/NYD absent the actual NCG. I also do not think the presidents will stretch football that deep into January, especially with multiple weeknight games (semifinal or semifinals and also a NCG).
LikeLike
Bowlsby said going any later into January was a non-starter in Brian’s article about the history of the playoff.
He didn’t explain why.
When they examine the 2 semester argument, they will realize it is silly. Nothing much goes on at the start of the semester.
Conflicting with the NFL is an issue.
Some schools still don’t have indoor practice facilities and maybe that is an issue.
LikeLike
How would the committee be able to evaluate the potential risk of ineligibilities? First semester grades could effect team mand up. Happens every fall, but teams have more time to develop, change, overcome that attrition throughout the season.
LikeLike
You’re just reviving the beauty contest, and making it impossible for any underdog champion from a P5 conference to compete for a national champioship. I don’t want any team that wins an ACC, B1G, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC title to be denied because it isn’t a “brand name” — and realistically, years with more than one underdog conference champ are few and far between, which is why I back an 8-team playoff. I consider it better to put Iowa State or Wake Forest into a playoff if it wins its conference– something each school would achieve once every 35 years or so — than to gripe about one of the “usual suspects” not making the playoff because it couldn’t win its conference or gain an at-large bid.
LikeLike
I do not think they will ever approve a format with first-round byes. TV money is one of the biggest drivers in college sports. Once you’ve agreed in principle to add another weekend to the schedule, you might as well do an 8-team playoff with four quarterfinal games.
On top of that, the advantage of being #2 (and having a bye) vs. #3 (with an extra game to play) is too huge to entrust to a committee of bureaucrats. I know the NFL has byes, but the criteria for earning them are entirely objective, and don’t depend on “eye tests” or a show of hands.
Anyhow, you might be worrying about a non-existent problem. If Ohio State loses to Wisconsin, I think the Buckeyes should still be ranked above Michigan State. After all, in that situation they’d both be two-loss teams, but OSU would have the head-to-head advantage and one extra game in the win column.
LikeLike
That’s true now. Look at how many times a division runnerup made BCS bowls and the division winner got sent down. Kansas St. 98 and Missouri 07 were classic examples of that-from a chance at the 2 team playoffs to the Alamo and Cotton.
LikeLike
Getting to go a BCS bowl is quite different from getting to make the playoff, IMO. One is, while great fun and great for bragging rights, still a glorified exhibition game. Making the playoffs gives you the opportunity to win the national title.
If you like, that’s an argument to stay at a 4-team playoff.
LikeLike
That’s true now. Look at how many times a division runnerup made BCS bowls and the division winner got sent down.
In the BCS era, the bowls chose teams based on TV and travel value. There were minimum criteria to be BCS-eligible; as long as those criteria were met, the bowls could choose whomever they wanted.
The playoff committee need not have the same rules. Unless they are stone-cold liars, TV and travel value are not among their criteria at all. (I know that some in the media think the fix was in for Ohio State, because they bring more fans to the game, but I do not believe that.)
LikeLike
Yes, but ccg losers drop in their standings. Arizona almost dropped out. KSU in a defacto ccg dropped out.
LikeLike
Yes, as a general rule, you should drop if you lose your game. But the Committee certainly could adopt a rule that a team won’t be penalized for winning its division, which was Richard’s concern.
LikeLike
Everyone is overthinking this. If I was the Big12 I would offer associate football membership to the championship game only to BYU and ND. Both BYU and ND keep their independence and their tv contracts while the Big12 keeps their own revenue. The two highest ranked teams in the B12 including BYU and ND play in the championship for the B12 title. That TV contract gets to be split among the 12.
LikeLike
@MyopicRaiderfan – Notre Dame’s setup in the ACC is *exactly* what they want and they very clearly prefer the ACC compared to the Big 12 geographically, culturally and academically. They aren’t driven by access to a conference championship game at all (and in fact, that’s explicitly what they’re attempting to avoid through independence). Notre Dame is an independent 100% by choice. In contrast, BYU would take a full membership in the Big 12 in a heartbeat. At the same time, why would anyone in the Big 12 allow access to a conference championship game to quasi-conference members in a playoff world where such conference championship game is going to have outsized importance? Your proposal also assumes numerous conference championship game rule changes where (a) conferences can simply take the two highest ranked teams (which I would agree is a plausible change) and (b) partial members can participate (which I don’t believe is a plausible change at all).
About 99.9% of proposals that start with “We’ll just offer Notre Dame [insert XYZ] and everything will work out” isn’t ever going to work out. The Big 12’s only viable expansion options (whether full or partial) are non-power schools.
LikeLike
“…BYU would take a full membership in the Big 12 in a heartbeat.”
Have you heard they have had a change of heart since going Indy? Yes, the athletic department would jump at it. But they would have before, too. The church leaders (and their goals through independence need to be measured) are the ones who need to be polled, and I doubt they’ll participate.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree at all that the ACC gives ND all it wants, but if conference champions are what the committee wants then ND could find itself on the outside looking in. In this arrangement ND stays independent with access to the playoffs through B12 while still having access to ACC bowls if they are not part of it. If we looked at recent history I think it would be safe for the B12 to offer access to the championship game to ND and BYU as they would likely have a minimum of one team in, with the ability to have a championship without adding full members. Assuming that the B12 could get the same deal as the B10, 24 million a year for the championship(reasonable as ND and Texas as the largest national teams), split evenly that is an extra 2 million per team. Adding from the group of 5 costs the B12 money as there isn’t a single team, let alone one that would move the needle as far as revenue is concerned. You have stated multiple times the B12 is held together because of money. Why would they weaken their bond by sharing?
LikeLike
It’s a nice idea and all, but your setup is still not allowed by current NCAA rules.
LikeLike
Aside from not being allowed by current NCAA rules, what if ND and BYU both have woeful losing seasons – does the slot open up to an exceptional G5 team or a 3rd place (assuming the CCG rules have been amended not to necessitate division champs) P5 conference team? A locked game with a say 4-8 BYU team (because ND finished 3-9 that same year) might hurt and not help a lone BXII champions’ argument in a still 4-team playoff.
LikeLike
…if conference champions are what the committee wants then ND could find itself on the outside looking in.
Year after year, the casual fan thinks the Powers are going to screw Notre Dame, and it never happens. Frank has it right: Notre Dame is getting all it wants (and needs) from the ACC.
As Richard pointed out, current NCAA rules do not allow Notre Dame to qualify for the Big XII championship game without actually being IN the Big XII. But assuming the rules allowed this, why would the Big XII agree to that deal? What does the Big XII gain by allowing ND to supplant one of its own members in the championship game, when ND has given the Big XII nothing in return?
And how would ND’s qualification for that game be determined? It’s easy if they’re in the league, because then they’d play common opponents within their division. If they’re independent, there’s no comparison. Imagine for a moment that Oklahoma, KState, and ND are all 11-1. Would the Big XII agree to a system whereby one of OU/KState misses their own championship game, while ND plays an independent schedule and takes their place?
There lies insanity.
LikeLike
And why do you think ND never gets screwed? You proclaim that ND need not worry about not playing in a CCG, while not denying that the Big-12 must. Why is that? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If it had been Texas, and not TCU or Baylor, that was 11-1, even if Texas played TCU or Baylor’s schedule, the Buckeyes would not be in the playoff. As an aside, when ND gets in, the ACC & Pac-12 will be most at risk of being left out due to the number of games those conferences play each season against ND.
Despite the protestations on this board, especially from Buckeye fans like Brian, a committee (and for those who prefer the BCS system, a system of computer rankings designed by people who don’t have to disclose their models is effectively a committee) is inherently political. As such, the natural constituency of each committee member will be a huge influence on that person’s vote(s). Only a fool believes that the decisions ultimately are based solely on the stated criteria – and the movements in the rankings during the last week support that view.
Despite what the committee says, I will bet anyone here that we will never see two teams from a single conference in the playoffs unless at least two conferences have champions with 2+ losses, and even then it may not happen. Why? Because the committee is geographically diversified, and thus alliances will be created to make sure the playoffs participants are also geographically diversified.
I also predict that, eventually, SEC teams that play Baylor-like OOC schedules (e.g. – A&M, the Mississippis, etc.) will be punished by the committee – especially if the SEC does not add a 9th conference game. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina, and Tennessee either have rivalry games to protect them and/or seem to have already figured this out.
Don’t get me wrong. I think this new system is FAR superior to the BCS and the goofiness before the BCS. If the BCS system was in place right now, we would be looking at a title game between Alabama and FSU. There is no way that FSU would have been left out as an unbeaten defending national champion. And Alabama would beat out Oregon, for example, simply because of the hype associated with the SEC West. This year, unlike in the past, we will find out just how much of that hype was warranted. We will also find out if the Pac-12 was over-rated (which, despite my being a Pac-12 fan, I suspect may be the case). And, we will find out just how bad the BiG really was. This will be great!
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the P5 allow the B12 to do this? It would bring the two independents into similar control as the rest of the P5. Effectively, this would be the start of their own march madness.
What would the B12 get out of this? Money. First they wouldn’t have to bring in two extra mouths which would take revenue from the existing members. Also, they would get an extra 2 mil or so per school for the championship tv rights.
Qualification for title game would be based on CFP poll. One, it makes for a better game as there wouldn’t be Alabama vs Missouri games. Two, better for TV audiences which means more money. Three, its how the CFP are set up.
The ideal for the B12 would be a championship game with 10 teams. If it doesn’t happen and the P5 require 12 then why not try to do this? Best case is that neither BYU or ND would be ranked higher than the top two B12 teams, but if ND is ranked higher than K-State and is left out of the game vs Oklahoma then yes Kstate players would be upset, but also it would be exactly as it is now.
LikeLike
And why do you think ND never gets screwed? You proclaim that ND need not worry about not playing in a CCG, while not denying that the Big-12 must. Why is that? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You have grossly misstated my position. You could certainly construct a hypothetical season in which Notre Dame misses the playoff for the same reason Baylor and TCU did. You could also construct a season in which they benefit from not putting themselves at risk in that extra game.
All I am saying is that the system as designed does not require them to play a CCG, just as it does not require the Big XII to play one either. I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth; my position on both is consistent.
As an aside, when ND gets in, the ACC & Pac-12 will be most at risk of being left out due to the number of games those conferences play each season against ND.
What you are saying is that football is a zero-sum game. For every winner, there must be a loser. Do you think no one else realizes that? No one is being forced at gunpoint to play ND. Teams want to play them.
Despite the protestations on this board, especially from Buckeye fans like Brian, a committee (and for those who prefer the BCS system, a system of computer rankings designed by people who don’t have to disclose their models is effectively a committee) is inherently political.
Well, I am a Michigan fan who has often disagreed with Brian in this forum, but he’s got this one exactly right.
Now, I’m not going to deny that people cannot entirely escape their biases (a statement that applies to both of us, as well). But I do think the committee is attempting, to the best of its human ability, to follow the announced rules, and their decision was entirely consistent with them.
FSU is an historically elite program that should have benefited from the committee’s biases, if your hypothesis is correct. Yet, the committee ranked them third, below both of the traditional polls. That tells me this committee is really doing what it says, and looking beneath the record to each team’s actual acccompishments.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the Big 12 add Air Force & BYU as football only members? Air Force could move all its other sports the Big Sky Conference & Mountain West Sports Federation and the AD doesn’t have to worry about his student athletes competing against the Big 12 except the football team which can hang with the Big 12. They also add prestige to the conference.
BYU as a football only members solves the no-play on Sunday issues. It allows the Big 12 to move to 12 teams and have a conference championship game along with the added revenue from it. The best thing about this for the Big 12 is that they can do a round-robin schedule in basketball with 10 teams and make them one of the strongest RPI conferences.
Big 12 North
Air Force
BYU
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
West Virginia
Big 12 South
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
I also think ESPN would be willing to renegotiate its contract with the Big 12 as they could fuse BYU’s deal for additional money to the current Big 12 deal. I doubt that FOX Sports would add to the current TV deal since they are not pulling big ratings for FOX Sports 1, but I do think FOX would be interested in the Big 12 Championship Game. Also, Air Force & BYU would love to keep their Tier-3 rights as Air Force uses ROOT Sports Mountain & BYU uses BYUtv.
LikeLike
I would be skeptical whether AF Commandant wants his cadets playing a P5 football schedule, if if they may be able to hang with many of the P5 schools.
LikeLike
The Air Force powers that be have actually stated publicly that they don’t think it would be fair to its players to have them play the likes of Texas and Oklahoma yearly.
LikeLike
Air Force adds prestige to a P5 league? You must have been watching a different Air Force team than I over the last decade plus.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12006604/ohio-state-two-heisman-winner-archie-griffin-remains-respected
A nice article about Archie Griffin and the Heisman.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/120814aab.html
The B10 is instituting new concussion protocols as of 2015.
The concussion protocols will move from best practices and minimum requirements for schools to regulatory standards by the conference. In addition, the COP/C unilaterally adopted the establishment of an independent neutral athletic trainer in the replay booth with their own monitor and the ability to directly contact officials on the field. The independent neutral athletic trainer will be in addition to the continued presence of on-field doctors and athletic trainers from each institution.
The enhanced concussion protocols will be incorporated by reference into the existing conference-wide concussion management policy and will include reporting requirements, disciplinary action for non-compliance and a higher level of accountability for conference member institutions.
LikeLike
Wow. Gary Andersen is leaving WI to coach OrSU. ESPN is saying WI’s academic policies have been frustrating him.
LikeLike
Wisconsin losing coaches to Arkansas (explainable given how stingy they are with $) and now Oregon State (???) is a stunner after all the success that they’ve had the past 6-8 years.
It’s pretty clear the problem is either Barry Alvarez and/or Wisconsin’s policies ($, academic requirements, etc.) are causing this.
Completely out of left field to leave Wisconsin for Oregon State (2nd hardest job in Pac-12 by far).
LikeLike
It is very surprising but keep in mind Anderson was born and raised in Utah and had spent his entire coaching career in the western United States before his two year stint at Wisconsin. Maybe he saw a better fit at Oregon State? Will be interesting to see who the Badgers turn to. When Bielema left, I thought they could have done better than Anderson.
LikeLike
True, hopefully they find a better fit this time. It’s hard to see who that is. There aren’t obvious candidates like Gary Andersen was 2 years ago.
LikeLike
I will say that the Barry Alvarez as AD situation is worth looking at. From a distance it seems that Alvarez is too involved with the football program, both unintentionally and intentionally. He essentially built the Wisconsin program so naturally he will carry a certain amount of reverence. Andersen was a spread coach before coming to Wisconsin. Alvarez was obviously a pro style guy. Did Andersen feel he could do things his way or was there pressure to continue in Alvarez’s footsteps? Alvarez also named himself interim coach for the Rose Bowl after Bielema left and it appears that he will do the same this year for the Outback Bowl. How many ADs would name themselves coach even it was just for one game? None, because a Dvision I AD job isn’t a job for ex football coaches anymore. Yet, that’s the situation in Wisconsin and it has to create an interesting and in my opinion negative work environment for the head football coach.
LikeLike
Frank Broyles created some problems at Arkansas as AD. He had some really good coaches-Lou Holtz followed by Ken Hatfield.
LikeLike
When you consider all the factors involved, I’d say that Wisconsin to Arkansas is no worse than a lateral move, and is arguably a step up. Arkansas is ahead of Wisconsin in both all-time wins and winning percentage. The SEC is a stronger league, and the Razorbacks play a sexier schedule.
However, it’s easier to play in high-profile post-season games at Wisconsin, because the B1G overall is so mediocre, and they’re in the weaker of the two divisions. The Badgers have won their division in four of the last five years and went to three consecutive Rose Bowls from 2010-12. No SEC West coach is likely to do that, unless perhaps he’s Nick Saban.
But Wisconsin to Oregon State is a clear step down. The Beavers haven’t been to a Rose Bowl since 1965. Since the BCS era, their only major bowl was the 2001 Fiesta Bowl. They’ve had just one first-place finish in the last fifty years. Yes, you can recruit to Oregon State without Wisconsin’s academic requirements, but who wants to go there?
LikeLike
I agree with you for the most part.
For someone in Bielema’s specific position though, leaving a school that you’ve gone to 3 straight Rose Bowls to go to a situation in Arkansas where it’s unlikely that he’ll get to coach 1 big bowl in his first 5 years is a pretty obvious downgrade.
If you take that out of the equation, it’s a lot more of a lateral move.
Regardless, the Oregon State one is really only explained by the fact that he was at Utah and wants to go back out West along with the academic issues.
Still, Oregon State got blown out by Washington and Oregon in its final games; those kinds of results (that they’re going to be undermanned against a lot of the Pac-12) won’t be changing regardless of who their coach is.
LikeLike
Well, the Biels got more money for himself and his staff at Arkansas.
Going to OrSt. is a bit of a shocker.
If I was Wisconsin, I’d go for Kill. Dunno if he’s spring for Wisconsin, though. He turned down UNL. Then again, Bucky is less likely to have unrealistic expectations than UNL, and Wisconsin is probably the school best set up to do the best in the B10 West (at least sharing the top of the heap with UNL). If not Kill, one of the ex-Badger coaches who have left (Chryst or Doeren).
LikeLike
Not a shock, I actually predicted he would leave Wisky to a friend after the CCG. “Academic issues” – I call bs – it’s recruiting & his heart is out west. Throw in that Alvarez is a bit more intrusive than we may realize. Silver lining for Wisky – he lost most of the BIG games, lost at least twice a year to inferior opponents & the never adjusted well after half time and late game in these losses.
The BIG can go national all it wants, but the footprint’s football talent has been so average to poor for so long, at least back to the 80s – that coaches have to bust their asses off to get 2nd tier talent in the Sun Belt then coach the kids up. The Midwestern high schools simply refuse to do their part as a whole & this region just loves their NFL football more.
Moreover, it also doesn’t help that the new divisional alignment still sucks because the power is too concentrated in the East. I don’t want to hear that these things are cyclical – PSU, OSU, Mi have been great for as long as Neb – that’s a 3-1 advantage & Neb’s huge stadium is smaller than the other 3. MSU is on par with Wisky now and has a better upside in part because of divisional alignment. The media markets of the BIG West are simply smaller outside Ill & therein lies the state of Illinois problem – NW & Illinois don’t have enough tradition in football to bring parity – neither. In fact neither brings it in hoops, and that’s not only sad due to the incredible prep talent in that state, but further proof Chicago leans pro sports & I’ve said this before, I think a a lot of Black Americans are discontent in Chicago & have been for a long, long time. which partially explains the annual talent drain. It’s a bit delusional to think Chicago is a good for Black Americans. Could it improve? Sure, I really hope it does. Is a good part of the problem accountable to Black Americans? Yes, but not exclusively, & I’d say less than 50%.
LikeLike
At least Chicago has a quantity of black football talent somewhat commensurate with its percentage of the population. Wisconsin-Madison recruiting is hamstrung by the seeming lack of football participation (and basketball program interest) in north/NW (black) Milwaukee. The in-state black talent tends to be in Kenosha/Racine and in metro Madison. Metro St. Louis though small in relative population did serve as a recruiting touch stone for the west Big10 schools, but the SEC is surely gaining; at least Mizzou is keeping more kids than in years past. This as much as TV markets and academic prestige would have me begging for UT in the B1g.
On another note, it sadly would not surprise me to see near-septugenarians Barry Alvarez and Lloyd Carr on the sidelines as opposing head coaches next time Wisky plays Michigan, due to lack of interest by up and comers.
LikeLike
I have to agree completely on the divisions. I don’t hate them the same way I hated Legends and Leaders (not being in a division with Michigan was a big no-no for me personally), but I think the issues are greater in this for the long haul. Don’t get me wrong, the west will be better than the east several years, but the east will receive far more media attention, has better access to recruits (more in the footprint), and more kings. In the long run, that’s going to lead to a disparity the same way the Big 12 North was bound to fall behind the Big 12 South despite the initial strength of the north. I still maintain the inner/outer (sandwich approach was the best bet).
All that said, you will have western teams emerge very strong. I don’t want to push these point too hard.
LikeLike
If the rule changes, dropping divisions would be the smart move. Lock 3-5 schools for each team and rotate the rest. That fixes the east/west issues while keeping many/most of the local games annual.
Lock 3 = 3 * 100% + 10 * 60%
Lock 4 = 4 * 100% + 9 * 56%
Lock 5 = 5 * 100% + 8 * 50%
I like locking 5 for the symmetry and because it lets the B10 keep all the things they have said they want (rivalries, geography and parity-based scheduling). It locks games that don’t need to be locked, though.
NE – PSU, MI, WI, IA, MN
WI – NE, IA, MN, UMD, NW
IA – NE, WI, MN, IL, OSU
MN – NE, WI, IA, PU, RU
NW – IL, MI, MSU, WI, UMD
IL – OSU, NW, PU, IN, IA
PU – IN, MI, IL, MN, RU
IN – PU, OSU, IL, MSU, UMD
MI – OSU, NE, MSU, PU, NW
MSU – MI, PSU, NW, RU, IN
OSU – MI, PSU, IA, IL, IN
PSU – OSU, NE, UMD, RU, MSU
UMD – PSU, RU, WI, NW, IN
RU – PSU, UMD, MSU, MN, PU
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like it a lot Brian. I’d probably vote for 3 just to play everyone a little more (and because I think they’d mess up 5 by locking extra king vs. king games).
LikeLike
Brian’s proposal has the virtue of transparency: every team locks five games, and that is easy to understand. On the other hand, Wisconsin fans someday will say, “Remind me again why we play Maryland every year?”
I’ve always preferred to “lock what makes sense,” which could lead to a different number of locked games per team. There is no perceptible mutual desire for Indiana and Maryland to play each other annually…so don’t do it.
I’d lock the intra-state games, the trophy games, and the obvious adjacent-state games. Spread out the remainder. This means that some teams have more locks than others.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Like it a lot Brian. I’d probably vote for 3 just to play everyone a little more (and because I think they’d mess up 5 by locking extra king vs. king games).”
Thanks. I think 3 is more likely, I just prefer the symmetry of playing the other teams 50% of the time. Besides, 5 lets them lock some of those extra king-king games like I showed (kings each play 2 other kings and 1 prince at least, others play fewer brand names). It’s easy enough to go through the list and trim 2 games from each team. You lose a few games like the LBJ, though.
NE – WI, IA, MN
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – NE, WI, IA
NW – IL, PU, IN
IL – OSU, NW, PU
PU – IN, IL, NW
IN – PU, NW, MSU
MI – OSU, MSU, RU
MSU – MI, IN, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU, IL
PSU – OSU, UMD, RU
UMD – PSU, RU, MSU
RU – PSU, UMD, MI
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Brian’s proposal has the virtue of transparency: every team locks five games, and that is easy to understand.”
KISS has its uses.
“On the other hand, Wisconsin fans someday will say, “Remind me again why we play Maryland every year?””
It brings a brand into DC and helps WI access eastern recruiting.
“I’ve always preferred to “lock what makes sense,” which could lead to a different number of locked games per team. There is no perceptible mutual desire for Indiana and Maryland to play each other annually…so don’t do it.”
I know, and I threw in the caveat about locking unnecessary games just for you. But the history of the B10 shows that they really prefer to lock the same number of games for everyone. It also makes life much easier for the scheduler.
LikeLike
What? The best talents in the region head to other conferences.
Mark Ingram is from Flint, MI and he chose Alabama. A number SEC coaches are from or worked in the Midwest too, so their old high school contacts are funneling talent to an all-star conference instead of the dumpster fire that is Big Ten football.
They need stability and success to get recruits. Simply trumpeting tradition isn’t going to cut it.
LikeLike
And the Pelini to Youngstown State rumors seems to be cooling off a bit…
Hmmm….
Pelini to Wisconsin!?
LikeLike
Yes, complete the three way trade and do it 🙂
LikeLike
this would solve the Wisconsin/Nebraska trophy problem.
…a bronze Pelini.
LikeLike
…or
LikeLike
Snarf?
LikeLike
Could be a “rhombus” with Chryst ow going to Wisky – Pelini would be a genius hire for Pitt.
LikeLike
Real or Fake?
LikeLike
So Dave Doeren as the new Wiscy coach?
LikeLike
Paul Chryst. http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/pitt-panthers-head-coach-paul-chryst-taking-over-wisconsin-badgers-replace-gary-andersen-121114?cmpid=tsmtw:fscom:FoxSportsLive
LikeLike
Should be a seamless transition–one extremely boring coach for another.
LikeLike
He’ll revert back to the pure WI offense, though. Andersen was threatening to add a few spread elements.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the Big 12 add Air Force & BYU as football only members? Air Force could move all its other sports the Big Sky Conference & Mountain West Sports Federation and the AD doesn’t have to worry about his student athletes competing against the Big 12 except the football team which can hang with the Big 12. They also add prestige to the conference.
BYU as a football only members solves the no-play on Sunday issues. It allows the Big 12 to move to 12 teams and have a conference championship game along with the added revenue from it. The best thing about this for the Big 12 is that they can do a round-robin schedule in basketball with 10 teams and make them one of the strongest RPI conferences.
Big 12 North
Air Force
BYU
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
West Virginia
Big 12 South
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
I also think ESPN would be willing to renegotiate its contract with the Big 12 as they could fuse BYU’s deal for additional money to the current Big 12 deal. I doubt that FOX Sports would add to the current TV deal since they are not pulling big ratings for FOX Sports 1, but I do think FOX would be interested in the Big 12 Championship Game. Also, Air Force & BYU would love to keep their Tier-3 rights as Air Force uses ROOT Sports Mountain & BYU uses BYUtv.
LikeLike
There are numerous problems with this proposal.
The divisions are highly unbalanced. I suspect that in most years, the eventual champion would come from the South, and indeed, there would be multiple South teams better than any North team. This could lead to unexciting CCG match-ups in which the South team has everything to lose, and very little to gain.
The prospective North teams are not going to like this either, as they’ll be playing fewer games in the recruiting-rich states of Texas and Oklahoma, and will have fewer games against the league’s sexier opponents.
West Virginia wants the Big XII to add at least one team in the Eastern time zone (e.g., Cincinnati), so they’re a sure no vote.
LikeLike
To even out the balance have 2 permanent out-of-division rivals while rotating 2 out-of-division foes each season & a 9-game conference schedule.
Big 12 West
Air Force
BYU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Big 12 East
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
TCU
West Virginia
Permanent Rivals
Air Force & BYU/Iowa State & West Virginia
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State/Kansas & Kansas State
Texas & Texas Tech/Baylor & TCU
LikeLike
There’s no way they’re doing that, but go ahead and keep throwing imaginary divisions at the wall, and perhaps eventually one of them will stick.
LikeLike
How about these divisions?
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
Kansas
BYU
San Diego State
Oklahoma
KSU
Baylor
TCU
ISU
WVU
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is no way they’re going to sacrifice the Red River Rivalry (OK-TX) or the Bedlam Series (OK-OKSt). In your model, the Sooners would have two locked rivals in the opposite division, which means the remaining teams in that division would play Oklahoma a lot less frequently.
It would be interesting to know whether the Texas teams would agree to no longer play each other every year. I’ve no insight as to whether that is do-able; I only know they didn’t do that last time.
As I noted upthread, I am pretty sure the next Big XII expansion will include an Eastern time zone school for proximity to WVU.
LikeLike
SDSU has a pretty big market, and if you put them in a P5 conference they’d probably draw a lot of viewers. Also they’re in a fertile recruiting area. BYU has a large fan following. Both bring more to the table than anyone out east.
I see what you’re saying about spliting up the Oklahoma schools though.
LikeLike
As most long time readers know, I’ve advocated for adding two football-only members in the Big XII since they dropped down to ten schools. The added money from a championship game would easily pay for these football-only members. If the two members were BYU and Boise St., their TV contracts with ESPN would have to be modified to only include non-conference home games, but both schools would still come out way ahead. The ten current members wouldn’t have to take a pay cut either.
I would make their membership term only concurrent with the current TV contract and GoR. That way, if the ACC implodes, nothing stands in the way of snagging FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, and/or Miami, although I feel those schools are all unlikely to join the B-12, ever.
I’d do the divisions along the line of Tech/States and U ofs.
Division A: OK State, K-State, Iowa State, Boise State, Texas Tech and BYU
Division B: Oklahoma, Kansas, West VA, TCU, Texas and Baylor.
They could play a 9 game conference schedule with one permanent crossover (OK State/Okla, TX Tech/Texas, K-State/Kansas, Iowa State/West VA, Boise State/TCU, BYU/Baylor). The schedule could be arranged so that every school gets at least one game in the state of Texas each season.
Division B is tougher than Division A, but its not that significant. I doubt that Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, Baylor and West VA will ever all be good at the same time.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12015248/ad-barry-alvarez-coach-wisconsin-badgers-outback-bowl
This may be symptomatic of the problem at WI, but Alvarez is coaching in the bowl again. Other ADs just name an assistance the interim HC and let them do it, but Barry feels the need to insert himself. You’ve been retired for 9 seasons, Barry. Accept it.
LikeLike
Yes, and the last time he came back to coach a bowl game, it didn’t work out so well for them.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/10/college-football-playoff-jeff-long-jim-delany-selection-committee-rank/20216233/
The committee will gather in April to discuss if and how to tweak the process for next season.
Among the suggestions that might be considered when the selection committee reconvenes in April:
— Scrap the weekly rankings altogether. Just wait until the end of the season, get together for a couple of days and then emerge with the bracket.
— Wait at least a few more weeks before starting, which would provide the committee with more games with which to evaluate teams.
— If they’re going to continue the weekly updates, Delany suggested a possible change: Rank teams where it’s clear. Where it’s not, group them in a “cluster,” and explain that it’s too close to differentiate. Last week, for example, the committee might have ranked No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Oregon, and then listed Baylor, Florida State, Ohio State and TCU alphabetically in “Tier 2.”
“Maybe where there’s unequivocal (consensus), you do the ranking,” Delany said. “Where there’s a cluster, you cluster.”
That might have helped quench some of the confusion — if not the controversy — of what happened last weekend.
I’d suggest that rather than simply rank teams, they also use some sort of points system. That would give people an idea of the separation the committee sees between various teams. It’s similar to Delany’s idea of clustering, but shows how far the cluster is from the teams above and below.
I think we’re stuck with the weekly rankings because they make money for ESPN. But otherwise, I’d suggest going to only 3 rankings. Do the first one after 8 weeks (the week before Halloween), the second 3 weeks later and the final one after the CCGs. That allows time for several games to change the thinking of the committee and the gap makes it harder to feel as beholden to your previous rankings.
LikeLike
I like your skipping a week idea. They definitely started too early this year if they are going to do it. There were a lot of big games the following 2 weeks.
One thing I would suggest would be to wait until Sunday morning to meet. That would mute the recency effect.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t mind skipping every other week or Delany’s idea for tiers.
If the 2nd to last week was ranked 1 Alabama, 2 Oregon, 3-6 Baylor, FSU, Ohio State, TCU (alphabetical for no order), then I don’t think anyone would have had an issue with FSU and Ohio State emerging from that group to get the 3 and 4 slots.
I’d be a big fan of tiered rankings like that. Maybe just have ties in the rankings where the committee feels its a 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D situation as Jeff Long said they felt 3-6 were…
LikeLike
This was my thought on reporting:
LikeLike
Interesting poll on who you think will win the playoff on ESPN. There had been 909,000 votes when I looked:
Oregon 39%
Alabama 35%
Ohio St. 14%
FSU 12%
Alabama carried all the SEC states except Texas and also carried North Carolina. OSU carried Ohio. Oregon carried all the rest except that they were tied with Alabama in Texas, Virginia and Maryland.
LikeLike
CBS’s poll only has 20,560 votes.
AL – 38%
OR – 35%
OSU 18%
FSU – 9%
LikeLike
Reading the official statements makes me believe that the conference may prefer the status quo and become the permanent host team for the Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Bob Bowlsby seems to rule out expansion, pursuing a deregulated title game instead.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/columnists/chuck-carlton/20141211-carlton-why-big-12-still-isn-t-looking-at-expansion-to-solve-playoff-problem-following-meetings.ece
Though, I thought the joint ACC-B12 proposal was just to regulate the need for divisions. I didn’t realize it would remove the 12 team minimum.
Bonus points: if you go look on Chuck Carlton’s twitter feed, he has a back and forth with The Dude. Yes, that The Dude.
LikeLike
I thought the joint ACC-B12 proposal was just to regulate the need for divisions. I didn’t realize it would remove the 12 team minimum.
I had always understood it would remove the 12-team minimum, as the Big XII was a co-sponsor, and they had steadfastly maintained that they weren’t planning to expand.
LikeLike
It would, as the deregulation would apply to all rules relating to CCG;s. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24483893/acc-supports-deregulation-of-conference-championship-games-would-change-postseason-structure
My favorite quote, however:
Bowlsby said he doubted all 10 FBS conferences would be forced to stage a championship game for uniformity purposes in the College Football Playoff era.
“Theoretically, that could happen. It never would,” Bowlsby said, “because of the way this organization has been put together. That just isn’t going to happen.”
LikeLike
He was quoted as saying they were told it wouldn’t matter.
What happened is that the process changed. In the past, 2/3 was usually not close enough that a ccg mattered. 4/5 wasn’t really either. But now they are looking at it all subjectively, diminishing or throwing out what used to be disqualifiers (when you lost, how you were ranked preseason, bad loss) and the gaps between the teams have thinned. Under this process, I suspect a lot of the “easy” decisions in the BCS era wouldn’t have been so easy.
I think its good that they are looking at it differently. But the subjectiveness has increased. Who is on the committee really matters as to what they value.
They need to go to 8 and eliminate most of the nonsense.
LikeLike
“They need to go to 8 and eliminate most of the nonsense.”
Going to 8 merely pushes the “nonsense” further down. Does not eliminate it.
LikeLike
They need to go to 8 and eliminate most of the nonsense.
There’s a lot of inertia around keeping it at four. Contracts would need to be torn up, and I don’t see that happening. Although there are a lot of problems with the current set-up, none of those problems are surprising.
I believe it’ll stay at four through the 12-year contract cycle. Somewhere around the 8th year, they’ll start the serious discussions around whether they want to expand.
LikeLike
Going to 8 merely pushes the “nonsense” further down. Does not eliminate it.
But the farther you push it down, the less the “nonsense” matters. The debate over “Who’s #8?” is a lot less important than “Who’s #4?”
By the time you get down to #8, you’re almost certainly looking at teams with multiple losses, and therefore, multiple obvious flaws.
LikeLike
Going to 8 would damage the regular season. Given how much the presidents are fearful of that outcome, I think it may be a long time at 4.
LikeLike
The Big-12 must share blame in this. Baylor earned the Big-12 Championship title, but was not recognized as such because its egregiously weak OOC schedule left it ranked behind TCU. The solution is to beef up the OOC schedules and to crown a single Conference champion in accordance with its own rules. Had Baylor played beaten a half-legitimate school in OOC play, tOSU loss to VTech would have been a killer for the Buckeyes.
8-team playoff is not a student-athlete friendly option.
LikeLike
I would argue 8 would enhance the regular season. A conference title means a shot at a national championship (I’m presuming the P5 get autobids). Noone who won a title in a major conference would get left out. So there is none of that nonsense, having to arbitrarily exclude teams who won something using very limited information.
8 means only 1 in 16 teams gets in (1 in 8 if you only count P5). Contrast that to the NCAA bb tourney where 1 in 5 gets in and half the P5. It will still be very hard to get in the tournament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bullet,
“He was quoted as saying they were told it wouldn’t matter.”
Which I think was always a misunderstanding. Of course a season-ending game against a top team is going to impact how a team is ranked. And of course 13 games versus 12 will provide more opportunities for quality wins.
I think the committee told the B12 that they wouldn’t inherently hold the lack of a CCG and only playing 12 games against them, just like they wouldn’t hold it against ND. They still only have 12 games to pack in the quality that other teams get 13 games to provide, though.
LikeLike
8-team playoff is not a student-athlete friendly option.
The length of the season has grown repeatedly over the last half-century, and each time there were people who said, “Think of the children!” It never stopped them before, so I doubt it’ll stop them now.
FCS has a 24-team playoff, so it’s hard for me to believe there is an inherent problem with eight.
LikeLike
“By the time you get down to #8, you’re almost certainly looking at teams with multiple losses, and therefore, multiple obvious flaws.”
So? ESPN devotes shows and significant airtime to voices who debate which MBB teams were screwed out of being in a field of 68. That the teams are less deserving doesn’t change that there will be the same level of “debate” because it fills programming/generates pageviews/listeners. The “nonsense” will exist in same force and effect, and if anything, will be bigger due to the larger concentration of teams who could in an average year claim to be #8 will be at least the same number who can claim to be #4.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“FCS has a 24-team playoff, so it’s hard for me to believe there is an inherent problem with eight.”
1. I-AA generally plays a shorter season.
2. Smaller and/or slower players means less energy in each collision, reducing the on the body.
3. I-AA’s season ends earlier, letting the playoff start in November with the semifinals before Christmas and only the NCG in January. The I-A playoff doesn’t start until NYE.
LikeLike
“1. I-AA generally plays a shorter season.
2. Smaller and/or slower players means less energy in each collision, reducing the on the body.
3. I-AA’s season ends earlier, letting the playoff start in November with the semifinals before Christmas and only the NCG in January. The I-A playoff doesn’t start until NYE.”
1-AA played 12 games this year. Usually its 11. Teams advancing to the finals can play 16 or 17. That’s a long season. (Sam Houston State is currently 10-4, will play 17 games if they advance to finals.)
2. FCS players are not as good, and are just as likely to suffer small and big injuries as any other football player. Also, smaller schools with smaller budgets will have lesser medical staffs. We can all agree, for example, the high school players are nowhere as big and strong as any college player, yet high schools players this past year have been suffering major injuries, some of them resulting in death.
3. Starting playoff in November also means less rest between regular season and playoff games for FCS players. CFB playoff teams will get at least 3 weeks between a conf title game and NYE/NYD bowl. In BCS era, one year there was a 50 or so day break between the CCG and the NCG.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“1-AA played 12 games this year. Usually its 11.”
As I said. They usually play a shorter season. They play 12 games in double-bye years now.
“2. FCS players are not as good,”
Right. The tend to be slower and/or smaller. As I said.
“and are just as likely to suffer small and big injuries as any other football player.”
1. Proof?
2. I didn’t mention the number of injuries. I mentioned the energy in collisions and the impact on the body. E = 1/2 * m * v^2. Lower mass and/or lower velocity means less kinetic energy for the body to absorb.
“We can all agree, for example, the high school players are nowhere as big and strong as any college player, yet high schools players this past year have been suffering major injuries, some of them resulting in death.”
There are many, many more HS players than I-AA players. Of course some will suffer major injuries. It’s not relevant, but it’s true. It’s also unfair to compare 14-17 year-olds with 18-21 year-olds. They are very different in terms of physical development.
“3. Starting playoff in November also means less rest between regular season and playoff games for FCS players. CFB playoff teams will get at least 3 weeks between a conf title game and NYE/NYD bowl. In BCS era, one year there was a 50 or so day break between the CCG and the NCG.”
1. How is that relevant to me pointing out that I-AA can finish their playoff by 1/10 because of when it starts?
2. Are long layoffs definitively a good thing? Many people have noticed how poorly played those BCS games often were because everyone was so rusty.
LikeLike
“As I said. They usually play a shorter season. They play 12 games in double-bye years now.”
Except when teams make the playoffs, which I pointed out. Smaller regular season, longer postseason.
“The tend to be slower and/or smaller.”
Also less skilled and less likely to have good form when tackling/blocking. Bad form can and does lead to injuries.
“Proof?”
Football is a violent game. Injuries happen at all levels. Don’t need any proof as its common sense. If you want to find some for me, go ahead. Though, at lower levels, injuries are less likely to be reported. (again, going back to training staff and such).
“I didn’t mention the number of injuries. I mentioned the energy in collisions and the impact on the body. E = 1/2 * m * v^2. Lower mass and/or lower velocity means less kinetic energy for the body to absorb.”
That’s great, but less force on a smaller person will have similar actual impact as larger force on a larger person. Lower mass and means body can adsorb less energy.
“There are many, many more HS players than I-AA players. Of course some will suffer major injuries. It’s not relevant, but it’s true. It’s also unfair to compare 14-17 year-olds with 18-21 year-olds. They are very different in terms of physical development.”
Medical care on the sidelines matters, too.
“How is that relevant to me pointing out that I-AA can finish their playoff by 1/10 because of when it starts?”
Context was, appearing below comment re: number of games and injuries to be health related. If it wasn’t, then ignore the comment.
“Are long layoffs definitively a good thing? Many people have noticed how poorly played those BCS games often were because everyone was so rusty.”
Was only talking about rest for players regarding health- a nice bye to rest and recoup after the regular season. No position on quality of gameplay resulting from layoff.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Except when teams make the playoffs, which I pointed out. Smaller regular season, longer postseason.”
The postseason isn’t the season. That’s why it’s called “post.”
“Also less skilled and less likely to have good form when tackling/blocking.”
Their tackling form really can’t be worse than many I-A players. The I-A guys are the former HS studs who think they can knock anyone over without wrapping up.
“Football is a violent game. Injuries happen at all levels. Don’t need any proof as its common sense.”
You made a claim about the frequency of injuries at one level versus another. That’s not common sense and requires evidence to be more than pure speculation.
“That’s great, but less force on a smaller person will have similar actual impact as larger force on a larger person. Lower mass and means body can adsorb less energy.”
Smaller people are stronger pound for pound since muscle mass (x^3) grows exponentially faster than strength (x^2). And slower people reduce energy (v^2) exponentially faster than they slow down (v). So no, you can’t just say everything is the same without evidence.
“Medical care on the sidelines matters, too.”
Not to whether or not the injuries happen.
LikeLike
Setting up a straw man. No one ever has suggested that the conference’s as currently constituted would be explicitly required to have a CCG. The advantage/disadvantage of getting eligible, and then actually holding one, are what the conference’s measure regarding it. But a couple want their cake and eat it too.
LikeLike
But a couple want their cake and eat it too.
That might be a tad unfair to the Big XII. They didn’t lose four of their original twelve members by choice.
LikeLike
The dwarves aren’t at fault directly, but the conference as a whole didn’t take the steps to make leaving seem far less attractive. There were decisions made over time, and options rejected. But both were choices that contributed.
LikeLike
The only ones who opposed the decisions being made were the 5 who nearly got left behind. And then Nebraska was on the wrong side of a few 11-1 votes.
Given the opportunities, Colorado would have still gone to the Pac 12 and A&M would still have gone to the SEC. That would have happened even if neither of them knew the other was leaving. The instability got Nebraska to thinking, but given the opportunity to go to the Big 10, they would have moved to. Even if they had that annual game with OU (which it was OU who didn’t want that game-for competitive reasons-they didn’t want Nebraska AND Texas).
LikeLike
Obviously, the Big XII made decisions years ago that they may regret. But it’s a fairly tenuous connection from those decisions to @ccrider55’s “having their cake and eating it too” comment as it applies to conference championship games. Even those voting “no” couldn’t have had the foresight to imagine that because of these decisions, Ohio State would jump two spots almost twenty years later and leapfrog TCU for a playoff that didn’t even exist at the time.
LikeLike
Marc:
I agree that this particular year couldn’t have been foreseen, and see how had FSU and tOSU been beaten there would have been an outcry that the B12 got two in by not having a CCG. The point of cake and eating is not tenuous at all. Group one knows that to do X they need to satisfy Y. Now that Y is no longer satisfied they move to remove/alter Y in order, if they were to so chose, to do X again. How is that tenuous?
LikeLike
All I am saying, as that the Big XII could not reasonably have foreseen that decisions 20 years ago would lead to the dilemma they currently face, which is either:
A) A schedule structure that disadvantages them in the playoff; or,
B) Expanding to 12 with teams they really do not want.
Contrast this situation to the ACC, which also has a schedule structure that they find awkward. But the ACC had this problem as soon as they expanded. To have foreseen it would not have required them to forecast 20 years into the future.
The ACC wants the benefits of expansion, without having to abide by a well-known rule they supported in the past, but now find inconvenient. This is a classic “have your cake and eat it too” scenario. The Big XII is facing the possibility of an undesirable expansion, in order to put themselves on an equal footing for a playoff that was on no one’s radar when the league was founded almost two decades ago. They didn’t choose to be in this position.
Surely you see the difference.
(FYI, I’m taking it as given that the Big XII’s structure will disadvantage them over the long term. As you correctly pointed out, with a bit of luck they could have had two teams in the playoff, and Bowlsby would have looked like a genius. It will take a few years before we know whether the purported disadvantage even exists. For sake of discussion, I am assuming that it does.)
LikeLike
Should the CG rule be adjusted, the 12 school requirement removed and assuming (as is likely) a CG would at least cover the addition of one school, why wouldn’t the Big 12 add Cincinnati, institute an 8 game conference schedule and stage a CG at Jerryworld?
LikeLike
With an 8-game conference schedule, some of the schools would relinquish marquee games they now play annually against the Texas and Oklahoma schools. What are they gaining that would make this desirable?
LikeLike
An expansion to 12 with a 9 game schedule would necessitate the same thing; instead revenues are split 11 ways. The benefits are that a CG has an 80% chance (rather than a ridiculous 100% with a 10 school round robin) of being a rematch, schools (esp UT and OU) get more scheduling flexibility and West Va gets a travel partner. As Frank notes Cincinnati is the one obvious choice; there isn’t a suitable 12th school.
LikeLike
The benefits of a “travel partner” for WV are much over-stated. It amounts to one football game every other year, certainly not enough to drive the expansion bus if the other benefits are not there.
LikeLike
Hopefully this dude is like his South Suburban Conference counterpart Tevin Coleman :
http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2014/12/11/7379117/oklahoma-sooners-football-running-back-soonerdave-heading-to-illinois
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/10/college-football-playoff-first-year-review
Long also addressed the other big question that arose Sunday. Were committee members swayed by Ohio State’s brand? Did the Buckeyes get in because they have a bigger name than Baylor or TCU? “The Ohio State brand had nothing to do with it,” Long said. “It was never discussed in the committee. It was focused on that football team.”
LikeLike
Would that even need to be discussed? Wouldn’t everyone in that room have an innate understanding that OSU is a bigger brand than TCU or Baylor, and possibly bigger than TCU AND Baylor?
LikeLike
It would need to be discussed if people were trying to leverage TV ratings as a reason to pick OSU. If all they talked about were the facts of the resumes, then brand had no conscious impact on the result.
LikeLike
” If all they talked about were the facts of the resumes, then brand had no conscious impact on the result.”
If all that was publicly talked about were facts and resumes, committee members could very easily think of but not vocalize a desire to maximize brand power in the first ever CFB playoff. Not vocalizing those thoughts does not mean they has no conscious impact on the result, just that they had no stated or documented impact on the result.
LikeLike
So multiple people separately thought they wanted to promote OSU because it’s such a big brand? What about people wanting to support the B12 because it’s a big brand? What about the large number of people who hate OSU and/or the B10? How do we know those people aren’t on the committee? Why wouldn’t that be a concern for the ratings?
Remind me, why would the committee care about brands? They have zero financial incentive. Plus, the ratings will be ridiculous anyway. AL versus anybody in a playoff game would pull a huge number.
“If all that was publicly talked about were facts and resumes, committee members could very easily think of but not vocalize a desire to maximize brand power in the first ever CFB playoff.”
That only works if the brand supports the factual argument, at which point I’d argue that the brand didn’t matter.
If the brand argument opposes the factual argument, then that will show up in the voting and have to be discussed by those not favoring brands over facts. Several people in a room using facts to show why Baylor is better and then voting for OSU instead would be noted and thus the issue would be discussed. Or are you now saying all 12 were thinking this same way. OSU is so beloved that the entire committee chose it despite thinking Baylor was better?
If the factual argument was so close that nobody noticed votes going against it, then the brand didn’t necessarily matter either. Anything could’ve been the deciding factor and the decision might be different if you polled them again tomorrow.
LikeLike
“So multiple people separately thought they wanted to promote OSU because it’s such a big brand?
Yes.
What about people wanting to support the B12 because it’s a big brand?
Is the B12 a team?
What about the large number of people who hate OSU and/or the B10?
What about them?
How do we know those people aren’t on the committee?
They could be.
Why wouldn’t that be a concern for the ratings?
Haters tune in. Its why the Dallas Cowboys have numerous prime time games annually.
“Remind me, why would the committee care about brands?”
They might not. Was only presenting a situation where brand can be a conscious and silent reason for wanting OSU.
“They have zero financial incentive.”
So?
“Plus, the ratings will be ridiculous anyway. AL versus anybody in a playoff game would pull a huge number.”
Two big brands are better than one.
“If the brand argument opposes the factual argument, then that will show up in the voting and have to be discussed by those not favoring brands over facts. Several people in a room using facts to show why Baylor is better and then voting for OSU instead would be noted and thus the issue would be discussed. Or are you now saying all 12 were thinking this same way. OSU is so beloved that the entire committee chose it despite thinking Baylor was better?
If the factual argument was so close that nobody noticed votes going against it, then the brand didn’t necessarily matter either. Anything could’ve been the deciding factor and the decision might be different if you polled them again tomorrow.”
It could have been a factor. Did I say it absolutely was or was not? I stated that OSU is a bigger brand than TCU and/or Baylor. It could have had an impact; it could not have.I have no idea.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Yes.”
Evidence?
“Is the B12 a team?”
Is it a brand? I presume the committee knows which conference these teams each belong to.
“They might not. Was only presenting a situation where brand can be a conscious and silent reason for wanting OSU.”
Which is also impugning the integrity of many or most of the members of the committee, saying they would intentionally vote in a team they didn’t think actually deserved to be in the top 4.
“So?”
So what incentive do they have to favor a brand to the point they are willing to override the factual evidence?
“Two big brands are better than one.”
Better for what? The committee isn’t ESPN. They have no stake in the ratings.
“It could have been a factor. Did I say it absolutely was or was not?”
You claimed they could have consciously chosen to vote against their actual beliefs in favor of picking a bigger brand without ever saying a word about branding. That’s a pretty broad accusation to level as pure speculation.
LikeLike
If the committee was focused on brands, then why did they keep downgrading a Florida State team that was winning its games? In the committee’s second-to-last update, they demoted FSU to 4th, with TCU 3rd.
Now, subsequent events pushed TCU back to 6th, but the committee couldn’t have known for sure how the last weekend of games would play out.
LikeLike
There’s a subconscious bias toward established “brands.” I think that was still there, but at a lower level than you usually get in the polls. The biggest thing that helped Ohio St. was recency bias. Their best game was their last one, playing as the committee was starting to meet. The committee talked about that.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There’s a subconscious bias toward established “brands.””
There probably is, though I think it impacts fans and media more than some of these committee members. Several have ties to non-brands so they should sympathize with the plight of the little guy. I also think the sheer amount of football the committee watched, and seeing it minus much of the commentary from ESPN or CBS or whomever, overwhelms most bias.
It’s why I was careful to talk about conscious impact above.
“The biggest thing that helped Ohio St. was recency bias. Their best game was their last one, playing as the committee was starting to meet. The committee talked about that.”
I agree, and it’s one reason why they might want to move the final vote back to Tuesday. It was hard not to be impressed with OSU in that game and that was the last thing they saw before voting. Taking a day or two to cool off and approach the final vote with a clear head might lead to better results long term.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/12/ole-miss-freeze-to-earn-4-3-million-next-season/20305197/
Hugh Freeze is getting a raise to $4.3M per year. Meanwhile, WI keeps losing HCs because they won’t pay competitive rates for ACs.
LikeLike
Well the good news I guess is that Wisconsin is going for a coach who will never leave on his own unless it’s to retire… I guess that’s the silver lining here?
FWIW, it makes sense for Alvarez to do that, he’s signaled that he doesn’t want to be filling the HC spot after this hire, so going with the Wisconsin guy is the right idea.
LikeLike
Chryst has hardly been a superstar at Pitt, though. Is this picking the most familiar over the best available? Is Alvarez so impressed with his own style that he didn’t consider a HC that won’t basically run his old schemes? This seems similar to MI insisting on hiring Bo disciples.
LikeLike
True, maybe they’re hoping it’s sort of like Dantonio at Cincinnati? Like Chryst was doing a lot of setup/rebuilding work (or so I’ve seen Pitt/Wisconsin fans claim) so the records aren’t that impressive until you see what Brian Kelly did with those teams that Dantonio put together…?
Although that comparison isn’t really perfect, I guess that’s what Wisconsin fans are probably hoping for…, that Chryst can take a Wisconsin team with a system that’s already in place and keep them at a high level.
LikeLike
I would draw this distinction. Jim Harbaugh would be a marquee hire for anybody, regardless of his history with Bo Schembechler. Paul Chryst’s history with Wisconsin is literally the only reason he was considered for an opening of that stature.
When Michigan hired Brady Hoke, it was a similar situation. The fact he’d once had a cup of coffee with Schembechler was practically the only thing on his resume that counted, and the program paid a pretty steep price for that error.
But I think Chryst could do better than Hoke, because he’ll be coming in to run the same system Wisconsin has run since before the current players were in diapers. Hoke was brought in at Michigan to bring the Wolverines back to the (supposed) virtues of smash-mouth football. Executing that mission while having no clue about offense didn’t turn out so well.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/13/wisconsin-ad-says-no-offers-meets-with-schiano/20302657/
Well, now USA Today is reporting that Alvarez met with Schiano. It doesn’t mean Chryst isn’t his #1 choice, but maybe they are at least looking outside of Alvarez’s coaching tree.
LikeLike
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-10/bloomberg-politics-poll-half-of-americans-dont-want-their-sons-playing-football
According to a new Bloomberg Politics poll, 50 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t want their son to play the sport and only 17 percent believe it’ll grow in popularity in the next 20 years.
…
The Bloomberg survey, conducted from Dec. 3-5 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, shows that elites are particularly bearish on the sport’s future. Almost a third of those who make $100,000 or more a year say football will lose followers over the next two decades. More than a quarter of college-educated respondents agree. The same wealthy and college-educated folks are the most likely groups to want to keep their children off the gridiron. Sixty-two percent of college-educated respondents said they don’t want their children playing the sport and 62 percent of those making $100,000 or more a year agree.
…
The poll also showed a generational divide, with 56 percent of those under age 35 saying they’d want their son to play. That’s the highest of any demographic group and almost twice the percentage, 29 percent, of those 65 and older. Democrats were slightly more likely to oppose their children participating in the game than Republicans, 52 percent to 47. Even though the National Football League has courted women as viewers, 58 percent of female respondents say they don’t want their boys playing football compared with 41 percent of men.
Another bright spot for the sport among the under-35 set: They are almost twice as likely as older respondents to believe the sport will grow in popularity over the next twenty years. And there’s still the 43 percent of respondents who say they want their kids to play the game,
…
The poll of 1,001 U.S. adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Poll: “If you had a young son today, do you think you would or would not want him to play competitive football?”
Not play – 50%
Play – 43%
Unsure – 7%
The key is that younger people and poorer people were more likely to say yes, and that’s where most of the players are. Why even bother to ask people 65+? Those under 35 said yes at a 56% rate, and those are the current or future parents of players.
LikeLike
The under 35 is odd. Viewers strongly trend older. The under 35 are less into traditional sports. Then again, maybe the survey proves that they don’t follow football and don’t know what they’re talking about!
LikeLike
The under 35 demo is going to include mostly non-parents and a lot more singles – Millennials are delaying both marriage and child-bearing at historic levels. As a result, with most of them not having children, they aren’t facing the football-playing decision directly and it’s simply a hypothetical (which carries a lot less weight). In contrast, the age 35 to 50 demo would be the real sweet spot to see how parents that are actually facing the decision feel – those are the people that matter (and anecdotally, as someone with young kids starting to play sports, I see a LOT of consternation from fellow parents about allowing their sons to play football).
At the same time, the under 35 demo grew up in a world where they have known nothing other than football completely dominating every other spectator sport in popularity, whereas even I (I’m 36) can remember when baseball was at least a very strong #2 to football. They haven’t experienced seeing something like the World Series decline in popularity (which would have been unfathomable for me as a kid) or how older generations saw a mega-popular sport like boxing completely collapse, so I can easily see how younger people see football (and specifically the NFL) as impenetrable.
LikeLike
I remember when baseball was #1, the NBA was a minor afterthought and there were 6 teams in the NHL. In elementary school we listened to the World Series on the radio with St. Louis and Detroit. And that was in Indiana, so it wasn’t a big Detroit or St. Louis fanbase area.
Personally, I don’t want my son to play serious football, but I wouldn’t have any “consternation” if he did. Fortunately, he doesn’t have any interest. He likes playing non-serious football, but as for a school team, said, “Why would anyone want to play a sport where the main idea is to hurt other people?” I don’t remember having that thought about football when I was a kid. I gave it up because I didn’t like it enough to wear pads in early August in Houston’s heat and humidity. When I was registering for school and saw them out there, I remember thinking, “This is for the birds.” My Dad had played HS football for a state championship team, but I stopped after 7th grade. My son’s organized football experience probably ended with a flag football league (I was impressed how well organized that league was).
LikeLike
Anecdotal comment: My wife and I just had a baby boy a month ago. Friends and family have asked us about whether we wojld let our son play football. We would not encourage him to play that sport. I dont know yet whether we would prohibit him no matter what, but we do not feel good about it for a number of reasons. We fit into that under 35 demo, but we dont fit that norm of delaying marriage. We got married at 23, although 8.5 years passed before our first kid came along.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The under 35 is odd.”
Is it? Younger people are always less risk averse.
“Viewers strongly trend older.”
But this was about letting your child play, not about watching.
“The under 35 are less into traditional sports.”
Are they, or are they just also interested in less traditional sports? And again, what they like isn’t necessarily strongly correlated with how they’d answer the question.
“Then again, maybe the survey proves that they don’t follow football and don’t know what they’re talking about!”
Or they’re just less concerned about it happening to their child.
LikeLike
“Or they’re just less concerned about it happening to their child.”
Since fewer of them actually have a child to be concerned about, this is quite likely as a factor.
A gender split would also be useful information … its can in some cases only require 50% opposition to have a 100% no. I know an issue in juniors recruitment for rugby league (and an advantage in juniors recruitment in association football) was opposition from mothers to their children playing footie.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Since fewer of them actually have a child to be concerned about, this is quite likely as a factor.”
I was thinking more about the sense of invulnerability younger people tend to have. They know there’s a risk, they just don’t believe it will happen to them. Athletes think the same way.
LikeLike
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/04/helmetless-football-practice-university-of-new-hampshire/
Something that may help preserve football – learning to tackle without helmets.
LikeLike
Next, get rid of the pads. You’ll get lots of bruises and broken fingers, but very few major injuries. Think rugby. You’d probably get a more wide open, fluid game, too.
LikeLike
Interesting. Still think the best way is to reduce momentum. End unlimited substitution. Make them play both ways so the players get smaller. They will also be a little more tired and so be a little slower. Less mass, less velocity, less damage.
This would be at HS and college level only, so it would reduce damage to the amateurs.
LikeLike
Widen the field, make 8+ (perhaps all 11) offensive players eligible receivers and eliminate downfield blocking. (Again think rugby) Athleticism and agility will thus be valued over size.
LikeLike
You could also just institute a weight cap (or a series of them).
LikeLike
Team handball, anyone?
LikeLike
No. That “sport” is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Eliminate all blocking, eliminate the forward pass, re-institute the free kick, have play restart immediately with the tackled player feeding it to the first person to arrive to take the ball, and have six downs to go the length of the field. Or, IOW, play Rugby League football instead of American Rules football.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Interesting. Still think the best way is to reduce momentum. End unlimited substitution. Make them play both ways so the players get smaller. They will also be a little more tired and so be a little slower. Less mass, less velocity, less damage.”
The other side of that coin is that coaches would obsess about conditioning. Since that’s already what causes most deaths in football, I’m not sure you want to stress it even more.
Besides, without substitution you risk injuries because a tired player can’t leave the field.
I think you’ll see improvement in technology (helmets, etc), medicine (diagnosis and treatment), rules (more punishment for bad form) and tackling technique combine to reduce the negative effects of football.
LikeLike
Stupid coaches cause problems with conditioning. I think part of the problem is that football coaches don’t really understand stamina. They focus on intensity and 40 yard dashes. Its ridiculous how little stamina those giant defensive linemen have. They are hand on hips on any long drive. They wouldn’t last a minute with a wrestler. They’d be totally out of gas.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Stupid coaches cause problems with conditioning.”
That’s part of it. So are the supplements so many players take. And perhaps the most important is undiagnosed sickle cell.
“I think part of the problem is that football coaches don’t really understand stamina. They focus on intensity and 40 yard dashes.”
Because football is a game of bursts.
“Its ridiculous how little stamina those giant defensive linemen have. They are hand on hips on any long drive. They wouldn’t last a minute with a wrestler. They’d be totally out of gas.”
They are dealing with 330 lb OL slamming into them and then sprinting after guys 50-100 lbs lighter than them. Many DL are former wrestlers, but they were smaller when they wrestled because they didn’t have to manhandle 330 lb people. That much anaerobic activity requires recovery time, and the fatigue adds up over a long drive.
LikeLike
Muschamp is going back to Auburn as DC at $1.6 million a year. Rumors had him at South Carolina or Texas A&M and he did interview for head coach at Houston.
LikeLike
The explosion of coordinator salaries is getting a little out of hand. Muschamp is making almost as much as the average I-A HC. That seems excessive considering the limited responsibilities of a DC.
LikeLike
That seems excessive considering the limited responsibilities of a DC.
I’m a bit blown away by the money too, but in what sense are a DC’s responsibilities limited? I’d think that when you work for a HC who is known mainly as an offensive mind, the DC is the second most important role on the staff — the mirror image of the OC’s responsibility when working for a defensively-minded HC.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m a bit blown away by the money too, but in what sense are a DC’s responsibilities limited?”
They watch film, game plan for their side of the ball and usually coach a position. The head coach is responsible for both sides of the ball plus special teams, has to oversee all 120 players, manages recruiting and other football issues, manages the staff and has all the non-football responsibilities (interviews, alumni/donor events, glad handing, etc).
That’s a big difference to me.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/11996421/nhl-las-vegas-truly-handle-expansion-team
A lengthy look at the NHL possibly expanding to Las Vegas.
LikeLike
Navy beat Army again (13 straight). It was a defensive struggle but Army just can’t get over that hump.
LikeLike
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=400554392
Well, Manziel showed what a star he is in his first start. 10/18 for 80 yds and 2 picks. The team got 107 total yards.
LikeLike
It’s pretty common for NFL QBs to have rocky debuts. In Terry Bradshaw’s first game, he went 4-16 for 70 yards, zero TDs and one INT.
In fact, Bradshaw’s first whole season was horrific. He appeared in 13 out of 14 games, completing just 38.1% of his passes, with 6 TDs and 24 INTs.
Like Manziel, Bradshaw was a first-round pick (in fact, the first player taken). He turned out OK.
Not that I think Manziel is another Bradshaw (very few are), but you can’t infer very much from one game.
LikeLike
Bradshaw replaced Terry Hanratty who completed a whopping 39.3% of his passes that year, and Bradshaw had a higher ypa and ypc.
Hoyer has completed over 55% of his passes (I know it’s a different era and his numbers had been trending down) and has much higher ypa and ypc than Manziel, not to mention QBR and other measures.
The Browns have a bye this week. The game after that would’ve been a better time to start Manziel if they insisted on doing it. Maybe more prep time would improve his performance.
LikeLike
If you don’t like the Bradshaw example, pick 10 others. NFL QBs in their first start are usually not very impressive, regardless of what the career stats eventually will be.
Again, not that I think Manziel has much chance of becoming another Bradshaw.
LikeLike
A lot of bad QBs also play poorly in game one. Picking a HoFer as an example doesn’t change that.
LikeLike
It does show that the first few games of a rookie QB do not *separate* the good ones from the bad ones, so using a bad performance in the first start as confirmation of an existing negative opinion is primarily confirmation bias.
LikeLike
Of course it is. I wasn’t making a serious argument that he has no future because of one game. I was pointing out that as I expected, he didn’t live up to his hype.
LikeLike
Troy Aikman went 1-15 in his first season. Maybe Cleveland will be over Manziel if he looks as bad in the last two games as he did against Cincinnati. Despite Carolina’s record I would not call them a bye; in the awful NFC South if NO loses a game they will be in 1st place.
When the Brown’s management decided to start Manziel, I assumed they were tossing in the towel on this season. For Cleveland to make the playoffs they need to win their last two games; Baltimore, KC, and SD must lose this weekend AND the end of season KC-SD game must be a tie. If Manziel beat Cincinnati, or Hoyer had won either of his last two starts their chances would be better, but they have lost 4 of their last 5 games and Hoyer started in 3 of those losses.
LikeLike
Sorry, I saw some site that had their schedule wrong or I misread it. Carolina is close to a bye, especially with Cam hurt, but that wasn’t what I meant.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s pretty common for NFL QBs to have rocky debuts. In Terry Bradshaw’s first game, he went 4-16 for 70 yards, zero TDs and one INT.
In fact, Bradshaw’s first whole season was horrific. He appeared in 13 out of 14 games, completing just 38.1% of his passes, with 6 TDs and 24 INTs.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/10539/johnny-manziel-browns-provide-a-loss-for-the-ages
There are bad losses and there are painful losses.
But in Johnny Manziel’s first start, the Cleveland Browns put an historic loss on the field, up there with the worst of the many historic Browns losses since the team returned to the field in 1999. It came in a big game, at a time when a much-hyped quarterback was supposed to give a spark as Cleveland made a final playoff push.
All the talk all week was Manziel this and Manziel that. But everyone forgot that the other team has a say, and those with the Browns who felt Manziel would give the Browns a better chance to win have some seriously bad numbers to digest following a 30-0 loss Sunday.
Among them:
…
* Manziel becomes the sixth quarterback in the last 20 years to be shut out in his first start
…
* The offense had more than 100 yards for the day only because the Bengals scored a touchdown with 30 seconds left. The Browns got a final play with 18 seconds left and Manziel threw a slip screen for nine yards.
* To that point, the offense had the ball nine times, and had seven three-play possessions. Three of those were for negative yards.
* The Browns ran 38 offensive plays, the fewest by any team this season and fewest by the Browns since Week 1 of 1999, when they ran 28 plays against the Steelers in a 43-0 loss.
LikeLike
Generally speaking, I’m a huge skeptic that Johnny Manziel will ever be even a regular starting NFL quarterback for a bad team, much less a star. What made him successful in college just doesn’t seem to translate well to the NFL in the long-term (as we’ve seen superior athletes like Cam Newton and RGIII that live outside of the pocket have mediocre-to-bad results). Defenses are waaaaaaay too fast, which means that pocket passing accuracy and arm strength are what you need to be a great NFL QB. He’s much more likely to end up as Tim Tebow (out of the league after a couple of years despite huge media attention) than Andrew Luck (the quintessential pocket passer that translates exactly to what successful NFL teams need).
That being said, the stats from his first game are meaningless in that assessment. It’s Manziel’s overall style of play that is inherently the problem for the NFL as opposed to the first game stats (as even the best QBs have generally had horrible debuts).
LikeLike
I think Cleveland made the right decision to start Manziel. They know Hoyer does not have what it takes. Might as well see what Manziel has now since this season is already lost. If Hoyer had started the score may have been closer, but it still would have been a loss. There was not much of a run D for Cleveland today.
LikeLike
It was the wrong decision, but that’s because they never should have drafted him in the first place. Hoyer’s still better than Manziel and he’s less annoying, too.
How do you figure the season was already lost? Browns were 7-6, Steelers and Ravens were 8-5 and Bengals were 8-4-1. They all have one division game left after today, too.
LikeLike
Not this again. You guys had a decade plus in the wilderness as an independent, thinking you would become parrt of the Big 8.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141214/sports/141219174/
LikeLike
It would be “not this again” if Big12 talk had led to expansion plan. However, in this case the expansion likely makes sense on its own for NIU where they are … even in this season, with their lowest average attendance in years, they turned people away from two of their games because they were sold out several days in advance. And while their previous AD did not seem to care about scheduling for home attendance, the new AD supposedly has a greater focus on that.
So “expansion plan leads to Big12 talk” just because anything a moderately successful Go5 school does is going to lead to unrealistic P5 conference realignment talk by one or more people looking for clickthrough headlines.
LikeLike
I wonder if Houston High has any strange unique graduate programs…
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24891151/report-houston-to-hire-ohio-st-play-caller-tom-herman-as-coach
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24891415/college-football-attendance-home-crowds-drop-to-lowest-in-14-years
Attendance was down on average, but not for most of the top 25. It also includes the new additions and neutral site games don’t count.
The over 100k crowd:
1. OSU
2. TAMU
3. MI
4. LSU
5. PSU
6. AL
Conference averages:
SEC – 78,018
B10 – 66,939 thanks to the newbies (69,961 without them)
B12 – 57,624
P12 – 52,758
ACC – 50,016
B10 breakdown:
kings average = 101,019 (range = 106,296-91,249; normalized range = 1-0.858)
princes average = 73,904 (79,520-67,512; 1-0.849)
bottom 7 average = 43,224 (50,632-35,269; 1-0.697)
LikeLike
I put together a spreadsheet using capacity as well as actual and it looks like the East division averages around $75k and the West $$59k. Capacity it would be East at $80 and West at $65k. If they go to 16 in the future they need to add balance to the West division. That’s a big difference between divisions. Would be curious what the difference is for the SEC. A lot of big stadiums in the SEC West.
LikeLike
Yes, putting OSU, MI and PSU in one division will skew the numbers. NE, WI and IA are 3 of the next 4 in B10 attendance (MSU is #6).
But to be fair, the population in the footprint is also skewed to the East. That’s one reason why some people preferred not to split E/W.
The only teams that could help the West in this regard are UT and OU, and they don’t seem likely.
LikeLike
Unless a school like ND joined. But I think if there are more schools added we’ll see pods and rotating divisions. The west division is in a tough spot in terms of recruiting, attendance, and program revenue versus the B1G East.
LikeLike
Kevin – here is the SEC 2014 attendance breakdown by division. 13 of the 14 SEC schools are in the top 30 nationwide. I rounded to the nearest 1000.
SEC West average 84,000
#2 A&M (105k) New expansion this season but should drop about 2000 for next season.
#4 LSU (102k) New expansion this season.
#6 Bama (102k)
#10 Auburn (87k)
#22 Arkansas (67k)
#25 Ole Miss (62k) Expanding the stadium for the 2016 season. I think they’ll be up to 70k.
#27 Miss State (61k) New expansion this season.
SEC East average 74,000
#7 Tennessee (100k)
#8 Georgia (93k)
#11 Florida (86k)
#14 South Carolina (81k)
#23 Mizzou (65k) In the middle of an expansion/renovation.
#30 Kentucky (58k) In the middle of a renovation/reduction.
NR Vandy (34k) I think Vandy will be performing a renovation in the near future.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/11929908/betting-ats-records-factor-college-football-playoff-rankings
Maybe this explains why some people felt like OR should be #1 over AL and why FSU was lucky to be #3. Those two teams just didn’t look as good as they were expected to be.
As of 11/24:
ATS records of top 7 teams in last week’s College Football Playoff rankings
1. Alabama 2-8-1
2. Oregon 7-4
3. Florida State 3-8
4. Mississippi State 7-4
5. TCU 8-2
6. Ohio State 7-4
7. Baylor 7-3
LikeLike
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/story.cfm/story/1482940
Maybe a better way to look at bowl results. How did the conferences do against the spread?
Past 5 years combined (straight up W% in parentheses):
ACC 0.524 (0.439)
B10 0.500 (0.378)
B12 0.410 (0.513)
P12 0.514 (0.457)
SEC 0.542 (0.604)
LikeLike
Coaching news from the AP:
OSU’s OC Tom Herman has been hired by UH (will coach at OSU in the playoff).
Bo Pelini will accept the YSU job.
Les Miles will not come to MI.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2014/12/why_mount_union_vs_wisconsin-w.html
This Friday it’s Mount Union vs WI-Whitewater in the D-III title game for the 9th time in the past 10 years.
The WW coach (108-6) got hired by Buffalo for next year so the MAC better watch out. Maybe the Badgers should hire him instead? He’d probably thrive at a bottom B10 school like IN, PU or IL.
LikeLike
Count me as a badger fan that is excited about Chryst. Just need to surround him with a good DC and great recruiting assistants. The guy can flat out coach offense. If he can secure top 30 recruiting classes the Badgers will be consistently competitive. It was no secret in Madison that Chryst ran the practices and had the respect of both the offense and defense. Bielema would show up drunk to practices in his earlier years. Things got better for Bret in the end but he didn’t have the same respect from the players as Chryst did.
LikeLike
TV ratings rankings:
http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings/5
LikeLike
Analysis of TV ratings, looking at different channels and conferences.
http://big12fanatics.com/college-football-viewership-behind-numbers/
LikeLike
B12 alleges data misrepresentation, responds with their own data misrepresentation.
LikeLike
Both are done by bloggers.
As with the Aggie goodbullhunting schedule last year (wouldn’t be surprised if this was the same guy), the Aggie analysis doesn’t really say anything because its not comparing the same things. The fanatic looks at things several different ways and discusses the issue. Its a good read, especially when discussing the various networks.
LikeLike
The site promises more at the end of the article:
Hopefully, no matter what conference or team you are a fan, you look at the network numbers now and see why all of these conferences are basically paid the exact same amount, especially over time. The SEC is definitely at the top of the list when it comes to the television audience. However the factors that create that are as diverse as the channels that feature their games to the games they choose to broadcast. Additionally the other Power Five conferences are all within spitting distance of each other, especially when it comes to valuation.
As alluded to earlier, I will have another article later this week that dives into these numbers even further, looking at how conference stack up per network, to how teams stack up within conferences. And, perhaps, even dive into some expansion possibilities that relate to network audiences.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/bo-pelini-insults-a-d-shawn-eichorst-in-expletive-filled/article_b202b14a-8633-11e4-8c91-f3f5386da4f8.html
Bo Pelini really didn’t like Shawn Eichorst, apparently.
LikeLike
Expansion of a different kind – Major League Baseball
With Obama’s announcements of the US normalizing it’s relationship with Cuba (though this doesn’t mean the sanctions will stop until Congress makes that decision) could Havana be a MLB city in the next 5 to 10 years? Granted it doesn’t have the money or a worthy stadium, but it does have the fans and deep talent that the rest of the league would love to tap into further. It’s one of the great baseball capitals of the world.
LikeLike
Well, it is still a communist dictatorship, but who knows what could happen in 10 years. My guess is that time frame is too short for the sort of change that landing an MLB franchise would require.
Best case scenario, in ten years, maybe the Marlins play a series there. Maybe there is a minor league team in Havana. Something like that. Most likely is that more Cubans will get opportunities to play in the Majors.
LikeLike
Longer term it might be a threat to many of Florida’s economic interests – it will represent a more exotic less expensive vacation spot, also I’m sure agricultural activities like citrus will begin to be explored to the detriment of Floridian enterprises. This may affect the upper income managerial and above professions associated with tourism and food production, which in turn may affect season ticket and other expenditures for some existing teams, as if say the Tampa Bay Rays, Florida Panthers or Orlando Magic needed less of this cohort.
LikeLike
Florida Orange Juice is a brand. Cuba would be no threat. Citrus diseases ARE a threat.
Don’t see Cuba a threat to Florida tourism. May even be a boon to Miami’s cruise ship business.
LikeLike
B12 expansion candidate analysis for loki;
http://big12fanatics.com/dont-listen-media-solution-big-12-expansion/
LikeLike
His part II (above is part III) was entertaining also:
http://big12fanatics.com/big-12-expansion-just-say-no-dumpster-diving-accs-rummage-pile/
LikeLike
I would differ and say you don’t want to downgrade the schedule too much. If the Big 12 absolutely, positively has to expand, I think you have to accept looking strange and stretch across 3 times zones and take BYU as #11. Maybe football only-depending on how hung up the TV people are on no Sunday play. BYU is the one school out there that isn’t a military academy that the fans wouldn’t yawn about.
#12 is a lot more difficult. UConn just isn’t a fit and really adds less than a lot of other alternatives in football. NIU doesn’t appear to be there yet. Other western schools have dismal football histories. If you have to choose between New Mexico and Tulane-who do you choose? Being #4 or #5 in a state is not a good place to be. I think that’s why the networks didn’t include the Florida schools in their class “A” group in the AAC (UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Houston).
So that gets you down to Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and his alternatives from the Garden District and South Main. Houston would add back old rivalries but puts a 5th team in Texas. Rice also would put an additional school in Texas. I don’t think Cincinnati has much upside (as the author points out). So you have to choose between Beale Street and Bourbon Street.
LikeLike
Mack,
While I sympathize with his viewpoint (no expansion is ideal, if you do expand don’t chase eastern schools the ACC wouldn’t take), I have problems with his analysis from the start.
Conferences like the ACC and Big Ten should be more concerned, but I suppose the Big Ten figures they will just continue to get in the old fashioned way by stacking the committee. Regardless, I don’t know if there are many people who believe a 1 loss Oklahoma would not be in the playoffs right now ahead of the Big Ten or ACC’s best teams. It is apparent that our best brand teams will rank ahead of their best brand team, as their best brand teams just eeked out a popularity contest against some of our smallest schools.
1. The B10 stacked the committee? With 2 of 13 people, one of whom spent most of his career in the B8? And the B10 had no say in who got chosen beyond nominating candidates.
2. I think any impartial analysis would show that a large number of CFB fans and media think OSU would’ve gotten in over 11-1 OU.
3. It isn’t at all clear to me that a B12 brand will automatically trump a B10 or ACC brand. It seems like he undervalues the resume issues many had with Baylor (Baylor’s win over TCU basically eliminated TCU from consideration as #4 for most people).
Maybe I need to adjust my tinfoil hat but I do believe that this committee has taken us back to pre BCS days where the eye test, aka who had the best brand, usually won out.
That’s not what the eye test is.
Remember if you subscribe to this is a rigged game for the big brands
And this is my fundamental disagreement with him. I don’t see solid evidence to support this hypothesis (it’s debatable at best), but his entire expansion plan is based on it. Part of the B12 crowd’s argument against OSU was how supposedly weak the B10 was, while others countered with the weakness of Baylor’s OOC schedule and lack of a 13th game. So his fix is to add two terrible football teams and make the B12 schedule even easier? Maybe that makes it more likely to have an undefeated champ, but it seems unlikely to help a 12-1 champ get in over other 12-1 champs. Wouldn’t a weaker B12 undermine his argument of the B12 being stronger than the other conferences?
He then advocates an 8-game schedule despite the B10 playing 9. Again, how does this make/keep the B12 as a stronger brand with a better resume? Does he understand how bad Rice and Tulane are compared to the cellar dwellers in the B10 and ACC?
He also claims the B12 would be viewed as the best academic football conference. Tulane and Rice are both great schools, but they don’t erase the other schools in the B12 like KSU, OkSU and TT. They would look more like the ACC and P12 than they do now, though.
LikeLike
Rice is NOT bad compared to the cellar dwellers in the P5 conferences. Given an opportunity against schools like Purdue and Kansas the Owls are 3-0 the last few years. Sure we are bad against ND and aTm, but so are those schools.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Rice is NOT bad compared to the cellar dwellers in the P5 conferences. Given an opportunity against schools like Purdue and Kansas the Owls are 3-0 the last few years. Sure we are bad against ND and aTm, but so are those schools.”
1. History shows that smaller conference schools do much worse when bumped up to a full slate of P5 schools rather than 1 or 2 per season (Utah, TCU even WV). The wear and tear takes a toll.
2. Those are one off games with unequal motivation between the two teams. It’s dumb based on how poor their own teams are, but they’re college kids and they just don’t get as motivated for a G5 team.
After a few years Rice and Tulane would improve thanks to the better recruiting P5 membership allows, but I’m talking their teams now.
Also remember that I talked about these schools as a pair. This year Sagarin has Rice #86 and Tulane #142. Are there P5 teams lower than Rice? Yes. But nobody is close to Tulane.
Rice:
2014 – 86
2013 – 69
2012 – 83
2011 – 89
2010 – 127
ave = 91
vs P5 dregs 2001-2013:
bad Duke 1-1
Purdue 1-0
NW 0-2
KU 2-0
bad Baylor 0-1
Vandy 0-2
bad MS St 0-1
LikeLike
Bad MS St that a few months later was ranked #1 in the country? C’mon man. Rice is no world beater to be sure, but given P5 resources could easily rise to mediocrity and from the get-go could compete with Kansas, Wake Forest, and other dregs.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Bad MS St that a few months later was ranked #1 in the country?”
6-6 MS St. 3-5 in the SEC MS St, with those 3 being over UK (0-8), in OT at AR (0-8) and in OT vs MS (3-5). The other 3 wins were over Alcorn St, Troy and BGSU.
Don’t even try to compare them to this year’s team.
“Rice is no world beater to be sure, but given P5 resources could easily rise to mediocrity and from the get-go could compete with Kansas, Wake Forest, and other dregs.”
Yes, and I said exactly that if you’d actually read what I wrote.
After a few years Rice and Tulane would improve thanks to the better recruiting P5 membership allows, but I’m talking their teams now.
LikeLike
I did read it. I agree with that part. It was obvious to me in what I wrote, excuse me if it was not clear, that I was taking exception to this erroneous assertion:
“Does he understand how bad Rice and Tulane are compared to the cellar dwellers in the B10 and ACC?”
Let’s look at Massey composite.
71 Northwestern
76 Oregon State
77 Rice
78 Texas Tech
80 Washington State
87 Indiana
89 Syracuse
91 Colorado
93 Kansas
94 Purdue
97 Iowa State
101 Vanderbilt
103 Wake Forest
The perception that the dregs of the P5 are any good compared to winning to teams in the other conferences is wrong. Rice is already as good now as the ‘cellar dwellers’. And when they play we see that.
Even your examples have Rice 4-7 against the ones you picked.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Let’s look at Massey composite.”
Let’s not since I was talking about programs, not teams.
“The perception that the dregs of the P5 are any good compared to winning to teams in the other conferences is wrong.”
No, it isn’t. Have Rice play a P5 schedule and they’d look a lot worse. The P5 dregs have to face much bigger and better teams so they suffer more injuries and wear and tear.
“Rice is already as good now as the ‘cellar dwellers’. And when they play we see that.”
People claimed the same thing about TCU and Utah in the MWC because they could match the top teams in a one-off game. As it turns out, things aren’t the same when you play a full schedule of P5 teams.
TCU’s last 3 years in the MWC: 12-1, 13-0, 11-2
TCU’s first 2 years in the B12: 7-6, 4-8
Utah’s last 3 years in the MWC: 13-0, 10-3, 10-3
Utah’s first 3 years in the P12: 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Can/will the programs improve with P5 resources? Obviously (TCU 11-1).
LikeLike
Is there really much difference within the P5 as far as size? ESPN commented that this one team had the biggest line in all of football, including the pros. And I think it was a G5 team. Talent is different but that doesn’t necessarily correspond with injuries.
Its pretty clear there is a difference in injuries HS vs. college. And Division III vs. FBS. But is the difference really discernible within FBS or is it primarily luck and bad luck?
You might recall TCU went 13-0 and beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl before joining the Big 12.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Is there really much difference within the P5 as far as size?”
No, but I was comparing P5 to G5.
“ESPN commented that this one team had the biggest line in all of football, including the pros. And I think it was a G5 team. Talent is different but that doesn’t necessarily correspond with injuries.”
They can get similar size OL (but slower). They tend to be smaller or shorter (and generally slower) at other positions (undersized WR and CBs, short LBs, etc). The talent and speed is also a big gap.
“Its pretty clear there is a difference in injuries HS vs. college. And Division III vs. FBS. But is the difference really discernible within FBS or is it primarily luck and bad luck?”
Read interviews with coaches after they play P5 teams. Look at what RU’s coach was saying coming into the B10. The get more of the bumps and bruises that wear a player down over the season. I’m not talking serious injuries but the nagging ones that test your depth and hamper your top players. That’s what makes a P5 schedule wear on a team versus playing one once a year. It’s the weekly grind of taking those hits. It’s like body shots in boxing. They take time to add up, but they really hurt your performance by the end.
“You might recall TCU went 13-0 and beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl before joining the Big 12.”
Exactly my point. Winning a one-off game isn’t the problem. What happened to their record as soon as they had a P5 schedule, though? Now that they have adjusted via recruiting and coaching, they’re back to being successful.
LikeLike
No one is claiming that Rice or any other team would be a winner in a P5 conference. They wouldn’t. But then neither are Indiana or Wake Forest. The issue is this false dichotomy between the so-called P5 and G5. There isn’t a clear divide. Decent ‘G5’ programs are as good or better than the ‘dregs’ of the rich conferences.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“The issue is this false dichotomy between the so-called P5 and G5. There isn’t a clear divide.”
Is it false? Two of the best G5 programs ever moved up to P5 and became mediocre at best.
TCU’s last 3 years in the MWC: 12-1, 13-0, 11-2
TCU’s first 2 years in the B12: 7-6, 4-8
TCU was middle of the pack in year 1, and a dreg in year 2. Basically, they were ISU.
Utah’s last 3 years in the MWC: 13-0, 10-3, 10-3
Utah’s first 3 years in the P12: 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Utah was middle of the pack in year 1, a little worse in year 2 and a dreg in year 3. Basically, they were WSU.
If that’s what the best G5 programs are when they face a P5 schedule, then presumably the mediocre G5 programs would do significantly worse.
“Decent ‘G5′ programs are as good or better than the ‘dregs’ of the rich conferences.”
I think the evidence says otherwise. On any given Saturday, sure, but not over the length of a season.
LikeLike
If TCU coming in to the B12 and going 7-5 makes them the dregs then we’re just arguing about very different definitions of the word.
LikeLike
TCU was middle of the pack in year 1, and a dreg in year 2.
They went 4-8 (2-7) in their second year, and that’s when I called them a dreg. At least try to respond to what I actually wrote.
LikeLike
No one is claiming that Rice or any other team would be a winner in a P5 conference. They wouldn’t. But then neither are Indiana or Wake Forest. The issue is this false dichotomy between the so-called P5 and G5. There isn’t a clear divide. Decent ‘G5′ programs are as good or better than the ‘dregs’ of the rich conferences.
There might not be a clear divide, but there is a divide. There is a slight overlap between the top rung of P5 and the bottom rung of G5. But most of the G5 would be perennial losers in a P5 conference.
Rice is the perfect example, because they were in a power conference until the SWC disbanded in 1996, so we have ample recent evidence of what they could do. Their all-time winning percentage (most of it in the SWC) is .441. In their final 32 seasons in the SWC, they had zero bowl appearances and zero seasons with better than six wins.
They haven’t exactly set the world on fire since moving down to easier competition. In twenty post-SWC seasons, they’ve been to five bowls (counting this year), just one conference championship (2013), and just two 10-win seasons.
TCU was at least one of the top mid-majors before they stepped up to the P5. Rice cannot even say that. I think it’s very safe to say that they’d be perennial doormats in the Big XII. If you’re running the Big XII, why would you want to add a noncompetitive team in a Texas market you already dominate?
LikeLike
Brian – last year TCU lost four games by a total of 11 points. Two of those close losses were to BCS bowl teams in Oklahoma and Baylor. They were also decimated with injuries. The Horned Frogs were hardly dregs last season. Had the ball bounced their way in those four close losses, they would have been 8-4, rather than 4-8.
I think the biggest hurdle for TCU and Utah in moving up was depth. A few years in to big time college football, both teams appear to have answered the depth question, as they are both ranked in the last CFP ranking. TCU is #6 and Utah is #22.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“last year TCU lost four games by a total of 11 points.”
Plus 4 more by 67 points. Cherry-picking the close losses isn’t fair. If they only had close losses, then I might agree with you.
“Two of those close losses were to BCS bowl teams in Oklahoma and Baylor.”
And 2 of the big losses were to 7-5 TT and 8-4 UT, both unranked.
“They were also decimated with injuries.”
It happens.
“The Horned Frogs were hardly dregs last season.”
They only won 4 games. It doesn’t matter why. That’s a dreg team. Lots of bad teams have close losses. Better teams win those games.
“Had the ball bounced their way in those four close losses, they would have been 8-4, rather than 4-8.”
I agree, if they had won those games they would’ve been 8-4. They won by 4 points once, so the ball did bounce their way in 1 of 5 close games. Nobody should expect it to bounce their way more than 50% of the time. But you seem to be assuming they were the better team in those games. What’s the basis for thinking that? Is there some reason all 4 of those other teams didn’t deserve to win? Were they all flukes?
“I think the biggest hurdle for TCU and Utah in moving up was depth.”
I agree, and pointed that out above. The wear and tear of a P5 schedule tests your depth in ways a G5 schedule doesn’t.
“A few years in to big time college football, both teams appear to have answered the depth question, as they are both ranked in the last CFP ranking. TCU is #6 and Utah is #22.”
I also pointed out that programs would improve once in the P5.
LikeLike
I’m not really sure how TCU demonstrates Brian’s point. Their three-year conference record is 14-13, which is not spectacular, but puts them (barely) in the upper half of the Big XII. To the extent one can draw any conclusions on three years of data, TCU is clearly a competitive P5 program.
It’ll take a lot more time to say whether TCU belonged, but three years of data is more relevant than cherry-picking their 2013 season (or worse, individual games).
LikeLike
Brian asked “What’s the basis for thinking that?” Brian – I saw two of “bad” TCU’s losses in person – the LSU and the Texas game. The LSU game played much closer than the score. The Texas game just wasn’t their night, or mine, as the was a four hour lightning delay. I also watched several of the other games on TV. My eyeball test says they were much better than their record and they caught several bad breaks. How many TCU games did you watch in 2013?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m not really sure how TCU demonstrates Brian’s point. Their three-year conference record is 14-13, which is not spectacular, but puts them (barely) in the upper half of the Big XII. To the extent one can draw any conclusions on three years of data, TCU is clearly a competitive P5 program.”
1. Yes, they are. Now.
2. Their 2 year B12 record was 6-12. Which shows that a top G5 program playing a P5 schedule will be like a below average to bad P5 team. Over time, the program will adjust and improve. We all agree on that.
3. If TCU went 6-12, how would a mediocre MWC (or other G5) team have done in the B12?
That’s my point. The scant evidence we have (TCU and Utah) shows that G5 teams aren’t as good as people tend to think when faced with a full P5 schedule instead of just 1 or 2 P5 games.
If: elite G5 = below average or worse P5 (at first, not long term)
Then: mediocre or worse G5 < bad P5
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“I saw two of “bad” TCU’s losses in person – the LSU and the Texas game. The LSU game played much closer than the score.”
Could some of that feeling have been anxiety due to LSU being your team?
“The Texas game just wasn’t their night, or mine, as the was a four hour lightning delay.”
UT faced the same delay and won. Better teams overcome more obstacles than worse teams do.
“I also watched several of the other games on TV. My eyeball test says they were much better than their record and they caught several bad breaks.”
Did you catch several of their big losses and their close win? The eyeball might respond differently to those games. Certainly OSU this year looked much better in some games than others, for example.
TCU beat ISU by 4 and KU by only 10 (7 point game until 2:34 left). Their only sizable wins were over 2 cupcakes.
When you say bad breaks, are we talking bad calls or fluke plays that cost them games? Or do you mean injuries and turnovers and other things that all teams have to deal with to various degrees?
And are you also claiming they didn’t get any good breaks to keep some of those games close or to help them win their 2 B12 wins?
It’s not an attack to say a team was bad if they happened to have a lot of injuries. The reason they were bad doesn’t change the fact that they were bad. And 4-8 is bad. You can be 4-8 and competitive in almost every game (sorta like AR this year) or 4-8 with 8 blowout losses, sure, but 4-8 is 4-8. You play to win the game, not to look better than the other team.
Isn’t this the same argument TCU fans were using this year for why they should outrank Baylor despite losing to them? Ignore the result, just tell us who looked better?
“How many TCU games did you watch in 2013?”
I honestly don’t remember, but presumably fewer than you. Please note that I haven’t been making any eyeball test claims on my side of this.
If all you’re saying is that 2013 TCU wasn’t 2013 Purdue, then I agree.
I also want to point out that 2013 TCU was a strong defensive team, and that means they’d tend to stay in close games despite not being as good as the other team. The 2013 TCU offense was bad, though (injury-related, I know), and that cost them.
LikeLike
2. Their 2 year B12 record was 6-12. Which shows that a top G5 program playing a P5 schedule will be like a below average to bad P5 team. Over time, the program will adjust and improve. We all agree on that.
Well…no, it doesn’t show that. This comes of arguing from small sample sizes. Indiana has had decades in a power conference, and never made that adjustment.
I’m ordinarily skeptical of the “they lost X games by one score or less” argument, but there’s abundant evidence that the 2013 TCU team was an especially unlucky bunch. I’d say they arrived as a legitimate P5 team (i.e., at least average), not that they arrived as poseurs and somehow cracked the code after two years of mediocrity.
In contrast, Rutgers was 3-5 in its inaugural Big Ten season, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Scarlet Knights never make it to .500 in league play.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well…no, it doesn’t show that.”
Yes, it does. It doesn’t prove it with statistical significance, but it shows it.
“This comes of arguing from small sample sizes.”
It’s all of the available data. More would be better theoretically (not actually because it would mean a lot more expansion), but I can only work with what I’ve got.
“Indiana has had decades in a power conference, and never made that adjustment.”
Yes, they have. They’re just still bad after the adjustment.
“I’m ordinarily skeptical of the “they lost X games by one score or less” argument, but there’s abundant evidence that the 2013 TCU team was an especially unlucky bunch.”
Unlucky how? Injuries or something else? And what is this abundant evidence?
“I’d say they arrived as a legitimate P5 team (i.e., at least average), not that they arrived as poseurs and somehow cracked the code after two years of mediocrity.”
You say average, I say mediocre (they’re synonyms). I didn’t say they were poseurs.
“In contrast, Rutgers was 3-5 in its inaugural Big Ten season, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Scarlet Knights never make it to .500 in league play.”
Being in the East will make it tough, but parity-based scheduling will help them a little. Assuming PSU and MI rise back up to at least above average, RU could go 3-3 in division in a good year (beat UMD, IN and 1 upset). I don’t see 4-4 or 5-4 as out of reach for them if the schedule works out. They may even hit 6-3 some year. Anything above that seems unlikely for now.
But WV also stumbled entering the B12, reinforcing what happened with TCU and Utah.
LikeLike
TCU was one of the favorites (probably 2nd most picked after OU) to win the Big 12 their first year in the conference. However, over the summer, they lost 5 or 6 starters, including the QB and a big chunk of the defense, due to drug tests. They ended up playing the 2nd most true freshmen in the country that year due to losing those players. Given those circumstances, 7-5 was pretty good.
This year they also came in as one of the favorites.
LikeLike
bullet,
“TCU was one of the favorites (probably 2nd most picked after OU) to win the Big 12 their first year in the conference”
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205501193
Preseason B12 media poll had TCU #5, well behind OU, WV and UT (OkSU was just ahead of them with KSU just behind).
“However, over the summer, they lost 5 or 6 starters, including the QB and a big chunk of the defense, due to drug tests.”
I don’t call players getting busted for using drugs bad luck.
“They ended up playing the 2nd most true freshmen in the country that year due to losing those players.”
If they had the depth of a P5 team they wouldn’t have suffered as much.
“Given those circumstances, 7-5 was pretty good.”
That doesn’t mean the team was pretty good, though.
LikeLike
I seem to recall a poll of the Big 12 coaches where they were picked 2nd, but I can’t find it. In that media poll, they were one of only 4 schools to get a first place vote (OU and WVU got most of them).
In the national USA Today poll they were 17th in the preseason. OU was 4, WVU 11, UT 15, OSU 19, KSU 21. Also behind them in the top 25 were Stanford, Virginia Tech, Boise St., Florida, Notre Dame and Auburn.
Losing the 5 starters indicated they could have been a lot better without the loss. The QB got caught shortly after this: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Major-Drug-Bust-Hits-TCU-Campus-139355758.html
LikeLike
@Brian
The team that played the most true freshmen that year was Ohio St. They did manage to do pretty well with that. Texas was tied with TCU for 2nd. Texas didn’t have the type of player loss issues TCU did.
LikeLike
bullet,
“In that media poll, they were one of only 4 schools to get a first place vote (OU and WVU got most of them).”
TCU had 260 points compared to OU’s 396. KSU had the other 1st place vote and was 6th overall with 257 points. Quirky voters don’t change the general impression.
But you may remember the coaches poll correctly. I didn’t look for it.
“Losing the 5 starters indicated they could have been a lot better without the loss.”
Sure it would’ve helped. How much we’ll never know. Part of that is the difference in depth.
“The team that played the most true freshmen that year was Ohio St. They did manage to do pretty well with that.”
And OSU did pretty well this year with significant personnel losses right before the season, too.
LikeLike
If the computer composites have Boise State at 21, ahead of 44 ‘power’ teams, and Wake Forest at 103rd, not only is there no gap between the bottom of the cartel and the rest of the FBS, but the overlap is significant.
LikeLike
So it would appear Michigan has offered Harbaugh 49M for 6 years – making him the highest paid coach in all of football, should he accept.
A couple thoughts on the search, as a Michigan alum. The complete break between NFL and Michigan journalists on this topic has been ridiculous. Nearly all NFL sources/voices have said there was no chance from the very beginning. On the Michigan side, there was never any level of certainty, just the belief that there was interest on the Harbaugh side (the question being how much). Funny to see the NFL backtracking now, especially some of their explanations.
The number is certainly incredible. Approximately 8.1 per year for the life of the contract. While I do think Harbaugh is worth it, how crazy is it he would be making more than Saban, without having won a championship. I am curious to know how the bonuses work; are they already included to some extent in that number, or would he be pushing 10M with bonuses for conference/national titles?
I do think Harbaugh would turn around Michigan. He has done it every single place he has been; next year’s QB situation is unfortunate, but the program would certainly feel renewed.
All that being said, I won’t believe it until I see the press conference or headline saying he is our next coach. I can’t fault him for wanting to stay in the NFL; I just hope Michigan means more to him, at least right now.
LikeLike
The Michigan Rivals writers think the $8.1 million is inclusive of deferred compensation and incentives. They do not think it is a base salary.
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised at MI’s sudden willingness to pay that kind of money. That’s more than double what they have ever payed before and Harbaugh’s college resume isn’t close to that of Saban’s. I understand he had fewer years in college, but still there’s something to be said for being a proven winner at the highest level of CFB.
Is everyone sure the BoT/President or whatever official has the final say will approve that sort of salary? It seems odd that an interim AD would offer something so far beyond the norm without having asked around first, but I’m still curious who has authorized this. MI could be looking at a staff earning something like $12M per year.
LikeLike
“…there’s something to be said for being a proven winner at the highest level of CFB.”
What he did with Stanford doesn’t qualify? Are NC’s the singular measure?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“What he did with Stanford doesn’t qualify?”
To be the highest paid coach in CFB by over 17%? No, it doesn’t. Not to me, anyway.
2007 – 4-8, 3-6
2008 – 5-7, 4-5
2009 – 8-5, 6-3 (L in Sun Bowl)
2010 – 12-1, 8-1 (W Orange Bowl)
He had 1 great year with a great college QB, and never even won his division. They only played 2 ranked teams that year (31-52 loss at #3 OR, 40-12 over #16 VT), too.
The other strong years for Stanford happened with David Shaw, not Harbaugh.
“Are NC’s the singular measure?”
No, but they’re certainly relevant when comparing a coach to Nick Saban.
In the past 7 years at AL, Saban has 3 NC, 6 BCS games, 3 SEC titles and has never won fewer than 10 games. I don’t see how Harbaugh’s record at Stanford really compares.
Was Harbaugh better in the NFL? Sure. But this is a CFB job we’re talking about so I don’t think that justifies paying him that much more than Saban.
I understand that may be what it takes to pry him out of the NFL, I just don’t think he’s proven that he’s worth it.
LikeLike
Comparing Stanford FB to Alabama? Apples vs mushrooms. Arguably, the best job of coaching rarely occurs at king programs. And if it does it’s difficult to attribute the W/L success solely to the coaching.
I’m not advocating for Harbaugh to Michigan, but who would you think (with the Buckeye blinders off) would be a better choice? And what $ limit would you put on their attempt to higher whoever they believe is their savior? What Alabama pays Satan, err, Saban is obscene. That doesn’t set the market for Michigan. They can be ridiculous as well as obscene if they, in their current circumstance, think that is necessary to try to regain king like performance.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Comparing Stanford FB to Alabama?”
No, comparing Harbaugh’s results to Saban’s.
“Arguably, the best job of coaching rarely occurs at king programs.”
On the other hand, the egos and the pressure are much bigger at the king programs.
“I’m not advocating for Harbaugh to Michigan, but who would you think (with the Buckeye blinders off) would be a better choice?”
Ron Zook?
I think they might be better off with a guy who wants to stay a CFB coach long term. Bob Stoops has won a BCS title and is from Ohio. Les Miles has BCS titles and MI ties. Or look at guys that have made BCS bowls (like Harbaugh) but don’t seem to want to go to the NFL (Patterson, Briles, etc) and don’t demand $8M to start.
I don’t have a problem with Harbaugh, it’s the $8.1M. I don’t see how he’s earned that level of salary in CFB. Success in the pros is not an indicator of success in CFB and vice versa.
“And what $ limit would you put on their attempt to higher whoever they believe is their savior? What Alabama pays Satan, err, Saban is obscene. That doesn’t set the market for Michigan. They can be ridiculous as well as obscene if they, in their current circumstance, think that is necessary to try to regain king like performance.”
Saban’s salary is obscene, but he’s earned huge raises since he was hired with 3 national titles. He started off at AL at $4M per year, and this was after having won a title at LSU.
Someone like Harbaugh doesn’t deserve more than $5M at the most (closer to $4M based purely on his CFB accomplishments). I could maybe see $6M if MI thinks the NFL success will carry over into college (it rarely does, though).
Of course MI can do whatever they want. That doesn’t mean I have to think it’s wise or good for CFB. Personally, I doubt whether Harbaugh would stay long term at MI anyway. I think he’ll want to chase a Super Bowl again. He can certainly get them back to elite status, though.
LikeLike
Where Harbaugh took Stanford is more impressive to me than where Saban took ‘Bama or LSU. And Shaw had been winning with Harbaugh’s recruits.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Where Harbaugh took Stanford is more impressive to me than where Saban took ‘Bama or LSU.”
Better than 3 national titles in 4 years? Nobody in modern football has come close to that level of winning. The Bear never did as well. The only coach to match that was Leahy at ND in the 40s.
Saban hit a hard ceiling of success. It’s almost impossible to do better than he did. Harbaugh had a lot more room to grow his program when he got there.
“And Shaw had been winning with Harbaugh’s recruits.”
Yes. That doesn’t argue in favor of Harbaugh being a great coach, it says he recruits well. You don’t pay $8.1M for recruiting.
LikeLike
Brian: In college football, with Michigan’s money (and current dire circumstances), you do. If you want to win the race, you need to have the horses.
LikeLike
Also:
“Better than 3 national titles in 4 years? Nobody in modern football has come close to that level of winning. The Bear never did as well. The only coach to match that was Leahy at ND in the 40s.”
Amnesia, Brian? Pretty certain that you were alive from 1994->1997.
Also feel free to check out what Red Blaik did from 1944->1946.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian: In college football, with Michigan’s money (and current dire circumstances), you do. If you want to win the race, you need to have the horses.”
You don’t need to pay $8.1M to get a recruiter. Meyer doesn’t even make $5M (so far).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Pretty certain that you were alive from 1994->1997.”
One was a split title and they were all from the bowl era as opposed to the BCS after a CCG (a harder path to me). But sure, feel free to throw Osborne in there as close.
If only 2 coaches make up the list, that’s like winning 3 Super Bowls.
“Also feel free to check out what Red Blaik did from 1944->1946.”
Did you see the word “modern” in there? Besides, the AP went with ND in 1946. Not to mention Army during WWII had distinct advantages (athletes could delay service in the military, for example).
LikeLike
A couple points:
1. Most seem to agree on the $ amount; however, some are not sure about the length of the deal. We originally heard 49M for 8 years, which while still high is quite different than 49M for 6 years. The 8.1 figure was certainly surprising when I saw it, and 6.1 would be less shocking
2. That being said, it certainly seems that Michigan took its time talking to donors (such as Ross, which is why Dolphins rumors are ridiculous until Harbaugh says no to Michigan) and obtained approval from the regents. Whether the reported amount is 100% accurate remains to be seen.
LikeLike
Something to add – if Michigan really thought Hoke was worth 4M, what does that mean for their valuation of Harbaugh.
Food for thought.
LikeLike
Ross,
“A couple points:
1. Most seem to agree on the $ amount; however, some are not sure about the length of the deal. We originally heard 49M for 8 years, which while still high is quite different than 49M for 6 years. The 8.1 figure was certainly surprising when I saw it, and 6.1 would be less shocking”
Fair enough, and certainly 6.1 would seem more in line with current salaries. I was commenting based on the 8.1 number.
LikeLike
Unless the interim AD is an idiot (which I have no reason to believe), I do not think he would offer such a contract without first confirming internally that he could get it approved. I believe a contract of this size goes to the Board of Regents.
In a normal world, I don’t think Harbaugh deserves that much, unless it’s loaded with incentives, i.e., he gets paid like Saban only if he wins like Saban. But Michigan is desperate. They were basically giving tickets away last season, and I still remember the days when there was a 10-year waiting list. They’ve got the most expensive seats in the Big Ten, without the on-field product that would justify it.
I know Brian remembers the frustrating John Cooper years at Ohio State; but at least Coop was beating everyone else except Michigan. Right now, the Wolverines are bad against almost everyone. So I suspect they feel they can’t take a risk on an up-and-comer. They want a guy who’ll unite the fan base, and who is as close to a sure thing as they can get, and that’s Harbaugh.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Unless the interim AD is an idiot (which I have no reason to believe), I do not think he would offer such a contract without first confirming internally that he could get it approved. I believe a contract of this size goes to the Board of Regents.”
I was just wondering if this was a leak of him sounding out Jim’s agent to see what it might take before he approached the board to see if they would approve it.
“In a normal world, I don’t think Harbaugh deserves that much, unless it’s loaded with incentives, i.e., he gets paid like Saban only if he wins like Saban. But Michigan is desperate. They were basically giving tickets away last season, and I still remember the days when there was a 10-year waiting list. They’ve got the most expensive seats in the Big Ten, without the on-field product that would justify it.”
Last time I checked OSU had the most expensive tickets, but maybe it’s MI once you count the required donations (or vice versa).
I don’t think MI’s situation is as desperate as you make it sound. Any solid coach will turn it around pretty quickly, and the MI fans are so hungry for a winner they’ll jump back aboard the bandwagon pretty quickly. They did in Hoke’s first year when things started to go well.
“I know Brian remembers the frustrating John Cooper years at Ohio State; but at least Coop was beating everyone else except Michigan.”
He couldn’t beat the SEC in bowls, either. 2-10-1 vs MI and 0-5 vs SEC in bowls (3-8 overall).
Actual record:
111-43-4 overall – 0.715
70-30-4 in B10 – 0.692
Without his nemeses:
109-28-3 – 0.789
68-20-3 – 0.764
If he went 6-6-1 and 2-3 instead:
117-37-4 – 0.753
74-26-4 – 0.731
And what’s very important to remember:
OSU was undefeated in 1993 (#5), 1995 (#2) and 1996 (#2) before losing to MI. OSU still finished #2 twice under Cooper but should’ve won at least 1 and possibly 2 or more national titles if he didn’t choke at the end of the year.
“Right now, the Wolverines are bad against almost everyone. So I suspect they feel they can’t take a risk on an up-and-comer.”
There’s still a big gap between an up-and-comer and paying Harbaugh $8.1M.
“They want a guy who’ll unite the fan base, and who is as close to a sure thing as they can get, and that’s Harbaugh.”
Understandable, but at any price? Is he worth $9M $10M? Where would MI draw the line?
LikeLike
Is he worth $9M $10M? Where would MI draw the line?
Well, the rumor (if true) is enough to make him the highest-paid coach in college football, at least for 15 minutes before Alabama surpasses it. If he turns that down, then it means he doesn’t want to be in college.
(Someone pointed out on another site, that due to the significant difference between property tax rates in CA and MI, $8M at Michigan and $10M at Oakland are about the same take-home pay, and that’s before other costs of living, such as real estate, are considered. There is a point beyond which, if you turn down the job, it’s not about money.)
LikeLike
Is Jim Harbaugh worth as much as Michigan is rumored to offering him? Yes, absolutely, because the number of “name brand” college coaches with instant credibility for a marquee program are few and far between… and he’s one of them. You can maybe put Nick Saban and Urban Meyer on that list. When you merge that with the fact that he’s likely going to be pursued heavily by the three franchises in the two largest NFL markets (Giants, Jets and Bears) and a whole slew of other NFL teams during this offseason and he also came within a play of winning a Super Bowl with a 2nd-year QB who was a backup at the beginning of the season, then his market value is honestly as high as a coach’s market value could possibly be. That doesn’t mean that he has the college record of Saban or Meyer (as Brian pointed out), but there’s no question about what his current market value is (and it’s at the very very very very top).
Plus, look at how much a failed coaching hire costs in dead money. Charlie Weis continued to be the highest paid person at Notre Dame for the 5 years AFTER he was fired. Harbaugh isn’t a guarantee, but he’s about as close of a guarantee as you’re ever going to get. You have to look at the long-term cost of another Brady Hoke-type hire (both in potential dead money and the opportunity cost of NOT making the marquee hire).
That being said, I just don’t get the feeling that Harbaugh has a burning desire to head back to college in the way that Nick Saban did. Like I’ve said, Harbaugh was literally one completed pass play or successful run from less than 10 yards from winning the Super Bowl two years ago. Michigan ponying up the money has made it interesting, but Harbaugh found waaaaaay more success than Saban in the NFL much more quickly and it’s fresh in his mind.
LikeLike
That should’ve been income tax rates, not property tax rates.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well, the rumor (if true) is enough to make him the highest-paid coach in college football, at least for 15 minutes before Alabama surpasses it. If he turns that down, then it means he doesn’t want to be in college.”
$7M would also make him the highest-paid coach. So why go to $8.1M? $6M would put him #2. Is being #1 that important?
My point is, the salary should be tied to his resume to some extent, and his resume isn’t 20% better than Nick Saban’s. What would MI offer Saban?
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Is Jim Harbaugh worth as much as Michigan is rumored to offering him? Yes, absolutely, because the number of “name brand” college coaches with instant credibility for a marquee program are few and far between… and he’s one of them. You can maybe put Nick Saban and Urban Meyer on that list.”
1. He isn’t a name brand college coach, he’s a name brand NFL coach that might be willing to come back to college. Nobody would be this excited if he went 24-40 in the NFL.
2. You NFL fandom is showing through. Maybe the coach who’s won 3 titles in the past 6 years and has a chance at a fourth is on the list with Harbaugh as a top college coach? The list begins with Saban right now with Meyer right behind. Harbaugh had 1 good year in college and that was with Andrew Luck. Most coaches would do pretty well with him at QB.
“then his market value is honestly as high as a coach’s market value could possibly be.”
But that isn’t really the point. The NFL will outspend MI if it has to. The question is whether or not JH really wants to come back to MI. If he does, he knows he’s leaving money on the table so they shouldn’t need to offer him $8.1M. If he wants to stay in the NFL, $8.1M won’t change his mind.
“Plus, look at how much a failed coaching hire costs in dead money. Charlie Weis continued to be the highest paid person at Notre Dame for the 5 years AFTER he was fired. Harbaugh isn’t a guarantee, but he’s about as close of a guarantee as you’re ever going to get.”
Based on what? I listed his 4 years at Stanford above. Yes, MI isn’t Stanford, but JH had 1 year with more than 8 wins and he needed Andrew Luck to do it. He never won the P12. He had success at SF in part because he had a loaded roster (a cheap QB makes that possible). But he didn’t sustain their greatness this year, did he?
“You have to look at the long-term cost of another Brady Hoke-type hire (both in potential dead money and the opportunity cost of NOT making the marquee hire).”
There’s a big gap between a Hoke and Harbaugh.
LikeLike
@Brian – We can’t look at his NFL and college records in a vacuum – Harbaugh’s market value in the NFL inherently impacts his market value at the college level. Harbaugh, from every account that I’ve seen, will end up being the highest-paid coach in the NFL if he leaves for another team… AKA he would be the highest-paid coach in all of US sports. So, what Michigan is reportedly offering is a base-level number just to get him interested. Saying that Harbaugh “needed Andrew Luck” to win games at Stanford is quite a double standard considering the unbelievable amount of NFL-level talent that guys like Saban and Meyer have worked with. Harbaugh recruited Luck and, while Luck was a highly-rated recruit out of high school, it wasn’t some type of foregone conclusion that he was going to be the #1 pick in the draft a la Peyton Manning. I’ll give Harbaugh a ton of credit for developing Luck, which is exactly what you want from a college coach. Plus, this was also all done when Stanford is literally the most selective school in the country next to Harvard. Remember that he has developed Colin Kaepernick in the NFL, too, who was completely raw yet was able to get the team to the Super Bowl when he had only started a handful of games. In all seriousness, what else are you looking for? Multiple national championships and Super Bowl wins like Jimmy Johnson? How the heck is the coach that is in the VERY highest demand in the NFL also not going to be in the VERY highest demand at the college level if he indicates that he’s open to heading back to college? Even better (at least in my mind), Harbaugh isn’t even a “system coach” like Chip Kelly or Steve Spurrier – he just straight up develops players to play to their maximum talent level, especially quarterbacks. That’s a quality that applies regardless of his supposedly relatively brief tenure at the college level. It seems very strange to hold the fact that he left college and rose to the top level of the pros so quickly (unlike Saban, Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, and plenty of other college-to-NFL failures) against him.
Granted, once again, I think this is all going to be a moot point since I believe Harbaugh is staying in the NFL.
LikeLike
My point is, the salary should be tied to his resume to some extent, and his resume isn’t 20% better than Nick Saban’s. What would MI offer Saban?
Michigan paid Brady Hoke somewhere between $3-4m per season, and what was there in his pre-Michigan resume to justify that figure? Paul Chryst just got a substantial raise as a reward for going 18-18 in three seasons at Pitt. This wouldn’t be the first time that a coach was offered a sum of money detached from reality.
As I noted upthread, I am not sure the $8.1 is even true. But assuming it is (for sake of argument), I think it shows Michigan’s desperation. If you’re them, how many move-the-needle coaching hires can you think of who are realistically available?
LikeLike
1. He isn’t a name brand college coach, he’s a name brand NFL coach that might be willing to come back to college. Nobody would be this excited if he went 24-40 in the NFL.
But he didn’t go 24-40 in the NFL, which is kinda the point. Granted, he didn’t win a Super Bowl, but he went to the conference championship game in his first three seasons, winning one. I’m not sure how many coaches have done that in their first three years, but it cannot be many.
“Plus, look at how much a failed coaching hire costs in dead money. Charlie Weis continued to be the highest paid person at Notre Dame for the 5 years AFTER he was fired. Harbaugh isn’t a guarantee, but he’s about as close of a guarantee as you’re ever going to get.”
Based on what? I listed his 4 years at Stanford above. Yes, MI isn’t Stanford, but JH had 1 year with more than 8 wins and he needed Andrew Luck to do it. He never won the P12. He had success at SF in part because he had a loaded roster (a cheap QB makes that possible). But he didn’t sustain their greatness this year, did he?
This is a rather imbalanced reading of his record.
First, he takes over the University of San Diego, which had never won a championship of any kind. By his second and third years, they go 11-1 twice and win the Pioneer League twice. In those two seasons, the Toreros led Division II in in points per game, passing yards per game, total yards per game and 1st downs per game.
In the thirty seasons before he arrived at Stanford, the Cardinal were 156-180-5, going to bowls just nine times during that span. The team he inherited had gone 1-11 the prior year, 16-40 in the previous five. So this was a pretty substantial rebuilding job. They improved every year he was there.
Then he goes to San Francisco, where they hadn’t had a winning season or a playoff appearance in eight years, and immediately wins the NFC West his first year, reaching the conference championship in his first three.
And this is the guy you’re calling a one-season wonder?
LikeLike
Another relevant point: JH is supposedly making $5M at SF. He’d presumably get a raise to go to another NFL team, but $8.1 would be a more than 60% jump.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“We can’t look at his NFL and college records in a vacuum – Harbaugh’s market value in the NFL inherently impacts his market value at the college level.”
Yes and no. I think he has to decide whether he wants to coach in CFB or the NFL, and then the market forces apply to who hires him. If he wants to stay in the NFL, MI can offer $12M and won’t get him. If he wants to return to college, MI doesn’t need to spend $8.1M to get him.
“Harbaugh, from every account that I’ve seen, will end up being the highest-paid coach in the NFL if he leaves for another team… AKA he would be the highest-paid coach in all of US sports.”
#1 right now is Payton at $8M, correct? So NFL teams may need to offer at least $8.1M, but I highly doubt MI does. If he wants to return, he’d take $6M (still a raise from SF).
“Saying that Harbaugh “needed Andrew Luck” to win games at Stanford is quite a double standard considering the unbelievable amount of NFL-level talent that guys like Saban and Meyer have worked with.”
1. I haven’t been bringing up Meyer.
2. Saban has done it with lots of different talented players, and no superstar QBs. Harbaugh had 1 strong year and had an all-time QB talent. We never saw him win more than 8 games in I-A without Luck. Could he? Probably, but he never did. They needed 4th quarter comebacks in two of their wins, including a drive for a game-winning FG as time expired. Do they get both of those wins without Luck? We have a very limited sample size to look at with Harbaugh, so I think it matters that he happened to have an all-time talent at QB in his only elite season.
“Harbaugh recruited Luck and, while Luck was a highly-rated recruit out of high school, it wasn’t some type of foregone conclusion that he was going to be the #1 pick in the draft a la Peyton Manning.”
Luck was a top 100 recruit in 2008 (5* or 4* depending on the site). After the 2010 season (JH’s last at Stanford), he was expected to be the #1 pick before he chose to return to school. Going into the 2011 season, he was the slam dunk favorite to be the #1 pick in the 2012 draft. Teams considered tanking just to draft him.
“I’ll give Harbaugh a ton of credit for developing Luck, which is exactly what you want from a college coach.”
Sure. I’m not denying that.
“Plus, this was also all done when Stanford is literally the most selective school in the country next to Harvard.”
But we’re talking about athletes here, not regular students. They don’t all meet the same standards. Even the Ivies lower their standards for athletes.
“Remember that he has developed Colin Kaepernick in the NFL, too, who was completely raw yet was able to get the team to the Super Bowl when he had only started a handful of games.”
CK has a QBR below 50 this year. It’s like the league is catching up to his uniques style, like they did with Vick and Griffin and other elite athletes at QB.
“In all seriousness, what else are you looking for? Multiple national championships and Super Bowl wins like Jimmy Johnson?”
For over $8M per year, he should have won something at least once.
“How the heck is the coach that is in the VERY highest demand in the NFL also not going to be in the VERY highest demand at the college level if he indicates that he’s open to heading back to college?”
Bill Belichick would be a terrible CFB coach with his personality, but close to 31 teams would be willing to offer him $10M per year.
“Even better (at least in my mind), Harbaugh isn’t even a “system coach” like Chip Kelly or Steve Spurrier – he just straight up develops players to play to their maximum talent level, especially quarterbacks.”
All coaches are system coaches. Harbaugh’s was just a pro-style system with TEs and a FB.
“It seems very strange to hold the fact that he left college and rose to the top level of the pros so quickly (unlike Saban, Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, and plenty of other college-to-NFL failures) against him.”
I don’t hold pro success against him, I just don’t find it relevant. CFB and the NFL are very different from a coaching perspective.
How many successful NFL coaches have gone on to succeed in CFB?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Michigan paid Brady Hoke somewhere between $3-4m per season, and what was there in his pre-Michigan resume to justify that figure?”
That was a typical salary for a HC at a program like MI. $8.1M isn’t, so the candidates resume would have to justify the rest.
“Paul Chryst just got a substantial raise as a reward for going 18-18 in three seasons at Pitt.”
Because it lets Alvarez continue to be the coach behind the curtain.
“This wouldn’t be the first time that a coach was offered a sum of money detached from reality.”
No, it wouldn’t. Does that mean I shouldn’t have noted that?
“If you’re them, how many move-the-needle coaching hires can you think of who are realistically available?”
I honestly have no idea who is truly available. For $8.1M, I bet a lot of coaches would consider it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But he didn’t go 24-40 in the NFL, which is kinda the point.”
It’s my point, that his name brand is based on his NFL coaching success, not his college coaching career. He’s a name brand NFL coach, not a name brand college coach. That could change with success at MI, obviously.
“Granted, he didn’t win a Super Bowl, but he went to the conference championship game in his first three seasons, winning one. I’m not sure how many coaches have done that in their first three years, but it cannot be many.”
And the number of successful NFL coaches that have gone on to succeed in CFB is?
“First, he takes over the University of San Diego, which had never won a championship of any kind. By his second and third years, they go 11-1 twice and win the Pioneer League twice. In those two seasons, the Toreros led Division II in in points per game, passing yards per game, total yards per game and 1st downs per game.”
Brady Hoke turned around Ball State and SDSU. That didn’t help him much at MI. I-AA and I-A are quite different.
“In the thirty seasons before he arrived at Stanford, the Cardinal were 156-180-5, going to bowls just nine times during that span. The team he inherited had gone 1-11 the prior year, 16-40 in the previous five. So this was a pretty substantial rebuilding job. They improved every year he was there.”
All true. And none of that changes the fact that he won more than 8 game only once at Stanford.
“And this is the guy you’re calling a one-season wonder?”
No, I didn’t call him that. I said he had one great season at Stanford.
LikeLike
Brady Hoke turned around Ball State and SDSU. That didn’t help him much at MI. I-AA and I-A are quite different.
Actually, it is a myth that Brady Hoke “turned around” Ball State and SDSU. That meme was pushed by his enablers to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision to hire a lifetime 47-50 coach.
Hoke had five straight losing or mediocre years at Ball State before having one good season in which the Cardinals had something like the #125 strength of schedule. The following year, they went straight back to 2-10, so he had not built anything sustainable. (San Diego and Stanford continued to win after Harbaugh left them.)
Hoke’s “turn-around” at San Diego State consisted of coming in 3rd in the Mountain West.
I’m not really sure whether it’s true that I-AA and I-A are “quite different,” insofar as coaching ability goes. Jim Tressel’s I-AA success proved translatable to I-A, and I believe there’ve been a number of others who did the same or similar (e.g., Brian Kelly).
But no speculation is required in Harbaugh’s case, because he’s turned losers into winners at three different levels of football. He’s not a sure thing, but if there’s a “more sure” thing, I would struggle to imagine who it could be, short of Michigan hiring Nick Saban or Urban Meyer, and we know that ain’t happening at any price.
LikeLike
Any thoughts on UNLV hiring the local HS coach to take over? Bishop Gorman is one of the great HS programs (won the state title all but 1 time since 2007), but it’s a big jump up to I-A (remember Gerry Faust?). On the other hand, I heard an interview with him and he’s building a very experienced staff. He’s poached several guys from NE and OrSU.
LikeLike
UNLV isn’t ND.
LikeLike
I guess it depends on how you define poach, but I don’t think he hired anyone away who wasn’t actually losing their job due to coaching changes at their schools.
That said, still a good move for a HS coach to be able to get guys with experience coaching at Power 5 schools to work under you at UNLV of all places.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not saying those guys were going to stay on at those schools. But picking up a coach like Barney Cotton is pretty big for a UNLV level program.
LikeLike
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/380839.html
I’m shocked.
Michael Garcia, the American lawyer who led the investigation into the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bid process, has resigned from the FIFA ethics committee in protest over the handling of his findings.
Garcia cited a “lack of leadership” at the top of FIFA in a resignation statement on Wednesday, in which he also said he had lost confidence in the independence of his ethics committee colleague, German judge Joachim Eckert.
The former US Attorney quit a day after the FIFA appeals panel rejected his challenge of Eckert’s summary of the confidential 430-page investigation dossier.
Russia won the right to host the 2018 World Cup and Qatar was awarded the 2022 tournament.
On Wednesday, Garcia claimed that Eckert misrepresented his work.
“[The] Eckert decision made me lose confidence in the independence of the adjudicatory chamber, [but] it is the lack of leadership on these issues within FIFA that leads me to conclude that my role in this process is at an end,” Garcia wrote.
In his resignation statement, Garcia also questioned how FIFA can truly change after years of scandals and criticism.
“No independent governance committee, investigator, or arbitration panel can change the culture of an organization,” Garcia added.
Garcia also revealed that the FIFA executive committee, led by President Sepp Blatter, tried to have disciplinary proceedings opened against him in September. The attempt was rejected by the chairman of FIFA’s disciplinary panel.
Garcia was appointed in July 2012 to probe the controversial 2018 and 2022 World Cup bidding contests. The investigation was designed to help reveal the willingness of Blatter’s governing body to confront some of its deep-rooted problems.
“For the first two years … I felt that the ethics committee was making real progress in advancing ethics enforcement at FIFA,” Garcia wrote. “In recent months, that changed.”
Since Garcia and his investigation team submitted their work in early September, clear splits emerged between the prosecutor and the judge. Eckert has seemed closer to FIFA in his approach and belief in how the ethics panel could use its powers, much to Garcia’s increasingly obvious frustration.
Their working relationship was damaged by Eckert’s 42-page report published by FIFA last month which suggested that the World Cup bidding probe should be closed for lack of strong evidence of wrongdoing.
“When viewed in the context of the report it purported to summarize, no principled approach could justify the Eckert Decision’s edits, omissions, and additions,” Garcia wrote.
Eckert said any corrupt and rule-breaking acts were of limited scope and did not influence the result of the December 2010 votes of the FIFA executive committee.
Still, with Garcia’s work kept sealed against his wishes by strict FIFA Code of Ethics rules, critics and others have relied only on Eckert’s word about the evidence against Russia, Qatar and the seven other bid candidates.
“It now appears that, at least for the foreseeable future, the Eckert Decision will stand as the final word on the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup bidding process,” Garcia wrote.
LikeLike
Rice announces $30mm north end-zone facility. Looks good.
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121814aab.html
HOUSTON — The Rice University Board of Trustees has approved a proposal to build a student-athlete performance and development building in the north end of Rice Stadium that will provide new all-sport strength-and-conditioning, sports medicine and football facilities for the Rice Owls.
The $31.5 million project includes a 60,000-square-foot, two-story structure that will house a weight room, a home team locker room, coaching and staff offices, an auditorium, a football team lounge and areas for training and sports medicine that include hydrotherapy, plunge pools and exam rooms. The weight room and sports medicine areas will be available to student-athletes from all sports at Rice.
Pics: http://www.riceowls.com/view.gal?id=171772
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2304777-the-longhorn-network-will-air-five-hours-of-bevo-the-cow-roaming-on-a-ranch
Really, UT? 5 hours of Bevo on his ranch? You couldn’t find some Olympic sports to show or run something academic? Maybe video of the UT chorus performing their holiday concert?
LikeLike
Playoff fans rejoice. Maybe this is our future.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12053413/sources-san-francisco-49ers-coach-jim-harbaugh-torn-michigan-nfl
The latest on Harbaugh.
San Francisco 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh’s family and friends have been encouraging him to take the University of Michigan head-coaching job, but he is torn because his heart is in the NFL, according to sources close to the situation.
Harbaugh first would like to see what head-coaching opportunities come available — and he is likely to be a top choice for a handful of teams — before getting back to Michigan with an answer, per sources.
He also is aware of the fact that Michigan might not be able to wait for him, especially when it might not even land the coach who is believed to be the school’s top choice. Plus, college football recruiting is in full swing. The longer a school waits, the more of a disadvantage it can be. It leaves both sides in a tough and delicate spot, even though they have mutual interest in each other, per sources.
Harbaugh would like to finish coaching this season, go through the players’ getaway day on Dec. 29 and then make his decision as quickly as possible. As another source said, Harbaugh’s agent Dave Dunn “has a good sense of realistic NFL options already.”
But as one Michigan source wondered Friday, “If he wants to stay in the NFL, who will pay him $8 million per year?” — an indication that the Wolverines are prepared to go hard after Harbaugh.
LikeLike
http://www.chatsports.com/michigan-wolverines/a/BREAKING-Harbaugh-Will-Accept-Michigan-Offer-Barring-LastMinute-Change-Of-Heart-10-2-6148
On the other hand, there’s this.
Two independent sources – one with ties to Michigan’s Athletic Department, and one who has known Jim Harbaugh for over 35 years – have each confirmed to Chat Sports that Harbaugh is indeed set to become Michigan’s head football coach, and the move will be announced on December 30th…unless he backs out on a verbal agreement he has authorized his agent David Dunn to make with Michigan AD Jim Hackett.
…
As soon as the 49ers were eliminated from playoff contention on Sunday, things heated up. Hackett, Dunn and Jack Harbaugh took a long phone call on Sunday night, discussing in-depth details on contracts, control, admissions, assistant salaries and budget for recruiting and upgrades.
Dunn and Jack took the deal to Jim late on Monday, and discussed things further on Tuesday when Michigan extended an official offer that would make Harbaugh football’s highest-paid coach, with the possibility of earning $10M a year with longevity bonuses and incentives for winning the Big Ten, CFB Playoff games and a National Championship. Wednesday, the media got wind of the offer and widely reported it.
Jim authorized Dunn to accept in principle, but made it clear that he couldn’t sign anything until after the 49ers season was over, and informed him he would resign if not fired on Monday, December 29.
…
Don’t celebrate yet, Michigan fans….now that the offer is public, be on the lookout for a NFL team like the Raiders or Jets to come in and offer to trade for Harbaugh, dangling a contract worth more than $10M per year….could that be enough to change his mind at the last minute?
Not the most reputable site in the world, so take it for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
He’s 50.
That’s the main reason why I can see him taking the job at this time.
Obviously, the fact that his family and friends are somewhat pushing him towards Michigan also helps a lot, and his history and what it would mean for him to go back to Michigan all weighs heavily in this.
But most importantly, he’s at an age where he still has 2+ solid coaching stints in him. That means, he can go back, rebuild Michigan, possibly win a National Championship there, while still being at an age where he can again go back to the NFL and chase a Super Bowl if the right opportunity shows up thereafter…
In that sense, his age is the biggest factor going in Michigan’s direction. He can easily go back to Michigan for a 7-8 year period and rebuild the program and get into 2-3 playoff runs.
At that point, he’ll be around 58, and unless he stumbles at Michigan, he’d be the most sought after name in the NFL, and there might be coaching spots open at places like New England or where-ever if that’s what he’s looking for…
I think legacy-wise, he has a chance to do something greater if he goes to Michigan than if he stays in the NFL for the rest of his career. He’s at an age where he can easily take a stint at Michigan while still having plenty of time to chase the Super Bowl after…
LikeLike
I’d say winning Super Bowls would do more for his legacy, especially if he fixed a moribund franchise like the Raiders.
LikeLike
Much tougher than reviving UMich.
In college, you can recruit your own players. In the NFL, there’s the draft and salary cap. And the Raiders are a dumpster fire.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d agree with that. Winning the Super Bowl is the pinnacle for any coach if they know they have the chops to compete at the pro level. Even looking further into the context for Harbaugh, he almost won the Super Bowl only 2 years ago, so that’s fresh in his mind. This isn’t like Saban, Spurrier, Dave Wannstedt, Pete Carroll (after his Patriots stint) or pretty much any other NFL coach in the last 20 years that went back to college. Very successful NFL coaches almost universally stay in the NFL. (The only very successful NFL coach that willingly went back to college that I can think of is Bill Walsh.) Plus, Harbaugh lost against his *brother*. Seeing how intense he is, that’s got to eat him alive and I don’t think national championships at the college level would fill that void.
The Raiders job is definitely a dumpster fire, but there are other more attractive and/or higher profile jobs about to open, too. Harbaugh has strong ties to the Bears and Marc Trestman is dead man walking. Winning a single Super Bowl in Chicago *will* make a coach immortal here. Mike Ditka is still a revered figure here and still has an entire endorsement and broadcasting career based on just one Super Bowl victory that occurred nearly 30 years ago. Both New York teams are probably going to be looking for coaches, too.
That’s why I think Harbaugh is staying in the NFL, even though I also believe that Michigan needs to at least try to throw the kitchen sink at him.
LikeLike
I think Ditka primarily has his endorsements from his playing time. He has 3 championship rings as a player.
LikeLike
Ditka’s continued endorsement power and popularity in Chicago is completely based on his coaching time. He is “Da Coach” and always will be here.
LikeLike
Very successful NFL coaches almost universally stay in the NFL. (The only very successful NFL coach that willingly went back to college that I can think of is Bill Walsh.)
There was a four-year gap between Walsh’s last season coaching the 49ers and his return to Stanford. I cannot think of any successful NFL head coach that voluntarily left the league and went directly to college.
LikeLike
I guess my viewpoint is just way too college centrict. Who your coach is in college is a lot bigger deal than in the pros and the top college programs have every bit as much a following as NFL teams. That said, the Super Bowl is bigger than the national title (although if I ever had a chance to visit one, I’d take the Rose Bowl over either).
LikeLike
Eric,
“Who your coach is in college is a lot bigger deal than in the pros”
We often say that, but I think coaches are equally important in both but for different reasons (teaching in CFB vs game-planning in NFL).
“and the top college programs have every bit as much a following as NFL teams.”
I wish. The NFL is at least twice as popular as CFB and has 1/4 the number of teams (1/2 if you only count P5).
LikeLike
Yeah that’s true, and if it was one or the other, I could easily see this as a 100% going to stay in the NFL kind of decision.
I think that would be the case if he was 57-59 years old and hadn’t won a Super Bowl.
At his age, I think he might think he has time to do both. Go to Michigan and resurrect it, and then go and win a Super Bowl after…
LikeLike
Conversely, he could choose to chase the Super Bowl now while he’s at the peak of his coaching abilities and then head to MI after that if he has some unrequited need to coach there.
Presumably the program won’t still need saving by then, but maybe it’s down again or they just need a new coach because the other one is retiring.
LikeLike
Conversely, he could choose to chase the Super Bowl now while he’s at the peak of his coaching abilities and then head to MI after that if he has some unrequited need to coach there.
If he turns down the Michigan job now, there’s no assurance it will be open again during his peak coaching years. Michigan could screw it up, as they’ve done the last two times, but you can’t count on them doing that. There are always multiple NFL job openings in any given off-season, so you know that opportunity is always there.
LikeLike
Yeah both of you bring up good points on how this could play out…
Really at this point it could go either way; I think Michigan has a legitimate shot, but it could easily go the other way if the “right” NFL spot opens up this offseason.
LikeLike
I think Michigan has a legitimate shot, but it could easily go the other way if the “right” NFL spot opens up this off-season.
I don’t think it can work quite that way.
Michigan has to have an answer by New Year’s, because if it isn’t Harbaugh, they’ll need to identify their Plan B coach pretty quickly, in time to finish the 2015 recruiting class. (Michigan’s recruiting is in tatters right now, with just six commits in a class that is expected to have at least sixteen openings, possibly more depending on attrition.)
No NFL team will be in a position to make a concrete offer that soon. The NFL hiring season comes later, and any team signing him would need to comply with the Rooney Rule (which requires them to consider minority candidates).
Also, Harbaugh is still under contract to San Francisco for another year, which means any other NFL team would need their permission to speak with him, unless the 49ers fire him. This they are highly unlikely to do, because they’d rather get trade value out of him and not have to pay the final year of his contract. (They very nearly traded Harbaugh to Cleveland a year ago.)
So the choice Harbaugh must soon make is not between Michigan and a concrete NFL offer. It’s between Michigan and the concept of remaining in the NFL, with the team to be determined later.
LikeLike
Marc,
The problem I have is with the assumption that he wants to coach MI. He may feel somewhat obligated to try to right the ship now, but he could also feel a need to pursue a Super Bowl since they’re harder to win. He can always coach in college later. Jobs come open all the time, and he could resurrect a program like IL and be a god.
LikeLike
The problem I have is with the assumption that he wants to coach MI. He may feel somewhat obligated to try to right the ship now, but he could also feel a need to pursue a Super Bowl since they’re harder to win. He can always coach in college later. Jobs come open all the time, and he could resurrect a program like IL and be a god.
I think there is ample well-sourced evidence that he is considering the Michigan job. He has not been mentioned as a candidate for any other. So I think it’s better than just an assumption, which of course does not mean he will ultimately accept it.
Successful NFL coaches generally do not return to college. The only two I can think of who did, were Bill Walsh and John Robinson, and both went back to places they’d been before. Harbaugh would have no conceivable motivation to win a Super Bowl and then take a coaching job like Illinois.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think there is ample well-sourced evidence that he is considering the Michigan job.”
Agreed.
“He has not been mentioned as a candidate for any other.”
Because nobody believes he would choose another school over MI. But he’s said no to MI before.
“So I think it’s better than just an assumption, which of course does not mean he will ultimately accept it.”
I’m talking about the assumption that he feels a need to coach MI before winning a Super Bowl. None of us knows how much he values winning a SB. Nor do we know how much he wants to coach at MI. If Hoke had been successful but was retiring or leaving for the NFL, would Harbaugh still be anxious to take the job? Or is he feeling the urge (and being pressured) to fix MI in stead of just to coach MI?
“Successful NFL coaches generally do not return to college. The only two I can think of who did, were Bill Walsh and John Robinson, and both went back to places they’d been before.”
And neither was as good in college the second time around.
“Harbaugh would have no conceivable motivation to win a Super Bowl and then take a coaching job like Illinois.”
If he wanted a college coaching legacy, perhaps to show he was one of the very few coaches successful at both levels, winning at a place like IL (just a random program, not necessarily IL in particular) would do it. Maybe join Pete Carroll, Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer as the only coaches to win a national title and a Super Bowl.
LikeLike
I’m talking about the assumption that he feels a need to coach MI before winning a Super Bowl. None of us knows how much he values winning a SB. Nor do we know how much he wants to coach at MI.
None of the sources I’ve read puts the assumption quite that way.
His alma mater is obviously special to him—as it is to many of us. Even when he was a student, he told people that he was someday going to be the head coach at Michigan. Now, we all have dreams as kids that we do not pursue in adulthood, but this job is not just any CFB job to him.
Where he ranks it in relation to winning a Super Bowl, I have no idea. But as I noted before, he has to assume that if he turns down Michigan now, the opportunity might not occur again; whereas there are always NFL openings, every year.
In the NFL, it matters less which team you coach. Twenty of the league’s 32 teams have been to the Super Bowl at least once in the last two decades. In college, the realistic chances to build a national power are concentrated disproportionately in a handful of places (Michigan being one of them) that have structural advantages that are difficult for others to overcome.
If Hoke had been successful but was retiring or leaving for the NFL, would Harbaugh still be anxious to take the job? Or is he feeling the urge (and being pressured) to fix MI instead of just to coach MI?
The fact that Michigan is broken right now must surely be part of the motivation. Of course, if Hoke had been successful, he likely would have had a coaching tree, or better yet an heir apparent on his own staff. There would have been less reason to reach out to someone not currently involved with the program.
“Successful NFL coaches generally do not return to college. The only two I can think of who did, were Bill Walsh and John Robinson, and both went back to places they’d been before.”
And neither was as good in college the second time around.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, it’s such a small sample size that it’s hard to draw any conclusions. But both returned to college after one or more seasons out of coaching. Robinson was in his late 50s when he returned to USC, Walsh in his early 60s, so perhaps they were past their prime.
LikeLike
NFL teams are quick to fire after the last game so most openings will be known by Dec. 29th and the clubs that are interested will move quick. Michigan’s backup may be Les Miles unless LSU is working on a new contract now. I know there have been reports that he is not interested, but I doubt his agent was told that Michigan would make him the highest paid coach in college football. That may change his mind.
All 3 coaches that have won FBS national championships and Super Bowls have done it in that order (although in Switzer’s case not losing again when handed the best team in the NFL is closer to the truth). If Harbaugh stays in the pros in 2015 he is probably there for life.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“None of the sources I’ve read puts the assumption quite that way.”
I was talking about some of the comments (not yours) more than the sources, there.
“His alma mater is obviously special to him—as it is to many of us.”
Yes, as it should be.
“Even when he was a student, he told people that he was someday going to be the head coach at Michigan. Now, we all have dreams as kids that we do not pursue in adulthood, but this job is not just any CFB job to him.”
He also said some not so nice things about MI a few years. Maybe that was a conflict with certain administrators or his words getting twisted/misconstrued, but it didn’t go over well IIRC.
“Where he ranks it in relation to winning a Super Bowl, I have no idea. But as I noted before, he has to assume that if he turns down Michigan now, the opportunity might not occur again; whereas there are always NFL openings, every year.”
If you assume that all NFL jobs are equal to him. I’m guessing he would rank a few higher than MI and others lower.
“In the NFL, it matters less which team you coach.”
In the sense that success is possible in more places, maybe. But not in terms of relations with the owner, quality of the front office, location, etc.
“Unfortunately, it’s such a small sample size that it’s hard to draw any conclusions.”
Agreed. I just bristle slightly at people assuming Harbaugh will come back and instantly be on par with or better than Saban as a coach. It’s possible, certainly, but there’s no evidence to support it as likely.
“But both returned to college after one or more seasons out of coaching. Robinson was in his late 50s when he returned to USC, Walsh in his early 60s, so perhaps they were past their prime.”
Which says what if Harbaugh goes to MI for 5 years? Suddenly he’s 56 (he turns 51 on 12/23) and perhaps his best shot at a Super Bowl is gone.
http://www.bobgretz.com/chiefs-football/super-bowl-winning-head-coaches.html
Only 7 SB winning coaches were over 55:
Weeb Eubank – 61 (Namath and co)
Walsh #3 – 57 (he’d already built the franchise)
Switzer – 58 (rode JJ’s coattails)
Vermeil – 63 (the miracle of Kurt Warner replacing Trent Green and going MVP)
Coughlin twice – 61, 65
Carroll – 62
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/you-know-the-average-age-of-a-super-bowl-winning-head-coach-long-read.453259329/
Some analysis. A couple stats from it: the average age is 49 and roughly 80% of them are between 42-54 (inclusive).
I know coaches don’t tend to look at things that way, but going to MI greatly reduces the odds of Harbaugh ever winning a SB based on NFL history.
LikeLike
I just bristle slightly at people assuming Harbaugh will come back and instantly be on par with or better than Saban as a coach. It’s possible, certainly, but there’s no evidence to support it as likely.
I bristle at it too—and I am a Michigan fan. Obviously, there is substantial evidence that Harbaugh is way better at football than Brady Hoke. Offhand, I cannot think of a realistically available coach whom I’d rather see them hire.
But Saban or even Urban Meyer territory is pretty select company. He has yet to prove he can do that. But certainly I would view him as closer to a sure thing than most of the “Plan B” names that were floated: Steve Addazio, Butch Jones, Jim Mora Jr., Kyle Whittingham, David Cutliffe.
Think of it this way: if Ohio State had just concluded seven seasons like Michigan has, and there were an OSU alum out there with coaching credentials like Harbaugh’s, you’d want him, right?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I bristle at it too—and I am a Michigan fan. Obviously, there is substantial evidence that Harbaugh is way better at football than Brady Hoke.”
Sure. I’d expect Harbaugh to at least be a very good coach if he comes to MI. But I also wouldn’t pay him way more than Saban because I don’t think he’s earned it. I’d start him at more like $5M with large incentive clauses and automatic raises as he achieves things.
“Offhand, I cannot think of a realistically available coach whom I’d rather see them hire.”
Fair enough. But if $8.1M is on the table, does that change who is realistically available?
“But Saban or even Urban Meyer territory is pretty select company. He has yet to prove he can do that.”
Which is really all I’ve been saying.
“But certainly I would view him as closer to a sure thing than most of the “Plan B” names that were floated: Steve Addazio, Butch Jones, Jim Mora Jr., Kyle Whittingham, David Cutliffe.”
Clearly.
“Think of it this way: if Ohio State had just concluded seven seasons like Michigan has, and there were an OSU alum out there with coaching credentials like Harbaugh’s, you’d want him, right?”
I wasn’t a big fan of hiring Meyer, so I’m the wrong guy to ask. It wasn’t that I didn’t think he’d succeed at OSU, either (I’m not that dumb). I had issues with some aspects of his coaching approach at UF and was concerned about bringing that to OSU (how he dealt with the media, the spread offense – I still prefer a pro style, the arrests of players, etc).
I certainly would have said NO to offering Meyer more than Saban makes.
LikeLike
“Fair enough. But if $8.1M is on the table, does that change who is realistically available?”
Who else better than Harbaugh would be?
Are you saying that you can see Meyer or Saban coming to UMich? If not, then UMich’s best course of action (given their deep pockets) is to throw as much money as they can to convince Harbaugh, no?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Who else better than Harbaugh would be?”
I don’t know. I haven’t been looking for available coaches. I was simply wondering if the list of “realistically available” coaches was money dependent. I don’t know who he had on the list or how he would rank those he left off of it compared to Harbaugh. There are multiple former NFL coaches that aren’t coaching right now (Gruden, Cowher, etc). Or maybe a HC at another top program looking for a change of scenery (Stoops, Miles, etc). Or maybe a former great college HC that’s not coaching now (Tressel, etc). Or maybe Saban wants to prove he’s so good he can dominate CFB from inside the B10, too.
“Are you saying that you can see Meyer or Saban coming to UMich?”
It was his list, so my opinion doesn’t really matter. For enough money, I think Saban would do anything. I don’t think $8.1M is enough to get him to MI, though. I don’t see Meyer making that jump except for ridiculous money since he’s an OH guy.
“If not, then UMich’s best course of action (given their deep pockets) is to throw as much money as they can to convince Harbaugh, no?”
Not necessarily. That’s one possible course of action, but not clearly the best one. It depends on their ordered list of who they really want, and we don’t have access to that. If Harbaugh is their top choice regardless of realistic availability, then they need to consider how much better he is than option #2. Then they need a sense of what it would take to get #2. After all that, then they have a rough idea of what Harbaugh should be worth to them. If they think he’s only 3% better than option #2, then throwing all the money at him isn’t the best plan. If they think he’s 30% better, then throwing a ton of money at him makes sense.
LikeLike
I am not certain of that. I think college HC’s have more clout in certain places. Mike McCarthy won a Super Bowl at Green Bay and most would say that Barry Alvarez is the bigger figure in Wisconsin. (and that is considering that the Packers are head and shoulders more popular than the Badgers) Very few coaches transcend generations of fans in the NFL anymore. Look at Brian Billick. Even John Harbaugh is just another coach to some extent. The NFL is all about the QB in today’s game
LikeLike
That article seems too melodramatic to be real, but I would not doubt that UMich has pulled out all the stops, enlisting family, friends, former teammates, whomever to convince Harbaugh. Go back to UMich, and he’d be the prodigal son, taking the ole’ alma mater back to glory with friends and family in support.
Against that, that’s an awfully high hurdle for an NFL team to scale. Basically, they could offer the chance to win a Super Bowl and maybe a little more money. Yet if he goes the NFL route, he could end up in a poisonous relationship again just like now, as ultimately, the NFL team owner rules the roost. Even winning a Super Bowl doesn’t let you dictate when you go out. Yet if Harbaugh wins a national title at UMich, he’d become a deity there.
With, I daresay, 90%+ of people, when it comes to heart vs. ego, heart wins.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24902181/bowl-season-has-never-been-bigger-is-that-a-good-thing
A nice table of the bowl money per conference from last season, both gross and net. The article is about whether there are too many bowls, FWIW.
LikeLike
Frank,
Can you explain what the Bears were thinking when they gave Cutler that huge contract? Did the fans support the decision?
Other NFL teams make similar mistakes, paying way too much for non-elite QBs. If your QB isn’t Brady, Manning, Rodgers or Brees (they all deserve their $20M+), you shouldn’t bother to spend more than $10M. The in-between guys never turn out to be worth it. Go get a new QB than paying your non-elite veteran too much.
http://q.usatoday.com/2014/03/07/paying-for-an-elite-qb-often-means-not-affording-even-a-mediocre-defense/
Only 4 SB winners have had a QB making over 10% of the cap (since 1994). Now 13 QBs make more than 10% of the cap.
LikeLike
Other NFL teams make similar mistakes, paying way too much for non-elite QBs. If your QB isn’t Brady, Manning, Rodgers or Brees (they all deserve their $20M+), you shouldn’t bother to spend more than $10M. The in-between guys never turn out to be worth it. Go get a new QB than paying your non-elite veteran too much.
I disagree to an extent. Since passing offense has (far and away) the lowest year to year variability of any FB component (passing off, pass def, rush off, rush def, ST), it makes sense to pay a premium for stability. While putting a large amount of money in a QB might make it more difficult to win a Super Bowl, it makes it significantly easier to stay annually competitive.
As for the Cutler deal, I think most people believed it was an overpay. That said, what I don’t understand is why the Bears are benching Cutler now. He is playing at virtually the exact same level he was when the Bears gave him the extension and he is clearly better than Clauson. I get they don’t want to risk him being injured (and thus destroying any trade value he still has) but benching him lowers their leverage also.
LikeLike
frug,
One theory I’ve heard is that the coaching staff is trying to prove he was the problem, not them.
As for stability, I agree if you want to be average a lot. If you want to win a title, you need to cut bait on a non-elite QB that wants big money. Maybe owners prefer the steady revenue of being okay to the risk of chasing a title.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bengals-dont-have-a-better-option-than-andy-dalton/
This article actually gives a decent breakdown that very dilemma. It notes that without an elite defense the Bengals are unlikely to win a Super Bowl with Andy Dalton at QB, but there is very little chance of the Bengals actually being able to find a QB better than Dalton.
LikeLike
This may change as the salary cap grows, but right now I think 538’s analysis is only looking at part of the picture. They also need to consider how the salary of the QB impacts the level of talent around him. A below average QB with a great D can win a SB (Flacco and the Ravens, for example). The problem is spending 20% of your cap on an average QB.
Besides, the only way to really advance the franchise is to eventually get one of those top QBs. The best chance of doing that is to occasionally have a bad season and get a high draft pick. Being good every year sticks you with mediocre draft picks all the time, and that’s hard to cope with as a franchise.
I think more fans would appreciate seeing their team try to win it all than coasting by on good enough, too.
LikeLike
I can NOT believe Michigan State lost to Texas Southern yesterday? Man, what is going on with BIG basketball? First Michigan loses to NJIT and now this?
Wow….
LikeLike
anthony london,
“I can NOT believe Michigan State lost to Texas Southern yesterday? Man, what is going on with BIG basketball? First Michigan loses to NJIT and now this?
Wow….”
Don’t forget MI losing to EMU. And UNI crushed IA.
At least IL beat MO. They could never do that in football. And IN upset Butler.
I’m going to venture to say this is a down year for the B10. We have several solid teams, but no elite ones.
LikeLike
Not much of an accomplishment. Mizzou is in major rebuild mode. Will be lucky to finish .500 this year.
LikeLike
And Nebraska lost to Incarnate Word.
LikeLike
That’s different. God was upset with Bo Pelini’s swearing.
LikeLike
LOL!!!!!
Who names a school Incarnate Word…
LikeLike
Catholics
LikeLike
Game 2 didn’t go well for Manziel either. 3 of 8 for 32 yards and a hamstring injury on a designed QB run. He left in the 2nd quarter and isn’t playing in the second half.
LikeLike
The NFL this year shows why people are leery about giving autobids to the CFP or making a championship a requirement. A likely 7-9 NFC South champ will keep the currently 9-6 Eagles (likely 10-6) out of the playoffs. And the NFC South champ will only be 7-9 because they got to play 6 games against the NFC South.
A simple rule like the division champ must be within 1 game (maybe even 2) of any team kept out would help the NFL. A similar cutoff (autbids don’t apply top teams without 10 wins) could work in college (if it expands to 8).
LikeLike
I see it differently. The NFL also schedules unbalanced based on previous finish. Tank and you get an easier schedule. Records may, or may not be indicitative of relative strength and merit. Just like conferences playing different numbers of conf. games and widely varying OOC schedules. Their mistake is having basically a bunch of mini sub divisions, and too many qualifiers. Four champion qualifiers from five subdivisions, the smallest being 10 (that also plays 9 CG’s), seems much more reasonable. Only the champ from the left out conference could possibly have a legitimate beef. The others had their chance in conference, the playoff to the playoff.
LikeLike
The variability of scheduling and such are why you need some flexibility in the cutoffs. Despite the schedule differences, a 7-9 team shouldn’t get in over a 10-6 team. Winning your division doesn’t make up for being 3 games behind.
In CFB, winning a conference shouldn’t make up for having 2 more losses. An 11-1 at large should get the nod over a 9-4 champ. And remember the at-larges only come into play if there are 3 or fewer champs (or independents) with 10+ wins.
I’m all for having it be 4 champions, but if a year should happen to have 2 weak P5 champs then I’d rather see an at-large get in than an undeserving champion.
LikeLike
“Winning your division doesn’t make up for being 3 games behind.”
It does not disqualify either, unless you have a very reliable objective method everyone agrees is acceptable to compare differing schedules. i.e. not the “eye test”, which is what any selection process dependent on people is.
“An 11-1 at large should get the nod over a 9-4 champ.”
11-1 May be non champ of a weak conference, while 9-4 could be who emerges from a conference full of top ten teams. That would necessitate a judgment decision (just like 11-1 > 9-4), which is what a playoff solves. If you don’t win, you’re not in. Simple. Understandable.
“…but if a year should happen to have 2 weak P5 champs then I’d rather see an at-large get in than an undeserving champion.”
So…an invitational, not a playoff.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It does not disqualify either,”
It should, IMO. Nobody 3 games behind in CFB has a decent argument for being the national champ. They just don’t.
“unless you have a very reliable objective method everyone agrees is acceptable to compare differing schedules. i.e. not the “eye test”, which is what any selection process dependent on people is.”
You can use any method you want. Heck, use all of them. None will say the team with 3 more losses should get in over the best at-large.
“An 11-1 at large should get the nod over a 9-4 champ.”
“11-1 May be non champ of a weak conference,”
Not if they’re the top contender for an at-large spot. Be realistic.
“while 9-4 could be who emerges from a conference full of top ten teams.”
Show me any 9-4 team (or equivalent) in CFB history that deserved to be #1. No team with 3 losses has ever been given even a MNC. Be realistic.
“That would necessitate a judgment decision (just like 11-1 > 9-4),”
Yes. Thankfully human beings have judgement. Sometimes it’s even good judgement. But even computers wouldn’t put 9-4 in the playoff.
“which is what a playoff solves.”
It does? Since when? It’s a judgement to say that only conference champions should get in. Where does this leave independents? Do they count as champs? That seems like another judgement.
“If you don’t win, you’re not in. Simple. Understandable.”
The same applies to requiring 10 wins. If you don’t win, you’re not in.
“So…an invitational, not a playoff.”
Invitational – a competition open only to those invited.
That’s every playoff ever. Requiring teams to be champs doesn’t change that. You’re just creating a prerequisite for receiving a playoff.
Playoff – a series of contests played to determine the winner of a championship
You seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of a playoff that imposes other restrictions.
LikeLike
If I were in charge, I would prefer Brian’s rule, which would impose a minimum qualification for getting into the playoff. A perfect example would be the 2012 Wisconsin Badgers, which went just 8-5 (4-4 in league play), but won the Big Ten because two better teams, OSU and PSU, were ineligible. I wouldn’t have allowed Wisconsin into an eight-team playoff.
But following Frank’s rule — “Think like a university president, not like a fan” — I do believe they’ll give unrestricted auto-bids to the P5 champions. It’s not what I prefer, but I think it’s what they’ll do.
LikeLike
I’d be fine with an 8-5 Wisconsin instead of trying to draw an arbitrary line between an acceptable conference champion and one who is not (of course we are doing that with the G5-but its clearer). And with 8 teams, its not like they are knocking out anyone who is truly deserving.
LikeLike
And with 8 teams, its not like they are knocking out anyone who is truly deserving.
This is one of the reasons why I believe they will auto-bid the P5 champions. I do think there are non-champs whose resumes are practically indistinguishable from the actual champions, and there needs to be a way for them to get in. Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State all had credible arguments for making this year’s playoff, and only one of them could.
But there are almost never four such candidates. If you drop a P5 champion in favor of a fourth at-large team, you’ll almost certainly be admitting a team with multiple flaws. I think the presidents and commissioners will prefer the flawed champion that reached the playoff by meeting objective criteria (they won their conference) over the fourth-best non-champion team that satisfied a committee’s eye test.
LikeLike
But while rare, in the example Brian cites, Wisconsin isn’t truly the conference champion. A 3rd place team winning 1 game against the other division shouldn’t crown them a champion and give them a playoff spot.
The best answer may still be to simply take the champions regardless, but I can’t say it sits well with me. Wisconsin already had proven they weren’t the conference champion by falling to both OSU and PSU – seems hollow to act as though they were.
LikeLike
I don’t have much heartburn over the “undeserving” team that wins a conference championship getting into the playoff. The fact that a team with a lesser record can score an upset isn’t a reason to start introducing qualifiers and additional exceptions, which is exactly what we ought to be getting away from in an 8-team playoff. A 100% on-the-field unqualified mechanism to get into the playoff is the biggest problem (at least IMHO) with the 4-team playoff and can be easily addressed in an 8-team playoff, and the only way to do that is to make it, well, unqualified. I’m not very interested in an 8-team playoff without that auto-qualifier for the power conference champs – if people want to continue to base it all on opinion, then we should just keep it at 4 teams.
A conference championship game IS a playoff game. As a result, there is no “undeserving” team in that scenario – they’re playing a de facto playoff game in order to advance to… play more playoff games. It can’t get more clear and on-the-field than that. If a loser of one of those games has an incredible body of work prior to that loss, then that’s what the at-large bids are for.
LikeLike
Quick follow-up…
If I recall correctly many thought that the non-OSU/PSU division should simply have had a game between the top two teams in its division (the legends, yes?), in place of a contest between the two divisions. Maybe there can be some kind of exception instituted by the conference itself for instances like this one.
LikeLike
But while rare, in the example Brian cites, Wisconsin isn’t truly the conference champion. A 3rd place team winning 1 game against the other division shouldn’t crown them a champion and give them a playoff spot.
Of course they were “truly” the conference champion. I realize they benefited from the OSU/PSU sanctions. But there have been plenty of CCGs with mismatched teams, when one division was far weaker than the other.
The favorite usually prevails—but not always. Nevertheless, the winner is the champ. You can’t take that away. Next thing you know, they’ll forfeit the New York Jets’ Super Bowl III trophy, because the Colts were supposed to win.
If I recall correctly many thought that the non-OSU/PSU division should simply have had a game between the top two teams in its division (the legends, yes?), in place of a contest between the two divisions. Maybe there can be some kind of exception instituted by the conference itself for instances like this one.
NCAA rules would not have allowed that option at the time. But had they done so, the matchup really wouldn’t have been that much better. Instead of a 7-5 Wisconsin team that had already lost to OSU and PSU, Nebraska would’ve faced a re-match vs. an 8-4 Michigan team that lost to OSU.
By your argument, Michigan wouldn’t really have been that much more satisfactory a champion than Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I don’t have much heartburn over the “undeserving” team that wins a conference championship getting into the playoff.”
I have more heartburn over an undeserving team getting in than a possibly deserving team getting left out.
“The fact that a team with a lesser record can score an upset isn’t a reason to start introducing qualifiers and additional exceptions, which is exactly what we ought to be getting away from in an 8-team playoff. A 100% on-the-field unqualified mechanism to get into the playoff is the biggest problem (at least IMHO) with the 4-team playoff and can be easily addressed in an 8-team playoff, and the only way to do that is to make it, well, unqualified.”
That sounds nice, but you’re only talking about 5 of the 8 spots. At least 37.5% of the field has to get on a qualified basis. If that bumps up to 50% (has there ever been 3 undeserving P5 champs at the same time?), so what?
“I’m not very interested in an 8-team playoff without that auto-qualifier for the power conference champs – if people want to continue to base it all on opinion, then we should just keep it at 4 teams.”
Lots of people weren’t very interested in a 4 team playoff without a championship requirement, and they got ignored.
“A conference championship game IS a playoff game. As a result, there is no “undeserving” team in that scenario”
I cannot disagree more. A 3rd place team in their division is undeserving of a shot at a national title. An 8-4 team is undeserving of a shot at a national title. Just because the rules put them into the CCG does not make them deserving of a shot at the national title, it just makes them deserving of a shot at the conference title. Not all conference champs deserve a shot at the national title (hence why G5 champs don’t get autobids).
LikeLike
A “playoff” that excludes the best team is invalid.
That’s my priority is to get the best teams in. That error is far more egregious than letting non-deserving teams in. Those non-deserving teams still have to win against deserving teams to move forward. The deserving teams have to win to prove they deserved it.
There can be championship teams like NCSU in 1984 in basketball. They lost a key player, lost a bunch of games, got him back, and won the title. And college teams develop. Georgia had a team that lost its first 6 games win 4 playoff games to get to the HS championship this year, including some decisive wins over teams that beat them earlier. I don’t think you should go out of your way to include those types of teams, but they shouldn’t be ruled out arbitrarily if they still manage to win a conference championship.
LikeLike
bullet,
“A “playoff” that excludes the best team is invalid.”
No, it isn’t. It’s not a very good playoff, though. But which is the “best” team anyway? The one that gets the #1 seed? The one that wins the playoff? Some other measure? How can you ever say the “best” team was excluded?
“That’s my priority is to get the best teams in.”
Does that mean that every team with a realistic chance at winning the playoff must be in it? What do we define as realistic? AR almost beat 3 ranked teams in a row this season but went 6-6 (they lost to one by 7, then beat 2, then lost to another by 7). Do they need to be in? Clearly they have a chance to win 3 games in a tournament.
Assume 8 teams, so 3 games for the champion.
http://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/appendix/11/
Being a 9-point underdog is roughly equal to a 25% chance of winning, so a 9-point underdog in all 3 games still has a 1.6% chance of winning it all. A toss-up in every game would result in a 12.5% chance to win it all, or being 8 times more likely to be the champ.
An 18.5 point spread still gives the underdog a 10% chance of winning. Is that realistic enough to justify inclusion?
“That error is far more egregious than letting non-deserving teams in.”
1. To you.
2. That statement assumes that it could possibly be known for certain that saiud error had been committed.
“Those non-deserving teams still have to win against deserving teams to move forward. The deserving teams have to win to prove they deserved it.”
Isn’t that what the regular season was for, to separate the deserving from the undeserving? If losses don’t really matter, why play the games?
“Georgia had a team that lost its first 6 games win 4 playoff games to get to the HS championship this year, including some decisive wins over teams that beat them earlier.”
Which is the whole problem with large playoffs. They reward the hot team, not the best team.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/volleyball-women/article/2014-12-20/all-hands-deck
PSU won their 7th national title (6 in 8 years) in WVB last night.
LikeLike
BYU finally game back to earth……..
PSU just had too many weapons….and they certainly got their s*** together the last 1/2 of the BT season. As a semi-educated observer, what impressed me most was how much PSU’s back line D improved from early in the year. The L. Gonzalez (sp?) was really an unsung hero on that team.
As easily as PSU handled Stanford, Wisconsin might have been the 2nd best team in the tourney. The PAC 10 fared badly overall, and the Big 10 teams did very well, but just got screwed in the draw/seeding process.
There are so many pretenders/contenders chasing PSU in the Big 10…..Wisconsin and Nebraska obviously, but Michigan, Purdue, and MSU have all had monster recruiting years lately, and Illinois, OSU, and Minnesota are all going to be right there….it appears IU, Iowa, Maryland,, and Rutgers will be the dregs again next year, but I see MD joining the top 9 in 2-3 years.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2014-12-20/lehigh-muhlenberg-among-teams-competing-grapple-garden
With Delany making his push into NYC, I wonder if the B10 will try to get more teams into The Grapple in the Garden? Certainly RU would make sense and PSU will draw a crowd.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12062132/jameis-winston-florida-state-seminoles-did-not-violate-school-code
Shockingly, the judge decided there was insufficient evidence to find Winston guilty of any student code violations. Apparently a slap on the wrist was too harsh of a penalty to expect for an FSU QB.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/12/17/future-cable-sports-tv
SI look’s at the future of sports and TV.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/113147/back-to-school-coaches-who-went-from-the-nfl-to-college-level
ESPN.com looks at how some recent NFL coaches coming to college have done.
It will be another full week before the NFL wraps up its regular season, which means at least as long before Michigan will name its next head coach.
Former Wolverine and current San Francisco 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh remains the No. 1 target in Ann Arbor, but multiple reports point toward other coaches with an NFL background being on the Michigan wish list. Jason La Canfora from CBS Sports reported Sunday that Michigan has kept other NFL coaches on its radar, including Baltimore’s John Harbaugh, Buffalo’s Doug Marrone and Sean Payton from New Orleans.
Most current coaches who have left the NFL for a college program have found more success in school than on the pro level. If Harbaugh decides to join those ranks, he would be rare in that he would be leaving the NFL with a track record of success. Harbaugh is 43-19-1 as an NFL coach and led the 49ers to the NFC championship game in each of his first three seasons. Among the nine prominent coaches listed below who have been head coaches at both levels, only one left a professional league job for college on good terms.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/22/michigan-head-coach-search-nfl-coaches
This SI piece reinforces a certain point ESPN made – MI is apparently looking at several other NFL coaches besides Harbaugh.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/17/jim-harbaugh-michigan-wolverines
An SI writer analyzes MI’s hunt for Harbaugh.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24910518/report-pendulum-is-swinging-toward-harbaugh-returning-to-college
Meanwhile, CBS says the momentum is swinging back towards MI right now.
LikeLike
Memphis and BYU auditioned for a shot at #11. Both lost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/12/22/memphis-and-byu-get-into-huge-brawl-at-end-of-miami-beach-bowl/
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that completely, but it does hurt both schools. Especially, Memphis as an up-and-coming football program, expect the AD & coaching staff to have swift penalties for the players involved to “clean-up” any uneasiness from the Big 12. I doubt BYU takes any swift penalties since they are still an Independent football team.
LikeLike
“I doubt BYU takes any swift penalties since they are still an Independent football team.”
Yeah. The school thet suspended their star BB player right before March maddness ((for sleeping with his girlfriend) is certainly unlikely to discipline this…
(Sarcasm)
LikeLike
Is Ross sticking with Philbin for the Dolphins to corner Harbaugh into choosing Michigan vs. dysfunctional Raiders, Jets, and Bears? If Harbaugh commits early to the Wolverines, I wonder if Philbin still gets fired a couple of days afterward.
On the other hand, if Harbaugh starts hemming/hawing, id probably hire Lloyd Carr back by NYD and if Harbaugh still wants it later in January, have Carr “fail” a physical.
LikeLike
Ross wouldn’t retain Philbin unless he wanted him. Although the Raiders are a dumpster fire, there are always good NFL jobs open. Chicago and the Jets are good jobs. If Harbaugh is coming to Michigan, it’ll be because he wants to be there.
LikeLike
Few thoughts:
1. 8 teams is the straw that breaks the cammels back. 4 teams has not fundamentally altered the landscape, but 8 teams will. At that point, for most the season, the only teams you really need to be concerned with are your conference mates and not the national picture, especially if conference champs automatically in. For this reason, I vastly prefer 4 to 8. I wasn’t in favor of 4 and it does diminish the Rose Bowl further, but I am very much of the opinion 8 is the point of no return and there isn’t a huge difference between 8 and 16 in terms of it effect on the regular season (16 effecting things more, but not to the extent 8 vs. 4 does).
2. If you go to 8, conference champs should be in. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for scrapping the divisional concept that gives teams a chance to win a conference despite having a resume that sometimes is 3rd, 4th, 5th best in the league. Regardless of set-up though, conference champs should get preference over teams in conferences that don’t win them and once you get to 8, that means automatics. Let’s hope we don’t get there.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with this view, but the best solution is probably 6 if there’s no way to keep to the playoff at 4 (i.e. greed/$ come into play as they likely will). I think 6 could end up being a long-term stability point if it’s chosen instead of 8 as the next leg.
The argument that the playoff makes you care about the national picture (i.e. Midwest viewers keeping track of games in Texas, and ditto for viewers in the South and the West) only matters as long as there’s still a “Musical Chairs” element to the scenario: 5 power conferences, 4 spots…. and everyone watching where everyone else lands.
As soon as you start talking about 8 spots (5 guaranteed slots for 5 power conferences), it seems obvious that viewers will probably focus more on their own conference scenario and the like, since winning the conference is guaranteed a spot regardless of what goes on outside the region.
The other major argument against 8 though is that teams #6-8 usually have losses to the top teams in their resumes (or multiple losses to low quality teams).
Michigan State for example at #8; they lost to both Oregon and Ohio State. Do they deserve a shot at the playoff given they’ve already lost to those two teams?
I think the best solution is 6; 5 locked in, 1 at-large. That creates very little incentive to move to 8 for the power 5 conferences.
The problem with this is of course ND, which would much prefer a scenario with 3 at-larges to only 1…; the ACC might side with them although that isn’t a guarantee.
LikeLike
The issues that I have with a 6-team playoff are that (1) you’re going to 3 rounds of playoffs just like an 8-team playoff, but it restricts the ability to use the bowls as the first round (which I believe will need to happen if this is ever implemented) and (2) 1 at-large spot is too few to accommodate all of the independents and non-power conferences. There is a very large difference between making it hard in practice for independents and non-power leagues to make the playoffs versus structurally stacking it where everyone is competing for one single spot. A 6-team playoff with 5 auto-bids and only 1 at-large actually provides *less* leeway on that front than the current 4-team playoff. I’m all for only giving the 5 power conferences auto-bids and don’t think we should pretend that the non-power leagues should have equal access (like the NCAA Tournament), but giving so little structural breathing room is a major problem. 3 at-large bids plus the 5 power conference champs would realistically include every legit national title contender every year (which is more important to me than the prospect of having a possibly “undeserving team”, whatever that means, squeak in).
LikeLike
Frank – I’m actually warming up to the 6-team playoff idea. Five auto bids with one at-large to take care of Notre Dame, an undefeated G5, or an 11-1 team in a tough division. This could be accomplished with minimal change to the existing structure by playing the two play-in games on the campus of the higher seed two weeks after the CCGs. The lower seed gets an away game allotment of tickets. No changes to NYE/NYD bowls.
LikeLike
Imagine Arkansas won that season ending game against LSU in 2011. Alabama, Arkansas and LSU probably 1-2-3, all 11-1 and one of them has to be left out.
Of course there was the actual Big 12 in 2008 with 3 11-1 teams, not just a hypothetical.
Conference champs may be black and white, but it sometimes takes arbitrary tiebreakers to get there as it did with the Big 12 in 2008. I remember well being a Colts fan in 1967 when they had the best record, 11-0-2, going into the final game. The Rams had the 2nd best record at 10-1-2. The Rams beat them, won the tiebreak, and the Colts, tied for the best record, didn’t even make the playoffs in the pre-wildcard days.
1 wildcard doesn’t ensure the most deserving team gets in. 3 doesn’t add any rounds to the playoffs vs. 1. And you arbitrarily decide who the 2 teams that get the bye are. 2 vs 3 is often the closest call. Would you really say Alabama and Oregon deserve a bye this year and FSU doesn’t?
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“This could be accomplished with minimal change to the existing structure by playing the two play-in games on the campus of the higher seed two weeks after the CCGs. The lower seed gets an away game allotment of tickets. No changes to NYE/NYD bowls.”
Or they could use 2 of the lesser bowls and play just before Christmas (maybe in San Diego and San Antonio). This way the losers at least get a bowl experience. Home games mean those losers might have gotten a 2 day trip to Madison, WI as their bowl trip. TPTB really seem to believe in the bowl experience for players.
LikeLike
That would be during finals week so I can’t see Presidents signing on to that idea.
LikeLike
Bullet/Brian/Kevin – I don’t think a 6 team playoff is perfect and would prefer an 8 team playoff. I just don’t see all the parties blowing up a 12 year contract in the first year. I’m not sure the bowls want to be knocked down from semis to quarters, although they would host more meaningful games. Also, ESPN might not want to double the size of the contract right now. Adding two play-in games in mid December just seems the least disruptive to the current contract.
Kevin – I don’t think all schools have uniform finals schedules. My kids go to different schools in different states and both were finished by 12/13. I’m sure schools would make accommodations for 4 schools for an extra $80-100 million to divvy up.
Brian – I know that home games up north make be a problem. I was just trying to save some fans some money. Games up north could be scheduled for a noon kickoff. I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other about home play-in games, though. Maybe the Cotton and Peach could be designated as the sites for the yearly play-in games, as both have huge airports that are hubs, and each have domed stadiums.
LikeLike
@Kevin
There were 8 FBS, Division II, Division III games the weekend of December 13. There were 4 the weekend of December 20. Presidents signed off on that. And, of course, there were 5 bowl games on December 20, 1 on the 22nd and 2 on the 23rd.
LikeLike
I just don’t see all the parties blowing up a 12 year contract in the first year. I’m not sure the bowls want to be knocked down from semis to quarters, although they would host more meaningful games. Also, ESPN might not want to double the size of the contract right now. Adding two play-in games in mid December just seems the least disruptive to the current contract.
This is far too disruptive to the bowl schedule. In the current system, the bowl pairings were announced after the CCGs on Saturday, December 6. The first bowls took place on Saturday, December 20, just two weeks later.
There’s a domino problem in bowl scheduling. Lower-tier bowls choose teams after the higher ones. If the top bowls don’t yet know who they’re getting, then no one does. Once the bowl pairings have been announced, the teams and sponsors need time to sell tickets and travel packages.
It’s a substantial problem to lose a week in what is already a very tight schedule, and at a time of year when flights are already very expensive, and cost more with every day you wait to purchase them.
There is also the problem of fan interest. Today, the top bowls are considered perks. Teams win something to get there. If you have a play-in round in mid-December, it will produce two top-6 teams that are guaranteed losers, for whom a major bowl will be a consolation prize. It’s a lot harder to generate fan interest (and therefore, ratings and ticket sales) for a losers’ game.
Finally, as I noted upthread, in a six-team playoff, there is a huge difference between being #2 and #3, since #2 gets the substantial advantage of a bye, and #3 does not. They won’t put that decision to a committee vote. With an eight-team playoff, the breaking point shifts to #8/9, a distinction that is inherently far less controversial.
Frank’s proposal — the bowl season as the quarterfinals — avoids all of these problems. The bowl line-up will be settled after the first Saturday in December, as it is today; all of the top bowls will have teams that are happy to be there; and there is no issue with deciding who gets a bye.
As others have noted, although there are sporting reasons for expanding the playoff, it is also, in part, driven by money (as most major decisions are in college athletics). Once you have agreed in principle to add an extra week to the season, there is no reason not to go up to eight, and get the most money that you can.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – I know that home games up north make be a problem. I was just trying to save some fans some money. Games up north could be scheduled for a noon kickoff. I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other about home play-in games, though.”
I was just pointing out that early bowls could serve the purpose while avoiding any academic calendar issues. Also, TPTB have stressed the importance of the bowl experience so I have a hard imagining them letting some of the best teams miss out on it. It would also keep the major bowls strong as they stay as semis.
“Maybe the Cotton and Peach could be designated as the sites for the yearly play-in games, as both have huge airports that are hubs, and each have domed stadiums.”
Certainly possible. I picked 2 new games in cities not already hosting major bowls so that there could still be 6 major bowls to maintain access for the little guys.
LikeLike
I don’t foresee the contract changing and expanding the playoff in the next 12 years. I also think the only feasible solution is to incorporate on-campus games. If retaining the bowl experience is part of the solution maybe they would have the second round at home sites and the first round at the bowl sites. That means January football in the north potentially and I think that could be a sticking point for some schools
I think 8 teams likely eliminates CCG’s in the long-run. Also, I know some have stated that the college player would have participated in more plays than the Super Bowl Champ so i think safety of the players would be a concern. (There are about 15%-20% more plays in the college game) Division 3 plays 10 regular season games and they don’t have to worry about exploitation issues.
I’d prefer going back to the BCS with using a committee instead of computers before I would like to see more than 4 teams in a playoff.
LikeLike
Or the first round earlier, at home sites, and the winners through to the CFP bowls while the losers are allocated among the four other bowl spots left open for them.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“The issues that I have with a 6-team playoff are that (1) you’re going to 3 rounds of playoffs just like an 8-team playoff,”
I agree. Since greed is the driving factor here, why have 5 games when you can have 7? Also, having a bye could be seen as a disadvantage in the semis since your team is rusty while your opponent isn’t.
“but it restricts the ability to use the bowls as the first round (which I believe will need to happen if this is ever implemented)”
By date, you mean? You could still do 2 bowls for the first round (move them into December) with 2 more for the semis (keep them on 1/1). Or have the first round on 1/1 and push the title game back.
“and (2) 1 at-large spot is too few to accommodate all of the independents and non-power conferences.”
Is it? How many independents or G5 teams deserve a shot this year? Other than ND a couple of years ago (and ignoring TCU and Utah since they’re P5 now), how many have been deserving in any given year?
“I’m all for only giving the 5 power conferences auto-bids and don’t think we should pretend that the non-power leagues should have equal access (like the NCAA Tournament), but giving so little structural breathing room is a major problem.”
It isn’t equal access to preserve 1 spot for the G5/independents, but I think that’s the most likely path. It assures ND of a spot when they’re really good while offering a shot to the little guys to not have to win a beauty contest against P5 teams (except ND).
LikeLike
The 8-team, every-power-conference-champ-gets-in format is most fair for me (especially if all five conferences have CCGs).guaranteeing equal access for major conference champions, whether they be Alabama, Ohio State, Wake Forest or Iowa State. Too many here are interested in protecting “brand names” (unlike the NFL, where the playoff criteria are the same for the Tennessee Titans and Jacksonville Jaguars as they are for the moneybag teams of the NFC East), which may explain why college football is increasingly devolving into nearly as much a regional sport as college baseball. I eagerly await the defenses of the status quo from Brian et al...as well as your thoughts on my “equal access” vs. “brand names” thoughts, Frank.
LikeLike
vp19,
“The 8-team, every-power-conference-champ-gets-in format is most fair for me (especially if all five conferences have CCGs).”
I think the fairness is debatable. Yes, it means no champ loses a beauty contest, but it also means weak teams get in over objectively better ones (unless you believe conference championships are the end all be all of objective ranking).
“guaranteeing equal access for major conference champions, whether they be Alabama, Ohio State, Wake Forest or Iowa State.”
It also gives equal access to 8-5 champs. That’s the problem many have with autobids. Winning your conference is not a sufficient achievement to deserve a shot at the national title to many people. If it was, then the P5 shouldn’t get special treatment over the G5.
“Too many here are interested in protecting “brand names””
That strikes me as an odd interpretation of anything anyone has said here. I don’t see how taking the best teams protects brand names. You argue to treat the P5 as special compared to the G5 but accuse the rest of us of wanting to protect the brand names. Pot, meet kettle.
“which may explain why college football is increasingly devolving into nearly as much a regional sport as college baseball.”
CFB is as national right now as it has ever been.
“I eagerly await the defenses of the status quo from Brian”
I hate the status quo. I want the old bowl system back. I think you’re creating strawmen, though. I also don’t see how autobids actually solve the supposed problem.
LikeLike
“[The 8-team, P5 conference auto-bid format] also gives equal access to 8-5 champs. That’s the problem many have with autobids. Winning your conference is not a sufficient achievement to deserve a shot at the national title to many people.”
We’ve had more than 50 CCG among the P5 since the SEC kicked things off in 1992, including the now-discontinued Big 12 title game. How many of those games have been won by a team with a worse regular-season record? What’s the worst team (by regular-season record) to have won a CCG, and what was the differential? (Connecticut in 2010, the team everyone loves to cite in opposition to this plan, was in the Big East, a league with no CCG.) Talk about strawmen, Brian.
LikeLike
First Big 12 ccg, Texas 7-4, beat Nebraska 10-1. Texas A&M upset KSU who would have been in the title game had they won in 1998. It wasn’t an upset, but Nebraska beat Texas in 1999 after losing to them earlier in the season. Colorado, who had lost to Texas 41-7 earlier in the year upset Texas in 2001, knocking Texas out of the title game. KSU upset OU in 2003. OU upset Missouri in 2007, knocking them out of #1. Texas came 1 more sloppy time management second from losing to Nebraska and missing the title game in 2009. Upsets do happen. But those things are decided on the field, not in a beauty contest.
LikeLike
vp19,
“We’ve had more than 50 CCG among the P5 since the SEC kicked things off in 1992, including the now-discontinued Big 12 title game. How many of those games have been won by a team with a worse regular-season record?”
ACC – 2005, 2011
B10 – 2012, 2013
B12 – 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2007
P12 – none
SEC – 2001, 2005, 2008
Total – 12 times in 56 games
“What’s the worst team (by regular-season record) to have won a CCG, and what was the differential?”
I believe bullet answered this one.
Take your pick:
ACC – 2005 FSU was 7-4 and beat 10-1 VT
B10 – 2012 WI was 7-5 and beat 10-2 NE
B12 – 1996 UT was 7-4 and beat 10-1 NE
“Talk about strawmen, Brian.”
It’s not a strawman when it’s actually happened multiple times.
LikeLike
“I think the fairness is debatable. Yes, it means no champ loses a beauty contest, but it also means weak teams get in over objectively better ones (unless you believe conference championships are the end all be all of objective ranking).”
There is NEVER any “generally fair” choice of two for two spots, four for four spots, eight for eight sports, and etc. … even if you find a set of perfectly objective criteria, the decision of what weight to apply to which criteria is subjective (as, indeed, is the decision to give priority to objective measures and exclude subjective measures).
What CAN be hoped on is getting the best two among four, best four among eight, and so on, even if there is disagreement about which ones are “the best among”.
Based on the last couple of decades, I reckon that the 5 P5 champions and a couple of at-large picks covers it. Reserving the eighth for best of the five Go5 champions and the FBS independents (which will soon be just ND, BYU and Army) is probably a compromise the Go5 could live with, so long as the best Go5 champion earns a Big Bowl spot when it doesn’t have a CFP spot.
LikeLike
“Upsets do happen.” And, seems like, mostly in the Big12. What is it about Big12 FB that breeds CCG upsets?
LikeLike
Maybe it was the offensive nature of B12 football? The SEC has been more defense-dependent over the years, the ACC often had a clear favorite and the B10 and P12 games are too new for trends.
LikeLike
The other thing is that I think the focus back on conference races is a *good* thing. I’d rather have had people in Big Ten country focus upon Wisconsin-Minnesota game for the west division title this past Thanksgiving weekend as opposed to how Florida State, Baylor and TCU were doing.
Also, I think that the worry that regular season games would lose their luster in an 8-team playoff is overstated. Most of us here love college football for the sake of loving college football, so we’re naturally conditioned to watch the national games. Taking a step further, if you’re a fan of a school that is in the national title race regularly like Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc., then there’s always that additional focus on national games.
However, if you’re a fan of school that’s in the plebeian class (like my Illini), which is the majority of people, then the importance of national games hasn’t ever been a big deal unless you fall into that “I just love any type of college football” category. Being mathematically in contention for your division (and by extension in an auto-bid playoff model, in contention for the national title) is a MUCH larger driver of interest.
I know not everyone here is a big NFL fan, but this is what the NFL gets right. Every fan of every team does start out with *some* hope every year at the local level while balancing big games weekly at the national level. That drives *both* national and local interest throughout the year. For all of the talk about how much more important big games are in college football each week compared to the NFL, none of the biggest regular season college football ratings come close to the average run-of-the-mill late afternoon Sunday NFL game on Fox or CBS. College football is leaving a lot of potential fans on the table when it effectively eliminates all but a relative handful of teams from the national title race by the 2nd week of the season. That might be fun for fans of the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, but there is a whole slew of other teams just in the power conferences that want/need a way to believe that they can win a national title without worrying about polls/rankings (much less the truly disenfranchised in the non-power leagues). The NFL has shown that both the national and local audiences can be served (and they have a 12-team playoff for 32 teams, as opposed to an 8-team playoff proposed here covering over 120 teams).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“The other thing is that I think the focus back on conference races is a *good* thing. I’d rather have had people in Big Ten country focus upon Wisconsin-Minnesota game for the west division title this past Thanksgiving weekend as opposed to how Florida State, Baylor and TCU were doing.”
Agreed. CFB should be a regional sport for the fans. That’s why the BCS was such a bad idea compared to the old bowl system.
“Also, I think that the worry that regular season games would lose their luster in an 8-team playoff is overstated.”
I think this depends entirely on your viewpoint. It’ll make a huge difference to some fans and none to others. TV only cares which plan makes them the most money.
“Most of us here love college football for the sake of loving college football, so we’re naturally conditioned to watch the national games.”
I used to, but I hardly watched any non-OSU games this year.
“Taking a step further, if you’re a fan of a school that is in the national title race regularly like Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc., then there’s always that additional focus on national games.”
You may think so, but that was never a driver for me. I watched those other games because I like CFB and had the time to watch, but I never felt compelled to watch other powerhouses.
“However, if you’re a fan of school that’s in the plebeian class (like my Illini), which is the majority of people, then the importance of national games hasn’t ever been a big deal unless you fall into that “I just love any type of college football” category. Being mathematically in contention for your division (and by extension in an auto-bid playoff model, in contention for the national title) is a MUCH larger driver of interest.”
Do TV ratings numbers back that up? Do CFB fans stop watching once their team is out or do they just watch others instead? Honest question, I have no idea.
And using Nate Silver’s fan totals from that NYT piece, OSU + MI + PSU basically have as many fans as the rest of the B10 combined. In other words, I don’t think plebeian class fans are actually a majority. Especially when you count all the bandwagon fans and fans that root for two schools (theirs and a name brand that wins a lot more).
“Every fan of every team does start out with *some* hope every year at the local level while balancing big games weekly at the national level.”
I can honestly say that plenty of fan bases start out with essentially zero hope every year. I’ve lived in several of them. The fans often wished a national game could be shown instead of the home team.
“For all of the talk about how much more important big games are in college football each week compared to the NFL, none of the biggest regular season college football ratings come close to the average run-of-the-mill late afternoon Sunday NFL game on Fox or CBS.”
Because the NFL has at least twice as many fans, maybe thrice. And big means big to fans of that sport, not to the general public. The NFL gets ratings from people that turn on the games no matter what and may not pay much attention. CFB has to fight all the NFL fans that try to get chores and errands done on Saturday so they can watch the NFL on Sunday.
“That might be fun for fans of the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, but there is a whole slew of other teams just in the power conferences that want/need a way to believe that they can win a national title without worrying about polls/rankings (much less the truly disenfranchised in the non-power leagues).”
How many of those fans truly believe they could win one even if it was a completely objective system?
“The NFL has shown that both the national and local audiences can be served (and they have a 12-team playoff for 32 teams, as opposed to an 8-team playoff proposed here covering over 120 teams).”
The NFL has a draft and a salary cap to help disperse talent more equally as well as much smaller rosters so no team can be 4 deep. How many NFL teams could roll out their 3rd string QB with any hope of winning a playoff game like OSU just did?
LikeLike
Brian: “How many of those fans truly believe they could win one even if it was a completely objective system?”
1: A large % of fans are irrational.
2: What’s most important is the belief/faith that in the event of an unbelievable season they won’t be excluded. All things are possible…before the games occur.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“1: A large % of fans are irrational.”
But most aren’t completely irrational. It can’t be a huge percentage that believes only the system is keeping them from winning a title. I think most of them would be thrilled to get a chance to win their conference and know that gives them a chance to make the playoff.
Frank’s saying IL fans believe they have no chance at the playoff as is. I think that’s true, but not because they think they system is unfair. If IL wins the B10 (it happens every few years) they have a shot at making the playoff. Even if they don’t, it’s still a great year for them and they go to one of the major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton or Peach) no matter how bad their record is. That seems like enough of a guarantee to me.
“2: What’s most important is the belief/faith that in the event of an unbelievable season they won’t be excluded. All things are possible…before the games occur.”
8-5 IL should be excluded. 13-0 IL wouldn’t be. 12-1 might make it (depends on everyone else). They can earn a spot on the field just like anyone else.
LikeLike
“8-5 IL should be excluded.”
An 8-5 conf champ is still the conf champ.
And a 10-3, 12-1, or whatever team IL just beat for the conference title should? Should we just crown favorites and avoid all that unnecessary play that confirms or refutes assumptions?
“13-0 IL wouldn’t be.”
Most probably not, but you can’t be 100% sure. USC 13-0, Oregon 12-1, UT 12-0, OU 11-1, LSU 13-0, Ala 11-1, Aub 11-2, FSU 13-0, VT 12-1, IL 13-0. Who gets left out?
“12-1 might make it (depends on everyone else). They can earn a spot on the field just like anyone else.”
Might???
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“An 8-5 conf champ is still the conf champ.”
Yes. So what? That doesn’t automatically make you one of the best teams in the country and thus deserving of a chance at the national title.
2010 UConn won the BE at 8-4 (5-2) with a negative F/+ rating (below average for I-A).
2012 WI won the B10 at 8-5. Those teams do not deserve a shot at the title. Nobody can make a reasonable argument for either of those teams having a legitimate claim at being the best team in the country that year.
“And a 10-3, 12-1, or whatever team IL just beat for the conference title should?”
Yes. Going 12-1 is a bigger accomplishment than winning your conference at 8-5. It makes a better case for the team potentially being the best in the country, too.
“Should we just crown favorites and avoid all that unnecessary play that confirms or refutes assumptions?”
You’re the one ignoring results on the field. Those 5 losses have to matter for a playoff to have validity.
“Most probably not, but you can’t be 100% sure. USC 13-0, Oregon 12-1, UT 12-0, OU 11-1, LSU 13-0, Ala 11-1, Aub 11-2, FSU 13-0, VT 12-1, IL 13-0. Who gets left out?”
Who’s in for sure – USC 13-0, UT 12-0, LSU 13-0, FSU 13-0, IL 13-0
Who’s also in – most likely 3 of Oregon 12-1, OU 11-1, Ala 11-1, VT 12-1
Who’s most likely out – Aub 11-2
No undefeated P5 champ is getting left out unless there are 5 of them and we still have a 4-team playoff. After that AU seems the most likely to get left out as the 3rd SEC West team (presumably lost to LSU and AL in your scenario, with AL losing to LSU).
“Might???”
Yes, might. If there are 11 P5 teams at 11-1 or better, some will be left out of a playoff. If the B10 was really down (IL at 11-1, the next best 8-4) and IL barely won the CCG and/or suffered several major injuries in it while every other conference had at least 2 teams with 0-1 loss and ND was also 11-1 or better, IL might not make it.
Undefeated guarantees a spot, 1 loss leaves a tiny bit room to get knocked out. I’m not sure there’s ever been a season with more than 8 teams all with 1 or fewer losses at the end of the regular season, but it’s possible.
Most years I suspect multiple 2-loss teams would get in plus all the 1-loss teams.
LikeLike
“You’re the one ignoring results on the field. Those 5 losses have to matter for a playoff to have validity”
BS. That team won the game that mattered most.
The only validity a playoff that involves a selection process has is if the eligible field is made up of champions. It might make sense to compare resumes of champs to get down to four. Perhaps that 8-5 champ is the one that is excluded, but in a four team scenario conference champ should be a requirement (with he obligatory ND exception).
LikeLike
And in an eight team setup power conference champ should be an auto qualifier.
But I don’t want eight unless/until we arrive at four conferences and the CCG is the qtr final, Rose (B1G/PAC) and Orange (SEC/survivor conf) as unseeded semi, and the NC. But that has all the known stumbling blocks (G5/independents/etc).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“BS. That team won the game that mattered most.”
It only matters most for the conference race. It’s just 1 of 13 games in the national picture. It shouldn’t automatically outweigh the other 12 games in the big picture.
“The only validity a playoff that involves a selection process has”
… to ccrider55 …
“is if the eligible field is made up of champions.”
Because clearly the MAC champ is more deserving of a national title shot than the SEC runner up.
“It might make sense to compare resumes of champs to get down to four. Perhaps that 8-5 champ is the one that is excluded, but in a four team scenario conference champ should be a requirement (with he obligatory ND exception).”
And if only three champ managed to win 10+ games? We have to take an 8-5 champ over an 11-1 team? That’s silly.
“And in an eight team setup power conference champ should be an auto qualifier.”
And in what objective fashion have you predetermined that the G5 champs aren’t worthy of a slot too? If you’re so big on eliminating subjectivity, how do you justify favoring 5 conferences?
“But I don’t want eight unless/until”
I don’t want 8 period.
LikeLike
I get what you are saying Frank, but I think the NFL model is one that will not work for college football (to which I’m probably just agreeing to disagree). It’s a much smaller league, with more casual betting, and fantasy football. College sports are naturally far more regional in my opinion. There are a lot more teams in region, with big regions you rarely play in, and if you are going to get people across the country to watch (especially in September, October, and early November) you need some national stakes. Yes us college football junkies will watch a lot of it regardless (although if a loss doesn’t feel like a knockout, I’d probably watch less games outside the Big Ten), but I think this will effect the casual audience a lot.
Let’s look at the NBA vs. college basketball. The two both have a big post-season which limits the importance of the regular season. With that said though, the NBA is much better at drawing a national crowd for big games. College has your Duke vs. North Carolina and a few other significant games, but getting games that truly register on the national radar is difficult.
I do agree an 8 team playoff would help games like Minnesota vs. Wisconsin, but I think the games it would hurt are greater. My guess:
Games that get bigger on a national level:
1. Late season games with conference title implications, but which involve teams a bit further down in the ranking (like Minnesota vs. Wisconsin).
2. Late season games involving possible at large teams who are ranked a bit higher (say Michigan State vs. Penn State this year as they might make it with a win in 8, but were unlikely to make it with 4 and had no chance at a CCG).
3. Conference championship games that involve 2 teams who otherwise probably won’t make it (none this year).
Games likely to be less significantly at a national level:
1. Pretty much any game involving a top ranked team in September, October, or early November (Ohio State’s loss to Virginia Tech, Kansas State loss to Auburn, and Florida State loosing any game besides the ACC Championship would not have been big deals).
2. CCGs/games involving top 4 at end of season. Even with a loss, a lot would be in and people don’t care about 6-8 like they do the top few.
LikeLike
I am very much of the opinion 8 is the point of no return and there isn’t a huge difference between 8 and 16 in terms of it effect on the regular season (16 affecting things more, but not to the extent 8 vs. 4 does).
I think you’re very much mistaken about that. There is a clear fairness issue when you’ve got five 11-1 P5 teams (as we did this year), and a committee of bureaucrats gets to decide which two won’t play for the championship. An eight-team playoff is the smallest format that allows every P5 team to win it on the field. Four clearly does not do that; and 16 is far more than necessary.
I tend to agree with this view, but the best solution is probably 6 if there’s no way to keep to the playoff at 4 (i.e. greed/$ come into play as they likely will). I think 6 could end up being a long-term stability point if it’s chosen instead of 8 as the next leg.
That is not going to happen.
If you have six, then there is a huge difference between being #2 and #3, as the former gets a bye, and the latter does not. No one will feel comfortable delegating that decision to a committee vote. An eight-team playoff would still require a committee to sort out the participants; but then, the breaking point would be the difference between #8 and #9, a far less contentious issue.
There’s also a major scheduling problem. In a six-team playoff, when does the first round take place? If it’s one week after the CCGs, then the whole bowl schedule can’t be decided until a week later, which would severely cramp ticket sales and travel plans. If the first round takes place during the bowl season itself, then you’d have the peculiar anomaly that the best two teams do not play on New Year’s weekend. They’re not going to do that.
FTT’s suggestion is the only one I can reasonably see them adopting: the major bowls become the quarter-finals of an eight-team field.
As soon as you start talking about 8 spots (5 guaranteed slots for 5 power conferences), it seems obvious that viewers will probably focus more on their own conference scenario and the like, since winning the conference is guaranteed a spot regardless of what goes on outside the region.
I am not so worried about that. With three at-large spots to be decided by record and strength of schedule, teams will still have an incentive to schedule compelling non-conference games. Besides, if you’re a sports fan, you’re always interested in following your likely future opponents. If I’m an Oregon fan right now, I’m keeping an eye on both Ohio State and Alabama, as either of them could be the Ducks’ next opponent if they beat FSU. In the traditional bowl system, the Ducks’ season would be over after the FSU game, win or lose.
LikeLike
“In the traditional bowl system, the Ducks’ season would be over after the FSU game, win or lose.”
In a traditional season the Ducks would play the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Swap them in your head, if you want. The point is, in the traditional bowl system a Ducks’ fan would have no reason to care about any bowl except the one they’re in. In this system, they also have an eye on the game that will supply their next opponent if they win.
LikeLike
I don’t want to swap them in my head. They should meet in the Rose Bowl. The fact another game goes to the winner need not further diminish the granddaddy of them all simply to satisfy a subjective guess as to who should be seeded where.
LikeLike
I really thought they would flip either OSU/FSU or Oregon/Bama (and I actually thought Oregon merited being #1 after its CCG performance) in order to maintain the traditional bowl pairing and give the Sugar Bowl the better regional matchup. Not entirely sure why they didn’t do that – don’t see any negatives to making the flip.
LikeLike
I really thought they would flip either OSU/FSU or Oregon/Bama (and I actually thought Oregon merited being #1 after its CCG performance) in order to maintain the traditional bowl pairing and give the Sugar Bowl the better regional matchup. Not entirely sure why they didn’t do that – don’t see any negatives to making the flip.
The question is: what’s the committee’s job? Is it their job to decide #1-4 as objectively as possible? Or is it to create the most attractive bowl pairings?
I think they’ve been charged with the former, and it’s pretty clear that’s what they did. Both the traditional polls (AP and Coaches) had Alabama #1, Oregon #3, and Ohio State #4 or 5. It would’ve required quite a bit of hocus-pocus to create an Oregon/OSU match-up, unless the committee abandoned all pretense of doing its actual job.
This year, I think #1 through 4 are pretty even. You’d have a fair fight no matter which teams were paired up. But you could easily imagine a year when there’s a pretty big drop-off from #3 to #4, and swapping them would be distinctly unfair to the #1 team that had earned the privilege of the easier semi-final game.
You can imagine the hue and cry if the NFL swapped its playoff pairings in order to create the more compelling games for attendance, TV ratings, tradition, or what-have-you.
LikeLike
As I said originally, I actually think Oregon deserved #1. No need to try and fudge the bottom of the rankings to move OSU up. Oregon was by far the most impressive in the CCG of those who were already considered “locks” for the playoffs. Such a move not only met the committee’s job but also maintained tradition, which is why I said I see no reason why they didn’t do it – they had complete justification for doing so.
LikeLike
As I said originally, I actually think Oregon deserved #1. No need to try and fudge the bottom of the rankings to move OSU up. Oregon was by far the most impressive in the CCG of those who were already considered “locks” for the playoffs. Such a move not only met the committee’s job but also maintained tradition, which is why I said I see no reason why they didn’t do it – they had complete justification for doing so.
Other than your subjective belief, where is the evidence?
Both of the traditional polls had Oregon third. USA Today’s composite computer ranking had Oregon third, and none of the five computer polls ranked them above Alabama. None.
How about more advanced metrics, such as F+ or S&P? You guessed it: Alabama #1, Oregon #3. If there’s an analysis other than your personal preference that gets Oregon to #1, I can’t find it.
LikeLike
Oregon played more highly ranked teams. They destroyed everyone they played except WSU and Arizona. They got revenge on their only loss which occurred when they had a major injury. All of this is subjective, but there’s lots of reason to put Oregon #1. And the committee is very subjective.
LikeLike
Every other decision the committee made is consistent some ranking system, if not all of them. Alabama was above Oregon in every system I have found so far.
For them to put Oregon #1, they would have had to invent criteria that no other ranking system finds relevant. Let me reiterate: not only is Oregon not #1 in every other ranking, in most they are not even #2.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Other than your subjective belief, where is the evidence?”
There is no real evidence for any team being #1. Anyone can find a stat or two, but it’s up to each person to decide how to value them.
“Both of the traditional polls had Oregon third. USA Today’s composite computer ranking had Oregon third, and none of the five computer polls ranked them above Alabama. None.”
If people trusted the polls, we wouldn’t have a committee. Fans were always upset with the BCS because of the polls.
“How about more advanced metrics, such as F+ or S&P? You guessed it: Alabama #1, Oregon #3.”
Another method of ranking that has been soundly rejected by fans.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Every other decision the committee made is consistent some ranking system, if not all of them. Alabama was above Oregon in every system I have found so far.”
If we trusted the other ranking systems, people wouldn’t have pushed for a committee.
“For them to put Oregon #1, they would have had to invent criteria that no other ranking system finds relevant. Let me reiterate: not only is Oregon not #1 in every other ranking, in most they are not even #2.”
Which perhaps shows how poor all those other ranking systems are. They can’t get past FSU’s record to look at how good the team actually is or isn’t. Vegas knows OR is much better than FSU.
LikeLike
“Other than your subjective belief, where is the evidence?”
There is no real evidence for any team being #1.
Then why have a committee, either?
If people trusted the polls, we wouldn’t have a committee. Fans were always upset with the BCS because of the polls.
And yet, at the end of the day, the committee rankings came pretty close to the traditional polls. The committee had the identical top 6 as the coaches’ poll, except that they swapped Oregon and FSU, a decision having no impact on seeding.
Over the years, the BCS tweaked its formula numerous times; and every time they did, the outcome was to rely on the traditional polls more. You might say that fans hate the polls, but strangely enough, the committee operated in very much the same way.
And yes, the computer rankings were similar too. By the narrowest margin, the computers would have sent TCU to the playoff over Ohio State, but that’s one of those unavoidable close calls such a system is bound to make, at times.
“How about more advanced metrics, such as F+ or S&P? You guessed it: Alabama #1, Oregon #3.”
Another method of ranking that has been soundly rejected by fans.
That’s because most fans are terrible at math and statistics, and most of the rest tend to ignore the facts when they produce an unwanted answer.
LikeLike
So narrow margins discredit something if you disagree with it? Many computers had Oregon #1. Many had FSU. Some had Ohio St. Some had TCU. Massey’s composite computer ranking has FSU #6 and TCU #3.
Ohio St. is only 30 points ahead of Baylor and 31 ahead of TCU in the coaches. Baylor is #4 in the AP and TCU is only 5 points behind Ohio St. and 8 behind Baylor. And while TCU is behind Baylor in both polls, all the other Big 12 coaches, who had played both teams, put TCU ahead of Baylor. Oregon, FSU and Alabama are all very close in both polls, 57 points apart in the coaches (and 132 ahead of Ohio St.) and 26 in the AP (161 points ahead of Baylor).
Picking Oregon over Alabama is very easy. I saw a national poll asking who would win the playoff and Oregon was the favorite in nearly every non-SEC state. Ohio St. was the favorite in Ohio, Alabama was the favorite in North Carolina and Oregon and Alabama were tied in Virginia and Maryland, as well as Texas.
LikeLike
The evidence is always going to be subjective – we’re deciding the #1 team between teams that did not play each other and did not have a single common opponent. The committee repeatedly stated that each week was a blank slate. If this is the case, the only evidence you really need is the CCG’s, and Oregon’s was clearly the most impressive. They completely dominated a top 10 opponent (I believe they were the only CCG participant to even play a top 10 opponent) and avenged their only loss.
As others have noted, Alabama was not a clear #1, and using the also subjective and biased AP/Coaches’ polls as evidence to Alabama’s claim to #1 is laughable in the face of you asking for non-subjective evidence.
LikeLike
So narrow margins discredit something if you disagree with it?
No, the opposite. When the margin is narrow, that means it’s a close call, and a rational person could go either way.
But among ranking systems I can find, regardless of the mechanism used, Alabama is ranked above Oregon in nearly all of them. That margin is NOT narrow.
This suggests (to me) that it would have been pretty difficult for a rational committee to have put Oregon over Alabama, unless the committee assumed a mandate it clearly did NOT have. Perhaps, if you or I were in charge, the committee would be told: “If the rankings are at all arguable, then traditional bowl pairings are to be preferred.” But it’s pretty clear that this was not part of their mandate.
I am decidedly NOT saying that an individual person cannot come up with a credible reason to make Oregon #1. But a committee of 12 is highly unlikely to have done that, because they’d have had to ignore all the reasons that led most rankings to prefer Alabama. One person might do that, but 12 are unlikely to.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Then why have a committee, either?”
Because you need some method to pick the top 4.
“And yet, at the end of the day, the committee rankings came pretty close to the traditional polls.”
Yet here you here trumpeting the differences.
“The committee had the identical top 6 as the coaches’ poll, except that they swapped Oregon and FSU, a decision having no impact on seeding.”
That’s not true. They swapped seeds. It didn’t change the match-ups outside of uniform colors though.
“That’s because most fans are terrible at math and statistics, and most of the rest tend to ignore the facts when they produce an unwanted answer.”
It’s also because fans understand the limitations inherent in any statical system analyzing CFB.
LikeLike
For those favoring 5 autobids:
You can make the case that there is no fair way to determine the best teams in CFB, so you prefer to substitute the objective goal of winning your conference. It’s the contradictions from that point on that bother me.
1. If we’re being objective, why do the P5 get autobids no matter what while the G5 can’t get an autobid?
2. How can independents be treated fairly?
3. Why shouldn’t all 8 spots go only to champs or independents? If championships are the only objective measure, than all runners-up should be eliminated.
4. How do you pick the last 3 teams objectively? There are 5 G5 champs plus several independents plus all the runners-up.
I can understand autobids to the major bowls for champs, but the playoff has a different goal.
That said, as a traditionalist that hates the playoff anyway, I’m 100% in favor of 6 autobids (5 P5 + 1 G5) if there has to be an 8-team playoff. I also believe all undefeated teams should get autobids no matter what. Any at-large team should only have 1 loss, and they should be selected in order of the ranking of the team that beat them. Only if there aren’t enough 1-loss teams should a 2-loss non-champ get in.
LikeLike
Champions is a definitive way to select teams that is not a beauty contest. That doesn’t mean champions are the end all. There are tiebreaks. But if you get those 5 champs, you don’t have a beauty contest eliminating what may be the best team who did prove something on the field. I don’t have any problem with 1 G5 champ getting in an 8 team field. Not sure how TV would react.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Champions is a definitive way to select teams that is not a beauty contest.”
The selection of only 5 conferences to give an autobid to is certainly a beauty contest. Besides, using champion status is just as arbitrary (and just as objective) as using records that year.
“But if you get those 5 champs, you don’t have a beauty contest eliminating what may be the best team who did prove something on the field.”
An 11-1 runner up has proven more on the field than an 8-5 champ to many people.
LikeLike
An 11-1 runner-up still has proven that it is not #1 in its own conference. If it isn’t the best in its conference, how can it qualify to be the best in the nation?
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“An 11-1 runner-up still has proven that it is not #1 in its own conference.”
Not really. It’s proven it lost 1 game in conference. Where was it played? Was anyone injured? How difficult was the schedule? Did one team have a bye and the other didn’t? What was the other team’s OOC record?
That’s on top of the fact that a solid favorite will still lose the game a decent percentage of the time. The best team doesn’t always win – that’s why we call them upsets. It’s why other sports play series and not single games to decide which team is better.
“If it isn’t the best in its conference, how can it qualify to be the best in the nation?”
Because conference games only make up 67-77% of the schedule. The rest should matter just as much (per game) for national title consideration (just like they do for an independent).
Or because a difference in crossover schedules may be important.
Or it could’ve come down to a tiebreaker (2008 B12) to decide who made the CCG.
LikeLike
Finally! Directv signs up for the LHN. Comcast the only holdout.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/12/directv-and-the-walt-disney-company-sign-expansive-agreement/
DirecTV signed up for a bunch of the new services ESPN is pushing.
LikeLike
Now you can watch five hours of Bevo wandering the pasture Thursday…
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/22/pat-narduzzi-pittsburgh-panthers-head-coach-michigan-state
Pat Narduzzi is finally leaving MSU. He’s taking the Pitt job. This may help MI almost as much as getting a better HC. It certainly makes me happy as an OSU fan, especially since we just lost our OC.
LikeLike
Tough to know how much of MSU’s defense is him vs. Dantonio, considering Dantonio’s history is on the defensive side of the ball.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24913760/death-of-uab-football-anger-remains-but-study-banks-on-healing
More details on how poorly UAB may have planned things. It has an embedded link to UAB’s study of their future.
UAB projected a $287,000 loss of athletic department giving in 2015-16 before donations quickly start increasing again in 2016-17, according to a 58-page study of UAB’s future obtained by CBSSports.com through a Freedom of Information Act request. UAB initially released an abbreviated 16-page report by CarrSports Consulting that the university has used to justify dropping football.
The more detailed report includes assumptions consultant Bill Carr made in his work, no financial model for what happens if UAB must leave Conference USA as expected, and UAB’s hope to reduce the money it owes for canceled football games by finding new opponents for the impacted teams.
Future giving figures to be a tricky area for UAB given the blowback. Donations account for 8 percent to 9 percent of UAB’s projected athletic revenue in future years.
Carr assumed a 20 percent drop in Blazer Club and Champion Club donations for 2015-16. By 2016-17, the study projects a 10 percent increase in Blazer Club donations for 2016-17 when reseating occurs at men’s basketball games, followed by 5 percent annual increases. Champions Club giving is expected to increase by 4 percent beginning in 2016-17.
By 2018-19, UAB is projected to have $2.3 million in total athletic department philanthropy. UAB reported $2.5 million in athletic giving in 2012-13 and budgeted for $2.6 million in 2013-14. The Blazers’ highest-profile sport, men’s basketball, has made the NCAA Tournament only once in the past eight seasons (2010-11) and has a 4-8 record this year.
In a written response to emailed questions, UAB vice president for financial affairs and administrator Allen Bolton said the strategic plan is ongoing and UAB is banking on competing for championships in remaining sponsored sports. “So while we anticipated a short-term loss [in donations], we are focused on competing for and winning championships, which will boost attendance and financial support,” he said.
…
UAB is projected to lose roughly $2 million per year in NCAA and Conference USA revenue starting in 2015-16. That includes $900,000 in C-USA TV revenue, $800,000 from the College Football Playoff, and $40,000 in C-USA bowl money.
The financial projections assume UAB will remain a C-USA member — a value the study shows is $657,000 annually as a non-football member — but many people believe that’s unlikely to happen since C-USA’s current bylaws require playing football for membership.
…
UAB assumes it can reduce $2.43 million in buyout costs of canceled football games by securing another opponent for impacted schools. The report said these costs “could be handled as a one-time expense” and not be shown in projected operating expenses in the study.
UAB has to cancel games against Tennessee ($925,000 buyout), Kentucky ($500,000), Troy ($200,000), South Alabama ($150,000) and Georgia State ($150,000). “We have been in contact with all the schools and we are still in the process of working that out,” Bolton said.
…
In order to maintain Division I requirements, UAB plans to add men’s cross country and track and field. Carr assumes track and field will start with six scholarships in 2015 and increase by three per year before reaching the NCAA-maximum of 12.6 in 2018.
LikeLike
That report looks really terrible in all sorts of ways. I semi-detailed first pass analysis of it drops the “savings” from 5.5M to about 1.2M. And that’s even without really touching the expense assumptions
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sjegno
LikeLike
What has been made public looks like a very limited review. Rice’s review about 6 or 7 years ago was much more detailed. They assumed dropping football meant no CUSA.
LikeLike
On the current bylaws, no football MEANS no CUSA, they put in a “must have football” rule a while back. Assuming that your conference WILL change their bylaws to your convenience is a quite shady assumption: the proper assumption should be that existing rules will stand, with sensitivity analysis looking at the impact if various possible changes are made.
Under the existing rules standing, UAB needs to find a new conference home, which could easily eat up the bulk of any real savings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all know the bowl season has expanded over the years. FiveThirtyEight has the details:
LikeLike
Forbes annual ranking of most valuable college football teams is out.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45ekgfg/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-2014/
Ranking by conference:
SEC (9): #4 Alabama ($107mm); #5 LSU ($103mm); #6 Auburn ($97mm); #7 Tennessee ($94mm); #10 Georgia ($83mm); #11 Florida ($82mm); #13 Texas A&M ($78mm); #16-T South Carolina ($72mm); #18 Arkansas ($71mm)
B1G (5): #3 Michigan ($117mm); #9 Ohio State ($87mm); #12 Penn State ($80mm); #15 Nebraska ($73mm); #16-T Michigan State ($72mm)
Pac-12 (3): #14 Washington ($77mm); #19 USC ($69mm); #20 Oregon ($68mm)
Big XII (2): #1 Texas ($131mm); #8 Oklahoma ($93mm)
Ind: #2 Notre Dame ($122mm)
ACC: none
LikeLike
If you look at the 12 kings and the 4 SEC near kings, pretty much everybody falls in place but the Florida schools. Florida is only #11 and FSU and Miami aren’t in the top 20. USC is only #19.
Texas A&M, South Carolina, Arkansas, Washington, Oregon and Michigan St. fill in the rest of the top 20 after the 14 kings/near kings.
LikeLike
That’s an indictment of the ACC brand, considering Florida State has won multiple national titles and plays in a state that loves its college football.
LikeLike
I have to wonder about methodology when Florida State doesn’t even crack the top 25. In the 2013-14 season (the year Forbes used), FSU was #18 in attendance. They clearly must’ve been at or near the top in bowl revenue, given that they won the BCS title game. The other factors Forbes is relying on, which are less transparent, must be dragging FSU way down.
LikeLike
As someone who works in the world of Valuation most in the biz think Forbes is a joke. Particularly their Pro team valuations.
I can’t see any scenario where I would put Tennessee ahead of Ohio State.
LikeLike
The only way I can see the numbers coming out is if you insist that the media value is whatever the contract pays, so that the most recently signed contract (in the current market) elevates the value of the conference that signed it and the least recently signed contract depressed the value of that conference.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve always found their rankings…interesting.
A quick glance at their college rankings is good for a laugh.
LikeLike
I hope you all had a great Christmas Eve and kept one eye on ESPN as the mighty Rice Owls dominated Fresno State.
😉
LikeLike
Yup. Congrats.
LikeLike
Congratulations to the Owls. A win and a trip to Waikiki.
LikeLike
This article is a bit glossy, but I know plenty of more quantitative, deliberate research underscores this piece & such research has been available for decades. I strongly feel the realities in this article tie into the BIG’s success in athletics, especially basketball and football recruiting – lack of retention. It’s a much bigger issue than blue chip scholarship athletes among BIG rosters, these above sports and more. It raises significant issues in relation to citizenship, the American Dream, education, & the concept of community. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/the-5-worst-states-for-black-americans/ss-BBgFQSn#image=6
LikeLike
For bowl games, no one cares if the stands are empty, as long as people watch on TV.
LikeLike
Didn’t they already do that this year in the Bahamas? Playing a football bowl game in the Bahamas national soccer (for the Bahamas, even more important) track & field stadium where the money is coming from the Bahamas tourist board and a fast food chain really is playing a bowl game “in front of a live studio audience”.
Since the Bahamas national stadium only holds 15,000, in another year or two as more locals adopt it as a once a year event, it will even give the appearance of “a good crowd” to go along with the warm, sunny day that the BTB wants on as an advertisement in cold weather Eastern US states for 3-4hrs the day before Christmas.
LikeLike
Or slap a Fargo Dome-like structure on the outer edges of Bristol, CT , a Hollywood studio lot, the Disney property in Lake Buena Vista or – if Adam Silver ends up being some sort of visionary- near Vegas mega-hotels and racetracks. Watching much of NDSU’s playoff run unfold on live TV makes me think that’s feasible. Can you say Abbvie McCormick Place Bowl?
LikeLike
Poor Illinois – they had a momentum changing TO only to give it back and now LT is on the brink of going up by two possessions.
LikeLike
I can’t see Illinois recovering from this misfortune now. Not enough time. Exciting game. But let’s be honest, LT & Illinois were similarly clocked by upper P5 powers this year: OSU, Neb, Auburn, OU, & Washington. I can’t imagine this game giving us much insight with the bigger forthcoming games.
LikeLike
But now what’s worse, Illinois playing with very little pride. Deflating loss!
LikeLike
Follow
Dave Feldman
@FeldyCSN
Confirmed: Harbaugh to Michigan! Press Conference Tues in Ann Arbor
——————————————————————————–
Urban Meyer at Ohio State, Jim Harbaugh at Michigan, Mark Dantonio at Michigan State.
That’s 3 coaches as good as any top 3 in any other conference. If James Franklin’s recruiting classes pan out…, the Big Ten East could be the best division in college football in 3-4 years…
LikeLike
Exciting news for the first time in years for Michigan football. How long until we are competitive in the division again? I think he can get it done by year 2. The talent is here, as evidenced by the many other top schools that were in on many of the prospects Hoke recruited. The biggest issue was coaching and talent development.
His biggest challenge next year will obviously be QB. Three unproven QBs, with Morris having the most experience. With Harbaugh being an excellent QB coach, I don’t think it will be as big an issue as it would have been otherwise, but it still is an obvious question mark. Some think he will be able to pull Rosen from UCLA – would be quite the coup.
I will still be nervous until he is actually announced as our next coach, however.
LikeLike
I think the Wolverines beat the Bucks in Ann Arbor next year and go on to win the B1G. The talent is there. JH has a cupboard full of talent to work with.
LikeLike
Rich Baxter,
“I think the Wolverines beat the Bucks in Ann Arbor next year and go on to win the B1G.”
It’s certainly possible, but OSU was expecting to be better in 2015 than in 2014. OSU was very young this year while returning a lot of key starters next year. Plus, MI will be coming off the PSU game so they won’t be able to prepare the week before.
A better guess might be 2016 in Columbus. OSU will be coming off the MSU game while MI will be coming off of IN. At least by then almost every year should be a toss-up.
“The talent is there. JH has a cupboard full of talent to work with.”
Is it the right talent for JH, though? RichRod left Hoke some decent talent, but it was the wrong style. JH and Hoke seem to run more similar systems, but you never know for sure how the pieces will fit. There’s also the problem of reviving the 2015 recruiting class. JH won’t have time to study these kids as much as he’d like.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Exciting news for the first time in years for Michigan football. How long until we are competitive in the division again?”
It depends on what you consider competitive. He’s capable of getting MI back to 8 or 9 wins in 2015, I think. Certainly by 2016 MI should be a darkhorse for the East at least.
“I think he can get it done by year 2. The talent is here, as evidenced by the many other top schools that were in on many of the prospects Hoke recruited. The biggest issue was coaching and talent development.”
Year 2 is often when programs make a big jump. It may be 2017 before MI is a favorite or co-favorite due to PSU also being on the rise and MSU and OSU being strong, though.
“His biggest challenge next year will obviously be QB. Three unproven QBs, with Morris having the most experience. With Harbaugh being an excellent QB coach, I don’t think it will be as big an issue as it would have been otherwise, but it still is an obvious question mark. Some think he will be able to pull Rosen from UCLA – would be quite the coup.”
QB is an issue, but I think his bigger challenge is the running game. MI needs to run it another 5-10 times per game and increase their ypc. That takes pressure off of the QB and helps the passing game. Obviously poor QB play hurts the running game, so these aren’t unrelated issues. The OL may be part of it, too. The D was pretty solid, especially considering the play on O.
LikeLike
The running game does need to improve, but we did see some improvement from the young O-line as the season progressed. I am optimistic we will see more gains next year. Couple that with Ty Isaac becoming eligible after sitting out for the season, I think we can hope for a decent run game next year.
LikeLike
Are there any B1G rules against Braxton Miller going to graduate school at Michigan? If he stays at OSU he may be 3rd string next year, so his only logical choices are to enter the NFL draft or go to another school. As a graduate he can play immediately. Since he was injured all this year the NFL draft may not be the best choice. I do not think he would have been interested in playing for Hoke, but Harbaugh may make a difference.
LikeLike
http://www.terrapinclub.com/the-b1g-beat-intraconference-transfer-rule/
Please note that this is more restrictive than the NCAA rule, insofar as a student-athlete transferring from another Big Ten institution will be charged with the loss of a season of eligibility. In situations where a student-athlete who signed a Big Ten financial aid tender transfers to another institution outside of the Big Ten, and later subsequently transfers to another Big Ten school, the intraconference transfer rule would still be applicable to the student-athlete (sit a year and lose a year). In situations where a student-athlete has never signed a Big Ten financial aid tender (walk-on) and transfers to another Big Ten institution, the intraconference transfer rule would not apply.
Furthermore, unlike both the NCAA and the ACC, there is no graduate student exception to this rule. Therefore, absent a waiver (which is never guaranteed), a student enrolling in graduate school at Maryland who has ever signed a tender with another Big Ten institution will have to sit an academic year in residence and be charged a season of competition in all sports.
Apparently he’d have to sit out a year unless OSU gave him a waiver to go to MI, and that ain’t happening.
He’s not going to be healthy until the fall probably. He knows Meyer’s offense and it’s a fit for his talents while JH will presumably run a pro-style like he did at Stanford. That seems like a lot of questions for both sides. If he was going to go anywhere, following Tom Herman to UH might make the most sense.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think Michigan fans shouldn’t expect a “long” rebuild.
Michigan has more talent than most teams in the Big Ten already (Hoke had a lot of studs in his classes), it’s just been misused and underdeveloped.
It might take the 2016 incoming class (2015 should be a top 20-25 class, but I doubt top 10 unless Harbaugh works off a miracle) for Harbaugh to really start getting his kinds of players in…
But I view it as pretty similar to when Hoke got to Michigan in the first place; the program was trending up and was close to a breakout year, which they had in Hoke’s 2nd year.
I think the same thing will happen to Harbaugh; Michigan might not beat Ohio State the next 2 years, but I’d expect at least 8-9 wins.
2017 is when I’d expect Michigan’s breakout year; and Ohio State/Michigan State travel to Michigan that year. 2017 is probably when we’ll see a run at 11-12 wins out of Michigan and a possible playoff run.
LikeLike
Just a small revision…the Sugar Bowl/Breakout year was Hoke’s first year.
11-2, 8-5, 7-6, 5-7.
LikeLike
Whoops, my bad. That only accentuates the problem with Hoke given the ensuing slide; they seemed prime for that breakout with Rich Rod’s recruits regardless early on…
It’s pretty safe to say something similar should happen with Harbaugh given that Hoke brought in some pretty good classes. Of course, the difference is Michigan with Harbaugh has a championship ceiling once Harbaugh gets his recruits in…
It’ll be interesting to see who he brings in as his assistants; Harbaugh’s always done a masterful job of finding the right assistants.
LikeLike
Well there’s a couple concerns though that differ this transition from the RR-Hoke transition.
First, RR had actually been improving after the enormous 3-9 drop off in 2008 (5-7, 7-6 in subsequent seasons). He may very well have earned a similar or better record in 2011 to what Hoke produced. Hoke, on the other hand, was downward, so can we really expect a big jump in Harbaugh’s first year? I think not. The one similarity is that RR left the program with a serious lack of o-line development and prospects while Hoke left us without a proven QB (o-line has issues but appears to be moving in the right direction).
I’ve posted elsewhere that I think the floor is 6 wins next year. If Utah ends up losing Whittingham as some think will happen and if Harbaugh can develop a QB as the year progresses, then I think that 8-9 is possible. Not counting on victories over MSU/OSU, however, and I expect a L @Minnesota as well.
LikeLike
What is the evidence that Harbaugh can coach QBs?
Pro: Andrew Luck
Con: Tavita Pritchard, Alex Smith, and Colin Kaepernick
I would even take Luck away because Harbaugh only offered him at Stanford after 3 other QBs (Landry Jones, Dayne Cryst, and McCarron) turned him down!
LikeLike
Andrew Luck was the runner-up in the Heisman twice.
Colin Kaepernick has a career NFL passer rating of 90.6, all under Harbaugh.
Alex Smith’s two seasons under Harbaugh, he had passer ratings of 90.7 and 104.1.
People have a bizarre ability to believe only what they want to believe.
LikeLike
greg,
I agree with your general point that JH does well with QBs, but …
“Andrew Luck was the runner-up in the Heisman twice.”
That was the year after JH left, so one could argue Shaw deserves some of the credit. Luck also had a great 2010, though.
“Colin Kaepernick has a career NFL passer rating of 90.6, all under Harbaugh.”
Is 90.6 good? I guess so, after looking up comparison stats. If he maintains the 90.6 average, there are still at least 9 active QBs with a higher average though. Russell Wilson has a 98.6 average, for example. CK’s rating has decreased the past 2 years (98.3, 91.6, 86.4) as his pass attempts have increased (218, 416, 478), too, so that 90.6 may be above his ultimate career average.
“Alex Smith’s two seasons under Harbaugh, he had passer ratings of 90.7 and 104.1.”
That second year he also had only 218 attempts.
LikeLike
z33k,
I haven’t seen any real confirmation that a deal is done yet, but it does seem highly likely.
“Urban Meyer at Ohio State, Jim Harbaugh at Michigan, Mark Dantonio at Michigan State.
That’s 3 coaches as good as any top 3 in any other conference. If James Franklin’s recruiting classes pan out…, the Big Ten East could be the best division in college football in 3-4 years…”
I think Chryst will maintain the WI machine at about 9 wins per year, too. And Kill will keep MN as a viable threat to win any Saturday. IA needs Ferentz to retire, but he’ll keep them solidly bowl eligible. It’s the IN and IL schools that are in trouble. It’s too early to say much about Edsall and Flood.
LikeLike
True (I supposed we’ll know by tomorrow whether this deal is actually getting done).
I think the biggest concern is how unbalanced the divisions/scheduling could get (obviously a “good” problem to have if it means you have 3-4 teams performing at a top 20 level consistently in one division).
I mean we all suspected it when the Big Ten expanded to 14, but given the coaches being put in place in the East, the East could easily have 4 teams better than any Western team most years in the near future. That’s a legitimate concern.
I agree with you on Kill and Chryst; I think they’re good fits for their programs.
Riley at Nebraska is sort of the wild card given no one really has a clue how he’ll do at Nebraska. It’s going to be up to Nebraska or Wisconsin to provide a challenger to those Eastern teams, since the Eastern teams are aligning terrific coaches/recruiters that are going to be looking at getting to the playoff… Nebraska’s signaled that kind of intent by firing Pelini, but is Riley the right guy to get them there?
LikeLike
I, too, am waiting for the final announcement. That being said, the 49ers have let Harbaugh out of his contract. There is no way they would have done that if he was going to another NFL team – they would have extracted the value of the contract in some way or another.
LikeLike
Yeah I agree.
Especially knowing what the value of a coach like Harbaugh is… Gruden’s transfer to Tampa Bay was worth 2 firsts and 2 seconds.
There’s no way that the 49ers would have just shredded his contract like that unless there was something very solid in place that he was going to Michigan.
It had to be a done deal; no one gives up the value that his final contract year had for nothing.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12091512/michigan-announce-hiring-jim-harbaugh
ESPN says the official announcement will come tomorrow. The major boosters have already been told about it.
LikeLike
Michigan is costing every P5 school in the country a million or so in coaching salaries.
LikeLike
Bullet, I’m reminded of when Stoops broke $3 million and salaries started shooting up to the point that now a half of FBS coaches earn around $2 million.
With Harbaugh getting pushed into the Belichick/Sean Payton $8 million range (and Nick Saban/Urban Meyer and others surely close behind), we could easily be looking at the upper half number getting pushed to $3+ million.
So yeah, I agree with you, everyone’s going to have to open the wallets bigger after this.
LikeLike
Meyer was due for a raise anyway, but this should make it much bigger. I’m curious to see what MI’s assistant coaching budget looks like. I think OSU has to give some raises there to keep their best men around.
LikeLike
Rumor is the contract is actually for 7 years (big surprise – between the reported 6 and 8). If it is the 48M number, that would put him just under 7M, though I would imagine that includes the incentives.
-Brian
I can’t remember the exact figure, but I think the assistant budget was around the upper 3M mark, maybe 4M. It should be noted we are expected to retain Mattison for at least next season (I believe he wishes to retire here), so that budget could shrink by a substantial margin after he exits.
LikeLike
I remember someone signing a coordinator for over a million. Assistant salaries have been climbing too.
LikeLike
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant
5 assistant’s made over $1M this season (all 1.3-1.37). I think Muschamp is getting $1.6M to be a DC in 2015. With JH getting ridiculous pay, his assistants presumably will, too.
LikeLike
Michigan insider John U. Bacon (who has been on the money throughout the search) is reporting that Harbaugh will be getting $5 million a year plus incentives. That’s a very good pay rate, but not as high as some of the insane numbers that were floated.
Now, we’ll have to see what the incentives are, but clearly he’s not getting better money than Nick Saban until (unless?) he wins like Nick Saban.
LikeLike
ESPN is reporting that, too. That makes a lot more sense for a starting salary. He can earn raises from there.
LikeLike
The B1G East ought to be as competitive a division as there is in college football, especially in a few years as coaches get their recruiting classes established, with Urban Meyer at Ohio State, Jim Harbaugh at Michigan, Mark Dantonio at Michigan State, and James Franklin at Penn State.
LikeLike
I hope it doesn’t become too much of a good thing. Someone has to lose when those teams play and that could hurt a good coach.
I’d also like to see some coaches in the West step up. Maybe Riley will get NE over the hump. I don’t think Chryst will top Bielema’s tenure. Ferentz’s best days are presumably behind him. I think MN has a ceiling of 10-11 wins.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how good a coach Franklin really is. There are obviously a number of caveats there, given PSU’s sanctions and the fact that he was fairly successful at Vandy (relatively speaking). That being said, after watching a few of their games I was rather unimpressed with his game management (especially this year’s Michigan game). Reminded me of some of Hoke’s in-game decisions.
LikeLike
The only thing we know about Franklin is he’s a stud recruiter. At the very least, this is the first time we’re seeing Penn State recruit nationally like they are right now; they needed him to sort of shift the culture like this.
He really raised the talent level at Vanderbilt those years he was there, and he’s going to do the same at Penn State with a bunch of top-10 quality classes.
You’re right though that it remains to be seen whether he can win consistently and big, that’s the part of the test that Brady Hoke failed…
LikeLike
Vandy before Franklin:
2009 – 2-10
2010 – 2-10
Vandy with Franklin:
2011 – 6-7, 2-6 (L in bowl)
2012 – 9-4*, 5-3 (W in bowl)
2013 – 9-4*, 4-4 (W in bowl)
* – ranked at end of season
Vandy after Franklin:
2014 – 3-9, 0-8
Vandy only had 4 bowls before Franklin got there (2008, 1982, 1974, 1955). Vandy’s most recent 0.500 or better SEC records before Franklin:
2008 – 4-4
1982 – 4-2
1959 – 3-2-2
That’s as impressive as anything JH did at Stanford to me. So why does JH get all the praise and Franklin gets all the doubt?
LikeLike
Not sure that’s as impressive as JH at Stanford, considering JH took them from from 1-11 to 12-1. He also left Stanford in a position to compete – they hired from within his own coaching tree, and they have maintained that success, whereas Vandy quickly returned to the bottom of the SEC, as you noted.
That of course completely ignores his NFL success.
But that’s beside the point: I noted that Franklin did have success (I should have specified that I was critiquing some of his time at PSU). His record at this point isn’t the issue, especially considering he simply hasn’t had that much time to build a great one. It’s just from watching his coaching decisions in game that have made me wonder. I am not saying he is great or bad, just waiting to see, as many often said about Hoke before this past season (and to some extent the one before that). I can’t recall specific instances at this point, but I clearly remember wondering what he was doing with some of his decisions, especially in the UM-PSU game, which felt like a disaster of game management on both sides.
LikeLike
So why does JH get all the praise and Franklin gets all the doubt?
Because Harbaugh did it at three places, and Franklin has done it once.
Now, I’ll grant you that anyone who wins at Vanderbilt deserves dome credit; nevertheless, the turnaround there consisted of going 11-13 in the SEC East, with three straight fourth-place finishes, followed by a 2-6 6th-place finish in the Big Ten East.
Compare that to Harbaugh. First, he takes over the University of San Diego, which in over 40 years of football had never had a 10-win season or a conference championship. In three seasons, he goes 29-6 (15-1 in conference), winning the Pioneer League twice. He also finished #1 in the mid-major I-AA poll, which is (in essence) a national championship for the sub-stratum of I-AA that doesn’t give football scholarships.
Then, Harbaugh takes over a Stanford Cardinal football program that was 1-11 the prior year, 16-40 in its prior five seasons (10-31 in conference), and hadn’t won a bowl game in over 10 years. They don’t win the Pac-12 during his tenure, but they improve every year he is there, and they come in 2nd twice, something they hadn’t done since the 1990s.
Then, he goes to the 49ers, which had missed the playoffs eight straight years. He takes them to the NFC Championship Game in his first three seasons (including one Super Bowl), which no coach in the history of the league has done. Even with his comparatively lackluster 8-8 season this year, he leaves the NFL with the fifth-highest winning percentage in NFL history.
You see no difference between Harbaugh and James Franklin?
LikeLike
Ross,
“Not sure that’s as impressive as JH at Stanford, considering JH took them from from 1-11 to 12-1.”
I said it was as impressive to me. Vandy is a much worse program and in a tougher conference. He also hit 9 wins twice which is more than JH did.
“He also left Stanford in a position to compete – they hired from within his own coaching tree, and they have maintained that success, whereas Vandy quickly returned to the bottom of the SEC, as you noted.”
Does that say Franklin was more vital to Vandy’s success than JH was to Stanford’s? Once JH built the program, Shaw could take over for a while. As soon as Franklin left, Vandy crumbled. Franklin took much of his staff with him to PSU, though, so it’s not apples to apples.
“That of course completely ignores his NFL success.”
That’s why I specifically said “at Stanford.”
I’m not denying JH has a longer track record. But everyone is giving him the benefit of the doubt despite a limited college career while Franklin tends to be doubted.
I think JH will do a very good job at MI. I’m not convinced he’s a lifer of a college coach, but he doesn’t have to be to do what MI needs. We could have a second 10-year war brewing.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Now, I’ll grant you that anyone who wins at Vanderbilt deserves dome credit; nevertheless, the turnaround there consisted of going 11-13 in the SEC East, with three straight fourth-place finishes, followed by a 2-6 6th-place finish in the Big Ten East.
Compare that to Harbaugh.”
OK.
“First, he takes over the University of San Diego”
I couldn’t care less about I-AA. It’s easier to elevate a program at that level. The competition just isn’t as fierce.
“Then, Harbaugh takes over a Stanford Cardinal football program that was 1-11 the prior year,”
Whereas Vandy was 2-10 in back-to-back years before Franklin came in.
“and hadn’t won a bowl game in over 10 years.”
Vandy had been to 1 bowl since 1982.
“They don’t win the Pac-12 during his tenure, but they improve every year he is there, and they come in 2nd twice, something they hadn’t done since the 1990s.”
1. P10 vs SEC. Two different animals, especially at a period when a lot of P10 programs were down. USC was past it’s prime, too.
2. 2009 – 2nd tied with 2 other teams at 8-5, 6-3, 2010 – 2nd. There were only 2 ranked P10 teams each year, and Stanford only finished ranked that last year. Franklin got Vandy ranked twice.
“Then, he goes to the 49ers, which had missed the playoffs eight straight years. He takes them to the NFC Championship Game in his first three seasons (including one Super Bowl), which no coach in the history of the league has done. Even with his comparatively lackluster 8-8 season this year, he leaves the NFL with the fifth-highest winning percentage in NFL history.”
He was aided by some quality personnel choices by the GM. Without a dirt-cheap QB that was successful at first, the 49ers wouldn’t have done so well. As the league caught on to CK’s game, he suddenly regressed massively and so did the team. Plus, many people in SF seem to hate JH which can’t be a positive thing.
“You see no difference between Harbaugh and James Franklin?”
I didn’t say that. I said JF’s work at VU was more impressive to me than JH’s at Stanford and that JH shouldn’t get only the benefit of the doubt while JF gets only doubt. I’m much less impressed by NFL coaching success because it’s such a different animal from college coaching. Many great college coaches have been bad in the NFL, but that doesn’t change their college credentials.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that. I said JF’s work at VU was more impressive to me than JH’s at Stanford and that JH shouldn’t get only the benefit of the doubt while JF gets only doubt. I’m much less impressed by NFL coaching success because it’s such a different animal from college coaching. Many great college coaches have been bad in the NFL, but that doesn’t change their college credentials.
That is, at the very least, an interesting argument, if his Stanford tenure were all that we had to go on. But when he has done it repeatedly at three different levels of football, it becomes a lot less likely that it was all due to good luck and other people’s help.
Personally, I think James Franklin is a good coach. But in four years at Vandy and Penn State, he has just one win over a ranked team. When his success consists of coming in 4th in the SEC East and 6th in the Big Ten East, you would have to concede that there are some doubts about how far he can ultimately go.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That is, at the very least, an interesting argument, if his Stanford tenure were all that we had to go on.”
Yes, his lower tier I-AA experience is also there. Any brand name I-A coach should succeed at I-AA. That doesn’t tell me much about how he’d do in I-A. Just like the NFL, it’s too different to draw a direct comparison.
“But when he has done it repeatedly at three different levels of football, it becomes a lot less likely that it was all due to good luck and other people’s help.”
1. I never said it was all good luck or other people’s help.
2. Done what repeatedly? Leave after a few years?
He only had 1 really good year at Stanford, so the pattern of continued top level success doesn’t fit there. The 49ers peaked and then got worse, so the pattern of improving a team every year doesn’t fit there.
The 49ers already had a great D when he got there (no 100-yd rushers since 2009, he got there in 2011). The 2011 success was built on an NFL record for fewest TOs. 2012 was the mid-year transition to CK at QB and other defenses struggled with his athleticism. 2013 they could spend more on other players because their QB was so cheap (traded away Smith), but they ran into the Seahawks and couldn’t beat them in Seattle (no shame there). This year the league seemed to catch up to CK and the team dropped way off.
How much credit does JH deserve for an elite D that was already there when he arrived? Or for the multiple all-pros on the roster?
“Personally, I think James Franklin is a good coach. But in four years at Vandy and Penn State, he has just one win over a ranked team.”
That’s Vandy and a highly undermanned PSU. Stanford is a better program than Vandy and PSU had fewer scholarships than a I-AA team.
“When his success consists of coming in 4th in the SEC East and 6th in the Big Ten East, you would have to concede that there are some doubts about how far he can ultimately go.”
This is part of what I’m talking about. You frame all of JF’s achievements as negatively as possible while putting a positive spin on everything JH’s done.
You say Vandy only finished 4th in the SEC East while Stanford was 2nd twice. I say Vandy was also ranked at the end of the year twice versus once for Stanford and that the P10 only had 2 ranked teams both of those years.
2013 Vandy* – 4th behind #4 and #5, Vandy played 3 teams that ended up ranked
2012 Vandy* – 4th behind #5, #8 and #9, Vandy played 3 teams that ended up ranked
2011 Vandy – 4th behind #9 and #19, Vandy played 4 teams that ended up ranked
2010 Stanford* – 2nd behind #3, played 2 teams that ended up ranked (1 in a bowl)
2009 Stanford – tied for 2nd-4th behind #11, played 2 teams that ended up ranked
2008 Stanford – tied for 6th-7th, played 4 teams that ended up ranked (no bowl)
2007 Stanford – tied for 7th-9th (but with worst overall record), played 4 teams that ended up ranked (no bowl)
* – ended season ranked
Stanford’s peak was higher, but Vandy spent longer at a solid level. Both programs were terrible before JH and JF arrived, so it’s a fair comparison in that sense.
LikeLike
It was pretty funny to see Brian bend over backwards to convince himself that Harbaugh wasn’t coming to Michigan. Ha ha! Go Blue!
LikeLike
I will say, in all fairness, that no NFL coach with a record like Harbaugh’s has ever left the league and gone directly to college. It is not surprising that quite a few people were skeptical that a coach would do something that has never been done before.
Even the Michigan Rivals writers, who are well connected and obviously pro-Michigan, had it as only a 50/50 shot until about two weeks ago. Other pro-Michigan writers were giving a higher likelihood, but still well short real confidence.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has a record-tying 10 bowl participants this season. After expenses, the remaining revenues are divided equally between the 11 “longtime” members.
Each school is projected to receive $30.9 million before June 30, up from $28 million last year. The figure includes money from TV contracts, bowl games and the NCAA. It provides Purdue with a chunk of its athletic department budget of $70 million to $75 million.
http://www.journalgazette.net/Sports/colleges/purdue/Purdue-gets-boost-from-10-bowl-games-4173728
LikeLike
So it’s being reported that Harbaugh will be making around 5M a year at Michigan. So much for those who said Michigan had to overpay to get him. As many Michigan insiders said from the beginning, this was never about money – just whether or not Harbaugh wanted to coach in the NFL or at Michigan.
I will admit I am surprised by the figure. I thought he would clear 6M, but this definitely gives me reassurance that Harbaugh isn’t going to stay for only a few years and then turn to the NFL.
LikeLike
He’s positioned quite well to be the “B to C” coach/GM for the Chicago Bears after an NC run with the Wolverines.
LikeLike
Yeah, to me the whole thing was really similar to LeBron going back to Cleveland in some sense.
Just listening to Harbaugh, it sounded like the decision was “bigger than football”… and certainly bigger than money or maximizing contract value.
And yeah, it’s easy to say he might go somewhere else in the future given he’s something of a nomad historically, but the LeBron analogy works there too. I can’t ever see LeBron leaving Cleveland again. Perhaps I can see Harbaugh leaving Michigan, but he sounds like a person that wants to see his kids grow up in Ann Arbor, and some of the reports on Twitter were talking about how his wife wanted a place to settle down for the long haul.
That’s never really a given in the NFL where a coach as successful as Harbaugh can get shuffled out after 4 years and given how much turnover there is in the NFL. A legendary college coach on the other hand can literally coach for decades at the same place with no real concern for job security…
Harbaugh could coach at Michigan for the next 15-20 years if he wants. It’d be incredible if he and Urban were there for a second 10 Year War; would be something incredible for college football to have that rivalry back to the front burner for a long time.
Regardless, the whole thing just speaks to how laughable all the NFL reporters sound in hindsight. It was a classic echo chamber where everyone was repeating the same thing “what successful head coach would ever leave the NFL willingly?” until it became “true” but obviously, Harbaugh has different goals in mind.
For what it’s worth, if Harbaugh stays at Michigan and gets them to a couple of playoff bids and wins a national championship or two along with his share of wins against Ohio State, he’d be a college coaching legend.
LikeLike
I’ll qualify what I said by adding:
Do I still believe that Harbaugh might want another shot at a Super Bowl victory eventually if he gets national championship(s) and the “right spot” opens? Yes.
But at the same time, I could see him also becoming so comfortable there that he might not want to change jobs until far down the line, and by then he might just not want to deal with it, and the “right spot” may not be open…
LikeLike
Harbaugh will make $7M this year, per Detroit Free Press. Also, lots of incentives.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2014/12/30/michigan-jim-harbaugh-contract/21047285/
LikeLike
$5.7m base, plus a $2m signing bonus. With deferred compensation to be determined after the second year (and an automatic 3rd year bump), that should probably be pro-rated over two years, so just under $7m/yr for the first two years.
LikeLike
Where did you get 5.7 from? From everything I’ve seen it’s the 5M plus the 2M bonus.
LikeLike
$5.7M is the average base over the 7 year contract, $5M the base for the first 2 years. With signing bonus, incentives, and deferred compensation the total will be quite a bit higher.
LikeLike
Ross,
“So it’s being reported that Harbaugh will be making around 5M a year at Michigan. So much for those who said Michigan had to overpay to get him.”
Did a lot of people say that? I remember a lot of discussion that it would be overpaying to pay him $8M per year, but he didn’t get that much after all.
“As many Michigan insiders said from the beginning, this was never about money – just whetheror not Harbaugh wanted to coach in the NFL or at Michigan.”
All decisions like this are at least partially about money. He wouldn’t be at MI for $500k per year.
“I thought he would clear 6M, but this definitely gives me reassurance that Harbaugh isn’t going to stay for only a few years and then turn to the NFL.”
If he leaves, it’d be because of the challenge of winning the Super Bowl after already rebuilding MI. How does a lower salary change that?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/113365/harbaugh-will-win-big-but-for-how-long
ESPN looks at how long JH might stay.
LikeLike
After the 48M for 6 years number was thrown about, I read/heard a lot of commentary along the lines of Michigan had to pony up a huge number to pull a coach like Harbaugh.
The decision itself to move from the NFL to Michigan wasn’t motivated by money. I am positive he could have had more if he had listened to the Raiders or another NFL organization. Unless you count the signing bonus, his salary is the same as it was at the 49ers. His decision to go to Michigan wasn’t because of the money they were offering him, seeing as it was the same either way (Harbaugh certainly wasn’t about to take a pay cut in the NFL).
I thought we had ponied up a substantial raise over his NFL salary. The fact that we didn’t signifies to me that his desire to have his “homecoming”, as he called it, was the most important factor in the decision. As you note, wanting to win a Super Bowl could one day supplant that, but, after watching his press conference, I feel good about his desire to stay at Michigan for a long time.
LikeLike
Ross,
“After the 48M for 6 years number was thrown about, I read/heard a lot of commentary along the lines of Michigan had to pony up a huge number to pull a coach like Harbaugh.”
It was mostly people trying to explain an offer that large, I think. There was also talk about it being a leak for leverage in possible negotiations with others.
“The decision itself to move from the NFL to Michigan wasn’t motivated by money. I am positive he could have had more if he had listened to the Raiders or another NFL organization.”
Agreed. There was plenty of money offered so that it wouldn’t be a significant factor in his decision.
“The fact that we didn’t signifies to me that his desire to have his “homecoming”, as he called it, was the most important factor in the decision.”
I think it was a combo of wanting to fix MI and not liking the jobs available in the NFL. He may have realized that his personality fits better in college, too.
“As you note, wanting to win a Super Bowl could one day supplant that, but, after watching his press conference, I feel good about his desire to stay at Michigan for a long time.”
And I’m not saying he will change his mind and want to go. If he wins a national title in his first 5 years, I’ll start to wonder. If he lasts for 10 years, he’s probably a lifer.
LikeLike
I agree with your last statement. If he is in AA long enough for his children to really start growing up and putting down roots, then I think he could retire here. His wife has supposedly mentioned wanting to find a place to settle down as well.
LikeLike
Another note…
I would like to know more about the jobs the were open, however. It seemed for a time there was some fire regarding Chicago, but suddenly people were saying they wouldn’t pony up. Is that really the case? I look at the 49ers seriously considering Mangini, and I can’t really fathom what some owners are thinking, I guess.
And a random side note…Harbaugh actually hired a lawyer to handle the communications with Michigan in lieu of his agent. Interesting factoid, however…he was hired earlier in the fall. That just leaves me with more questions, honestly. What Harbaugh considering Michigan as the wheels were coming off the Hoke era? Had Hackett already expressed interest earlier in the Fall?
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/30/jim-harbaugh-michigan-wolverines-head-coach
This SI piece says that Jack Harbaugh didn’t think Jim would go to MI until a week ago.
Jim’s father, Jack Harbaugh, told SI.com he did not believe Jim would go to Michigan until one week ago.
They were talking about the possibilities: The NFL was still out there, with the promise of more money than Michigan would offer, and a chance to win the Super Bowl that barely eluded Harbaugh in San Francisco. Michigan people believed they would get their man, but the truth was, nothing was signed. Like many who know Jim well, Jack believed that once his younger son went to the NFL in 2011, he would never go back to college.
But then Jim started talking about all the places he went as a kid, when his father was an assistant coach at Michigan — about St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church and Tappan Middle School and Pioneer High School. He talked about his time spent in Bo Schembechler’s office and his memories of growing up in Ann Arbor. He imagined what that would be like for his own children, walking the same streets and eating in the same ice cream parlors.
“Then I kind of sensed this was something realistic,” Jack said, “something he really, truly wanted to do.”
If Jim was serious about MI a long time ago, he hid it really well.
LikeLike
Lets give the selection committee their due – they knew what a mess the Big XII really was before the rest of us found out in yesterday’s bowls.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_NCAA_football_bowl_games
So far:
P12 3-0
SEC 3-1
B10 2-2
ACC 3-4 (2-0 vs AAC, 1-4 vs P5)
B12 0-3
LikeLike
We can update that to:
P12 4-0
SEC 4-1
B10 2-3
ACC 3-5 (2-0 vs AAC, 1-5 vs P5)
B12 0-3
Barring a miracle comeback by UMD.
LikeLike
Could get ugly for the Big Ten over the next few days.
MSU, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have a shot. Of the three, I would say Minnesota stands the best chance; let’s not forget Missouri lost to the worst team in the Big Ten. I doubt Wisconsin given its coaching change, and I think the MSU game will be close either way.
OSU, on the other hand, I think will get beat by 2 scores or so. The QB situation didn’t end up mattering against Wisconsin, but I think Alabama will force the issue. Frankly thought that game said a lot more about Wisconsin than it did OSU, not that OSU wasn’t very impressive.
LikeLike
To be fair, I think at this point, national perception will likely just focus on the Ohio State and Michigan State outcomes.
I mean given the Big Ten has 2 wins now, it’ll probably get to 3-7 or 4-6 by the end of this, but the important question is whether that includes a win over Alabama or Baylor. That’s really what everyone’s going to be watching for at this point.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Could get ugly for the Big Ten over the next few days.”
I’m just glad it didn’t start to get ugly before last night. Imagine if we were 0-5 right now. The media would be having a field day.
LikeLike
True. If Nebraska’s interim coach hadn’t completely botched that final drive, the Big Ten could actually be looking solid going into these final bowls. Even with the loss, Nebraska looked decent playing out West with USC.
OSU-Alabama may be closer than I anticipated, after having seen these Mississippi games. Always thought the SECW was overrated due to early Texas A&M, LSU, and Auburn wins that were misleading, didn’t think they were quite this overrated though.
LikeLike
No one predicted a year ago that Rutgers would help the B1G image, even in a small way, by crushing an ACC teams in a bowl game.
LikeLike
I thought Rutgers had a great first year in the Big Ten. I don’t really think it’s debatable either. A very difficult first year schedule with expected losses to Wisconsin, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Michigan State. You guys played Penn State extremely close, and then won all of your other games including that emphatic bowl win.
8-5 with a bowl win against UNC with that schedule is a great first year. These first two years are just the typical “play all the big brand” schedules; once Nebraska and Wisconsin roll off Rutgers’ schedule, you won’t have the worst possible schedules anymore.
LikeLike
Thought I would return to this silly post about this time today, just not so emphatically.
Ole Miss (the one team who beat Alabama, #1 defense in country) 0
TCU 42
end of 3rd quarter
LikeLike
Furthur proof that TCU was a reach for the B12, they can’t compete with the big boys.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Thought I would return to this silly post about this time today, just not so emphatically.
Ole Miss (the one team who beat Alabama, #1 defense in country) 0
TCU 42
end of 3rd quarter”
I’m not endorsing the comment (OU and UT weren’t great this year, but that happens), but this game doesn’t prove much. MS was a very overrated team, and I was saying that all during November. MS did beat AL (and MS St), but lost 3 of their last 5 coming into the bowl and was missing their best player since the AU game. Any top team should have spanked them.
Not that bowl records mean anything, but here’s the updated list (counting BSU over AZ):
P12 4-1
SEC 4-2
B10 2-3
ACC 3-5 (2-0 vs AAC, 1-5 vs P5)
B12 1-3
LikeLike
Mississippi St. didn’t beat them in the finale. That’s why they are in this game and MSU not in Ohio St.’s slot. If not for the egg bowl, this might have been TCU-Ohio St.
TCU looked like a #1 team today. They did exactly what was needed to score on the #1 defense who gave them very little margin for success.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Mississippi St. didn’t beat them in the finale.”
As I noted. But MS did have 2 plays of over 80 yards in that game. And their QB has been known for his Jekyll and Hyde performance. Today was Bad Bo.
“TCU looked like a #1 team today.”
Possibly. We didn’t see AL, OR, FSU, OSU, Baylor, etc against that same MS team.
“They did exactly what was needed to score on the #1 defense who gave them very little margin for success.”
#1 D in ppg, but largely because of their schedule (Vandy, TN, Memphis and I-AA all scored 3 or less) and they got worse as the season progressed (injuries perhaps).
Aug/Sep – 8.5 ppg
Oct – 12.5
Nov – 20.5 (includes a I-AA shut out)
LikeLike
Ole Miss gave up more at the end because they faced 3 of their top 4 offenses at the end-Arkansas, MS St. and Auburn.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Ole Miss gave up more at the end because they faced 3 of their top 4 offenses at the end-Arkansas, MS St. and Auburn.”
And I-AA Presbyterian. Don’t forget that powerhouse. That helps counterbalance #14, 23 and 45 in scoring.
October had #16, 27, 74 and 74. That seems about equal to November to me, and yet they gave up a lot more points in November.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy tweeted this:
“In Ole Miss’ last 10 quarters away from Oxford, Rebels have been outscored 68-7”
LikeLike
Also:
“Ole Miss hadn’t allowed more than 41 points in last 35 games. TCU at 42 w/12 minutes left in 3rd”
This was Ole Miss’s worst bowl loss ever.
Earlier he tweeted (paraphrasing), “Good thing the CFP committee doesn’t get another vote or TCU would drop 3 more spots in the polls.”
LikeLike
http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article5187357.html
If anyone wants an entertaining Harbaugh read.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/113209/jim-harbaugh-hire-pushes-michigan-b1g-forward
Are ethics and priorities what holds the B10 back?
Michigan’s all-in pitch to land Harbaugh also sends a signal to the rest of the conference. One concern current and former Big Ten coaches raised earlier this season was whether the league truly wanted to be great.
From Inside Access:
A former coach added that some Big Ten schools are “too politically correct” when it comes to priorities and spending.
“There’s some people on campus who are saying, wait a second, is this necessary?” another former Big Ten coach said. “Well, yes it is if you want to win championships.”
Michigan answered that question in its ultra-aggressive approach with Harbaugh. Programs like Purdue, Illinois, Indiana and Northwestern can’t spend like Michigan spends, but they have to stretch themselves to keep up. They have to ask themselves: Are we doing all we can to max out?
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/28/opposing-coach-take-ohio-state-college-football-playoff
On a related note, a B10 coach said this:
I wasn’t surprised that Ohio State beat Wisconsin by such a big score [59-0]. No offense to Wisconsin’s side of the Big Ten, but everyone is pretty much the same: They all use 21 personnel (two running backs and one tight end) and run the ball and run the ball. The difference with Ohio State is that its offense will spread you out, and it has better players and better team speed. They’re big and physical too.
Will any of the new coaches change this? Not Chryst. Riley?
LikeLike
I think you’re asking the right question.
For all of the well-documented demographics issues that the Big Ten population footprint faces as it relates to youth demographics, modern day college football is about “brand name coaches” as much as it is about “brand name schools.” This also applies to assistant coaching salaries and the like.
The fact is, we live in an era where coaches are sort of like superstars unto themselves in terms of the value that they add to a program; much like superstar basketball players or quarterbacks in terms of their ability to change the trajectories of teams.
The right coaches can pretty much nullify the recruiting issues because those coaches have the ability to pluck choice recruits out of other regions of the country (Urban Meyer and Jim Harbaugh fit into that kind of category, their personal coaching brands are national in scope). An energetic coach like James Franklin is also like that on the recruiting trail (you see those articles referring to how Penn State is mentioned by recruits in all sorts of places that it was never mentioned under Paterno).
Dantonio is an exception in the sense that he’s really figured out how to find those underrated recruiting gems and develop them into comparable outcomes to the higher end recruits, so there’s more than one way to skin the cat.
The only coach in the West that even appears to be able to lift his school beyond its “place” the past few years is probably Kill at Minnesota. But it’s hard to see him ever being able to put together teams that can go against what Michigan and Ohio State will be over the next couple years.
Chryst sort of feels like he’ll be for Wisconsin what Bo was for Nebraska. Basically a safe 8-10 win kind of guy. He’ll have to prove he can put together teams that aren’t just copies of the teams that Bielema put together… because Michigan/Ohio State and even Penn State are bringing in far better teams than Bielema’s Wisconsin teams faced.
Riley’s the wild card in all of this. Whether he can take Nebraska out of that 9 win purgatory of “beating the 0.500 teams but often getting embarrassed by the ranked teams” by raising their recruiting levels to being more comparable to the other 3 major brands is the really big question in all of this. I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to out-recruit 10 other teams… Nebraska’s brand can do that on its own… the real question is whether he can bring Nebraska to the next step of actually challenging for 11+ win seasons.
LikeLike
Ahem.
NU spreads you out (with lesser players).
Then again, we _did_ beat Wisconsin this year as well. . .
LikeLike
Have not visited in six months. I am delighted that Harbaugh is at UM. Based on his prior criticism of UM’s operations, I am confident that he will insist on raising UM’s graduation rate and insist that when the players matriculate their academic majors are meaningful (I imagine the “kinesiology” major will disappear). There has never been any reason for the paltry graduation rate at UM — just a lack of commitment. Yes, maybe UM will have to back off some recruits that they once admitted but “excellence,” as Harbaugh mentions, demands more of an institution. His experience suggests that he still can mold an excellent team without operating a “Cardale Jones” culture of anti-education (see today’s NYT — I am not surprised that your courses are “pointless”).
The goal for Michigan should not be to beat OSU or win the Big10 or even to win the NC. The goal should be perfection: #1 in rankings and #1 graduation rate. ND did it in 1988 and almost did it in 2012. Michigan should try as well and unless Harbaugh is a hypocrite, I expect to see UM enter this very small circle of schools very soon.
A “learning coach” — (eg. academic advisor/tutor) would probably cost UM $80,000 per year fully loaded. UM could hire an additional 15 for only 1.2 millions per year. Then, they would essentially have one counselor per four players. A commitment to admit academically prepared recruits, allow them to enroll in meaningful courses and 1.2 millions per year = a 90+ % graduation rate. UM should be able to do it quickly.
LikeLike
What a snarky post. I doubt anyone missed you the past six months.
LikeLike
Kinesiology at UMich isn’t exactly a joke school.
This article is from a few years ago but would be of interest to you: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/academics/stories/index.ssf/2008/03/kinesiology_reserves_slots_for.html
LikeLike
Good friend of mine was in Kinesiology at Michigan, a lot of very bright people in that field. Can be tough work.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Ahem.
NU spreads you out (with lesser players).”
That was my first thought when I read it. It sounds like WI, IA and MN more than the other 3. Maybe NE this past year. I didn’t watch PU or IL much so maybe them, too. But NW?
LikeLike
TCU absolutely crushing Ole Miss right now. They’ll definitely start next year near the top given how much they’re returning.
LikeLike
I really thought they were a top 4 team, with a serious claim to being the best. Their lone loss is arguably the best of any of the teams that were contending for a playoff spot.
Unfortunately, OSU did deserve it given the title game comparison – Big 12 needs to figure that out.
This could be a serious impetus for a playoff expansion to 8 teams, especially if we see Baylor or MSU blowing one or the other out.
LikeLike
Well it’ll be interesting to say the least.
I’m not sure whether this will happen that often though. It’s going to be pretty rare that we get this many 0-1 loss teams that ended up winning out emphatically.
FWIW I don’t think the 6-8 team playoff discussions will really happen unless this scenario is repeated 2-3 more times in the next 5-6 years.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I really thought they were a top 4 team, with a serious claim to being the best. Their lone loss is arguably the best of any of the teams that were contending for a playoff spot.
Unfortunately, OSU did deserve it given the title game comparison – Big 12 needs to figure that out.
This could be a serious impetus for a playoff expansion to 8 teams, especially if we see Baylor or MSU blowing one or the other out.”
I think 6 teams had a legitimate claim at deserving a playoff spot, and most could make a case for being the best team in some way. OSU, Baylor and TCU were all really close, and frankly I think all of them are better than FSU but not undefeated.
I don’t see how adding both MSUs really helps things, though. This year 6 might have been the right number. Other years it’ll be 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or 8. Only FSU could really complain about being left out this year because they didn’t lose a game. But letting in a 2-loss team with no significant wins? That’s where you lose a lot of people.
LikeLike
-Brian
I also thought they were better than FSU, but you can’t possibly leave out the lone undefeated team, which is also the defending champion on a two season winning streak in a P5 conference.
I don’t think that adding either MSU or Miss St. would improve things either, but I think if the extra round is going to be added, I believe more people are going to want it to be 8 teams. That at least allows the P5 conferences auto bids as well as 3 at-large spots. 6 could include 5 auto bids as well, but I think there would be some hesitation to guarantee 5/6 spots to title game winners.
-Z33k
I tend to agree this is rather rare, but there was a good deal of discussion about having an 8-team playoff this past season. While there was certainly disagreement over TCU/Baylor/OSU, I think future controversies could be larger.
Let’s say the Big 12 had either expanded or succeeded in changing the rules to allow a CCG this past season. Would the TCU/Baylor winner have been an obvious choice over OSU? I would have picked that winner, but OSU’s emphatic win would have made some doubters. I could easily see this situation resurfacing in coming seasons. I don’t think it helps either that the lone undefeated was very unimpressive for the length of the season.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I also thought they were better than FSU, but you can’t possibly leave out the lone undefeated team, which is also the defending champion on a two season winning streak in a P5 conference.”
1. Last year should have zero impact on picking teams for this year’s playoff. Defending champs only means something in martial sports.
2. The committee is supposed to pick the best teams, not the winningest teams. If they really believe there are 4 better teams, they have to be willing to leave out an undefeated team. They were perfectly willing to not even put an undefeated Marshall in the top 25 for several weeks. If going 13-0 guarantees a spot, then they are telling all top teams to stop playing tough OOC games.
“I don’t think that adding either MSU or Miss St. would improve things either, but I think if the extra round is going to be added, I believe more people are going to want it to be 8 teams.”
I’m sure they will. I just wanted to point out the downside.
“I tend to agree this is rather rare, but there was a good deal of discussion about having an 8-team playoff this past season. While there was certainly disagreement over TCU/Baylor/OSU, I think future controversies could be larger.
Let’s say the Big 12 had either expanded or succeeded in changing the rules to allow a CCG this past season. Would the TCU/Baylor winner have been an obvious choice over OSU? I would have picked that winner, but OSU’s emphatic win would have made some doubters. I could easily see this situation resurfacing in coming seasons. I don’t think it helps either that the lone undefeated was very unimpressive for the length of the season.”
I think this year was close to unique. It’s rare to have an unimpressive undefeated P5 champ plus 1-loss champs in all of the other P5 conferences. In the BCS era, never were there 5 P5 champs with 1 loss or less. This year there were 6.
The closest argument would’ve been last year, when you had 13-0 FSU, 12-1 AU, 12-1 MSU and 11-1 Baylor as champs plus 11-2 Stanford as a champ and 11-1 AL as a runner-up.
LikeLike
2. The committee is supposed to pick the best teams, not the winningest teams. If they really believe there are 4 better teams, they have to be willing to leave out an undefeated team.
I think the committee would entirely agree with your position, in theory. But in fact, I cannot conceive of a situation where an undefeated P5 team does not make the playoff. They will never say categorically that it is impossible, but I believe it is.
As I noted upthread, the committee had the identical top 6 as the Coaches’ poll, except for swapping FSU and Oregon, a decision having no impact on who played whom. There are a number of actual ex-coaches on the committee, so it is not surprising that they ranked the teams the way a poll of coaches would.
If you go back and look at historical polls, I think you’ll find there has never been a major-conference undefeated team ranked lower than fourth at the end of the regular season. It is just not going to happen, as long as you have a committee of people who think like poll voters think.
If going 13-0 guarantees a spot, then they are telling all top teams to stop playing tough OOC games.
The strength-of-schedule problem is double-edged, as Baylor found out. Teams can give themselves 3-4 practically guaranteed wins, but they can’t dodge their conference slate. An undefeated Baylor would almost certainly have claimed a playoff spot over a one-loss Ohio State team. But once Baylor lost a game, their putrid non-conference schedule worked against them.
I think this year was close to unique. It’s rare to have an unimpressive undefeated P5 champ plus 1-loss champs in all of the other P5 conferences. In the BCS era, never were there 5 P5 champs with 1 loss or less. This year there were 6.
I totally agree with this. However, the years when it does happen will stick in people’s memories disproportionately, in contrast to the years when the system works well.
I also agree with @z33k that it will take multiple “failures” [however you define that term] before there is a groundswell to expand to eight.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think the committee would entirely agree with your position, in theory. But in fact, I cannot conceive of a situation where an undefeated P5 team does not make the playoff. They will never say categorically that it is impossible, but I believe it is.”
I agree. I just like to point out their inherent hypocrisy. I don’t think an undefeated team should ever be left out no matter what. A committee’s opinion shouldn’t trump a perfect record, even for a G5 team.
“I totally agree with this. However, the years when it does happen will stick in people’s memories disproportionately, in contrast to the years when the system works well.”
Sure, I just think it’ll be incredibly rare. If OSU, Baylor and TCU all had 2 losses general fans wouldn’t care about 2 of them getting left out.
“I also agree with @z33k that it will take multiple “failures” [however you define that term] before there is a groundswell to expand to eight.”
I’ve always thought they’ll last through the whole 12 year contract at 4 teams.
LikeLike
So the CFB “playoffs” have been proven a sham failure before a playoff game was even played.
What looks like the best team was left out, so another year without a legit Nat’l Champ.
LikeLike
Alan,
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12103626/defensive-coordinator-john-chavis-heading-texas-aggies-lsu-tigers
What are we to make of this lateral move within the SEC? Friction with Miles?
LikeLike
Miles wanted him back.
According to reports, the biggest problem was that LSU’s administration wanted Chavis’ new contract to include a minimal buyout if Les Miles was no longer LSU’s head coach (so if Miles retired or was fired, LSU wouldn’t have to pay to finish Chavis’ contract). Apparently all of their assistant coaches that have re-signed have this clause in their new contracts, but Chavis was unwilling to agree to it.
In addition, A&M offered an extra year and more money per year.
LikeLike
Brian – sorry to be so late in getting back with you. I’m just getting back in town from my Music City and Peach Bowl tour. There was no friction with Miles, but with LSU’s lawyers. All the new multi-year assistant coach contracts at LSU now provide for a six-month severance package if Les Miles is no longer the head coach. Chavis was offended by this new clause. Originally, Chavis was set to get a $30k raise at LSU bringing his per year salary to $1.33mm per year. A&M offered $1.67mm. After the Music City Bowl, LSU dropped the severance package language and bumped to per year salary up to $1.5mm, but it was too late.
While I think Chavis is a very good DC and didn’t want to see him go, LSU will be fine. From what I’m hearing Clancy Pendergast is the front runner. He’s been a DC with USC, Cal, and the Arizona Cardinals. Pendergast and Miles were assistants together with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1990s. Our DL coach may also be leaving, creating an opening for former USC interim HC, Louisiana native, and recruiter extraordinaire Ed Orgeron.
Some new blood and passion may be a good addition to the staff.
Chavis did the right thing for himself as this may be his last contract as he’s around 60. He’ll never be a head coach and Texas has no state income tax while Louisiana’s top tax rate is 6%.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/31/ohio-state-buckeyes-quarterback-competition
SI looks at OSU’s QB situation for 2015.
Best guess: Miller heals and wins the starting job for Ohio State next fall.
…
Best guess: Barrett is the starter for Ohio State is 2016 and ’17 and fights hard for the job next year.
…
Best guess: Jones sticks around through 2015, graduates and then evaluates his options.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24926503/rose-bowl-isnt-the-same-may-never-be-in-the-playoff-era
The playoff is hurting the Rose Bowl even as a semi.
It isn’t the same at the Rose Bowl this year. Maybe it won’t ever be.
This place on New Year’s Day always held a special spot in college football history.
“It’s the granddaddy of them all,” Oregon coach Mark Helfrich said. “Waking up on New Year’s Day, having the Rose Parade and in the early to mid-afternoon hours having the Rose Bowl. Dick Enberg, Keith Jackson, usually a sun-filled stadium. Those visions, those sounds are incredibly special and unique to this game.”
A playoff has meant progress but it also has come with a price — the once-unimaginable possibility of empty seats. Florida State returned 2,000 of its allotment of 12,500 according to the Rose Bowl. Earlier this week there were approximately 5,000 tickets overall left on StubHub alone, several of them under face value.
By Wednesday afternoon, there were approximately 2,800 seats left – all below face value ($150 and $225). While butts are expected to be in each one of Rose Bowl’s 92,000 seats Thursday afternoon, the fact we’re even discussing the subject is cause for consternation.
If they’d seeded OR 1 and OSU 4 or OR 2 and OSU 3 they wouldn’t have this problem, but you can’t count on always having B10/P12.
Each year two of the New Year’s Six bowls will rotate as semifinals. What’s yet to be determined is how the other four bowls not in the playoff in any given year are impacted. Two days ago there were reports the Cotton Bowl was having issues selling tickets for the Michigan State-Baylor game. An official said the game at AT&T Stadium in Arlington Stadium is still expected to sell out.
What we’re left with is the specter of studio football, where TV ratings matter more than attendance. Overall bowl attendance is down again this year. With one network owning and/or broadcasting most of the games (ESPN) perhaps TV ratings should matter more.
Last week Central Michigan and Western Kentucky played in the first Bahamas Bowl in front of what seemed like family and friends. However, the game — won by Western Kentucky, 49-48 — is arguably the best of the bowl season to date.
“Certainly [studio football] is a possible outcome,” said Kevin Blue, a senior associate AD at Stanford. Blue has consulted with the Rose and is considered an expert in ticket sales trends.
LikeLike
Peach Bowl failed to be a sellout for the first time in years-had 65k in 70k stadium. President said it was a worthwhile trade-off.
TCU had ads all over the Atlanta paper. Obviously, they viewed this as a chance to recruit students from the Atlanta area.
LikeLike
“Last week Central Michigan and Western Kentucky played in the first Bahamas Bowl in front of what seemed like family and friends. However, the game — won by Western Kentucky, 49-48 — is arguably the best of the bowl season to date.”
“Seemed like” carries quite a bit of weight, there, with the cameras better placed to show the seats that were in the sun than to show the seats that were in the shade, so the stadium was better filled than it appeared on TV. But, OTOH, its a 15,000 capacity, so 4/5 full is still only 12,000 or so.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24925975/new-years-day-bowls-are-resurrected-and-alive-again
At least for 1 year the NYD bowls are back to what they should be – for the best teams only.
Thursday is the day college football reclaims New Year’s Day after a miserable decade when one of the sport’s best brands got trashed. Thursday is the day two playoff games finally happen and three other Top 25 bowl games occur.
Is your heart skipping a few beats? If you’re a rabid college football fan or even just a casual observer, it should be. Look at the schedule: No. 19 Auburn vs. No. 18 Wisconsin (Outback Bowl); No. 8 Michigan State vs. No. 5 Baylor (Cotton); No. 16 Missouri vs. No. 25 Minnesota (Citrus); No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 3 Florida State (Rose); No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 4 Ohio State (Sugar).
…
The last time only ranked teams played on New Year’s Day was Jan. 1, 2000, when the world was busy exhaling that its computers still worked. That day’s schedule: No. 4 Wisconsin vs. No. 22 Stanford (Rose); No. 9 Michigan State vs. No. 10 Florida (Citrus); No. 8 Michigan vs. No. 5 Alabama (Orange); No. 23 Miami vs. No. 17 Georgia Tech (Gator) and No. 24 Arkansas vs. No. 14 Texas (Cotton).
…
From 1953 to 2008, no team without a winning record had ever played on New Year’s Day (or Jan. 2 in years when Jan. 1 bowls were moved to avoid NFL Sundays). That happened five times in the past five seasons thanks to appearances with 6-6 records by Florida State, Florida, Ohio State and — gasp — Purdue and UNLV.
At the 2010 Outback Bowl, Auburn became the first team in 62 years to play on New Year’s Day with a losing conference record. Six more teams then did it after Auburn: Northwestern, Texas Tech, Michigan, Florida, Ohio State and Purdue.
From 2007 to 2013, 13 of the 39 New Year’s Day bowls (33 percent) featured a team without a winning conference record. That happened in just six of the 221 New Year’s Day bowls (3 percent) from 1968 to 2006.
…
Until this year, we lived in a bowl world in which The Granddaddy of Them All was played on the same day as something called the TicketCity Bowl and then the Heart of Dallas Bowl.
LikeLike
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_27230937/gov-mark-dayton-takes-aim-at-early-gophers
MN’s governor really dislikes 11am CT kickoffs.
His final campaign behind him, Gov. Mark Dayton plans a battle next year over a minor but very personal issue: the start time for University of Minnesota football games.
“They talk about the concern about attendance at the Gopher games — they start them at 11 o’clock in the morning,” Dayton said Tuesday in an interview with the Pioneer Press. “I’m going to propose that we pass a law that no (Division I FBS) football game in Minnesota can start before noon.”
LikeLike
I don’t understand why he thinks the government needs to pass a law about that…
Why not discuss it with the Big Ten and Minnesota’s President/AD? There’s only 2-3 stakeholders that have a say in this anyhow.
I mean it’s not like regulating high school football where there’s a ton of teams and conferences/divisions… there’s only one team/conference at issue here.
LikeLike
During much of the Metrodome’s tenure (pre-2000s) as the home field of the Gophers, default kickoff times were usually 6:00pm CDT/CST to accomodate duck and other hunting. The fact that many Big 10 stadiums lacked permanent lights made the games much easier to slot in order to accomodate the customary Noon/3:30p (or 11:00am/2:30pm as I was raised) games with the name programs.
LikeLike
From the narrow-minded view of a Minnesota fan, he is probably right.
The trouble is, for the conference overall, it makes sense to spread out the TV inventory over as many time slots as possible. The better games get the 3:30 start, because more of the country will be watching then. Minnesota benefits from this arrangement indirectly, since it gets an equal share of the TV revenue.
Unfortunately for the Gophers, with three of the conference’s four kings residing in the East, those teams get a lot of the 3:30 kickoff times.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/skull-sessions/2014/12/47203/senior-bowl-executive-thinks-ohio-state-matches-up-with-alabama-a-lot-better-than-2012-notre
Former Browns GM and current Senior Bowl Executive Director Phil Savage compares the talent of AL and OSU in a tweet:
IMO, in 2012, ND had 6 starters that could “play” for Alabama. In 2014, I see at least 16 OSU Buckeyes who would be in the mix for the Tide.
That’s something, at least.
He also made this note:
OSU gives up 139.8 yards per game on the ground. @AlabamaFTBL is 69-2 when rushing for 140+ yards under Nick Saban. #StatToWatch
I expect AL will top 140, but hopefully not by much.
LikeLike
“I expect AL will top 140, but hopefully not by much.”
They got 170, but thankfully that wasn’t enough.
LikeLike
Conference bowl records at the end of calendar year 2014:
P12 4-1
SEC 4-3
B10 2-3
ACC 4-5 (2-0 vs AAC, 2-5 vs P5)
B12 1-3
P12N 1-0
P12S 3-1
SEC E 2-0
SEC W 2-3
B10 E 2-1
B10 W 0-2
ACC A 2-2 (1-2 vs P5)
ACC C 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
The state of MS is miserable while GA is living large.
B10 fans are hoping to have a decent 1/1 for the first time in a while. We need OSU and MSU to at least be competitive.
LikeLike
CUSA 4-1
LikeLike
Wow. The B10 finally had a great 1/1. 3-1 including 2-0 in the big games and 2-1 versus the SEC. OSU beat an SEC team in a bowl game again (hopefully this one counts permanently). For at least a year I hope the “SEC speed” and “B10 sucks” memes can go away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_NCAA_football_bowl_games
P12 5-1
B10 5-4 (remember, B10 was the underdog in all 10 bowls)
SEC 5-5
ACC 4-6 (2-0 vs AAC, 2-6 vs P5)
B12 1-4
P12N 2-0
P12S 3-1
SEC E 3-0
SEC W 2-5
B10 E 4-1
B10 W 1-3
ACC A 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
ACC C 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
LikeLike
Happy New Year to all!!!!
Let’s hope the BIG has a decent day today, which means the games will be competitive… I want to say win, but given the last five years or so, I can’t bring myself to type that.
To my “GO BLUE!” peeps, congrats on getting your coach. I really hope he works out, I really do because the BIG needs a strong Michigan program performing well. Having said that, I am concerned about his ability to get along with people. His first four years in the NFL were beyond successful, while competing in one of the strongest divisions. Given the futility that was the 49ers for previous decade, letting a coach with that record just walk means something. I don’t know what exactly, but that is a concern, a big one.
On a personal note, I managed to stay up until 10:30 last night, which is a personal best since my daughter’s birth. Before kids, this was a no brainer, but having three kids under three kills my ability and desire to stay up late… It’s a shame really.
Happy New Year, and let’s go BIG!!!!
LikeLike
Pretty good so far. Exciting finishes.
LikeLike
Wow, those were INCREDIBLE games!!!!
Way to go Sparty and Wiscy!!!!!
Go BIG!!!!!
LikeLike
Mark Dantonio deserves a raise. 4 straight bowl wins. Rose Bowl last year over a great Stanford team (Pac-12 champs). Cotton Bowl this year over a great Baylor team (Big 12 champs).
And what about Wisconsin? Barry Alvarez called a much better game than he did last year; trusted the run as much as he could and MG3 delivered.
I’m really happy for both of those teams and their fans. They’ve been carrying the conference credibility for years, well-deserved wins this year.
LikeLike
z33K,
Could not agree more!!! Michigan State is a program now, I hope Coach Dantonio gets the recruits he deserves!!!
I am very happy for both MSU and Wiscy fans, they got it done today!!!!
I’m still worried about OSU though…
LikeLike
Even without getting the flashiest recruits or high recruit rankings, Dantonio has been putting together outstanding squads. That won’t change even with Harbaugh at Michigan and an improving Penn State.
They’ve won 11 or more games in 4 of the past 5 seasons. That’s a great run by any measure, especially when you consider the 4 straight bowl wins over good-to-great teams.
LikeLike
On the opening kickoff of the Sugar Bowl, OSU could have had a TD or at least a safety if they tackled the ‘Bama player with the ball before he knelt down.
Unfortunately the OSU players were not heady enough.
LikeLike
Yes, OSU started off sloppy but got it done 42-35. They also had the first and goal at the one where they lost 7 yards because the QB did not throw it away. Easy to air it out in the stands from that distance. In the old BCS system Alabama would have had another championship by beating FSU. Now both of those teams are out. Oregon looks tough.
LikeLike
That was crazy! The analysts didn’t realize either, they only mentioned it in the 2nd half! I was sitting there screaming at the television for someone to realize.
LikeLike
Yes! We get a real Rose Bowl! Just a bit late, and in the wrong location.
LikeLike
Just another thing that moved from California to Texas….
LikeLike
The mighty SEC West is so great that their top 5 teams all lost (2 of them in blowouts).
LikeLike
All 5 of them lost to teams who were lower in F/+ rating.
I believe all 5 were favored as well.
LikeLike
Maybe just this once some fans were right when they said the SEC was overrated this year.
LikeLike
If this season has shown anything, it’s that the SEC hype sort of got way out of proportion early in the season (largely due to how the polls work and the fact that the SEC started out with wildly overhyped teams in the preseason rankings).
All that “credit” that A&M and the Mississippi schools got for beating overrated teams like South Carolina or whatever helped pump all their ratings up to the point where they were all being ranked almost unfairly high.
Basically all of the major conferences were pretty even this year. Maybe the Pac-12 was slightly better than the other conferences but not my much.
Bowl season basically exposed the views that have accumuluted over the past 8 years as being out of touch with the present reality of the sport in which there’s a lot more parity.
LikeLike
Perceptions in sports are built up over a period of years, and once established, are not easily shaken. This is the first season since 2008 without Alabama or Auburn in the title game, and the first since 2005 with no SEC team. That’s an incredible run.
These perceptions aren’t limited to the SEC. Over the years, my Michigan Wolverines often benefited from gaudy pre-season rankings they didn’t deserve, simply due to the belief that “Michigan is always good.” By now, Michigan has almost entirely lost the benefit of the doubt, but they enjoyed it for a long, long time.
It’ll take many years before we know whether the SEC’s run is finally over, or if this was just an unusual season.
It’s worth noting that although the SEC West went 0-5 in bowls, three of their losses went down to the final possession. Without being any better at the game of football, they could have gone 3-2, and the narrative would be a lot different right now.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Perceptions in sports are built up over a period of years, and once established, are not easily shaken.”
Very true. But the “experts” are supposed to be more objective and really look at the evidence from the current season.
“This is the first season since 2008 without Alabama or Auburn in the title game, and the first since 2005 with no SEC team. That’s an incredible run.”
It is. And they deserved most of those title game slots that they got. But they also might have missed out on a few if it weren’t for their reputation.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/sec_learning_to_live_with_new.html
It’s partially coincidental, but I can’t help but note how the start of the new 25-scholarship signing cap came in the 2012 class for the SEC (3rd year players this past season).
During the SEC’s current title run [article is from 1/30/2012], four of its six national champions signed at least 14 more players than their championship-game opponent during the four years leading to the game.
Auburn signed 19 more than Oregon. Alabama signed 18 more than Texas. LSU signed 14 more than Ohio State. Florida signed 16 more than Ohio State. The only exceptions were Oklahoma signed three more than Florida, and Alabama signed six more than LSU.
…
During the past four years, seven SEC schools averaged at least 25 signees per year: the entire SEC West and Steve Spurrier.
…
Here’s a list of the average number of recruits signed by SEC schools from 2008 through 2011 before the league’s 25-signee limit took effect. In parenthesis is the number of 2012 commitments/early signees for each school.
Ole Miss — 30.0 (16)
Auburn — 28.3 (15)
Arkansas — 27.8 (21)
Alabama — 26.8 (27)
South Carolina — 26.5 (24)
Mississippi State — 25.5 (25)
LSU — 25.3 (20)
* Texas A&M — 24.5 (20)
Oversigning wasn’t the sole reason for the SEC’s success and the new rules isn’t the only reason this year was different, but I do wonder if it was a more significant factor than many realized before.
“These perceptions aren’t limited to the SEC. Over the years, my Michigan Wolverines often benefited from gaudy pre-season rankings they didn’t deserve, simply due to the belief that “Michigan is always good.” By now, Michigan has almost entirely lost the benefit of the doubt, but they enjoyed it for a long, long time.”
You’ll get it again really soon with Harbaugh.
“It’ll take many years before we know whether the SEC’s run is finally over, or if this was just an unusual season.”
Sure. But they never sniffed a year like this during their run, so it’s already a change.
“It’s worth noting that although the SEC West went 0-5 in bowls, three of their losses went down to the final possession. Without being any better at the game of football, they could have gone 3-2, and the narrative would be a lot different right now.”
How many close bowl losses has the B10 had over the years? Our narrative could’ve been a lot different, too.
LikeLike
“It’s worth noting that although the SEC West went 0-5 in bowls, three of their losses went down to the final possession. Without being any better at the game of football, they could have gone 3-2, and the narrative would be a lot different right now.”
How many close bowl losses has the B10 had over the years? Our narrative could’ve been a lot different, too.
Undoubtedly, but in five close games over a period of just a few days, it is much easier for luck to play a part in the outcome. When you get owned over a period of a decade, it’s harder to argue that you were merely unlucky.
Mind you, I think the bowl winners this season deserved their victories. If anything, Ohio State’s win over Alabama was more dominating than the final score suggests. But with nothing other than a different bounce of the football, the Tide could have completed the Hail Mary at the end, and then it goes to overtime, with a high degree of random variance, and who knows what happens?
LikeLike
I think oversigning was significant. Look at the number of QBs,RBs,WRs,OLs that got knocked out due to injuries. Oversigning gives you a huge advantage in finding good replacements instead of being stuck with bad decisions.
Thought it was significant Alabama had 2 LBs injured and only had 2 guys to back them up, one a true freshman who got flattened on the long, final Ohio ST. TD run.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Undoubtedly, but in five close games over a period of just a few days, it is much easier for luck to play a part in the outcome.”
I agree that luck is more likely to play a factor in 5 games than 50, but I don’t think the time element is relevant to luck. 5 games in a few days versus 5 games once a year shouldn’t impact luck. And luck playing a role in 5 of 5 games? 5 of 50 maybe, but 5 of 5?
OSU has 5 bowl losses to SEC schools by 7 or fewer points. Swing those the other way and the OSU bowl narrative is very different.
LikeLike
A few points on this conversation:
When people talk about the SEC’s reputation, they sometimes mean different things. The bowl season has shown the top of the conference wasn’t quite as good as it has been. However, its reputation as the deepest conference hasn’t been hurt by the results, as all 5 bowl-eligible teams in the ‘weaker’ East won, along with the 2 last place teams in the West. This group picked up 2 wins each against the Big 12, Big Ten, and ACC, along with a win against a pretty good mid-major. This has somewhat redeemed a mixed record in the regular season.
As for one reason why the top of the SEC has taken a step back, I think your discussion of oversigning is causing you to miss a much bigger story; players entering the draft early have nearly doubled in 4 years, and it’s hit the top SEC teams particularly hard.
Using wikipedia, here are the total number of early NFL draft entrants nationally in recent years:
2011: 56
2012: 65
2013: 73
2014: 98
This past season, LSU had 7 players declare early, while Alabama had 5*. Using wikipedia’s list for last year**, Oregon had 3 depart, while Ohio State had 2. If those 2 SEC schools had just had 2 more of their players return they would have made a big impact, raising the level of the starters (as they would start) & the backups (as the players who actually did start this year would be first-off-the bench).
The top SEC schools may be even more talented than before, but they certainly aren’t more experienced, with the best players out the door after 3 years and very few players redshirting to be able to play a 5th year. For years recruiting the best players meant you accepted the chance they would declare early, but the percentage taking that option has jumped recently, reducing some of the advantage of having those players in the first place.
* a complete list for the SEC last year: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/sec-teams-hit-hardest-by-early-nfl-draft-early-entrants/
** I won’t list that link (adding a 2nd would trigger moderation), but it’s titled “List of 2014 NFL draft early entrants” and I did a simple text search for Oregon & Ohio State to find their entrants, while also verifying it had the same numbers for Alabama & LSU
LikeLike
m(Ag),
“When people talk about the SEC’s reputation, they sometimes mean different things. The bowl season has shown the top of the conference wasn’t quite as good as it has been. However, its reputation as the deepest conference hasn’t been hurt by the results, as all 5 bowl-eligible teams in the ‘weaker’ East won, along with the 2 last place teams in the West. This group picked up 2 wins each against the Big 12, Big Ten, and ACC, along with a win against a pretty good mid-major.”
The only problem with this is that the P12 is the conference people have said is as good as the SEC this year and the SEC and P12 never meet in bowls (1 in the whole BCS era). The P12 had a stellar bowl season, too.
But when talking about the SEC’s reputation, generally people are referring to the idea that the whole SEC is a level above everyone else.
“As for one reason why the top of the SEC has taken a step back, I think your discussion of oversigning is causing you to miss a much bigger story; players entering the draft early have nearly doubled in 4 years, and it’s hit the top SEC teams particularly hard.”
But they can replace those players every signing day just like always. The difference is that now they can’t afford to miss on as many recruits because of the cap. That’s a buffer they used to have that others didn’t.
“This past season, LSU had 7 players declare early, while Alabama had 5*. Using wikipedia’s list for last year**, Oregon had 3 depart, while Ohio State had 2. If those 2 SEC schools had just had 2 more of their players return they would have made a big impact, raising the level of the starters (as they would start) & the backups (as the players who actually did start this year would be first-off-the bench).”
On the other hand, AR and MS St each lost 0, MS 1 and Auburn and TAMU 2. And one reason OSU didn’t lose many is because our team is so young, so you can’t really credit our experience this year.
LikeLike
Congrats to all the successful B10 teams today and this whole bowl season. Underdogs in all 10 games, we’ve already got 5 wins including our 2 biggest games. OSU got the SEC bowl monkey off their back (hopefully), and beating AL always is good for a conference.
TCU made a statement, but OSU and MSU let the committee breathe easily. The real decision for them was OSU versus Baylor (the H2H over TCU kept them at #6), and the bowl results showed that the committee made a solid, justifiable decision. TCU was also good enough to make it, but didn’t quite have the resume. I would have loved to see a TCU/OR semifinal. The scoreboard would melt.
I feel slightly vindicated as several of the bowls supported my opinions of various teams this year (SEC West overrated, FSU overrated).
LikeLike
Ohio State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin were all just incredible today. It was weird but after the Wisconsin and Michigan State games, I expected Ohio State to way overachieve.
It was like, “wait a minute, if Michigan State can hang with Baylor and Wisconsin (that just lost 59-0 a few weeks ago to OSU) can hang with Auburn… Ohio State might be much more of a match for Alabama than anyone thought.”
Wisconsin was the biggest surprise for me. Kudos to Barry Alvarez on an incredible job; I thought he was crazy for some of the calls he made, but they delivered and it felt like justice for that Rose Bowl that he lost a few years ago.
Michigan with that crazy comeback, I’m not even sure how to describe it. It reminded me of that Northwestern-Michigan State game that I attended as a student when Michigan State had the biggest comeback in NCAA history… There’s just something about Dantonio’s Spartans, there’s no quit in them.
And then Ohio State; the scariest thing is that this Ohio State squad should be much better next year… yet they handily defeated a great Michigan State team and dominated Alabama after settling in down 15 points. It’s remarkable the level that Meyer has taken Ohio State to…; this team looks better than Tressel’s later Buckeyes and those were still teams with the ability to compete with top teams around the country (after the 2 NC debacles).
LikeLike
MSU must be kicking themselves over their schedule this year. 2 losses against the two title game teams. MSU #3?
LikeLike
Yeah, I actually feel like Michigan State could beat anyone outside of the 2 teams they actually lost to…
Maybe they’d be an underdog against TCU, but I can’t really think of any other team outside of those 3 that they should be underdogs to…
LikeLike
MSU will probably only move past Baylor and MS St. to #6. If the score was 42-3 vs. 42-41 they would move higher. They had a great 4th quarter comeback but were lucky to win. The clip on the late Baylor TD that was called back was way behind the runner, so MSU benefited by that stupid move, and a few other Baylor self-inflicted mistakes. Alabama is to beloved by the voters to fall behind MSU (maybe if they had not scored those last two TD and lost 42-21 vs. by a TD), and a 1 loss FSU will also be ranked above MSU although I do not think they are that good.
LikeLike
Mack,
“MSU will probably only move past Baylor and MS St. to #6.”
I wasn’t serious about them actually making #3 in the polls. I was just talking about what they could claim.
My rough guess:
1. OSU/OR winner (obvious)
2. OSU/OR loser (having won a semifinal, the NCG loser should always be #2)
3. TCU (12-1 with a crushing win over MS)
4. AL (12-2 with a loss to MS and their best wins devalued by the bowls)
5. MSU (11-2 with losses to #1 and 2 and a win over the previous #5)
6. FSU (crushed by #1/2, no top 10 win)
I dropped FSU because they got blown out and quit on the game. Also, their resume is thin. They lost to #2 OR by 39, beat #11 GT by 2 and beat #17 Clemson in OT. MSU lost at #2 by 19 and versus #4 by 12 while beating #5 by 1. So a better loss to #2 and a win over #5 versus a blowout loss to #2 and 2 close wins over top 20 teams. It should be really close, by I think MSU deserves it.
LikeLike
Good night for you. Ohio St. won and an Ohio St. loss and Baylor win would have added to the 8 team playoff momentum.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Good night for you. Ohio St. won and an Ohio St. loss and Baylor win would have added to the 8 team playoff momentum.”
Even better, the true Rose Bowl is elevated to its deserved status as the most important game in CFB. And the SEC West’s top 5 all losing bowls helped.
I still would prefer the old bowl system for this season. Even if that means FSU got a beatable opponent in the Orange and won the title while OR and OSU played in the Rose. 14-0 would be worthy even if they weren’t the best team.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12110366/rose-bowl-oregon-ducks-players-face-discipline-no-means-no-chant
I know they were wrong to do it, but I can’t get too upset about this:
After the Rose Bowl, several OR players were seen chanting “No means no” to the FSU Warchant the fans sing.
LikeLike
Actually its a good statement for football players given what has happened recently around the country.
And Winston was the one who tweeted that no means yes.
LikeLike
Just a quick comment on stats:
The past 2 games, OSU has played against the #4 total defense and the #1 rushing defenses in the nation. OSU got 558 yards against that #4 D (301 rushing) and 281 yards rushing against that #1 rushing D. This shows the flaw in using yardage as a basis for ranking a D. It all depends who you’ve played. Differential yardage stats at least try to take your schedule into account.
OSU played against the #1, 3, 4, 15 and 17 rushing defenses this season (as of 12/31 games) and we still managed to be the #11 rushing offense. At least 5 of the teams ahead of us are option teams, too.
As for the Sugar Bowl:
How about that punting? Jim Tressel must be giddy.
LikeLike
“How about that punting? Jim Tressel must be giddy.”
Tressel would’ve classified that game as erotica.
LikeLike
Great game by the Buckeyes – the game itself may portend the resurgence of the huge running back. Cardale Jones just plowed through people at will. Alabama would have been better served just having everything go through Derrick(sp?) Henry – you dont see that size and breakaway speed at RB all too often.
LikeLike
So you’re saying WI is the future of CFB? Ron Dayne clones for the win?
LikeLike
Recent Post on the Paul Slimeball Show:
College Football TOP 25, January 2, 2014:
1. Bama
2. Auburn
3. LSU
4. Alabama
5. Ole Miss/Mississippi State/Mississippi River
6. SEC West
7. Nick Saban
8. Bama Tech
9. Florida’s Freshman Female Cheerleaders
10. Georgia
11. University of Tennessee/Tennessee University
12. Peyton Manning, Bo Jackson, Hershall Walker, Cam Newton
13. Kentucky Basketball
14. Bama
15. Daisy Duke in the General Lee
16. Paul Dean’s OH SO GOOD PORK FAT BAR-B-QUE APPLE PIE SAUCE
17. The Ole Ball Coach
18. Alabama
19. SEC East
20. SEC Speed University
21. Archie Manning
22. Bama
23. Auburn State
24. A and M Baby!
25. New England Patriots
LikeLike
Damn, time flys.
Elly May Clampett dies…at 81 yrs old.
LikeLike
cc – here’s the story from the local angle.
http://theadvocate.com/news/11235421-123/report-donna-douglas-who-played
LikeLike
Legit question: Has the game passed Kirk Ferentz by…, Iowa’s going on 5 years of pretty mediocre teams and there’s no evidence that it will change any time soon.
He’s had 2 periods of “great” Iowa teams over his tenure: 2002-2004 and 2008-2009, but it’s been a while now since that last one. They’re due for another one but it’s hard to see anything great coming.
Perhaps Wisconsin taking a step back and Nebraska having a new coach is the opportunity for Iowa to make a run at winning the division?
I ask because it seems like Iowa’s been pretty much completely irrelevant to the Big Ten West divisional race since the CCG came about… and they’ve had those 3 close losses to terrible Iowa State teams over the past 4 years (I realize it’s a rivalry, but Iowa shouldn’t be losing to Iowa State teams with losing records).
LikeLike
“Legit question: Has the game passed Kirk Ferentz by…”
As just about the loyal Kirk supporter there is, my answer is “yes”.
Terrible OC hire in Greg Davis, and he just sticks with him. Among other problems.
LikeLike
It also just feels like the conference is changing around them too. Kill at Minnesota is fielding better teams; Nebraska being unhappy with their current 9 win/horrible-losses-against-great-teams situation; Michigan going for Harbaugh; Meyer/Dantonio aren’t going anywhere; Franklin taking Penn State recruiting into the top 10…, etc.
It just feels like Iowa (and the Illinois/Indiana-based schools) have all sort of just fallen behind.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Legit question: Has the game passed Kirk Ferentz by…, Iowa’s going on 5 years of pretty mediocre teams and there’s no evidence that it will change any time soon.”
It hasn’t entirely passed him by, but there are multiple factors working against him.
1. As he gets older, recruiting gets harder. Age also makes you more conservative which is not what IA needs right now.
2. The rise of WI and MN makes the schedule that much harder every year.
3. MSU has also risen, and WI and MSU now take many recruits IA might have gotten before.
4. Adding NE made for yet another competitor for recruits and a harder schedule.
5. His contract is so solid that he doesn’t feel external pressure to win. Sometimes that pressure can force a coach to make changes he wouldn’t otherwise.
“Perhaps Wisconsin taking a step back and Nebraska having a new coach is the opportunity for Iowa to make a run at winning the division?”
Who says WI will step back? And Riley might invigorate NE. Not to mention that Kill is building MN into another version of IA.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m just speculating that Iowa fans can only really hope that Wisconsin and Nebraska take a step back… but I’d agree with you that it’s unlikely. Nebraska made the change to break their 9 win ceiling and reach higher, and Chryst should be able to maintain Wisconsin’s solid foundation going forward.
Iowa’s stuck in no man’s land in the West, a bit above Illinois/Northwestern/Purdue, but not really close to Wisconsin/Nebraska and possibly below Minnesota given that Minnesota is at least trending in the right direction whereas Iowa is sort of just stuck between the top 2 and the bottom 3 in the West.
LikeLike
Great performance by the BIG yesterday, even Minnesota, who still needs a couple more years under Kill, had its moments. Mizzou & Pinkel have been quietly very good and consistent for a while now. I did find the Mizzou fans utterly annoying and childish for making claims against the BIG because of this win. CF has always been about the matchups, emotions, preparation, injuries, experience & talent as well. Getting them to work in concert is the challenge. If you don’t believe me Missouri fans, 2 letters for you: I . . . . . . U. Enough said.
I’m thinking about the BIG West right now as Ferentz’ Hawks look terrible against a suspect Tenn team that Gilmor and the other announcer are praising as the potential team of the future in the SEC East. Not buying this praise, not yet, even Tenn’s late season was filled with close wins over average or awful teams. Bottom line, Ferentz needs to head to the NFL & stop robbing Iowa, seemingly blind, with his overpaid salary. Ferentz’ personality and knowledge are better suited for the NFL at this point – he’d be HC material down the road after time as a DC or OC. As for Wisky, Barry got me wondering why he stopped coaching to begin with, I remember him leaving Wisky on an upswing and beating SEC teams twice, after many previous whiffs, some humiliating losses. Moreover, damn if Barry didn’t nearly pull another Rose Bowl win over Stanford 2 years back under the same temporary capacity. Wisky is lucky Andersen left, a coach who is incredibly suspect as he lost every significant game during his tenure as the Badger’s coach. Illinois had no business being in a bowl game. I already spoke about Minnesota. BIG West better get better soon, or things will be rough in terms of fielding a playoff contender. One interesting “what if” to consider: Wisky wins at least 1 of their 3 recent Rose Bowl losses. How’s the perception of the BIG and BIG West now? They were close in all 3 of those games. I think Bielema stays at Wisky had he beaten Oregon or TCU – very tough losses for Wisky.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think the issue is that there are probably 5 teams that are the most suspect going forward: (Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue)… the problem is 4 of those 5 are in the West, and the 4 highest ceiling teams at the moment are the in the East.
I’d rank the Big Ten like this based on a look at the “next 5 years”:
Tier 1: teams that are probably going to be competing at the very top in the next 4-5 years: Ohio State [Meyer], Michigan State [Dantonio], Michigan [Harbaugh’s profile is so high I can’t imagine them not being a recruiting monster immediately]
Tier 2: teams that are going to be trending near the top: Penn State [Franklin’s a great recruiter, at the very least they’ll be a top 4-5 talented team], Wisconsin [Chryst just needs to maintain the system in place there and they’ll win 9 games pretty consistently], Nebraska [just fired Bo, but I think Riley can at least maintain what Bo had there and perhaps has a chance to improve on it]
Tier 3: teams that will probably be around the 6-9 win range going forward: Maryland and Rutgers [they’re going to do fine recruiting, but East is so stacked in the near future], Minnesota [Kill is going to have Minnesota overachieving], Iowa [Ferentz has gotten stale]
Tier 4: teams that are sort of just stuck at the bottom in the immediate future: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue [none of these 4 has impressed me in the immediate past, immediate futures look cloudy for these 4]
———————————————————————————————————————————–
The reason why I’d include Iowa as suspect with the Tier 4 schools is that Iowa shouldn’t be relegated to where Maryland/Rutgers/Minnesota are given what they achieved in the 00’s and given that they’re in the West. Maryland and Rutgers are there due to the division, Minnesota is there because they’re overachieving compared to their recent past. Iowa’s underachieving to be in Tier 3.
Big Ten East: 3 Tier 1 schools, 1 Tier 2 school, 2 Tier 3 schools, 1 Tier 4 school.
Big Ten West: 0 Tier 1 schools, 2 Tier 2 schools, 2 Tier 3 schools, 3 Tier 4 schools.
That’s a big imbalance just looking at what the futures of the Big Ten schools look like. Obviously, these things can change on a dime; coaches will be hired and fired, but it looks like the near-term will be very East heavy.
LikeLike
Alvarez really was done coaching. He always wanted to follow in the same path as his mentor Bob Devaney at Nebraska and move into the AD role. Barry had a bad stretch for about 3-4 years after the 3rd Rose Bowl win and the ShoeBox scandal including the loss of scholarships. It wasn’t until 2005 when he brought Paul Chryst back to be the OC that the team played much better. Barry kept a number of his buddy assistants around that were long in the tooth during the earlier part of that decade and they got lazy.
I guess some guys just get burnt out coaching and retire earlier than expected. Jimmy Johnson is another guy that comes to mind.
Despite the National perception, BA is not a meddler. He spends a significant amount of time in the Winter down in Naples, FL. Admittedly he has a big shadow that will be there until he retires. He is king in the state of Wisconsin so whenever a coach does things a little differently the fanbase gets a little uneasy.
LikeLike
I guess some guys just get burnt out coaching and retire earlier than expected. Jimmy Johnson is another guy that comes to mind.
I don’t think Jimmy Johnson intended to retire as soon as he did: Jerry Jones pushed him out, after he won two consecutive Super Bowls.
He then moved directly into the studio, and realized he was at home there. It’s a pretty cushy job, if you can get it. It doesn’t pay head coach money, but it pays very well without the stress, and with far better job security.
LikeLike
After 2 years at Fox Jimmy Johnson did return to the NFL replacing Shula at Miami. Had issues with Marino; resigned after 3 years, but was convinced to stay, then resigned after the playoff loss the next year. Playoff record at Miami was 2-3, so with the Fox studio job available he gave up coaching for good at 56. He might have coached longer if he had not been pushed out of Dallas. Jerry Jones wanted to proved who was responsible for the Cowboy’s Super Bowl victories, and Jerry accomplished that goal although not in the way he intended. Reminds me of San Francisco and Harbaugh now; town is not big enough for both owner and coach.
LikeLike
Barry was about 58 or 59 when he retired so not terribly young. He also had knee replacement surgery a year or two prior to retirement so he had some physical issues with his ability to coach. BA always enjoyed the social aspects of the job and didn’t miss too many mixers. Partly a reason he meshed real well with Wisconsin’s big drinking boosters and fan base. Also a good match for someone in a fund raising AD role.
On the flip side Gary Andersen was completely the opposite. He hated going to the alumni functions and when he did he was in and out and not tipping a few and sharing stories. Gary preferred to be at home alone with his dogs.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1498052.html
Fun factoid:
Considering there was a split national title in 1990 – Colorado over Notre Dame, with Georgia Tech taking a piece of the championship – and with the bowls not being a part of the national championship mix until 1970, there’s never really been a true championship battle between teams from above the Mason-Dixon line outside of the 1989 Fiesta between Notre Dame and West Virginia. There’s no SEC program involved, no team from Texas, no USC or Miami or Florida State – it’s true Ohio football vs. the Pacific Northwest, and it’s unlike anything college football has ever seen. It’s a good matchup for college football because it’s different.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24931801/end-of-an-era-breaking-down-the-secs-bowl-bust
Another one:
Dating back to the 2013 season, the SEC has gone 0-5 its last five BCS or New Year’s Six bowl games, going 0-2 against the ACC, 0-2 against the Big 12, and 0-1 against the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Very good point. Also worth noting this will be the 2nd year since the formation of the BCS, that a team not in the Sunbelt will win it all (only other being Ohio State 2002).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12113012/college-football-playoff-semifinals-set-cable-tv-viewings-record
Fans seemed to like the semis. The Rose was up 50% and the Sugar more than doubled in ratings and viewers.
The first College Football Playoff semifinals drew the two largest audiences in cable television history.
ESPN had a 15.2 rating and averaged 28,271,000 viewers for its Allstate Sugar Bowl broadcast Thursday night after drawing a 14.8 rating and averaging 28,164,000 viewers for the Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual, Nielsen said Friday.
Both games had significant increases from last year on ESPN, when the Rose Bowl had a 10.2 rating and averaged 18,636,000 viewers and the Sugar Bowl had a 6.6 rating and averaged 11,304,000 viewers.
ESPN also will broadcast the Jan. 12 College Football Playoff National Championship presented by AT&T between Oregon and Ohio State. The network has drawn the 18 largest audiences in cable TV history and 36 of the top 40.
Despite technical problems during the Rose Bowl, WatchESPN averaged 864,000 unique viewers for the two games.
LikeLike
Here’s the ratings for all the New Year’s Six Bowls:
15.2 – Sugar
14.8 – Rose
5.2 – Cotton
5.0 – Orange
4.6 – Fiesta
3.4 – Peach
As we thought, NYD is better than NYE, and late is better than early, but the two best time slots had the two biggest games. It will be interesting to see the ratings next year when the semis will be on NYE afternoon (Cotton) and NYE night (Orange).
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Here’s the ratings for all the New Year’s Six Bowls:
15.2 – Sugar
14.8 – Rose
5.2 – Cotton
5.0 – Orange
4.6 – Fiesta
3.4 – Peach”
Ratings from 2002-2012 (average/maximum):
NCG – 16.0/21.7 (includes when it was held in place of one of the major bowls)
Rose – 11.9/14.4 (doesn’t include when it hosted the NCG)
Sugar – 8.1/9.5 (doesn’t include when it hosted the NCG)
Fiesta – 8.7/12.9 (doesn’t include when it hosted the NCG)
Orange – 7.6/12.3 (doesn’t include when it hosted the NCG)
Cotton – 4.5/7.2
Peach – 4.6/5.2
The novelty of the CFP plus the huge brands involved probably inflated the numbers, but the semis almost did as well as the old BCS NCG. The other bowls suffered, though, except the Peach which was used to NYE and had much better teams this year (but it was a blowout).
Quick math:
With a 3 year cycle, a NY6 bowl can apparently expect 4.0 + 5.0 + 15.0 or an average of 8.0. That’s no major change for the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar plus a big gain for the Peach and Cotton. It’s a big loss for the Rose, though. Granted, the Rose and Sugar will do better than average since they stay on 1/1.
“As we thought, NYD is better than NYE, and late is better than early, but the two best time slots had the two biggest games. It will be interesting to see the ratings next year when the semis will be on NYE afternoon (Cotton) and NYE night (Orange).”
Agreed.
LikeLike
Strange to me that the overnight had the Rose Bowl with the higher ratings (15.5 vs. 15.3), wonder why that would overestimate one more than the other?
LikeLike
@Ross – The overnights use only the larger markets. My guess is that the Rose Bowl skewed more toward the larger markets (with the Pac-12 and Florida-based markets garnering the largest numbers), which provided a bigger overnight number. All of the smaller SEC and Big Ten markets that wouldn’t have been included in the overnight rating would be taken into account in the final rating.
LikeLike
Overnights are sometimes dramatically off the final. The Thanksgiving games got nearly double the overnight ratings.
LikeLike
Thanks, wasn’t sure how they worked differently.
LikeLike
The Rose and Sugar always get NYD, so they will always get good ratings. Its the NYE games that will get those lower #s.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Rose and Sugar always get NYD, so they will always get good ratings. Its the NYE games that will get those lower #s.”
The question is how much the numbers drop in the years the Rose isn’t a semi. It’ll be unusual for there to ever be a true Rose Bowl. The second semi will be before it, too, so the NCG will be set. Will fans stick around to watch a game that doesn’t matter or spend their early evening doing other things?
Will it maintain an average of 11.9 or perhaps drop into the single digits?
11.9 = 15 + 10.3 + 10.3, so the Rose needs to stay in double digits not to lose overall.
LikeLike
“The second semi will be before it, too, so the NCG will be set. Will fans stick around to watch a game that doesn’t matter or spend their early evening doing other things?”
I need to correct myself here. Both semifinals are on 12/31 in the years when the Rose and Sugar don’t host them. That doesn’t change the fact that the NCG will be set before the Rose in those years, but it’ll happen the night before.
New CFP bowl schedule:
Semifinals – 1/1 for Rose/Sugar, 12/31 for Cotton/Orange and Fiesta/Peach
Always 1/1 (or 1/2 as needed) – Rose and Sugar
Always 12/31 – Orange and Peach
Swap dates – Fiesta and Cotton
That’s true for the first 3 years, at least.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_NCAA_football_bowl_games
P12 5-1
SEC 6-5
B10 5-5 (remember, B10 was the underdog in all 10 bowls)
ACC 4-7 (2-1 vs AAC, 2-6 vs P5)
B12 1-4
P12N 2-0
P12S 3-1
SEC E 4-0
SEC W 2-5
B10 E 4-1
B10 W 1-4
ACC A 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
ACC C 2-4 (1-3 vs P5)
That’s with 2 P12/B12 games left tonight. UCLA has a 13-point lead over KSU in the 4th and UW vs OkSU starts soon.
B10 fans can certainly sympathize with B12 fans about a bowl season like this.
LikeLike
Well the Pac12 finally got another loss at the Big 12’s expense. But UCLA took care of KSU in a thrilling game. So the Pac12 wins the bowl season in terms of win %, and comfortably. Someone mentioned during one of these games that the Big12 has had a lot of success against the Pac12 in bowl games the past 5 years.
Is it me or does the Pac12 seem to always have a mostly favorable bowl schedule. Is the BIG now tied into two bowl games in Ca? Foster’s Farm Bowl and the one Neb-USC played.
BIG and SEC certainly play the toughest bowl schedule, with the BIG having the most difficulty by a country mile, esp considering venues and region draws. Not even the new Detroit Bowl, whatever it’s called, closes the gap between the BIG and SEC. I’d prefer one of these games to draw a Pac12 team – perhaps the Pinstripe Bowl. Make the ACC go to Detroit every year : ). But due to travel, doubt the Pac12 will have the nuts to send a team our way, despite the BIG’s long history of traveling West.
LikeLike
@gfunk – The Big Ten has 3 California bowl tie-ins now: Rose, Holiday and Foster Farms (Bay Area). The toughness of the Big Ten’s bowl schedule is a result of, at least at the business level, a large positive: the Big Ten is a desirable partner with a lot of fans that are willing to travel to a wide range of warm winter destinations (whether it’s Florida or the West Coast), so we get higher bowl payouts and tougher opponents. On the flip side (and I say this as a lifelong Chicagoan), the Big Ten territory isn’t exactly a great bowl travel destination during the holidays outside of New York City. The whole point is that Big Ten fans *don’t* want to stay home for bowls. The number of people that would find Detroit more desirable for the holidays compared to San Diego or Orlando are few and far between (and that’s reflected in the bowl payouts).
In contrast, the Pac-12 have the opposite situation. They are directly located in a whole slew of great winter destinations (California, Arizona, nearby Las Vegas), while their fans don’t travel well outside of their home region at all. So, the Pac-12 has lower bowl payouts and weaker bowl opponents, but the advantage is that they play closer to home.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Is it me or does the Pac12 seem to always have a mostly favorable bowl schedule.”
It’s the advantage of being so far from most of the population and having nice home locations. P12 fans notoriously don’t travel especially well, so only western bowls tend to want them.
Current P12 bowl slate:
1. Rose in CA vs B10 #1
2. Alamo in TX vs B12 #2
3. Holiday in CA vs B10 #4
4. Foster Farms in CA vs B10 #6
5. Sun in TX vs ACC #4
6. Las Vegas in NV vs MWC #1
7. Cactus in AZ vs B12 #5
They have home field advantage in 4 of the 7, are closer than their opponent in another and are on the road in two.
Then there’s the question of how many teams each conference gets in the big 6 bowls.
This year:
P12 – 1
B10 – 2
B12 – 2
ACC – 2
That means they got help by everyone else but the MWC playing up a spot
“I’d prefer one of these games to draw a Pac12 team – perhaps the Pinstripe Bowl. Make the ACC go to Detroit every year : ).”
Both the Pinstripe and the Quick Lane (Detroit) have the B10 vs the ACC.
LikeLike
“Then there’s the question of how many teams each conference gets in the big 6 bowls.
This year:
P12 – 1”
The Pac 12 had 2: Oregon in the Rose & Arizona in the Fiesta.
LikeLike
Correct. My mistake. I accidentally counted the Cap 1 instead of the Fiesta, I think.
“Then there’s the question of how many teams each conference gets in the big 6 bowls.
This year:
P12 – 2
B10 – 2
B12 – 2
ACC – 2”
LikeLike
Has anyone seen conference records ATS?
LikeLike
Mike,
“Has anyone seen conference records ATS?”
Not quite, but Jerry Palm has something similar at CBS:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24918360/bowl-records-by-conference
Conference – Expected/Actual/ATS (done by hand by me)
B10 – 0-10 / 5-5 / 6-4
SEC – 9-3 / 7-5 / 7-5
P12 – 7-1 / 6-2 / 4-4
ACC – 4-8 / 5-7 / 6-6 (he includes ND which won outright and ATS as an underdog)
B12 – 5-2 / 2-5 / 2-5
And as I’ve posted elsewhere, the ACC looks much worse if you drop the games against the AAC.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_NCAA_football_bowl_games
P12 6-2
SEC 7-5
B10 5-5 (remember, B10 was the underdog in all 10 bowls)
ACC 4-7 (2-1 vs AAC, 2-6 vs P5)
B12 2-5
P12N 2-1
P12S 4-1
SEC E 5-0
SEC W 2-5
B10 E 4-1
B10 W 1-4
ACC A 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
ACC C 2-4 (1-3 vs P5)
The SEC East continues to show up in minor bowls and do well.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/01/conference_bowl_records_2014-1_1.html
And if you’re curious:
Conference bowl records for ranked teams only:
P12 – 5-1, 0.833
B10 – 3-1, 0.750
ACC – 2-2 0.500
B12 – 1-2, 0.333
SEC – 2-5, 0.286
LikeLike
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/football/2015/1/2/7483001/tennessee-45-iowa-28-rocky-top-and-rock-bottom
BHGP: “The Hawkeyes finish 7-6, with a 4-4 record in the Big Ten despite not playing the two conference teams that participated in Big 6 bowls. They graduate an Outland Trophy winner, three other players that should get serious attention from the NFL, a four-year starter at wide receiver that set the program record for receptions on Friday, a three-year starter at halfback and potentially a quarterback. There are not obvious answers at any of those positions, just as there are question marks at free safety, middle linebacker, outside linebacker, and the interior line. Barring a January miracle, there will be exactly two consensus four-star recruits on the 2015 roster, and neither of them has ever started a game at Iowa. The places where Ferentz made coaching changes two and three years ago — offensive coordinator, linebackers, running backs, special teams — are markedly worse than they were under their predecessors, another string of poor decisions by a head coach who hasn’t been challenged since Joe Philbin left. This is the dumpster fire, people. There is nothing good here.”
————————————————————————————————————————————
That’s a brutal take on the stake of Iowa football.
LikeLike
state*
LikeLike
Was just chatting with some on the Maryland Rivals VIP board. Someone posted the payouts on the bowls. Could someone explain how this is split within the conference? I know Maryland suffered a terrible blowout against Stanford, but it seems the PAC 12 is a buzz saw on their home turf. Does each team share some part of the payout? Thanks!
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten shares its bowl payouts equally, after expenses. I’m not sure if Maryland is entitled yet to a full share (this being their first season), but they certainly will eventually.
LikeLike
The SEC era is over. With the worship of the SEC West and the top 5 teams all losing, the top 3 all getting dominated, the rest of the media won’t buy the ESPN hype.
I was curious how dominant the SEC had been in the rankings and looked up the BCS ranking from 2007 (following Florida’s dismantling of “unbeatable” Ohio St.).
SEC 26 times, 11/14 teams (includes 1 with MO in Big 12)
Big 12 16 times, 9/10 teams (includes 2 TCU, 1 WVU in MWC/BE, doesn’t include MO 2007)
Pac 12 14 times, 5/12 teams (includes Utah while in MWC)
B1G 13 times, 5/14 teams
ACC 4 times, 3/14 teams
Other 7 times, 4 teams (Boise, ND, Hawaii, Cincinnati-doesn’t include Utah, TCU and WVU who made it while MWC or BE)
LikeLike
The number of appearances in the top 10 by team was kind of surprising:
1. Alabama 6
1. Ohio St. 6
1. Oregon 6
4. Stanford 4
4. Boise St. 4
5. TCU 3
5. South Carolina 3
5. Oklahoma 3
5. LSU 3
5. Florida 3
5. Michigan St. 3
11-20-all at 2, FSU, Wisconsin, USC, Baylor, Texas, Kansas St., Auburn, Missouri, Georgia, Arkansas
Nebraska, Michigan and Miami didn’t make the top 10 at all in the final BCS/CFP rankings. Notre Dame and Penn St. only made it once.
LikeLike
If you look at it impartially, the SEC’s strength has really been its ability to produce 1-2 teams that are generally great over the past 10 years. That has rotated among teams: Alabama, Florida, Auburn, LSU in particular.
Given Florida’s recent struggles along with LSU at not quite the level they were in the Saban/early-Miles years, the SEC has really relied hard on the Alabama/Auburn schools to carry the top of the conference.
I think this year was the year where they just ran out of gas.
If you look at the other conferences, Oregon has dominated the Pac-12 along with Stanford, but Stanford has slipped a bit as the Harbaugh years regress into the past. Traditional power USC has been mediocre.
Baylor and TCU were the best teams this year; Kansas State has done their usual top 20 work, but all of this has been with underperforming OU/Texas teams over the past few years.
ACC has largely been FSU and the rest over the past couple years while Virginia Tech fell and Miami looks nowhere close to where they need to be to compete on the national level.
Big Ten has had Ohio State and Michigan State punching above their weight, but until this year, none of the Big Ten teams has had quite the punch necessary to actually challenge for the national championship. A lot of that has to do with Michigan/Penn State being in down-cycles due to all sorts of issues (that are finally looking like they’re in the past) along with Nebraska just being caught in the Bo “9 wins with a couple bad blowouts” cycle.
———————————————————————————————————————
Basically, you add it all up, and it really comes down to the fact that the SEC managed to put together an incredible run where the baton was passed among 4 schools that alternated having 12-14 win seasons over 7 years.
It’s a credit to them that they managed to pull it off, but it does feel like the cyclical nature of college football has caught up to them.
I still think that the SEC has the “most potential” given its inherent recruiting/location advantages giving them the most schools able to reach the national stage with a chance to win it all, but it does feel like there’s other schools around the country that can also put together those kinds of teams.
LikeLike
The SEC era is over. With the worship of the SEC West and the top 5 teams all losing, the top 3 all getting dominated, the rest of the media won’t buy the ESPN hype.
The SEC’s dominance was not just media hype. At the end of the regular season, the Massey Composite rating (dominated mostly by computers) had four SEC teams in the top 10, the most of any league. If you don’t like Massey’s composite, choose another. The SEC was the strongest league by most objective measures I am aware of, unless you think all the computer rankings are programmed corruptly by ESPN.
Obviously, the SEC West’s bowl performance did not live up to those rankings. There’s an element of randomness in football, and that will happen sometimes. The SEC still has its built-in structural advantages, and I don’t expect that to change. They are still the strongest league, even though this year they didn’t show it on the field when it counted.
LikeLike
What is over is the unquestioned belief in the hype. The SEC West’s reputation was built on beating up on a bunch of CUSA/Sun Belt, AAC schools. Their only P5 wins were Arkansas over a bad Texas Tech, LSU by 4 over Wisconsin in Houston (almost a home game), Alabama by 10 over WVU in Atlanta, and Auburn’s win at KSU by 6 along with a 10-0 record over teams in the SEC east with 6 wins or less. This year was just hype. There are a lot of 3 and 4 loss teams very similar to Ole Miss and Mississippi St., but they were ranked ahead of all the similar teams.
Was the SEC the strongest league this year? Maybe. But their margin over the Pac 12 is razor thin. And they aren’t far ahead of the Big 12, Big 10 or ACC either. Yet that is not what the rankings or hype would say.
LikeLike
“Hype” is promotion that’s unsupported by facts or results. The SEC was not all hype. Until a few days ago, the results were there. The SEC had played in eight straight BCS championship games (winning seven). The computer rankings, which AFAIK are untainted by fan or announcer bias, had the SEC overwhelmingly as the strongest league, by most measures.
You might think the SEC’s non-conference slate was unimpressive, and for the most part you’d be right, but at least they won the games they played. The Big Ten lost big, including Virginia Tech over Ohio State, Oregon over Michigan State, LSU over Wisconsin, TCU over Minnesota, Washington over Illinois, West Virginia over Maryland, Iowa State over Iowa, and Utah over Michigan. The league did rack up some wins (Indiana in a shock over Missouri, Rutgers over Washington State), but not enough to mask a very poor non-conference showing.
I’m sure the SEC West’s bowl flop will be a big part of the narrative next year. But it takes a lot more than one bowl season to determine whether there’s been a secular shift, or if the SEC just had one bad year. Dominance, once established, tends to remain ingrained unless there is a reversal over a long period of time. In the same vein, I don’t think the Big Ten’s reputation as a soft league is entirely turned around by one good year. They need to keep proving it.
LikeLike
It’s not just the SEC though where hype was unwarranted. I think you can make a strong argument that the rankings have been “wrong” all this year, and that plays into what bullet is saying with respect to the SEC and it being “overhyped” this year.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/story.cfm/story/1625830
Look at the fact that a majority of bowl game underdogs have won straight up; 20-16 record for underdogs. ATS underdogs are 23-13.
I don’t think that’s a series of flukes… it’s not a coincidence that underdogs are winning all over the place (not just against the SEC).
It speaks to the larger issue that conference strength and how that was applied to teams in the rankings was wildly off base as we found out when the bowl games were actually played.
Now, again this is just one year of bowl results. I agree that no one should be extrapolating this out into the future. That’s the same mistake that led to this situation in the first place where there were too many SEC teams ranked too high in the preseason rankings and the transitive nature of winning led to the Mississippi and Alabama schools being overranked at the end of the day…
LikeLike
It’s not just the SEC though where hype was unwarranted. I think you can make a strong argument that the rankings have been “wrong” all this year, and that plays into what bullet is saying with respect to the SEC and it being “overhyped” this year….
But this doesn’t explain the computer rankings, which as far as I know, don’t have the presumed bias that you’re referring to. One could disagree with the algorithm of any given computer poll, but across a wide spectrum of them, the SEC was in the driver’s seat.
Look at the fact that a majority of bowl game underdogs have won straight up; 20-16 record for underdogs. ATS underdogs are 23-13.
I don’t think that’s a series of flukes… it’s not a coincidence that underdogs are winning all over the place (not just against the SEC).
Unlike computer rankings, Vegas point spreads are influenced by hype. I also recall reading that in bowl games, underdogs tend to beat the spread a bit over half the time. That alone wouldn’t explain these results entirely, but it’s a contributing factor.
By random chance lone, occasionally there will be years when a lot of favorites lose — so yeah, I think it very well could be a series of flukes, coupled with the fact that these results simply aren’t quite as unlikely as you imagine them to be.
LikeLike
Computer rankings don’t have enough data points to be valid. They have to over-rely on certain variables. Does anyone really think 7-6 Arkansas is #11? Yet that’s what Sagarin will say.
What happened with the SEC was the same thing that happened with the Big 12 a couple years ago. They didn’t lose to any of the patsies, meaning their computer ranking was very high. But winning a bunch of games against a Louisiana-Monroe doesn’t tell you a whole lot.
LikeLike
Computer rankings don’t have enough data points to be valid. They have to over-rely on certain variables. Does anyone really think 7-6 Arkansas is #11? Yet that’s what Sagarin will say.
All computers do is take a series of data points that a human programmer considers relevant, and crunch the numbers.
Computers, however, can consider more data than any human could, and they don’t have human biases (unless the bias is programmed into the algorithm, which no one has suggested is the case).
If you’re saying that “the computers” don’t have enough data points, then you’re saying that nobody does; in which case the bowl pairings might as well be drawn at random, or selected based on TV ratings value without any regard to merit.
But of course, that’s ridiculous. We all agree that there are ways to distinguish good from bad, even though we might disagree, at the margins, on precisely which criteria are more important. That’s why the polls aren’t identical.
Sagarin ranked Arkansas higher than almost any other source. Before the bowl season, Sagarin had them at #13, but the Massey Composite had them at #26, the USA Today composite at #28; perhaps still too high, but Sagarin helped pulled up the average.
Any given computer ranking system will occasionally toss out garbage; but then, human voters do too. The computer consensus had FSU lower than the human voters, and the computers seem to have been right. You can’t pick ONE outlying ranking in ONE poll as indicating the validity of all of them.
LikeLike
Basic statistics tell you that anything below a sample size of 21 has so much random noise it has very limited precision.
People can evalutate the intangible and other statistics that computers can’t. How many programs evaluate whether the starters were left in during the 4th quarter? How many evaluate the weather? How many can evaluate how momentum impacts games? How many evaluate key injuries? How many evaluate the impact of rivalries? How many evaluate the impact of games scheduled between rivalries-trap games? Computers are MUCH more limited in what they measure. They judge things without bias, but also without the nuances that are very important.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But this doesn’t explain the computer rankings, which as far as I know, don’t have the presumed bias that you’re referring to. One could disagree with the algorithm of any given computer poll, but across a wide spectrum of them, the SEC was in the driver’s seat.”
All that means is they generally use very similar approaches in terms of data in (W/L, location, pts scored, etc) and how to analyze it. There simply aren’t enough games, especially against equivalent foes, to provide a truly statistically meaningful computer ranking. The experts will tell you that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“All computers do is take a series of data points that a human programmer considers relevant, and crunch the numbers.”
Yes, which let’s them avoid brand bias. But the programmer can bias the results by which data he selects and how he weights it. More importantly, CFB doesn’t have enough games between equivalent teams to provide solid stats. Computers do what their told, it doesn’t make them factually correct in their output.
“Computers, however, can consider more data than any human could, and they don’t have human biases (unless the bias is programmed into the algorithm, which no one has suggested is the case).”
But the human has to tell the computer which data to use. That generally means W/L, location, points scored, etc. Then the computer is told how to analyze it. A human would get the same result but be much slower doing the math.
A real computer model would be an AI generating its own ranking system after thorough analysis of year’s of data, discovering which factors are truly important and then seeing how to best rank in a single season based on the small sample set of games. The AI might consider all sorts of other factors (recruiting, weather, conference, media coverage, coaching changes, injuries, etc) that people don’t currently use.
“If you’re saying that “the computers” don’t have enough data points, then you’re saying that nobody does;”
Correct. There are not enough games to create an accurate ranking system. That’s what we’re saying.
“in which case the bowl pairings might as well be drawn at random, or selected based on TV ratings value without any regard to merit.”
Right, because that’s the only other choice.
LikeLike
Agree on the lack of data points on college football. Even college basketball rankings, with roughly three times the sample size, have flaws. I love the KenPom rankings, for example, but he’ll tell you the sample size is somewhat limiting in basketball as well, even though I do believe his rankings are generally very good.
LikeLike
Agree on the lack of data points on college football. Even college basketball rankings, with roughly three times the sample size, have flaws. I love the KenPom rankings, for example, but he’ll tell you the sample size is somewhat limiting in basketball as well, even though I do believe his rankings are generally very good.
This point is not disputed by anyone. But then again, no one has advocated drawing bowl participants at random. Therefore, we’ve got to weigh the teams somehow with the information we have, flawed and incomplete though it may be. To paraphrase the old saying about democracy, the system might be terrible, but all the others are worse.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This point is not disputed by anyone. But then again, no one has advocated drawing bowl participants at random. Therefore, we’ve got to weigh the teams somehow with the information we have, flawed and incomplete though it may be. To paraphrase the old saying about democracy, the system might be terrible, but all the others are worse.”
You keep trotting out the computer polls as some sort of unbiased standard of excellent rankings, though. We all agree that they aren’t brand-biased (there are biases in every model, though). What we don’t agree with you on is their accuracy. We keep pointing out the lack of data points to show that the computers simply can’t reach valid conclusions. They do their best and they do it without regard to the names of the schools, but that doesn’t make them correct.
Do a lot of computer polls generally agree? Sure. But they also tend to use very similar sets of input (W/L, maybe location, maybe MOV, maybe points for and against). They then use one of a few mathematical approaches from there to create rankings. Thus, they tend to yield similar results. Many of the programmers will tell you their goal was to create an accurate model based on the smallest amount of variables (why some use W/L only). Others create a model and then tweak the constants to get the best results based on past years (no theoretical basis for the values, just tweak to optimize the results).
Humans are much more biased and inconsistent, but we also consider many more factors because nobody is programming us. That’s why we can sometimes notice things that computers don’t.
LikeLike
And yet funnily enough, many people laugh at ESPN’s BPI rankings which actually attempt to incorporate things like injuries into their figures. I don’t know exactly how it is accounted for, but I have seen ESPN mention that it includes things typically computer rankings exclude.
LikeLike
Ross,
“And yet funnily enough, many people laugh at ESPN’s BPI rankings which actually attempt to incorporate things like injuries into their figures. I don’t know exactly how it is accounted for, but I have seen ESPN mention that it includes things typically computer rankings exclude.”
I assume you mean FPI. People laugh because ESPN creates it one day and then starts to force it down everyone’s throat as if it’s an agreed upon standard in the field, just like with QBR. How does it work? How well does it do when applied to previous seasons? How does it compare to other predictive models in terms of accuracy?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
Their current FPI says #2 AL is 2 points better than #3 OSU. It also says AU, MS and MS St are all top 10 teams with FSU #11. Meanwhile WI is #20, TCU is #4 and GT is #19. Baylor is #6 with MSU #7. So that’s 4 of the top 10 that lost their bowl to a lesser team, 3 that beat a lesser team, 2 that upset a better team and 1 that lost to a better team. That doesn’t seem great for a predictive model in bowl season, and those are the ranks after the bowls happened.
Using the rankings from before the bowls:
2 teams beat lesser teams
5 teams lost to lesser teams
2 teams upset better teams
1 team lost to a better team
That’s 3 right and 7 wrong.
LikeLike
Based solely on bowl performance, the SEC East was the best division in college football this year.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/01/ohio_state_to_initiate_legisla.html
OSU is going to initiate NCAA legislation to get greater financial assistance for the families of the players in the playoff. Right now each school can give $800 from its student assistance fund to each family to help defray expenses. That doesn’t cover the cost of 1 bowl trip, let alone a second trip.
Personally, I think this expense should come straight from the CFP itself with the cost spread to all P5 schools equally.
LikeLike
I would favor two revisions. For any team going to a bowl game, allow the school to cover any amount up to the full cost of attendance for two parents or guardians. (Conferences could choose to pool these costs, as many of them do today with other bowl attendance expenses.)
For the championship game, I would take the expense out of the CFP revenues, as Brian has suggested.
LikeLike
I did some calculations on just how far teams and conferences have to travel for bowl season. Here are the conference averages.
B1G: 1217 miles. Opponents: 387 miles
SEC: 555 miles. Opponents: 831 miles
PAC: 595 miles. Opponents: 1491 miles
ACC: 842 miles. Opponents: 541 miles
B12: 690 miles. Opponents: 838 miles.
The only group with tougher travel than the B1G is the collection of schools that have to play against the Pac 12.
The only group with easier travel than the SEC is the collection of schools that have to play against the B1G.
In the 28 bowl games involving a P5 school, the “Home” teams went 19-9. Of the 9 “Away” team wins, 4 came from the B1G (Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Penn State), 1 from the SEC (Arkansas), 1 from the Pac12 (UCLA), 1 from the ACC (NC State), 1 from the Big 12 (TCU), and 1 from the G5 (Boise State. The 4 B1G teams and Boise were all underdogs by a combined 23.5 points. The 4 other “Away” schools from the SEC, Pac12, ACC, and B12 were favored by a combined 9.5 points
One reason the B1G had so many of the “Away” wins was simply opportunity. 9 of their 10 bowl matchups qualified and they won 4 of them. The SEC had 3 of their 12 matchups qualify. The Pac 12 had 2 of their 8 qualify. The ACC had 5 of their 11 qualify. The Big 12 had 3 of their 7 qualify.
I don’t really have any solutions for the travel issues. The biggest reason for all the southern bowls are to escape the northern winter weather. So the B1G is probably always going to lead in overall travel due to lack of bowls in their footprint.
In the end, travel is only a variable in a bigger equation. Once you’re on a plane, it doesn’t really matter, but considering that no conference wins more than 50% of these “Away” matchups (need to go back a number of years and get a true sample size), and B1G is the Away team in 90% of their matchups, is it ever going to be realistic to expect much more than a .500 bowl season for the B1G on a consistent basis?
Here’s a link the the Excel sheet if anyone is interested. Sheet2 has the High and Low values for each conference thrown out to get rid of outliers skewing the data but the results were much the same except the ACC’s travel falls 25% to 616 miles..
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=75193259849127035637
Side note: Travel for the Championship Game in Dallas:
Oregon – 2043 miles.
Ohio State – 1040 miles.
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Don’t edit and post at 1 am. is* not are above.
LikeLike
We knew the travel would be skewed that way, and as you say there isn’t much the B10 can do about it. The only fix would be to have no home teams by making the ACC and SEC go west and the P12 and B12 come east. The bowls would scream, though, and for good reason.
My bigger concern is in the playoff. The #1 seed gets geographic special treatment, but only the B10 lacks any bowl that would help them. The SEC has a home bowl every year while the ACC, B12 and P12 have one 2/3 of the time.
Rotation (West / East):
Rose / Sugar – good for P12, SEC
Cotton / Orange – good for ACC, B12, SEC
Fiesta / Peach – good for ACC, B12, P12, SEC
The B10 could suffer being a road team as a #2 seed or even as #1.
LikeLike
Completely agree – if Indianapolis is good enough for the title game, why can’t it host a semifinal?
LikeLike
I should add that while I realize Indianapolis does not yet have a date for the title game, I think we can agree it’s very likely they win one in the future. They have had the NCAAB and NFL championships, and the dome mitigates any concerns about weather impacting the game.
LikeLike
…if Indianapolis is good enough for the title game, why can’t it host a semifinal?
The dates and sites of the semi-finals are decided long before it’s known who the participants will be. The Big Ten is deserving of the “home field advantage” only if it puts a team in the playoff as one of the top two seeds. Absent a Big Ten team as the #1 or #2 seed, Indy has no appeal as a bowl destination.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that argument holds any water. In years like this one, a Big 12 team in the playoff would have traveled to either the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Depending on the opponent, that might have favored an ACC/SEC or Pac 12 team of a lower ranking.
There will already be years where teams essentially face road games despite being in the top 2 simply because of where the semifinals are that year. That is no reason at all to keep the Big Ten from having one.
LikeLike
Because we are using the bowls and there are no big bowls in Indianapolis. I know it’s a long way off, but the Rose Bowl is our closest to a home bowl.
LikeLike
The B10 just won’t get any semifinal sites.
The best that can be hoped for is a title game in the north once every 4 years (which is certainly justifiable).
Indy gets the Final Four every 5 years because of the deal get made with the NCAA (reduced rent, I believe).
Each of the other conferences get the title game in their footprint at least once in the first 3 year:
2014: SEC & B12
2015: Pac
2016: SEC & ACC
If they did it fairly, 2017 would go to one of Indy/Detroit/Minny(/StL)
LikeLike
“If they did it fairly, 2017 would go to one of Indy/Detroit/Minny(/StL)”
Could the powers behind the CFB – by promising a northern Southern bowl (or southern Northern bowl, if you prefer) every x years, “sell” improvements or a new facility for St. Louis with the tangential benefit of keeping the Rams in town. The SEC, Big XII and B10 would be on board. Indy might also check those boxes, but the promise of a NCG might be enough for St. Louisan politicians and leaders to appease the Rams.
LikeLike
Nope.
LikeLike
Maryland has a fine tradition in both men’s and women’s basketball, as each has won an NCAA title (the men in 2002, the women in 2006), but I don’t believe both teams have been ranked in the top 10 simultaneously. That could happen this week after the men won at Michigan State on Tuesday and at home vs. Minnesota yesterday, while the women defeated Ohio State in College Park on Monday, then routed a good Nebraska team in Lincoln yesterday in a game aired on CBS.
LikeLike
I watched that Maryland game against Michigan State. That’s quite a team Turgeon has in College Park this year. It had the feeling of one of those close games that a team that has “NCAA tournament run potential” wins.
If anyone’s going to challenge Wisconsin for the Big Ten crown this year, Maryland has the look of the team that might be able to do it. It also looks like a team that has staying power into next year given some of the young guards/wings (in a sport where good guard/wing play is at such a premium: Melo/Nickens/Wiley).
Hopefully, this is the beginning of something that’ll stay together in College Park especially with some of the other Big Ten basketball programs in transition.
Either way, I’m not sure a Maryland fan could ask for a better start to their first year in the Big Ten on the basketball side of things. Nice to see both men’s and women’s teams settling in; it’s usually a tough transition given that you’ve got to adapt to all the teams in the league whereas everyone else is used to playing one another and just has to study you.
LikeLike
Rest In Peace Stuart Scott…
You will be sorely missed. You fought the good fight three times, winning two of the rounds. I appreciate your valiant effort to fight cancer with grace, courage and fortitude. Although you will be famous for much more, these things I will remember about you the most.
You will always be “As cool as the other side of the pillow.”
Safe journey, and “BooYah!” to you.
Prayers and comforting thoughts to his family and loved ones…
LikeLike
A little ratings comparison:
Semi viewers:
Rose – 28.2M
Sugar – 28.3M
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2015/01/cardinals-panthers-wild-card-game-is-espns-third-highest-rated-nfl-game-ever/
Ari/Car – 21.7M (ESPN)
Pitt/Bal – 24.0M (NBC)
Dal/Det – 37.6M (preliminary number – subject to significant change)
Last year the NFL averaged 34.3M for the opening round of the playoffs.
So the first ever semifinals did better than ESPN’s first ever NFL playoff game. And they were also not that far behind where the divisional playoff games usually are.
LikeLike
Sorry, the 2nd and 3rd links are these:
Pitt/Bal – http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/04/tv-ratings-saturday-nfl-playoffs-dominate-night-2020-dips-48-hours-rises/345572/
Dal/Det – http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/05/tv-ratings-sunday-galavant-starts-solid-celebrity-apprentice-premieres-up-revenge-down-resurrection-steady/345732/
LikeLike
These results make the financial argument for 8 instead of 4.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/01/cotton-bowl-ratings-viewership-up-espn-michigan-state-baylor-new-years-six-college-football/
Now how much is that it is hard to imagine 8 less name brand schools (TCU, Baylor, Arizona, Boise St., MS St., Ole Miss, Georgia Tech, MI St.) and how much is timing (during a workday) and how much is the hype on the playoff games is hard to say. But ratings were low for the non-playoff games.
“The Spartans’ comeback victory earned the third-highest Cotton Bowl rating since 1998 and the third-largest audience since at least 2001, trailing only Texas A&M/Oklahoma in 2013 and LSU/Texas A&M in 2011 (5.8, 10.0M).
The Cotton Bowl topped the other four non-playoff games in the New Year’s Six, edging the Orange (5.0, 8.9M) and finishing comfortably ahead of the Fiesta (4.6, 7.4M) and Peach (3.4, 5.0M). Compared to New Year’s Day last year, the Cotton Bowl increased 63% in ratings and 67% in viewership over the Iowa/LSU Outback Bowl (3.2, 5.4M).
Despite the good numbers, the Cotton Bowl earned a lower rating and viewership than all-but-one BCS bowl (72 games from 1999-14). Only the 2012 Orange Bowl earned lower numbers (4.5, 7.2M). Overall, the four non-playoff New Year’s Six games would each rank among the five lowest rated and least-watched BCS games.”
LikeLike
“These results make the financial argument for 8 instead of 4.”
I don’t agree with that. An 8 game playoff would make more money than 4 and I don’t think that’s ever been in question (and a 16 team playoff would make more than 8). The question isn’t just how it effects the playoff money though, but how a bigger playoff effects the regular season money. If you look at college basketball a very strong argument can be made that the NCAA Tournament got so big that while becoming almost impossible to change, it’s taken more money out of the regular season than it’s added for the post-season.
There’s of course room for disagreement on the effect of 8 vs. 4 (I’ve argued for 4 over 8 strongly), but I a bigger tournament almost always increases revenue short term in any sport which is why you’ve seen playoffs expand and rarely contract.
LikeLike
68 out of 320 with conference tournaments in between is totally unlike 8 out of 128.
LikeLike
bullet,
“These results make the financial argument for 8 instead of 4.”
Make the argument for which constituency?
The bowls? The Rose and Sugar will be just fine since they keep their 1/1 time slots. The Orange and Cotton get 1/3 semifinal on 12/31, 1/3 bowl on 1/1 and 1/3 bowl on 12/31. That’s not great, but they’ll probably do about the same as they did before on average. Besides, it’s a step up for the Cotton to get to host semis after being dropped from the BCS. The Peach is stuck on 12/31, but that’s when they’ve always been. As a non-BCS bowl getting bumped up to get a semi 1/3 of the time should be a big improvement in attention on average. Ticket sales may drop, though. The Fiesta is the one that suffered the most, going from a BCS game to a permanent 12/31 game.
These bowls get to host a semi 1/3 of the time, which will sell out easily and get them lots of notice, but the other 2/3 they’ll have empty seats and bring less money to town. Would fans travel for quarterfinals at bowl sites? That’s an unknown, so they may prefer to stick with the current plan as the least risky option.
The TV networks? ESPN doesn’t need high ratings to make money and the semis made more than enough to cover the other 4 not doing well. The real question is what it would cost ESPN to get 4 more games.
Let’s look at the ratings (http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/):
CCGs:
ACC (ABC) – 10.1M (previous high was 7.6M for an ACC CG)
B10 (FOX) – 6.1M (Fox’s highest total all season despite the blowout)
P12 (FOX) – 6.0M
SEC (CBS) – 12.8M
Some were way up, others were down from normal. Remember, the ACC and B10 were both on Saturday night at 8pm (plus Baylor/KSU on ESPN at 7:45) while the SEC played at 4pm and the P12 on Friday night.
Would the quarterfinals draw better numbers? Would the CCGs lose value for the conferences? Would other networks fight ESPN to get some quarterfinal games?
Selection show:
ESPN – 2.2M for the whole 2.5h show (BCS selection show was under 2.0)
How much lower is this number with 8 teams? Or in a year with less controversy over #4?
Semis:
Rose – 28.2M
Sugar – 28.3M
In an average year, perhaps these would be realistic numbers:
CCGs – 30M combined (7.5M each)
Semis – 50M combined (25M each)
Final – 40M
Total – 120M
vs
CCGs – 20M combined (5M each)
Quarters – 60M (15M each)
Semis – 50M combined (25M each)
Final – 40M
Total – 170M
How much more does a network offer for those quarters? It has to be a big number to get the presidents to agree, especially since they just got this huge bump for going to 4.
The P5 conferences and/or schools?
How much more TV money would they get from the CFP-8? How much value would the CCG lose? How much impact would it have on their regular season TV deals? What would it do to their attendance and donations, especially in the future as the older alumni die? When are they played (mid-December?, near Christmas?, NYE/NYD?)? Where are they played (on campus or neutral)?
LikeLike
I don’t see the ccgs dropping.
I don’t know why the semis would get lower ratings than now.
And the quarters would probably be close to the current semi-finals while most importantly, 2 games would get vastly better ratings than now.
The BCS bowls got 4 of the 5 worst ratings of all time, so there is a lot of upside.
LikeLike
I could see CCG’s dropping some. At four they are essentially an elimination game, even though not a winner advances game. At eight the loser might still not be eliminated, reducing the “must see” aspect currently enjoyed.
On the other hand, an eight years with auto qualifier introduces the “Cinderella” effect to CCG’s for teams whose only way in is pulling a big upset.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t see the ccgs dropping.”
They might not. I was thinking that adding another round that includes at-larges would reduce the importance of the CCGs to the casual fan.
“I don’t know why the semis would get lower ratings than now.”
1. It was the first ever playoff.
2. The semis were on 1/1 in the primo time slots.
3. You had 4 major brands playing including a defending national champion.
4. There was controversy about OSU being there, especially after TCU’s bowl win.
5. History shows that the NCG ratings (and NFL playoff ratings) went up and down based on brands and storylines, so I assumed the same would apply here.
“And the quarters would probably be close to the current semi-finals”
Why? 1 vs 8 is much less likely to be a good game and there will be less controversy over who got in. Also, when do they play these games? It’s harder to find 4 great time slots in December over a day or two.
“while most importantly, 2 games would get vastly better ratings than now.”
Which only matters to ESPN. How much are they willing to pay for it? Where are they played? When are they played? There are a lot of potential issues for the schools to deal with, so ESPN would have to pay a lot. Is the increase in money worth it to the schools?
“The BCS bowls got 4 of the 5 worst ratings of all time, so there is a lot of upside.”
No. The Rose and Sugar crushed it. Only the Orange and Fiesta were down. And they get to have great ratings 1/3 of the time, too. We need to see how they average out before you can claim any net loss for them. As I pointed out, getting to join the 4 BCS bowls is a step up for the Cotton and Peach, so they’ll see improvement on average.
LikeLike
Out of about 80 games since 1998, these were 4 of the bottom 5. That’s a very significant fail. The only game any of them beat was WVU’s 70-33 annihilation of Clemson.
LikeLike
As for time slots, you either do them in December, or more likely NYD. You have them at noon, 4 and 8 on NYD and 8 on NYE (or the day after NYD).
LikeLike
bullet,
“Out of about 80 games since 1998, these were 4 of the bottom 5. That’s a very significant fail.”
My point was that you said “the BCS bowls.” The Rose and Sugar were 2 of the BCS bowls and they certainly didn’t get bad ratings. Meanwhile, the Cotton and Peach weren’t BCS bowls so your statement only fits the Fiesta and Orange bowls.
The Cotton and Peach had lower ratings during the BCS era. The Cotton averaged a 4.5 from 2002-2012 and drew a 5.2 this year. That doesn’t seem like a fail.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/01/cotton-bowl-ratings-viewership-up-espn-michigan-state-baylor-new-years-six-college-football/
The Spartans’ comeback victory earned the third-highest Cotton Bowl rating since 1998 and the third-largest audience since at least 2001, trailing only Texas A&M/Oklahoma in 2013 and LSU/Texas A&M in 2011 (5.8, 10.0M).
The Peach averaged a 4.6 but only drew a 3.4 due to the time slot. It did almost as bad in 2011 (3.6) and was sub-4 in 2008, too, so this isn’t uncharted territory. And as I pointed out earlier, you need to look at the 3-year averages for all 6 bowls to have a realistic sense of how they’re doing. I’m guessing they’ll top a lot of BCS bowls when they host semifinals.
“The only game any of them beat was WVU’s 70-33 annihilation of Clemson.”
Worst BCS ratings from 2002-2012 (44 games):
2011 Orange 4.6
2008 Orange 5.4
2011 Sugar 6.1
2012 Orange 6.1
2010 Fiesta 6.2
2012 Sugar 6.2
2009 Orange 6.8
2010 Orange 6.8
2006 Orange 7.0
2007 Sugar 7.0
2004 Fiesta 7.4
2007 Orange 7.4
2007 Fiesta 7.7
2008 Sugar 7.8
That’s why the Orange only averaged a 7.6, the Sugar an 8.1 and the Fiesta an 8.7. Because of their permanent time slots, I think we can agree that the Rose and Sugar will do just fine. The Fiesta seems the most at risk since they had a higher average than the Orange.
(15 + 5 + 4) / 3 = 8.0
So the Fiesta may lose out a little. But the Peach and Cotton would be making huge gains. Or put another way:
Sum of the average ratings from 2002-2012 for the NY6 bowls:
11.9 + 8.7 + 8.1 + 7.6 + 4.6 + 4.5 = 45.4
Sum of the ratings for the 2014 NY6 bowls:
15.2 + 14.8 + 5.2 + 5.0 + 4.6 + 3.4 = 48.2
The viewers got more concentrated in certain games, but the bowls as a whole didn’t suffer. Let’s see what happens as the semifinals move to 12/31 for the next 2 years.
LikeLike
bullet,
“As for time slots, you either do them in December, or more likely NYD. You have them at noon, 4 and 8 on NYD and 8 on NYE (or the day after NYD).”
1. The presidents would have to approve moving things deeper into January, so it would probably take a lot of money to convince them.
2. January is NFL playoffs time. ESPN has a huge amount of coverage of that. DO they want to cut back on the NFL to make room for CFB? There won’t be good time slots available on weekends and one point of emphasis was to get away from weeknight bowls. So when are the semis if the quarters are on 1/1ish? Back to back weeknights? A doubleheader on a Monday?
3. If December, is it the week after the CCGs or just before Christmas? Around Christmas is a terrible time for a major event in terms of traveling fans. Is it 4 games in 2 days again? Will that work that time of year? If earlier, how do you convince the presidents that it won’t interfere with finals week?
4. And where are all these games played? Mid-December seems like on campus. Around Christmas sounds more like neutral sites. I assume 1/1 would be bowls for either level. Do we have 3 January games at non-bowl neutral sites?
LikeLike
Mid-December is on campus, just like FCS, Division II and Division III.
I think exclusion is what drives the presidents more than the money. When the Big 10 and SEC have both gotten left out, the conversation gets serious. The way the pattern has gone, we probably get a runnerup in the final 4 next year, so 2 conferences get left out.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/01/super_sophs_again_as_second-ye.html
A comparison of this year’s Buckeyes to the 1968 team. Both teams featured a lot of sophomores ((the “Super Sophs” in 1968). In fact, the 1966 recruiting class produced 5 of the first 29 players drafted in 1971 (26 picks per round).
LikeLike
So why did the ’68 Buckeyes wear black numbers on their shoulders some of the time?
LikeLike
http://blog.heritagesportsart.com/2010/08/ohio-state-university-buckeyes-football.html
In 1968 the black numbers were on their upper sleeves. OSU came out with new uniforms and helmets in 1968 (the same helmet we use today basically). I don’t know why.
LikeLike
Dish Network announces Sling TV for $20 a month, including ESPN and ESPN2.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2015/01/05/dish-new-sling-tv-streaming-service/21236795/
Sling TV will cost $20 monthly for about a dozen live TV channels, including ABC Family, Cartoon Network, CNN, Disney Channel, ESPN and ESPN 2, the Food Network, HGTV, TBS, TNT, The Travel Channel and Adult Swim.
Also included: Net video from Disney-owned Maker Studios online content network. Customers can also add more channels with a sports extra package (expected to include the other ESPN channels) or Kids Extra package (Disney Junior, Disney XD and others) or a News & Info Extra package (Bloomberg TV, CNN Headline News) for an additional $5 monthly each.
LikeLike
Looking back at the expansion to Maryland/Rutgers, the timing of this is so understated (and why it was so critical to get those 2 in when we did; ditto SEC with Missouri/A&M). It’s so important to lock in these changes with respect to media deals and market penetration given how rapidly media is changing in general.
That’s why the Big Ten’s negotiations with ESPN (and possibly FOX as well on a ESPN/FOX hybrid) will be so important as they begin later this year.
Best to get everything nailed down and then sit tight for the next 10-15 years and see how the world changes.
Just like the BTN shook everything up after 2007, I’m sure we’ll see game changers on that scale in the next 10-15 years…
LikeLike
There may be another SEC state without NFL competition. Rams back to LA. The silver lining for Mizzou and the SEC, yet another state without NFL competition: Ark, Miss, Al, Ky, SC and perhaps MO.
I hope they stay, but it doesn’t look good.
LikeLike
I am sure this will help some, but the KC Chiefs are not moving so MO will still have a NFL team. NFL centric football fans in St. Louis can follow the Chiefs or Chicago Bears like they did before the Rams moved to St. Louis from LA.
LikeLike
Informal polls I’ve seen show that of Missourians who are Chiefs or Rams fans, something like 75% are Chiefs fans and 25% are Rams fans. Conversely, it’s 75/25 Cardinals over the Royals. The Chiefs had a great run in the 90’s before the Rams arrived, and while the Cardinals have also been around longer than the Royals, they’ve also had far more success.
And just a couple weeks ago, I was flying home to Kansas City, the Delta flight crew welcomed us to Kansas. For the record, Arrowhead, Kauffman, Sprint Center and the airport are on the MO side, the NASCAR track and the MLS stadium are on the KS side.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12128942/college-football-playoff-assist-families-travel-costs
Thanks to an NCAA waiver, the CFP will help pay for the families of players to travel to the NCG.
The CFP is able to provide up to $3,000 in travel expenses for families of each competing student-athlete, according to the NCAA, but the playoff announced its reimbursement will be capped at $1,250 per parent or guardian.
The NCAA’s waiver was announced in conjunction with a pilot program it is using this spring to help cover expenses for players’ families traveling to the men’s and women’s Final Fours.
You can hardly claim it’s a violation when the team have to earn it and a neutral party is paying the same amount no matter which teams are coming.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/01/jalin_marshalls_rapping_and_mi.html
An argument for staying at 4 teams versus expanding to 8.
LikeLike
Tangent. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told cleveland.com while in New Orleans, before the win over Alabama, what he would have thought if the Buckeyes had been left out of the playoffs by the selection committee for Baylor or TCU.
“If we were out I would have been upset. Because I looked at our team from an eye point of view,” Smith said. “I liked the mix of the committee.”
So he liked that it was stacked in favor of the Big 10?
” However, when you get to four and five and six, you’re also going to be picking through teams with at least one major flaw”
Sure 4,5,6 had flaws. So did 1,2,3. What we saw was that #1 and #3 had serious flaws and its not certain #3 was top 8, let alone top 4.
LikeLike
bullet,
“So he liked that it was stacked in favor of the Big 10?”
Only B12 fans seem to think that.
ACC – Radakovic
B10 – Alvarez, Osborne
B12 – Luck, Osborne (secondary allegiance)
P12 – Haden, Jernstedt (played at OR), Rice, WIllingham
SEC – Long (chair), Manning*
Other – Gould (USAF), Jernstedt (NCAA), Rice (USA), Tranghese (BE), Wieberg (USA Today), Willingham (ND)
* – sat out this year
So 2 members out of 12 active ones counts as stacking? Is that Texas math or something? Only the ACC had just 1 representative. I know you’ll dismiss Osborne, but he’s as familiar with the B12 teams as anyone. He might favor the B10 over the B12, but he isn’t going to favor anyone else over them.
I could see the ACC being upset. I could see people thinking the P12 had too many people. Still, there are 13 members and at most 4 have ties to 1 conference (and it’s not the B10).
I also think the term “stacked” is leading since it implies that the committee was biased. I fail to see any evidence of that, so it sounds like sour grapes to me.
“Sure 4,5,6 had flaws. So did 1,2,3. What we saw was that #1 and #3 had serious flaws and its not certain #3 was top 8, let alone top 4.”
#1 got their flaws exploited enough to lose while #2 and #4 didn’t. #3 got turnoveritis and then just quit. While I fully agree that #3 didn’t really deserve their ranking, I can’t favor leaving out any undefeated team no matter how weak they may seem.
All teams have flaws. They tend to get more glaring as you go down the rankings was his point, I think. Do you disagree?
LikeLike
I don’t think the playoff committee will ever be bold enough to leave out an undefeated team (or even consider it), despite the fact that it was probably warranted this time. Yeah they had them ranked #4 in the second to last week, but that’s a world of difference from having them ranked #5. Their spot was as secure as Oregon’s, even then.
Most people probably had Florida State as the 5th-6th best team by the eye test (given that they were basically down 2-3 TDs at some point to everyone that they played, including some very mediocre teams).
Vegas had them as an underdog to like the entire top 8 on a neutral field…
Not that Vegas or the eye test is always right, but it always felt like Florida State is the perfect example of a team that was lucky rather than good. They reminded me a lot of that 2012 Notre Dame team…
All of that being said, I don’t think an undefeated power 5 school will ever be left out…, still I think we’re actually at a point where I can feel pretty confident that a worthy national champion is always going to be among the 4 teams selected, and that this 4 team configuration generally removes most doubt.
If you can win 2 games against the top 4 at the end of the season, you deserve it.
LikeLike
I don’t think the university presidents, faculties and trustees will permit an eight team playoff. In fact, once the current contracts run out they might revert to the BCS.
The reason is the length of the season and the negative impacts it has on student-athletes. When its over, Oregon and Ohio State will have played 15 games, and the season will have lasted 5 months. An eight team playoff would increase that to 16 games and more than five months.
This has serious consequences for the players. The possibility of major injury increases both because of the number of games and the increased quality of the opposition. Also, Candale Jones’ tweet not withstanding, the length of the season and the number of practices does impair the athletes’ educations, which is why the students are at the schools in the first place. In the latter regard, basketball is more of a problem than football.
Since WW II, conferences have become much larger and regular seasons and post seasons have expanded mostly because of the need to increase athletic department revenues. Despite these enlargements, almost all schools at all levels lose money on their athletic programs. A majority of P5 schools actually lose money on football. Schools are willing to incur these loses because they think (1) athletics bonds students to the institution and maintains the bonds of the alumni, (2) athletics is good advertising for schools and enhances their prestige (if successful). But one wonders if the P5 model is the only one. Certainly, the Ivies have a workable model.
Likely future changes to college athletics, including revenue sharing with athletes, stipends to all athletes (not just revevue producers), long-term liability for athlete health problems and benefits to athlete families (a la Urban Meyer) will substantially increase costs. At what point do schools, even P5 schools, decide to deemphasize sports?
The primary mission of universities and colleges is to educate students. Athletics is decidedly secondary. Although sports journalists and fans deride the term “student-athlete,” school administrators, trustees and faculty take it deadly seriously. They will not tolerate any system in which athletes are not students. At every school in the country, there is a significant number of administrators and faculty who are opposed to the present system of athletics and who want to substantially deemphasize athletics. They may be few an quiet at Ohio State (where I taught for 35 years), but they are numerous and vocal at Rutgers. They are part of the reason for Michigan’s and Purdue’s problems.
If there are to be major changes in college athletics, they will likely be in the direction of less, not more.
LikeLike
Division II and Division III have 24 team playoffs. Division I has expanded from 10 to 11 to 12 games. I don’t see any pattern of presidents reducing the number of games. The pattern is the opposite.
LikeLike
A lot of faculty don’t like athletics, but they are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Nobody said the athletes shouldn’t be students, just that football should be considered an on campus job.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer was on Dan Patrick, he said no way on an 8-team playoff unless scholarships increase to I believe 110. Don’t quote me on that, but in and around this number is the only way.
I’d add that you decrease to 11 official games and maybe consider 1 exhibition game like they do in college soccer. I think college hockey has exhibition games and were seeing closed scrimmage games between teams in college basketball as well.
Ultimately I’m for an 8 team playoff.
LikeLike
Here’s an argument for dropping 1 regular season game to enable a move to 8 teams:
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/8-team-playoff-4-team-playoff-college-football-can-make-both-camps-happy-with-a-simple-scheduling-fix.html
The problem I have with it is that home games are vital to schools. They are a tool for keeping alumni connected to the school and driving donations. They also bring a lot of money into the AD and the community. Would the money be so big that many schools will agree to give up that home game (or the paycheck from playing on the road) in order to let 4 more teams have a shot at a title?
LikeLike
Again, the other divisions have 24-32 team playoffs. They play up to the 3rd weekend in December. And they don’t have as many “professionals.”
LikeLike
bullet,
“Again, the other divisions have 24-32 team playoffs. They play up to the 3rd weekend in December.”
So what? The lower divisions are almost completely irrelevant to what should happen in I-A. The lower divisions had a shorter season for a long time, their players are slower and often smaller and they are almost invisible to fans and TV so that money and travel issues are completely different.
“And they don’t have as many “professionals.””
Exactly. So they don’t get hit as hard because people are moving slower and often smaller.
LikeLike
UM is fos. 1 extra game for 4 teams requires 25 more scholarships? He just wants to stockpile players so he doesn’t ever lose to Illinois or Purdue. And with 4 he has more excuses for not making the playoffs and keeping his job.
Schools don’t need 85 scholarships. They usually redshirt 10-15 players and have a number who never see the field. Coaches may like more to avoid having their team weaker because of injuries or their bad recruiting decisions, but there is no need for more. The student-athletes don’t benefit because those extra 25 would be playing for an FCS school instead of sitting at an FBS.
LikeLike
bullet,
“UM is fos.”
So are you. At least he has I-A coaching experience. What’s your basis for knowing how many players are needed?
“1 extra game for 4 teams requires 25 more scholarships?”
If that’s the number he said. gfunk wasn’t sure.
“He just wants to stockpile players so he doesn’t ever lose to Illinois or Purdue.”
Yes, that’s his main concern – losing to IL and PU. He’s 25-1 in the B10 with the only loss in the CCG last year.
IL + PU B10 wins:
2014 – 4
2013 – 1
2012 – 3
2011 – 6
2010 – 6
2009 – 6
Total – 26
It took 6 seasons for IL and PU combined to win as many B10 games as Meyer has in 3 seasons.
“And with 4 he has more excuses for not making the playoffs and keeping his job.”
I’m sure that’s his primary concern right now.
“Schools don’t need 85 scholarships.”
According to you.
“They usually redshirt 10-15 players and have a number who never see the field.”
Many redshirt due to injury. Many lose their redshirt because people ahead of them get injured. Unlike the pros, colleges can’t find a free agent to plug a hole in the roster if multiple injuries happen at 1 position. They have to have the players on hand in advance. And it’s common to not have enough healthy players to fill the 70 man travel roster late in the season. Have you seen how many players have been getting injured this bowl season? AL had to scrape the bottom of the barrel at LB against OSU due to injuries. OSU was playing it’s 3rd QB.
25 starters + 25 2nd string + 22 3rd string (no 3rd string specialists) = 72
That leaves 13 others for things like extra DBs for playing nickel/dime, extra WRs for spread packages, ST players and injuries. When a string of injuries hits one position, teams run out of players. And unlike the pros, these growing bodies aren’t all hardened to the abuse.
“Coaches may like more to avoid having their team weaker because of injuries or their bad recruiting decisions, but there is no need for more.”
Technically there’s no need for any.
“The student-athletes don’t benefit because those extra 25 would be playing for an FCS school instead of sitting at an FBS.”
They get better coaching and education at a I-A school (except the Ivies) and can choose to transfer if they’d rather play more. If you aren’t going pro, getting the better education seems valuable to me.
LikeLike
All you have to do is have a brain Brian to see that many players never see the field. Thus, the teams don’t “need” extra players.
Most major teams have 20-30 walk-ons. Everyone has been doing fine with 85. The reserves may not be as good, but they have plenty of people to play. He doesn’t want to lose a game because he made a mistake recruiting a player or because he has an injury and has to play a lesser player. But its not because he “needs” them. He just “wants” them.
Pros got by with 40 player rosters and a 7 man taxi squad for years. Division I had a 60 player traveling squad for years. I believe Division II still has that.
LikeLike
I looked up the Texas Media guide. 50 players were listed with extensive playing time. 5 were injured and didn’t play or played only a couple of games. 15 had very limited playing time. 6 had no playing time this season. 43 other players weren’t even listed so presumably had never seen playing time.
LikeLike
bullet,
“All you have to do is have a brain Brian to see that many players never see the field. Thus, the teams don’t “need” extra players.”
1. Many of those players are at developmental positions.
2. A decent number are injured.
3. The problem is knowing where injuries will occur. They need a lot of players because there is no mechanism to replace an injured player on the roster.
“Most major teams have 20-30 walk-ons.”
So? They are scout team players. They often don’t know the current playbook for their own team very well because they always run the other team’s plays.
“Everyone has been doing fine with 85.”
1. What’s fine?
2. He was asked about going to 8. That’s different than now.
“The reserves may not be as good, but they have plenty of people to play.”
By that theory they should have 0 scholarships and just pluck students from the stands as needed. After all, there are plenty of bodies in the student section. Apparently extensive practice time and quality reps don’t matter.
“He doesn’t want to lose a game because he made a mistake recruiting a player or because he has an injury and has to play a lesser player.”
Every team would have the same number, so how would he gain an advantage from this? Both teams get the same benefits.
Did you even consider the possibility that he sees how many injured players he has right now and thinks schools should have more players if they’re going to be asked to play more games against elite teams in close temporal proximity?
“Pros got by with 40 player rosters and a 7 man taxi squad for years.”
1. They were pros, not still developing students.
2. They didn’t have outside obligations like college courses.
3. Many of those guys were crippled by the game and/or died prematurely. Meyer presumably wants to avoid that.
“Division I had a 60 player traveling squad for years. I believe Division II still has that.”
We all know players are bigger and faster now than ever. Every collision is more violent. What used to be true is irrelevant. What smaller divisions do is irrelevant. He was talking about I-A in the future if the playoff expanded.
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2015/01/08/0108-meyer-playoff.html
This is what Meyer said:
Meyer would not stay quiet if there’s a proposal of going to eight teams.
“I’m going to be very outspoken about that,” he said. “If there’s any more conversation about adding games, there better be coaches on that (committee) and student-athletes.”
If a change to eight teams is made, Meyer said, “You better give us 110 scholarships then. I can’t speak for Oregon. I can speak for Ohio State. When they (went to) 85 scholarships, there were 12 games. Now there are 15, and the last three games they’ve added are heavyweight prize fights. You just can’t do it.”
LikeLike
I’ve a lot of respect for Urban Meyer: he’s a successful professional in the field, and we’re not.
But it has to be noted that the length of the season has expanded steadily, from 9 games in the 1960s, to 10, then to 11. They allowed pre-season “kickoff games” for selected teams, then just said everyone could play 12.
They allowed the Hawaii rule (permitting teams who travel there to play an extra game). They allowed CCGs, and they expanded conferences so that more leagues would play them. They vastly expanded the bowl lineup, giving many more teams the chance to play in the post-season.
For years, they trotted out the same old reasons why a play-off allegedly would be bad for the sport. And then suddenly, with no change to the underlying facts, they decided it was ok, and two teams will play an additional game.
Most of these changes (except the earliest ones) took place within the 85-man scholarship limit. If all of this was possible with 85, it is hard to see how one more round makes 110 a necessity.
LikeLike
They said they couldn’t do a playoff, but suddenly they could go from 11 to 12 games. It was very hypocritical.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But it has to be noted that the length of the season has expanded steadily, from 9 games in the 1960s, to 10, then to 11. They allowed pre-season “kickoff games” for selected teams, then just said everyone could play 12.
They allowed the Hawaii rule (permitting teams who travel there to play an extra game). They allowed CCGs, and they expanded conferences so that more leagues would play them. They vastly expanded the bowl lineup, giving many more teams the chance to play in the post-season.
For years, they trotted out the same old reasons why a play-off allegedly would be bad for the sport. And then suddenly, with no change to the underlying facts, they decided it was ok, and two teams will play an additional game.
Most of these changes (except the earliest ones) took place within the 85-man scholarship limit.
If all of this was possible with 85, it is hard to see how one more round makes 110 a necessity.”
And much more attention is being paid to athlete welfare now than before. They didn’t used to limit the amount of full contact practice either, but now we know better. If more players need to sit out to protect their heads and other injuries people used to play through, doesn’t it stand to reason that they need to be replaced?
Besides, many of those changes were pre-Meyer as a HC and I think most coaches have felt they needed more players as the season has stretched. Just because the NCAA hasn’t said so doesn’t mean Meyer is coming out of left field on this. I doubt he thinks 85 is enough now.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They said they couldn’t do a playoff, but suddenly they could go from 11 to 12 games. It was very hypocritical.”
No, it was 2 very different things. The 12th game fit in the existing football calendar and let them eliminate the kickoff classics. The playoff extends the season and only benefits a few teams while presenting multiple logistical challenges.
Sure, they’ve continually sold out over time by caving in to fan and TV demands for more football. But there was more to the playoff vs 12 games debate than just hypocrisy back then.
LikeLike
The kickoff classics were for 4 to 8 schools, not 128. They added quite a few games.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The kickoff classics were for 4 to 8 schools, not 128. They added quite a few games.”
Yes, I know. They wanted to eliminate the benefit that handful of teams got from an extra game. The NCAA generally prefers everyone to get something rather than a select few.
LikeLike
“The kickoff classics were for 4 to 8 schools, not 128. They added quite a few games.”
Yes, I know. They wanted to eliminate the benefit that handful of teams got from an extra game. The NCAA generally prefers everyone to get something rather than a select few.
This is true, and the way it ought to be. But if they had the concerns you are attributing to them, the logical decision would’ve been to eliminate the benefit that eight teams were getting, rather than adding it for an extra 120.
Here is a Washington Post article after the 12th game was approved. A few interesting nuggets:
— The ACC voted unanimously against the proposal.
— The American Football Coaches Association also opposed it.
— After it passed, the coaches lobbied to increase the scholarship limit to 90. This proposal never gained traction.
— The inconsistency of allowing a 12th game, but saying that a playoff was infeasible, was recognized at the time.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But if they had the concerns you are attributing to them, the logical decision would’ve been to eliminate the benefit that eight teams were getting, rather than adding it for an extra 120.”
It was a tradeoff between various concerns. They do have player safety concerns, but they aren’t their only concern. They recognized that the members had financial concerns and the 12th game was a potential fix for that. They’d already said it was OK for some teams, and then in certain years (double bye years), so they didn’t have a great excuse to not do it.
The playoff adds other issues (logistics, timing, etc) which is why I don’t consider it pure hypocrisy.
“— The American Football Coaches Association also opposed it.
— After it passed, the coaches lobbied to increase the scholarship limit to 90. This proposal never gained traction.”
Because coaches really do worry about their players.
“— The inconsistency of allowing a 12th game, but saying that a playoff was infeasible, was recognized at the time.”
If it was only about the number of games, yes. But it isn’t.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the playoff every expands past 4. College football has always been about exclusion instead of inclusion with the big boys wanting to keep all the money. If the playoff goes to eight it won’t just be the power conference champions with 3 wild cards from those same conferences, but they will probably have to include a minor conference champ pretty regularly or there will likely be lawsuits. However with 4, a major conference champion is always out. It would be tough to win a lawsuit for a lower 5 conference if a power 5 conference doesn’t make it every year.
Eventually I think there will more consolidation between the power 5 conferences down to 4 conferences when the GORs are up in about a decade. At that point there will be no need to open up the playoffs and those 4 conferences can just keep all the money to themselves.
LikeLike
It is hard to believe that the fear of lawsuits would prevent expansion to eight. For years, the BCS took 10 teams, and the mid-majors weren’t guaranteed a spot. They could get a spot (and a number of them did), but it wasn’t assured. They never sued.
In fact, the BCS was better for the mid-majors than any pre-BCS system, because at least there were concrete criteria for them to get into a major bowl; before the BCS, it was almost impossible. The current playoff is even better for them: the best mid-major team automatically gets into one of the top six bowls, guaranteed. With a good enough season (and enough losses by the big boys), they could even be one of the playoff four.
Eventually I think there will more consolidation between the power 5 conferences down to 4 conferences when the GORs are up in about a decade. At that point there will be no need to open up the playoffs and those 4 conferences can just keep all the money to themselves.
You’ve contradicted yourself. If you assume 4 power conferences, each with autobids to the playoff, it would mean that independents and mid-majors would be categorically frozen out. No matter how good a season they had, they couldn’t get in. That arrangement probably would lead to lawsuits, which is why they will never do it. It’s far better for the power conferences to give the mid-majors a way in, even though in practice it would be awfully difficult for that to happen.
LikeLike
“It is hard to believe that the fear of lawsuits would prevent expansion to eight. For years, the BCS took 10 teams, and the mid-majors weren’t guaranteed a spot. They could get a spot (and a number of them did), but it wasn’t assured. They never sued.
In fact, the BCS was better for the mid-majors than any pre-BCS system, because at least there were concrete criteria for them to get into a major bowl; before the BCS, it was almost impossible.”
It was also almost impossible in the first iteration of the BCS … there were two revisions of the system, with each revision making access easier for then “non-AQ FBS” conferences. So it could well be that they didn’t HAVE to sue since at each stage in the process they won the concession they were insisting on at the time.
“The current playoff is even better for them: the best mid-major team automatically gets into one of the top six bowls, guaranteed. With a good enough season (and enough losses by the big boys), they could even be one of the playoff four.”
Yes, this is the third successive time that the access of the now-Group-of-Five has improved since the beginning of the BCS era. Which suggests that they will push for an even better deal the next time that the system is modified.
LikeLike
What the mid-majors have pushed for, and received, is financial consideration. As the money pool has grown, so has their share of it. I would expect that trend to continue. They aren’t agitating for an unearned playoff bid.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12129299/michigan-wolverines-hire-florida-dj-durkin-dc
MI has hired a new DC but they’re keeping Mattison and his #10 assistant coaching salary ($888k) as a position coach, apparently.
LikeLike
Since Mattison is under contract, they’d have to pay him whether he coached or not. So he might as well coach.
The rumor has been that they’ll give him some kind of window-dressing title, such as “associate head coach,” to make it seem like less of a demotion than it is. This is not yet confirmed.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Since Mattison is under contract, they’d have to pay him whether he coached or not.”
It depends on the wording. Many coaching contracts say if you get a new job, the pay from that job reduces what the school owes you by an equal amount. I have no idea whether he had that clause or not.
“So he might as well coach.”
Or he might do a less than optimal job because he’s angry or not a good fit. It’s not like MI couldn’t afford to pay him off.
LikeLike
Mattison probably has a “duty to mitigate” clause in his contract, since Brady Hoke has one. In practice, most schools give pretty wide leeway in such cases, since no one wants the PR disaster of actually litigating it.
Or he might do a less than optimal job because he’s angry or not a good fit. It’s not like MI couldn’t afford to pay him off.
I think it’s a fair assumption that they confirmed he really wants to do this. Mattison loves Michigan and has a good relationship with the Harbaugh family: he coached for Jim’s brother John at Baltimore, and left on good terms to take the Michigan job.
LikeLike
Let’s rerank the available expansion candidates for the Big Ten.
Who are the best (and realistic) choices and why?
LikeLike
I still think the best five candidates (in order) are:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
4. Missouri
5. Kansas
LikeLike
UVA and UNC.
LikeLike
I’d slot those in at 3 & 4 in metatron’s list.
LikeLike
Given that the Big Ten has moved East for 13-14, I think Missouri/Kansas are off the table entirely because any expansion is likely to focus on the East unless it’s a pair of Texas/Oklahoma.
Candidates in terms of raw value to the Big Ten (ignoring likelihood of joining)
1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida State
5. UNC
6. UVa
7. Virginia Tech
8. Georgia Tech
But that’s basically just a ranking of the raw value that the schools would bring to the Big Ten; you already know that order based on national brand/local markets/value to main contracts+BTN contract.
More importantly, when you’re discussing Big Ten expansion, you’re discussing pairs, so a better way to compare options is to compare the potential pairs for #15-16:
1. Texas+1 (either ND or Oklahoma; either would be a monster pair)
2. ND+1 (basically one of UVa or Ga Tech or FSU or maybe even Miami…)
3. UNC+UVa
4. FSU+1 (Ga Tech would probably be its pair)
5. UVa+VaTech
Those are basically the only 5 realistic pairings at this point given the Maryland/Rutgers push into the NYC/DC markets. I think the Big Ten is committed to going East now and the only possible pair that would go entirely west is Texas+Oklahoma.
Texas pairings or ND pairings are both extremely unlikely because both of those schools are bigger than an equal sharing conference or have other needs (Texas probably doesn’t want to be far away from its conference mates; ND doesn’t want to be a part of a Midwest grouping).
Most realistic Big Ten expansion pairings:
1. UNC+UVa
2. FSU+Ga Tech
3. UVa+Va Tech
Basically, I think it comes down to those pairs of ACC schools if the Big Ten ever goes to 16. The value of FSU+Ga Tech is interesting, but I’m not sure whether the Big Ten would want to take 2 schools unequivocally #2 in their markets…; then again the SEC just did that in Texas with A&M, and FSU is a national brand even if it’s second in Florida. Georgia Tech adds Atlanta to the map, and even though Ga Tech might not pay for itself in TV coverage, the location advantages of FSU/Ga Tech can’t be ignored…
That said, UVa is the most obvious candidate for #15 with either UNC or Va Tech as #16.
LikeLike
The B1G should focus on some combo of UVA, VT, Duke, and GT.
UVA doesn’t really have a large passionate fan base (in football or basketball) so a move to the Big Ten wouldn’t be an issue like when UMD moved to the Big Ten nor would there be a backlash like a UNC move to the Big Ten. The B1G would also move closer to locking up DC as a Big Ten town with both UMD and UVA, which in my opinion would negate the need for VT since Charlottesville is closer to the football talent rich areas of Richmond, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, etc. On the other hand, Blacksburg is located on the opposite side of Virginia and might as well be in West Virginia. Further, VT football was nothing before Beamer. Once he retires where does the program go? Because of its rural location, I think VT is a much more difficult job than people think. In the end you can take both but I think taking UVA by itself accomplishes the Big Ten’s goals.
Duke would accept a Big Ten invitation in a heartbeat although Coach K would put up a fight. Duke football doesn’t have a following in North Carolina or anywhere for that matter but neither does UNC football. Either way (Duke football or UNC football), you get a presence in North Carolina and Duke is the much easier pull. The risk to taking just Duke is that the SEC would then snatch up UNC and NC State, effectively making North Carolina an SEC state, but again neither has a strong football following as they have long been basketball schools. I suppose that could change with SEC membership, but I think the B1G would have a tough time getting UNC so I don’t think it’s worth worrying about.
I am actually more bullish about GT than most. Yes, UGA dominates the state, but there is something to be said about getting a presence in a state that has become Ohio of the South in terms of producing football players.
LikeLike
Three years ago, Duke going to the Big Ten would have been seen as unlikely, if not impossible. Cutcliffe’s performance has made Duke football relevant again, and school officials might like the idea of becoming perceived as the Northwestern of the B1G East. And coach K is from the Chicago area, so he might not be as dead set against it as some think.
LikeLike
It is unlikely that any schools make a move before the GORs expire. Mike Krzyzewski is 67, and might be retired by then. David Cutcliffe is 60. He also might be retired by then; anyhow, it remains to be seen if he has permanently elevated Duke football, or if they’re just having an unusually good couple of years.
Over time, football programs like Duke tend to revert to their historical average. And let’s not over-state their “resurgence”. They have just one T-25 finish in the last fifty years, and they play a fairly weak schedule. They’d get pummeled in the Big Ten. They would also have the smallest Big Ten stadium, by a considerable margin.
I am fairly doubtful that the Big Ten would offer Duke, thereby ceding the more valuable UNC program to the SEC. As Jim Delany likes to point out, he’s the guy who stood pat at 11 teams for over 20 years. The Big Ten is not going to settle for the state of North Carolina’s second-most desired school. If UNC were coming, and insisted on Duke as part of a package deal, the Big Ten would probably take them. They won’t offer Duke alone.
I would also question whether it’s really true that Duke would accept a Big Ten invite “in a heartbeat”. I don’t think they’d give up their tobacco road rivalries without a lot of soul-searching.
LikeLike
@mark shepherd
Perhaps Duke wouldn’t accept a B1G invite in a heartbeat. However, picture the following scenario:
UVA is headed to the Big Ten (I do not envision any scenario where UVA heads to the SEC). UNC and possibly NC State are looking to move (probably to the SEC). Duke is then looking at staying in an ACC without its chief rivals, moving to the SEC and following UNC, or moving to the B1G. The rivalry with UNC would certainly be a factor, but Duke has very small fan base so the decision would be made by the administration with little push back from fans and alumni. Given these choices, I think the administration takes the B1G invite.
LikeLike
@Tom: The premise of your earlier post was that the Big Ten would take Duke, risking “that the SEC would then snatch up UNC and NC State, effectively making North Carolina an SEC state.” That risk is precisely why the Big Ten wouldn’t do this. As long as UNC remains in play, they’re not going to invite the second-most desirable school in the state.
In the scenario where UNC and NC State have already jumped to the SEC, obviously that changes everything. The SEC isn’t going to take three North Carolina schools, so tobacco road would be split, no matter what Duke did. In that case, of course they’d prefer the Big Ten.
LikeLike
But there’s another, more subjective dimension in which the rise of unbundled cable service may make us worse off. It’s possible for a market to become more economically efficient while becoming less pleasant for consumers. For a prime example, head to your nearest airport.
LikeLike
I mean sure, you pay way less than half of what you did 30 years ago, but think of how unpleasant it is!
LikeLike
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/don-t-believe-the-airfare-spin-cost-to-travel-is.html?page=all
The airline industry’s trade group wants you to believe airfares are plunging. A government data dump last month claimed fares may be 15 percent lower han 20 years ago.
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. The real price of flying has risen sharply since the dawn of deregulation and far outpaces the inflation rate of the last 40 years.
…
The “fare” you pay today isn’t an accurate reflection of your true cost of flying. The airline industry doesn’t even care about fares when making financial judgments. Airline executives rely instead on PRASM–passenger revenue per available seat–a statistical measure that more completely represents the total amount you now pay to fly.
In fact, comparing today’s stripped down “fare” to the all-inclusive “fare” of years past is a fool’s errand. Airlines have hived upwards of a dozen items from the basic fare and now charge separately for them. Everything from a comfortable coach seat to an in-flight meal has been “unbundled” and is now sold a la carte. This paradigm shift has lately brought the airlines record profit, but it also masks the genuine cost of flying in 2014 and makes it nearly impossible to do apples-to-apples comparisons.
LikeLike
Flying is vastly cheaper in real $ than before de-regulation. And that is despite oil prices (at least until the last 6 months) 4-5 times higher.
LikeLike
So…you discount anything involved with air travel aside from the cost of boarding a flight with zero luggage/carry-on, need for food/drink, and placed in a cattle squeeze chute? Ignore number of connections (and their locations), etc. regardless of distance and destination?
LikeLike
So you lost a $5 meal you don’t need on most the flights? And luggage doesn’t add that much.
You’ve got more options with direct flights and a lot more flights per hour which more than offsets a slight decrease in legroom.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Flying is vastly cheaper in real $ than before de-regulation. And that is despite oil prices (at least until the last 6 months) 4-5 times higher.”
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Tickets used to all be refundable, included a meal and all luggage, better service, more seat room, etc. The price to get an equivalent product as back then is what we’re talking about.
LikeLike
Airline customers have basically demanded to fly more frequently for as cheaply as possible. They’ve gotten the market they’ve demanded, and now want to complain about it.
Cable unbundling will probably cause similar results. Channels such as HGTV and G4 may not survive, and then everyone will complain.
LikeLike
bullet,
“So you lost a $5 meal you don’t need on most the flights? And luggage doesn’t add that much.”
Click to access ultimate-guide-to-airline-fees_092914.pdf
Delta is on the low end for baggage fees (all one way):
Bag 1 – $25
Bag 2 – $35
Bag 3 – $125
Bag 4-10 – $200
0-50 lbs – $0
51-70 – $100
71-100 – $200
0-61″ (L + W + H) = $0
62-80″ = $200
Those fees add up quickly to a lot of money if you are taking lengthy vacations rather than just doing overnight business trips.
And if all the things we’ve lost are so cheap, why is business class so much more expensive than coach since that’s more comparable to what coach used to be?
“You’ve got more options with direct flights and a lot more flights per hour which more than offsets a slight decrease in legroom.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2014/09/24/airplane-reclining-seat-pitch-width/16105491/
http://www.independenttraveler.com/travel-tips/travelers-ed/the-shrinking-airline-seat
1. The flights available completely depend on where you live. Hub and spoke was a result of deregulation. It’s great for those of us near a hub, but not so much for those far from major airports.
2. Airlines have drastically cut back the number of flights in the past 10 years to get planes more full.
3. There’s been a lot more than a slight decrease in leg room. Seats used to be 19-20″ wide, but now their 17-18″ (meanwhile the average American is 20.6″ wide at the hips) Coach used to have a standard seat pitch of 33-34″ while now it’s 30-31″ and as low as 28″ on discount airlines.
4. More flights have been pushed to the regional carriers which tend to have smaller seats, less room for bags, etc.
5. The load factor on planes is much higher now. Planes used to be 50-60% full but now the average is around 85%. That means a lot less elbow room, especially with tighter seats. Sitting next to an empty seat is the equivalent of having another 4″ of seat width according to experts.
6. Fuller flights and baggage fees have led to fighting for storage space and making the boarding process take much longer.
LikeLike
You’re comparing a lot of changes in the last 5 years to now.
De-regulation led to lots more flights except for isolated airports.
Business class is much nicer than coach ever was.
If cable gets de-bundled, certain networks will cost more individually but you won’t pay for 200 stations you don’t watch and a bunch that almost no one watches will disappear and some will exist solely on the internet, much like some airlines and airports disappeared and the costs decreased since you weren’t paying to subsidize someone flying in a 10% full plane from Macon, Georgia to Knoxville, Tennessee. Or flying in a time when no one wants to fly. I flew on some nearly empty flights in that era. One time on Christmas Day I flew from Houston to Chicago and we were nearly outnumbered by the flight attendants and crew. There were maybe 10 people on a plane that was bigger than a 737.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You’re comparing a lot of changes in the last 5 years to now.”
No, I’m comparing now to 40 years ago. A lot of the changes have happened recently, but that’s irrelevant to the comparison that was made.
“De-regulation led to lots more flights except for isolated airports.”
As I said, it all depended on where you lived.
“Business class is much nicer than coach ever was.”
Not really. You just forget what coach was like in the 70s and before. Obviously some things have improved due to it being 2015 not 1975, but I was talking the basics like fees, seat room, service, etc.
“If cable gets de-bundled,”
Which is completely different from deregulation, by the way.
“certain networks will cost more individually but you won’t pay for 200 stations you don’t watch”
Yes. How much more? Will I end up paying just as much as now but for a fraction of the channels?
LikeLike
“Yes. How much more? Will I end up paying just as much as now but for a fraction of the channels?”
Possibly more, but without the ability to drop in on an unexpected broadcast while surfing through the channels you “never” watch. Because I “never” use a particular highway (or even street) doesn’t mean I don’t benefit from subsidizing its construction and maintenance.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Possibly more, but without the ability to drop in on an unexpected broadcast while surfing through the channels you “never” watch.”
Oh, I agree with you. I’ve done lots of serendipitous viewing on channels I’d tell people I don’t watch. There’s also the benefit that niche channels bring to people with an interest in that as well as moving niche programming off of more popular channels.
“Because I “never” use a particular highway (or even street) doesn’t mean I don’t benefit from subsidizing its construction and maintenance.”
Exactly. Without those streets, the ones you do use would get busier. Without the minor channels, their top shows would clutter up the channels I do watch.
LikeLike
Don’t forget this from 2014:
In a paper published in 2012 in the American Economic Review, the economists Gregory Crawford and Ali Yurukoglu estimated that, under a mandatory unbundling scheme, channel carriage fees would be slightly more than double. As a result, they found the average customer would end up spending slightly more on cable under an unbundled system, while watching slightly fewer channels.
On the other hand, some people who currently don’t get bundled cable at all would take the opportunity to buy a few channels. Since those new entrants would be better off, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Yurukoglu estimate that unbundling would slightly benefit consumers, raising the value of the typical cable service by 0.2 percent. But they note that’s before accounting for the fact that unbundled packages would cost more to market and deliver than bundled ones.
Another economist, Dmitri Byzalov of Temple University, takes an even more pessimistic view. He finds that unbundling would make consumers modestly worse off, in part because he does not think as many current nonsubscribers would sign up for a few channels as Mr. Crawford and Mr. Yurukoglu do.
I think this part was a helpful explanation:
All of this is counterintuitive. Packaging a product so you’re mostly buying stuff you don’t want seems as if it should be bad for consumers. And I’ve pointed out the advantages of unbundling in other areas of the economy.
I have praised Frontier Airlines’ new fee for carry-on baggage, calling it an unbundling of airfares that “allows travelers to pay for only what they use.” But not everything should be unbundled, particularly things like cable channels, which are not really things you “use.”
Think of it this way: If I put my bag in an overhead luggage bin, you can’t put your bag in the same spot, so it makes sense to charge me personally for my use. But if I watch Bravo, that doesn’t stop anyone else from watching the same show. When a good is “nonrivalrous” like a cable signal, giving it to me doesn’t stop anyone else from using it or add production costs at the margin. In those cases, it can make sense to throw lots of stuff into one package, whether or not I’ll actually use it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12132952/ohio-state-buckeyes-allowed-more-practice-oregon-ducks-college-football-playoff-national-championship
A problem that the NCAA may have to fix: the 20-hour limit per week only applies when the school is in session. Because of that and different school calendars, the limit applies to OR but not OSU this week. Meyer has said he’s worried about the wear and tear on players so I don’t think he’ll abuse this advantage (maybe a little extra film study time, but they took today off from practice for example). If you expand the playoff deeper into January, more imbalances can crop up.
The NCAA’s 20-hour limit is usually not a concern during bowls because both teams are not in school.
Practices, weightlifting and any film sessions or meetings required by coaches count toward the 20-hour limit. The game also counts as three hours, no matter how long it lasts.
LikeLike
Yesterday:
Jameis Winston’s dad said he’ll decide after the NCG about going pro.
Today:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12132479/attorneys-jameis-winston-sexual-assault-accuser-file-civil-suit-florida-state-university
Attorneys for the woman who accused Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston of sexually assaulting her in December 2012 filed a civil suit Wednesday against the university, alleging it didn’t properly protect her Title IX rights.
Attorneys for the woman, a former FSU student, filed the civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando on Wednesday morning, according to John Clune, one of her attorneys.
In the lawsuit, the woman’s attorneys demand a trial by jury and damages from FSU for fostering a “hostile educational environment.” Her attorneys allege that FSU’s athletic department deliberately concealed the reported rape from the rest of the university and didn’t properly investigate the allegations as required by federal Title IX laws.
and
http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2015/story/_/id/12131473/jameis-winston-florida-state-seminoles-nfl-draft-father-says
Jameis says he’s going pro.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12132615/bowl-ratings-attendance-first-year-college-football-playoff-era
Ratings are up but attendance is down for the bowls this year.
The semifinals drew more viewers than any of the four BCS championship games broadcast by ESPN, which will air Monday’s title game between Ohio State and Oregon.
“That was a pleasant surprise,” said Burke Magnus, ESPN’s senior vice president of programming and acquisitions. “We’re cautiously optimistic about Monday, but obviously the new format has resonated with fans.”
ESPN spokeswoman Keri Potts said ESPN’s bowl telecasts through New Year’s Day drew an average rating of 3.4, whereas its average rating through all its bowl telecasts other than the championship last season was 3.2. Ratings represent the percentage of homes with televisions tuned to a program.
While ratings are slightly up across the board for bowl games, attendance has dipped.
The 38 bowl games this season have drawn an average announced attendance of 43,285, down 9.2 percent from the average of 47,659 for the 34 bowls last season that led up to the BCS National Championship.
Those figures are skewed by the fact that all four new bowls that had their inaugural games this season drew fewer than 30,000 fans. But even if you throw those four games out of the mix, the average attendance for the remaining 34 bowls is 45,904, down 3.7 percent from last season.
Wright Waters, the executive director for the Football Bowl Association, notes that the attendance drops reflect regular-season trends. A CBSSports.com study showed that the average regular-season attendance for home games this year was 43,483, down 4 percent from last season and the lowest figure since 2000.
“It’s not just a bowl problem,” Waters said. “It’s a college football problem that we’ve got to deal with.”
As for the Peach:
That new format led to plenty of change. For instance, the Peach Bowl was formerly known as the Chick-fil-A Bowl and traditionally pitted an SEC school against an ACC program in a prime-time game. This year, the playoff committee arranged a matchup that had a 12:30 p.m. ET kickoff.
TCU trounced Ole Miss 42-3 in front of an announced attendance of 65,706, ending the bowl’s string of 17 consecutive sellouts.
“Obviously it was a 12:30 game where in the past we were in prime time,” Peach Bowl CEO and president Gary Stokan said. “We’re going to study everything. I don’t know if that had anything to do with it. We’re studying everything because everything has changed for us. … But how do you complain with [65,706]?”
My numbers show the Peach used to average 72,538 just to provide some context. Being at 12:30 instead of in prime time cost them attendance as well as viewers. Unfortunately for them, they’ll get the same time slot next year since the Orange and Cotton host semis on 12/31 and the Fiesta moves to 1/1. In 2016 they should get the best slot as a semifinal. Maybe in the next 3 years other 12/31 bowls will feel the pain.
Waters suggested that some bowls should try attracting more local fans who aren’t affiliated with the two schools playing in the game each year. He cited the Sugar, Peach and Rose as three bowl games with exceptional community support.
“We’ve probably gotten comfortable with crowds coming from schools,” Waters said. “Just as schools are having trouble with their attendance, we’re going to have to get more active locally.”
LikeLike
“We’ve probably gotten comfortable with crowds coming from schools,” Waters said. “Just as schools are having trouble with their attendance, we’re going to have to get more active locally.”
Mr. Waters, I hope the planning and strategizing for attendence in non-Semi years avoids the same fate as the Atlanta Hawk’s recent forays into expanded marketing.
LikeLike
LSU and BYU to open the 2017 season in Houston.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=209840043
LikeLike
Congrats to Ohio State and Oregon…
Saying that… we all should note that without this year’s 4 team “play-off”, we likely would still have seen the SEC in the “championship” game. The old BcS formulas almost certainly would have matched up the undefeated defending chump Seminoles, versus the Mighty SEC Chump Alabama.
We would still be hearing the same old, same old… no B1G in title game, the B1G is weak, blah!blah!blah!… Imagine for a minute, if this 4 team “play-off” had been in place instead of the BcS… There may of been years like this, where the supposed mighty would fall. There may have been B1G, Pac 12, or ACC champs instead of the SEC. The BcS system only allowed for 2 to be in the discussion. This “play-off” proves that perception is NOT always reality… Thank God the BcS is Dead!!
1st game of the season next year, my Gophers get to see just how good TCU is for the second time around… I believe the Gophers will be better next year, but what a way to start the year, eh?
Happy New Year to all!
LikeLike
I’d still prefer the old bowl system. It might have looked like this:
Rose – OSU vs OR
Sugar – AL vs TCU
Cotton – Baylor vs MS
Orange – FSU vs MS St
Fiesta – AZ vs MSU
If FSU won, they’d top the polls and there wouldn’t be much argument about who deserved the title. If FSU lost, then the Rose and Sugar winners would fight for the top spot and people would argue for years.
LikeLike
1970 was even better. Texas, Nebraska and Ohio State were all named champion in different polls. That kind of system is the Holy Grail of sports journalism and blogging.
LikeLike
Under this adaptation, it seems as if the Big 12 has just stepped in for the SWC. The Fiesta by the mid-80s was kind of a good out for an Indy vs. Indy NCG.
Boise State would be in the Holiday Bowl against Nebraska or Wisconsin. Georgia Tech would be in the Peach (v. mid-SEC) or the Citrus against anybody.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“Under this adaptation, it seems as if the Big 12 has just stepped in for the SWC.”
Sort of, yes. I had to use the current conferences and stuck with the pre-BCS tie-ins for the NY6 as much as I could. Also, Baylor and TCU were both SWC members so putting the B12 in the SWC spot made sense.
“The Fiesta by the mid-80s was kind of a good out for an Indy vs. Indy NCG.”
But we have no good independents this year, so I figured they would jump on AZ and then bringing a B10 team for a pseudo-Rose seemed better than a MS school.
I also chose to drop the tie-ins through all the smaller bowls and just fill in the big ones. That’s more what it was like back in the day anyway.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/114112/bill-hancock-archie-manning-talk-playoff
Archie Manning and Bill Hancock answered some CFP questions.
There could be fewer weekly rankings in 2015:With a shorter season, there could be a natural window for the selection committee to meet fewer times next fall, meaning fewer rankings would be released. The season will only be 14 weeks instead of 15 because of the way the calendar falls. The selection committee met seven times during the 2014 season.
“With a shorter season, that almost makes it — I don’t want to say a done deal — but with a shorter season, I think it will be pretty easy to lop off one week and we might knock another one off,” Hancock said, adding that the committee hasn’t talked about any changes yet.
…
Playoff not discussing eight-team format (anymore): In spring 2012, playoff officials considered “a whole spectrum of options” for its format, including an eight-team playoff and a 16-team playoff. Hancock said fan travel and conference championships influenced their decision to stay at four.
“There’s a lot of reasons our group isn’t talking about expanding this,” Hancock said, “a lot of reasons they put in four for 12 years. The conference championship games are important to those conferences. That’s one of the things that was an issue with eight when we looked at it.
“We know there is a tipping point beyond which the size of a postseason bracket will begin to erode the regular season,” he said. “The fact is, nobody knows where that tipping point is. We know it’s not four.”
Hancock said the playoff’s management committee also worried about what a larger bracket would do to the regular season and the bowl games, and he said the quarterfinals would have to be played on campus.
Hancock said the discussions about having the semifinals on campus “stayed alive for a long time” because of guaranteed crowds and one fewer week of fan travel. After meeting with the athletic directors, though, the playoff officials were convinced they’d be better off having the semifinals in bowl games.
The athletic directors told playoff officials they couldn’t duplicate the pageantry of the bowls or match that experience, and that their stadiums are usually winterized, their staffs are home and the offices closed for the holidays.
“That turned it from semifinals on campus to having it like we do now in the bowls,” Hancock said, “which was a good decision on our part.”
One true champion: Hancock said he hasn’t spoken with Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby about the league’s method of determining a conference champion, and that it’s not his place to do so.
“That’s not our call, that’s the conference’s call,” Hancock said. “As it turned out, not having a championship game cost them only in the fact that Ohio State got another game against a quality opponent. What’s been lost in some of this championship debate is, the risk-reward nature of championship games.
“If two games had come out differently, the Big 12 would be looking like geniuses for not having a championship game,” he said. “It’s all about risk and reward.”
LikeLike
Good article. Hancock was talking honestly instead of being in his usual spin mode.
LikeLike
Going to 8 is not without logistical issues.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12143651/uab-blazers-president-says-firm-review-data-cutting-football
UAB is hiring a firm to review the financial data in the report they used to justify killing their football program.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/why-is-the-college-football-playoff-championship-game-being-played-on-january-12.html
Is Monday the right day for the NCG?
LikeLike
The writer’s argument is that the game ought to be on Saturday, January 17th, the day before the NFL’s conference title games. ESPN would be able to make the game a full-day event; viewers wouldn’t have to worry about getting to work the next morning after a game that will likely end past midnight.
LikeLike
The college presidents want to end the season as soon as possible.
The thing is, college football isn’t basketball or any other sport. Large numbers of students are involved. Not just players (add in walk-ons, and you’re over 100) but several hundreds more when you add in the band, cheerleaders, student trainers and staff. Plus a big chunk of the student body would want to go watch the game. So the impact on classes is huge.
The title game now already affects the schools on a quarter schedule. Push everything back another week and the schools on a semester schedule are affected to a big extent as well.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/11/ncaa-white-house-president-obama/21595607/
The White House is meeting with CFB officials, potentially to discuss forming a presidential commission for college sports.
A meeting including Obama administration officials, NCAA executives and college athletics directors is scheduled to occur at the White House this week, according to three people with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The people spoke on the condition of the anonymity because the meeting had not previously been publicized. According to those people, the meeting is expected to precede the announcement of a so-called “Coalition to Save College Sports” spearheaded by the 10 conference commissioners in the Football Bowl Subdivision.
The specific agenda for the meeting, as well of the purpose of the coalition, is still being developed, though it is expected to cover a range of topics possibly including discussion about the prospect of a presidential commission to review the state and direction of major-college sports. Several participants are scheduled to discuss plans for the meeting in person this weekend in Dallas prior to Monday’s College Football Playoff championship game.
…
“The NCAA has to buy into this,” he said. “It’s got to, or it’s not going to work. (A commission) will not be able to impose a list of reforms without NCAA concurrence.”
Moran also said that the prospect of granting some type of anti-trust protection to college sports “clearly has to be addressed. I don’t think you can ignore that – in return for some reform. That has to be part of the discussion.”
LikeLike
Title IX needs to be on the table, too.
LikeLike
I can’t see why colleges would want the politicians involved. To me if there is a commission, its going to have to talk about injuries and concussions.
LikeLike
The tradeoff is probably why… antitrust protection and other kinds of favorable laws might be good for the power conferences when players start to be paid…
LikeLike
Sounds like a good topic for your next blog, Frank.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12151783/bob-bowlsby-says-big-12-continue-discuss-how-crowns-conference-champion
Bob Bowlsby talked about the B12 and the CFP:
In order to best position the league for a spot in future playoff games, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said the conference will continue to discuss how it crowns a conference champion, look into the importance of a 13th game and consider requiring a Power 5 conference opponent in nonconference schedules.
…
“The question is a fair question: Do you want to be different from everybody else in two significant ways?” he said. “I’m sure there’s going to be some disagreement in it. Our league, they love the co-champions because most of the time it was, our schools felt like they were chasing Texas and Oklahoma. If they had a chance to tie for the conference championship, they wanted to. Now it’s a little different situation. That’s going to be our ADs’ call. It’s not my call, it’s clearly theirs. We’ll talk about it and come to some closure.”
Despite the Big 12’s playoff snub, Bowlsby praised the overall system and the committee members for what he called “a near-impossible job.” For all of the debate surrounding the Big 12’s conference champion, Bowlsby said the one negative of the playoff was that it decreased the value of all league titles.
“The one downside I do think to the playoff is it has somewhat diminished the focus on conference championships insofar as they may play into who gets to go on and play in the four,” Bowlsby said. “It was not as much about winning a Big 12 title as it was about a representative. You’re playing in the SEC West and it really isn’t about getting into championship game or winning the SEC, it’s about [getting in the top four]. Time will tell if that trend continues. I’d have some sense of loss if that were the case, but I think generally speaking it’s been a tremendous success.”
To help beef up the league’s nonconference schedules, Bowlsby said the Big 12 would discuss the possibility of mandating a Power 5 nonconference opponent like the SEC has done, beginning in 2016.
“The only way we would do that is if our ADs acted to do it,” he said. “It isn’t something I’m going to mandate, but it’s something we’ll talk about for sure, absolutely.”
…
Bowlsby said the Big 12 also needs to find out just how important a 13th game will be to a playoff résumé moving forward. When Ohio State was selected as the No. 4 team, Long made it clear that the Buckeyes’ opportunity to pick up another win against a ranked opponent in a title game was a factor.
“One of the things we really have to do some soul-searching on and ask a few questions around: Is a 13-game portfolio more valuable than a 12-game portfolio?” he said. “There was some indication that the 13th game made a difference in this selection process. That was the first time we heard that. Everybody knew we weren’t going to play a 13th game, so I need to go back and our ADs need to go back and ask questions around that to see how it’s going to be dealt with in the future, because in the case of comparing Ohio State and Wisconsin and Baylor and Kansas State, Baylor was higher-ranked and played a higher-ranked team, and won convincingly and yet fell back. If it was really the 13th game, we need to know that. If we don’t have a championship game and we also don’t find some way to play a 13th game, then we know we’re at a disadvantage.”
While an eight-team playoff would’ve included the Big 12 this year, Bowlsby said it should remain a four-team format.
“I think four is the right number,” he said. “If we delve any deeper, go to six or eight, I think you’re playing games before Christmas and that’s going to really change the postseason and I think probably in some ways diminish the regular season.”
LikeLike
It is crazy to think that the man most responsible for the delay of the college football playoff is poised to reap the benefit and glory of the inaugural playoff… Wow…
LikeLike
This is the greatest irony of them all.
LikeLike
I told someone before the game that if OSU could handle UO’s pace, they would win, because the Buckeyes were more physical.
Even with a mind-boggling 4 turnovers, OSU pretty much shoved the ball down Oregon’s throat at will. In fact, after the first possession, the only time they were stopped on offense was when they turned the ball over.
LikeLike
B1G.
LikeLike
BTW, can anyone recall a more impressive/dominant last-3-games end-of-season run to a CFB national title before?
LikeLike
For that matter, when’s the last time you saw as dominant a 3-game performance vs. that type of competition with such high stakes as Elliott and the OSU O-line had the last 3 games?
LikeLike
You make it kind of difficult since it is the first year of a more than one game playoff.
Of course, there has been a more dominant performance, by an Ohio school. Mt. Union has, on more than one occasion, really rolled through the Division III field.
LikeLike
Nice to see it decided on the field instead of by a bunch of stupid sportswriters or biased coaches. Although it would have been better with 8. TCU might well have been the best team this year, but we won’t know. We just know Ohio St. was clearly the best team in the playoffs.
LikeLike
And I’ll repeat my position that I’d still prefer the old bowl system. It would’ve been hard for OSU to win the title that way (FSU and AL would have to lose as well as OSU beating OR), but I’d still prefer it.
LikeLike
I’ll second that. Why must there be a ‘champion’ every year anyway?
LikeLike
I have never understood people’s fondness for the old bowl system. I cannot think of any other sport that does not provide somehow for deciding a championship on the field of play. This is, after all, one of the main reasons why people play sports. It is natural for the best to want to prove they’re the best by competing against others who are great.
It always seemed like a quaint and outdated idea that if Michigan and Nebraska both had undefeated regular seasons, there was no way for them to settle on the field who was #1, instead of being contractually obligated to separate bowls, where they played lesser opponents.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I have never understood people’s fondness for the old bowl system. I cannot think of any other sport that does not provide somehow for deciding a championship on the field of play.”
For me, it’s because I know there aren’t enough games to accurately determine a champion. If CFB played a best of 7 series rather than single elimination, you’d get different results many times. Remember, I’m also dismissive of the NFL playoffs as a method to determine their best team. I think playoffs focus on who was hot late rather than who was the best over the entire season. I prefer the debate because I think it’s more intellectually honest than the false sense of certainty that a playoff gives.
“This is, after all, one of the main reasons why people play sports.”
Is it? So few people ever get a shot at playing to be #1 that it seems strange to have that as a main motivation. Silly me, I always played for fun.
“It is natural for the best to want to prove they’re the best by competing against others who are great.”
Which you can do in a bowl.
LikeLike
“It is natural for the best to want to prove they’re the best by competing against others who are great.”
Which you can do in a bowl.
Imagine this counter-factual. Suppose we had the old bowl system, and Arizona had upset Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game. You might not know who’s the best team in the nation; but no one would say it’s Arizona, with their two losses and multiple narrow escapes vs. unranked opponents.
Nevertheless, Ohio State would’ve been locked into playing Arizona in the Rose Bowl. The Buckeyes would likely have dispatched the Wildcats with ease, but most of the country would’ve discounted the win. They would have pointed out that the Big Ten is a soft league, and that Ohio State got lucky with its bowl opponent, playing a fluke Pac-12 champ that wasn’t really very good.
People would’ve said that Ohio State would have no chance against a serious opponent—Alabama, for example. The team and its fans would’ve had no real answer to that argument. In fact, even the more sober-minded Buckeye fans might’ve acknowledged that the 2014 OSU team was probably a bit over-rated, given its near misses vs. Penn State and Minnesota, in addition to the Virginia Tech loss.
The Buckeyes would probably have been 3rd or 4th in the final rankings, which just about everyone would have said was eminently fair, maybe even a tad generous.
You would really prefer that to the season you just had?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Imagine this counter-factual. Suppose we had the old bowl system, and Arizona had upset Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game. You might not know who’s the best team in the nation; but no one would say it’s Arizona, with their two losses and multiple narrow escapes vs. unranked opponents.
Nevertheless, Ohio State would’ve been locked into playing Arizona in the Rose Bowl. The Buckeyes would likely have dispatched the Wildcats with ease, but most of the country would’ve discounted the win. They would have pointed out that the Big Ten is a soft league, and that Ohio State got lucky with its bowl opponent, playing a fluke Pac-12 champ that wasn’t really very good.
People would’ve said that Ohio State would have no chance against a serious opponent—Alabama, for example. The team and its fans would’ve had no real answer to that argument. In fact, even the more sober-minded Buckeye fans might’ve acknowledged that the 2014 OSU team was probably a bit over-rated, given its near misses vs. Penn State and Minnesota, in addition to the Virginia Tech loss.
The Buckeyes would probably have been 3rd or 4th in the final rankings, which just about everyone would have said was eminently fair, maybe even a tad generous.
You would really prefer that to the season you just had?”
Yes. I don’t claim to speak for most fans, though. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to win the title. I just don’t find the playoff process as definitive as most but I do find it more harmful to what I love about the regular season than most.
LikeLike
Woot! Woot!
Narrative changed.
Good ol’ fashioned smashmouth football (what a weird way to describe Meyer’s offense) overcame the Nike empire despite 4 turnovers. OSU controlled the LOS and that made up for the TOs. The OL progressed so much this year it’s amazing. Between that and the QB issues, I have to give Meyer a ton of credit. He may be the best HC in CFB today, passing Saban.
OSU completed the sweep of the Heisman finalists for this year, beating Gordon, Cooper and Mariota in consecutive games (first time ever?).
With 246 yards, Ezekiel Elliott moved up to #3 in rushing yards this season (1878) giving the B10 the top 3. And he’s coming back next year unlike Gordon and Coleman.
CFP results:
#1 0-1
#2 1-1
#3 0-1
#4 2-0
This helps further quiet any complaints about OSU getting in over the B12 duo. TCU might have done as well, but it’s hard to say they would’ve topped OSU’s performance.
OSU became only the second team to be ranked #10 or lower in the AP poll in November before winning the AP national title. OSU was #13 in the 11/2 poll. The other team? 1942 OSU was #10 in the 11/9/1942 poll.
LikeLike
It’s clear that TCU should have taken FSU’s spot, but you just won’t see the CFP committee leave out an undefeated team from a Big5 conference no matter how unimpressive they look or how weak the conference/schedule is.
LikeLike
Yes, lots of people thought FSU didn’t deserve that spot and some computer polls did, too.
That said, I’m with the committee on this one. No undefeated team should get left out. I don’t care what conference they’re in or how easy the schedule. The Packers would be the best team in CFB even if they joined the MAC and breezed to a 13-0 record. It’s hard to tell how good a team really is until they play a team about as good.
What the CFP should have been:
1. OR
2. AL
3. OSU
4. TCU
OSU beats AL, but TCU vs OR might be interesting. Would TCU whip OR like OSU did? Would TCU beat this OSU team? We’ll never know. But I think we all agree TCU was on par with the top 4.
LikeLike
There was no way they could leave FSU out, being the only unbeaten.
LikeLike
More on Meyer:
http://www.971thefan.com/content/stories/2015/01/12/postgame-notes.html
· Head coach Urban Meyer is 3-0 in his career in national championship games and 17-5 all-time in neutral site games.
· Meyer is now 40-3 in his career with more than a week to prepare for a game.
· Meyer is now 14-5 in his career against Top 10 teams and 10-3 vs. the Top 5.
He becomes only the second coach to win a national title at 2 different I-A schools (Saban).
He trails only Bryant (5), Leahy and Saban (4 each) in titles. Several others also have 3.
141-26 (0.844) overall, 38-3 (0.927) at OSU, 8-2 in bowls
Maybe the B10 should revote on the CotY Award. It’s silly that they award it after the regular season now that there’s a CCG.
LikeLike
Just think. Had Wisconsin not given up in the 2nd quarter, Baylor might have been in and Ohio St. and TCU, perhaps the two best teams, would have been left out of a 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
Congrats Buckeyes.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12138345/tcu-leads-2015-way-too-early-top-25-rankings
And the ESPN trolls are already at it. Schlabach’s 2015 top 25:
1. TCU
2. OSU
3. Baylor
4. USC
5. OR
6. MSU
7. UCLA
8. UGA
9. Clemson
10. AL
16. WI
25. MN
How strange not to see the SEC in the top 7 and more P12 teams than SEC teams in the top 10. Great to see MN up there. I’m guessing one of MI and PSU will sneak into the top 25 in 2015.
LikeLike
Great win by the Buckeyes. If not the most dominate last 3 games, at least the most dominate in the first 3 starts of a college quarterback. As to the polls, I also saw a SB Nation top ten published before the game that had OSU #1 and TCU #2 for 2015. In the unlikely event that both get to the 2015 NCG and OSU losses to the Little Sisters of the Poor, let me be the first to blame Gordon Gee.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Buckeyes and their fans.
I was surprised when the line came out with Oregon favored by 7.5-ish points. And I wasn’t surprised how many “talking heads” on the radio and such were picking Ohio State.
Ohio State manhandled Oregon. For a team to basically be able to crush another team despite giving up a 4-0 (excluding the final throwaway by Mariota at the end when the game was beyond doubt) turnover margin, just shows how much separated the teams.
That game basically played out like a “worst hits” of Oregon’s struggles in recent big games against physical teams that play power-style football (Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, several games against Stanford, Auburn in the BCS Championship). Yes, they’ve beaten some of those teams in recent years, but Ohio State was that kind of team on steroids.
As far as looking to the future, Ohio State will be loaded and an easy pick to get back to the CFP. TCU will be another team that is extremely likely to challenge for the title. Those 2 will be among the early favorites along with Alabama probably.
The happiest person may be Delany who gets to negotiate what will likely be his final big TV contract with the conference looking like the next decade could be extremely strong due to the coaching moves being made and $ being paid.
LikeLike
I didn’t see them manhandling Oregon. They manhandled Alabama but only won by 7. Yardage last night was pretty close, 538-465. Ohio St. just executed when it counted. Ohio St. was 8-15 on 3rd down and 3-3 on 4th down. Oregon was 2-12 and 0-2. 2nd and 3rd effort by Jones and Elliot probably accounted for the majority of those 11 conversions. Ohio St. scored TDs every time they got in the red zone. Oregon had 1 TD, 2 FGs and a stop on 4 trips to the red zone.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I didn’t see them manhandling Oregon. They manhandled Alabama but only won by 7. Yardage last night was pretty close, 538-465.”
That was with OSU having those 4 TOs which skews the yardage stats.
“Ohio St. just executed when it counted. Ohio St. was 8-15 on 3rd down and 3-3 on 4th down. Oregon was 2-12 and 0-2.”
Yes, 3rd down was the decisive part of the game and OSU won it on both sides of the ball.
“Oregon had 1 TD, 2 FGs and a stop on 4 trips to the red zone.”
OSU was terrible at red zone D all season and had 0 stops on drives that got to 1st and Goal before stopping OR.
LikeLike
How do turnovers skew yardage stats?
LikeLike
They artificially shorten drives and provide the other team with more drives.
Look at OSU’s drives.
1st half:
punt
TD
TD
23 yards and fumble
90 yards and fumble
TD
punt
2nd half:
38 yards and interception
-2 yards and fumble
TD
TD
punt
TD
OR showed very little ability to stop OSU. Without those turnovers, OSU would’ve had more yards. And if OSU had the ball even more, OR would’ve had it less and probably gotten fewer yards. That’s how TOs skew yardage stats.
LikeLike
In this game, most of the turnovers were near the end of long drives, so it wouldn’t have made much difference on yardage.
LikeLike
bullet,
“In this game, most of the turnovers were near the end of long drives, so it wouldn’t have made much difference on yardage.”
As I posted the details above, that’s obviously not factually correct. 23 yards (TO at the 40), 38 yards (TO at the 30) and -2 yards (TO at OSU’s 32) are NOT long drives. I’ll grant you the 90 yard drive to the 9, but that’s still 147 more yards potentially available for OSU.
LikeLike
23 and 30 are decent drives. Its not like they turned it over on their first few plays.
LikeLike
I do understand your point now, however.
LikeLike
Bullet, then you weren’t watching too closely.
The ‘Bama-OSU game was a heavyweight fight with two heavyweights trading punches. Both teams were unbelievably physical and delivered big hits time after time.
In the OU game, I saw OSU running the ball up the gut at will. I saw OSU’s O-line open up holes so big that Elliott wasn’t touched until he was 5-6 feet past the line of scrimmage in run after run up the middle. Then I saw both OSU’s RB and QB run over UO defenders.
I saw UO not being able to run up the gut at will and their blockers not opening big holes. I saw UO’s athletes not running over OSU defenders.
That’s manhandling.
LikeLike
I saw Ohio St. barely getting the 1st down on 3rd and 4th only because of superb efforts by Elliot or Jones while Ohio St. got no holes on key plays.
Alabama must have gotten some yardage late as I remembered the stats being more one-sided, but it was still 537 yards vs. 407. Ohio St. averaged 6.7 yards per rush play and had 78 plays to get their 537 yards. With Oregon, it was 538-465 (47 of that 73 yard advantage in the 4th quarter) and Ohio St. averaged 4.9 yards per rush play and took 84 plays to get that yardage.
Ohio St. dominated both lines vs. Alabama. They did enough to win vs. Oregon.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2015-national-championship/2015/01/48303/the-empire-state-building-goes-scarlet-and-gray-to-honor-ohio
The Rutgers effect? The Empire State Building is lit up to be scarlet and gray tonight.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Excellent point, Brian. I do not believe that the Empire State Bldg has ever been lit up for any sporting event other than scarlet for the Rutgers – Louisville game several years ago. This it precisely the NYC inroad that Delany was hoping to get. He (Delany) could not have written the script any better.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_NCAA_football_bowl_games
Final bowl records:
P12 6-3
SEC 7-5
B10 6-5* (remember, B10 was the underdog in all 11 games)
ACC 4-7 (2-1 vs AAC, 2-6 vs P5)
B12 2-5
SEC E 5-0
B10 E 5-1*
P12S 4-1
P12N 2-2
ACC A 2-3 (1-3 vs P5)
ACC C 2-4 (1-3 vs P5)
SEC W 2-5
B10 W 1-4
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/01/conference_bowl_records_2014-1_1.html
Conference bowl records for ranked teams only:
B10 – 4-1, 0.800*
P12 – 5-2, 0.714
ACC – 2-2 0.500
B12 – 1-2, 0.333
SEC – 2-5, 0.286
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24918360/bowl-records-by-conference
Conference – Expected/Actual/ATS (done by hand by me)
B10 – 0-11 / 6-5 / 7-4*
SEC – 9-3 / 7-5 / 7-5
P12 – 8-1 / 6-3 / 4-5
ACC – 4-8 / 5-7 / 6-6 (he includes ND which won outright and ATS as an underdog)
B12 – 5-2 / 2-5 / 2-5
* Includes winning the National Championship
LikeLike
Best bowl record CUSA 4-1
Also:
Independent 2-1
MWC 3-4
AAC 2-3
MAC 2-3
Sun Belt 1-2
LikeLike
Also, CUSA which will have only Southern Miss from 2005 or earlier and only Rice and Marshall as other “old-timers” had the best ooc of the G5.
After winning only 31% of their games last year and finishing only ahead of the MAC, this year it was:
CUSA 20-26 43.5%
MWC 20-28 41.7%
AAC 10-31 24.4%
MAC 10-34 22.7%
SB 5-32 13.5% (after winning 47% last year)
With Oregon’s loss, the P12 slipped from 1st into 2nd place behind the SEC among the P5:
SEC 41-12 77.4%
P12 29-9 76.3%
B1G 37-19 66.1%
ACC 32-21 60.4%
B12 17-12 58.6%
LikeLike
How important is it to be a “traditional power” in football? Since FSU won Bobby Bowden’s first title in 1993, every national champion has been a school that won it at least once before. On the face of it, there’s pretty good evidence for what we instinctively know, which is that most of the championships go to a handful of “king” programs.
The club of national championship winners wasn’t always so closed. Between 1976 and 1993, eight schools won the AP crown for the first time: Pitt (1976), Georgia (1980), Clemson (1981), Penn State (1982), Miami (1983), BYU (1984), Colorado (1990), FSU (1993).
But five of those eight were arguably flukes. Pitt, Georgia, Clemson, BYU, and Colorado have not come close to winning a second title. We’re not likely again to see a 17-year span in which almost half the champions are first-time winners.
LikeLike
I’d just tweak that to add that Florida won their first NC in 1996 (the most recent entrant to the NC winners circle).
But yeah, outside of the Florida schools (each having won 3 now: FSU ’93/’99/’13 and Florida ’96/’06/’08) being the last ones in as “newer” traditional powers, the gate has been very firmly shut on new entrants.
Oregon’s really the only school that’s had the chance to break through recently, and their most recent window looks closed. Also, if USC returns to what it was, it’ll be harder on them to get in; a part of their most recent surge (true of both Stanford and Oregon) has been USC’s sanctions.
LikeLike
Thanks. I was building on something mentioned in a sportswriter’s twitter feed, and apparently that writer forgot the Gators’ first title, too.
LikeLike
You can go all the way back to BYU’s title in 1984, 30 years, and only 16 schools have finished first in the AP Poll-the 12 kings have all done it (USC,UT,OU,AL,FL,FSU,Miami,tOSU,MI,ND,PSU,NE), along with 3 SEC near kings (LSU,AU,TN) and Colorado.
When you add in Georgia, Washington and Oregon, those 19 dominate the top 3 and top 5 as well over the last 30 years. All of them have been top 3 at least twice and top 5 at least 3 teams. Noone else could claim that prior to TCU getting its 2nd top 3 this year.
LikeLike
The interesting question to me is, where’s the next non-traditional championship come from now with the playoff? Having to beat potentially 2 great teams means that your recruiting/coaching will need to be superb. How many programs really have what it takes right now?
ACC: Clemson is the best answer here given their recent years under Dabo; they look like a program that is peaking right now in terms of recurring top-10 recruiting classes and Dabo’s coaching. Virginia Tech looked like they had a great shot at the end of the 90s, back when Vick was there as well, but Beamer’s teams have faded a bit of late.
Big Ten: Michigan State is the most realistic answer here given mark Dantonio and all the 11-win seasons they’re putting together (back-to-back top 5 AP finishes). I don’t see Wisconsin’s recruiting getting to that level needed to be a real NC threat, but they’re the only potential Big Ten team at the moment.
Big 12: TCU is the most interesting given location and coaching. TCU could be the next Miami or USC (Miami’s a better comparison in terms of being a smaller school that has to deal with stronger branded traditional powers in-state). Baylor and Oklahoma State are the other two that are interesting here. Oklahoma State has a Phil Knight comparable backer in Pickens, whereas Baylor is in Texas although not high up on the pecking order.
Pac-12: Oregon is the obvious answer. They’re really built a unique brand of money+glitz even compared to other moneyed programs. Combine that with good coaching, and you have the recipe. Can they get over the hump though and will they consistently get the recruits needed? Stanford had something going with Harbaugh and the first years after Harbaugh, but their window might be closed. UCLA is one of those schools in the right location but unable to make something of it like the Florida schools did in the 90s.
SEC: Georgia’s the obvious answer here. They’re another one of those schools in a great location with the resources, but they just have never really punched at the level of a national power due to the other teams in their division (Florida/Tennessee) and conference. Texas A&M is another interesting school given their location and recruiting combined with a good coach, but they’re in a division with Alabama, Auburn, and LSU; I don’t see them pushing past those 3 consistently any time soon. The Mississippi schools had a great run this year, but in the long run, that’s an anomaly given their competitors.
Basically, it’s the usual suspects in the case of the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC. The Big 12 is interesting because access to Texas recruits makes it more democratic in the sense that any of those teams with strong roots in Texas can emerge in down years for Texas/Oklahoma.
That brings us to the most important point: these schools aren’t going to get great windows to shoot for the national championship unless the national brands in their conference are down. TCU’s emergence is in large part due to the struggles of Texas and Oklahoma. The same is true of Oregon which along with Stanford has run the Pac-12 with USC mired in sanctions. Wisconsin and Michigan State ran the Big Ten for a few years while Ohio State transitioned to Urban Meyer and Penn State and Michigan have struggled for their reasons. Virginia Tech ran the ACC in the final years of Bowden as Florida State was in transition. Georgia (along with South Carolina) have had some banner years of late with Tennessee and Florida in transition.
It all comes back to the fact that these windows are rarely open when the conferences’ national powers are operating at full steam and generally require the nearby national powers to be down. Michigan State is the closest its been in almost 50 years to the national title the past 2 years, but is the window nearly shut now that Ohio State is operating at full capacity with Michigan and Penn State threatening to surge in the next 2-3 years.
LikeLike
If a playoff berth is going to happen for Michigan State, I think it has to be next year. They lose some key players on offense in addition to Narduzzi, but they return Cook at QB in addition to some key players on defense. They will likely start in the top 10 and the schedule basically comes down to two games: Oregon at home (probably a top 10 team), and at #1 Ohio State.
If they don’t make the playoff next year, it doesn’t mean MSU is going anywhere since Dantonio has built the program by developing underrated talent that Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame have passed on. He has also really improved their recruiting in recent years getting the overall talent level to about a top 25 ranking. Despite being dominated by MSU the past several seasons, Michigan has continued to out recruit MSU so I don’t expect anything to change recruiting wise now that Harbaugh is in the mix. The difference is now Michigan can match up coaching wise. The path to the playoff becomes more difficult after next year once Harbaugh gets going and Penn State continues to move closer to its full scholarship.
LikeLike
Anyone else think ESPN’s coverage was well below their normal standards?
Replays were less frequent. The announcers were better than Musberger, but barely.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you bullet. I like Chris Fowler, but he hasn’t called enough games yet. I’m sure he will be better next year. There were way too many commercials, it made the game move in fits and starts, almost choppy… Since it was the first one, I can give them a pass. I’m sure they will work on this for next year.
LikeLike
Do you think the megacast had an impact on that? Maybe they tried too hard not to step on the toes of other channels?
LikeLike
I watched on the Duce with coaches analyzing, predicting, replaying, predicting, etc. live. It was like getting to sit in on a low pressure post game film session, only while the game was progressing. Didn’t miss the fake drama inducing/creating that most game broadcasters think they need to supply (like a NC wouldn’t be exciting without them).
LikeLike
So they didn’t do replays?
What’s odd is the paper mentioned they had more cameras than ever, even on the end zone pylons. Yet they really made poor use of their resources. It was like watching an FSN broadcast instead of ESPN’s typical coverage.
LikeLike
Maybe the pace of play from the offenses, especially OR’s, was the problem. It’s hard to fit in a replay when they have the ball.
LikeLike
Last night’s win for OSU and yes, the BIG, has me quite curious & cautiously optimistic towards increased parity in CF. Since Neb’s addition, until now, next season esp, the BIG’s bluebloods have not been aligned and built for competition without major residual sanctions and significant coaching issues.
Sure the jury is out on Chryst, Riley, Harbaugh and even Franklin. But what these programs have now is much more stable than the past 5 years. Andersen lost head scratchers, big games mind you & Brett just couldn’t win the Rose Bowl & lost hope in BIG recruits. We know Hoke crumbled. PSU went to hell and back. Meyer took over a program that finally broke through against the SEC under Tressel only to be levied in sanctions & a coaching change. Neb simply never embraced Bo & they also had to adjust to the BIG – not an easy, short term task.
I foresee, esp with a CFP, a resurgent BIG. But I have, metaphorically speaking, Mr. Caution nearby.
I’d really like to see BIG basketball retain most of its blue chip recruits for a change as well. And I hope the NCAA and NBA finally dump the one and done rule – it’s killing CB in terms of quality play.
I applaud OSU’s title – hard not to root for them & the talent and proof was a sure thing which started when I saw them handle MSU in a way Oregon couldn’t – dominate speed and physicality in East Lansing. Oregon did not dominate MSU physically & they certainly didn’t travel to East Lansing during brutal weather, which we all know neutralizes the speed game. Oregon will get Sparty at their place, but it will be warm when they play. I knew OSU would win last night.
LikeLike
The most important thing to me is just that all these coaching hires (especially Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, along with Michigan State continuing to retain Dantonio) signal is that these programs are aiming for the national championship with the money they’re paying and the kind of job you expect from those coaches.
Obviously, Harbaugh and Franklin will need a few years to pack their programs full of their own 4+ star recruits, but it’s the first time in a long time that I’ve felt that way about all of the Eastern Big Ten powers in a long time.
LikeLike
Multiple media outlets are reporting that the NCAA is in talks with Penn State and the state of Pennsylvania to settle the ongoing lawsuit over the validity of the “Sandusky” sanctions (e.g., Philadelphia Enquirer.
Apparently, the NCAA is willing to reinstate the 111 Paterno wins that were previously vacated, and to allow the $60m fine to be spent entirely within the state of Pennsylvania. In return, the plaintiffs would concede that the NCAA had the right to impose the sanctions that it did. Of course, like any settlement offer, it ain’t over till it’s over.
The NCAA would no doubt prefer to avoid a trial, in which many of its embarrassing internal emails would be aired publicly. If the settlement turns out this way, the plaintiffs would be getting pretty much everything they want.
Some PSU trustees don’t like conceding that the NCAA acted properly, but to me that’s academic. Much like SMU’s death penalty, this strikes me as a case destined never to be repeated.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12151205/among-2015-college-football-playoff-favorites
ESPN polled 37 of their CFB experts about who will make the playoff next year:
OSU – 36
TCU 32
USC – 23
AL – 17
AU – 12
Nobody else topped 6 votes. MSU got 1 vote.
LikeLike
Brian – breaking down the vote by conference, it looks like this:
B1G (37): Ohio State 36, Mich State 1
B-12 (36): TCU 32, Baylor 6
SEC (33): Bama 17, Auburn 12, LSU 2, Georgia 1, Ole Miss 1
P-12 (30): USC 23, Oregon 4, Arizona, Ariz State & Stanford 1 each
ACC (8): Clemson 5, Florida State 3
Ind: Notre Dame (1)
They think the ACC will draw the short straw next season, while the SEC and the Pac-12 will have the most depth. I agree.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – breaking down the vote by conference, it looks like this:”
Let me correct a small math error for you:
“B-12 (38): TCU 32, Baylor 6
B1G (37): Ohio State 36, Mich State 1
SEC (33): Bama 17, Auburn 12, LSU 2, Georgia 1, Ole Miss 1
P-12 (30): USC 23, Oregon 4, Arizona, Ariz State & Stanford 1 each
ACC (8): Clemson 5, Florida State 3
Ind: Notre Dame (1)
They think the ACC will draw the short straw next season, while the SEC and the Pac-12 will have the most depth. I agree.”
It seems likely to me as well. I suspect there’ll be a darkhorse or two in the B10, B12 and/or ACC, though.
LikeLike
Here are some odds on the next (2015) CFP champ.
http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/football-futures.jsp
5/1 Ohio State
15/2 TCU
10/1 Bama
14/1 Oregon
16/1 Auburn, Baylor, Florida State, LSU & Mich State
20/1 Notre Dame & USC
25/1 Oklahoma
28/1 Miss State
33/1 Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Stanford, A&M, UCLA & Wisconsin
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/12161351/cca-committee-leaning-recommending-mid-december-early-signing-period-college-football
It looks like we’re headed for a mid-December early signing period. The ACC and B10 wanted it much earlier, more like 8/1, but the SEC wanted post-Thanksgiving so they could have the weather advantage.
LikeLike
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2015/01/college-football-playoff-national-championship/
As Frank tweeted, the NCG crushed the ratings with an 18.5 overnight rating (new ESPN record).
Last night’s National Championship game was a 21% increase over the 2014 BCS National Championship on ESPN (Florida State vs. Auburn, 15.3). Also, the final game of the new College Football Playoff format surpassed the 16.1 overnight rating for the 2011 BCS National Championship (Auburn vs. Oregon) which held the previous best in ESPN history.
The Oregon-Ohio State game rating peaked from 9:30 p.m-9:45 p.m. with a 20.5 metered market rating.
In the primary home markets of the two schools, the telecast delivered a 51.2 in Columbus, the No. 1 overall market, and a 37.6 in Portland, Ore., good for fourth overall. The top 10 metered markets (in addition to those of the competing teams) are the following: Columbus, Dayton (43.8), Cleveland (41.3), Portland, Birmingham (36.1), Cincinnati (26.5), Jacksonville (25.7), Knoxville (25.5), Greenville (24.1) and Atlanta (23.0).
The semis pulled 15.5 and 15.3 overnight, just as a reminder.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12160210/espn-sets-overnight-rating-record-college-football-playoff-national-championship-game
Other notes:
It also was 33.4M viewers.
The network said Tuesday that’s up 31 percent from the almost 25.6 million for Florida State’s win over Auburn last year in the final title game of the BCS era.
The biggest audience for the four championships that had aired on ESPN was 27.3 million for the 2011 matchup between Auburn and Oregon.
The 18.2 rating Monday was the second-highest for a title game, behind the massive 21.7 for the 2006 classic between Texas and Southern Cal in the Rose Bowl.
The two semifinals had already drawn more viewers than any of the four championships on ESPN, making for the largest audiences in cable TV history before Monday’s game.
LikeLike
Advertisers got a bargain. The ad rate was 1/4th that of a Super Bowl, but delivered 1/3 the number of viewers as a Super Bowl.
LikeLike
If you include all the “side-benefits” that Super Bowl commercials get: massive internet views/other media coverage/discussion outside of the Super Bowl given heft of coverage/shaping ads for the future, it’s probably a pretty comparable deal.
You also have to consider the male:female split. I wouldn’t be surprised if the female:male split is much farther from 50-50 for the NC than it is for the SB. And female viewers in that demographic are much more likely to focus on the commercials (or be there for the commercials).
Personally, I really only noticed 3 of the commercials: 1) Disney’s new Avengers trailer which they hyped up on ESPN in the pre-game, 2) that Kate Upton commercial selling some kind of mobile game, and 3) that GreatClips commercial about using your phone to book a reservation.
Regardless I guess, it’s clear that the NC and Semifinals are going to be huge advertising properties going forwards, at least on par with Divisional playoff games.
LikeLike
Incentive for CCG’s to become defacto qtr finals? Conferences would be able to ask more from the bidders (or put it on BTN, P12N, etc and drive carriage/ad rates)
LikeLike
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/video-mark-may-booed-texas-ohio-state-fans.html
Catharsis for OSU fans as the main ESPN troll got booed off the stage in Dallas. For those who wonder why people say ESPN is biased against the B10/OSU, this guy is example #1.
LikeLike
Pretty finicky Ohio St. fans are. Herbstreit and Fowler were the most biased announcing crew (for tOSU) I remember on ESPN since the USC greatest team ever worship service in 2005. I thought Herbstreit was as bad a homer as you get on school’s radio broadcasts. He should be banned from Ohio St. games.
LikeLike
In recent years, wasnt Herbstreit some sort of South supremacist (not the bad kind, mind you). Clearly from the Ohi-yah part of the state. Big booster of the B1G expounding south-east (e.g. Georgia Tech) and keeps a residence in Nashville. Maybe he chucked his objectivity for this special occasion.
LikeLike
Bob Griese called the 1997 Rose Bowl, in which his own son was playing QB for Michigan. It was an obviously emotional moment for him when Michigan won the game, and with it the national championship. I’ll bet some OSU fans found it disgusting, but I thought Griese handled it diplomatically. That’s how I feel about Herbstreit, too. Ohio State dominated the game, and the coverage reflected that.
Fans rooting for the losing team often think think the network announcers are biased, and it’s almost never true. One of the most ridiculous cases I recall was the 1987 ALCS, in which the Minnesota Twins upset the heavily favored Detroit Tigers. Many of the Detroit fans thought that Bob Costas, of all people, was biased. (He called the games on NBC.) It was as if the Detroit fans wanted Costas to be unhappy as they were, which of course he was not going to do.
In the old days, sportscasters called games with a more deadpan style. Curt Gowdy, Jack Buck, Lindsay Nelson, et al, had a pretty even demeanor, practically no matter what happened on the field, unless it was something truly extraordinary. They probably couldn’t get hired today for the high-profile jobs they had decades ago. Chris Fowler (and he is not the only one) gets more excited at a first down than Curt Gowdy would for a game-winning TD in overtime.
Of course, if you favor Oregon, it feels like Fowler is “homering” for Ohio State, when all he’s doing is showing the same excitement he would’ve shown for any team, or any outcome, no matter who won.
LikeLike
I’ll add to that: the entire 2nd quarter Herbstreit kept saying “hold your horses, Oregon’s got an explosive offense and can close this gap very quickly” and he continued to hold to that mantra through the 2nd and 3rd quarters.
I thought they were very complementary to both teams. They emphasized that Oregon’s defense was “bend but not break” and that related to the turnovers, and then by the 4th quarter the game was basically over, and there was nothing else to do but praise Elliott and his 200+ yardage as well as Jones’ well-managed game.
Personally, I thought they did a good job of just blending into the broadcast and not sticking out; I almost tuned them out periodically, which I tend to think is a good thing in a game that’s played at a very high pace as Oregon-Ohio State was…
LikeLike
My specific complaints were Herbstreit’s misreading of 2 of the official reviews and his defense of the flagrant (by college standards) roughing the passers by Ohio St. in the 4th quarter that weren’t called.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point, but I think it was more of an innocent mistake. Re: the misreads, I think both Herbstreit and Fowler were looking at the wrong part of the play on the misreads, which just happened to favor Ohio State in their original reading. I mean for example on the lunge into the endzone; they first checked whether his knees touched the ground and assumed that the TD was good, then on the 3rd or 4th showing of the play, they finally noticed that his elbow had hit the ground, and it clearly had to be overturned.
As far as the roughing the passer thing, I didn’t really know what to make of it; that one (if you’re talking about the Bosa one), I mean it seemed like a bang-bang play on the broadcast. I tend to think they would have defended the referee decision either way. (They were strongly supportive of the referees throughout the game).
I did notice that both Herbstreit and Fowler were very deferential to the referees throughout (and constantly praised the Big 12 crew), and it just happened that many of the calls went Ohio State’s way (lots of penalties on Oregon along with a lot of plays that ended up in Ohio State’s favor). Overall though, I thought that game was well officiated. I don’t think there was systemic bias either way.
LikeLike
bullet,
“My specific complaints were Herbstreit’s misreading of 2 of the official reviews and his defense of the flagrant (by college standards) roughing the passers by Ohio St. in the 4th quarter that weren’t called.”
The officials also disagreed with you about those RtP calls. Maybe they and Herbstreit weren’t wrong?
LikeLike
The officials agreed with me on the replays and confirmed the calls as they were obviously right. Herbstreit and Fowler couldn’t see that.
I was also right on the roughing the passer. They don’t allow you to drive the QB into the ground like that after he has released the ball. Conceivably that could have been a pro penalty as well as it was pretty flagrant. They do it to avoid injuries. And the Ohio St. player managed to knock the QB out for a play. The officials failed badly to protect the QB as they are supposed to do. On the next play with the backup it looked like a late hit as well but that one was closer. The refs were scared to throw their flags on those calls in the 4th.
LikeLike
I don’t think there was any bias either way by the officials. They just held their flags when they should have thrown them late in the 4th on the roughing that knocked Mariotta out (and I think the next play as well).
The announcers were wrong about Big 12 officials early in the game talking about how they were quick to call pass interference. I can’t show you stats, but I saw lots of pass interference not called in the Big 12 this year. It usually had to be really flagrant. Almost like fouls in basketball. I saw more PI on Ohio St. not called than on Oregon (Oregon complained 2 or 3 times), but Oregon was throwing more passes and it was the type of stuff Big 12 refs just don’t call that often. It was pretty consistent with how they normally call things.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I was also right on the roughing the passer.”
Based on what? The refs disagree and they have the only opinion that matters. It’s BS to call out the announcers as biased for agreeing with the refs. They didn’t share your opinion. That isn’t bias.
“They don’t allow you to drive the QB into the ground like that after he has released the ball.”
Apparently they do since it wasn’t flagged.
LikeLike
Bullet,
You lost me. I don’t often agree with Brian or others on here.
Herbie was fine.
Those were not roughing the passer worthy calls. I’ve seen some posters, various boards, claim that Bosa would have been flagged in a heartbeat at the next level. BS, and I mean bold BS. In fact that Bosa play seemed typical and maybe even light compared to numerous near sacks at the next level.
I’d argue Oregon’s o-line got away with some holds.
Herbie has been pretty tough on OSU over the years – he’s had no choice, esp after Fl in 2006. I don’t think OSU got beat as badly as way, way too many claim – LSU game. Couple of bad drops by OSU players in that LSU game and a horrible, forgettable QB under snap – I don’t remember that slow, predictable QB’s name.
LikeLike
gfunk – I obviously must have been watching a different LSU/Ohio State BCS NCG in January of 2008. LSU spotted the Buckeyes 10 points and then rattled 31 unanswered points. At 31-10, the game was over five minutes into the 3rd quarter.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“gfunk – I obviously must have been watching a different LSU/Ohio State BCS NCG in January of 2008. LSU spotted the Buckeyes 10 points and then rattled 31 unanswered points.”
31 straight, but I know what you meant. The teams played even for the first 20 minutes and the last 30 minutes. The last 10 minutes of the second quarter are when LSU got on a roll.
I’d guess he’s referring to OSU dropping a TD pass, missing a FG (blocked) and getting major penalties that ended or extended drives among other mistakes in that stretch as why the game was closer than many say. Those penalties cost OSU points and gave LSU points. OSU had more total yards plus higher ypp and ypc averages. LSU won on 3rd down and by being +2 in TOs.
LikeLike
Everybody always has some holds they get away with. Its a fine line between what is a hold and what isn’t.
In college, you simply can’t drive the QB into the ground when he doesn’t have the ball. I think the refs didn’t want to “influence” the game in a key spot and so didn’t call it or possibly didn’t see it. I’ve seen far less called roughing. The rules are designed to avoid injuries and it was that driving the QB’s shoulder into the ground that knocked him out of the game. I’ve seen players flagged for hitting the QB and knocking him down in that situation even without the way he drove him into the ground.
Its not clear if Brian watched the game and listened to the radio feed or didn’t even see the game and is commenting from the radio.
LikeLike
bullet,
“In college, you simply can’t drive the QB into the ground when he doesn’t have the ball.”
I don’t think he did drive him onto his shoulder. Driving him into the ground usually mean the DL has feet plated on the ground and is using them to generate force to slam the QB down. Bosa dove and grabbed onto him and just hung on. He didn’t generate spiking force at the end. Also, Mariota was falling chest first and chose to turn onto his side. That’s the only reason he landed on his shoulder.
If you want to say it was late, I can at least see how that’s debatable. I don’t see how hanging on is driving him down and I don’t see how Mariota choosing to roll to his side is Bosa’s fault.
“I think the refs didn’t want to “influence” the game in a key spot and so didn’t call it or possibly didn’t see it.”
Some refs do swallow the whistle late, but at this point in the game it seems unlikely to me since OSU was leading. Calling it wouldn’t have decided the game. Since one ref’s whole job is to watch the QB, I doubt it wasn’t seen.
“I’ve seen far less called roughing.”
You’ve also seen worse not get called. All refs are different.
“Its not clear if Brian watched the game and listened to the radio feed or didn’t even see the game and is commenting from the radio.”
On this particular play I saw the TV call as well as heard the radio call.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Pretty finicky Ohio St. fans are. Herbstreit and Fowler were the most biased announcing crew (for tOSU) I remember on ESPN since the USC greatest team ever worship service in 2005.”
I’ll leave that up to the neutral fans to decide. Clearly I can’t be impartial and I also didn’t watch the game on ESPN so I don’t have first hand knowledge.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/01/13/espn-megacast-college-football-playoff-national-championship-film-room
I’d also like to point out that SI’s media critic didn’t seem to witness a biased broadcast. He’s been known to call out announcers for any such problems.
Perhaps the problem was your anti-OSU/pro-OR sentiment?
LikeLike
Well, personally (and I’d imagine most watching), felt they were far more complementary of Ohio State… but that it was a part of the natural flow of the game given how many plays Ohio State’s offense ran compared to Oregon along with how many more punts Oregon ended up being forced into…
I’m not even sure what they’re supposed to say when you have huge stretches like that late 3rd and 4th quarter where Oregon only has the ball for 1-3 plays and then Ohio State takes over for long extended drives.
If praise comes in that context, it’s in the flow of the game. I don’t think it’s fair to rate that as bias because no one would expect commentators to go out of their way to praise a team that’s losing when the results on the field are clearly going the other way.
—————————————————————————-
On Fowler, I agree with the article in that he’s a bit too understated. Maybe it’s just so many years of listening to Musburger, but I do agree that sometimes the “showmanship” is important in a big game and can add to the big game feel. With Musburger, it’s almost impossible to count the times that he had a classic big game line that fit the moment.
That said, I thought he was focused and always on spot. But that’s to be expected. Playing it safe is always a smart idea on a first-of-its-kind type of broadcast like this, and there’s a risk to trying to lay it on too thick with metaphors and the like, but I think he can try to capture the moment like he did at the end.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Well, personally (and I’d imagine most watching), felt they were far more complementary of Ohio State… but that it was a part of the natural flow of the game given how many plays Ohio State’s offense ran compared to Oregon along with how many more punts Oregon ended up being forced into…
I’m not even sure what they’re supposed to say when you have huge stretches like that late 3rd and 4th quarter where Oregon only has the ball for 1-3 plays and then Ohio State takes over for long extended drives.
If praise comes in that context, it’s in the flow of the game. I don’t think it’s fair to rate that as bias because no one would expect commentators to go out of their way to praise a team that’s losing when the results on the field are clearly going the other way.”
That’s my point, it isn’t bias to describe the game accurately. bullet called it the most biased broadcast he’s heard in almost 10 years. Fans of the losing team always thinks the broadcasters are going against them, so I’m wondering if his bias was the problem, not ESPN’s.
“On Fowler, I agree with the article in that he’s a bit too understated.”
I greatly prefer Fowler’s style to Musburger’s. Few things annoy me more than false hype.
LikeLike
I’m not anti-Ohio St.
I’ve stated what drove my comments. When the announcers refuse to see what’s in front of them, that’s bias. They saw what they wanted to see. They had even better camera angles than the viewers and still refused to see it correctly.
LikeLike
If I had to pick a favorite Big 10 team, it would probably be Ohio St.
LikeLike
As I watched a non announcer broadcast I don’t know about perceived bias, but I do know I was wondering where the flag was when Mariota got hit late and intentionally full weight landed on. He came back in, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was/is some shoulder damage. Really unnecessary (and seemed intentional). Not the same thing as seeing (or not) holding, interference, etc.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m not anti-Ohio St.”
Your opinions since OSU made the playoff over the B12 duo have been.
“When the announcers refuse to see what’s in front of them, that’s bias.”
Disagreeing with you isn’t bias. The refs saw the same things and also disagreed with you. Maybe your viewpoint isn’t correct. That’s just as likely as Fowler being pro-OSU.
“They saw what they wanted to see.”
Announcers generally want a close game. How would calls favoring OSU be good for them?
“They had even better camera angles than the viewers and still refused to see it correctly.”
At best they see what we see. They are sitting way up high so they don’t get a great direct view. All they can do then is watch their screens like we do.
“Refused to see it correctly” makes it sound like your views are somehow the definition of correct. When did you get granted the power to determine all calls?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“As I watched a non announcer broadcast I don’t know about perceived bias, but I do know I was wondering where the flag was when Mariota got hit late and intentionally full weight landed on. He came back in, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was/is some shoulder damage. Really unnecessary (and seemed intentional). Not the same thing as seeing (or not) holding, interference, etc.”
The radio guys said it looked bang-bang live but bad in slow motion. They were split on whether it was callable or not, but neither were upset at the non-call. The guy that said he would’ve called it agreed it was borderline.
LikeLike
Brian:
It wasn’t so much the boarderline-ness of the hit (although he was looking at the QB as he released the pass). It was the full weight landing, when he knew the ball was down field, that was unnecessary. There seemed to be intent…
The coaches did the “kinda not sure” like coaches do, rather than criticize officials.
LikeLike
No, I just don’t agree that their resume was better. That isn’t anti-Ohio St.
Clearly the committee saw something in Ohio St.
LikeLike
Well on the replays, all the ref agree and the announcers were clearly wrong. They confirmed the call, not just let it stand.
And I’ve seen enough roughing to passer to understand when it is roughing the passer. I think they just didn’t want to impact the game. Herbstreit’s inability to see the replays correctly and his repeated defense of the hit raises questions about his credibility.
LikeLike
I agree with cc. It was the driving his shoulder into the ground that made it clearly roughing.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It wasn’t so much the boarderline-ness of the hit (although he was looking at the QB as he released the pass). It was the full weight landing, when he knew the ball was down field, that was unnecessary. There seemed to be intent…”
His balance was committed to the tackle (the tops of his feet were dragging on the ground), so what could he have done to stop it at that point? Mariota chose to land on his shoulder rather than his chest (Bosa was on his back), thus the shoulder pain.
“The coaches did the “kinda not sure” like coaches do, rather than criticize officials.”
A quick Google search finds a whole bunch of articles saying things like “borderline late hit” or “arguably late hit.” If it’s a 50/50 sort of call, you can’t call people biased for disagreeing with you about it. That’s all I’m saying.
LikeLike
Rival Colored Uniforms (via Reddit CFB)
Big Ten:
LikeLike
Big 12:
LikeLike
@Mike – Yikes! That’s pretty mortifying all the way around, except that Rutgers doesn’t look too bad in Penn State colors.
LikeLike
Woudnt that be Rice as standard lettering?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/107639/pac-12-tops-final-conference-rankings
Thanks to the bowls, the P12 (up 5.2 pts) topped the SEC (down 3.7) in ESPN’s Stats & Info blog’s conference power rankings.
1. P12 – 90
2. SEC – 89
3. B12 – 81.8
4. B10 – 72.6
5. ACC – 71.3
The B10 made a big jump (up 6.1) thanks to the bowls as well. The B12 dropped 3.8. The ACC was almost unchanged (down 0.1).
OOC record vs top 40 teams (in ESPN’s FPI):
1. P12 8-4
2t. SEC 9-10
2t. ACC 9-10
4. B10 7-12
5. B12 3-12
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/tag/_/name/2014-sig-power-rankings
Various ESPN bloggers argue why their conference deserves to be ranked higher than it was. Several think that the B12 is ranked too high.
LikeLike
I think the B1G is entering a period that mirrors the Pac 10/12 in the early to mid 2000’s when USC dominated the league and really only faced 1 or 2 conference opponents each year that could match up with them (Cal and later Oregon). USC was able to quell criticism that the league was weak by dominating its non conference schedule (including several SEC beat downs) and winning multiple national championships. I think that that the B1G is trending upward, but right now it’s a three team league with Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State, with the Buckeyes in a tier by themselves. It’s going to take time for Michigan and Penn State to ramp up in the East, meanwhile Nebraska is a big unknown in the West, making a mistake in my opinion by hiring Riley. Maybe Minnesota gets in the mix, but after that, you have a whole lot of mediocrity.
Overall, I would say the B1G was either the 3rd or 4th best conference this year. Anything above that is a stretch.
LikeLike
I agree, Michigan and Penn State are the big question marks as far as lifting the Big Ten’s competitive reputation goes. Ohio State and Michigan State are operating at full potential right now; Wisconsin is consistently excellent, but there needs to be more upper tier teams for the Big Ten to really compare to the Pac-12 and SEC more thoroughly.
And that comes down to Michigan and Penn State.
Even under Hoke, Michigan had some strong recruiting classes, with Harbaugh they’re probably 2-3 years away from really threatening Ohio State (i.e. 13-14 win playoff-level team). Maybe they can get up to Michigan State/Wisconsin’s level of the past 5 years (11 win kind of team) a year earlier than that.
Penn State is the other wild card, their recruiting has shot back up under Franklin, but they still need to get to full scholarships and rebuild their depth. They’re probably another 3 years away as well.
If Ohio State and Michigan State hold the fort for the next 2 seasons, there could be big things on the way around 2017-2018 as far as top-flight depth in the conference.
LikeLike
We can’t forget Neb – ever. They earned their 4.5 NCs since 1970, that’s best amongst current BIG teams – this time frame. Neb is an undeniable brand, but it’s shine is dimming some.. They were really surging the last two years of Big12 play & the Suh squad would have been a better match up against Bama in I believe 2009. People forget UT was within 3 points of that Bama squad, late in the 4th, with a backup QB. Bama had no choice but to run the score up late – it was a close game.
Way too much tradition and history in Lincoln & arguably the most classy and passionate (unique combination) fanbase in the nation. They belong to that state & have great appeal in the eastern Rockies & Dakotas as well.
LikeLike
gfunk, I’d agree on that. Nebraska definitely has the highest ceiling of the schools outside the 3 Eastern powers.
I’m just somewhat concerned that Nebraska’s recruiting will be stuck at a level underneath that “constant top 10” that the 3 Eastern schools can reach. There were a lot of advantages that they were able to push in previous eras due to how different recruiting was in the pre-BCS era.
Of course, recruiting isn’t the be-all, end-all; Oregon’s only had 1 top 10 class the past 5 years. Michigan State has had nothing like that and yet been a fixture at the top in recent years, so it’s doable with the right coach.
And the most important thing is that they have all the other ingredients; the will is there; I really respect them for firing Pelini and aiming higher. I think they’re one of those schools that has to demand more given their tradition/facilities/etc.; there’s no reason for them to settle for 9-10 win seasons.
LikeLike
gfunk,
I agree with your point, but wanted to pick a nit.
“We can’t forget Neb – ever. They earned their 4.5 NCs since 1970, that’s best amongst current BIG teams – this time frame.”
That’s also an arbitrary time frame. OSU had titles in ’42, ’54, ’57, ’61 and ’68 that you’re cutting off (plus ’70, ’02 and ’14). So we’re even since the 60s and OSU’s ahead since the 50s. I understand cutting off 1942, but what separates the 60s from the 70s?
LikeLike
Brian,
1970 began an era of de-segregation, albeit it started earlier, which I believe tilted CF back to the South & major Sun Belt programs by the end of the 70s – and that power still exists. I’m not going to let this season fool me, though happy for the North in general, & OSU. The 70s seemed to be the last great breath of northern based schools for a while. Bama emerged by the late 70s with a pair of NCS, their squads clearly more integrated than before. OU, albeit Southwestern, won a couple of titles as well. We know what happened to northern football programs from 80 to present – competitive, but often second or not in the so-called NCG. Neb made the greatest case for northern teams in the 80s and 90s – PSU certainly helped in the 80s & ND got a NC. But Neb was constantly a contender in both the above decades.
I choose 70 as well because of the 10 Year War that followed. I forget which year the BIG lifted the bowl ban on just one team. But this rule hurt the BIG during the 70s, esp the year of the infamous Mi-OSU tie – BIG choosing OSU. Mi didn’t even play in a bowl, despite being undefeated. Had the bowl ban been lifted, Mi would have likely been matched up against OU that year, if they win the game – NC for Mi. I believe OSU lost a heartbreaker to USC that season: 18-17. Nonetheless, that 10 Year War was costly for Mi & OSU, my opinion, it was the biggest game for OSU or Mi, each year, and the winner often failed in the Rose Bowl. My father felt this rivalry was so draining for the teams and coaches & it showed in the Rose Bowl. My father also believes the Pac12 had great conference rivalries & the Rose Bowl got hurt because the Pac12 winner often had a loss then upset the BIG winner. Thus, a NC was often not decided at the Rose Bowl – Pac12 or BIG winner.
As for OU and Neb in the 70s, a terribly underrated rivalry, the winner of this game won a NC, at least an AP title, 4x in the 70s. Ultimately the winner of this rivalry went on to win its bowl game. It outperformed the 10 Year War in terms of NC trophies.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“1970 began an era of de-segregation, albeit it started earlier,”
So 1970 is the beginning but it started earlier? That makes zero sense. The ACC, SEC and SWC all had black players by 1967. It was 1972 before every SEC team was integrated. CFB wasn’t truly integrated (not just a handful of players per team) until the 80s. Picking 1970 is completely arbitrary. If you pick 1972 instead, NE loses 2 titles. If you go back to 1968, OSU adds 1.
” which I believe tilted CF back to the South & major Sun Belt programs by the end of the 70s – ”
Southern teams won recognized national titles in 1960-1965, 1969-1970, 1973-1975, 1978-1981, etc. Non-southern teams won titles in 1960-1962, 1964-1968, 1970-1974, 1976-1978, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990-1991, etc. I don’t see a major change there.
“I’m not going to let this season fool me, though happy for the North in general, & OSU.”
Nobody’s trying to fool you. All I pointed out was that 1970 was an arbitrary cutoff. Nobody claimed the B10 was the best conference, either. All people have said is that the P12 was on par with the SEC this year and maybe the SEC’s era of dominance is over. That doesn’t sound very controversial to me.
“The 70s seemed to be the last great breath of northern based schools for a while.”
ND and PSU would definitely disagree with 3 titles in the 80s. Then CO, UW, MI and NE struck in the 90s. The B10 was down in the 80s, but they aren’t the only non-Southern schools.
“I choose 70 as well because of the 10 Year War that followed.”
It started in 1969 and was fueled in part by OSU’s title in 1968.
“I forget which year the BIG lifted the bowl ban on just one team.”
1975 was the first year the B10 allowed multiple bowl teams.
“Nonetheless, that 10 Year War was costly for Mi & OSU, my opinion, it was the biggest game for OSU or Mi, each year, and the winner often failed in the Rose Bowl. My father felt this rivalry was so draining for the teams and coaches & it showed in the Rose Bowl.”
OSU won the Rose in 1968 (season). OSU and MI then went 2-10 in the next 12 years. However, it should be noted that USC (under McKay and Robinson) played in 7 of those 12 games and went 6-1. All 6 winners were ranked in the top 5 before the game and the loser was #7. UCLA went 1-0, too. Stanford was 2-0 while UW went 1-1. We were facing great teams and they were playing at home for the most part. That’s a big advantage.
And yes, OSU and MI focused all season on The Game. Both coaches valued it more than anything. Bowls were secondary to them. The teams may have spent all their emotional energy in The Game and not gotten as up for the bowls.
LikeLike
Brian,
Here you go again cherry picking quotes, misleadingly mind you, then coming up with some iffy interpretation.
FYI: Your last post with our quotes, duly marked, my last response follows (always 3rd in each response delineated with a LAST RESPONsE:). But before addressing your recent quote and response please bear in mind.
I hate doing long posts on here and the edit, grammar limitations kill my flow. But I am naturally lengthy. But so are you – one of our common bonds on here.
I choose to recognize only AP & Coaches NCs and then their subsequent integration into the BCS-CFP era. I believe my thinking is a lot more traditional and consensus building than going down the path of very controversial “recognized” titles determined by other organizations. We continue to have plenty of controversy with the current system. In other words I’m choosing a less debatable, mainstream path on counting NCs, which isn’t as shackled to a particular school’s administrators and fan-base. I’m not saying my way is more fair, but the AP & Coaches Polls have been around since at least 1936 (AP) and 1950 (Coaches) and they’re simply more inclusive and geographically fair than the various other systems. We are both, presumably, abreast in BCS – CFP era stats & their influence.
1970 is a more watershed year of integration of the SEC. Yes, other SEC programs integrated before 1970, but 3 teams did so in 1970 (Auburn, Fla, & MissSt), & this was unprecedented at the time, previous years only one team integrated in a given year: 1967, K7 & 1968, Tenn. In 1971, 3 more SEC teams integrated (Al, Ga, & Vandy). Official integration was done by 1972. So I went with 1970 for the above reasons, as well as others, as you will read.
When I use the following abbreviation: S-Sun Belt (which I argue as the favored region for how CF FBS works – bowl system – and simply the best overall mass region for prep football talent), I include the traditional South, culturally and geographically, in greater terms I also mean the Southeast, Southwest, southern parts of the Rocky Mountain states and southern California. Culturally speaking, southern California is more aligned with the North, same goes for a state like Arizona. OU and Ok St, for example, aren’t exactly the Sun Belt, but they are the Southwest and culturally speaking, more aligned with the South. OU has also been deeply tied to Tx for a long, long time, esp football – whether is be recruiting or the Red Rivalry Shootout. Tx is not only a Southwest-Sun Belt state, but it was proudly a part of the Confederate States of American Research your own maps generally used to typify the Sun Belt construct and choose a happy medium I absolutely consider USC, UCLA and even a school like BYU – Sun Belt schools, but more like the North – culturally speaking. The Pac12 from Stanford to Washington are more northern in terms of climate and culture. I don’t want to proceed down an excessive debate of cultural constructs behind a particular region. So I’ll stop here for the most part. I will say, the BIG remains the only major FBS conference that is almost exclusively northern in terms of geography and culture. Md is the one question mark, if you choose to rewind back to Civil War thinking and Maryland’s history with the ACC and Southern Conference, you can debate whether they are a northern school, but in 2015, most of Md is northern in culture – and by a long shot. You could argue states like Ky and WVa are non-southern in the Civil War sense, but culturally speaking – they’re far more southern than northern.
Btw, the below stats could be off by a digit or two.
———- NC titles (AP & Coaches) 1945-1970
***** S – Sun Belt
Non-Splits: 14
(go to Wiki and do your research, I originally had all the years on here & even teams in some cases, but I hit the “fn” button, near the “shift” button, and lost this post once, not risking it again – links are below, clearly marked)
Splits: 7 (
(5 splits with a school in the North, 2 splits between programs in either the South or Sun Belt)
21 total
*****North
Non-Splits: 14
Splits: 5
19 total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Links:
1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFCA_National_Championship_Trophy
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_National_Championship_Trophy
———- NC Titles (AP-Coaches-BCS-CFP) 1980 – present
***** S – Sun Belt
Non-Splits: 24
Splits: 3 (2 splits with a team from the North, 1 between a S – Sun Belt teams)
27 total
***** North
Non-split: 7
Split: 3 (2 between programs from the S – Sun Belt & 1 between teams from the North)
10 Total
Summary:
The S – Sun Belt have owned the past 35 years. The programs in this region have nearly 3x as many NCs.
The 70s was in fact the last most productive decade of NC winners from the North to the present: 3 non-split NCs & 2 splits – but the 90s was close. In the 80s, the North had programs earn 3 non-split NCs, but no splits. In the 90s, the North had 2 non-split NCs and 3 split NCs. I suppose you could call the 90s and 70s equivalent, but I like consensus more than not, that is non-split NCs.
I think part of the reasoning of the Coaches Poll (1950) was southern programs felt a huge bias from the north. Notice the number of splits between a Northern and S – Sun Belt team, post 1950.
Does integration correlate? Absolutely. To what extent – I don’t know – but I’m comfortable with saying quite a bit. But other factors to consider: prep production in the Southeast and Florida, especially. Conference realignments. Bowl system favors the S – Sun Belt. Lack of NFL teams in the South – at least 4 states where SEC teams exist, but no NFL team – thus reduced competition for eyeballs, which makes a for a great CF fanbase.
Now to your response:
FUNK:
“1970 began an era of de-segregation, albeit it started earlier,”
BRIAN:
“So 1970 is the beginning but it started earlier? That makes zero sense. The ACC, SEC and SWC all had black players by 1967. It was 1972 before every SEC team was integrated. CFB wasn’t truly integrated (not just a handful of players per team) until the 80s. Picking 1970 is completely arbitrary. If you pick 1972 instead, NE loses 2 titles. If you go back to 1968, OSU adds 1.”
LAST RESPONSE: I don’t make sense, you are right. I was type-twisted because I was considering what you ultimately said, in that “CFB wasn’t truly integrated unitl the 80s”. But I chose 70 primarily due to my earlier point: it marked an unprecedented year of SEC integration (3 teams at once) – a nice, major beginning. I don’t know the official integration years of non-SEC S – Sun Belt teams. I think 1970 was also good start because I was giving OSU a little credit for its 70 title – though a non-AP.Coaches title. It was the second year of the 10 Year War, and as we know, this rivalry did not produce a NC – period. The one great conference of purely northern based teams – BIG – did not win a NC from 1970 til 1997 – the 10 Year War marked the near beginning of this drought.
FUNK:
” which I believe tilted CF back to the South & major Sun Belt programs by the end of the 70s – ”
BRIAN:
“Southern teams won recognized national titles in 1960-1965, 1969-1970, 1973-1975, 1978-1981, etc. Non-southern teams won titles in 1960-1962, 1964-1968, 1970-1974, 1976-1978, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990-1991, etc. I don’t see a major change there.”
LAST RESPONSE: I never said the South or Sun Belt teams weren’t relevant in CF, they simply separated themselves from the North by 1980 and the trend is still strong. The S – Sun Belt hardly won more NCs in the 50s – 60s – 70s, as the above stats point out – these were hotly contested decades for regional supremacy in relation to the North vs the S – Sun Belt – again, notice the many split NCs – 1950-1979 was quite a balance, actually, between the North and S – Sun Belt. But if you go back before 1950, most decades were dominated by the North, no matter which polls you use and compile averages from to make your case. I’d like to think the 10 to 15 years of desegregation leading up to 1980 helped the S – Sun Belt, and again, you said it: “CF wasn’t truly integrated until the 80s”. You can’t dispute the facts I’ve stated based on the polls & systems that matter most since 1980: AP, Coaches, & BCS. I have given you a fair comparison between two 35 year periods – but you can go back further. The North was merely on par with the S – Sun Belt from 1945-1979, but since – the latter prevails, and quite comfortably. We are only in the first year of the CFP era. So what I’m saying here actually segues to your next quote.
FUNK:
“I’m not going to let this season fool me, though happy for the North in general, & OSU.”
BRIAN:
“Nobody’s trying to fool you. All I pointed out was that 1970 was an arbitrary cutoff. Nobody claimed the B10 was the best conference, either. All people have said is that the P12 was on par with the SEC this year and maybe the SEC’s era of dominance is over. That doesn’t sound very controversial to me.”
LAST RESPONSE: No it was not an “arbitrary cutoff” as I have undoubtedly countered at this point. I never claimed the BIG was the best conference either – such words you put in me mouth – chap! Your Pac12 vs SEC argument, I didn’t go there either. Why are you even responding to this statement, it’s more of a personal opinion spoken out loud, not in response to anyone per say. But if one is say a misguided northern homer, he-she may think this year is the mark of a new era for northern based football teams. I’m also saying: “not so fast”. Again, the past 35 years doesn’t change in just one year – that is what is more meant by my words you’ve so eloquently captured, but responded to in some jumbled way.
FUNK:
“The 70s seemed to be the last great breath of northern based schools for a while.”
BRIAN:
“ND and PSU would definitely disagree with 3 titles in the 80s. Then CO, UW, MI and NE struck in the 90s. The B10 was down in the 80s, but they aren’t the only non-Southern schools.”
LAST RESPONSE: I have a pretty strong grasp of geography Brian. I definitely stated that PSU & ND carried some weight for the North in the 80s in my second post, but I made a stronger case that Neb was the most consistent northern power from 80 to the BCS era, & they were. Colorado split with GT, Wash split with Miami, so the tilt towards the South – Sun Belt argument remains valid. 97 marks a nice year for the North, no matter which way you split the split, but since 1980, or compared to 1945 – 1979, this split is an aberration – two northern based teams. Splits were typically between a northern and southern / Sun Belt team, the latter grouping more often splitting amongst each other. OSU is the only northern program to win a BCS NC, and of course the only program to win the inaugural CFP NC – each win marking a different decade – that’s pretty sparse representation. Granted, the current decade in which OSU has won the CFP NC is still in play, but it’s future tense. I can’t read the future for the North and say programs up here will continue to close the gap, esp considering the past 35 years of NC dominance by the S – Sun Belt.
So the “last great breath” makes sense to me because hindsight and historical fact indicates that the SEC of the 70s, via integration, was finally setting itself up for inevitable domination. Also, the rise of the non-SEC Florida schools needed time for integration – Miami and FSU initially broke the barrier in late 60s. The Big12 powers not named Neb: Tx & OU, and USC, also a Sun Belt school, did fine in the NCs department as well.
The BIG was down in the 70s and 80s as well. The 10 Year War was amazing, but the winner lost in the Rose Bowl, as you said, most of the time. I remember some of those Rose Bowls – latter 70s. The 80s – not even sure if there was a NC contender from the BIG outside of 1985 – Michigan finished 2nd in the polls that year. OSU was up and down with Bruce. The Pac12 didn’t win a NC in the 80s either, and only split once in the 90s – so the BIG’s premier match up game wasn’t helping the cause.
FUNK:
“I choose 70 as well because of the 10 Year War that followed.”
BRIAN:
“It started in 1969 and was fueled in part by OSU’s title in 1968.”
LAST RESPONSE: I know when the 10 Year War started. I chose 70, as stated, because OSU won a non-AP/Coaches Poll NC in 70. But such a poll is really irrelevant outside of OSU, their fanbase, administrators & the people who decide this poll. I think I’ve made the case of integration taking off in 1970 at this point. So 70 is a tad better than 69 & who starts a decade without a zero behind it? Anyways.
FUNK:
“I forget which year the BIG lifted the bowl ban on just one team.”
BRIAN:
“1975 was the first year the B10 allowed multiple bowl teams.”
LAST RESPONSE: Thank you.
FUNK:
“Nonetheless, that 10 Year War was costly for Mi & OSU, my opinion, it was the biggest game for OSU or Mi, each year, and the winner often failed in the Rose Bowl. My father felt this rivalry was so draining for the teams and coaches & it showed in the Rose Bowl.”
BRIAN:
“OSU won the Rose in 1968 (season). OSU and MI then went 2-10 in the next 12 years. However, it should be noted that USC (under McKay and Robinson) played in 7 of those 12 games and went 6-1. All 6 winners were ranked in the top 5 before the game and the loser was #7. UCLA went 1-0, too. Stanford was 2-0 while UW went 1-1. We were facing great teams and they were playing at home for the most part. That’s a big advantage.”
LAST RESPONSE: I’ve been pretty consistent over the years that the BIG does have a huge disadvantage in the Rose Bowl in terms of travel, region, climate and venue, all these being favorable to the Pac12 – so no arguments here. But I’d like to point out, w/o much research, it’s USC that creates the gap in the Rose Bowl against the BIG. The BIG may has a winning record against the Pac12, all time Rose Bowls, once USC’s dominance is taken out. I also think USC may have a losing bowl record once they leave the state of Ca, that is all-time speaking. Interestingly & as you clearly know, Stanford, Cal and UCLA also call Ca home, but the Rose Bowl hasn’t translated into success for the rest of the Pac12 and other California Pac12 teams. UCLA has called the Rose Bowl home since 1982, but they’ve been 3-2 in Rose Bowls from this date to present. USC is 7-3 in Rose Bowls since 1982. Stanford has a losing record in the Rose Bowl. In fact, USC is the only California Pac12 school with a winning Rose Bowl record.
BRIAN:
“And yes, OSU and MI focused all season on The Game. Both coaches valued it more than anything. Bowls were secondary to them. The teams may have spent all their emotional energy in The Game and not gotten as up for the bowls.”
LAST RESPONSE: We agree, and I said as much in my second post of this thread.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Here you go again cherry picking quotes,”
I picked the parts I was responding to. What would be the point of quoting things I’m not responding to? That would be much more confusing. The whole comment is just above there if someone wants to go back and read it. I quote so you know what part of a comment my response is aimed at.
And remember, all of this is because I said I wanted to pick a nit. I said 1970 was arbitrary. You chose to blow it up into something gigantic.
“I choose to recognize only AP & Coaches NCs and then their subsequent integration into the BCS-CFP era.”
That’s fine. I often use the NCAA’s recognized list because they took the time to pick several to recognize and ignored the others. Over time the AP and Coaches became more prominent, but I’m not old enough to say that the other 3 were never valid. So rather than pick an arbitrary cutoff for various polls, I use the full list. Feel free to stick with just AP and Coaches, it’s not an invalid choice by any means.
“1970 is a more watershed year of integration of the SEC. Yes, other SEC programs integrated before 1970, but 3 teams did so in 1970 (Auburn, Fla, & MissSt), & this was unprecedented at the time, previous years only one team integrated in a given year: 1967, K7 & 1968, Tenn. In 1971, 3 more SEC teams integrated (Al, Ga, & Vandy). Official integration was done by 1972. So I went with 1970 for the above reasons, as well as others, as you will read.”
But it doesn’t change it being an arbitrary choice. You could easily move it a year or two either way based on the same data. But when that just happens to be the first of back to back titles for NE, I felt the need to point out how arbitrary 1970 was. That doesn’t make it a wrong choice, but you could just as easily have picked 1965 to look at the past 50 years, or 1975 for 40 years or several others.
“When I use the following abbreviation: S-Sun Belt (which I argue as the favored region for how CF FBS works – bowl system – and simply the best overall mass region for prep football talent), I include the traditional South, culturally and geographically, in greater terms I also mean the Southeast, Southwest, southern parts of the Rocky Mountain states and southern California.”
Since you just named most of the country, of course it’s the favored region. CA, TX and FL combine for over 25% of the US population. The rest makes up more than another 25%. Then there’s the large portion in the northeast that doesn’t really care about CFB.
Lumping in the west coast and Rocky Mountains with the deep south seems odd to me. Northern Utah has very little in common with the deep south. BYU is farther north than OSU. So I took it to mean the south and southeast (SWC footprint + state of OK + SEC footprint)
“I will say, the BIG remains the only major FBS conference that is almost exclusively northern in terms of geography and culture.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees. I assume you lump ND in with them, though based on geography.
[snip data]
“Summary:
The S – Sun Belt have owned the past 35 years. The programs in this region have nearly 3x as many NCs.”
Yes. And they have 2-3 times the population of the CFB interested regions of the north. They have 2-3 times the number of schools as the north, too.
I’d also point out that titles are hardly the only way to define success. Teams being in the top 5 or 10 had good years, too. The north has been more dependent on a few teams excelling while the south has spread the success around more.
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/total_points.cfm?from=1970&to=2014
Most AP poll points since 1970:
1. NE – north
2. OSU – north
3. OU
4. FSU
5. MI – north
6. AL
7. UF
8. USC
9. Miami
10. UT
11. PSU – north
12. ND – north
That looks a little more balanced, but 12 is an arbitrary cutoff (top 5 good, top 10 bad, top 12 good, top 20 bad, etc). We all know that with the growth of FL, there are more kings in the sun belt. That isn’t news.
“I never claimed the BIG was the best conference either – such words you put in me mouth – chap! Your Pac12 vs SEC argument, I didn’t go there either.”
I didn’t say you did. I simply pointed out what people had been saying since you said you wouldn’t let this year fool you.
“But if one is say a misguided northern homer, he-she may think this year is the mark of a new era for northern based football teams. I’m also saying: “not so fast”.”
This is exactly why I pointed out that nobody was saying that.
LikeLike
“Here you go again cherry picking quotes,”
I picked the parts I was responding to. What would be the point of quoting things I’m not responding to? That would be much more confusing. The whole comment is just above there if someone wants to go back and read it. I quote so you know what part of a comment my response is aimed at.
And remember, all of this is because I said I wanted to pick a nit. I said 1970 was arbitrary. You chose to blow it up into something gigantic.
NO I DIDN’T BECAUSE I WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE SEC BROKE THROUGH WITH INTEGRATION IN UNPRECEDENTED FASHION – 1970, THROW IN 1971 AS WELL. THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS. I GAVE MY OTHER REASONS AS WELL. PAY ATTENTION.
“I choose to recognize only AP & Coaches NCs and then their subsequent integration into the BCS-CFP era.”
That’s fine. I often use the NCAA’s recognized list because they took the time to pick several to recognize and ignored the others. Over time the AP and Coaches became more prominent, but I’m not old enough to say that the other 3 were never valid. So rather than pick an arbitrary cutoff for various polls, I use the full list. Feel free to stick with just AP and Coaches, it’s not an invalid choice by any means.
“1970 is a more watershed year of integration of the SEC. Yes, other SEC programs integrated before 1970, but 3 teams did so in 1970 (Auburn, Fla, & MissSt), & this was unprecedented at the time, previous years only one team integrated in a given year: 1967, K7 & 1968, Tenn. In 1971, 3 more SEC teams integrated (Al, Ga, & Vandy). Official integration was done by 1972. So I went with 1970 for the above reasons, as well as others, as you will read.”
But it doesn’t change it being an arbitrary choice. You could easily move it a year or two either way based on the same data. But when that just happens to be the first of back to back titles for NE, I felt the need to point out how arbitrary 1970 was. That doesn’t make it a wrong choice, but you could just as easily have picked 1965 to look at the past 50 years, or 1975 for 40 years or several others.
IT IN FACT DOES CHANGE THE “ARBITRARY” CLAIMS YOU MAKE. NOT EVEN QUESTIONABLE.
“When I use the following abbreviation: S-Sun Belt (which I argue as the favored region for how CF FBS works – bowl system – and simply the best overall mass region for prep football talent), I include the traditional South, culturally and geographically, in greater terms I also mean the Southeast, Southwest, southern parts of the Rocky Mountain states and southern California.”
Since you just named most of the country, of course it’s the favored region. CA, TX and FL combine for over 25% of the US population. The rest makes up more than another 25%. Then there’s the large portion in the northeast that doesn’t really care about CFB.
Lumping in the west coast and Rocky Mountains with the deep south seems odd to me. Northern Utah has very little in common with the deep south. BYU is farther north than OSU. So I took it to mean the south and southeast (SWC footprint + state of OK + SEC footprint)
YOU ARE LOST AT THIS POINT. DO YOUR RESEARCH ON WHAT COMPRISES THE SUN BELT. I’M PLENTY ACCURATE. YES, INDEED, THIS IS A LARGE FOOTPRINT THAT IS ALSO WARMER, CLIMATE WISE. SO IT’S A NO-BRAINER TO ME THAT PREP FOOTBALL THRIVES IN THIS HUGE REGION AND IT CORRELATES TO SUCCESS FOR FBS PROGRAMS IN THIS “HUGE REGION.” OH WELL. I’VE ACCEPTED THIS ADVANTAGE. . THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN THE TRADITIONAL NORTH, BUT WE ALL KNOW IT’S TOUGHER, FOR MANY REASONS, TO MAINTAIN YEAR-ROUND FOOTBALL IN COLDER CLIMATES, ESP AT THE AMATEUR LEVEL – K-12.
“I will say, the BIG remains the only major FBS conference that is almost exclusively northern in terms of geography and culture.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees. I assume you lump ND in with them, though based on geography.
I SURE DO. MANY OF THE NC’S I COUNTED IN MY STATS WERE NON-BIG TEN TEAMS BASED IN THE NORTH – ND, PITTSBURGH, NEB, ARMY, SYRACUSE, EVEN MARYLAND (I EXPLAINED THEIR DEBATABLE INCLUSION IN THE SO-CALLED NORTHERN CONSTRUCT). THEY DID WIN THEIR NC AS A MEMBER OF THE ACC DURING A TIME WHEN THEY WERE LIKELY MORE SOUTHERN IN GENERALIZABLE TERMS.
[snip data]
“Summary:
The S – Sun Belt have owned the past 35 years. The programs in this region have nearly 3x as many NCs.”
Yes. And they have 2-3 times the population of the CFB interested regions of the north. They have 2-3 times the number of schools as the north, too.
I’d also point out that titles are hardly the only way to define success. Teams being in the top 5 or 10 had good years, too. The north has been more dependent on a few teams excelling while the south has spread the success around more.
YES, BUT YOU CAN SEPARATE THE SEC ALONE, AND THEIR FBS TITLES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NORTH, ESP THE BIG, SINCE 1970. SINCE 1970, YOU CAN ALSO SEPARATE MIAMI AND FSU, NON-SEC SCHOOLS, AND COLLECTIVELY THEY HAVE MORE NCS THAN THE BIG AND MAYBE MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NORTH – AGAIN SINCE 1970. IN FACT THE FLORIDA SCHOOLS, WHICH UNDERSCORES A NICE ARGUMENT BY YOU, SEEM TO CONNECT TO INTEGRATION TRULY YIELDING RESULTS FROM THE 80s FORWARD. FSU-FL-MIAMI ACCOUNT FOR 11 NCS SINCE 1980.
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/total_points.cfm?from=1970&to=2014
Most AP poll points since 1970:
1. NE – north
2. OSU – north
3. OU
4. FSU
5. MI – north
6. AL
7. UF
8. USC
9. Miami
10. UT
11. PSU – north
12. ND – north
That looks a little more balanced, but 12 is an arbitrary cutoff (top 5 good, top 10 bad, top 12 good, top 20 bad, etc). We all know that with the growth of FL, there are more kings in the sun belt. That isn’t news.
“I never claimed the BIG was the best conference either – such words you put in me mouth – chap! Your Pac12 vs SEC argument, I didn’t go there either.”
I didn’t say you did. I simply pointed out what people had been saying since you said you wouldn’t let this year fool you.
“But if one is say a misguided northern homer, he-she may think this year is the mark of a new era for northern based football teams. I’m also saying: “not so fast”.”
This is exactly why I pointed out that nobody was saying that.
BOTTOM LINE, YOU GET TO ROOT FOR A PHENOMENAL PROGRAM THAT IN MY OPINION CARRIES THE BIG SINCE 1970 IN TERMS OF PRESTIGE, AND THE NORTH DURING THE BCS-CFP ERA. SURE OTHER BIG PROGRAMS HAVE DONE WELL SINCE 1970, BUT THE LACK OF NCS COMPARED TO THE SEC, FLORIDA SCHOOLS, EVEN UT AND OU, IS LACKING.
IT’S DAMN TOUGH FOR THE NORTH TO KEEP PACE WITH THE S – SUN BELT FOR MANY OF THE REASONS MENTIONED AND WE COULD GO FURTHER WITH ISSUES NOT RAISED SO FAR. THUS ALL THE MORE JUSTIFICATION FOR SAY OSU FANS TO CELEBRATE THEIR SUCCESS SINCE 1970, AND ESPECIALLY THE PAST 15 YEARS. THE NORTH ARE UNDERDOGS IN FBS. I LIKE ROOTING FOR UNDERDOGS. IT DOES GIVE HOPE TO ALL WHO SEEK PARITY AS WELL.
I WANT A MORE FAIR SYSTEM, AND THE CFP ERA IS DEFINITELY A START. OSU WINNING THE INAUGURAL NC, ESP AGAINST ANOTHER NORTHERN PROGRAM, SURE DOES STRIKE A SENSE OF JUSTICE. BUT FOR ALL THE REASONS, ADVANTAGES WE’VE DISCUSSED – THE S – SUN BELT, AND YOU CAN DECREASE THIS FOOTPRINT TO JUST THE SEC, OR THE FLORIDA SCHOOLS, CONTINUE TO HAVE MAJOR UPSIDE IN THE YEARS TO COME.
TAKE CARE BRIAN, I’M CHECKING OUT MOSTLY TIL NEXT FALL UNLESS BASKETBALL BECOMES NORMAL DISCUSSION. I MAY SPRINKLE SOME THOUGHTS HERE AND THERE.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“NO I DIDN’T BECAUSE I WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE SEC BROKE THROUGH WITH INTEGRATION IN UNPRECEDENTED FASHION – 1970, THROW IN 1971 AS WELL. THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS. I GAVE MY OTHER REASONS AS WELL. PAY ATTENTION.”
There’s no need to yell.
And you prove my point while you argue it. You could just as easily have said 1971 or 1972 or any of several years based on integration. Heck, using the start of integration as your marker is an arbitrary choice, too. It’s not like 1970 is the general consensus year to start the modern era.
I did a quick Google search for “modern era of college football” and the top articles used these as their starting dates:
post WWII (2) – 1946
Coaches poll started – 1950
GI bill students were gone – 1951
2 platoons returned – 1965
arbitrary – last 50 years (1965)
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/10722832/30499070
Some other notable years:
1965 – AP poll named champs after the bowls
1973 – NCAA forms divisions
1978 – I-A and I-AA formed
1979 – ESPN started
1982 – SWC started to crumble and Bear Bryant retired
1984 – NCAA lost control of TV rights
1992 – Bowl Coalition started and the real start to I-A conference expansion
That makes the choice of 1970 arbitrary to me. Besides, do you really believe that 1 or 2 black players per team were making a huge difference at that point? It’s OK to make an arbitrary choice. I only noted it because NE won titles in 1970 and 1971 and those could have easily been outside your window. It wasn’t intended as a major criticism.
“YES, BUT YOU CAN SEPARATE THE SEC ALONE, AND THEIR FBS TITLES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NORTH, ESP THE BIG, SINCE 1970.”
Counting splits as 0.5:
SEC (13.5):
AL – 6
UF – 3
LSU – 1.5
AU – 1
TN – 1
UGA – 1
North (12.5):
NE – 4
ND – 2.5
OSU – 2
PSU – 2
Pitt – 1
MI – 0.5
UW – 0.5
“SINCE 1970, YOU CAN ALSO SEPARATE MIAMI AND FSU, NON-SEC SCHOOLS, AND COLLECTIVELY THEY HAVE MORE NCS THAN THE BIG AND MAYBE MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NORTH – AGAIN SINCE 1970.”
Non-SEC Southeast (9):
Miami – 4.5
FSU – 3
Clemson – 1
GT – 0.5
“IN FACT THE FLORIDA SCHOOLS, WHICH UNDERSCORES A NICE ARGUMENT BY YOU, SEEM TO CONNECT TO INTEGRATION TRULY YIELDING RESULTS FROM THE 80s FORWARD. FSU-FL-MIAMI ACCOUNT FOR 11 NCS SINCE 1980.”
Not just integration but also the great migration from the north.
FL (10.5) by my count. I know you counted whole numbers.
LikeLike
I like to use 1968 for the beginning of the modern era. For one thing, the AP poll consistently rated at least a top 20 instead of just a top 10. And also, 1967 was the last year a WAC school (Wyoming) got a discretional invitation to the Sugar Bowl and it was the last year Indiana and Minnesota won a share of the Big 10 title (3 way tie with-Purdue!). Neither of those events sounds like the modern era. Also happened to be the first season an AFL team won the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
“1975 was the first year the B10 allowed multiple bowl teams.”
1975 would be a reasonable year to start … as far as “arbitrary” numbers go, last quarter century of the 20th century, about 40 years ago (if going 44 years ago, why not round it off to 1965 for about half a century ago?), and its the start of the “modern” Big 10 bowl record.
LikeLike
Ohio St. has been on a tier by themselves since 2006 and maybe even the whole BCS era. Michigan and Penn St. have been down most of that time with only scattered good seasons while Ohio St. has been good almost every year.
LikeLike
You can basically go back to the turn of the century. Since Tressel got there in 2001, Ohio State has basically taken around 50% of the Big Ten’s slots in the BCS/NY6 bowls; they’ve basically been there almost every year… and they have all of the Big Ten’s 4 national title game appearances.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ohio-states-season-was-a-crazy-outlier/
538 takes a look at OSU’s outlier of a season.
After Monday’s 42-20 win over Oregon, Ohio State finished with the second-highest season-ending Elo rating ever (31.7). Only the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers had a higher rating (33.4). A little background, in case you’re not familiar: The Elo rating system was originally used for chess, but at FiveThirtyEight we use it to produce weekly NFL ratings, among other things. As my boss Nate Silver has explained, Elo ratings are a simple and transparent approach to numerically rate a team.
What makes this Ohio State team stands out is not just its dominance, but its improvement. … Ohio State is an outlier in both respects. In addition to the No. 2 season-ending Elo rating, the Buckeyes had the 31st most dramatic start-to-finish rating improvement.
The team nearest to Ohio State in both dominance and improvement is the 2008 Florida Gators, coached by none other than Urban Meyer.
LikeLike
All that means is they lost to a mediocre team early as did the 2008 Florida team.
The article states it wrong. It is the 2nd highest improvement from the start of the season.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The article states it wrong. It is the 2nd highest improvement from the start of the season.”
No, you misread the axes. The x-axis is the change in Elo during the season. 30 schools had a larger improvement than 2014 OSU. The y-axis is final Elo and that’s where 2014 OSU was 2nd.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll
The final AP poll:
1. OSU
2. OR
3. TCU
4. AL
5t. FSU
5t. MSU
7. Baylor
8. GT
9. UGA
10. UCLA
13. WI
28. NE
34. MN
By conference (top 10):
ACC – 2
B10 – 2
B12 – 2
P12 – 2
SEC – 2
Other – 0
By conference (top 25):
ACC – 4
B10 – 3
B12 – 3
P12 – 6
SEC – 6
Other – 3
So parity at the top but better quality depth in the P12 and SEC as expected.
LikeLike
http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/
The final coaches poll was very similar:
1. OSU
2. OR
3. TCU
4. AL
5. MSU
6. FSU
7. GT
8. Baylor
9. UGA
10. UCLA
13. WI
26. NE
31. MN
36. RU
LikeLike
Brian,
Upon reviewing the Wiki pages related to NCs by school, different eras, esp poll era (1936) – a statistician type like yourself could do that page some justice. Check it out.
LikeLike
Yes, those pages are a mess. Too many different groups have named champions over the years, and the major polls switched to doing it after the bowls at different times in the 60s to maybe 1970. The other problem is that people don’t agree on what titles should count.
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team.php
This source is a little better.
LikeLike
Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight has an article that recommends expanding the CFB playoff to six teams. I would question some of his assumptions, but the thrust of the article seems to be analytically correct.
“Analytically correct” does not mean “correct”. Silver does not consider any of the political or logistical problems of a six-team playoff. All he is saying, is that six is the mathematical sweet spot.
Silver’s basic idea is that you’d rather not have a playoff that is forced to exclude a team like TCU or Baylor this year. But you’d also rather not include 2- and 3-loss teams that could become national champions by getting hot at the end of the year, despite a regular season record with multiple flaws.
He ran the numbers for every CFB season since 1998. He found that in most years, you’d need six spots to accommodate every team with a resume like TCU or Baylor in 2014. But if you expanded it to eight, in most years you’d be padding the field with less qualified teams.
I do think that when politics and logistics enter the picture, the playoff will expand eventually to eight, assuming it expands at all. Any expansion would require another weekend’s worth of games. Once you’ve agreeed to that in principle, you might as well have a full eight-team semi-final, which will generate more income, which is the true underlying purpose of most scheduling decisions in college sports.
The other problem with six teams, is that it requires the committee to decide which two teams will get byes. There are HUGE consequences for that choice, since the top two will have a considerable advantage, with: A) An extra week (or more) of rest; B) One less opportunity for star players to get injured; and C) Most importantly, one less opportunity to lose.
The problem is that there is no really good way to decide the top two. If we’d had that system this year, Alabama and Oregon would have been the beneficiaries of the committee’s decision, and as we ultimately learned, they were not in fact the two best teams.
Of course, as Silver correctly notes, ANY playoff decided by a committee is going to be subjective, no matter how many teams get in. But in an eight-team playoff, the most crucial decision is which #9 team to exclude, and in almost all years, #9 is going to be a 2- or 3-loss team. The decision of who’s #1 and 2 is always going to be more difficult, as the BCS era showed repeatedly.
I think the chance of the playoff expanding before the current contracts expire is close to zero, so Silver will have plenty of chances to make his argument in the coming years (and if he stays true to form, I expect him to do so).
LikeLike
Great post. This is probably some of the best analysis that anyone’s put out on the situation.
I’ve been thinking 6 is the “sweet spot” in terms of answering the question: “how many teams is ideal in the sense of picking the right number of teams that have a credible case to be national champions?”
This data pretty much backs up the assertion.
Of course, there major competitive issues with introducing bye weeks into the equation, but I do think 8 teams is problematic in the sense that teams #7 and #8 rarely should be as worthy of a shot at the national championship game if preserving the regular season matters as much.
For example, Michigan State was clearly a top team, but they had losses to 2 of the top 4 teams already by the final week of the season. Teams #7 and #8 are going to have multiple losses to top teams in most years. There’s no escaping that.
Also yeah, I agree that the odds of expansion before the 12 year cycle ends are basically 0%.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I would question some of his assumptions, but the thrust of the article seems to be analytically correct.”
I also question them.
The most important objective is to avoid “false negatives” — that is, to keep from omitting teams like Baylor and TCU, whose resumes are hard to distinguish from the teams ranked first or second in the country. The next priority is to avoid “false positives,” like a three-loss team getting into the playoff when it doesn’t belong there.
Avoiding “false positives” is a much higher priority to me than avoiding “false negatives.” Having a worthy champion means much more to me than passing over another potentially worthy team.
* The first tier consists of undefeated teams from major (“Power 5”) conferences.
* The second tier includes one-loss teams from major conferences, along with undefeated teams from minor conferences.
* The third tier consists of two-loss teams from “Power 5” conferences and one-loss teams from other conferences.
* The fourth tier includes everyone else.
He’s making the classic error the polls used to make here. The number of losses shouldn’t determine your tier by itself. What about SOS? What about doing actual analysis?
Only four times in the 16 years of the BCS were there exactly two major-conference undefeateds. The years in which there were three such teams, like 2004, were especially controversial. The more common problem, however, is that there was often just one of these teams or none at all.
So reaching into the second tier is a necessary evil if you’re going to have any type of playoff. That being the case, I’d argue that you’d rather not have to make extremely fine distinctions within the second tier. Perhaps you’re OK omitting some one-loss teams with gross deficiencies on their resumes (like those that both played poor schedules and failed to win their conference titles). But you’d rather not have to distinguish the Baylors of the world from the Ohio States.
So he doesn’t want to do analysis. Odd choice for a stats guy. Isn’t making tiers already making fine distinctions, though. It’s assuming that a second loss trumps SOS in all cases, but he says it’s OK to drop 1-loss teams with weak schedules. How does that make sense?
“He ran the numbers for every CFB season since 1998. He found that in most years, you’d need six spots to accommodate every team with a resume like TCU or Baylor in 2014. But if you expanded it to eight, in most years you’d be padding the field with less qualified teams.”
And yet his numbers show exactly 1 year with 3 tier 1 teams. So 6% of the time more than 2 teams might be needed. Likewise, only once were there 8 teams or more in the top 2 tiers. Not even half of the time were there 6 teams in the top 2 tiers.
Those numbers tell me 2 is the correct cutoff point. If you aren’t top tier and other teams are, why do you deserve a shot at the title? Only if the tiers don’t make a lot of sense, in which case the whole analysis is invalid.
What does 6 get you (2 in parentheses)?
0-loss P5 champs – 100% (90%)
1-loss P5 champs – 93% (39%)
1-loss P5 non-champs – 81% (0%)
0-loss G5 champs – 42% (0%)
2-loss P5 champs – 34% (3%)
2-loss P5 non-champs – 14% (0%)
1-loss G5 non-champs – 1% (0%)
To me, 2 looks much better than 6.
“The other problem with six teams, is that it requires the committee to decide which two teams will get byes. There are HUGE consequences for that choice, since the top two will have a considerable advantage, with: A) An extra week (or more) of rest; B) One less opportunity for star players to get injured; and C) Most importantly, one less opportunity to lose.”
Byes are also a disadvantage. Your team is rusty while the other team isn’t. That’s especially bad for offense-driven teams, as the BCS NCG often showed.
LikeLike
He’s making the classic error the polls used to make here. The number of losses shouldn’t determine your tier by itself. What about SOS? What about doing actual analysis?…So he doesn’t want to do analysis. Odd choice for a stats guy.
The failure to explain this is one of the weaknesses of the article. Despite this omission, he reaches the right answer, for this reason:
In most years, the BCS standings did not produce a clear and uncontroversial #1-2. Once you start weighing the 1-loss P5 teams, there generally isn’t a ranking of them that would have widespread support. And as we saw this past season, the lone undefeated team was not even close to being the true #1, once they had to prove it on the field.
Most fans will understand that if you have two losses, you probably don’t deserve to be #1, unless it’s a very odd year. But among the undefeated and one-loss teams, no measuring system is really going to be satisfactory, as you’ve argued yourself. You have to let them play. Silver isn’t going to come up with the “Aha!” rating that no one else has thought of, that makes it possible to distinguish a clear top pairing in the typical college football year.
Silver’s one judgment call is that false negatives and false positives are equally bad. This statement is not provable with statistics. Some baseball old-timers still think the World Series was irrevocably watered down when they introduced playoffs in the 1969 season. No statistic can confirm or refute that. It’s just a belief.
Silver ought to have explained this, but it would be very surprising if he does not know it.
Byes are also a disadvantage. Your team is rusty while the other team isn’t. That’s especially bad for offense-driven teams, as the BCS NCG often showed.
If they went to a six-team playoff with byes, I doubt that any team would be disappointed to earn one.
I found only one decent study on the effect of byes in college football. Teams coming off a bye week are 232-180 since 2008, which suggests a meaningful advantage for the team with the bye. Teams with a bye before a neutral-site game are 10-2. There aren’t a lot of neutral-site games in the regular season, so it’s a small sample. The data are lumpy, but it also appears that byes become slightly more valuable later in the season, which is of course the situation we are talking about.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Despite this omission, he reaches the right answer, for this reason:”
There is really no right answer. At most he reached the correct analytical conclusion based on his assumptions. But his assumptions are a large part of the problem here, in addition to all the outside issues he didn’t consider (timing, politics, etc).
“In most years, the BCS standings did not produce a clear and uncontroversial #1-2.”
True, but it was also rare to include a team that didn’t belong. This is the false positive versus false negative debate, and I know we disagree on it.
“Most fans will understand that if you have two losses, you probably don’t deserve to be #1, unless it’s a very odd year.”
But 6 will include a 2-loss team all too often (34% of the time for a 2-loss P5 champ). Is it really an odd year 1/3 of the time?
“You have to let them play.”
No, you don’t. It’s not a right to play for the title.
“Silver’s one judgment call is that false negatives and false positives are equally bad.”
Actually, he said false negatives were worse than false positives.
The most important objective is to avoid “false negatives” — that is, to keep from omitting teams like Baylor and TCU, whose resumes are hard to distinguish from the teams ranked first or second in the country. The next priority is to avoid “false positives,” like a three-loss team getting into the playoff when it doesn’t belong there.
I think he has that reversed and you don’t.
“I found only one decent study on the effect of byes in college football. Teams coming off a bye week are 232-180 since 2008, which suggests a meaningful advantage for the team with the bye. Teams with a bye before a neutral-site game are 10-2. There aren’t a lot of neutral-site games in the regular season, so it’s a small sample. The data are lumpy, but it also appears that byes become slightly more valuable later in the season, which is of course the situation we are talking about.”
Actually, I’m talking about an extra bye week after having a month off. That’s very different from a regular season bye which helps players heal and gives them a little extra prep time for the game. That’s why I said rust can be a factor. Look back at how many high flying offenses disappointed in the NCG, and even BCS bowls in general. The players lose their timing and rhythm for pass offenses and things get ugly. Defense wins college championships because defense doesn’t get rusty in the time off.
LikeLike
Actually, you don’t need to give 2 byes (and thus decide which 2 teams get a huge advantage) beforehand with 6 teams. You could just have all 6 teams play each other. Then the top-seeded team left gets a bye to the title game on MLK day while the other 2 winners play the Monday before.
Being seeded higher would still be a pretty big advantage, but at least that team would have had to have already won 1 playoff game. Also, that gives the fans of at least 1 school plenty of time to plan travel to the title game.
If the first round is still on NYD, an added advantage is that only 3 schools have to have their seasons extended in to the second semester instead of 4.
LikeLike
The coaches wouldn’t like that, but I think I prefer that if you do 6 teams vs. the 1st round bye.
LikeLike
That format hadn’t occurred to me—is there any sport with a playoff that works that way? Ultimately I think the powers wouldn’t find it acceptable for the reasons I mentioned.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12171249/uab-faculty-senate-votes-no-confidence-president
UAB’s faculty senate voted no-confidence in their president thanks to his dropping the football program among other things. It’s a meaningless gesture, but still interesting to see faculty defend sports.
“Football is important to most universities. Football allows students, particularly undergraduate students, to get the full experience of what college life is like,” Business school professor Philip Musa said after the meeting.
The move to disband the program in the college football-crazed South became a flashpoint for some UAB students and faculty who felt like they were being treated as a stepchild of the main Tuscaloosa campus, a national football powerhouse. Spectators wearing the school’s green jerseys applauded and chanted “UAB” after the vote.
Former student Mitchell Miller, 27, carried a sign that read “(hash)FreeUAB — It’s not about the U or the A. It’s about the B.”
Faculty Senate Chairman Chad Epps said the vote was approved by more than a two-thirds majority. The resolution stated four concerns: changes in academic operations, Watts’ choice of administrative officers, changes in faculty benefits and disbanding athletic programs.
Epps stressed the vote was not just about football. “It’s about how multiple decisions were handled,” he said.
LikeLike
It reminds me of a quote I saw about the Rutgers-UMDNJ to the effect of “the university gains a medical school and the medical school gains a football team.”
As much as we focus on the money aspects around here, it’s hard to understate how important college sports (especially football at most schools and basketball at some schools) is to the fabric of the university in terms of school pride and everything else that goes into that, and in the simplest terms it comes down to how the university community views itself.
That doesn’t tend to affect the elite private schools that have de-emphasized football (by that I mean the Ivies/UChicago type schools) because they already have established “national brands” academically and are comfortable not being caught up in the “big time sports” craze.
On the other hand, it’s definitely a factor at the smaller public and even private schools that are going to be the ones struggling to keep up as the money grows much faster at the Power 5 schools and as we move towards a system where players may eventually get paid… thus putting further strain on the smaller schools vis-a-vis the Power 5 schools.
LikeLike
Apparently Harvard didn’t get the memo. They are aggressively recruiting athletes, especially in football, on a national level. And they are pissing off the rest of the Ivies. Reminds me of what Princeton did in men’s basketball a few years ago.
LikeLike
That’s a good point. Harvard is using sports as a way of gaining even more cachet (NCAA basketball runs along with putting together a very strong football team for a non-FBS). My only point is that it matters more to alumni of schools that don’t have that kind of academic cachet that they (and others schools like them) have.
LikeLike
I think you’re right on that point.
LikeLike
I couldn’t find any news stories about this. Do you have a link?
As far as I know, the Ivies have always recruited. They don’t give scholarships contingent on athletic ability, but that doesn’t mean they can’t go after good athletes who have high enough grades and test scores to make the cut academically.
LikeLike
Er, I was just commenting anecdotally on how the reputation/fundraising/application rate of many schools are impacted significantly by sporting success, whereas that’s not true for the “elite” universities that have largely de-emphasized athletics (and they happen to be among the richest so it doesn’t matter either way for them).
LikeLike
Interesting article on referee bias:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-09/proof-that-college-football-refs-are-riddled-with-bias
As Oregon and Ohio State prepare to battle for the NCAA football championship, a new study offers what may be the first empirical evidence that something other than rule infractions influences the referees employed by the biggest athletic conferences. Based on a complex analysis of penalty yards assessed over the course of eight seasons, the study by professors at Miami University of Ohio and Florida State University suggests, for instance, that ACC and Big 12 refs tend to penalize home teams less during games between conference rivals. Favored Big Ten teams are penalized fewer yards when playing nonconference teams, the study says, while Big 12 officials appear to punish teams that play faster—a potential concern for the go-go Ducks on Monday night.
These and other examples of bias indicate “considerable variance” in officiating across conferences, the study concludes, even as the monetary stakes mushroom with college football’s new four-team playoff. The researchers urge the NCAA to consider creating a national officiating body rather than have refs hired, fired, and evaluated by conferences.
Unfortunately for college football’s legions of conspiracy theorists (including this writer), the refereeing study does not support the notion that officials secretly help their conference’s strongest teams so the conference can reap the prestige and jackpots offered by bowl games and national titles. “We expected to find that but didn’t,” says Rhett Brymer, the Miami University strategic management professor who led the study. The SEC, which won seven of the eight NCAA championships during the period under review, was found to have officials essentially devoid of bias. ACC refs, on the other hand, were flagged for favoring home teams, betting-line underdogs, and long-time conference members such as Duke and North Carolina.
LikeLike
The hardest part about this sort of study is that they must assume some standard that is unbiased. How do they know how many penalties should have been called on each team?
Maybe penalty yards should be skewed against the road team because the crowd impacts them more. Maybe the penalties should be skewed against underdogs because they may cut corners to try to compete. Maybe the results vary a lot from year to year because there aren’t enough data points (note that they said the ACC became unbiased while the SEC became biased in 2013-4).
LikeLike
New Penn St deal in the works
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/114470/paterno-to-be-winningest-coach-again
LikeLike
I’d say more than “in the works.” All the parties have agreed to it, which means that a rubber-stamp from the judge is the only remaining step.
The deal is practically a total loss for the NCAA. The media focused on the restoration of Paterno’s victories (and one by interim coach Tom Bradley). The deal wipes out the entire consent decree, including Penn State’s probationary period.
The only substantive remaining sanction is the $60m “fine”, but it will be spent entirely within the state of Pennsylvania, something the legislature had desperately wanted, and that the NCAA resolutely opposed until now.
The NCAA had wanted the settlement to include language conceding that they had the authority to act. They didn’t even get that. Instead, they got a watered-down clause saying they had a “legitimate interest” in the issue.
Legal settlements usually include something for both parties, but this settlement was awfully one-sided in the state’s favor. The NCAA has an enormous war-chest for litigation, so the cost of trying the case cannot have been a major factor in their decision to cave. Historically, the NCAA seldom settles when sued. They must have concluded that they were overwhelmingly likely to lose, and that in the process, they’d suffer far more embarrassment than the various emails and deposition transcripts that have already surfaced.
It is a normal human impulse to feel that when terrible things happen, a response is called for. But the correct response to a lawless act is not another lawless act. The NCAA entirely bypassed its own rules and processes, for no other purpose than the symbolism of being able to say that they were “doing something” about Penn State. Issued just 11 days after the Freeh report, the sanctions were concocted hastily, and without deliberation.
Emmert gambled correctly that the school wouldn’t call his bluff. But eventually others did, and the NCAA now looks far worse than if it had done the right thing in the first place, and allowed the criminal and civil cases to play out. After all those cases were over (and they still aren’t), I think most people would’ve concluded that in the end, the guilty parties had paid plenty for their sins.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The only substantive remaining sanction is the $60m “fine”, but it will be spent entirely within the state of Pennsylvania, something the legislature had desperately wanted, and that the NCAA resolutely opposed until now.”
That always seemed like a silly thing to fight about. As long as it’s spent on helping victims and preventing abuse, why should the NCAA care where it’s spent?
“The NCAA entirely bypassed its own rules and processes”
No, they didn’t. They bypassed their usual process but PSU had the option of going through the regular process (and potentially facing stiffer punishment).
“the NCAA now looks far worse than if it had done the right thing in the first place”
The “right thing” is very much in the eye of the beholder.
“After all those cases were over (and they still aren’t), I think most people would’ve concluded that in the end, the guilty parties had paid plenty for their sins.”
I think you’re wrong. I think most people will still think all of them deserve more punishment than they got, especially Sandusky. They just won’t be overly concerned about it anymore.
LikeLike
“The NCAA entirely bypassed its own rules and processes”
No, they didn’t. They bypassed their usual process but PSU had the option of going through the regular process (and potentially facing stiffer punishment).
I have not seen any media report which states that PSU was offered the option of going through the regular process. And what would that process have been, when there was no rule governing PSU’s conduct? As I recall, one of Emmert’s justifications for bypassing the committee on infractions was that there WAS no actual infraction. They had to make one up.
“the NCAA now looks far worse than if it had done the right thing in the first place”
The “right thing” is very much in the eye of the beholder.
When the NCAA issues the most severe sanctions in its history, and then back-pedals on practically all of them — something they are not known for, to put it mildly — it certainly seems to be a tacit admission that they got it wrong.
How would you interpret it?
“After all those cases were over (and they still aren’t), I think most people would’ve concluded that in the end, the guilty parties had paid plenty for their sins.”
I think you’re wrong. I think most people will still think all of them deserve more punishment than they got, especially Sandusky.
Oh, really? Sandusky is serving a greater-than-life sentence. The only punishment beyond that is death, which the law does not allow. You could probably find a few yahoos who either don’t know or don’t care that the death penalty no longer exists for rape cases, but surely they’d be a minority.
Once the NCAA announced severe sanctions, and then rolled them back, it may have appeared that Penn State “skated”. But that’s only because people miss the now-rescinded sanctions that they believed were lawful, but which in fact were not.
It is always worse when you announce something, and are forced later to rescind it. In the counter-factual where the only sanctions are the legally permitted ones, it’s doubtful you’d find many sober people who think the guilty got off easily.
Of course, it’s possible that the three PSU officials whose criminal cases are pending might be acquitted eventually. Then, I think, there’ll be outrage, and there should be. But so far, I don’t think you can name a lawful criminal or civil sanction that could be imposed, but hasn’t been.
The only conceivable complaint you could have, is that the law doesn’t allow more. But the law has to be followed, and that’s true as much for the criminals as it is for those who seek to punish them.
LikeLike
The NCAA’s case was dead. The e-mails where their own people severely questioned what happened and the “bluff” e-mails absolutely kills their case if it went to a jury instead of a judge. They probably lose with a judge as well. And trying to force a state (state “related” in Pennsylvania’s case) university to spend the $60 million on programs nationwide when the victims were all in Pennsylvania was a ridiculous over-reach that they could not have over-ridden state law on.
They had a lost case and had to settle.
It also strengthens their hand in the other cases against them as they have eliminated the worst of the over-reach.
LikeLike
Re “state-related” from Wikipedia:
“The Commonwealth System of Higher Education is a statutory designation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that confers “state-related” status on four universities located within the state. The designation establishes the schools as an “instrumentality of the commonwealth”[1] and provides each university with annual, non-preferred[2] financial appropriations in exchange offering tuition discounts to students that are residents of Pennsylvania and a minority state-representation on each school’s board of trustees. Legally, however, the universities remain separate and private entities, operating under their own charters, governed by independent boards of trustees, and with its assets under their own ownership and control thereby retaining much of the freedom and individuality of private institutions, both administratively and academically.[3] It is the only public-private hybrid system of higher education in the United States that is so construed, although Cornell University and the University of Delaware represent alternative types public-private university hybrids.[4]
Universities of the Commonwealth System are considered public universities by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching because they offer reduced tuition for citizens of the Commonwealth and therefore are often referred to as “public” universities in publications, by the state, and the schools themselves. Because their annual state allocations that supplement less than 10% of their budgets, universities in the Commonwealth System tend to have higher tuition costs compared to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education which contains 14 state-owned and operated universities. Because of their independence, universities in the Commonwealth System are exempt from Pennsylvania’s Open Records law except for a few minor provisions.[5]”
Every state school should be so lucky.
The Commonwealth subsidy to PSU is fairly small, but few state universities get much more than 20% of their teaching budgets from their states. One half of Cornell is public and New York’s land grant university, basically the ag school. Columbia could have been part of New York’s land grant system but cashed out.. I believe MIT shares land grant status with U Mass Amherst.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I have not seen any media report which states that PSU was offered the option of going through the regular process.”
Yes you have. PSU had to choose not to sign the consent decree first, though. That meant risking the death penalty, so they didn’t take the chance.
“And what would that process have been, when there was no rule governing PSU’s conduct?”
That’s the largest load of crap PSU defenders/NCAA haters trot out. The NCAA quoted multiple specific parts of their constitution and by-laws PSU was accused of violating.
“As I recall, one of Emmert’s justifications for bypassing the committee on infractions was that there WAS no actual infraction.”
You recall incorrectly.
They had to make one up.
“When the NCAA issues the most severe sanctions in its history, and then back-pedals on practically all of them — something they are not known for, to put it mildly — it certainly seems to be a tacit admission that they got it wrong.”
You seem to be swapping what the lawyers think they can get away with for what is right. Those are rarely the same thing.
“How would you interpret it?”
As irrelevant to what the “right thing to do” actually was.
“Oh, really?”
Yes really.
“Sandusky is serving a greater-than-life sentence. The only punishment beyond that is death, which the law does not allow.”
1. No, he’s only serving 30-60 years when he could have gotten centuries. He’s 70, so it’s possible he gets released when he’s almost 100.
2. You talked about whether people would feel they were punished enough, not whether the law allows for sufficient punishment.
“Once the NCAA announced severe sanctions, and then rolled them back, it may have appeared that Penn State “skated”.”
They did skate. It’s not just an appearance.
“But that’s only because people miss the now-rescinded sanctions that they believed were lawful, but which in fact were not.”
That isn’t anything approaching a fact. The NCAA voluntarily reduced many of the sanctions (scholarships and bowls) and negotiated for dropping more of them.
“In the counter-factual where the only sanctions are the legally permitted ones, it’s doubtful you’d find many sober people who think the guilty got off easily.”
Only 1 person has faced legal punishment so your pronouncement seems ridiculously early to me.
“Of course, it’s possible that the three PSU officials whose criminal cases are pending might be acquitted eventually. Then, I think, there’ll be outrage, and there should be.”
And what are the odds at least 1 of them gets a slap on the wrist at most? Because you just said that would make me correct even ignoring Sandusky.
“But so far, I don’t think you can name a lawful criminal or civil sanction that could be imposed, but hasn’t been.”
Sandusky was only convicted on 45 of 52 initial charges. He only received a 30-60 year sentence when centuries were possible. I don’t recall federal convictions of anyone. I don’t recall any punishment for possible Clery Act violations. There are a lot of potential lawful sanctions that haven’t been imposed.
“The only conceivable complaint you could have, is that the law doesn’t allow more.”
No, that’s just 1 possible complaint.
LikeLike
“I have not seen any media report which states that PSU was offered the option of going through the regular process.”
Yes you have. PSU had to choose not to sign the consent decree first, though. That meant risking the death penalty, so they didn’t take the chance.
Neither one of us has the advantage of a taped transcript of the conversation between Emmert and the PSU president. What has been widely reported, is that Emmert had already decided to bypass the usual process. The PSU president was offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal, with the alternative that the NCAA Board would impose the death penalty. We learned later that this was a bluff: Emmert didn’t have the votes for that. He gambled (correctly) that Penn State wouldn’t take the risk to put him to the test. Bluffing and gambling are essential skills in poker, but until now they were not part of the NCAA enforcement process. I hope you are not in favor of using them again.
“When the NCAA issues the most severe sanctions in its history, and then back-pedals on practically all of them — something they are not known for, to put it mildly — it certainly seems to be a tacit admission that they got it wrong.”
You seem to be swapping what the lawyers think they can get away with for what is right. Those are rarely the same thing.
Nope. Most NCAA rules exist because someone did something that the members felt wasn’t right, and the association decided, “We ought to have a rule for that.” But the rule only binds future violators, not past ones.
I am absolutely NOT suggesting that what PSU did was right. I am only saying that the NCAA had no authority to punish them. And because the NCAA back-pedaled as far as they did, I am inferring that they, too, realized that their actions likely would not survive a court challenge.
Of course, the NCAA needs to do what’s right, but if they exceed their authority they are going to lose.
The PSU sanctions were handed down a mere eleven days after the Freeh report was issued. Whatever else you may think of those sanctions, they were clearly not a product of thoughtful deliberation. That does not strike me as the best process for handing down some of the heaviest sanctions the organization has ever levied. When you roll back (or, in the most recent case, are forced to roll back) almost all of them, it means you failed.
“Sandusky is serving a greater-than-life sentence. The only punishment beyond that is death, which the law does not allow.”
1. No, he’s only serving 30-60 years when he could have gotten centuries. He’s 70, so it’s possible he gets released when he’s almost 100.
Sandusky will never leave prison a free man, and you know it.
2. You talked about whether people would feel they were punished enough, not whether the law allows for sufficient punishment.
If the law is insufficient, we can only change it for future violators. We can’t throw the book at the PSU violators to any greater extent than the law allowed at the time their crimes occurred.
I think a better use of the NCAA is to solve commonly occurring problems in intercollegiate athletics, like concussions and recruiting tactics. The NCAA isn’t set up to deal with rapist coaches, so it’s no surprise they didn’t know what to do, and ultimately got it wrong. Perhaps the lesson is that they ought to leave a case like that to the criminal justice system, which unlike the NCAA, has an apparatus in place to deal with it.
If you think the courts are under-punishing rapists and their enablers, write your state legislator or congressman.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What has been widely reported, is that Emmert had already decided to bypass the usual process.”
Incorrect. Emmert didn’t get to make that decision. The NCAA’s Executive Committee did. They are Emmert’s bosses.
“The PSU president was offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal, with the alternative that the NCAA Board would impose the death penalty.”
Incorrect again. The alternative was that the NCAA might impose the death penalty. There is zero actual evidence that PSU was told the DP was a 100% certainty if they said no.
“Bluffing and gambling are essential skills in poker, but until now they were not part of the NCAA enforcement process.”
What a load of crap. The NCAA threatens players and schools all the time during the enforcement process. And some schools and athletes deny, deny, deny and force the NCAA to come up with actual proof.
“I hope you are not in favor of using them again.”
Why not? They are valuable tools. Only the guilty or the framed (I don’t think that’s ever happened in the NCAA) would fall for the bluff.
“I am only saying that the NCAA had no authority to punish them.”
And you’re clearly wrong as the NCAA has punished them and PSU has agreed to part of it.
“Sandusky will never leave prison a free man, and you know it.”
Nobody knows that. We hope it and suspect it. He could live to be 100. A full sentence of 460 years would assure that he wouldn’t get out.
“If the law is insufficient, we can only change it for future violators. We can’t throw the book at the PSU violators to any greater extent than the law allowed at the time their crimes occurred.”
Which is still entirely irrelevant to whether or not people feel they were punished sufficiently. Stop trying to conflate the two things.
“I think a better use of the NCAA is to solve commonly occurring problems in intercollegiate athletics, like concussions and recruiting tactics.”
Good for you. That’s also irrelevant to your claims before.
“The NCAA isn’t set up to deal with rapist coaches, so it’s no surprise they didn’t know what to do, and ultimately got it wrong.”
1. Sure they are, as long as said coach or those around him also violate NCAA rules. That’s exactly what the NCAA claimed here.
2. They dealt with the murdered player scandal at Baylor and punished the coach and the program for NCAA violations.
“Perhaps the lesson is that they ought to leave a case like that to the criminal justice system, which unlike the NCAA, has an apparatus in place to deal with it.”
No, but the criminal system should also deal with it. And the civil system, too. They all have parts to play in properly dealing with such a scandal.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24965911/princeton-football-to-play-spring-game-in-osaka-japan
Will this be a new trend?
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/01/15/college-football-playoff-schedule-nfl-monday-night-football-wild-card/21824135/
Will the NFL encroach on the CFP?
NFL owners will consider in March a proposal to expand their playoffs by two teams, from 12 to 14. It would mean six Wild Card round games rather than four.
But what’s troubling to College Football Playoff officials is the possible scheduling of those extra games. One of the extra games might be played on a Monday night, according to The Washington Post. That means in some years, including next season, the final Wild Card game would be the same night as the College Football Playoff Championship game. Next season’s CFP title game is Jan. 11, 2016.
…
NFL owners will consider in March a proposal to expand their playoffs by two teams, from 12 to 14. It would mean six Wild Card round games rather than four.
But what’s troubling to College Football Playoff officials is the possible scheduling of those extra games. One of the extra games might be played on a Monday night, according to The Washington Post. That means in some years, including next season, the final Wild Card game would be the same night as the College Football Playoff Championship game. Next season’s CFP title game is Jan. 11, 2016.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/09/15/college-football-computer-composite-ranking-week-3/15666409/
The final computer composite is out and OSU is than unanimous #1.
1. OSU
2. OR
3. AL
4. TCU
5. FSU
6. MSU
7. UGA
8. Baylor
9. GT
10. UCLA
The Buckeyes emerged from the College Football Playoff championship game as a rare No. 1 team in every one of the five computer rankings that forge the CFCC: Billingsley, Colley, Massey, Sagarin and Wolfe.
The top 10 spots, dominated by the SEC for much of the season, were split equally among the Power Five conferences, with Ohio State and Michigan State (6) representing the Big Ten, Oregon (2) and UCLA (10) representing the Pac-12, Alabama (3) and Georgia (7) representing the SEC, TCU and Baylor (8) representing the Big 12 and Florida State (5) and Georgia Tech (9) representing the ACC.
…
The Pac-12 and SEC each finished with seven teams in the top 25, most of any conference.
LikeLike
Massey’s composite had similar results. Ohio St. was #1 on 96 of the 122 polls. TCU was #1 in 11, Oregon in 8 and Alabama in 7.
Ohio St. was below #3 in 6 of the polls-4th twice, 5th once, 6th once, 7th once and 11th in one computer poll (that particular one had Michigan St. 10th and Florida St. 33rd). Oregon’s lowest rank was 12th, Alabama’s 14th, TCU’s 9th and Michigan St.’s 15th.
1. Ohio St
2. Oregon
3. Alabama
4. TCU
5. Michigan St.
6. Georgia
7. Florida St.
8. Baylor
9. Georgia Tech
10. Mississippi
LikeLike
bullet,
“Massey’s composite had similar results. Ohio St. was #1 on 96 of the 122 polls. TCU was #1 in 11, Oregon in 8 and Alabama in 7.”
I realize head to head isn’t a factor in many/most/all computers, but it seems strange to me that AL or TCU could be #1 based on the semis and NCG. At least OR also won a semi and had the MSU win.
“Ohio St. was below #3 in 6 of the polls-4th twice, 5th once, 6th once, 7th once and 11th in one computer poll (that particular one had Michigan St. 10th and Florida St. 33rd). Oregon’s lowest rank was 12th, Alabama’s 14th, TCU’s 9th and Michigan St.’s 15th.”
I’d be curious to learn their methodologies.
http://teamrankings.blogspot.com/p/xwp-description.html
This is the one that put OSU #11. It considers final score (total pts), MOV, opponent strength, home advantage, division/conference affiliation and when games are played. It is a predictive system (picked OR by 18 over OSU). His retrodictive system ranks OSU #3. Both work on the same principle, projecting a round robin schedule among all teams
Xpected Winning Percentage will rank teams in order of their current potential results, not what happened earlier in the season. Yet it uses the same fundamental principle as RWP, which is projecting the remaining hypothetical head-to-head matches. Thus XWP is strictly a predictive system, and overall team ratings are computed by rating each team’s core abilities: Offensive Strength coupled with Defensive Weakness and then comparing results. The system uses prior season data and as time passes will diminish the importance of earlier games. Also, it will adjust for game blowouts and is capable of compensating team strengths for both home advantage and division/conference affiliation.
Final results:
1. MS
2. AL
3. Stanford
4. LSU
5. AR
6. TCU
7. Clemson
8. OR
9. UGA
10. MSU
11. OSU
I think I’m OK with this poll not having OSU higher. It doesn’t seem to match reality very well in my opinion. His retrodictive system does better.
LikeLike
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-manager-games-0116-20150115-story.html#page=1
Great article on Terps taking part in a Big Ten tradition, the student manager games.
LikeLike
Yet another reason why Maryland fans love the Big Ten more than they ever did the ACC. (And with both Terp basketball teams leading the conference — not to mention Max Scherzer making a strong Washington Nationals rotation even stronger — all is right with the world. For now.)
LikeLike
Monumental votes going on during the first Autonomy session for the Power 5:
The two most important passed: 1) cost of attendance providing a stipend, and 2) coaches cannot choose to not renew scholarships for athletic reasons.
The cost of attendance vote was 79-1 with all 5 conferences in favor. The preventing coaches from not renewing was 50-30 with 3 conferences in favor (extremely close vote, just above 48 required yes votes for 3 out of 5 conference support).
Concussion protocols also passed (Big 12 wanted further review and voted largely against, they wanted a more comprehensive plan).
Still, the biggest 2 issues passed, one of which was very controversial. We need to know which 2 conferences opposed the 2nd big issue (don’t have the details yet).
LikeLike
According to twitter, SEC and Big 12 opposed the 2nd issue on coaches not being able to choose to not renew scholarships.
Nebraska spoke out against that as well (Perlman said should be up to coaches), also noteworthy that several of the student athlete representatives voted against it.
That probably accounts for most of the 30 no votes: SEC + Big 12 + some schools like Nebraska from other 3 Power 5 + several student athletes.
I cannot state enough how big a deal this is, it might have a huge impact on schools that have a lot of athlete turnover (in particular those that tend to oversign).
LikeLike
The “coaches cannot not renew athletic scholarships” is a part of the “4 year guaranteed scholarships” proposal which passed on the narrowest of margins.
LikeLike
z33k,
“According to twitter, SEC and Big 12 opposed the 2nd issue on coaches not being able to choose to not renew scholarships.”
I’m shocked. The conferences that oversign the most don’t want to be limited in their roster management choices. They’ll just find another excuse (violation of team rules, probably) or talk the kid into “voluntarily” leaving since he’ll never play or is too injured.
“I cannot state enough how big a deal this is, it might have a huge impact on schools that have a lot of athlete turnover (in particular those that tend to oversign).”
It might if they could enforce the spirit of the rule instead of the letter of the law.
LikeLike
True, as to that last part, both rules should work together to reduce oversigning.
In effect, if an athlete is doing everything he should but coach tells him “you’ll never play here” but his NFL prospects are low anyways, then he might end up saying “I’ll stay here and keep my scholarship + $4.5-5k stipend per year, thanks”…
Is an athlete going to leave Texas for UTSA and give up the Texas degree + stipend if he doesn’t see a future for himself regardless of playtime?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, some will. The coaches will play the team loyalty card (you’re hurting your teammates by staying here) and many kids just don’t care about education at that age.
The bigger problem will be finding smaller schools that offer the FCOA. You’re much less likely to transfer if it means giving up several thousand per year from your pocket. Maybe the lesser P5 programs will pick up some quality players (for them) this way.
LikeLike
The Big 12 doesn’t have any more history of over-signing than the Pac 12 and Big 10. KSU has done it to some extent, but that is largely because they sign so many JUCOs.
I thought it was interesting the SEC sought disclosure of anytime a school’s financial aid office makes a special exception in the “cost of attendance” for a student-athlete, but the rest voted it down. Note that the legislation follows the general student rules which allow such an exception. That’s a loophole you can drive an 18 wheeler through, especially with no disclosure.
LikeLike
bullet, that’s true of most Big 12 schools, but the Big 12 had more regular oversigners than the Big Ten, Pac-12, and ACC combined.
Out of the other 3 conferences, really only Oregon State was a regular oversigner pre-2011.
In the Big 12, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State were regular oversigners.
As far as the the SEC goes, it was basically most of the conference (especially the SEC West schools), so they were definitely going at it far more than anyone else.
Obviously schools like Texas and Florida were signing at rates basically equivalent to Big Ten/Pac-12/ACC schools, so you don’t want to paint too broad a brush.
But the biggest oversigners were mainly in the SEC along with the ones that did in the Big 12.
LikeLike
https://web.archive.org/web/20101224103333/http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
Here’s the web archive of the 2002-2010 oversigning.com numbers.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Big 12 doesn’t have any more history of over-signing than the Pac 12 and Big 10.”
Yes, it does. But not the top programs.
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/12/13/oversigning-data
Average class size from 2006-2010:
5. KSU – 27.4
10t. ISU – 26.6
12t. Baylor – 26.2
14t. OkSU – 26.0
24t. TT – 25.2
28t. MO – 24.6
Top 25 by conference (these are all the schools that averaged over 25 per class):
SEC – 8
B12 – 5
P12 – 2
ACC – 1
B10 – 0
Top 50 by conference (average = 23.6 – 25.0):
SEC – 10
B12 – 9
P12 – 5
ACC – 4
B10 – 2
I counted school based on where they were before the recent realignment since these classes predate most/all of that. The SEC lead the way but the B12 was a clear #2.
“I thought it was interesting the SEC sought disclosure of anytime a school’s financial aid office makes a special exception in the “cost of attendance” for a student-athlete, but the rest voted it down. Note that the legislation follows the general student rules which allow such an exception. That’s a loophole you can drive an 18 wheeler through, especially with no disclosure.”
The SEC people know their conference mates. The others are too trusting.
LikeLike
Like KSU, Iowa St. relies heavily on JUCOs, so they only get 2 years of eligibility on most of those players. When they sign more than 25 a year, its a very different situation than Alabama who signs very few. Mathetmatically, if you have 25% Jucos, you would have to sign 24.3 players a year with no turnover vs. 21.3 for a school that signed no Jucos. So those 2 don’t really fit in a list of “oversigners.”
LikeLike
JUCOs are an important part of the story; it’s hard to tell which of the top programs are more affected by it among the schools that sign > 25 per year on average.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Concussion protocols also passed (Big 12 wanted further review and voted largely against, they wanted a more comprehensive plan).”
Even if you want a more comprehensive plan, why vote no? It just looks bad.
LikeLike
Is this the second big nail in the oversigning coffin?
2011: SEC presidents voted for 25 scholarship limit during athletic calendar year (although there are still some ways around this at the edges with other types of exceptions).
2015 (today): Power 5 autonomy vote (over SEC/Big 12 objections) in favor of 4 year guaranteed scholarships (coaches cannot not renew for athletic reasons).
LikeLike
z33k,
“2011: SEC presidents voted for 25 scholarship limit during athletic calendar year (although there are still some ways around this at the edges with other types of exceptions).
2015 (today): Power 5 autonomy vote (over SEC/Big 12 objections) in favor of 4 year guaranteed scholarships (coaches cannot not renew for athletic reasons).”
You skipped a step on the timeline:
2011 – SEC sets class size cap of 25 starting with 2012 class
2012 – NCAA sets class size cap of 25 starting with 2013 class (the B12 also used to oversign a lot)
As I noted a few weeks ago, the timing of the SEC rule change is interesting:
In the 2014 season, the 2012 class were juniors and redshirt sophomores. Add in the large number of players lost early to the NFL lately, and many SEC rosters no longer had the depth advantage they enjoyed previously. Perhaps this explains MS and MS St fading as the season progressed and LSU not bouncing back to elite after losing so many to the NFL last year. The polls showed more parity nationally, too. All things are cyclical, but perhaps this is one reason the SEC’s up-cycle lasted so long.
LikeLike
Yeah I had completely forgotten about the NCAA rule on 25 (so I guess that makes this the 3rd nail in the coffin then).
As to depth and the 2011 rule change, that’a a great point on how it relates to the SEC not showing its characteristic depth at the programs that finished at the top, especially in the West. It’s definitely a contributing factor in the increased parity at the moment.
It’ll be interesting to see how these rules changes affect competitiveness in the future as well.
LikeLike
I still think coaches will be able to run off players and convince them to transfer if they want.
LikeLike
Yes, but over the long term, it will make it more likely that some players stick around that would not have. That’s only natural when a rule like this comes in place that disincentives player movement (i.e. enhances security).
Here’s a simple example of how this will play out:
In 2015:
Group A: programs that averaged 92 recruits over the previous 4 year period.
Group B: programs that averaged 100 recruits over the previous 4 year period.
In 2020, these programs will look like:
Group A: programs averaged 91 recruits over the previous 4 year period.
Group B: programs averaged 97 recruits over the previous 4 year period.
Yes, coaches will still be able to move players away to regain scholarships, but this will result in an overall reduction of overall signings, especially at the programs that sign the most heavily.
LikeLike
I still think coaches will be able to run off players and convince them to transfer if they want.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I have trouble seeing the downside here. With the rule that has now passed, every recruited athlete at a P5 school is guaranteed a full four-year scholarship that can’t be cancelled for athletic performance.
I don’t see a serious objection if Nick Saban tells a kid honestly, “You’re never going to see the field here, and if you want football as part of your life, you’d be better off elsewhere.”
The kid can choose to transfer or keep his free education at Alabama without playing time.
LikeLike
Add the new stipend to that and the players are more likely to want comparable transfer options before they agree to give up that full cost of attendance scholarship.
I agree with you; this significantly strengthens the players’ hand in the player v. coach power arrangement. It’s been long overdue…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Perhaps I am missing something, but I have trouble seeing the downside here. With the rule that has now passed, every recruited athlete at a P5 school is guaranteed a full four-year scholarship that can’t be cancelled for athletic performance.”
1. There is the obvious loophole of non-athletic reasons (violations of team rules), though the players have always had the right to a hearing and might be more willing to use it now if a transfer will cost them $4k per year.
2. The P5 tend to be many of the best schools in the country. Being forced out into a lesser school is obviously a negative in terms of the education of the player.
3. Some of us were discussing whether this would reduce roster management. In that sense, this rule doesn’t have many teeth.
“The kid can choose to transfer or keep his free education at Alabama without playing time.”
Unless the coach finds some rule the kid broke (a minute late to a meeting, got sick and missed a class, etc) and thus kicks him off the team for non-athletic reasons.
LikeLike
The down side is that a kid doesn’t commit himself to being the best at his sport and hurts the team. Many teammates might want that kid off the team to free up the spot for a more deserving recruit or even a walk-on.
Not sure how frequent that happens but apparently a number of student-athletes voiced their concern at the recent meeting.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“The down side is that a kid doesn’t commit himself to being the best at his sport and hurts the team.”
If he’s goes to class and to every practice and to all the film and lifting sessions, what more can be asked of him? You can’t punish a guy for not choosing to do what are officially labelled as optional workouts, or else they aren’t optional. The 20 hour limit is there to give athletes time to have a life. If they choose to spend more time on sports, that’s their call. But the very act of not doing the extra work will mean a guy doesn’t play. If the player isn’t giving effort in practice, that’s a different story and a non-athletic reason to cut him. All the school should need is video of him not trying in practice to justify it. After all, giving 100% is generally a team rule.
“Many teammates might want that kid off the team to free up the spot for a more deserving recruit or even a walk-on.”
Many of them may want every scrub off the team in hopes of replacing them with 5* recruits. That doesn’t mean they are right.
“Not sure how frequent that happens but apparently a number of student-athletes voiced their concern at the recent meeting.”
I think you mostly heard the brainwashing from years of football coaching.
If this becomes a major problem, they could change to letting players be cut from the team for poor attitude but the scholarship must still be honored despite not counting against the 85.
LikeLike
I’d also note that my understanding is that kids who get run off tend to be the ones who just don’t have enough talent and/or had cumulative injuries limit them, as opposed to the ones who “slack off” (which strangely enough, I hear very little about).
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/18/report-alabama-rb-tenpenny-te-faciane-no-longer-with-program/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs
These might be the types of student-athletes that are targeted by the 4 year scholarship changes… it’s that time of year again in Alabama.
LikeLike
Alabama is far from unique in this respect, rather it is one of the programs people look at more closely. If you actually picked a FBS program and followed every “signed” recruit you would see a number of them disappear from the program every year. Part of it is the normal attrition rate of students in college, where, depending on the school, between 10% and 20% drop out (grades, change of major to campus that is better at it, family, dislike of scenery, etc).
We see an interesting case at UAB where they dropped football. It looks like UAB carried 85 scholarship players. 1 seems to have quit in the later half of the season (he had significant PT), and another is under investigation so nobody will touch him, and 17 were Seniors who completed their eligibility to play. Of the 66 others, it appears 46 landed scholarship elsewhere, and have transferred and enrolled already (except 2 who are scheduled to do so in summer – seems related to completing some work at UAB first). Interestingly of the 18 non scholarship players on the roster (I am not counting a player who switched from athletic to ROTC scholarship), 6 transferred, 4 getting scholarships in the process, 1 of those an FBS school.
So there is a case study with the remaining 20 lower rated players since UAB is honoring scholarships. A few are Seniors (2 to 4) who look like they are going to finish out their last 2 or 3 semesters to graduate – would maybe fall under the “5th year” scholarships most schools have to help a few more athletes graduate without counting on the active list. A few are trying to get a scholarship elsewhere and went home abandoning their scholarships (no joke, they are only in school to play sports) – there are about 6 who look like they will transfer as soon as they get a chance to join another program, probably by Summer. That leaves 10-12 players who not going to get to play football again but have a scholarship if they want to use it. It’ll be interesting to see how many actually use it; that’ll tell us how effective scholarships might be for those who get dropped.
LikeLike
Tony Verna, the inventor of instant replay, died yesterday.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_INSTANT_REPLAY_INVENTOR?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/01/20/florida-state-bobby-bowden-ncaa-victories
Now Bobby Bowden wants his wins back. Will the NCAA end up just restoring everyone’s wins?
LikeLike
The only reason they restored Penn State’s wins was because they got sued and were going to lose. I’d say Bowden has no prayer.
LikeLike
Did they fail to follow their own due process in taking Bobby Bowden’s wins?
LikeLike
Does it matter? It seems like all you have to do is sue the NCAA. The judges will always side against them and then they’ll settle.
LikeLike
I would be surprised if there’s a nationwide judicial conspiracy to always rule against the NCAA. How would that conspiracy have arisen, and who would be behind it?
The NCAA and many of its members have been agitating lately for an anti-trust exemption. They wouldn’t need that if they were already in clear compliance with existing law.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/01/20/way-too-early-top-25-power-rankings
SI’s pre-pre-season top 25:
1. OSU
2, TCU
3. AU
4. Baylor
5. AL
6. OR
7. MSU
8. UCLA
9. FSU
10. MS
19. WI
25. MN
P12, SEC – 6
B10, B12 – 4
ACC – 3
+ ND and Boise
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24980545/jim-harbaugh-adds-son-jay-harbaugh-as-michigan-te-coach
So MI fans, what is the nepotism policy at MI? Will the son have to report to someone other than his dad (I think that’s what IA did)? It’s not that I don’t think his son is qualified for the job, I’m just curious how MI handles situations like this. Having a father in charge of his son’s career certainly presents potential conflicts of interest.
LikeLike
Brian Ferentz reports to AD Gary Barta, not Kirk Ferentz. Or should I say “reports”?
I totally think Brian is qualified for the job, as he was the Tight Ends coach with the New England Patriots when Gronk/Hernandez had their awesome sophomore season. (Assistant TE coach in their rookie season, three total seasons as an assistant coach.) But it is a huge conflict of interest either way.
LikeLike
An institution Michigan’s size probably has a nepotism policy. I’m sure they found a way around it, e.g., the way Iowa did, by having him “report” to the athletic director.
For what it’s worth, the Jay Harbaugh hire is the only thing Jim has done so far that has not received universal acclaim from the Faithful. Of course, the vast majority are still prepared to believe the moon is made of green cheese if Jim says so. But to the sober-minded observer, the Jay Harbaugh hire is a bit of a head-scratcher. I’m sure he has some ability, but he has never been a position coach, and he never played college football.
All of Harbaugh’s other assistants have track records independent of him. You’d consider them good hires, even if he weren’t the head coach. That’s not the case for Jay Harbaugh. No major program without his dad in the top job would hire him to coach tight ends, based on what he has done to date.
Michigan has at least two other position coaches who’ve been responsible for tight ends in the past, and Harbaugh runs a tight-end centric offense, so I doubt the position group will be ignored. But it looks like he’s going to be learning on the job.
LikeLike
It’s fairly likely that Jay Harbaugh was his father’s second choice for the position as TE coach. It was reported in the mainstream and social media that Michigan tried to hire Kentucky TE coach/recruit coordinator Vince Marrow, but were unable to lure him away from UK. See http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/uk-beat/2015/01/05/source-stoops-marrow-finalizing-3-year-deal/21293983/. Marrow got his contract at Kentucky extended to 2018.
As a Michigan alum and fan, I don’t have a big problem with Harbaugh hiring his son. It’s a pretty strong coaching staff and having a relative youngster on it will certainly help in terms of social media, etc. If he’s able to help seal the deal on the Chris Clark recruitment, then all the better.
Jay Harbaugh has also worked for his uncle John with the Ravens while Jim worked for his father when the latter was the head coach at Western Kentucky. I suspect they know how to deal with the necessary working relationships that evolve when family members are involved.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24980531/financial-face-of-college-sports-changing-in-wake-of-power-5-proposals
A look at what the P5 may do to the future of CFB.
I thought this note was interesting:
There was a time during the financial crisis that Bob Bowlsby had to consider the unthinkable.
Cutting sports at Stanford.
The academic and athletic flagship is a shining example of the collegiate model. It sponsors 36 sports, a daily reminder of that amateur ideal: Athletics are a valuable — but not the only — part of enhancing the educational experience.
After college athletics changed officially — and radically — over the weekend the Big 12 commissioner took stock of his time as the Cardinal AD (2006-12).
“We talked about it [cutting sports] at Stanford in ’07 and ’08 when the economy went in the dumper,” Bowlsby said. “We paid $22 [million]-$23 million [per year] for scholarships. The endowment yield went way down. We had to find $7 million to keep from cutting sports.”
I thought this was a bit of a leap:
Will the average fan care if players are ‘paid?’ A resounding no, at this point. Eleven tapirs could line up against each other in Nebraska and Oklahoma jerseys and the place would be packed.
The fact players are getting a few bucks for living expenses doesn’t move Joe Tailgate’s needle. In the future players may be able to bargain collectively for their names, image and likeness. Even then, as long as the game retains its innocence — producing the undersized Doug Flutie, the humble Marcus Mariota, those last-minute finishes — fans will remain loyal.
Average regular-season and bowl attendance is down but that is because of other factors. A stipend won’t turn off fans. The money is meant to fill in gaps in the true cost of attendance.
He’s right about most fans, certainly, but I think he’s too quick to dismiss it as a reason attendance is down. Some fans are bothered by it and they probably come to fewer games than before. It’s one part of the big picture of declining attendance.
LikeLike
There was also this:
Does the world really care if Georgia State drops track? It depends. By and large, ADs will have to raise more money to account for the COA or cut sports. It’s virtually a certainty some schools will drop sports. Even some of the big boys will cut back on travel and schedule more locally in minor sports.
…
“Everyone needs to understand there’s not an unlimited source of revenue for anybody,” MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher said. “The Power 5, even though they have a lot of money, they’ve already spent it.”
…
The US Olympic Committee is on record with its concern about major colleges’ shifting financial landscape. Minor collegiate sports — swimming, wrestling, gymnastics — help provide the backbone of some Olympic teams.
“Maybe they’ll [public] care when we aren’t able to compete as well at the Olympics,” said Bowlsby, a USOC board member, “or their son or daughter don’t have the opportunity to compete in college.”
Because of Title IX concerns, Bowlsby said it may easiest to begin cutting men’s sports first.
“You don’t have to have too vivid of an imagination to foresee two men’s sports and 8-10 women’s sports,” in an athletic department.
I wonder if they’ll change the minimum number of sports per school in the near future?
LikeLike
Well with 2 and 10, you couldn’t be a division I member.
LikeLike
The minimum # of sports is an important way to keep schools out of Division I and FBS. I believe I requires 14 and FBS requires 16. So the P5 will not allow that to go down. But I think you will see a lot of schools get closer to the minimum. Many SEC and Big 12 schools are already close to the minimum. The B1G, ACC and Pac may see some sports cut.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The minimum # of sports is an important way to keep schools out of Division I and FBS. I believe I requires 14 and FBS requires 16. So the P5 will not allow that to go down.”
I-A – 16 sports
D-I – 14 sports
D-II and D-III – 10 sports
I wonder. It’d be an easy way for D-I schools to cover FCOA for hoops. The P5 don’t have control of this decision via autonomy. I could see them lowering the numbers to maybe 14 and 12.
“But I think you will see a lot of schools get closer to the minimum. Many SEC and Big 12 schools are already close to the minimum. The B1G, ACC and Pac may see some sports cut.”
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2015/01/15/couch-big-ten-sec-comparison/21827453/
This article claims that the B10 currently has a minimum of 20, not the 16 the NCAA sets, but NW is below that with 19 sports supposedly so I don’t know that 20 is correct.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/07/23/how-a-24-sport-minimum-would-impact-the-power-5-conferences.htm
UNC proposed raising the number to 24. This article looks at who that would impact the most.
LikeLike
Maybe there is a rule that allows rifle to be counted as two, since its often co-ed, and then NW started a women’s only rifle squad, but under the rule counts it as two?
Wait, so does that mean that NW has a Law School?
LikeLike
There’s no particular reason to think P5 schools will see any sports cut. They’re all making substantial money from their athletic departments (they’re basically lying when they pretend to be losing money), and media revenue is trending up. OTOH scare tactics are easy and often effective ways to stymie reform, so you’ll see lots of AD’s complaining about this kind of stuff (as opposed all the gold-plating you see in college sports) any time it looks like their cheese might get moved even a little bit.
LikeLike
There’s no particular reason to think P5 schools will see any sports cut. They’re all making substantial money from their athletic departments (they’re basically lying when they pretend to be losing money), and media revenue is trending up.
P5 schools do cut sports from time to time. Maryland was about to cut 7 of them before Jim Delany swooped in like a deux ex machina to save them. Media revenue is trending up, but so are the costs of competing.
If a school needs to charge a “student activity fee” to break even in athletics, then I call that a money-losing activity.
LikeLike
Note that track may well be less likely to be the one dropped by a “Georgia State” … with M&W cross country, indoor track and field and outdoor track and field, you get 6 sports from a common “track program”. And satisfy the three season requirement for both men and women. Add that to the FBS minimum team sports, M&W BBall, FB, and two additional women’s team sports, and you are already at 11, only five to go for FBS minimum (at UTEP, which relies on the “track sixpack” approach, the “plus two women’s teams sports” are actually three, W soccer, W volleyball and softball, and so the “five to go” are four to go: M&W golf, and Women’s rifle and tennis).
LikeLike
I think he was just using that as an example. Actually, they are planning a track facility as part of their purchase of Turner Field, should that happen.
LikeLike
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/kent-state-university-hires-consultant-to-assess-athletics-program-1.559799
On that note, Kent State is reviewing their entire Athletics program. They might cut some sports depending on revenue projections and the like…
LikeLike
They might also use the study to try to increase the leverage of their current fundraising for scholarship endowments.
LikeLike
I sure hope they didn’t hire CarrSports. Those guys might tell them that the entire university is losing billions every year and needs to get shut down completely.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game
What a shock. The Pats got caught cheating on their way to a Superb Owl again. 11 out of 12 footballs were 2 psi below the acceptable range of 12.5-13.5 psi. I’m sure they’ll get fined some more pocket change just like last time. How many different times do Belichick and the Pats have to get caught blatantly cheating in the playoffs before they suffer a real punishment? The NFL is as bad as NASCAR about punishing cheaters.
LikeLike
BFD. As Colin Cowherd pointed out yesterday, everyone cheats on every single play–no exceptions. Belichick is simply smarter at it than his opponents. And it doesn’t chang the fact that Brady is the greatest active quarterback and Belichick is the greastest active coach. Get some chips and enjoy the game.
LikeLike
You mean, that well known expert, Colin Cowherd? He knows that…how, exactly?
LikeLike
Problem is, it’s a pattern of behavior.
How exactly is he smarter at cheating if he’s the guy being caught?…
He’s better than most coaches because he’s a better winner; I don’t know what that has to do with being good at cheating.
The fact that they’re being caught again just proves that they try to push to the edge of the rules and do cross the line.
LikeLike
“How exactly is he smarter at cheating if he’s the guy being caught?”
Maybe he isn’t caught very often.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“As Colin Cowherd pointed out yesterday, everyone cheats on every single play–no exceptions.”
1. CC as a trusted source of fact? Really?
2. Bullcrap. Lots of people don’t intentionally break the rules on every play. More importantly, they don’t all scheme to cheat on the sidelines.
“Belichick is simply smarter at it than his opponents.”
He’s been caught twice more than almost every other coach ever. How is that smarter?
“And it doesn’t chang the fact that Brady is the greatest active quarterback”
That’s highly debatable. Rodgers and Manning can make strong cases, too.
“and Belichick is the greastest active coach.”
Most accomplished, sure. Greatest depends on what you factor in. I don’t call a consistent cheater the greatest at anything because I have no way of knowing what he would’ve accomplished without cheating. Part of sports is playing by the rules.
“Get some chips and enjoy the game.”
I never watch the SB.
LikeLike
I’m having a tough time wrapping my mind around this one.
I have a ton of questions:
1. How did not a single ref notice at any point in the first half (supposedly inspected the balls at half-time, which one would assume led to replacements in the second), and thus make a change?
2. If the Pats intentionally did this to cheat, how in the world did they think they would get away with it? The balls are inspected and held by the refs; unless you assume the refs are highly incompetent or in on the cheating, you can’t possibly think that such a plan would work.
3. Exactly what advantage did the Pats hope to gain in this situation, and why did they feel the need to do it? As others have pointed out, they Colts have suffered many blowouts in recent history to the Pats…I would be less surprised if they had tried this against the Ravens.
4. 11/12 were found to be under inflated; why only 11? Probably irrelevant in the end, but did they just fail to under inflate every football, or did they leave 1 for some other reason?
5. Is there any other explanation for why nearly all would have been under? Faulty equipment? If there was no real advantage to be gained (and I am not sure there was) and the odds of getting caught were quite high, why would the Pats do it? Intent is 9/10 of the law as they say, and I am just not sure I am seeing it. Obviously the Pats have had an inclination to shady activities in the past, but this situation almost defies logic for me.
LikeLike
I should note, possession is usually “9/10 of the law”, but I’ve seen many say intent is 9/10 of the law as well. (Wouldn’t want to anger our lawyer overlord)
LikeLike
Ross,
“1. How did not a single ref notice at any point in the first half (supposedly inspected the balls at half-time, which one would assume led to replacements in the second), and thus make a change?”
The refs touch the ball for a few seconds and then set it down or pass it to another ref. They don’t generally squeeze which is what it would take to notice it. In addition, you’d probably need a regulation ball to compare it to to notice the difference unless you’re an expert (ball boy, QB, WR, maybe C and RB). Besides, their minds are occupied with all the concerns of being a ref (watching the clock, the players, the sidelines, etc).
Note that the player (LB?) didn’t notice either. It was the equipment guy who noticed it after the player handed him the ball. He doesn’t have other concerns and he probably spends more time with footballs than anyone but the QB.
“2. If the Pats intentionally did this to cheat, how in the world did they think they would get away with it? The balls are inspected and held by the refs; unless you assume the refs are highly incompetent or in on the cheating, you can’t possibly think that such a plan would work.”
It happened after the inspection, and they are arrogant enough to think they’ll get away with it. The same was true of spygate.
“3. Exactly what advantage did the Pats hope to gain in this situation, and why did they feel the need to do it? As others have pointed out, they Colts have suffered many blowouts in recent history to the Pats…I would be less surprised if they had tried this against the Ravens.”
The advantage is the improved grip for the QB and skill players. That’s especially important in bad weather like they had. There is no good reason to do it since they crush the Colts regularly, but cheating often defies explanation. Why do rich people cheat on taxes or in deals?
“4. 11/12 were found to be under inflated; why only 11? Probably irrelevant in the end, but did they just fail to under inflate every football, or did they leave 1 for some other reason?”
All 12 were underinflated supposedly. 11 of 12 were 2 psi or more underinflated. Perhaps the guy thought he got all 12 and missed 1.
“5. Is there any other explanation for why nearly all would have been under? Faulty equipment?”
Doubtful. If it was the weather, the balls for the Colts would be flat too. Having at least 11 leaky footballs out of 12 would be the worst quality control ever for the football factory. Besides, the teams pick the balls in advance so they’d have time to notice that the balls leaked.
“If there was no real advantage to be gained (and I am not sure there was)”
A better grip for the QB in bad weather isn’t an advantage? Fewer potential fumbles and INTs with more quality passes isn’t an advantage?
“and the odds of getting caught were quite high,”
Where they high? The players and refs didn’t notice. It took an interception being handed to one of the Colts’ equipment guys for anyone to notice. I bet in most games only players and refs and you own ball boys touch the balls for your team.
“why would the Pats do it?”
Because they have a culture of bending and breaking the rules. Anything to win. That starts with the coach and filters down, generally.
LikeLike
Because they have a culture of bending and breaking the rules. Anything to win. That starts with the coach and filters down, generally.
My understanding is that they broke ONE rule, years ago. (the Jets sideline filming incident). It’s a pretty long journey from that to “a culture of bending and breaking the rules.”
As for “bending,” I guess that would include checking in offensive linemen as eligible receivers, which some opponents and journalists have complained about. I call bs on that. Football plays are either legal or not. Knowing the rulebook better than your opponent is not a character flaw.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“My understanding is that they broke ONE rule, years ago. (the Jets sideline filming incident). It’s a pretty long journey from that to “a culture of bending and breaking the rules.””
Belichick has been giving false injury reports for years, listing many healthy players despite them not even missing any practice time. A former AC reported the illegal filming. A former AC claimed that Belichick obtained another team’s playbook through an intermediary. Everyone denied it and there was no proof. Some Ravens accused the Pats of having underinflated kicking balls the previous week.
“As for “bending,” I guess that would include checking in offensive linemen as eligible receivers, which some opponents and journalists have complained about. I call bs on that. Football plays are either legal or not. Knowing the rulebook better than your opponent is not a character flaw.”
Reports say that they skipped the “accepted practice” of telling the refs before the game so they could be prepared to deal with it during the game. Thus they could hurry to the LOS while it was being announced. A prepared officiating crew might have delayed the snap. On at least one play, the player didn’t even report to the ref until right before the snap. I think deceiving the refs so they can’t do their job properly counts as bending the rules.
LikeLike
Reports say that they skipped the “accepted practice” of telling the refs before the game so they could be prepared to deal with it during the game. Thus they could hurry to the LOS while it was being announced. A prepared officiating crew might have delayed the snap. On at least one play, the player didn’t even report to the ref until right before the snap. I think deceiving the refs so they can’t do their job properly counts as bending the rules.
No, it doesn’t. Either the rules require briefing the refs on your game plan in advance…or they do not. If the rules require this, then why aren’t the refs enforcing it? If there is no such requirement, then the Patriots aren’t bending the rules; they are following them.
How “widely accepted” this practice actually is, I have no idea. But the rules of the game are written down, and in this particular case, are not a matter of interpretation. It seems to me you’re getting taken in by the “sour grapes” of opponents who got caught napping.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No, it doesn’t.”
That’s your opinion. Deceiving the other team within the rules is part of the game. Deceiving the refs so they don’t properly do their job isn’t within the spirit of the rules.
There’s a reason why coaches usually tell refs before the game or before the play when they plan to do something tricky. For the refs to do their best job, they need to understand what’s most likely to happen. That way they can makes sure they are in the right places and looking for the right things.
And your team that broke 1 rule years ago has been accused of many other violations as I pointed out, on top of being accused of breaking that one rule for years before getting turned in by a former AC. Likewise, they’ve been accused of using under-inflated balls multiple times this season.
You can try to spin the culture of cheating all you want, but all sorts of NFL people (coaches, media, etc) have said the same thing about the culture of the Pats.
LikeLike
“No, it doesn’t.”
That’s your opinion. Deceiving the other team within the rules is part of the game. Deceiving the refs so they don’t properly do their job isn’t within the spirit of the rules.
I post a lot of opinions here, but this isn’t one of them. Rules are written down, not just made up. Either this rule exists (in which case you could post a link to it), or it does not (in which case you can’t).
LikeLike
http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingfactsheet.html
Interesting day. Belichick passes the buck to Brady, and Brady goes into full denial. He didn’t come across as believable, though. It’s hard to believe he didn’t notice the difference when he said balls at 12.5 psi are a perfect fit for him. It’s also hard to believe that an equipment guy would mess with the balls without someone mentioning it to him.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
Sorry, wrong link.
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/article/NCAA-Says-It-s-Investigating/151315/
The NCAA is investigating 20 schools for academic misconduct (18 D-I, 1 each in D-II and D-III).
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2015/01/48934/ohio-state-only-made-the-playoff-over-baylor-by-an-8-4-vote
Art Briles claims a source told him OSU beat out Baylor by an 8-4 vote to be #4. Bill Hancock called BS on that since the votes are taken by secret ballot on computers and only the final result is known (OSU over Baylor).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12206583/art-briles-says-ohio-state-buckeyes-barely-edged-baylor-bears-college-football-playoff-vote-no-4-spot
His claim may also be impossible by virtue of this:
“Teams are considered in groups no smaller than three. An 8-4 vote would not be possible under the committee’s protocol.”
—————————————————————————————
Sounds like Art Briles’ “source” made the whole thing up…; I’m very skeptical that a process that was as leak-free as this was over the past 5 months would have had a leak like that.
I’m also skeptical that the committee members discussed their votes and who voted for what specifically after in order to try to tabulate it; just doesn’t seem like something they’d do from how careful they seemed to be throughout the process to respect the protocol.
LikeLike
In other words, the likely vote that was cast was for the “group of Ohio State, Baylor, and TCU” for the #4, #5, and #6 spots after they had determined the #1, #2, and #3 spots in the first vote.
The only way Art Briles’ claim is true is if all 12 committee members voted TCU #5 or #6 out of that group, which is something I’m skeptical of…
Either way, it just sounds made up because I doubt the committee members were telling each other what specific order they voted the teams in and such, it just didn’t seem like that kind of group.
If memory serves me correctly, Jeff Long and Bill Hancock talked to that effect after announcing the CFP schools
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24982746/wisconsins-admission-standards-pushed-gary-andersen-to-oregon-state
Great article out of Dennis Dodd on Gary Andersen leaving Wisconsin for Oregon State.
I thought it was fair to both sides. Basically, it came down to academics; the money is about the same and he never brings up weather or going back West.
It comes down to Oregon State basically being able to absorb all those JUCO and academically more marginal recruits that Wisconsin wasn’t going to let in due to higher standards.
Oregon State is the top oversigner in the Pac-12 and a big reason for that is JUCOs. Andersen makes it clear he wants those kinds of recruits to be able to get into his program.
Alvarez makes clear it’s just not going to happen much at Wisconsin: Wisconsin’s had a total of 10 JUCO players total in the 25 years prior to Andersen’s arrival in Madison. They weren’t going to change that for Andersen given that their program has been successful academically and athletically doing it Alvarez’s way.
Overall, I thought it was fair to both sides. I think it’s for the best that he left given that he was that frustrated with Wisconsin basically rejecting quite a few of his recruits on academic grounds.
LikeLike
Oregon State is the top oversigner in the Pac-12 and a big reason for that is JUCOs
Can you really call it “over signing” if they are signing JUCOs who are not going to be in thier program for a full four years?
LikeLike
I mean the term is the catch-all for teams that typically sign more than 25 recruits per year, just technically.
The JUCO part of the equation makes it so that it’s not “bad oversigning” like it would be if it was due to withdrawing scholarships from student athletes for athletic reasons.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Can you really call it “over signing” if they are signing JUCOs who are not going to be in thier program for a full four years?”
It depends. Were they signing more players than they had roster spots available at the time? If so, they oversigned.
But also, remember this from Dodd’s article:
Two former JUCO players were listed on Wisconsin’s 2014 roster — quarterback Tanner McEvoy and cornerback cornerback T.J. Reynard. There are seven junior college players listed on the 2014 Oregon State roster.
According to oversigning.com’s numbers, OrSU averaged 26.1 kids per year from 2002-2010 (4 straight years of 30+). Considering 25 was and is the official limit, that’s hard to explain without oversigning.
LikeLike
Brian –
Were they signing more players than they had roster spots available at the time? If so, they oversigned
I understand how over signing works. I also haven’t looked into how Oregon St managed their roster. Zeek mentioned Oregon St was the top over signer because of JUCOs. I was just pointing out that reliance on JUCOS was a valid reason for “over signing” and may not be a bad thing. He clarified.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I understand how over signing works. I also haven’t looked into how Oregon St managed their roster. Zeek mentioned Oregon St was the top over signer because of JUCOs.
“I was just pointing out that reliance on JUCOS was a valid reason for “over signing” and may not be a bad thing. He clarified.”
I was just pointing out that it doesn’t matter if they’re JUCOs or not. If you have 20 spots and sign 22, that’s a problem. Having lots of JUCOs can keep you at larger class sizes without oversigning since you only get 2-3 years from them (same with top teams losing guys to the NFL early), but OrSU’s numbers don’t really support that.
They took about 5 JUCOs per year. That still requires pretty heavy attrition to sign 133 players in 4 years (33.25 per year from 2004-2007). The second highest was KSU at 116 and they sign plenty of JUCOs. OSU had 77 by comparison.
LikeLike
z33k,
Some interesting tidbits:
It was a bit more than that. Alvarez’s coach was leaving a top Big Ten program for the second time in two years. Bret Bielema left for Arkansas in 2012. Andersen took the Oregon State job without visiting Corvallis.
“I had a vision in my mind what I thought it was,” he said. “I didn’t feel I needed to come here and see what the weight room looked like, what my office looked like. It was more of a vision of the direction. Do they really have a vision that they want to compete for a championship? Are they going to give me an opportunity to hire a big-time staff?”
It’s been documented that Andersen’s staff was 40th in compensation nationally ($2.6 million total). That was in the bottom half of the Big Ten.
So the guy neglects to fully investigate WI’s admission policies (more quotes about that in the piece) despite knowing he’s big on getting JUCOs, and this time he doesn’t even visit the school because there’s a sense they are serious about winning? I’d be a little worried if I was OrSU.
And based on what WI paid and his comment about a staff, I think WI needs to stop pinching pennies on assistants. If you want to play with the big boys, you need to get and retain the best possible coaches.
A Fox Sports report stated Wisconsin requires 17 high-school units for admission. That’s higher than Ohio State and Nebraska (16), Oregon State (15) and Michigan State (14), according to the report.
Interesting data. Here’s the article:
http://www.foxsports.com/wisconsin/story/temple-academic-admissions-an-issue-at-wisconsin-but-andersen-should-have-known-better-121114
For the purpose of comparison, let’s examine the admission standards for incoming freshmen at Nebraska, Ohio State and Michigan State — three teams Wisconsin figures to compete with annually for Big Ten championships. As the website 30mileradius.com points out, Nebraska has “guaranteed admissions” with lower standards than Wisconsin, and the notion that other schools harbor fewer expectations is well-founded in several cases.
At Wisconsin, 13 high school credits must be considered “core college preparatory” classes (four years of English, three years of math, three years of natural science and three years of social science). However, unlike other institutions, Wisconsin also requires an additional four electives, which can include foreign language, fine arts, computer science or other academic areas. That last addition very well could be the difference between landing some talented prospects with marginal coursework.
Nebraska requires 14 of those so-called “core” units, adding a fourth year of math. But the school only asks for two other units coming from a foreign language for a total of 16 academic course units. Ohio State’s minimum course unit requirement also is 16, while Michigan State’s is only 14.
At Wisconsin? That number is, at minimum, 17.
What is the NCAA minimum?
Click to access Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf
16 core courses:
4 years of English
3 years of math (Algebra I or higher),
2 years of natural/physical science (1 year of lab if offered)
1 year of additional English, math or natural/physical science,
2 years of social science
4 years of additional courses (any area above, foreign language or comparative religion/philosophy)
Now, back to the Fox report:
The question is: Didn’t he know about these policies when he accepted Wisconsin’s head coaching job two years ago, or was he simply star-struck at the prospect of guiding such a prestigious power-five program after leaving Utah State? Maybe he did know the difficulties ahead and simply believed he could implement change because he was the football coach.
What is curious, however, is that when Andersen arrived, he lauded the school’s academic reputation and, in fact, mentioned the word “academics” in some form 11 times during his introductory news conference.
“Academics are very important,” Andersen said two years ago. “The academics at the University of Wisconsin and the athletic program as a whole are unbelievable. To say you have a football team that is a 3.0 GPA or very close to a 3.0 GPA is unbelievably impressive. That’s a credit to the young men. It’s a credit to the support and everybody that’s around them at a quality university. A degree from the University of Wisconsin goes a long ways.”
To then complain about the difficult standards of admission — even in hushed closed circles — seems, at best, naive and, at worst, hypocritical.
Plus, once admitted to the school, the academic standards are no different than anywhere else. In fact, the requirements for students at Oregon State and Wisconsin are nearly identical.
According to each school’s compliance websites, students are required to possess a 1.80 cumulative grade-point average entering the second year of college. Beginning the third year, the mark rises to 1.90 at both schools, with 40 percent of degree requirements needing to be met. Entering the fourth year, GPAs are to be 2.0, with 60 percent of degree requirements completed. And finally, a 2.0 GPA is necessary entering the fifth year with 80 percent of degree requirements completed.
Here’s another question only Andersen can answer: Is losing a few players here and there really a good reason to leave a program that has won at least 10 games in four of the last six seasons, played in three of the four Big Ten championship games and has finished a season unranked in the Associated Press Top 25 poll just twice in the past 10 seasons?
That’s what seems odd to me. He touted WI’s academics then uses that as a reason to leave? And haven’t WI’s results shown they have a stronger commitment to winning than OrSU has?
LikeLike
Yeah, it seems largely a case that he didn’t really know that they would be strict on academic standards for the football players.
It came down to the fact that he was unhappy that he was promising quite a few elite recruits that he could get them into Wisconsin only to later find out that he couldn’t…
Alvarez pointed to one or two cases of specific recruits that Andersen attempted to get that were denied which left him unhappy.
LikeLike
“I was really impressed by the academic results that were being reported by Wisconsin student-athletes. I was *shocked*, however, to discover that I was expected to actually recruit student-athletes who would be capable of meeting the standard that made those results possible.”
LikeLike
First question: Am I the only one who feels like this is the most egregious scandal that the NCAA has faced since SMU got the death penalty?
Second question: Am I the only one who has no faith that the NCAA will handle this as seriously as it should?
This is quite possibly the most outrageous academic scandal in the history of U.S. higher education (from the Wainstein report): over 3,000 students having taken at least one fake class over a period of 20 years and over 50% were “student athletes.”
If there has ever been a need for the death penalty, UNC is the test case. They should basically remove all scholarships from all of UNC’s sports for 2 years and ban them from postseason play for 4 years.
The fact is, the scandal at UNC has done more to expose the failings of the “student athlete” model that the NCAA espouses than anything I’ve seen since I started following college sports as an undergraduate student.
The fact that 19 other universities are being investigated by the NCAA for academic fraud makes this all the worse. At some point, the NCAA universities need to decide whether the term “student athlete” should be defended. This UNC case is the primary example of whether the universities will collectively take a stand.
—————————————————————————————————–
And yes, I realize it’s a bit hypocritical to say all of that and then also say that the Big Ten would invite UNC immediately if they were ever available in conference realignment.
Thankfully, that won’t really be an actual scenario until the mid-2020s…
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/article/Confessions-of-a-Fixer/150891/#
Continuing the theme on the academic cheating issues: this article is about a “Fixer” who basically helped hundreds of “student athletes” cheat over the past 14 years.
It’s worth a read if you want to basically see how easy it was for him to do the online classes and such for some of the players…
LikeLike
z33k,
“Continuing the theme on the academic cheating issues: this article is about a “Fixer” who basically helped hundreds of “student athletes” cheat over the past 14 years.
It’s worth a read if you want to basically see how easy it was for him to do the online classes and such for some of the players…”
http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingfactsheet.html
What you have to remember is how many regular students also cheat. It’s an epidemic. Every year about 75% of college students admit to cheating.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s incredibly widespread.
I was just pointing out this article to point out how easy it is for one random guy who was basically just a “cog in the machine” managed to run a massive network of cheating on his own. He was a one man industry.
Just imagine how many other guys there are out there like this…
LikeLike
And a lot of it is one student getting paid to help other students. It’s an easy way to pay for school.
LikeLike
IMO its the worst in a very long time that’s directly related to sports (before anyone mentions Penn St.). SMU just paid players, but so far as we know, they actually took classes. To me, academic fraud is the worst type of recruiting violation. They aren’t even really students.
The NCAA has been avoiding doing anything about it and said it wasn’t sports related. But a North Carolina paper and the national press keep bringing the story back up and they are finally having to look at it.
Given the legal environment, this was really bad timing for the amateur model. This says the model is a total fabrication.
LikeLike
I agree; I think in an existential sense, the public still sees the players as “student athletes” as long as they’re actually engaging in college while they’re in school. That’s really the hook by which people can still believe that these players are student athletes, and in the broader sense, the fact that most NCAA athletes will never go pro helps to keep that state of mind.
While the 1-and-done rule has really changed that as far as schools like Kentucky go, where they’re not really there as long-term students, that’s really a tiny exception given that only a handful of 1-and-dones actually happen and the NBA Draft only has 60 slots (of which most don’t go to 1-and-dones). That can’t really ever be a systemic thing given the structural situation around it.
On the other hand, academic fraud threatens the heart of the issue by making the “student” part of the “student athlete” an outright scam, especially at a case as large and widespread as this UNC situation.
If you look at the Fixer article above, it’s almost stunning just how widespread this can be (and that dealt with mostly lower-tier athletes).
LikeLike
z33k,
I’d like to point out that it’s BS that the players are also suing the NCAA. It is not the NCAA’s responsibility to run the universities and there’s no way they could constantly look into the classes of every major university in the country to make sure they’re real. That’s ludicrous.
“First question: Am I the only one who feels like this is the most egregious scandal that the NCAA has faced since SMU got the death penalty?”
Probably not, but I wouldn’t call it the worst. OU in the late 80s under Switzer (multiple players arraigned on rape, one for drug trafficking, one player shooting another, plus multiple NCAA violations). Miami in the late 80s and early 90s (massive Pell grant fraud, paying players, lots of criminal allegations). Baylor hoops (one player murdered another, the coach paid a player’s tuition and told his players to lie to the investigators, drug dealing, other NCAA violations). Tulane hoops (point shaving, paying players, drugs, other NCAA violations) got so bad the president got rid of the sport for several years. And then there’s PSU (child molestation). I put people getting injured or killed much higher on my list than academic fraud.
And in academics, don’t forget MN hoops with the coach paying the head academic counselor to do over 400 homework assignments for players. It’s not as big as UNC, but it was all within the hoops team.
“Second question: Am I the only one who has no faith that the NCAA will handle this as seriously as it should?”
No. But remember, the problem facing the NCAA is proving that this was an athletics issue and not an academic issue. If the school had the problem, then that is for the accreditation people to punish. If the NCAA could prove that the athletic department was involved (pushing players into the classes, encouraging teaching more of the classes, etc) then they could lower the hammer. The latest allegations seemed to show some evidence in this direction for the first time.
“This is quite possibly the most outrageous academic scandal in the history of U.S. higher education (from the Wainstein report): over 3,000 students having taken at least one fake class over a period of 20 years and over 50% were “student athletes.””
I’d bet there were worse things going on in the wild days before the NCAA really started to punish people. What’s odd with this one is that so many non-athletes are involved. Usually the schools cheat to keep players eligible. This seems more like a professor scamming the school.
“If there has ever been a need for the death penalty, UNC is the test case. They should basically remove all scholarships from all of UNC’s sports for 2 years and ban them from postseason play for 4 years.”
That’s the problem. I don’t think you can kill all the sports teams at once. I’d also guess many of the smaller sports had fewer people involved.
“The fact is, the scandal at UNC has done more to expose the failings of the “student athlete” model that the NCAA espouses than anything I’ve seen since I started following college sports as an undergraduate student.”
I disagree. The failing would be if everyone was doing this. The very fact that UNC’s case seems so egregious is a positive sign. The NCAA has been pushing higher standards both for recruits and for current athletes. It’s not their job to run the actual universities.
“The fact that 19 other universities are being investigated by the NCAA for academic fraud makes this all the worse.”
The other 19 are mostly piddling cases probably. One counselor doing some homework for players and such.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point on the students suing the NCAA.
I also tend to agree that the NCAA has actually been working to increase clarity on academic issues and actually delineate a process for handling academic issues more broadly.
As far as the other issues go, I think the reason why this is as serious as other competitive issues is that we’re basically at the point where we’re getting close to seeing players receiving monetary consideration in exchange for their services as a “student athlete”… and this is moreso given that we just saw cost of attendance scholarships and the 4 year scholarship rule pass. Basically, the next set of financial considerations that players receive will be above and beyond their scholarships.
In that vein, I think it’s important for public perception, not just within the universities themselves but in a broader sense among the alumni and public that watch college sports, that the universities do their utmost to safeguard the “student” part of the “student athlete” because it’s going to be ever harder to view them as amateurs as the money in football/basketball continues to grow, etc. Even if they come to be viewed as quasi-professionals, it’s important that they’re still “students” in a true sense of the word.
I agree with you that UNC is something of a glaring exception to the usual form of academic fraud in how widespread and longlasting this particular case was (especially given how large it was among non-athletes and athletes), but I think that’s especially why this has to be the case where the NCAA makes it clear that the universities need to do more to make sure that this doesn’t happen.
LikeLike
Well if Delany channels his inner Larry Scott, he might be able to make something happen sooner. Imagine one league, 2 conferences of 12 teams each. The Big 10 invites 10 ACC schools to be under their league umbrella, the 5 AAUs-UNC, Duke, UVA, Pitt, GT, 4 good privates-Notre Dame, Syracuse, BC, Miami and one out of FSU, Virginia Tech or Clemson. 4 of the 5 remaining schools likely get absorbed by the SEC and Big 12 and the GOR is no longer an issue.
So UNC gets to basically stay in the same conference, but in a higher revenue arrangement with a combined league office that saves on administrative costs.
The Big 10 Coast Conference, when all is said and done, likely just slips into the ACC position in the Orange Bowl and College football playoff.
So the Big 10 becomes a bigger player, dominates the northeast, becomes a player in the southeast and is in a formidable negotiating position. You set it up with 8 conference games (5 division, 3 rotating) and 1 or 2 games vs. the other B1G conference. If you wanted to play them more, you have 7 conference games and 2 or 3 vs. the other conference. ESPN renews early, locking up the Tier I & II on the B1G and the 10 former ACC schools and losing the less valuable potential ACC network.
If they were to try to take 14 teams, it would be a harder sell legally that they aren’t just breaking the contract. And with 12 teams in each division, you get back to playing your conference mates frequently without a convoluted setup. Maryland and Rutgers (or possibly PSU) move to the B1G 10 Coast.
LikeLike
Well, over the past 2 years, I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that 14 is probably as large as a conference can get before it truly has to become a league.
By that I mean, once you get to 16 teams, you start talking about 2 divisions that either don’t play each other much (as long as a round robin is required) or you’re talking about 4 pods that basically removes the consistency of the matchups.
Given that the Big Ten has extended its footprint as much as it reasonably can without becoming a league, I’m beginning to think that the negatives will outweigh the monetary benefits of pushing past 14.
As long as Texas doesn’t join any 16 team configuration, I don’t think any conference will go to 16.
LikeLike
It’s probably also worth pointing out that Delany will probably announce his retirement after the new TV contract is negotiated and delivered.
Given that the Big Ten’s basically put the finishing touches on its 14 school configuration while adding JHU to complete the men’s lacrosse conference, it’s hard to see what else he’d have left on his plate to deal with… all the new conference backed sports will be up and running (ice hockey, lacrosse, etc.), while the TV deals will be locked in for at least a decade or longer…
Once the Big Ten is locked into a new T1 contract, it’ll probably be up to the next commissioner to look at participation in the next round of expansion and various other big changes.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/01/06/rashanda-mccants-unc-paper-classes-lawsuit
An analysis of the suit.
LikeLike
http://www.ecacsports.com/sports/fball/2014/Lambert/poll_final_1-5-15
ECAC Lambert Meadowlands Football Polls
Jan. 5, 2015
Division I FBS
1. Rutgers 8-5
2. West Virginia 7-6
3. Navy 8-5
4. Penn State 7-6
5. Maryland 7-6
6. Boston College 7-6
7. Pitt 6-7
8. Temple 6-6
9. Virginia 5-7
10. Buffalo 5-6
LikeLike
Too funny for words. Take that tOSU!
LikeLike
The winners in the lower divisions all had 11 or 12 wins. Apparently eastern football is only mediocre at the I-A level right now.
LikeLike
So whaddya know, Maryland now is eligible for the Lambert Trophy! That was a big thing for Syracuse, Penn State and other eastern independents back in the ’60s.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/79657/penn-state-pitt-coaches-stir-rivalry-on-twitter
Nice to see the PSU/Pitt rivalry heating up.
LikeLike
http://thegardenisland.com/sports_wire/coalition-formed-to-protect-student-athlete-experience/article_0d408f07-9205-5aab-aea0-62fcff001206.html
As a counterbalance to autonomy, 32 D-I conferences have formed a coalition to promote the common goals of the conferences of providing and protecting the student-athlete experience.
LikeLike
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/838cc10ba7004605b0f0930a841fcdd8/espn-sues-notre-dame-over-police-records-involving-athletes
ESPN is suing ND over a public records request. The dispute is whether the ND police department is a public or private entity. The state has sided with ESPN, but it’s opinion isn’t binding.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12216266/cleveland-browns-quarterback-johnny-manziel-struggled-commitment-preparation-sources-said
Shockingly, Johnny Manziel didn’t work very hard last year ad some players got upset about it.
The Browns openly discussed Manziel’s viability as the franchise’s quarterback at a wide-ranging postseason staff meeting about the roster. And at least a couple of Manziel’s teammates were joking his text should have read “wreck this team.”
…
Interviews by ESPN.com with nearly 20 Browns sources, both on the record and on condition of anonymity, along with several NFL personnel sources reveal the Manziel-related problems run deep.
Those who spoke talked of a year-long pattern that showed a lack of commitment and preparation, a failure to be ready when given a chance in his first start against Cincinnati and a continued commitment to nightlife, which affected his preparation and work while in the team facility.
…
Some said it should not have been a surprise, that the Browns were well aware what they were getting.
“During the draft process, not one person interviewed by the team said he was going to grow up,” said one source directly involved in the drafting of Manziel. “You can’t blame Johnny. This is who he is. The team knew that.”
LikeLike
The Brown’s never-ending problems at quarterback simply reflect the stupidity of their owners and managers. There is no cure for it other than new owners and managers.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2015/01/23/jim-harbaugh-contract-michigan-football/22227589/
Details on Harbaugh’s contract. His buyout is only the pro rated amount of his $2M signing bonus.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/114602/year-of-the-big-ten-back-lives-up-to-hype
A reminder that this was a historic year for RBs in the B10.
The numbers back it up: 2014 was easily the best season for running backs in Big Ten history.
The league produced six 1,500-yard rushers — no other conference had more than three (no other Power 5 league had more than two). According to research from the Big Ten office, until 2014 the league never had more than three 1,500-yard rushers in the same season. Although a 12-game regular season, a championship game and the College Football Playoff provide more opportunities, Ohio State’s Ezekiel Elliott was the only back who needed the extra contests to reach — and ultimately far eclipse — 1,500 yards.
According to ESPN Stats and Info, no FBS conference has had even five 1,500-yard rushers since at least 1996.
The Big Ten produced the nation’s top three rushers in Gordon, Coleman and Elliott. It had all three finalists for the Doak Walker Award in Gordon (who won), Coleman and Abdullah. Gordon was a Heisman finalist and likely would have won the award in any other year, as Marcus Mariota’s numbers were overwhelming. Coleman and Gordon were consensus All-Americans, and Elliott earned offensive MVP honors in both the Playoff semifinal at the Sugar Bowl, and in the national championship game.
LikeLike
Matt Sarz on the CUSA’s TV negotiations
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-into-future-for-c-usas-upcoming.html
LikeLike
B10 tidbit:
Whether FOX would ask to move more games over to FOX Sports 2, or to provide for some exclusives via FOX Sports GO, if they want to compete for the Big Ten rights in the future would likely be part of the negotiations.
LikeLike
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/cfb-schedule-shuffle-time-possible.html
More from Sarz:
Right now, I’m expecting the Gavitt Tipoff games for the Big East & Big Ten to be held from November 10-13 based on the days of the week matching the 2009-10 season and the press release stating the games would be from Tuesday-Friday from the first full week of the season.. With that said, I would not expect FOX Sports 1 to show a Thursday or Friday CFB night game that week. Currently, the only weeknight game set aside from the Big 12 & Pac-12 is the USC at Colorado game.
FOX Sports 1, in addition to the Gavitt Tipoff, also has NASCAR Truck series races on the first three Fridays in November. The race on 11/13 is from Phoenix, so that race could conceivably follow a basketball game on FS1. Note that the last time FOX tried that was their first MBK game on FS1 between Boston College & Providence, which started at 6pm ET & went to OT, pushing the Truck prerace show to FS2 & possibly part of the race (sorry, those brain cells are gone).
Anyways, USC at Colorado seems to be destined for one of the ESPN networks. Probably ESPN2 if the NBA on ESPN is on the schedule. Having the Gavitt Tipoff games the following week could be problematic with FS1 because of the truck race on 11/20 in the eastern time zone (Homestead).
LikeLike
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2014/12/short-take-on-2018-big-ten-tournament.html
Sarz on the B10 hoops tourney at MSG in 2018:
A couple interesting items that encompass the forthcoming announcement:
* The conference does not have a TV partner for this tournament as it will be the first tournament under a new rights agreement. Currently the tournament is split between BTN, ESPN and CBS. BTN and ESPN split the first three days equally, then CBS has the semifinals and championship games. It would not surprise me though if the conference has been working with a future TV partner(s) on this tournament and the schedule surrounding it.
Let’s say the tournament remains a Wednesday through Sunday event as the SI report mentions and BTN continues to split the first three games with another network. Would that network carry games in the afternoon & cede to BTN in the evening or vice-versa? The conference tournament would be concurrent with the final week of the regular season for most other conferences and, for example, ESPN has a fairly regular rotation of games on weeknights and FOX usually has Big East & Pac-12 games. Maybe BTN would take a larger role, much like both the Pac-12 and SEC Network have with their respective conference tournaments.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the schedule changed. We should know more when the conference & MSG have an official announcement.
* The conference members are not 100% set to ending their regular seasons at the end of the tournament. There is nothing stopping any member from scheduling a game after the conference tournament, whether its Senior Day, a game to keep the team ready for the postseason or one to try to lift someone off the bubble. St. Mary’s did this in both 2009 and 2011, but neither extra game was enough to lift them to an NCAA tournament at-large berth.
There are definitely signs pointing towards FOX on a few items, such as this and the new Gavitt Challenge (though the first two years would have ESPN as a potential telecast outlet). Whether it is to add content to BTN and in the process get content for a new media deal with the conference remains to be seen.
LikeLike
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2014/12/statistical-breakdown-of-cfb-on-tv-in.html
One last thing from Sarz:
A breakdown by conference of where CFB games were aired in 2014 and how that compared to 2013.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that almost all of the “excess inventory” was going to ABC/ESPN.
It’ll be interesting to see what the new TV deal looks like.
LikeLike
I should clarify, I mean the excess inventory due to expansion to 14 from 12.
For some reason I thought the BTN would get a boost to the mid-40s at least. Will that change over time, or does that have to be a part of the new TV deal.
I’m guessing we’ll see a FOX-ESPN hybrid deal, so who knows, maybe it will involve tweaking the BTN deal slightly too given that FOX is likely to want to keep the Big Ten championship game…
LikeLike
z33k,
“I didn’t realize that almost all of the “excess inventory” was going to ABC/ESPN.
It’ll be interesting to see what the new TV deal looks like.
—
I should clarify, I mean the excess inventory due to expansion to 14 from 12.
For some reason I thought the BTN would get a boost to the mid-40s at least. Will that change over time, or does that have to be a part of the new TV deal.
I’m guessing we’ll see a FOX-ESPN hybrid deal, so who knows, maybe it will involve tweaking the BTN deal slightly too given that FOX is likely to want to keep the Big Ten championship game…”
The numbers he’s referencing:
Breakdown of games by channel
ABC: 20
Ten full national games, nine reverse mirror & one regional game without a reverse mirror
ESPN: 5
ESPN2: 16
ESPNU: 9
ESPNEWS: 5
BTN: 40
In total, ESPN carried 55 Big Ten controlled games. Until this season, ESPN’s capped number of Big Ten games was 41. The additions of Rutgers and Maryland appear to have increased the number of games ESPN could take substantially.
The number of games on ESPN is down from 2013, from nine to five, while the number of games on ESPN2 nearly doubled, up from nine to sixteen
ESPNEWS carried its five games earlier in the year. None after September.
The conference had three November night games, bucking a trend of scheduling no night games past the end of October.
BTN had eight multi-game telecast windows, down from twelve in 2013. Six of the eight windows carried two games concurrently. No window carried more than three games at a time.
2013 and 2014 were double bye years due to the calendar while 2015 isn’t. That will make some changes, too. ESPN won’t be able to take as many games so BTN should gain some overflow I’d think. But maybe ESPN upped their payout on condition of getting those 14 extra games and will shift them to the U or NEWS.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12218520/illinois-illini-give-manager-ryan-schmidt-roster-spot
Wow. Down to potentially using your manager in B10 play. Tough year for the Illini.
LikeLike
Vandy players accused of rape are using two main defenses, apparently:
1. It’s not my fault, I was drunk.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/01/23/vanderbilt-rape-trial-epert-alcohol-impaired-players-judgment/22230633/
2. It’s not my fault, the culture at Vandy made me do it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/01/24/vanderbilt-gang-rape-defense-points-to-campus-culture/22266113/
It would be nice if personal responsibility returned to this country at some point. I really hope these defense don’t work. There may be reasons to not convict, but these are weak excuses.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12239000/jury-finds-ex-vanderbilt-football-players-brandon-vandenburg-cory-batey-guilty-rape
The two players tried so far were both convicted.
A jury convicted two ex-Vanderbilt football players on Tuesday of raping a former student, rejecting claims that they were too drunk to know what they were doing and that a college culture of binge drinking and promiscuous sex should be blamed for the attack.
The jury deliberated for three hours before announcing that Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey were guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery.
LikeLike
https://nppa.org/node/69374
SI will no longer have any staff photographers.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12231733/college-football-playoff-officials-budge-semifinal-championship-dates
Officials from the College Football Playoff are standing firm behind their original dates for future semifinals and national championship games in spite of a report that officials from ESPN and the NFL would like to see the dates changed.
The Sports Business Journal reported that ESPN executives have lobbied to move next season’s semifinals from New Year’s Eve, when it could suffer a drop in ratings, to Jan. 2, 2016.
The 2015 semifinals — to be played at the Capital One Orange Bowl and the Goodyear Cotton Bowl — are scheduled for Dec. 31. The NFL’s regular 2015 season concludes Sunday, Jan. 3.
LikeLike
They got record ratings in year 1 and now they want to change the schedule for next year? Why didn’t they fight for that before signing the deal?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/01/26/Events-and-Attractions/CFP.aspx
Privately, ESPN insiders say they are prepared for double-digit drops in viewership if the semifinals remain on New Year’s Eve.
Are they offering the CFP more money to move the games? ESPN knew when the games were supposed to be played when they signed the contract. Moving the games would be a concession of considerable value to ESPN.
LikeLike
It would be of value to the schools too to have more people view.
I’m guessing both sides were surprised how well the semi-finals did and how mediocre the ratings were for the other 4 games.
A lot of us on here were pretty skeptical of how well the NYE games would do. I think the college football leaders were confident people would change their habits and still believe that. Seems pretty doubtful to me. People do have to work. And a lot of people like NYE parties that don’t involve watching TV.
LikeLike
bullet,
“It would be of value to the schools too to have more people view.”
The schools are clearly happy as is. ESPN is the one looking to make more money here.
“I’m guessing both sides were surprised how well the semi-finals did and how mediocre the ratings were for the other 4 games.”
I believe they said the semis exceeded expectation, but they did have pretty high expectations anyway. As for the other 4, I doubt they were all that surprised. We’ve been through this multiple times. Some of those games did just fine compared to their past, and the others have to wait to see how their turn hosting a semi works out.
“I think the college football leaders were confident people would change their habits and still believe that.”
And they might. Part of it depends on the day of the week. NYE is a Thursday in 2015, so even more people will have the day off to make a longer weekend.
“People do have to work.”
Some do, some don’t. Lots of people are still on vacation on 12/31.
LikeLike
The non-playoff Orange and Fiesta bowls set record lows in ratings going back years. The NYE bowls did better than the bowls in the comparable time slots, but far worse than the BCS bowls did in TV ratings. So with the same type matchups, they are getting worse ratings because of worse time slots (and possibly the playoff making the other bowls less “relevant”).
LikeLike
bullet,
“The non-playoff Orange and Fiesta bowls set record lows in ratings going back years.”
Of course they did. The playoff devalued the BCS bowls that aren’t semifinals. Everyone knew that would happen.
“The NYE bowls did better than the bowls in the comparable time slots, but far worse than the BCS bowls did in TV ratings.”
That’s the price you pay for having a 4 team playoff.
“So with the same type matchups, they are getting worse ratings because of worse time slots (and possibly the playoff making the other bowls less “relevant”).”
Yeah, just possibly that second part matters. The Cotton also suffered from 2 other significant bowls playing at the same time (Outback and Citrus).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12230742/acc-rivals-north-carolina-tar-heels-wake-forest-demon-deacons-agree-nonconference-series
The North Carolina Tar Heels and Wake Forest Demon Deacons have achieved a scheduling first: The ACC schools announced Monday they have agreed to a home-and-home nonconference series in 2019 and 2021.
This is the first time two Power 5 teams from the same league have agreed to face each other in nonconference play. The games will not count in the league standings.
North Carolina and Wake Forest are in separate divisions in the ACC and no longer play annually. Because of that, the two have only met four times since 2004.
The two are scheduled to play a conference game in Chapel Hill in 2015. But their next scheduled conference game is not until 2022 in Winston-Salem.
LikeLike
I’m glad they chose to play, but I think they should count as conference games. Just because the ACC didn’t schedule it for them shouldn’t matter.
LikeLike
Actually, a few decades ago, a couple B10 schools played a non-conf matchup.
That occurred at least one time.
LikeLike
I know in 1983 the B10 played full-round robin (only because that was the rare Illini Rose Bowl season) – was that standard or might that have been the year you are referring to?
LikeLike
That Illini team is – and seemingly forever will be – the only one to defeat every other B1G team in the same season.
LikeLike
That’s not what I’m referring to. The B10 played a round-robin for a few years but a few B10 schools met in OOC after that as well.
LikeLike
Now will NCSU and Duke do likewise? It’s a short trip between Raleigh and Durham and a bit of a rivalry (though nowhere as intense as UNC vs. either one), and would save money on transportation and such. Also, many State fans would travel to Duke and vice versa.
LikeLike
A couple of fun tidbits:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/1/26/7883955/ohio-state-quarterbacks-injuries-backup-national-championships
2014 OSU suffered more lost QB starts (18) than the previous 31 champs or co-champs combined (16). That goes back to 1985 in case you wondered.
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2015/01/49201/more-people-attended-ohio-states-championship-celebration-than-a-lot-of-power-5-programs
More people attended OSU’s outdoor title celebration (45,000) than 11 P5 programs averaged in home attendance in 2014.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12242731/navy-midshipmen-eligibility-bowl-discussed-college-football-playoff-management-committee
The playoff committee has to decide what to do about Navy now that they are in the AAC. Since the Army-Navy game is after the final rankings are released, what if Navy is given a NY6 slot and then loses to Army? Even worse, what if they make the semifinals and then lose to Army?
The rankings can’t move later because the other bowls need to make their pairings. The TV contract for A-N requires it to be on the second Saturday in December for several more years.
Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson and Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson said this isn’t a Navy-Army issue, but believe any schools playing after the final rankings are released should be ineligible for a spot in the College Football Playoff or a New Year’s Six bowl.
I don’t think that would be a popular solution.
“Given the rich history of the Army-Navy game, its patriotic significance and pageantry, I can appreciate the desire of the academies to play on a stand-alone date with the eyes of the nation able to watch,” Bowlsby said. “However at this juncture, I’m not sure how best to address the impact of the game’s outcome on the CFP given Navy’s move into the American Athletic Conference, and the potential for it to secure a spot in the structure as a conference champion, or highly ranked non-champion.
“I will want to discuss this possibility and viable options with my FBS commissioner colleagues before formulating a recommended course.”
MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher and Benson also indicated the policy needs to be reviewed. Besides Navy and Army, another possibility, a commissioner suggested, is what if other schools opt to play the week after the final rankings are released and, win or lose, would remain eligible for the New Year’s Six bowls? Also, what would keep independents Notre Dame and BYU from trying to schedule a 13th game the week after the final rankings?
To answer the last question, ND and BYU could only play a 13th game if they satisfied one of the exemptions (playing at HI is the most likely). They could choose to move their final game to that second Saturday, but CFB has generally agreed to give Army-Navy that day to itself. I don’t see ND breaking that tradition and i doubt BYU would either.
Aresco said he has some “creative solutions” that would allow the Navy-Army game to be factored into the final rankings, but said it was premature to share them publicly.
I understand the need for contingency planning, and that Army or Navy could unfairly benefit. But what are the odds that either ever earns a NY6 slot? Then what are the odds that an academy team that good loses to the other one? I just don’t see this being an actual problem. Remember, these teams would have to build a sufficient resume in 1 less game, so they’d have to be undefeated (Army) or have 1 loss (Navy) to be the top G5 champ. If the worst thing that happens to the CFP is that an academy team makes it in that probably shouldn’t, then things have gone really well with the playoff. I don’t think even Art Briles would complain much if Army or Navy kept Baylor out and then lost the Army-Navy game.
LikeLike
Navy could very well get a slot. All they have to do is be the AAC champ and the best of the G5 champs.
The Army-Navy game hasn’t always been mid-December. It wasn’t until 2009 it was played then, so its not like some great tradition is changed.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Navy could very well get a slot. All they have to do is be the AAC champ and the best of the G5 champs.”
They could, but you forgot the other part of the equation which is that would also then have to lose to Army.
How often will they win the AAC? 10% of the time (12 team league)? And of those years, how often will they be the best G5 champion? 33% (assuming about 0% for MAC and SB champs and roughly equal odds for MWC, CUSA and AAC)? So that’s 3% of the time or once every 33 years they’d earn a NY6 slot.
Now, how often will that good of a Navy team lose to Army? 17% of the time at most? That gets us down to 0.5% overall, or once every 200 years. And that’s for all NY6 slots. The chances of Navy making the top 4 are much slimmer.
“The Army-Navy game hasn’t always been mid-December. It wasn’t until 2009 it was played then, so its not like some great tradition is changed.”
No, but it’s always been late in the year. The earliest they ever played was 11/24. They played on the second Saturday in December as early as 1930 and have done so 10 times. They played on the first Saturday in December 45 times. They haven’t played in November since 1983.
And from the article:
Navy athletic director Chet Gladchuk said moving the Navy-Army game from the second Saturday in December is not an option.
“It needs to be a stand-alone game,” Gladchuk said. “That game has become a focal point for America. It’s just a wonderful event, an opportunity to showcase what America is all about.
“I’m hopeful [the committee] will find a solution and I’m confident they will.”
LikeLike
In New Jersey, state sectional playoffs begin before the traditional Thanksgiving day games. For many schools, who draw their biggest crowds from those games, moving the date is not an option.
LikeLike
Navy athletic director Chet Gladchuk said moving the Navy-Army game from the second Saturday in December is not an option.
“It needs to be a stand-alone game,” Gladchuk said. “That game has become a focal point for America. It’s just a wonderful event, an opportunity to showcase what America is all about.”
Part of me would like to see the committee say to him, what makes that game more special than those academies’ games with Air Force? Not that it would ever have the guts to say that.
LikeLike
About 70 years of games. Army/Navy started in 1890. Army/Air Force started in 1959. Navy/Air Force stated in 1960. I’m from an Air Force family and I can see that.
LikeLike
They’ve been playing on that date for 6 years.
He just WANTS a stand alone date for revenue and exposure.
LikeLike
I’d probably reserve any “nuclear options” only for the case the Navy makes one of the semifinals and then loses to Army.
In that case a swap of the then-#5 team with Navy should suffice, though it would rue the travel plans of those who book travel in that week between final rankings and the ANG.
But in reality, its probably not a good idea politically to put conditions on a service academy’s inclusion in the playoff, seeing as NFL-like trust exemptions may be sought as a pre-cursor to enabling player compensation.
LikeLike
I’m inclined to agree with Brian that it is too remote a possibility to worry about. If Navy wins the American, gets a major bowl bid, and then loses to Army…then so be it. No service academy has finished in the top 4 in decades: the odds one of them makes the playoff are minuscule.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12247690/acc-count-games-byu-cougars-nonleague-power-5-opponent
The ACC officially will count BYU as a P5 team for OOC games to fulfill the requirement of at least 1 P5 OOC game per season for ACC members. That’s a change from last spring when the ACC said the opposite.
The reason for the change was because three of the four remaining Power 5 leagues (Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten) play nine conference games or will be going to nine conference games, meaning fewer nonconference opportunities, a source said. Also, the ACC believes games against BYU — which has gone to 10 consecutive bowl games under coach Bronco Mendenhall — would help the league’s overall strength of schedule, a source said.
I don’t have a problem with this since BYU is generally a better program than quite a few P5 teams.
The SEC has not changed its stance against BYU.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12248358/big-12-sec-challenge-changing-single-day-event-2016
The B12/SEC Challenge is switching top a 1-day event in 2016 in order to draw more attention. It’s been held in November and December before, but now the whole thing will be on 1/30/2016.
LikeLike
Study of former NFL players-playing tackle football before 12 messes with your brain:
http://www.forbes.com/site/leeigel/2015/01/29/new-study-of-retired-nfl-players-brains-shows-why-tackle-football-should-be-no-children-allowed
LikeLike
The alumni of Mount Carmel (Chicago) High School from about ’80 to mid-00s who played college football and beyond would be another good cohort to look at. A good many of their players, particularly the black kids from CPS and deep city catholic (e.g. not in the bungalow belt and beyond) elementary schools, came into with no or scant pre-HS tackle football experience, with the remainder of their teammates having come from several years of travel, park district and/or catholic elementary tacle ball.
LikeLike
It’s a stretch to reach that conclusion based on the study. It was a small study and only looked at former NFL players. 99.9% of the kids playing youth tackle football don’t make the NFL. About 97% don’t play after high school. The study didn’t look at any of those people to see if when they started mattered.
LikeLike
The article says it was a small study. But for the kids who didn’t play college football or the NFL, they didn’t suffer the continued collisions. Everything on concussions says the effect gets worse with each injury.
LikeLike
Yes, but the point is that studying only former NFL players doesn’t show that playing tackle football before age 12 is bad for the brain. It only shows that it’s bad for players who continue on to have an NFL career (and that’s only if the study’s findings hold up for a larger group). Since the vast majority of people don’t even play CFB, they need to study large groups who stopped before HS, stopped after HS and stopped after CFB as well as former NFL players to see if the effect is there in all groups or only some of them. If it only effects those who went on to play in the NFL, that’s a miniscule percentage. Most parents wouldn’t need to worry about it.
LikeLike
Maryland’s women’s basketball team continues its unbeaten ways in the B1G after Thursday’s 91-65 rout at Michigan. Moreover, one of the Terps’ players dunked during the shootaround that morning…and we have proof: http://www.testudotimes.com/2015/1/29/7947407/watch-63-maryland-womens-basketball-player-aja-ellison-dunk-in
BTW, she’s the daughter of former NBA player Pervis Ellison, and a freshman reserve this season.
LikeLike
It’s not just TV money that’s exploded in the past 15 years, it’s also virtually all other sources of revenue; here’s the most recent example with respect to royalties:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12252814/ohio-state-buckeyes-expect-3-million-royalties-bump-championship-win
“The university expects a $3 million increase this year in royalties from licensed merchandise sales as fans continue to buy national championship gear and keepsakes, The Columbus Dispatch reports. Officials anticipate about $17 million in total royalty revenue for the year.”
“When the Buckeyes beat the University of Miami for the title in 2002, royalties doubled from the previous year, bringing in about $5 million in total revenue.”
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Comparing 2 football championship years for Ohio State’s royalties revenue: 2015 at $17 million to 2003 at $5 million.
Obviously, the growth is disproportionately larger at the biggest schools/brand names, but it’s affected most schools.
LikeLike
http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2015/01/30/osu-license-cash-art-guc1084e8-10130gfx-osu-license-chart-eps.jpg?__scale=w:300,h:505
Here’s the chart with Ohio State’s past 15 years; it shows the explosive growth in that revenue segment.
LikeLike
I would like to have seen that chart maybe dropped back another 15 to 20 years and adjusted for both inflation and unit cost (e.g. per hat, per shirt etc.). Ohio State has really seemed to come up as a favored brand of subway alumni in the midwest (to some extent at the expense of ND?) and across the country as well as more prideful displays by its actual alums.
LikeLike
At Texas, ticket prices went from $17 in 1994 to variable pricing averaging around $80 now. It went from no donations required to donations for new season tickets. So ticket/donation revenue has skyrocketed.
LikeLike
They also added a row of suites on the east side and bumped capacity from 75k to 100k.
LikeLike
The revenue generation trend in general though has been mirrored across the country at larger schools.
Michigan’s revenue generation for example has been roughly equivalent to Ohio State as both ramped up over the past 15 years.
Texas has been #1 for a long time, and they’re now over $150 million annually.
All the big brands or well known sports schools are pushing near $90-100 million or well north of that, when no one was over $50 million in athletics revenue just 20 or so years ago.
And I’m not sure why you’d need it dropped back 15-20 years? The numbers in the prior 15-20 years are somewhere between $0 and $3 million.
The monetization trend of college brands (and college sports) really took off over the past several decades, but it sort of went vertical over the past 15 or so years as most revenue sources have somewhat gone vertical.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12255167/sen-john-mccain-says-congress-needs-hold-hearings-discuss-legalizing-sports-betting
John McCain says it’s time for congress to look into whether sports betting should be legalized.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/01/30/college-sports-record-1-billion-donations-2014
Donations to college sports set a new record in 2014 – $1.26B.
LikeLike
http://www.app.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2015/01/30/rutgers-athletics-subsidy-million/22607923/
The final numbers are in for RU’s athletic subsidies before joining the B10.
The subsidy needed to sustain the Rutgers athletics program in Fiscal Year 2014 decreased by about $11 million over the course of one year but remains in line to be one of the highest in the nation, according to a report filed by the school to the NCAA.
Rutgers used more than $36.3 million in student fees, direct state or other government support and direct institutional support to balance a budget of more than $76.6 million, according to the report obtained by Gannett New Jersey through an Open Public Records Act. The report covers revenue and expenses from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, which coincides with Rutgers’ stint in the American Athletic Conference.
Rutgers relied on a nation-record $47 million subsidy in Fiscal Year 2013 when it was hit with multiple one-time expenses, …
“If you take out the extraordinary items of 2013 and 2014, the direct institutional support to the athletic department actually decreased about $1.5 million,” Purcaro told Gannett New Jersey. “We’re on track with the university’s directive to us to reduce university support as we move into our full integration with the Big Ten.”
…
The 2014 subsidy is the second-highest for Rutgers athletics, which received $27.9 million from the university’s financial allocations in 2012. The $76.6 million athletics budget also marks the second-highest as 2013 was the first time it surpassed $70 million, but it still only represents 2 percent of the school’s $3.3 billion operational budget.
The bulk of the subsidy, more than $26 million, comes from direct institutional support, though the amount of allocated student fees has risen every year since 2005. Rutgers students can attend all sporting events free of charge, including the 10,000 complimentary tickets distributed for home football games.
“The answer is going to be generating more revenue,” Purcaro said. “We made a lot of meaningful investments over the last couple years to generate returns like the termination of the Nelligan Sports Marketing agreement and moving to IMG, like the transition to the Big Ten Conference, like hiring a new concessionaire. We looked at every revenue line we had and made some strategic business decisions to move us into a place where we could be more self-sustaining.”
Rutgers experienced a $2 million rise in contributions, with a total of $8.1 million that is short of the $9 million raised in Fiscal Year 2012.
“In 2013 we did have a dip in fundraising in the face of all the turmoil we experienced,” Purcaro said, “but our fans came back in force as we were transitioning into the Big Ten.”
…
Rutgers officials project the school to make more than $200 million in additional revenue during its first 12 years in the Big Ten. School president Robert Barchi is pushing for athletics to no longer be reliant upon university financial support by the time it receives its full share of Big Ten membership payouts in June 2021.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/01/31/ohio-state-lowers-ticket-price-for-2-non-conference-games/22648237/
This makes more sense to me. It should help with actual attendance a little, too.
Ohio State is lowering the football ticket price for two non-conference games next season, but tickets for games against Penn State and Michigan State will be more than $100.
The school says tickets for games against Hawaii and Western Michigan will drop from $79 to $65.
Tickets for the Penn State game will be $125 and the price for the Michigan State tickets will be $150.
The three other homes games against Northern Illinois, Maryland and Minnesota will be priced at $79.
Ohio State began charging a premium for marque games in 2013, but this is the first time the university has cut prices under its new ticketing plan.
That averages out to just under $92 per game.
LikeLike
A little B10 wrestling update, 5 weeks before the B10 championships start:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/012715aab.html
11 teams are ranked in the top 25.
1. IA
2. MN
4. OSU
5. PSU
10. NE
14. IL
16. MI
17. WI
21. PU
22. RU
24. NW
IN, UMD and MSU are all having bad seasons.
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/m-wrestl-standings.html
B10 standings:
1. IA 6-0
2. MN, OSU, WI 6-1
5. NE 5-1
6. PSU 5-2
7. IL 4-3
8. MI 3-3
9. PU 1-4
10. RU 1-5
11. NW 1-6
12. MSU 0-5
13. IN, UMD 0-6
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/rankings/college
B10 wrestlers are ranked #1 in 5 of 10 weight classes, #2 in 2, and #3 in 2 more. Only 184 pounds is bad for us, with the highest seed only #8.
LikeLike
Forty-five years ago today, Pistol Pete Maravich broke Oscar Robertson’s all-time college scoring record. The Pistol’s record 3,667 points will probably never be broken. And he did it without a three point line. With a three point line, the Pistol might have scored another 1000 points.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=204872424
LikeLike
He was a savant with the ball in his hands. He could shoot from anywhere, was perhaps the greatest passer ever, and John Wooden said Pete was the best ball handler he’d ever seen.
There’s no way anyone approaches his record unless the NBA draft rules change a lot. Pete averaged 44.2 ppg without 3 pointers. Only 2 others have averaged over 40 ppg (both also before the 3-pt shot), and Pete did it all 3 years (43.8, 44.2, 44.5).
LikeLike
Pistol Pete was amazing. And he did it without other great players to take the pressure off him. Everyone knew he would shoot.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25012806/conflict-over-drafting-russell-wilson-kept-bret-bielema-from-dolphins
Bret Bielema might be the Dolphins coach now but they wouldn’t agree to draft Russell Wilson in the 2nd round.
LikeLike
Is it too early to ponder a replacement for Pete Carroll after last night?
LikeLike
@urbanleftbehind – Such a brutal play call at the end. I still can’t believe that happened.
LikeLike
The focus on the play call obscures the fact Belichick didn’t call a time out. Why? I haven’t heard any intelligent commentary on the matter. Is it possible he knew what he was doing? It seemed at the moment to be a calculated gamble similar to the way basketball coaches sometimes eschew calling a time out after a late tying basket in the belief that their team is better prepared to handle the situation. Perhaps this give him too much credit?
One other thing from late in the game bothers me: Kearse’s catch on the Seahawks’ third to last play from scrimmage. Saftey Duron Harmon obviously didn’t want to risk a penalty for roughness so he didn’t play hard to the whistle – clearly he had his doubts about whether or not that was the right decision while he was still in mid air. If had instead decided to be careful (re the play outcome) and had hit Kearse while he’s on the ground, he ensures the pass is incomplete. But if he’s wrong he gets a penalty. Did he make the right decision? Sadly, given the state of NFL officiating, particularly on roughing calls, he did.
LikeLike
And Nick Saban might still be the Dolphins head coach if Miami’s doctors would have allowed him to sign Drew Brees instead of Daunte Culpepper.
http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/9/27/4778488/drew-brees-passed-over-by-dolphins-the-storyline-that-wont-go-away
LikeLike
Thick humid air in South Florida might be any QB’s undoing. Brees historically has struggled in outdoor and moist environments, regardless of air temp. As a child looking back at the early 70’s Dolphin’s of the big 3 running backs, I often thought that should be a prolific passing team instead with the warm weather and all. I should have realized that pounding the opposition with 3 RBs works even better when the opposing defense dehydrates at a faster rate (and not conditions by 3 a days in August in Miami) and the RBs themselves are drenched in sweat and perhaps a little harder to grab onto.
LikeLike
The rules today, which favor passing to an absurd degree, make winning with a rushing-dominant team next to impossible.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-lacros/spec-rel/013015aaa.html
The first season of B10 women’s lacrosse is underway. 4 B10 teams are ranked in the top 20:
1. UMD
5. NW
11/12. PSU
13/10. OSU
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/012715aaa.html
The first sport affiliate in B10 history starts play soon as the preseason favorite to win the B10 title in men’s lacrosse.
4 B10 teams are in the preseason top 20s:
5. JHU
8. UMD
14/15. PSU
20/RV. OSU
LikeLike
Imagine someone saying that the Big Ten would have some of the biggest lacrosse schools in the country in 2000. He would have been laughed out of the room.
Now, Maryland and Northwestern in women’s lacrosse with all of their championships, and JHU and Maryland in men’s lacrosse with all of their tradition.
2 top-flight contenders in each annually, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan over time given their resources.
LikeLike
I’m still in shock from the super bowl last night… What in the hell was Pete Carroll thinking?
Just incredible ending to a GREAT game!!!!
LikeLike
Actually, there are pretty good arguments for what Pete Carroll did.
The Seahawks had just one time-out remaining with 26 seconds left. If they ran on second down and didn’t get in, third and fourth downs would have to be passes, or else they’d risk running out of time. By passing on second down, they gave themselves the whole playbook on both third and fourth downs.
Now, you might think that running Lynch on second down was close to a sure thing. But curiously, Lynch had five rushes from the 1 yard line during the season, and he only scored once, whereas Wilson threw zero interceptions in that situation.
Most of the people criticizing Carroll have not looked up the actual success rates of the various options available to him. Once you consider all that, the play call makes quite a bit of sense, although not its result.
LikeLike
Marc,
I hear you… But you have to call plays while you are “in the moment” of the game too. History is important, but the Patriots were reeling after that crazy catch and were ripe for a “BeastMode” run. A pass to your fourth/fifth receiver option was not a good play call. If that is Percy Harvin or Golden Tate, then I agree with the call…
What a game!
LikeLike
@anthony: Things like “the moment”, history, and momentum are impossible to quantify, which makes me skeptical of them. It is abundantly clear that if you ignore those factors, Carroll’s decision to pass has a lot going for it. Whether the particular pass play he called was the best one is another matter.
A lot of the early returns on Carroll’s decision used words like “boneheaded”, “idiotic”, etc. When you look at the statistics, it is pretty clear that there were strong arguments in its favor, and it may even have been the correct call. I do think that intangibles count for something, but we simply don’t know, and can never know, how much.
LikeLike
Marc,
Fair points my man, fair points indeed. That’s why we love the game though… At the end of the day, the Seahawks lost the game more than the Patriots won it… Shout out to the undrafted free agent that made a play that has to be one of the best in the history of the Super Bowl…
LikeLike
I give a lot of credit to Belichick for not taking the timeout and not letting them score. After the pick happened, I was afraid he’d overthink the ball being on the 1/3 line and have Brady do a scramble to the back corner of the end zone. Had the lead been at least 6, I think that happens.
LikeLike
I give a lot of credit to Belichick for not taking the timeout and not letting them score.
If Seattle scores, the Patriots would’ve been long shots to get into FG range. Brady is one of the best comeback QBs in history, but his offense is geared to the short passing game, and he is not very mobile. With roughly a minute to play and only one time-out remaining, it would be pretty hard to dink and dunk his way down the field.
In that situation, a sack, a running play, or a completion in bounds costs about 20 seconds, and the time evaporates pretty quickly. You’ve got to get the yardage in big chunks, with almost no mistakes, and Brady’s offense isn’t well suited to that. Of course he’d have a chance, but the odds wouldn’t favor it. I can see an argument for what Belichick did, which was to let the clock run, play defense, and force Carroll to make a quick decision.
Of course, we have the luxury of talking these decisions to death. Belichick and Carroll had mere seconds to decide what to do. It’s not clear if Belichick thought it out the way I am describing, or just had a gut feel not backed by any concrete logic. There’s also the third possibility raised by many commentators: he blew it, and the interception bailed him out.
After the pick happened, I was afraid he’d overthink the ball being on the 1/3 line and have Brady do a scramble to the back corner of the end zone. Had the lead been at least 6, I think that happens.
I don’t think any coach takes an intentional safety there, unless it’s 4th down, and there wasn’t enough time left for that to happen.
LikeLike
So lets say Brady just kneels in victory formation. If the ball is held with arms extended by Brady to “break the plane” back out into the field of play, but the feet and even the knees are in the end zone, is ball spotted at the applicable spot between the 1- and the goal line or is that considered a safety?
LikeLike
Like any other play the ball is spotted where it was when his knee is down. If the entire ball is out of the end zone, no safety.
LikeLike
KJ, Whatever happened to Colorado State?
LikeLike
Today, February 3rd, is the 25th anniversary of the highest scoring men’s basketball game in NCAA history. LSU defeated Loyola Marymount 148-141 in overtime, and I was there, along with Shaq, Chris Jackson, Stanley Roberts, Bo Kimble and the late Hank Gathers.
What a game/tennis match/track meet it was!
http://tigerrag.com/basketball/engster-hank-gathers-and-seven-magnificent-people
LikeLike
http://www.thestate.com/2015/02/02/3965542_louisville-pulls-scholarship-for.html?rh=1
Tomorrow is signing day, and unfortunately its darker side is rearing its head at the moment as teams are starting to pull scholarship offers and ask players to grayshirt (enroll next January) instead. It’s not against the rules, but giving someone as little as 48 hours to check out their options is distasteful to me.
UL is far from the only school doing it, I just happened to see that article.
LikeLike
giving someone as little as 48 hours to check out their options is distasteful to me
Textbook example on how to not handle gray shirt recruits. UL had to know weeks ago a numbers crunch was coming, why not give the kid a couple of weeks to explore his options. Waiting until the dead period to inform the kid to limit his options is selfish. Hopefully he finds another offer.
LikeLike
Saw an article in the past week or so on another one-think it was Clemson pulling an offer to a Georgia HS player.
LikeLike
Actually it was Tennessee for a Florida HS player who had been committed since the summer. Couldn’t find the article first time I searched:
http://recruiting.blog.ajc.com/2015/01/22/ex-tennessee-recruits-coach-calls-recruiting-ugly-and-nasty/
LikeLike
To add a B1G angle to your story, the Tennessee recruit that had his offer pulled (Marques Ford – who Rivals has as the #8 DE recruit in the country), signed his LOI with Rutgers this morning.
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
Here’s the composite rankings for the top signing classes. There could be some changes as a few players haven’t signed yet, but things won’t change a ton. No super shocks among the top classes.
1. AL
2. USC
3. FSU
4. TN
5. LSU
6. OSU
7. UCLA
8. Clemson
9. AU
10. UGA
UF made a late charge to end up #21 with 21 commits while UM ended up #38 with only 14 players. Late coaching hires held them back this year, but they’ll both be top 10 next year since they’ll have extra room in their classes.
Top 25 by conference:
SEC – 12
P12 – 5
B10 – 3
B12 – 2
ACC – 2
Other – 1 (ND)
B10:
6. OSU
14. PSU
22. MSU
31. NE
34. WI
38. MI
45. IL
49. UMD
51. IN
52. NW
54. RU
60. IA
61. MN
64. PU
It looks like MSU is taking advantage of the past few years to step up their recruiting and stay at the top level in the B10. IA fans have to be a little disappointed, I’d think.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/recruiting/2015/02/03/new-benefits-autonomy-james-franklin-mike-macintyre-hugh-freeze/22808431/
A look at how FCOA numbers may impact future recruiting.
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/Big-Ten-Signing-Day-Superlatives-Ohio-State-Owns-2015-35398771
247 looks at the 2015 classes in the B10 (I’ll snip the OSU bits):
Best Class: Ohio State (No. 6 Nationally, 0.9006 247Sports Composite Rating). …
Surprise Class: Introduced as the next Michigan coach on Dec. 30, nobody had any idea who Michigan would close with. Four-star tight end Tyrone Wheatley and receiver Grant Perry were logical guesses, but when you look at the rest of the close, the names were unknowns to Michigan recruitniks until Harbaugh and his staff got after it. The most pivotal commitment came from Top247 quarterback Zach Gentry, a former Texas commit who joins quarterback Alex Malzone who was already in the class. Four-star defensive end Shelton Johnson chose the Wolverines on National Signing Day over Florida State, and Michigan flipped Iowa four-star running back commit Karan Higdon. Former Nebraska defensive end commit Reuben Jones is in the fold as is athlete Keith Washington and offensive tackle Nolan Ulizio. Three other recruits the new staff inherited, four-star athlete Brian Cole, four-star safety Tyree Kinnel and four-star offensive lineman Grant Newsome were all big-time gets for Brady Hoke.
Sleeper Class: Illinois moved up two spots in the final days leading up to National Signing Day to finish with the No. 7 class in the conference according to 247Sports. Four-star running back Ke’Shawn Vaughn was part of that big close, and along with four-star offensive lineman Gabe Megginson are the jewels of this recruiting cycle for Tim Beckman and his staff. Offensive line was particularly important for the Illini and in addition to Megginson, offensive tackle Adam Solomon and offensive tackle Zeke Martin join JUCOs in center Zach Heath, offensive tackle Jordan Fagan and offensive guard Connor Brennan.
…
Best Recruit: Nobody is ranked higher than Hilliard, the No. 2 outside linebacker and No. 34 prospect overall. Selected to the U.S. Army All-American Bowl, Hilliard had 71 tackles, five sacks and two forced fumbles as a senior. Michigan State running back commit Larry Scott has a chance to be the most productive player at his position in the country as a Spartan.
Sleeper Recruit: West Des Moines (Iowa) Dowling Catholic quarterback Ryan Boyle is a player Kirk Ferentz and his staff feel will be real special in Iowa City. The nation’s No. 12 dual-threat quarterback was significantly under recruited. The two-time state champion and two-time Gatorade Player of the Year threw for 7,609 yards and 97 touchdowns during his prep career. On top of his production, Boyle’s leadership skills are through the roof.
LikeLike
Article on home states of NFL players.
http://profootball.scout.com/story/1463501-daddy-where-do-nfl-players-come-from
LikeLike
From the article:
“Louisiana earns the top spot with a per capita score of 16.16. As I wrote back in May when I looked at the NFL Draft numbers and where these prospects were coming from I firmly believe that this number would be higher if it were not for Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Thousands in the Bayou State were displaced and moved to neighboring states like Texas, Mississippi and Alabama. Just the city of New Orleans alone is 29% smaller in population than prior to 2005. Louisiana has a population of 4.64 million and currently has 75 players in the NFL.”
“Where things get a little interesting is seeing what states occupy spots six though ten. Louisiana checks in at No. 6 with 75, followed by New Jersey (73), South Carolina (68), Alabama (65), North Carolina (64) and Pennsylvania (64). Six of the top ten producing states are from the south.”
Top ten NFL producing states by raw numbers and population rank.
1. CA (275) #1
2. FL (252) #3
3. TX (233) #2
4. GA (130) #8
5. OH (100) #7
6. LA (75) #25
7. NJ (73) #11
8. SC (68) #24
9. AL (65) #23
tie 10. NC (64) #9
tie 10. PA (64) #6
LikeLike
For the 2015 recruiting class, the Big Ten, particularly Illinois, seems to have eschewed the western suburbs (namely the DuPage Valley Conference and the West Suburban conference schools). Is this indicative of a “down year” or are a number of trends – aging population, movement of families with children to areas further west and south, concussion-phobia, and youths gravitatating to other sports/activities – in play here? I also note that several DVC/WSC teams had losses to Chicago Public League schools this past season.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12283795/college-football-playoff-move-semifinal-game-dates-per-espn-request
The CFP has officially rejected ESPN’s request to move the semis from Thursday 12/31/2015 to Saturday 1/2/2016.
“We reviewed it and rejected it,” said Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, who is on the playoff’s management committee. “We like the concept that we’ve developed for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day. Going forward, we think that’s the right model for college football.”
…
Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, confirmed no change would be made. He said those conversations are “over and done with.”
“We’re not going to change,” Hancock said. “It’s a done deal.”
A representative for ESPN declined comment.
Part of the playoff’s 12-year contract stipulates tripleheader bowl games, including the semifinals, on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day.
…
“The first consideration for our group is the prominence we put on taking back New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, and putting the most meaningful games on those two dates,” ACC commissioner John Swofford said. “… We look at this as a 12-year period, and to get away from the effort to consolidate the biggest games on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, to move away from that in the second year, I’m not sure feels right to the collective group.”
It’s interesting to see Scott vocally leading on this. He’s an outsider to CFB with a history of making smart TV moves for sports leagues. For him to support this, he must really see some value in the tripleheader concept and in maintaining consistency with the dates every year.
Since the CFP is just a money grab, I would’ve supported the move in theory. I just think they should have demanded more money from ESPN to do it. Maybe they did and ESPN said no. It’s also curious that ESPN refused to comment to their own reporters about this.
LikeLike
Perhaps Larry Scott took the lead, or one for the team if you prefer, is that a Pac-12 team is the least hurt by this outcome due to an earlier local kickoff time (~5:00pm PST) for a hypothetical NYE bowl game.
LikeLike
Since the CFP is just a money grab, I would’ve supported the move in theory. I just think they should have demanded more money from ESPN to do it.
Just about every scheduling decision in college athletics — strike that; just about every decision, of any kind whatever — is about making more money (or losing less of it).
To call it a “grab” is a negative spin on it. To call it a prudent source of funding things like the rowing team, that don’t make money, is a more favorable way of saying the same thing.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Just about every scheduling decision in college athletics — strike that; just about every decision, of any kind whatever — is about making more money (or losing less of it).”
That’s obviously untrue. They make all sorts of decisions that make no financial sense. Look at their devotion to the bowl system. The reluctance to play night games. The battle it took to get a 4 team playoff. The choice for a tripleheader on NYE.
“To call it a “grab” is a negative spin on it.”
Yes, it is because the CFP is a negative thing outside of the money generated. I chose to counter the spin that the new system magically finds the one true champion and that is the whole reason for it. If the main goal was to determine a football champion, the NCAA would run it like they do in all other NCAA sports and more teams would be in it. It wouldn’t really be better at finding the truest champion, but it would fit the collegiate model. The CFP was a pure money grab, trying to appease everyone by giving them some of what they wanted.
LikeLike
“Just about every scheduling decision in college athletics — strike that; just about every decision, of any kind whatever — is about making more money (or losing less of it).”
That’s obviously untrue. They make all sorts of decisions that make no financial sense. Look at their devotion to the bowl system. The reluctance to play night games. The battle it took to get a 4 team playoff. The choice for a tripleheader on NYE.
You are conflating decision and indecision. It’s true that they do not make every move that could earn more money, as soon as someone suggests it. But when they do move, it’s always in the direction of more money.
So yeah, they haven’t added every night game that they could; but they keep adding more, and will continue to do so, because the networks want them, and pay for them.
They chose the triple-header on NYE because they felt it would make more money than the former, failed BCS idea of spreading out the major bowls on weeknights after New Year’s. (Even that idea was done to make money, even though it wound up backfiring.)
I don’t know how long they debated whether multiple Big Ten teams could go to bowls (rather than just the champ, as it was when I was a kid); or to allow the 12th regular-season game. But all of those changes made money, and all eventually happened for that reason.
Naturally, the number of bowls keeps increasing—to make money.
The addition of Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers to the Big Ten: all to make money. The shift of Big Ten start times from almost universally 12:00 (decades ago), to a mix of 12:00, 3:30, and night games: all to make money. The addition of conference championship games: all to make money.
And so forth.
Yes, it is because the CFP is a negative thing outside of the money generated. I chose to counter the spin that the new system magically finds the one true champion and that is the whole reason for it.
As far as I can tell, the reviews for the CFP are overwhelmingly positive — not just from those (like ESPN talking heads and league commissioners) who profit from it.
Obviously, you’re entitled not to like it, but you’re part of a very small minority who thinks they made it worse.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You are conflating decision and indecision.”
No, I’m not. You’re trying to pull explanations out of thin air to cover an obviously incorrect statement you made. They have clearly made multiple decisions that are not about making more money or losing less of it.
“As far as I can tell, the reviews for the CFP are overwhelmingly positive — not just from those (like ESPN talking heads and league commissioners) who profit from it.
Obviously, you’re entitled not to like it, but you’re part of a very small minority who thinks they made it worse.”
The fly diet argument never works. And I never said they made it worse. I said it was a bad thing and a money grab. The BCS was also a bad thing and a money grab. The playoff is worse in many ways, but I didn’t say that in my previous comment.
LikeLike
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_27461235/colorado-likely-end-football-series-csu-after-2020
CO wants to end their series with CSU. They’ve been trying to move the games back to campus instead of in Denver and have had no success. The contract ends in 2020, and after that CO isn’t sure they want to lock in that game on top of their 9-game P12 schedule.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25049315/army-rutgers-game-wont-be-played-at-yankee-stadium
The Army/RU game will be played at Army rather than in Yankee stadium as previously thought. Good for Army.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/recruiting-100-proof-identifying-fundamental-truths-about-recruiting-and-success.html
Class rankings do correlate with success to some extent. Over the past 10 years, the champ has almost always had at least 1 top 5 class and averaged a top 10 recruiting class over the previous 5 years, and always has had 5 straight top 25 classes.
LikeLike
We focus a lot on oversigning or dropping recruits for higher quality recruits as the main negatives of recruiting, but what about coaches that recruit players and then leave immediately after signing day?
Of course, this is nowhere near as bad as oversigning or effectively dropping recruits the day before national signing day, but it’s still fairly shady…
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/2015/02/05/shady-osu-mike-weber-hurt-rb-coach-leaving/22948825/
Mike Weber and Ohio State is that kind of situation. Stan Drayton, the OSU RB coach that recruited him, is now leaving for the Chicago Bears. It’s interesting that he waited until after Mike Weber had signed to announce he was leaving, especially given that the Bears other new coaches were already in place.
That article gives another example with Roquan Smith who held off on faxing his letter of intent when the rumors about UCLA DC Jeff Ulbrich leaving, so now he can wait and see what happens.
I realize this is obviously not anywhere near as big a deal as the other negative aspects of recruiting; I just thought it was interesting to follow it.
LikeLike
z33k,
“We focus a lot on oversigning or dropping recruits for higher quality recruits as the main negatives of recruiting, but what about coaches that recruit players and then leave immediately after signing day?”
I hate it, but you are talking about position coaches. They have to work as hard as they can until they have another job, and often they feel obligated to their current job to finish the recruiting season before leaving. For every player that feels misled, others are happy for the coach to get a promotion. It’s not like their HC left and the whole system is about to change, after all.
Besides, when should a position coach leave? Anytime between NSD and the start of fall camp has the same impact on the players. After camp starts, they are committed for the whole season. That leaves the month of January (and less than that for Drayton since the NCG was on 1/12). That late into the recruiting season, does the coach owe his team to finish through NSD? His replacement won’t have time to form relationships with the recruits so he’d handicap their recruiting significantly.
I think ACs are in a no-win position here. I do feel a little bad for the players, but the position coach shouldn’t be the deciding factor in where you go to college. Here’s hoping Weber likes his new coach, whomever that will be.
“Stan Drayton, the OSU RB coach that recruited him, is now leaving for the Chicago Bears. It’s interesting that he waited until after Mike Weber had signed to announce he was leaving, especially given that the Bears other new coaches were already in place.”
I hadn’t heard any rumors about Drayton leaving. He’d been with Meyer since back at UF. Did he just get the job, or has he been sitting on it?
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/BH-The-Drayton-Deal-View-From-The-Top-35458029
FWIW, OSU sources are saying Drayton didn’t get the offer until yesterday. Obviously he must have talked to Chicago before that, but supposedly he didn’t even interview before Thursday.
Also, Meyer and Drayton talked with Weber later on Thursday to discuss/explain what happened.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12292674/ohio-state-buckeyes-hire-tony-alford-notre-dame-fighting-irish-recruiting-coordinator-rb-coach
And the position is filled, so now we can see how Weber likes the replacement. He was the guy recruiting Weber for ND, so they have a relationship already. He also has a solid track record as a position coach.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/02/ohio_state_rb_mike_weber_speak.html
Apparently he’s OK with it:
Mike Weber @mikeweber25
Follow
But want to say congrats to coach drayton wish nothing but the best , but excited to have @CoachTonyAlford aboard #GoBucks
7:51 PM – 9 Feb 2015
LikeLike
Rece Davis takes over as host for College Football Gameday. Chris Fowler to concentrate on Saturday Night Football.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2015/02/rece-davis-signs-multi-year-agreement-espn-named-new-host-college-gameday/
LikeLike
Good for Davis and ESPN. I always thought Davis did a good job despite being saddled with Holtz and May. I think ESPN would be wise to start grooming a GD replacement for Herbstreit, too. Making him travel from the GD site to another city to cover a game that night (happens a few times a year) is onerous. They could still cut to him at a remote studio.
LikeLike
If were to bet money – I wager Cole Stoudt ends up on Game Day within the next 10 years.
LikeLike
What’s everyone’s thoughts on Fowler as play by play? In my opinion he is average at best. His commentary seems too forced at times and unnatural. Don’t think he deserves to call the featured game of the week.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“What’s everyone’s thoughts on Fowler as play by play?”
I think he’s blandly inoffensive. I greatly prefer an understated style than a Musburger or Johnson. His years of covering tennis probably have made him atypical for a football announcer since tennis people have to be quiet.
“In my opinion he is average at best. His commentary seems too forced at times and unnatural. Don’t think he deserves to call the featured game of the week.”
I’d guess he’ll seem smoother next year without CGD to prepare for and having a year of experience. He’ll never go down as a great announcer, but he rarely gets in the way of the game. I’ll take that over someone trying to be the focus any day.
LikeLike
Some former Maryland greats who were cool on the Terrapins’ move to the Big Ten have changed their tune: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/02/04/should-maryland-be-missing-the-acc
LikeLike
Winning solves all problems.
By the way, am I the only who laughed that all of their points about the ACC’s teams being good include Louisville and Notre Dame, two teams which Maryland has virtually no real history with…?
I can understand Maryland fans missing UVa, UNC, Duke; that’s completely justified given all the years of tradition those rivalries had. But let’s be real here, the new 15-team ACC configuration is not the ACC that Maryland was a part of for its first 40-50 years of conference affiliation.
Regardless, it’s always good to see a team switching conferences have success; that’s the best way to get the alumni and fans to focus on the present and future.
Winning makes the move a lot more of a natural transition.
LikeLike
For those of you who post on CSNbbs
Zeigler is seeking damages in excess of $25,000 against each defendant, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, for alleged defamation and false light, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that [Bruce] Bendix, [Dan] Burgardt and [Randolph] Foster each posted “false and defamatory statements” about Zeigler on the sports website CSNbbs.com while using the online pseudonyms “MajorHoople,” “Chipdip2” and “DesertBronco,” respectively.
http://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-sues-message-board-posters-over-fuck-1684191151
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2015/02/michigan_state_to_petition_big.html
MSU wants an exemption from a B10 rule.
Rule: Any player who transfers from 1 B10 school and ends up at another has to sit out a year and loses a year of eligibility.
Case: A guy played for NE in 2013 then transferred to a JUCO for 2014. MSU signed him this week and Dantonio wants him to be eligible immediately. He would be eligible in any other conference.
My opinion: The guy knew the rule when he signed with MSU and MSU knew the rule when they signed him. I don’t see any reason he should get a special waiver. If MSU wants to bring the rule up for discussion in the future, great. It may or may not be a good rule, but asking for special treatment always rubs me the wrong way.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12287800/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-open-changes-playoff-structure
Adam Silver is willing to consider changing the NBA playoff structure so the 10 best at-larges get in regardless of conference.
LikeLike
I hope they do it and realign into 5 divisions of 6.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/2/6/7987571/recruiting-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams
Here are the average class rankings over the past 4 years for all I-A teams. The SEC average is in the top 20. The other P5 averages are all pretty similar to each other.
Ordinal rank based on averages (between 19 and 20 = 19.5, etc):
SEC – 19.5
P12 – 35.5
B12 – 39.3
ACC – 39.7
B10 – 41.5
LikeLike
Top 17 include all the kings except PSU (probation) and Nebraska. It includes the SEC 4 near kings-LSU, UGA, Auburn, Tennessee. It also includes Texas A&M, Clemson and UCLA who would pretty universally viewed as top 25 programs. Oregon was 18.
LikeLike
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000468926/article/nfl-scouting-combine-by-the-numbers
The NFL combine invitations have gone out.
Position breakdown
Quarterbacks: 15
Running backs: 36 (including 2 fullbacks)
Wide receivers: 44
Tight ends: 19
Offensive linemen: 52 (34 tackles, 12 guards, 6 centers)
Defensive linemen: 56 (32 ends, 21 tackles, 3 nose tackles)
Linebackers: 34 (17 outside, 17 inside)
Defensive backs: 54 (33 cornerbacks, 13 free safeties, 8 strong safeties)
Specialists: 13 (7 punters, 5 kickers, 1 long snapper)
Conference breakdown
SEC: 68
ACC: 57
Pac-12: 44
Big Ten: 39
Big 12: 31
FCS schools: 27
Mountain West: 16
AAC: 14
Mid-American: 9
Conference USA: 5
Independents: 5
Sun Belt: 5
Division II schools: 2
Division III schools: 1
There are 13 schools with at least six participants:
Florida State: 12
Alabama: 11
Louisville: 11
Florida: 9
Miami: 8
Oklahoma: 8 (includes WR Dorial Green-Beckham, who never played for the Sooners)
Auburn: 7
Clemson: 7
Oregon: 7
USC: 7
LSU: 6
Michigan State: 6
Stanford: 6
» Eight power conference schools have no participants: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Vanderbilt.
» National champion Ohio State has four participants, which shows how young the Buckeyes were this season.
» The number of quarterbacks invited, 15, is the fewest since at least 2005. There were 16 in 2013 and at least 18 in every other year from 2005-14.
» There will be 12 guards at the combine. Five of them played in the ACC, and four played in the SEC. The only other FBS conference with a guard participating is the Big 12, which has two.
» For the second year in a row, there are no quarterbacks from the Big Ten. And one year after having no quarterbacks, the Pac-12 has four this year.
» Michigan State leads the Big Ten with six participants, but that figure would rank tied for fourth in the SEC, fifth in the ACC, tied for third in the Pac-12, and second in the Big 12.
» Colorado State, which is in the Mountain West, has five participants; that’s more than all but one team in the Big Ten and Big 12 and more than all but two teams in the Pac-12.
» Central Michigan has as many participants as Michigan and Nebraska (3). East Carolina also has three, which is three more than North Carolina and one more than North Carolina State. Memphis has three, which is one more than Tennessee (2) and Vanderbilt (0) combined. FCS member Chattanooga has as many participants as Tennessee. Texas State has two participants, which is two more than Texas Tech.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/115478/big-ten-sending-38-players-to-nfl-combine
A B10-centric look at it:
Quarterbacks (0)
Running backs (5)
Fullbacks (1)
Wide receivers (6)
Tight ends (4)
Offensive line (4)
Defensive line (7)
Linebacker (5)
Cornerback (2)
Safety (3)
Specialists (1)
* Michigan State leads all Big Ten teams with six players going to the combine, followed by Penn State with five and both Iowa and Ohio State with four. Illinois is the only Big Ten team not represented at the combine, a departure from the Ron Zook era when the Illini produced more NFL prospects than any Big Ten squad.
* Penn State defensive end Deion Barnes didn’t receive an invite despite skipping his senior season to enter the draft, a decision that surprised many at the time.
* Some players I expected to see on the list but aren’t include: Michigan State defensive end Marcus Rush, Michigan wide receiver Devin Gardner, Wisconsin guard Kyle Costigan, Michigan State punter Mike Sadler and Wisconsin defensive tackle Warren Herring.
* Some will point to no quarterback invitations as a continued stain on the Big Ten, which hasn’t had a quarterback drafted in the first round since Kerry Collins in 1995. But the league would have had multiple selections if Michigan State’s Connor Cook and Ohio State’s Cardale Jones had opted to leave school. The Big Ten should have several quarterback draft prospects in 2016.
* It’s a good sign to see so many Big Ten wide receivers — and four tight ends — heading to Indianapolis. Wide receiver in particular had been a huge weakness around the league not long ago.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/after-signing-day-wisconsin-makes-the-best-of-its-recruits/
How teams have done compared to their recruiting over the past 10 years.
Top overachievers (# of places they finished above expectations from recruiting on average):
1. WI (+32)
2. OR (+24)
3. MO (+21)
4. OrSU (+19)
5. GT (+18)
Most of those teams run a unique offense that needs special types of recruits (WI, GT) that tend to be undervalued by the scouts and/or they are recruiting hidden gems out west (where recruits already aren’t valued as highly as southern recruits are) that often lack certain measurables and thus get lower grades from the scouts.
Worst underachievers:
1. CO (-34)
2. IL (-31)
3. IN (-25)
4. UMD (-21)
5. UVA (-19)
Overachieving kings:
OSU (+10)
PSU (+9)
AL (+8)
OU (+8)
Underachieving kings:
MI (-8)
Miami (-7)
ND (-5)
LikeLike
Bucky runs a unique offense? I think it’s more that top O-linemen can be developed (rather than recruited) more than other positions.
LikeLike
“Bucky runs a unique offense?”
Yes, they do.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/284230-ranking-ten-of-the-most-unique-offensive-attacks-in-college-football/page/5
They started with a pro-style base and took it to an extreme with giant OL, rotating RBs and a seldom-used passing attack built around TEs and maybe a WR.
LikeLike
Just because a guy on Bleacher Reports says they do doesn’t mean that they do.
LikeLike
Just because you say they don’t doesn’t mean that they don’t.
LikeLike
http://collegebasketball.ap.org/article/nit-experiment-different-rules-30-second-shot-clock
The NIT will experiment with some new rules this year so the NCAA has data to look at when deciding whether or not to change the rules for everyone.
1. 30-second shot clock
2. Expand the restricted are under the rim from 3′ to 4′
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/basketball/if-there-was-a-number-one-seed-for-most-exasperating-team-lsu-would-be-it.html
LSU is the most exasperating hoops team in the country, apparently.
LikeLike
I would agree. But even with all the head scratching losses, underachieving teams, and inconsistent years, LSU is still second in SEC regular season titles and third in the SEC in Final Four appearances.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/espn-remains-king-of-signing-day-coverage-while-big-ten-network-continues-to-disappoint.html
BTN really needs to improve its NSD coverage.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2015/02/49912/urban-meyer-says-hes-heard-about-media-members-pushing-braxton-miller-to-transfer
Apparently some important media people have been talking to Braxton Miller about transferring. Urban Meyer is rather upset about it. Meyer thinks the media people are trying to talk Miller into transferring rather than just trying to report on whether or not he’s transferring.
If Meyer is correct about what they are doing, I agree it’s an issue. Reporters should cover the news, not create it. If they are just asking typical reporter questions, then it’s not a problem.
LikeLike
Its an obvious speculation. Ohio St. has 3 quality QBs who have proven they can win. There are a lot of schools with 0.
LikeLike
Sure it is. And that’s why asking about it isn’t a problem. But Meyer makes it sound like they were telling Miller he should transfer. If so, I agree with him that it’s a problem.
LikeLike
Going back to the original topic, after this year’s recruiting day, I’m believing more and more that adding a school for recruiting territory is not a successful strategy.
Football recruiting has become more and more national like basketball. Now there is a heavy regional emphasis with the large number of players, but everyone seems to be going outside their region to some extent.
Kentucky signed a lot of Ohio players the last 2 years. Alabama has been signing top players from all over the country. Georgia signed players from Maryland and Arizona this year.
Texas signed 6 highly regarded Florida players, probably more than they’ve gotten out of Florida over the past two decades. Its more about the coach’s connections. Charlie Strong used to be at Florida.
And if there is an area you want to be seen, you can always schedule and ooc game. There isn’t an AAC or MWC school that wouldn’t be pretty easy to schedule if a P5 offered a home and home. Same for a 2 for 1 with a CUSA/MAC/Sun Belt school.
But more importantly, get a coach or assistant coach with connections in the area you want to recruit. Don’t add a team to a conference for that reason.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Going back to the original topic, after this year’s recruiting day, I’m believing more and more that adding a school for recruiting territory is not a successful strategy.”
I think it helps, but it’s hard to see the signal above the noise. We can track MD and NJ recruits in the B10 in the next few years (and maybe VA, too), for example. But so much of recruiting is where the coaches have ties and where people move to while keeping ties to their old home state. Most of OSU’s national recruiting is people with Ohio/OSU ties, for example. Not all, but most.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/recruiting-insider/wp/2015/02/05/national-signing-day-aftermath-maryland-spurs-big-ten-recruiting-revival-in-d-c-area/
The immediate recruiting implications from Maryland’s decision to move from the ACC to the Big Ten more than two years ago largely focused on the Terrapins, and speculation about whether the school’s athletic programs would still attract the best athletes from the area despite being in a conference whose members are mostly based in another region.
This year’s National Signing Day proved the opposite might be true, at least in football. The rest of the Big Ten is flooding into Washington and the local recruits are increasingly following Maryland to the Midwest.
Not including Maryland’s 18-member recruiting class, 15 seniors from The Washington Post’s coverage area signed with seven different Big Ten schools Wednesday, the most to join the league in one year since Rivals.com began keeping track of college football recruiting classes in 2002, re-setting a record broken last year when 13 area players signed with the Big Ten.
Moreover, only 11 local football players are headed to ACC schools this year, just the second time the ACC has finished with fewer area commitments than the Big Ten, according to the 14-year Rivals database.
2015: Big Ten 15, ACC 11
2014: ACC 15, Big Ten 13
2013: ACC 16, Big Ten 4
2012: ACC 10, Big Ten 2
2011: ACC 12, Big Ten 7
2010: ACC 10, Big Ten 5
2009: ACC 11, Big Ten 11 (9 from Penn State)
2008: ACC 14, Big Ten 6
2007: ACC 14, Big Ten 3
2006: ACC 11, Big Ten 12 (all from Penn State and Illinois)
2005: ACC 9, Big Ten 4
2004: ACC 11, Big Ten 2
2003: ACC 6, Big Ten 2
2002: ACC 10, Big Ten 2
“Football recruiting has become more and more national like basketball.”
For the top players, yes. The majority stay near home, though. It’s the overproducing states that send players all over because they can’t all stay home. It’s also the ease of travel and the large number of national TV games.
“And if there is an area you want to be seen, you can always schedule and ooc game. There isn’t an AAC or MWC school that wouldn’t be pretty easy to schedule if a P5 offered a home and home. Same for a 2 for 1 with a CUSA/MAC/Sun Belt school.
But more importantly, get a coach or assistant coach with connections in the area you want to recruit. Don’t add a team to a conference for that reason.”
While that works for sports, the B10 was thinking about future students in general. Demographics do matter for that.
LikeLike
“While that works for sports, the B10 was thinking about future students in general. Demographics do matter for that.”
Agree with you there.
Interesting stats on Maryland and ACC/B10, but that doesn’t show how much of that is Maryland. I’ve looked at some recent years (not this year yet) on the top 100 in Texas from before and after A&M left the Big 12 and the Big 12 + A&M are still getting the same %. The only real difference was that the Pac 12 was moving up and taking players while B10 and non-P5 schools were dropping to offset the P12 gains. SEC (when you take out A&M) wasn’t gaining.
There was an article talking about WVU recruiting. They have 10 players from Texas, but didn’t sign any in 2015. They are still doing well in Florida.
There’s clearly some exposure if you have a team in the area, but the coach’s connections seem to be vastly more important. When Hal Mumme was at Kentucky, the roster was about 25% Texan (where he had previously coached in HS and college), about 25% Georgian (he had coached at Valdosta State), about 25% Kentuckian and about 25% other. After he left, the number of Texans and Georgians dropped significantly. With Stoops, who is from Ohio, Kentucky is doing very well in Ohio.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12296176/dean-smith-former-north-carolina-tar-heels-coach-dies-age-83
College hoops lost a legend last night. Dean Smith passed away at 83.
He integrated UNC’s hoops team and created the hated 4 Corners stall tactic that led to the shot clock. He played and coached under Phog Allen (who learned from Naismith) and brought that to UNC where he worked under and then replaced Frank McGuire. He was known as the only man who could stop Michael Jordan from scoring.
LikeLike
Kind of torn on this, though it makes sense for Thanksgiving weekend. I’d still like to see a game at the Cell just for the novelty.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25063807/illinois-northwestern-to-play-at-soldier-field-in-2015-17-and-19
LikeLike
Yeah, the timing makes all the difference. IL can probably get more people to show up in Chicago that weekend than they can get in U-C. It’s good for NW, too. Maybe NW will also sign onto the deal so it becomes an annual thing. That could be fun.
LikeLike
Click to access soldier_field_qa.pdf
The school put out this FAQ about it.
What are the differences in the finances between playing a game in Champaign and Chicago?
During the 2014 season, the annual net revenue from games at Memorial Stadium was $6,633,136 – or $946,019 per game – over the seven home games. The revenue from the final home game of the season against Penn State, while the students were on break, was $812,328, or $133,688 under the a verage revenue per game for the season. The most recent #ILLINI game at Soldier Field (vs Washington in 2013) netted $1,969,800.
LikeLike
What are the impacts to Champaign and Urbana – in terms of lost business revenue, lost sales and lodging tax, but also savings in police overtime and other municipal services of losing one home game. I’d say have 2 home games in Chicago a year (, if this C-U impact number is small and could be remedied by an small indemnity payment.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“What are the impacts to Champaign and Urbana – in terms of lost business revenue, lost sales and lodging tax, but also savings in police overtime and other municipal services of losing one home game. I’d say have 2 home games in Chicago a year (, if this C-U impact number is small and could be remedied by an small indemnity payment.”
Obviously it’s a hit of some sort to the local businesses, but the hit can’t be that bad if the attendance has been bad anyway.
Some other problems with 2 Chicago games:
* You don’t get the alumni back on campus as often (fewer visits = fewer donations)
* Lot’s of alumni don’t live near Chicago and some will resent it
* You’ll be reducing the attachment of students to the games if you move a second one
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/115551/big-ten-morning-links-125
An interesting thought from ESPN.com B10 blogger Brian Bennett:
The Illini do not in any way have this in mind, but I wonder if this could be a trial run for a possible Big Ten championship game in Chicago.
The league has a contract with Indianapolis that runs through 2021, and Indy has been a great and deserving host. Still, a lot of people would like to see the event staged in Chicago at some point. Two main concerns are usually voiced about the Windy City’s chances of landing the game: the weather and the condition of Soldier Field’s infamous turf.
Well, the Illini’s three games at the stadium will all be held on Thanksgiving weekend, or typically, one week before the Big Ten championship game. If those games go off without a hitch — if the field can hold up and the weather is manageable — perhaps that would be enough to give Chicago another look.
The one thing he neglects to mention is that the CCG is played in primetime while the IL/NW most likely will be an afternoon game. That makes a huge difference in terms of the weather concerns.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12289032/ohio-state-buckeyes-lead-post-signing-day-2015-way-too-early-top-25-rankings
ESPN has a post-NSD top 25 out, and Schlabach swapped #1 and #2 after all the complaints he got even from other ESPN people.
1. OSU
2. TCU
3. USC
4. AL
5. Baylor
6. OR
7. MSU
8. UGA
9. UCLA
10. Clemson
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102380/102380
They also have a preseason FPI top 25 (supposed measure of team strength):
1. OSU
2. AL
3. LSU
4. Baylor
5. OR
6. TCU
7. ND
8. MS
9. UGA
10. AR
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12300661/college-football-playoff-names-texas-tech-red-raiders-athletic-director-kirby-hocutt-big-12-representative
Art Briles can stop complaining now. TT’s AD will replace Oliver Luck on the CFP committee.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25063815/how-long-is-too-long-a-college-football-game
People are concerned about the length of games in CFB. Larry Scott proposes not stopping the clock after 1st downs in order to shorten them. Karl Benson agrees. Bob Bowlsby thinks it’s worth considering but is personally against it.
Based on the data they give for the past 9 years, it looks to me like culprit is the pace of play on offense. I plotted the average game length versus the average number of plays per game as well as against the average number of passes per game. Both matched a linear fit with an r^2 of roughly 0.85.
In other words, to shorten the game you need to have fewer plays (big insight, I know), especially passes. That means some change to the clock rules most likely. I’m fine with a running clock until play forces it to stop (out of bounds or incomplete pass).
LikeLike
Until the end, they talk about everything except the obvious irritant to fans in the stands-TV timeouts. There are too many and they are WAY too long. Not every game was on TV in the past. Those TV timeouts add substantially to the average. At UGA, they go and honor the swim team, the cricket team, the tiddlywinks team, the professor of the year in foreign languages and then eventually get back to the game.
They just need to say no to TV and limit those things. When you are watching on TV, its not as obvious how much time those things eat up. When you’ve been at games that were and weren’t on TV, it is really obvious. But they’re all on now if you are a P5 school.
I don’t have any problem with running the clock after 1st downs, but the real troublemaker is TV timeouts.
LikeLike
Maybe, they could adopt a running clock for the first 3 quarters but allow it to stop on 1st down in the 4 th quarter. I personally like that we see more plays in the college game but I do agree that that the Oregon type offense seen in the Pac 12 leads to very lengthy games. As a Badger fan our game length is more reasonable due to all the running plays.
LikeLike
In many ways, I’d prefer to switch over to a soccer-style clock. Just let it constantly run (4 45-minute quarters + 20 minutes for halftime). If a player gets injured enough to stop play, he cannot return on that drive (to reduce flopping).
I have no sympathy for trailing teams trying to make a comeback. Why should the leading team get punished with clock rules that favor a comeback attempt? Nothing is worse than the endless final minute of a hoops game and I don’t want football to fall down that rabbit hole.
LikeLike
They’ve been trying for years to shorten college football games. In the mid-2000s, they experimented with starting the clock on kickoffs and changes of possession when the ball was ready for play. This rule change was much disliked, and they repealed it.
Instead, they instituted the NFL out-of-bounds rule. It used to be that the clock stopped on an out-of-bounds play, and wasn’t re-started until the next snap. Now, except for the last two minutes of each half, the clock stops on an out-of-bounds, but then is immediately re-started.
Perhaps a similar version of this rule could be instituted for first downs: don’t stop the clock, except for a first down in the final two minutes of a half. This would preserve the traditional character of the game during late drives, while eliminating dozens of stoppages at other points in the game when no one particularly notices or cares about them.
I have no sympathy for trailing teams trying to make a comeback. Why should the leading team get punished with clock rules that favor a comeback attempt? Nothing is worse than the endless final minute of a hoops game and I don’t want football to fall down that rabbit hole.
Are the current rules designed to “punish” teams in the lead? As far as I know, they’re the rules we’ve always had, and were written that way for reasons having nothing to do with making comebacks more likely.
Anyhow, it’s not so much a matter of football falling down a rabbit hole, since the current rules are long established. Maybe you’re suggesting it’s IN the hole already, and you want to get out of it. But I think you’d find very few fans who want to make it harder for trailing teams to come back, and that doesn’t seem to be the animating purpose of this proposal.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Are the current rules designed to “punish” teams in the lead?”
Who knows? That is their effect, though.
“Anyhow, it’s not so much a matter of football falling down a rabbit hole, since the current rules are long established. Maybe you’re suggesting it’s IN the hole already, and you want to get out of it.”
No, I’m saying that hoops is already down the rabbit hole and I don’t want CFB to follow it into having the endless final minute.
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2015/02/ralph_friedgen_steps_down_as_rutgers_offensive_coo.html
Friedgen is stepping down after 1 year at RU. To me it sounds like he wanted one last chance to stick it to UMD but now is thinking about slowing down.
LikeLike
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/will-big-east-tv-ratings-scare-big-ten-away-fox-sports-1.html
Will the weak viewer numbers for FS1 (and FOX) drive the B10 to not sign with Fox? A look at it from a hoops POV.
LikeLike
Does FS1’s struggles make Big East expansion more or less likely in the near-term? Perhaps it changes how the conference views adding VCU?
LikeLike
There was an article a couple of months ago (couldn’t locate it) showing that Fox and FS1 did vastly better this year in football than the year before.
FS1 and FS2 are in a different spot on the dial than ESPN and other sports channels in many markets. They don’t have the history of showing college football. But for at least last year, they made very good progress.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how the BE does. Does not having the BE name mentioned all through football season hurt their marketability?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/01/19/Media/Sports-Media.aspx
Talking about the CFP ratings:
…
As media reporter Anthony Crupi tweeted last week, the game delivered one-third of the Super Bowl’s rating at one-fourth of the cost for advertisers, who were paying an average of between $800,000 and $1 million per 30-second spot in the championship game.
This good ratings news could be short-lived, as next year’s semifinals will be played on New Year’s Eve, when TV viewership levels are down. Internally, some ESPN executives are bracing for a double-digit ratings drop around the semis. The question is how much that drop will affect the championship game’s numbers next year.
LikeLike
The thing to remember is that the ratings exceeded expectations. A 10% drop may just bring them back closer to expectations.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/02/09/Events-and-Attractions/SuperBowl.aspx
The NFL may stream a game live in 2015 in addition to broadcasting it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/115604/b1g-coaches-on-playoff-four-teams-is-plenty
Urban Meyer’s verdict at the B10 coaches meeting about the playoff: 4 teams and 15 games is enough.
“Urban’s point was we all should realize there should be no more football games,” Delany told ESPN.com. “The experience itself was spectacular. He was very positive about Dallas, about New Orleans, but 15 games is enough.”
LikeLike
CFN started their quick look ahead at the B10 in 2015.
Top B10 East questions:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1512305.html
Top B10 West questions:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1512306.html
Pre-preseason division standings:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1512313.html
East:
1. OSU
2. MSU
3. MI – Harbaugh will build around a strong D in year 1
4. PSU – lack of depth will still hurt
5. RU
6. UMD – losing a lot of starters
7. IN
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1512310.html
West:
1. WI
2. NE
3. NW
4. IA
5. MN
6. IL
7. PU
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12314616/big-ten-says-penn-state-nittany-lions-receive-full-bowl-revenue-share-2015
The articles is about the B10 restoring PSU’s share of bowl revenue starting next season, but the bowl money details are what caught my eye:
Each Big Ten school is projected to receive $6.6 million from bowl revenue following the 2015 season, deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia said. League members received $2.26 million from bowl revenues in 2012 and $2.75 million in 2013. The revenue share from 2014, the first season of the College Football Playoff, isn’t final but is projected to be around $4.6 million.
That’s large and rapid growth. I assume the CFP was responsible for much of the growth in 2014, with the new bowl slate also helping a little. But why will next year be so much better?
LikeLike
The difference in bowl distributions is probably mainly due to the B1G receiving the Rose Bowl payout next year.
LikeLike
greg,
“The difference in bowl distributions is probably mainly due to the B1G receiving the Rose Bowl payout next year.”
You may well be right. I forgot they didn’t spread the payment out equally over all 12 years but only get paid when they actually play in it. But it isn’t the whole answer.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/revenue-distribution
The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2014-2015 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:
(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.
(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $50 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $75 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.3 million if it meets the APR; the other three independents will share $922,658.
(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).
(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2 million to cover expenses for each game.
So:
1. Academics = $300k per school
2. P5 conference = $50M (includes #1)
3. OSU in the semifinals ($6M) and MSU in the Cotton ($4M) = $10M
4. $6M in expenses (presumably not counted in the total)
2 + 3 = $60M = $4.28M per school (= $4.6M if you don’t count PSU)
$6.6M per school = $92.4M.
$92.4M – $50M (guaranteed CFP payout) = $42.4M
$42.4M – $40M (Rose Bowl payout) = $2.4M
Is that a projection of how often B10 teams will make the semifinals and/or other NY6 bowls besides the Rose?
LikeLike
TCU’s Gary Paterson has a six-team playoff proposal.
Paterson’s core observation is that, except for the SEC, conference championship games haven’t actually been very popular. This is true, but no league has suggested getting rid of theirs, and I don’t imagine they’d agree to do so. In fact, the proposal comes across as a little self-serving, given that it comes from the one P5 league that can’t have a championship game under current rules.
Another problem is that Paterson’s proposal would freeze out the mid-majors, unless those leagues eliminate their championship games too. The beauty of the current system, and the reason it has widespread support, is that the mid-majors have a way to get in, even if their chances aren’t very good.
So in Paterson’s proposal, a bunch of pretty good football games now played on championship weekend would be canceled, and there would just be two games, i.e., the 3-6 and 4-5 playoff games. Every time they’ve changed the scheduling rules, it has been in the direction of playing more games, not less. I think there’s no chance it’ll happen.
Paterson doesn’t consider what I feel is the most serious flaw of any 6-team proposal (regardless of the date the first two games are played). The distinction between 2 and 3 is huge, since #2 gets the very substantial advantage of a bye. Nos. 3-6 would have a significantly less chance of winning the playoff, simply because they are exposed to one extra opportunity to lose; and if they win, one extra opportunity to lose their star players to injury.
As we saw last year, it’s often difficult to make a principled distinction between the top 3-4 teams. That doesn’t matter in a 4-team field, because everyone plays a semi-final game. It matters a lot, if the top two get an extra advantage not given to the others.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
Patterson (it bothers me to see someone’s name misspelled multiple times)
“Paterson doesn’t consider what I feel is the most serious flaw of any 6-team proposal (regardless of the date the first two games are played). The distinction between 2 and 3 is huge, since #2 gets the very substantial advantage of a bye. Nos. 3-6 would have a significantly less chance of winning the playoff, simply because they are exposed to one extra opportunity to lose; and if they win, one extra opportunity to lose their star players to injury.”
What seems odd to me is that his plan would seem to do even better as an 8-team model. Replace the CCGs with the quarterfinals (P5 champs + 3 at-larges) and keep the rest as is. That avoids the issue of seeding giving a huge edge to #2 as well as maintaining the access for the non-P5 (G5 and indies).
Also:
“I think you would probably make more money on the playoff games in December than you would with the conference championship games,” Patterson said. “Other than the SEC, there were a lot of empty seats that I saw at those conference championship games. The teams playing on New Year’s would have basically the same amount of time to get ready, and you wouldn’t take away from everybody’s recruiting or interfere with final exams.”
Would the B12 let all the other conferences replace their lost CCG revenue off the top before splitting the rest?
As for the likelihood of other conferences with split divisions doing away with their championship games, Patterson said it shouldn’t matter because the teams in those leagues don’t all play each other anyway.
“To me, when we went to this whole committee thing, it was to find the four best teams and not wait and see how they did in their championship games,” Patterson said. “As a general rule, you already know who the best teams are by who they beat and strength of schedule.
Why would you think that the CCGs weren’t going to matter? It’d be incredibly dumb to ignore some of the rare games featuring top-ranked foes. Besides, they explicitly said that winning a conference would matter. Of course the CCGs would matter.
I assume he’s proposing that everyone eliminates divisions. That leads to a lot of co-champions, though (see B10 history). Eliminating co-champs was one supposed benefit of adding a CCG.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25067832/freshman-ineligibility-ncaa-conference-commissioners-at-least-considering-it
The ACC, B12 and P12 commissioners want to consider going back to freshman ineligibility.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25065912/first-look-cbssns-forward-progress-the-integration-of-sec-football
CBSSN will air a 1 hour documentary on the integration of SEC football on Monday, 2/16 at 8 pm ET.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/115696/big-ten-spring-practice-dates-4
Spring practice will be here soon. B10 dates:
Illinois
Start date: March 14
Spring game: April 18
Indiana
Start date: March 26
Spring game: April 18
Iowa
Start date: March 25
Spring game: April 25
Maryland
Start date: March 2
Spring game: April 11
Michigan
Start date: Feb. 24
Spring game: April 4
Michigan State
Start date: March 24
Spring game: April 25
Minnesota
Start date: March 3
Spring game: April 11
Nebraska
Start date: March 7
Spring game: April 11
Northwestern
Start date: Feb. 25
Spring game: April 4 or 11
Ohio State
Start date: March 10
Spring game: April 18
Penn State
Start date: March 20
Spring game: April 18
Purdue
Start date: March 10
Spring game: April 18
Rutgers
Start date: March 30
Spring game: April 24
Wisconsin
Start date: March 15
Spring game: April 25
LikeLike
Well with bowl revenues back to PSU, the frenzy has been building on PSU boards, which I’ve avoided for many months now, to leave the BIG. Hot rumor out there that highlights an expulsion vote & the nut jobs on these boards, don’t know if they’re right, claim that Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern, & Wisconsin voted for kicking PSU out of the BIG during the Sandusky scandal. I think this expulsion vote is a very serious issue if it becomes indisuputable fact and public record.
This is one of many threads, daily basis, you can find on BWI at Rivals:
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=178996281&mid=178996281&sid=890&style=2
Funny thing is, the Pitt boards continue to express disgust with PSU & I’ve seen threads, this not being one, where the vast consensus would despite PSU in the ACC. This thread mostly highlights their disgust with the JoPa statue going back up:
https://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=530&tid=210305292&mid=210305292&sid=996&style=2
Civil War : ).
Internet & social media aside, PSU fans have been quite instrumental, grassroots level, on restoring so-called injustices related to the whole Sandusky mess. Don’t be surprised to see the Jo Pa statue back up in University Park.
I will not be surprised to see a major effort by PSU faithful to leave the BIG. I will also not be surprised to discover ACC types working backrooms to sting the BIG for taking Md. The ACC is a slick conference – they’ve expanded more than any other conference the past 10 years & I also think they will eventually pull ND fully into the conference.
So I’m really curious what some of you think. Please don’t tell me you think PSU faithful are unified in staying in the BIG – no way. I also don’t think the economic arguments will matter to anti-BIG types, even the power brokers, esp if this expulsion vote becomes public record. The anti-BIG sentiments have been there for a long, long time and they’re getting stronger. Sports radio and even news media in Pa have surfaced the above expulsion vote and my friends in Pa have mentioned increased radio discussions about leaving the BIG.
The big irony here – Jo Pa – his dated coaching and declining ability to recruit did PSU no favors. They’ve been mostly average in the BIG – football wise. They consistently lost games to mid level BIG teams the past 15 years. Bigger picture, PSU has been the most successful overall AD in the BIG & they have the NCAA hardware to prove it. I’ve never had an issue with the vast majority of their varsity programs – rather classy, most of them. It’s a great academic institution as well. But their loud mouth football fans are the worst I’ve seen on social media and in person.
LikeLike
Frank I missed the last letter of my username, above pending post – should be “funk”
LikeLike
A Repost & Duplicate: first one had incomplete username – thus delete it.
Well with bowl revenues back to PSU, the frenzy has been building on PSU boards, which I’ve avoided for many months now, to leave the BIG. Hot rumor out there that highlights an expulsion vote & the nut jobs on these boards, don’t know if they’re right, claim that Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern, & Wisconsin voted for kicking PSU out of the BIG during the Sandusky scandal. I think this expulsion vote is a very serious issue if it becomes indisuputable fact and public record.
This is one of many threads, daily basis, you can find on BWI at Rivals:
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=178996281&mid=178996281&sid=890&style=2
Funny thing is, the Pitt boards continue to express disgust with PSU & I’ve seen threads, this not being one, where the vast consensus would despite PSU in the ACC. This thread mostly highlights their disgust with the JoPa statue going back up:
https://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=530&tid=210305292&mid=210305292&sid=996&style=2
Civil War : ).
Internet & social media aside, PSU fans have been quite instrumental, grassroots level, on restoring so-called injustices related to the whole Sandusky mess. Don’t be surprised to see the Jo Pa statue back up in University Park.
I will not be surprised to see a major effort by PSU faithful to leave the BIG. I will also not be surprised to discover ACC types working backrooms to sting the BIG for taking Md. The ACC is a slick conference – they’ve expanded more than any other conference the past 10 years & I also think they will eventually pull ND fully into the conference.
So I’m really curious what some of you think. Please don’t tell me you think PSU faithful are unified in staying in the BIG – no way. I also don’t think the economic arguments will matter to anti-BIG types, even the power brokers, esp if this expulsion vote becomes public record. The anti-BIG sentiments have been there for a long, long time and they’re getting stronger. Sports radio and even news media in Pa have surfaced the above expulsion vote and my friends in Pa have mentioned increased radio discussions about leaving the BIG.
The big irony here – Jo Pa – his dated coaching and declining ability to recruit did PSU no favors. They’ve been mostly average in the BIG – football wise. They consistently lost games to mid level BIG teams the past 15 years. Bigger picture, PSU has been the most successful overall AD in the BIG & they have the NCAA hardware to prove it. I’ve never had an issue with the vast majority of their varsity programs – rather classy, most of them. It’s a great academic institution as well. But their loud mouth football fans are the worst I’ve seen on social media and in person.
LikeLike
> Internet & social media aside, PSU fans have been
> quite instrumental, grassroots level, on restoring
> so-called injustices related to the whole Sandusky
> mess.
Yep, truth’s a bitch, isn’t it? 🙂
Your reading of the situation continues to be a bit surfacy with respect to underlying content. There were cover ups and dirty dealings involving the PSU BoT, Corbett and the PA OAG, Freeh, the NCAA, and others. To be clear, there isn’t one grand conspiracy; there are many smaller, semi-interconnected groups of people who have been trying to protect their own self-interests by subverting due process and blaming others so as to shield themselves from bad publicity, scrutiny, and/or liability. They are not all likely to escape unscathed.
The truth has and will continue to emerge not primarily because of grassroots efforts but because of the ongoing and the yet-to-be-filed lawsuits. The surface has barely been scratched.
Like Brian, you should keep watching. 🙂
—
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
LikeLike
I agree with you Carl on certain levels. Grassroots arguments aside, which cannot be overstated by the way, I’m not particularly pleased on how all of this has been handled – but a whole lot of it is PSU’s fault – the administration & the fact that JoPa was way past his tenure – also a significant administrative issue. I do think a misguided “PSU faithful” continues to go down a fool’s gold path if they think the ACC will solve their woes, which are primarily on-the-field related – performance based. Just how does someone like Russ Rose continue to lead an outstanding career & program in a state where prep volleyball is generally outside of the top 10? Could it be the fact that Rose runs a tight, ethical, upstanding ship that leaves no doubt? This falls under what many know as organizational culture – where Rose succeeds and PSU Football has struggled – yet the same university.
Nonetheless, if this expulsion vote is in fact true: huge issues may follow for the BIG offices. Had I been given the power to vote, I would have never voted for PSU’s expulsion with the evidence at the time. That’s no hindsight is 20/20 crap on my part either. I see PSU as an athletic department and university, foremost, not just the football program. Removing a member based on the conduct of the always overstated football program is not in my cards.
On the other hand, the widespread idea and beliefs by these “PSU faithful” that the BIG has caused much of PSU’s hardship over the years is incredibly overstated & the blanket statements are just delusional – esp the constant claims that OSU & Mi run the BIG. The officiating claims, some legitimate, don’t ultimately make the difference on the field most of the time. Somehow, some way, the best teams, their coaching staffs, usually overcome officiating issues. As one poster in Cyberia : ) once said” you don’t have to worry about bad officiating if your team wins convincingly”. A common argument I’ve often heard about PSU’s dislike of the BIG starts with the undefeated team back in 94-95 – pardon me if I have the years wrong, but I remember that team pretty well – a great team mind you. That the conference should have stood behind PSU in their quest for a NC as fellow conference members is bad principle. Such is not the kind of objectivity required for crowning a NC – regional homerism/bias, though my father cast his vote for PSU that year. The “PSU faithful” who continue to raise wild claims that the BIG partially screwed them from a NC this season suggests childish dwelling. The vote went overwhelmingly to Neb, regardless of region. In fact, I believe the Midwest cast more votes than the Northeast & Mid-Atlantic. Neb was simply proving themselves, with much more consistency, the better team over a 10 year period & this was a great season for Neb as they beat a fantastic Miami team, ranked 3rd, in the Orange Bowl – Oregon was a decent team in a down Pac12. Also, PSU barely squeaked by IU and Ill that season. And what about that officiating blunder between Neb & PSU back in 82? Since officiating conspiracies seem all too common amongst “PSU Faithful”. That blunder ruined Neb’s NC hopes. It was a terrible call. At the end of the day, PSU football has not come close to the dominating force it thought it would be when joining the BIG – in most years they’ve simply lost games they shouldn’t. Maybe the 2005 team was NC material up to the Michigan conspiracy, but that PSU squad barely beat and FSU team that was ranked 22nd.
Bottom line: I have some hope that Franklin will inevitably bring about much needed culture change to PSU Football because it is needed. It doesn’t help he left Vanderbilt with a bit of controversy. Many of PSU’s issues have been self inflicted, administratively speaking. The BIG, which is the rest of the conference, not just an OSU-Mi conspiracy, have very little, if anything, to do with PSU’s administrative decisions, on field performance, coaching, & recruiting. PSU faithful also didn’t seem excited on hiring Sandy Barbour – which was a stretch. Franklin and Barbour were actually risky hires, considering the circumstances. Time will tell, but if these two fall flat, then who’s to blame? I feel like the “PSU faithful” will blame the BIG, yet again, and everyone else.
LikeLike
(At the moment I am more interested in the scandal side of things, but I’ll comment on that in a separate post.)
I also believe Paterno should have retired earlier, but the numbers might be surprising.
From 2005-2011 Paterno was 66-20 (77%) with two Big Ten Championships and possibly another on the way. I think the only Big Ten team with a better record during that time period was Ohio State (72-18 = 80%). It would be good if Franklin were able to match that record, and great if he could exceed it – but it’s certainly not assured.
BTW, Russ Rose is one of Paterno’s most vocal supporters, speaking up for Paterno even against administration/BoT directives. Here’s Rose after winning another WVB championship this season:
Ironically, Joyner (who went straight from BoT to AD) wanted to fire Rose. He did fire many other good people, including Emmanuil Kaidanov, the fencing coach – whose record was 795-77 with 12 national championships – on trumped up charges. Kaidanov is one of many currently suing PSU.
That’s certainly culture change. 🙂
LikeLike
Note with respect to the YouTube video: the link I included makes the video start at the 8:48 mark, but on the web the video was inserted without the time parameter.
LikeLike
There is a developing scandal at Vanderbilt over the use of female student hostesses in football recruiting under Franklin. Steve Sailer has the details.
Has PSU gone from one embarrassing coach to another?
LikeLike
This directed at Bob Sykes downthread. If Franklin even had the slightest itch of starting such a program at PSU, its good money that he’d be wearing Nike-branded concrete shoes courtesy of the dad of one of the women he was trying to enlist into the program.
LikeLike
My Opinion:
Chance of Penn State leaving the Big Ten over this: 0.00001%. I’d be more than stunned if there was ever an expulsion vote. Penn State is way too important for that to the conference and the academic side of it isn’t leaving the CIC. Beyond that, the Maryland and Rutgers additions along with the new divisional format are almost tailored made for Penn State and the Big Ten is about to negotiate a new TV contract while the ACC has a long way off. Grant of rights agreements also make leaving impractical for a long time.
Chance of Notre Dame joining ACC for football in next 10 years: 0.000000000001% Schools might not always do what their alumni want, but they rarely will do something 95% of them (especially the big money ones) are vocally opposed to. Notre Dame’s identity is tied up in football independence. They don’t want to be competing for a conference title and don’t want to give up any more games. This might eventually change, but you’d need a whole new group of powerful alumni before that would be the case.
On the NCAA: The NCAA wanted to show it had teeth and got involved more than their power actually permitted. They got to show they had influence for a minute, but its come back to bite them now which is why you seen some of the punishments disappearing.
On JoePa: I’m in the minority, but I think he’s blamed a lot more than warranted. I’m not the biggest expert in the case, but I’d be OK with putting his statue back up.
LikeLike
My impression is that its some of the Big 10 presidents who were pushing the NCAA to reduce the sanctions and believed that the NCAA had overstepped. So the expulsion vote seems to be some sort of unfounded rumor.
I’ve never seen it said who specifically was pushing the reduction, other than a lot of college presidents were.
LikeLike
Well here’s some more anti-BIG madness courtesy of the every rigged BWI board at Rivals. A poll has been posted on leaving the BIG for ACC. It’s incredibly obvious that the poll has been hacked by a pro-ACC interest. Anyone watching this poll just once a day since it started can see foul play. Posters are seeing the “foul play” in the thread as well. The numbers have gone up and down like a yo-yo.
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=179048049&mid=179048049&sid=890&style=2
LikeLike
Penn State leaving the B1G for the ACC would be the dumbest move in conference realignment since South Carolina left the ACC in 1971 to spend two decades in the wilderness before the SEC came to its rescue.
The Big Ten’s academic and athletic superiority to the ACC is obvious. PSU’s wrestling and volleyball teams would be severely weakened, and if you thought men’s basketball was a lost cause in the B1G, imagine it in the ACC.
PSU’s administration has to garner the courage to tell their football-focused fan base that they simply are ignorant.
LikeLike
And they also fairly recently accepted a massive donation for the facilities to start a hockey program … leaving Big Ten Hockey in the lurch to join a conference that doesn’t play hockey does not seem like it would make the big money donor that helped them bring their hockey from club to D1 status very happy.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, a lot of the fans on the Rivals boards are delusional idiots, at least when it comes to sports. Fan boards tend to attract the most irrationally passionate fans, who unfortunately are ill-acquainted with the facts. I wish I had a dollar for every message board rumor that was never substantiated.
I do not believe that the B1G ever held a formal vote on expulsion, or that even an informal vote attracted five schools in favor of kicking them out. Unlike some fans, the university presidents are well acquainted with the facts and aren’t delusional idiots. Kicking out PSU would’ve been the dumbest move they could make.
What might be true is that the B1G had discussions about certain scenarios, e.g., “What do we do if PSU gets the death penalty?” Or, “What do we do if PSU decides to fight the NCAA?” In those informal discussions, there might have been some members that were prepared to expel PSU, if certain scenarios came to pass.
A move to the ACC would not be in PSU’s best interest whatsoever.
LikeLike
70 Maps that Explain America
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/7917165/maps-that-explain-america
Ones that I found interesting: #5, #8, #26, #33, #36, #56, #58, #60, and #61.
LikeLike
Thought 70 was pretty interesting too.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/115861/qa-why-the-recruiting-calendar-changes-are-a-b1g-deal
ESPN.com looks into the early signing period, probably without adding early official visits, and how it might impact the B10.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12342281/early-signing-period-early-visits-hurt-programs
Here’s more on the 2 year trial of the early signing day and how it could hurt the B10.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/feature/25071832/sec-integrated
Nate Northington’s story. He was the first black football player at UK and in the SEC.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/02/17/recruiting-class-2012-rerank
SI re-ranks the 2012 recruiting classes based on production so far.
Original Rivals.com rank in parathenses:
1. FSU (6)
2. OSU (4)
3. AL (1)
4. OR (16)
5. MO (31)
6. OU (11)
7. UCLA (13)
8. AU (10)
9. USC (8)
10. TCU (37)
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2015/02/18/purude-season-tickets-football-reduced/23613607/
PU slashes season ticket prices in an attempt to boost attendance.
Attendance dropped 28 percent at Ross-Ade Stadium last season compared to 2013, the biggest drop among programs in the Big Ten, Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conferences.
Purdue announced an average attendance of 35,269 for seven home games against Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Southern Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin and Northwestern.
The average attendance was the lowest since 1951 when 29,200 occupied Ross-Ade Stadium during five home games. The total attendance of 246,880 is the lowest since 1964 when the school reported 210,877 for four home games.
LikeLike
Considering what I read in my alumni magazine, Purdue’s administration would like to have an Ivy League athletic program and focus on academic Preeminence (their word). The good ol’ boys who attend Purdue are having none of it. Expect decades of across the board incompetence and continuing declines in attendance.
PS. I was there the last year of the Bob Griese era. The decline is stunning.
LikeLike
Things must have really accelerated downward after the Brees era. My cursory view of Purdue as a school from both academic and athletic vantage points at tha time was that it would actually be somewhat of a fit for the SEC or Big 12 (a peer of Auburn or Iowa State, certainly UT) if it ever got happy feet in realignment. I found it to be a very “blond” school (in contrast to the “brunette” schools of Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, and certainly now Rutgers). This isnt a racial observation, but more a nod to some schools having more of an Italian-Greek-Jewish or other southeast European extraction presence to them than others. One of the orginal early 1990s era “Sportswriters on TV” cable show reporters remarked that “No, USC, UCLA, nor any of the southern schools had the best cheerleaders, I really liked covering the games at the University of Pittsburgh – those were women, curly brown hair and…”
LikeLike
The PU administration is, of course, delusional. In recent years, some agencies have rated Purdue academics lower than Ohio State’s. Ohio State has seen a big rise in academic reputation since it abandonned open admissions and became selective 20 odd years ago, but Purdue seems to have fallen down somewhat.
Wasn’t there a statistical study done 10 to 20 years ago that showed that sports excellence correlated positively with academic excellence? I will try to find it. If anyone knows the source, I’d be grateful to have it.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“The PU administration is, of course, delusional. In recent years, some agencies have rated Purdue academics lower than Ohio State’s. Ohio State has seen a big rise in academic reputation since it abandonned open admissions and became selective 20 odd years ago, but Purdue seems to have fallen down somewhat.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-public-colleges-in-america-2014-10
Top 100 smartest public schools (based on the average of the 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores):
1 Georgia Institute of Technology 1385
2 University of California-Berkeley 1375
3 College of William and Mary 1365
4 United States Air Force Academy 1360
5 University of Virginia 1355
6 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 1340
6 Colorado School of Mines 1340
8 University of California-Los Angeles 1320
9 University of Maryland-College Park 1310
10 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 1305
11 Ohio State University-Columbus 1300
…
51 Purdue University-West Lafayette 1200
LikeLike
Purdue announced an average attendance of 35,269 for seven home games against Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Southern Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin and Northwestern.
This is what expansion hath wrought: a home schedule with none of the Big Ten kings. Plus, Purdue historically does not schedule marquee non-conference home & homes, other than Notre Dame, whom they’re no longer playing every year.
They do have Virginia Tech this season, Missouri in 2018, and ND in 2020 and 2024. That’s still going to leave them with a number of seasons where there’s not much of interest on the home schedule.
LikeLike
“This is what expansion hath wrought: a home schedule with none of the Big Ten kings.”
Iowa’s 2015 home slate: Illinois State, Pitt, North Texas, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue.
Good times.
LikeLike
Wow – Purdue had great schedules for many years, with Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State every other year. With the Colts doing so well in Indianapolis, it will be hard to attract fans with that schedule. This year is little better with Indiana State, Bowling Green, Minnesota, Illinois. Maybe a little bit of interest in Nebraska, Indiana, Virginia Tech? Not really must see games. Doubtful that Rutgers or Maryland will pack anyone in either.
LikeLike
Though the main fix to the problem … the return back to nine conference games per years … is already agreed to.
LikeLike
With a win tonight at Wisconsin, Maryland’s women’s basketball team effectively clinches the Big Ten title in its first year in the conference. Here’s how the Terps have done it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-womens-basketball-is-on-fast-track-to-big-ten-perfection/2015/02/17/c6157824-b6c7-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html
LikeLike
“Diamondbacks’ new TV deal believed to be worth more than $1 billion”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/mlb/diamondbacks/2015/02/18/diamondbacks-new-tv-deal-believed-to-be-worth-more-than-1-billion/23651245/?hootPostID=%5B%27398f0975c7806beb527ba558ef64c68e%27%5D
LikeLike
WVU’s Baseball HC wants to move the season back
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/17/one-northern-ncaa-baseball-coach-wants-to-move-season-to-the-summer-to-get-away-from-the-snow/
LikeLike
This is an annual problem for many college baseball teams in the country’s northern areas, seeing as how their seasons started last weekend. But one college coach wants to fix this with a solution that seems almost too easy: He wants to move the NCAA baseball season to the summer months.
…
“It’s literally unfair for half the country,” Mazey said, adding that he has received 37 responses from his fellow Power-5 coaches to his proposal, with 31 agreeing with him.
DiPaola has more on the possible repercussions of such a move:
The proposal likely needs the endorsement of Major League Baseball, which would be forced to move its draft from early June to later in the summer. Other potential problems could include disruption of some players’ internships and summer jobs and the necessity of feeding and housing players on campus long past the end of the winter and spring semesters.
Mazey’s proposal, which he has not yet presented to the NCAA, would delay the start of the season until late April or early May, with the College World Series played in August, he said.
One supporter is Pittsburgh Coach Joe Jordano, whose team practice outside a grand total of three times before starting the season last weekend at a tournament in Florida. “If you told a basketball team you can practice on a regular-sized court three times prior to playing your first game, they would look at you like you have four heads,” Jordano told DiPaola. “But in baseball, especially northern baseball, that’s our reality.”
LikeLike
I like it as an ambit claim. Note that each and every week that the season is shifted is a benefit to northern baseball, so there are back up moves to push for if this push shakes out some people who support a move, but balk at moving this far. For instance, shifting the end of the conference championships to then end of June and the College World Series into July would buy two weeks later start, and that would cut the month that northern teams seem to spend on the road in the south in half.
LikeLike
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_02376858-b858-11e4-b662-db4b843c100a.html
“What I like about the concept of the proposal is it puts right up front the basic issue: Are we basically a quasi-professional activity or primarily an educational activity?” university President Wallace Loh said. “And if you support it, you are basically saying very clearly the No. 1 priority is the education of the students.”
LikeLike
oops. Left off title.
Big Ten introduces proposal to rule freshmen ineligible for men’s basketball, football
LikeLike
The University Athletic Council met this afternoon to discuss a proposal the Big Ten is titling “A Year of Readiness,” which equates to a mandatory redshirt season to examine “the health of the educational experience.”
“I want to listen to the council,” said Nick Hadley, athletic council chairman and physics professor. “As a faculty member, it’s hard for me not to support something that would increase academic performance.”
The document, which shows football and men’s basketball as the only sports with graduation rates less than 75 percent across the NCAA, states that a push for freshman ineligibility would benefit athletes academically.
Men’s basketball and football players lag behind other sports in terms of academics, according to data provided in the document. Among the 34 sports listed in the Graduation Success Rate data, football and men’s basketball ranked last in the 2004 to 2007 cohort, according to the document. Among the 38 sports listed in the Academic Progress Rate data from 2009 to 2013, those two sports also ranked last.
The proposal examines “the imbalance observed in those two sports” and cites that football and men’s basketball student-athletes account for less than 19 percent of Division I participants, yet they account for more than 80 percent of academic infraction cases.
It also suggests applying current academic eligibility standards for freshman student-athletes to sophomores if the “Year of Readiness” is approved.
LikeLike
Alternative summary:
Big Ten et all propose minor adjustment to operating procedure, hope the existence of a proposal will somehow convince everyone to make all of that pesky antitrust stuff miraculously go away.
LikeLike
I think there’s a ton of hypocrisy in college sports.
But one thing I really do believe, when they say it, is that most college presidents truly care about both the fact that a certain cohort of athletes, particularly in basketball and football, come to school with no interest whatsoever in getting an education.
I therefore think the “Year of Readiness” proposal reflects a sincere desire to fix an actual problem, rather than an insincere attempt to fend off the antitrust police. This does not necessarily mean the proposal will be adopted: it has a very real cost, because scholarship limits would need to be increased if freshmen can’t play.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But one thing I really do believe, when they say it, is that most college presidents truly care about both the fact that a certain cohort of athletes, particularly in basketball and football, come to school with no interest whatsoever in getting an education.”
Check Hell for freezing over, Marc and I agree on something.
“This does not necessarily mean the proposal will be adopted: it has a very real cost, because scholarship limits would need to be increased if freshmen can’t play.”
Would they have to increase the number? How many true freshmen really play a lot? NW redshirts almost everyone they recruit and they have almost no attrition except for injuries and they do fine with 85. Besides, some people argue that 85 are more than are necessary (bullet?).
LikeLike
“This does not necessarily mean the proposal will be adopted: it has a very real cost, because scholarship limits would need to be increased if freshmen can’t play.”
Would they have to increase the number? How many true freshmen really play a lot? NW redshirts almost everyone they recruit and they have almost no attrition except for injuries and they do fine with 85. Besides, some people argue that 85 are more than are necessary (bullet?).
I was thinking more about basketball. For instance, Michigan this season has only four scholarship players who aren’t true freshmen and aren’t injured. I don’t know how common that is.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I was thinking more about basketball. For instance, Michigan this season has only four scholarship players who aren’t true freshmen and aren’t injured. I don’t know how common that is.”
But knowing true freshmen are ineligible, wouldn’t coaches quickly spread out the scholarships more? They have 13 scholarships. Have at least 2 players in each class and get transfers/JUCOs to replace players who leave early. That means no more than 3 true freshmen at a time, so at least 10 eligible scholarship players plus the walk-ons.
The problem for many big schools now is that they have 5 true freshman at a time. You wouldn’t keep doing that with this rule change.
LikeLike
The trouble is, you still can’t stop early departures, which are a lot more common in basketball. Michigan lost five players at the end of last season, only one of whom had completed his eligibility. None were one-and-dones, but there were some two-and-dones.
So that’s 4/13ths, or 31% of the scholarship roster, leaving before their eligibility was completed. I am not sure what the coach could have done differently, other than trying his best not to attract kids who have any shot at the NBA.
This is much less of a problem in football, where you’d be pretty unlikely to see 31% of the roster leaving early in any given year. Not even Alabama has that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The trouble is, you still can’t stop early departures, which are a lot more common in basketball.”
You don’t have to stop them. Just try to replace them with transfers/JUCOs instead of true freshmen.
LikeLike
“The trouble is, you still can’t stop early departures, which are a lot more common in basketball.”
You don’t have to stop them. Just try to replace them with transfers/JUCOs instead of true freshmen.
Transfers don’t help you very much if they have to sit out a year, and I haven’t heard of a groundswell to relax that rule, much as I think they should.
Some of the academically stronger schools can’t get most JUCO’s to qualify.
LikeLike
I’ll bet this doesn’t work.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/houston-s-board-of-regents-chairman-wants-to-threaten-his-way-into-the-big-12-005802034.html
LikeLike
And somehow wipe away from the annals of history the ESPNNews broadcast of a recent Friday Night (Feb. 5th) home MBB game against Tulsa that I had the misfortune of seeing . Empty seats galore, dowdy dumpy disenterested cheer squad (I’d seen better “talent” out of the lower UC campuses in the Big West, and thats a hard bar to be lower than), .
LikeLike
Hofheinz Pavilion used to be the place to be for basketball in Texas. I’ve been to high school games that drew 8k there. It’s sad what it has become over the last thirty years. They were going to renovate it soon, but apparently the overruns and shenanigans with the football stadium construction have put those plans on hold for now.
LikeLike
In fairness, it’s not like any other approaches are likelier to work. Legislative blackmail, while a hail mary, at least has a very slight chance of somehow paying off. Though the more reasonable “best case” outcome is that it just throws a wrench into any non-UH Big 12 expansion scenarios, though it’s not like any of them are at all likely either.
LikeLike
Houston had two shots at getting in the B12. If UH had a decent fan base they would have gotten in when the B12 formed rather than Baylor. A few years ago they had another shot, but still had nothing to give the B12 so UH got beat for the slot by TCU. Legislative blackmail has no chance. UT and TT have too much support to allow anything like this to pass.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12351883/major-league-baseball-announce-pace-play-rules
MLB putting in pace of play rules for 2015.
The rules include mandating that managers stay in the dugout during replay challenges, that hitters keep at least one foot in the batter’s box during at-bats, a prompt return to play after TV commercial breaks and timed pitching changes.
…
Speed-up rules in the major leagues required the OK of the players’ union, and baseball officials had said a pitch clock was ruled out for this season. However, sources told Stark that Major League Baseball will begin to compile data and inform all pitchers how long they take between pitches.
…
The batter’s box rule remains in place unless an established exception occurs. Those exceptions include swinging at a pitch, foul balls, foul tips, if the hitter is brushed back by a pitch, time granted by the umpire and wild pitches.
…
If a pitcher fails to complete the traditional eight warm-up pitches before the timer reaches 30 seconds, he forfeits the right to do so.
Why should swinging or a foul tip earn an exception?
LikeLike
A nice start, I would love MLB games to be in the two to two and a half hour range though.
Why should swinging or a foul tip earn an exception
Swing hard enough and you can fall out of the batter’s box.
LikeLike
So make falling out of the box the exception, not just any swing.
LikeLike
Because they want to make leaving the batters box as part of a swing the exception, not falling out for other reasons.
LikeLike
It might help if they enforced the existing rules, e.g.,
“8.04
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call Ball. The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.
The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.”
Of course, the umpires officiate the game the way the players want it. Hence the long delays between pitches, the distorted strike zone, not stepping on 2nd base in double plays, running outside the base lines, etc, etc.
The old joke about umpires drinking at a bar before the game:
Young Umpire: I call ’em as they is.
Middle Aged Umpire: I call ’em as I see ’em.
Old Umpire: They ain’t nothin’ ’till I call ’em.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“It might help if they enforced the existing rules, e.g.,
“8.04
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call Ball. The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.
The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.””
From the article:
Speed-up rules in the major leagues required the OK of the players’ union, and baseball officials had said a pitch clock was ruled out for this season. However, sources told Stark that Major League Baseball will begin to compile data and inform all pitchers how long they take between pitches.
LikeLike
All of you folks up in the frozen north lands have a chance to watch Rice baseball this weekend. All three games at Arizona are on the PAC network. Enjoy.
LikeLike
Houston will belong and fit perfectly in the Big XII once Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia and others leave.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25075427/south-carolina-ad-schools-will-receive-5m-each-from-sec-network
Quick start for ESPN & SEC network
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25075390/math-says-2014-florida-state-was-the-luckiest-team-of-past-17-years
2014 FSU was the luckiest team in the past 17 years.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-pat-fitzgerald-northwestern-football-spt-0222-20150221-column.html#page=1
Q&A with Pat Fitzgerald. He says the unionization effort really hurt the team in the fall.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/021915aaa.html
B10 lacrosse TV schedule is out:
The inaugural Big Ten men’s and women’s lacrosse seasons feature a robust slate of television coverage, with more than 40 games featuring Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers set to air nationally on BTN or an ESPN network. In addition, approximately 30 games will air on BTN Plus.
BTN will broadcast 25 games with the first taking place on Wednesday, March 18, when Maryland’s top-ranked women’s team hosts Pennsylvania. The first Big Ten men’s lacrosse game on BTN will feature the Terrapins entertaining Michigan on Sunday, March 29.
BTN will also provide live coverage of the 2015 Big Ten Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse Tournaments. The network will air the semifinals and final of the men’s tournament, and carry the semifinals of the women’s event. The men’s tournament will be held from April 30 to May 2 at Maryland, while the women’s event will be hosted by Rutgers from April 30 to May 3.
BTN’s lacrosse coverage will also include a 60-minute BTN Lacrosse Preview Show at 4 p.m. ET on March 24, and a special BTN Originals mini-series, in which the cameras go behind-the-scenes with the Penn State and Maryland men’s teams leading up to the highly anticipated April 4 contest. More details will be announced at a later date.
Seventeen men’s and women’s games are scheduled to air on ESPNU or ESPN3, including the championship game of the Big Ten Women’s Lacrosse Tournament. Maryland’s men’s team, ranked No. 7 in this week’s Inside Lacrosse Men’s Media Top 20 poll, will travel to No. 14 Yale this Saturday in a game that will air on ESPN3. ESPNU will also serve as the broadcast home for the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Championships.
…
A complete listing of Big Ten men’s and women’s lacrosse games set to appear on BTN Plus will be available on BTN.com in the coming weeks, and is subject to change. Below is the complete schedule of games to appear on BTN or an ESPN Network.
2015 Big Ten Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse Television Schedule (All times Eastern)
Noon ESPN3
7 p.m. BTN
Noon ESPN3
1 p.m. BTN
3 p.m. BTN
7 p.m. BTN
1 p.m. BTN
1 p.m. BTN
7 p.m. BTN
7 p.m. BTN
6 p.m. BTN
7 p.m. BTN
8:30 p.m. ESPNU
7 p.m. BTN
7 p.m. BTN
Saturday Feb. 21 Maryland at Yale (M) Noon ESPN3
Saturday Feb. 28 Northwestern at North Carolina
Saturday Feb. 28 Princeton at Johns Hopkins (M) 1 p.m. ESPN3@
Saturday March 7 Navy at Johns Hopkins (M) Noon ESPN3 ^
Saturday March 14 Johns Hopkins at Syracuse (M) 2 p.m. ESPN3
Wednesday March 18 Penn at Maryland
Saturday March 21 Ohio State at Notre Dame
Saturday March 21 Ohio State at Notre Dame (M) 4 p.m. ESPNU
Saturday March 21 Virginia at Johns Hopkins (M) 6 p.m. ESPNU
Sunday March 22 Syracuse at Northwestern
Sunday March 22 Colorado at Michigan
Thursday March 26 Maryland at Northwestern
Saturday March 28 Rutgers at Johns Hopkins (M) 2 p.m. ESPNU
Saturday March 28 Penn State at Rutgers
Sunday March 29 Louisville at Northwestern
Sunday March 29 Ohio State at Penn State (M) 3 p.m. ESPNU
Sunday March 29 Michigan at Maryland (M) 5 p.m. BTN
Tuesday March 31 Lehigh at Rutgers
Thursday April 2 Northwestern at Michigan
Saturday April 4 Penn State at Maryland (M) 4 p.m. BTN
Saturday April 4 Ohio State at Penn State
Sunday April 5 Johns Hopkins at Ohio State (M) TBA BTN
Thursday April 9 Michigan at Penn State
Saturday April 11 Penn State at Johns Hopkins (M) 6 p.m. ESPNU
Sunday April 12 Ohio State at Michigan (M) 2 p.m. ESPNU
Sunday April 12 Maryland at Rutgers (M) TBA BTN
Wednesday April 15 Maryland at Johns Hopkins
Thursday April 16 Rutgers at Ohio State
Saturday April 18 Maryland at Ohio State (M) 11 a.m. BTN
Saturday April 18 Michigan at Johns Hopkins (M) 2 p.m. ESPNU
Sunday April 19 Rutgers at Penn State (M) TBA BTN
Thursday April 23 Penn State at Maryland
Saturday April 25 Ohio State at Rutgers (M) Noon ESPNU
Saturday April 25 Penn State at Michigan (M) 6 p.m. BTN
Saturday April 25 Johns Hopkins at Maryland (M) 8 p.m. BTN
Thursday April 30 Men’s Lacrosse Tournament Semifinal #1 5:30 p.m. BTN
Thursday April 30 Men’s Lacrosse Tournament Semifinal #2 8 p.m. BTN
Friday May 1 Women’s Lacrosse Tournament Semifinal #1 5:30 p.m. BTN
Friday May 1 Women’s Lacrosse Tournament Semifinal #2 8 p.m. BTN
Saturday May 2 Men’s Lacrosse Tournament Final 8 p.m. BTN
Sunday May 3 Women’s Lacrosse Tournament Final Noon ESPN3#
@ Will air on ESPNU via tape delay on Sunday, March 1 at 10 a.m.
^ Will air on ESPNU via tape delay on Sunday, March 8 at 10 a.m.
# Will air on ESPNU via tape delay on Sunday, May 3 at 5 p.m.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/college-football/story/_/id/12370818/ucla-bruins-hire-tom-bradley-defensive-coordinator
Congrats to Tom Bradley on getting the DC job at UCLA. Hopefully he gets a HC job soon.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/24/byu-intends-to-play-in-power-conference-in-the-near-future/
Time to fire up the BYU power conference discussions. During a media roundtable today, BYU athletics director Tom Holmoe said it was BYU’s intention to be playing as a member of a power conference “some time in the near future.”
[snip]
“I don’t think we can do it indefinitely,” Holmoe said when asked about the ability to stay competitive as power conferences adopt their own parameters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BYU’s power conference options, ranked in order of probability from most to least:
1. Big 12
2. Big 12
3. Big 12
4. Big 12
5. Big 12
. . . .
9. Big 12
10. All others
LikeLike
ESPN CFB Insider Travis Haney is writing a series of columns about the best Power 5 head coaching jobs. I can’t post the links as its behind their pay-wall, but here’s the criteria.
“A half-dozen college football reporters and analysts sat around a big picnic table inside an Oxford, Mississippi, restaurant. It was Halloween night, and Will Muschamp was on the verge of being fired at Florida. That led to a spirited conversation about just how good the Florida job was, circa November 2014.
Where did it stack up with others? What made it good? Where had it fallen behind peers in the SEC and nationally?
Our debate, as you well know, was not unique. It has manifested itself in myriad places. Just sub Florida for any number of schools and replace our dinner table with tailgate tents, barstools, offices, churches, etc., etc.
That conversation stuck with me: Why not create a ranking system of every Power 5 job? I enlisted four ESPN colleagues — Chris Low, Brett McMurphy, Adam Rittenberg and Mark Schlabach — to help poll coaches and industry sources and provide their insight.
The central question: If every Power 5 job came open tomorrow, which would be the most desirable? Which would be least appealing? And where does your team fall?
Though each person weighs things differently — that’s why it’s such a subjective, hot-button topic for debate — the criteria is roughly the same. It includes factors such as location, administrative stability, support from that administration, facilities, recruiting base, path to conference titles/playoff, sense of tradition, fervor of the fan base, too much fervor from the fan base …”
Here’s the rankings so far with labels. He also wrote a paragraph on each team explaining his reasoning for the ranking.
65 – 62: The Worst.
65 Wake Forest
64 Iowa State
63 Kansas
62 Washington State
61 – 54: The Next Worst
61 Purdue
59-tie Indiana
59-tie Vandy
58 Duke
57 Syracuse
55-tie BC
55-tie Colorado
54 Northwestern
53 – 48: Marginalized
53 Rutgers
52 K-State
51 Virginia
50 Oregon State
48-tie Minnesota
48-tie Illinois
47 – 42 Underdogs
47 Utah
45-tie Texas Tech
45-tie Kentucky
44 Maryland
43 Pitt
42 Cal
41 – 33 Crossroads
41 GA Tech
40 NC State
39 West VA
38 Iowa
37 Arizona
36 North Carolina
34-tie Mizzou
34-tie Miss State
33 VA Tech
32 – 25 Upstarts
32 Ole Miss
31 TCU
30 Stanford
29 Louisville
28 Baylor
27 Arizona State
25-tie OK State
25-tie Washington
I’ll post the rest of the rankings when it comes out.
LikeLike
I guess the football writers at ESPN are getting paid by the word. Check out the website for rankings by conference, biggest surprise, and a discussion of how recruiting affects the value of the job.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/12375244/the-four-criteria-make-job-great-recruiting
This is a piece about recruiting. I linked it for the table of I-A recruits by state from 2006-2014.
1 Texas – 1,779
2 Florida – 1,444
3 California – 1,112
4 Georgia – 903
5 Ohio – 593
6 North Carolina – 401
7 Pennsylvania – 372
8 Virginia – 365
9 Alabama – 357
10 Illinois – 311
There really is no excuse for IL to stink like they do.
LikeLike
Noted, yet I do think there is something of a larger trend within the older money suburban areas indicated by the fact the DuPage Valley (H.S.) Conference schools did not have its usual 2-3 players taken in by the Illini this year. That areas is not producing and supposedly-better coaching is not saving those teams from losing to Chicago Public League powerhouses (which would probably only have a 50/50 chance versus teams like West Aurora, Proviso East). Apart from NIU keeping a lot of the west suburban kids close to home, I think Beckman had an epiphany of sorts regarding the need to go south and to Jucos for more talent.
LikeLike
Thanks Alan. Cheap me was going to ask someone with access to post it. Interesting, (relative the B1G) that half the B1G is in the bottom third of power 5. If this were done 5 years ago, where would Baylor be? Ten years ago, Stanford? Fifteen years ago, TCU? I don’t think any would be top 50, let alone top 30(TCU 31).
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
A half-dozen college football reporters and analysts sat around a big picnic table inside an Oxford, Mississippi, restaurant. It was Halloween night, and Will Muschamp was on the verge of being fired at Florida. That led to a spirited conversation about just how good the Florida job was, circa November 2014.
Where did it stack up with others? What made it good? Where had it fallen behind peers in the SEC and nationally?
Our debate, as you well know, was not unique. It has manifested itself in myriad places. Just sub Florida for any number of schools and replace our dinner table with tailgate tents, barstools, offices, churches, etc., etc.
That conversation stuck with me: Why not create a ranking system of every Power 5 job? I enlisted four ESPN colleagues — Chris Low, Brett McMurphy, Adam Rittenberg and Mark Schlabach — to help poll coaches and industry sources and provide their insight.
Built in SEC bias already with 2 SEC guys in the group (I’m kidding).
“65 Wake Forest
64 Iowa State
63 Kansas
62 Washington State”
Woo hoo, no B10 teams. Not long ago, Vandy, Duke, NW and IN would be in this group.
“61 Purdue
59-tie Indiana
59-tie Vandy
58 Duke
57 Syracuse
55-tie BC
55-tie Colorado
54 Northwestern”
Those are major drops for CO, BC and Syracuse. PU used to be much better than that, too. It’s not surprising to see B10 schools from hoops country this low, but it isn’t acceptable to have three this low.
“53 Rutgers
48-tie Minnesota
48-tie Illinois”
RU is rising with their move to the B10. It’ll take time to see where they settle. Both MN and IL used to be much higher, then lower. I think MN is trending up and eventually IL has to stumble into a good coach.
“44 Maryland”
I think UMD is also on the rise, at least slightly.
“38 Iowa”
And dropping like a stone.
“I’ll post the rest of the rankings when it comes out.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/116134/b1g-roundtable-biggest-surprise-on-the-list
4 more from the B10:
24. WI – a little high for a school that keeps losing coaches?
20. MSU – quite a rise over the past decade
14. MI – used to be a top 10 and might be again
4. OSU – no complaints unless someone strange is ahead of OSU
Unknown:
NE, PSU
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/116166/ranking-the-big-ten-jobs
The B10 bloggers disagree a little with the national rankings.
OSU
MI
PSU
NE
MSU
WI
UMD
IA
MN
IL
RU
NW
IN
PU
LikeLike
24 -19 The Not Quites
24 Wisconsin
23 Miami
22 Arkansas
21 Nebraska
20 Michigan State
19 South Carolina
17 – 15 The Comebacks
17-tie Penn State
17-tie UCLA
16 Clemson
15 Tennessee
14 – 6 The Next Best
14 Michigan
13 Auburn
11-tie Oregon
11-tie A&M
10 Notre Dame
9 Oklahoma
8 Georgia
7 Florida State
6 LSU
5 – 1 The Best
5 Florida
4 Ohio State
3 USC
2 Bama
1 Texas
LikeLike
Definitions:
The worst – Put bluntly, these are the worst jobs in major college football. But hey, they’re still major college football jobs.
The next-worst – Not mired in a pit of despair, but looking over the edge of the cliff. A number of “academic” institutions — and the associated hurdles — included here.
The marginalized – Some less-than-ideal locations and programs outgunned in their respective leagues sum up this tier. (But really, why is Virginia way down here?)
The Underdogs – Some spunky, competitive programs the past decade or so, despite resource and location deficiencies compared to their peers.
The Crossroads – This group includes some programs with future promise and some trying to hang on.
The Upstarts – A number of programs on the rise. Some — such as the Big 12’s Baylor and TCU — are rapidly climbing.
The Not-quites – Established brands in their respective leagues — but is there a certain ceiling that will stop these programs from reaching the top shelf?
The Comebacks – Traditional powers that are working to resurface, or get over a hump.
The Next-Best – Not quite elite, but not far from it. In many cases, programs that could creep toward — or inside — the top five in the future.
The Best – With just about every resource on hand and every opportunity to succeed, these are literally dream jobs for coaches.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
Thanks for posting these.
“21 Nebraska”
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. 20 years ago they were a top 10 program probably.
“17-tie Penn State
17-tie UCLA”
Both are on the rise. It’s good to see UCLA pushing USC again.
“11-tie A&M
10 Notre Dame”
I think this is a little low for TAMU based on their recruiting potential and a little high for ND based on their recent success level.
“9 Oklahoma
8 Georgia”
Does anybody do less (in terms of titles, anyway) with more than UGA? They’re finally planning to build an indoor practice facility.
“7 Florida State
6 LSU
…
5 Florida”
I might swap FSU and UF. FSU has the easier path to a title plus UF is only now building an indoor facility.
“4 Ohio State
3 USC
2 Bama
1 Texas”
Like I said, I can’t complain based on the recruiting grounds the top 3 have. I’d put OSU close to USC based on fan fervor, though.
LikeLike
Here’s the best of the Gang of 5.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12381829/boise-state-broncos-byu-cougars-lead-list-best-non-power-5-college-football-jobs
In no particular order: Boise State, BYU, Cincy, Houston and UCF.
Just missed the cut: Colorado State, Marshall & SMU.
I think Boise St., BYU, Cincy, UCF and SMU may all be better than the Wake job.
LikeLike
Boise and BYU would be up the list a bit. Frankly, I think BYU should have made the cut as an independent that at least 1 P5 conference has agreed to treat as equal to a P5 team.
LikeLike
I think Boise St., BYU, Cincy, UCF and SMU may all be better than the Wake job.
Colorado State, Marshall, and SMU too. Probably UConn as well.
LikeLike
Like most media surveys, this one is a bit too heavily weighted on “What have you done lately?”
I would have given greater weight to the structural (dis)advantages of each program. The survey had Boston College and Colorado tied. But it ought to be pretty obvious that, with the right coach, Colorado’s ceiling is a lot higher than BC’s, even if their recent performance doesn’t bear it out.
LikeLike
Agreed. In 1980, Iowa State probably would have been ranked ahead of Kansas State, though not much higher than the Cyclones are now. The difference? K-State found a Snyder, ISU hasn’t. And the jury remains out on whether KSU can win with a coach other than Snyder. Both still rank higher than Wake, however.
Also, the integration of the Deep South seriously weakened the Big Ten and schools such as Syracuse, which recruited black southern talent who weren’t welcome in the SEC (and to a lesser extent the ACC).
LikeLike
Ranking of the easiest coaching paths to the playoff.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/108896/ranking-the-coaching-paths-to-the-playoff
“For a variety of reasons — namely money, scheduling, academics, facilities and recruiting — the path to the College Football Playoff is simply easier for some Power 5 coaches and nearly impossible for others. Here’s a look at the top-10 easiest coaching paths to the playoff, starting with the easiest, and the 10 most difficult coaching jobs: ”
Easiest (NCs in the expansion era 1991-present)
1 Texas (2005)
2 Florida State (1993, 1999, 2013)
3 Ohio State(2002, 2014)
4 Oklahoma(2000)
5 Clemson
6 USC (2003*, 2004**)
7 Notre Dame
8 Georgia
9 Bama (1992, 2009, 2011, 2012)
10 LSU (2003, 2007)
Hardest
1 Vandy
2 Wake Forest
3 Washington State
4 Colorado
5 Indiana
6 Kansas
7 Purdue
8 Iowa State
9 Kentucky
10 Syracuse
*AP title only. Not recognized in the state of Louisiana as LSU won the BSC title fair and square.
** Vacated
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Easiest (NCs in the expansion era 1991-present)
1 Texas (2005)
2 Florida State (1993, 1999, 2013)
3 Ohio State(2002, 2014)
4 Oklahoma(2000)
5 Clemson
6 USC (2003*, 2004**)
7 Notre Dame
8 Georgia
9 Bama (1992, 2009, 2011, 2012)
10 LSU (2003, 2007)”
Not to mention BCS title game or playoff appearances where they lost to another team on this list (FSU to OU, OU to LSU, USC to UT, OSU to LSU, UT to AL, LSU to AL, ND to AL, AL to OSU).
That leaves just Clemson and UGA with no years listed. Meanwhile, OR, AU, UF and Miami aren’t listed.
LikeLike
Colorado seems like the oddest duck on the “hardest” list. The other nine have substantial “built-in” challenges that would be awfully difficult to overcome—in a few cases, almost inconceivable.
But the Buffs aren’t that far removed from the 2001-2005 period, when they reached the Big XII championship game four out of five years. In the modern era, none of the other nine teams mentioned have had sustained success anywhere remotely like that.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/116138/northwesterns-jim-phillips-defining-moment-for-college-sports
NW’s AD Jim Phillips thinks this is a defining time in college sports and many things need to reconsidered. Worth the read in full.
But the most important point is that the year of readiness idea is just one of multiple possible sea changes that the Big Ten and other conferences are mulling. At the end of the annual Big Ten joint meetings in Chicago on Tuesday — attended by league athletic directors, senior women’s administrators, faculty reps and student leaders — the sense was that any and all things should be on the table.
“It’s really a national conversation that has to take place,” Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips said. “It’s the right time. It’s time for a recalibration, a re-correction in college athletics.”
Phillips, as the newly appointed chairman of the NCAA Division I council, is an important voice in college sports. And he says there’s a real desire to change the entire way the entire system is run.
So, sure, conference leaders have considered freshman ineligibility. But they also want to figure out if the length of a certain sports’ seasons is too long, whether players should have fewer practice hours, if initial eligibility standards should be strengthened and what to do about transfers. Phillips even mentioned the recent uptick in the number of early enrollees in football and whether kids should be coming to college campuses that soon.
“There may not be year of readiness,” he said. “It’s not time to make those decisions without having fundamental conversations that are driven by, what do we want college athletics to be going forward? There are so many important areas for us to discuss. It’s really a wonderful opportunity to have these conversations and move it forward.”
A confluence of events have made the time right to re-evaluate everything, Phillips said. That includes lawsuits against the NCAA, the new autonomy structure for the Power 5 conferences and student-athlete welfare issues such as cost of attendance, four-year grants and unlimited meals all rising to the surface of late.
“At the heart of this thing is, we don’t want to be the minor leagues of professional sports,” Phillips said.
LikeLike
More like
“At the heart of this thing is, we want to be the minor leagues of professional sports but don’t want to pay our players like we’re minor leagues”
LikeLike
People can say that, but it just isn’t true. Many/most presidents have zero interest in being the minor leagues for pro sports. They’d love to have every player stay until they graduate even if nobody went pro afterwards. Now, they do like the free advertising sports provide. But very few schools are really churning out pro talent anyway. And of those that do (a subset of the P5), some of those presidents (B10, other top schools) also don’t want to be the minor leagues for the pros.
LikeLike
They like the money, the status and the happy alums that come with operating a big-time athletic program. They just want to do it for as close to free as they can. Some of that has to do with academic values, sure… but programs have been sacrificing academic values for sports basically forever, but now that the underlying economic model is under very serious fire, suddenly there’s a much stronger appetite for “reform”. I just can’t help but view this cynically, because the situation really does seem to call for cynicism.
LikeLike
“but now that the underlying economic model is under very serious fire, suddenly there’s a much stronger appetite for “reform”.”
Though the appetite for reform among some in many Universities is longstanding … what has been largely absent has been any hope that any meaningful reform could be achieved. And, after all, fighting a hopeless battle attracts fewer allies than fighting one with what appears to be some prospects of victory.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1521813.html
Top 15 OOC games for 2015 (no games versus independents included):
1. AL vs WI
2. OR @ MSU
3. OU @ TN
4. FSU @ UF
5. OSU @ VT
6. UGA @ GT
7. Clemson @ SC
8. AU vs UL
9. NE @ Miami
10. MI @ Utah
11. UW @ Boise
12. ASU @ TAMU
13. UNC vs SC
14. TCU @ MN
15. UMD @ WV
ACC – 7 (3 are annual rivalries)
B10 – 7
B12 – 2
P12 – 4
SEC – 8 (3 are annual rivalries)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25083565/welcome-to-sec-west-where-a-4-million-coach-will-finish-in-last-place
8 years ago, no coach made $4M. In 2015, all 7 SEC West coaches will make at least $4M (vs only 2 in the East). The big jump started when Saban got $4M in 2007 to come to AL. The other public SEC salaries then:
• Tommy Tuberville, Auburn: $2.2 million
• Phillip Fulmer, Tennessee: $2.1 million
• Mike Shula, Alabama: $1.8 million
• Mark Richt, Georgia: $1.7 million
• Les Miles, LSU: $1.5 million
• Urban Meyer, Florida: $1.5 million
• Steve Spurrier, South Carolina: $1.3 million
• Houston Nutt, Arkansas: $1 million
• Sylvester Croom, Mississippi State: $940,000
• Ed Orgeron, Ole Miss: $905,000
• Rich Brooks, Kentucky: $729,000
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25083726/players-about-to-get-paid-as-money-changes-game-in-college-athletics
Will FCOA differences between schools impact recruiting? Some B10 numbers:
In the Big Ten alone, Penn State leads the conference offering $5,748 per player. Purdue can offer only $1,900. More to the point, Ohio State can offer $3,128 compared to Michigan’s $2,452. Would that $672 difference push a kid to become a Buckeye rather than a Wolverine?
PSU’s number seems high. Will that help them recruit?
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/basketball/conference-tournament-headlines-saint-francis-bill-mary-and-the-pursuit-of-something-contrary.html
I think we all know that NW is the only P5 team to never make the NCAA tourney. Only 4 other schools have been D-I since 1939 (1st NCAA tourney) and failed to make one – Army, The Citadel, William and Mary, and St. Francis (NY). Well, Both W&M and St. F are #1 seeds in their conference tournaments this year.
LikeLike
I do not know whether this has already been shared here, but I found this fascinating:
It’s a map that shows state-by-state where residents of each state were born. Jim Delany would find this information extremely relevant if he remains at all intent on further expansion of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Furthermore, this has series of charts to show where people living in each state were born, and where people who were born in each state have moved to.
LikeLike
When you go to the bottom of this, there is a baseball fan map. And in that article is a basketball fan map.
LikeLike
2014 might have been the beginning of the end of the Braves-Saints-Heat-SEC fanboy
LikeLike
Does anyone know what happened to the site mrsec.com? I just noticed it hasn’t been updated in 2015.
LikeLike
Neither has Frank the Tank.
LikeLike
It’s been just over 3 months. Roughly 1,000,000 babies have been born in the US since Frank’s last post.
LikeLike
News on the sites for the 2018, 19 & 20 CFP championship game.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12412773/14-cities-considering-bid-2018-2019-2020-college-football-playoff-championship-games
“At least 14 cities are considering whether to bid for the 2018, 2019 or 2020 College Football Playoff championship games, sources told ESPN.
Of the 14, seven already have decided to bid. Atlanta; Charlotte; Jacksonville, Florida; South Florida; Minneapolis and San Antonio will bid, sources told ESPN, while the Associated Press reported that Santa Clara, California, also will bid.”
“Sources said at least seven cities that received the RFPs remain undecided on whether to bid on the next cycle of title games: Arlington, Texas; Houston; Indianapolis; New Jersey/New York; New Orleans; Orlando, Florida; and Pasadena, California.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/116426/b1g-friday-five-national-title-sites-in-b1g-country
A look at the top 5 choices from a B10 perspective.
1. Indy
2. Minneapolis
3. Detroit
4. NJ (MetLife)
5. Pasadena
Just missing the cut: Green Bay, DC, Cleveland
Personally, I wouldn’t include any open air choices in the footprint and I would add St. Louis.
1. Minneapolis – brand new stadium, central location in a major city
2. Indy – great location in the city for walkability
3. Detroit
4. St. Louis – on the edge of the footprint
5. Pasadena – best CFB venue anywhere, plus B10 would have a fan edge over anyone but USC/UCLA
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02/28/4589708_former-unc-official-pressure-led.html?rh=1
The latest on the UNC scandal. A graduate admissions person felt pressured by the athletics department into admitting undeserving athletes. She quit over it.
LikeLike
Might we see this in Badger country (I’m sure there will be other examples soon)?
http://lsu.247sports.com/Bolt/State-budget-cuts-to-affect-LSU-athletics-35986956
and one response:
http://thehayride.com/2015/03/lsus-athletic-department-succumbs-to-stupid-symbolic-thinking/
LikeLike
The budget situation in Louisiana is dire and of our governor’s own making. We are looking at a $1.6B shortfall out of what is normally a $25B budget. When there is a deficit in Louisiana, health care and higher ed always take a disproportionate blow. Since Jindal became governor in 2008, LSU’s tuition has almost doubled, while the state’s appropriation to it has been cut by 2/3s. At this point, LSU and legislative leaders are seriously considering a “Penn State model” of semi-public status.
Jindal signed a massive tax cut during his first term when sales and income tax proceeds were still through the roof due to the massive influx of hurricane relief dollars to rebuild. He also gives Wal-Mart tax credits to build new stores when they needed no incentive to do so. He refuses to consider any revenue increases because he thinks that will hurt him in his myopic presidential run. So all of Louisiana suffers just so he can tell the Republican Women’s Garden Club of Waterloo that not one penny of new taxes was raised on his watch.
Now getting back to the LSU Nutrition Center. Its true that LSU has the money and no state funds will be used for it, but the legislature is coming to Baton Rouge next month and this is an election year. I believe LSU is delaying construction until after the session and elections just for appearances and they break ground in December.
LikeLike
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/super-bowl-host-glendale-digs-out-from-debt-load-for-pro-sports?hootPostID=1d8b70ea952c57c50705ae5dd321f116
It could be worse. Glendale is considering selling 1 of it’s 3 public library branches to help the city’s finances after all the debt they’ve taken on to build sports facilities.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner:
Over the next week, I’ll take a hard look at:
* The conference’s projected revenue from TV deals and how that compares to its peers.
* The success, failure and role the Pac-12 Networks in the financial calculation.
* The looming expenses generated by changes in NCAA legislation.
* The options for new sources of revenue.
To piece everything together, I have 1) enlisted help from two sports media/marketing research firms, Navigate and SNL Kagan and 2) reached deep, deep into my bag of industry sources and 3) Googled.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/03/college-hotline-series-the-pac-12s-financial-future/
LikeLike
Part I. Lots of details, but the conclusion:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/
So if you’re scoring at home, we have these projections for TV-related revenue for 2017-18, on a per-school basis:
SEC: $35.6 million
Big Ten: $33 million
Pac-12: $22.95 million
That’s a monumental gap, folks.
It’s reminiscent of the difference in revenue that existed under the Pac-12′s old Tier 1 deal.
It could impact the competitive balance, the ability to hire top-notch coaches and manage the looming increase in expenses due to legislative changes and the O’Bannon lawsuit.
The gap could be even larger if the DirecTV situation doesn’t unfold as projected above — if the league gets $0.60 per in-market sub, rather than $0.80.
And if the Pac12Nets aren’t on DTV in two years, for whatever reason, then the league could be $12 – $15 million behind its peers.
To some extent, there is nothing the Pac-12 can do:
[snip]
The looming TV revenue gap between the Pac-12 and its peers isn’t a Tier 1 issue. Scott got the best deal he could get.
The problem, as we’ll examine, is the Pac-12 Networks.
LikeLike
And for context:
ACC – roughly $20M + any ACCN money they get
B12 – roughly $20M + individual tier 3 deals
LikeLike
What I find interesting is that the only “peer” conferences in the article are the Big Ten and SEC.
LikeLike
Does this provide more leverage for Texas and its buddies (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State) when the time comes for the next phase of realignment, roughly a decade from now? There’s really no other way for the Pac to make up the gap.
LikeLike
More leverage – yes.
Sufficient leverage – I don’t know.
That also assumes that the P12 was the problem, not UT.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/06/the-pac-12s-financial-future-to-sell-the-pac12nets-or-not-to-sell/
Part 2 – Should the P12 sell an equity stake in the P12Ns?
Hotline projections show it could lag the SEC and Big Ten by at least $10 million per school per year starting in 2017-18.
There is at least one place the conference could turn for an influx of cash: Selling an equity stake in the wholly-owned Pac-12 Networks.
In an ideal world, 100 percent ownership is a sensational thing. It might even prove to be a sensational thing in the real world, 10 or 15 years down the road.
It would give the conference greater flexibility to take advantage of shifts in consumer behavior and changes in technology.
“That’s still a huge feather in the league’s cap,’’ said AJ Maestas, president of Navigate, a marketing research firm that provided data and analysis for this series. “Others chased the cash. The Pac-12 took ownership.’’
…
The calculation for the Pac-12 chancellors and presidents is this:
Do the long-term benefits of 100 percent ownership outweigh the short- and intermediate-term struggles created by going solo?
Distribution on cable and satellite systems is all about leverage, and the conference would have more leverage with a partner – just as Fox and ESPN have assisted the Big Ten and SEC networks with distribution.
Let’s start with the facts and projections:
*** Projected TV revenue gap in 2017-18, when the Big Ten starts its new Tier 1 deal (details here):
SEC: $35.6 million per school
Big Ten: $33 million per schools
Pac-12: $22.95 million per school
*** The conference network distributions:
The SEC Network, which launched last fall, is expected to distribute at least $5 million per school this year and projected to eventually funnel $15 – $20 million to each campus.
The Big Ten Network is a cash machine, with per-school outlays in the $8 -$10 million range (and expected to increase).
The Pac-12 Networks distributed approximately $1 million per school last year and are expected to produce a similar amount in FY15. Even a carriage deal with DirecTV is unlikely to make a significant dent in the TV revenue gap.
*** And, finally, the subscription numbers, according to media research firm SNL Kagan:
SEC Network: 63 million subs
Big Ten Network: 60 million subs
Pac-12 Networks: 11 million subs
…
This is all back-of-the-envelope math, obviously, and the ultimate valuation would depend, in part, on the number of bidders. But let’s split the difference and figure the Pac12Nets command 5x revenues on the open market.
That’s approximately $375 million.
How much equity would the league sell? Again, that’s a guess, but I’d envision the CEOs telling commissioner Larry Scott to sell as much as possible without giving up controlling interest.
In other words: 49.9 percent.
Selling 49.9 percent of the Pac12Nets doesn’t mean the conference would actually receive 49.9 percent of the total value, because there is a premium on control.
Let’s assign a $175 million value – about 45 percent — to the portion the conference sells.
That’s translates to a one-time windfall of $14.5 million per school.
But it’s only half the benefit of the equity sale.
In addition to the one-time cash payout, the partner would, in theory, provide leverage in the distribution game and substantially increase the number of subscribers.
…
So the financial benefits would be two-fold: The one-time, sack-o-cash and the increased annual paychecks.
Sounds great, and it might be the answer. But that course of action is not without drawbacks:
An equity sale, as one source noted, is like a very expensive loan: “You’ll just have to buy that equity back from them later at a much higher price.’’
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/12/the-pac-12s-financial-future-conclusions-and-analysis/
Wilner’s conclusion to his series on the P12’s financial future.
We’ve used thousands of words to detail the Pac-12′s financial future, but bottom line is this: The conference should be concerned, if not worried, and ready to act, but not panic.
If my estimates are accurate – even if they are reasonably accurate — then the Pac-12 is facing a major revenue shortfall relative to the Big Ten and SEC.
…
SEC: $35.6 million
Big Ten: $33 million
Pac-12: $22.95 million
Again, those are per-school, per-year figures.
…
(I use the B1G as the example because it is viewed by Pac-12 CEOs as their peer conference, to a far greater extent than the SEC or Big 12 or ACC.)
In framing our conclusions, it’s critical to remember:
1. A carriage deal with DirecTV would help narrow the revenue gap but won’t come close to closing it, based on the number of DTV homes in the league’s footprint (3.9 million) and the estimated sub fee ($0.80, at the high end).
2. The Pac-12 will never have a Tier 1 deal that’s comparable to the SEC and Big Ten because those leagues have more fans, more TV-viewing households and better TV ratings than the Pac-12. The deal Larry Scott signed in 2011 was the best the Pac-12 could get.
3. The Pac-12 Networks are under-performing in profitability ($1 million payouts per school, approx) and subscribers.
…
The picture isn’t as stark as it seems. There’s a fair amount of nuance to the situation because the Pac-12 owns 100 percent of its networks, whereas the B1G and SEC have partnered with FOX and ESPN, respectively.
The Pac12Nets are an enormous asset, and full ownership gives the conference the flexibility to adjust to, and take advantage of, the inevitable changes in consumer behavior and technology.
You could make the case that to this point in time — through the initial three years of this endeavor — the league is better off for having 100 percent ownership: The massive revenue gap hasn’t yet formed.
…
The best approach for the conference over long haul is not necessarily the best approach for the athletic departments on the front lines over the near- and intermediate haul.
Can the league continue to hold 100 percent of an under-performing asset while the schools, if my estimates are correct, are trumped by their rivals to the tune of $8 million to $10 million annually?
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1523830.html
CFN pre-preseason ranks for teams:
Best and brightest:
1. OSU
2. Baylor
3. AL
4. UCLA
5. TCU
6. USC
7. LSU
8. OR
Playoff contenders if things go their way:
9. MSU
10. ND
11. FSU
12. UGA
13. Clemson
14. SC
15. AU
16. TN
17. AR
18. OU
Other B10:
20. WI
27. MI
28. NE
43. MN
45. PSU
47. IA
49. NW
60. PU
62. UMD
63. IN
67. IL
70. RU
Well, on the bright side they don’t expect any B10 team to be terrible. Unfortunately, it looks like another top-heavy year. I think you’ll see one team emerge from each tier and move up, and probably one move down, too.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-03-06/syracuse-did-not-control-athletics-basketball-coach-failed-monitor
The NCAA has hit Syracuse and Jim Boeheim with failure to monitor (FB also got hit). The main penalties are vacating wins when they used ineligible players (5 seasons), Boeheim suspended for 9 ACC games next year and the loss of 3 scholarships per year for 4 seasons.
Penalties and measures prescribed by the panel are below:
• Five years of probation from March 6, 2015 through March 5, 2020.
• Vacation of all wins in which ineligible men’s basketball students played in 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and ineligible football students played in 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The public decision contains additional details.
• Fine of $500 per contest played by ineligible students.
• The school must return to the NCAA all funds it has received to date through the former Big East Conference revenue sharing for its appearances in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.
• Suspension of the head basketball coach from the first nine conference games of 2015-16.
• Reduction of men’s basketball scholarships by three for the 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years. If the school has already executed scholarship offers for the 2015-16 year, the school may begin the four-year penalty with the 2016-17 year.
• Reduction in the number of permissible off-campus recruiters from four to two during June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2017.
• The panel also accepted the school’s self-imposed postseason ban for the 2014-15 season, but noted that self-imposition of penalties after the conclusion of infractions hearings does not influence the outcome.
• Additional self-imposed penalties can be found in the public decision.
LikeLike
Considering these penalties, the NCAA will have to give the University of North Carolina SMU-like death penalties for at the very least both the men’s basketball and football teams. It could justify a death penalty for the entire UNC athletic program, especially since senior administrators at UNC were actively involved in a coverup.
The penalties could also justifiably include vacating all UNC victories and championships in the penalized sports for the last 30 years, return of all NCAA funds over the same period, and life-time suspensions for the coaching staffs of the penalized sports.
If such penalties are not forthcoming, other conferences will have to consider leaving the NCAA and setting up another regulatory structure, without any of the current NCAA staff coming over to the new agency.
Maryland got lucky in more ways than one, and Louisville and Notre Dame must be having second thoughts.
To think that a few years ago people wanted to lynch Jim Tressel. If he and tOSU deserved what they got, and they did, UNC’s sanctions have to be infinitely more severe.
LikeLike
This will show what kind of weight ESPN carries with the NCAA. UNC, specifically its men’s basketball program, is one of the network’s meal tickets, particularly the two Duke hoops games. Keep in mind that unlike Southern Methodist, UNC is a public institution with a large fan base, and the NCAA may not stomach such a fight. I’d be very surprised if UNC gets the “death penalty”; also note that no NCAA men’s basketball champion has had its title vacated. (As a Maryland fan, the Big Ten looks better and better every day.)
LikeLike
ESPN may lose in the short term, but as long as they maintain their good relationships with the SEC, may regain the UNC brand at a later date. I could see the knee jerk reaction to a death period by the UNC fan base and state administration being something along the lines of “Damn those Yankees” which would make them yearn for a SEC invite much more so than going in with UVA into the B16. That would ensure that any breakout from the NCAA by a rival or succeeding group would be largely regional (e.g. southern) in nature, and I’m sure that would restrain the B1G and the Pac (perhaps UTx as well) from helping to drop the hammer.
LikeLike
Good point. But a Southern Collegiate Athletic Association would not be a good home for Notre Dame or Boston College. Miami, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Syracuse might not fit either.
LikeLike
So the irony is that Delany (a UNC alumnus) and Slive (who I believe attended UVa law school) each could see their “alma maters” eventually wind up to their chief rival’s conference.
LikeLike
The odds of “other conferences” leaving the NCAA over the UNC penalties are basically zero. The other P5 teams/leagues are unlikely to especially care, and the mid-majors and below aren’t going to abandon the cash cow.
LikeLike
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-2015-spring-preview-and-power-rankings
Athlon’s B10 spring preview.
LikeLike
Don’t know how many of you watched the B1G women’s basketball final on ESPN tonight, but Ohio State gave Maryland its toughest test yet in the conference, as the Terrapins won 77-74. OSU’s Kelsey Mitchell, who’ll be a thorn in the side of Maryland for the next three years, scored 31 points and just missed a half-court heave at the buzzer. The Terps are now 30-2, including a 21-0 mark in conference play, and almost are certainly assured of a No. 1 seed when the brackets are announced next Monday.
LikeLike
Totally off topic, but I ran across this today. When we are talking about hundreds of millions for the junk content of conferences, its hard to remember how good we have it. A grocery store in Houston convinced Boris Yeltsin that communism had to end.
http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/04/when-boris-yeltsin-went-grocery-shopping-in-clear-lake/#22200101=0
A post earlier this year on Houston’s Reddit that mentioned late Russian president Boris Yeltsin’s wide-eyed trip to a Clear Lake grocery store led to a trip to the Houston Chronicle archives, where a batch of photos of the leader were found.
It was September 16, 1989 and Yeltsin, then newly elected to the new Soviet parliament and the Supreme Soviet, had just visited Johnson Space Center.
At JSC, Yeltsin visited mission control and a mock-up of a space station. According to Houston Chronicle reporter Stefanie Asin, it wasn’t all the screens, dials, and wonder at NASA that blew up his skirt, it was the unscheduled trip inside a nearby Randall’s location.
Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”
….
About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.
In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia. You can blame those frozen Jell-O Pudding pops.
“When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,” Yeltsin wrote. “That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12459854/proposal-nba-ncaa-nabc-move-draft-withdrawal-date
The NBA, NCAA and NABC are working together on a proposal that would push back the deadline for withdrawing from the NBA draft as well as add an invitation-only combine (like the NFL) and feedback from NBA teams on a player’s draft status. The goal is to get guys to go back to school if they aren’t likely to be drafted.
Key Points to the Plan
• Would move the date college players can withdraw from the NBA draft back about five weeks — from late April to late May.
• Underclassmen would participate in an invitation-only combine in mid-May that would allow NBA teams to evaluate them and offer feedback on their draft prospects. Combine would include seniors, underclassmen and international players (currently, if an underclassman submits official paperwork to declare for draft, he forfeits his eligibility and cannot return to school).
• Invitation-only combine would replace the traditional Chicago draft camp.
• If a player submits draft paperwork and is not invited to the NBA combine, the recommendation is to withdraw from the draft and return to school.
• Could be voted on by the NCAA in January and take effect in time for the 2016 draft.
• It’s the work of the NBA, the NCAA and the National Association of Basketball Coaches.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/student-tickets-are-a-problem-for-everyone-20150310
A look at student ticket prices across the B10.
LikeLike
Could David Boren’s harsh line and quick action to expel the 2 SAE miscreants be interpreted as a “tell” to B1G (or PAC) administrators of its interest in joining their league? I would expect a little more (not much more) hesitation before taking action at an SEC institution, particularly against the foremost antebellum and southern in origin fraternal organizations.
LikeLike
No. Two separate quotes from David Boren, with the 2nd being more relevant:
(I’m quoting from someone else, so its not my misspellings)
Students sing a song containing racial epitates:
” There is zero tolerance for this kind of threatening racist behavior at the University of Oklahoma,” Boren said.
Freshman football player assaults female student, punching her in the face, breaking four bones, and knocking her unconcious:
“The University is an educational institution, which always sets high standards that we hope will be upheld by our students. We hope that our students will all learn from those standards, but at the same time, we believe in second chances so that our students can learn and grow from life’s experiences.”
LikeLike
Boren’s first action is illegal under federal law and will be overturned in court. (Hate speech is constitutionally protected.) His second is a “tell” that the B1G doesn’t want anything to do with OK.
Nor especially UNC.
LikeLike
A colleague of mine pointed out that lack of action against the freshman football player is signalling that when revenue sports are involved, things will be looked over because of the millions the football team brings to the university.
If we are to put the green eyeshades on, I doubt the expulsion of 1 player, no matter how talented, would significantly dent the ability of OU football to attain sufficient revenue to cover its cost and also subsidise student participation non-revenue sports.
However, if you expel one out-of-state student, presumably of a family means capable of paying full out of state cost, you not only miss out on that 1 student’s out of state tuition for 3 years, but also several, even reaching into the 100s or 1000s of his peer group (upper middle class and higher in Texas) that will decide not even to apply for admission and those that may look into campuses that are as swift, harsh, and lacking in due process with regard to discipline. The cascade of effect of this on non-athletic operations and programs can be larger than negligible.
LikeLike
meant to say “campuses that are NOT as swift, harsh, and lacking in due process…”
LikeLike
Will wonders never cease? I actually agree with an Outkick the Coverage article (on Boren’s double standard).
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/oklahoma-president-calls-outkick-article-sheer-and-utter-nonsense-031115
LikeLike
I guess there really wasnt any compelling candidates for expansion…
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25104194/bob-bowlsby-says-big-12-ads-in-favor-of-ditching-co-champions
LikeLike
This brings up a point that I find interesting (most people probably don’t).
In a standard tie in the standings, the default is to use head-to-head as the first tiebreaker and then often they choose to go down the list of common opponents if need be. While I understand the simplicity of saying A beat B so A gets the title, is that really the correct way to decide it?
Is it better to beat co-#1 and lose to #7 or to lose to co-#1 and beat everyone else? Why is the win more important than the loss, especially in the case of a close win at home head to head (Baylor over TCU for example)?
LikeLike
The SEC promotes from within. Greg Sankey, the SEC’s executive associate commish and COO will take over on August 1.
http://www.secsports.com/article/12468888/sanke-named-commissioner-sec
LikeLike
http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/296003651.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
A look at the future of college hockey.
The success in Pennsylvania and Arizona have observers and fans wondering: Which school is the next Arizona State? The answer could impact Big Ten hockey, the two-year-old conference that is already eager to expand beyond its current six-team footprint. At least three Big Ten schools are considering, quietly in most cases, adding hockey, and the conference has had talks with Arizona State about a hockey-only alliance.
“What has been most exciting is, since the Arizona State announcement, the number of people that have contacted us … about what needs to be done to have [hockey] happen at ‘our school,’ ” said Mike Snee, executive director of College Hockey Inc., a company funded by USA Hockey and a grant from the NHL with a mission to promote the sport. “There is enough percolating out there to keep us motivated and believing that we can make this contagious if it isn’t already.”
…
Which school next?
Southern California, Northwestern, UCLA, Alabama, Auburn, Arizona, Penn, Rhode Island, Illinois, Nebraska, Stanford, Oregon, Navy, Georgia Tech or Georgia? Four years ago, these schools would not have appeared in a story about college hockey. But with Penn State plowing a road and Arizona State right behind, these are some of the names being thrown around in college hockey circles.
Big Ten Associate Commissioner Jennifer Heppel, who oversees men’s hockey, said there have been no formal discussions of Big Ten members adding hockey since Arizona State’s announcement but added that Penn State’s success has been a good example for others to see. A source told the Star Tribune multiple Big Ten schools are quietly exploring adding the sport.
…
n the meantime, Arizona State will have to build its résumé as an independent Division I member for the next two seasons. After that, the Sun Devils will join a conference, and some expect it to be the Big Ten. The Pac-12 and Big Ten have a long athletic history and like schools in their “Power 5” conferences. They also have TV networks hungry for more prime-time sporting events.
Arizona State and the Big Ten both confirmed they’ve discussed a hockey future together. An outside school competing in one Big Ten sport already occurs in men’s lacrosse with Johns Hopkins.
Two other conferences with a major presence in the Midwest, the WCHA and the NCHC, are also engaged in conversations with the Sun Devils.
“I think being in a conference with like institutions is important,” Heppel said. “[Arizona State] is going to have to think about that from an institutional and sport perspective. The Big Ten and Pac-12 have a historic relationship.
Would people support adding ASU to the B10 for hockey? It’s a mighty long road trip and would reduce the pressure on other B10 schools to join. It would also reduce OOC schedules which could be a problem for some of the schools still trying to play their old rivals annually.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/coralville-eyeing-possible-7000-seat-arena-for-iowa-river-landing-20150311
Schamberger said he hopes the facility would also attract state tournaments and other athletic events. It could also serve as a permanent home to an area hockey team, according to Hayworth.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t surprise me to see a USHL team end up there.
LikeLike
Is any “pressure” on Big Ten schools to join in terms of the conference numbers? Or is it pressure to start a program which gained added force because there’s now a Big Ten competition to play in? If its the latter, adding ASU would not reduce that kind of pressure.
LikeLike
I was thinking about the pressure to get above the NCAA minimum of 6 teams (just in case) as well as pressure to add more games for BTN. Any added team reduces those pressures.
LikeLike
That Star Tribune article raises a number of questions:
Will the PAC12 conference and its network be formally involved in B1G-ASU negotiations, perhaps pressuring ASU one way or the other? Assuming a deal is reached, what kind of financial arraignment is likely between B1G and ASU? Will such an arraignment be open to any other PAC12 hockey schools? Could it serve as a template should other P5 schools wishing to add hockey be interested? Or would it be limited to the PAC12?
Would the B1G ever consider adding ND hockey?
What about women’s hockey – is there any pressure for the B1G schools to add women’s teams and/or to form a women’s hockey conference? Given an existing men’s hockey team, what are the costs to start a women’s team? What kind of ratings do women’s games get? Would this be the best way to comply with Title IX mandates?
How likely is it that any B1G schools add hockey in the next 5 years?
Aside from the article, are there any B1G schools considering adding Lacrosse? Is there any pressure from the conference on member schools to add teams?
LikeLike
Will the PAC12 conference and its network be formally involved in B1G-ASU negotiations, perhaps pressuring ASU one way or the other?
At some level they’ll be involved, but there isn’t much they’ll be able to do. I’m sure ASU is looking at the Big Ten as their dream hockey conference. The NCHC may be better on the ice, but it will be much easier to sell tickets casual fans for Big Ten opponents than any other league.
Assuming a deal is reached, what kind of financial arraignment is likely between B1G and ASU?
There isn’t a whole lot of money in televising college hockey. I’m sure there will be some payment eventually to ASU, but nothing that will be game changing.
Will such an arraignment be open to any other PAC12 hockey schools? Could it serve as a template should other P5 schools wishing to add hockey be interested? Or would it be limited to the PAC12?
I imagine everything will be by a case by case basis. If we were talking about Oregon St instead of Arizona St I doubt the Big Ten would show any interest. Phoenix has just enough Big Ten alums and is easy enough to travel to *maybe* make it worthwhile.
LikeLike
As conference play in baseball has begun in most conferences or starts this weekend, here’s a look at where we are before the meat of the schedule.
College baseball has six major polls/rankings to dissect (USAT Coaches, National Collegiate Baseball Writers Association, Collegiate Baseball, Baseball America, Perfectgame.com., and D-1baseball.com) The NCBWA and Collegiate Baseball rank 30 teams, while the others rank the customary 25 teams. These polls/rankings usually have varied opinions about where teams sit. For example, Oregon is in the top 10 in the USAT Coaches poll, but unranked in the D-1 Baseball and Collegiate Baseball polls. That being said, the top six teams are the same in every poll, just mixed around a little bit.
TCU is the top ranked team according to the USAT Coaches, Collegiate Baseball, and the NCBWA. The Perfect Game and D-1 Baseball ranking have Florida as their number one team. This week Baseball America looks to be the most accurate in making my LSU Fightin’ Tigers their number one team. The other teams making the top six in everybody’s polls/rankings are Texas A&M, Vandy, and South Carolina.
The B1G is looking good so far with three teams ranked in at least three polls/rankings. Maryland sits at #14 (D-1 Baseball), #23 (USAT), and #25 (NCBWA). Frank’s own Fighting Illini are ranked in five polls/rankings: #18 (D-1 Baseball & Collegiate Baseball), #24 (USAT), #25 (Baseball America), and #27 (NCBWA). Indiana is also ranked in five polls/rankings: #21 (D-1 Baseball), #23 (Collegiate Baseball), #24 (Perfect Game & Baseball America), and #28 NCBWA.
Some other non-sunbelt teams are ranked, including Virginia and Louisville (all six), Oregon (USAT, PG, NCBWA, & BA), Oregon State (PG, CB & NCBWA), Mizzou (CB), Notre Dame (CB), and Nevada (CB).
Upcoming weekend series between teams ranked in at least one poll are:
OK State @ TCU
LSU @ Arkansas
Florida State @ Virginia
Louisville @ Notre Dame
Arizona State @ Oregon
North Carolina @ GA Tech
South Carolina @ Mizzou
Regarding attendance, LSU leads all the SEC teams comfortably, and the SEC is sitting in the top five slots. Texas has the highest attendance of any team not in the SEC, at #6, while Nebraska leads the B1G in attendance and is #7 overall. Sixteen teams are averaging over 3,000 in attendance a month into the season.
1. LSU’s attendance is averaging 10,604 through 17 home games.
2. Arkansas (7,334 through 9 games)
3. Ole Miss (7,161 through 10 games)
4. South Carolina (7,156 through 16 games)
5. Miss State (6,996 through 18 games)
6. Texas (5,327 through 10 games)
7. Nebraska (4,854 through 5 games)
8. Clemson (4,483 through 8 games)
9. Florida State (4,139 through 17 games)
10. Texas A&M (4,026 through 18 games)
11. TCU (3,724 through 9 games)
12. Louisiana-Lafayette (3,557 through 7 games)
13. Texas Tech (3,477 through 10 games)
14. Florida (3,372 through 18 games)
15. Hawaii (3,228 through 12 games)
16. Arizona State (3,108 through 17 games)
Honorable Mention – #17 Rice (2,925 through 14 games)
LikeLike
Has anyone confirmed Frank is still alive? 🙂 Can you give us a new post on anything? Raising twins in suburbia?
LikeLike
Frank is dead, and Brian has inherited the blog. Address all request to Brian.
LikeLike
He’s still tweeting.
LikeLike
I’m alive! In fact, I’m writing a way overdue post right now! Sorry for the long hiatus – the combo of job responsibilities and raising twins (including coaching their basketball team) has been nuts lately.
LikeLike
Pingback: March Madness Big Ten Rundown: Hockey Expansion Talk with Arizona State and New TV Contract | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: March Madness Big Ten Rundown: Hockey Expansion Talk with Arizona State and New TV Contract - Sports - You + Dallas
Tragically late commenting.
The unknown (at least to me) is the true value of hoops and whether my assumption that basketball is of greater value to a conference with its own network vs one relying on the traditional distribution model. Conference networks need inventory and basketball provides a lot.
I may be far off base but I can’t see a Memphis/Cincy add unless Big XII is going down the path of a network.
A good friend is an advocate of a 12 team playoff with 10 auto bids and 2 at-large with byes to battled for. His logic isn’t fairness or such but rather the idea of the first Saturday in December (as well as the Friday and Thursday before) creating the ultimate college football orgy as 20 teams battle in league title games for entry into the playoff.
LikeLike
Tragically late commenting
Feel free to bring your comment to the current post.
The unknown (at least to me) is the true value of hoops and whether my assumption that basketball is of greater value to a conference with its own network vs one relying on the traditional distribution model.
IMO – your assumption is pretty safe to make. Conference basketball season is a bi-weekly reminder that you need to call/switch your cable provider if you don’t have your favorite conference network.
I may be far off base but I can’t see a Memphis/Cincy add unless Big XII is going down the path of a network.
IMO – Even with Cincy/Memphis, a Big 12 network with out U of Texas will be the large conference version of the MTN. It isn’t going to work.
LikeLike
Pingback: Bad Blood within the Big 12: Oklahoma President Wants Expansion and What it Means for the Big Ten | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Why LGBT Rights at BYU Matter in Big 12 Expansion (Whether You Agree or Not) | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT