Happy New Year: Season Opening Quick Hits on Sports TV Rights, Sun Belt Expansion and the Illini Coaching Dumpster Fire

Posted: September 3, 2015 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The new college football season is finally upon us! Let’s get to some quick hits on college sports business news from the past few weeks:

(1) Sports TV Rights: Bubble or Not? – Even before the broader stock market swoon over the past two weeks, cable companies have been getting hammered by investors due to continued decline of the basic cable model due to cord cutting.

This potentially has a large impact on sports fans, particularly college sports fans, since so many off-the-field issues are directly related to cable rights fees for sporting events that have largely grown unfettered for the past decade. Conference realignment doesn’t happen if the Big Ten Network isn’t formed and becomes enormously successful. Major League Baseball, NBA and NHL franchises are buoyed from attendance peaks and valleys by massive regional sports network deals. The NFL receives more rights fees from ESPN for Monday Night Football and DirecTV for Sunday Ticket exclusivity than from its over-the-air network partners that are showing higher profile games than the former and are actually producing the games for the latter.

This begs the question that has been circulating quite a bit these days: is there a sports TV rights bubble that is about to pop?

It’s a lot more complex question than many observers give it credit for. On the one hand, cord cutting is accelerating with a major complaint being that non-sports fans are having to pay higher cable and satellite bills for sports networks that they do not watch. As a result, cable subscriptions rates are going down, which drags down the subscriber fees that networks such as ESPN depend upon. On the other hand, sports programming is one of the few (if not only) exclusive draws to cable and satellite television in the first place, so the relatively inelastic demand from sports fans is arguably even more important to cable networks than ever. In essence, when push comes to show, cable networks may rather lose the more price sensitive cord cutters than lose the higher paying sports fans.

Even with the impact of cord cutting becoming clearer in recent months, cable networks are still charging ahead with large sports rights deals. In early August, NBC and Comcast ponied up a 100% increase in rights for English Premier League games compared to the last deal that was signed only two years ago. The St. Louis Cardinals similarly just scored a doubling of its rights fees from Fox Sports Midwest on the regional sports network front.

It’s an interesting paradox: sports rights fees are arguably both the largest cause of cord cutting and the largest hedge against cord cutting. A non-sports fan is rightly going to question the wisdom of paying for cable when he or she can get the same lineup through a less expensive combination of Netflix, Amazon Prime and/or Hulu (plus maybe even HBO Now). By the same token, sports fans are more dependent upon cable than ever. Cable is no longer just a repository for surplus niche events, but now is the home (whether in whole or part) of the NCAA Tournament (including the Final Four), the College Football Playoff and nearly all bowls (including the bluest blue blood brand of the Rose Bowl), and MLB, NBA and NHL playoff games. More importantly, sporting events are exclusive and unique – a viewer can get news coverage as easily from an over-the-air network or Internet as he or she can from cable, but an over-the-air Ohio State game is not a replacement for a Michigan game for a Wolverines fan.

As a result, I don’t see complete doom and gloom for ESPN and sports networks in the future. For all of the alarmist articles about ESPN’s supposed impending demise over the past few weeks due to employee shuffling and Disney’s earnings reports, ESPN is still the single most valuable media and entertainment property on Earth. The reason why investors are scared isn’t because ESPN’s revenue and profit levels are bad, but rather that they have set such an insanely high bar financially that anything that deviates from that bar is worrisome. To put it into perspective, ESPN is still averaging about $6.61 per subscriber per month with over 92 million subscribers, which translates into $7.372 billion per year before they sell a single advertisement. That is over $614 million per month in just subscriber revenue (once again, we’re not even talking about the commercials that ESPN sells), which is more than the domestic gross of any movie released by Disney in history (and in fact, more than the domestic gross of any movie in history except for Avatar and Titanic). Just think about that: ESPN is generating revenue from just subscriptions that is more than what Disney grosses domestically from any Marvel, Star Wars or Frozen movie every single month… and once again, before they sell a single advertisement.

To be sure, the incredible amount of money that ESPN is generating that is propping up the entire Walt Disney Company (and national and regional sports networks are similarly propping up companies such as 21st Century Fox and Comcast) is exactly why investors are so spooked by any deterioration of the basic cable model. When Disney has been able to set ESPN on auto-pilot and generate more revenue than a new Star Wars movie without lifting a finger every month, both companies and investors start taking that seemingly endless cash flow for granted.* Still, there’s so much money at stake that cable networks are unlikely to stop investing in sports since they are what will keep such cable networks relevant regardless of whether the industry moves from a basic cable to a la carte or over the top environment. Hence, the Big Ten will still likely rake in massive record-setting cash for college sports deals when it signs its new TV contract(s) over the coming year.**

(* Speaking of Star Wars, Disney just announced that it is building a new Star Wars Land built at both Walt Disney World and Disneyland. I’ll admit that I’ve had schematics created in my head for a Star Wars Land ever since I was 3 years old with a Millennium Falcon ride and fully operational Death Star. So, this is as exciting to me as it is to my uber-Disneyphile sister.)

(** Just my semi-educated guess: look for the Big Ten to split its first tier rights between ESPN and Fox, where the ABC/ESPN package will effectively be the same as today, but the games that are currently on ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPNEWS getting sent over to Fox/FS1 with some provisions for better game picks if they are carried nationwide over-the-air. The BTN contract is locked-in going until the 2031-32 season, so that won’t be changing. I don’t believe that the Big Ten is truly interested in selling all of its rights to solely Fox, as exposure is still extremely important the conference in the same manner as the NFL. In fact, the NFL TV rights model is a good template for what the Big Ten wants to do, which is to ensure that it’s getting exposure and revenue from several of the top media players instead of just one.)

(2) House of the Rising Sun Belt Expansion (and Contraction?) – As much as the college football world is most interested in whether the Big 12 and/or its individual schools (i.e. Oklahoma) will decide to get back into hot conference realignment action, the Sun Belt has made the latest expansion move by adding Coastal Carolina as a new all-sports member. On paper, Coastal Carolina seems like a fairy good addition for a Group of Five non-power conference since it’s a school with a rising enrollment and solid TV market and recruiting location in the Myrtle Beach area. The Sun Belt may also be turning its focus back on being an all-sports conference as Commissioner Karl Benson has hinted at the league dropping football-only members Idaho and New Mexico State. Those two football programs might soon be joining the homeless UMass as independents against their will (unlike Notre Dame, BYU and Army). If that occurs, it’s going to be tough since there isn’t any natural home for those schools and independence is effectively a death sentence for those schools for more than a couple of years. UMass will be hoping for the AAC to lose a school or two to the Big 12, which would then open up a spot for them. In turn, that could open up other spots down the line for Idaho and New Mexico State. As much as the powers that be in college sports probably like the general slowdown in conference realignment, there are several schools out there that want and/or need chaos.

(3) Illini Coaching Dumpster Fire – As many of you know, I’m an Illinois alumnus and fan. I’ve seen enough dysfunction with Illini football over the years that I barely batted an eye when they fired their head coach only a week before the season opener. At a core level, Tim Beckman was a terrible football coach, awful in press conferences, disjointed with the media and, according to the evidence, abusive to his players. The question in my mind isn’t whether Tim Beckman should have been fired, as that was obvious to me after his first season in Champaign. Instead, the question is what the heck did Illinois Athletic Director Mike Thomas ever see in Beckman in the first place? If Beckman had an interview that was anything like his conversations with the media, what possessed Thomas to see anything in him? Let there be no doubt: this was a CYA firing by Mike Thomas, but the seat under his own “A” is going to be burning hot coal for awhile. To be fair, many of the non-revenue programs have seen quite a bit of success under Thomas, particularly volleyball, tennis, golf and baseball. However, football and men’s basketball are where power conference athletic directors are ultimately judged and Thomas has, at the very least, underachieved with both of them.

Here are my basic expectations for the Illinois football program: considering its location with access to the Chicago and St. Louis recruiting areas along with Big Ten membership, this team should at least be winning 6 to 8 games per year to consistently make it to bowl games while challenging for the weaker Big Ten West every 4 years or so when senior-laden teams cycle through. This shouldn’t be much to ask for. I’m not delusional in believing that Illinois should be having Ohio State-level success in football or becoming the dominant team in the Big Ten West. However, I also don’t buy some of the national narratives that Illinois football has to be inherently bad. Illinois is not like Indiana or Kansas where football will always be a placeholder until basketball season starts, so I’ll never accept the “Illinois is a basketball school” excuse for football ineptitude. (Besides, a top tier athletic department should have the ability to perform well in both football and basketball. See Ohio State, Michigan State and Wisconsin just in the Big Ten.) Instead, Illinois is simply a fairweather football school in the same manner as 90% of other college programs: they sell tickets when they win but fans won’t come out when they lose. The Illini football fan base is similar to the fan base of my Chicago White Sox – there are large numbers of us out there, yet we aren’t paying to watch a poor product like, say, Cubs fans have historically done. Illinois has made several terrible bad football decisions in the past, but there isn’t any structural reason why the school can’t have at least a competent football program. The immediate issue is that I don’t trust that Illinois will make a competent football decision until Mike Thomas is gone.

Of course, even with the turmoil surrounding Illinois football, I’m still pathological enough of a football fan to get excited for a Friday night game against Kent State. I’m fairly certain that my hopes and dreams for the Illini and Bears this year will be quickly crushed within the next 4 weeks, but until then, que sera, sera. Enjoy the games and holiday weekend!

(Image from News-Gazette)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Not So Witty says:

    {Type something witty here}

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Go Hawks!

    Like

  3. vp19 says:

    Here are my basic expectations for the Illinois football program: considering its location with access to the Chicago and St. Louis recruiting areas along with Big Ten membership, this team should at least be winning 6 to 8 games per year to consistently make it to bowl games while challenging for the weaker Big Ten West every 4 years or so with senior-laden teams cycle through. This shouldn’t be much to ask for.

    Illinois — the Maryland of the Central Time Zone (except it has no lacrosse, men’s soccer or equivalent of Brenda Frese).

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Need a BSWB quarterback (think John Cooper to decode the acronym) – the position at UI tends to oscillate between an overated DuPage Valley bro and the next hood-based athletic mobile bruh.

      Like

  4. m(Ag) says:

    About the Sunbelt possibly dropping Idaho and New Mexico State: I’d be particularly worried if I was Idaho. The Sunbelt may be fine with 2 football-only members. But if the agreements are coming up for renewal, why not drop Idaho for UMass? It doesn’t have the history at FBS that Idaho has, but surely there’s a bit more media value in New England, while probably being easier for travel. UMass might also be willing to agree to a few basketball games a year which would obviously be good for that sport.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      m(Ag) & Frank – I’m not so sure about the Sunbelt kicking NM State and Idaho to the curb. The Sunbelt has two members that don’t play football (Arkansas-Little Rock & Texas-Arlington), so having two football-only members should be no big deal. Adding Coastal Carolina allows the Sunbelt to have 12 teams in all major sports, albeit a slightly different lineup for football. I haven’t heard anything about them running off UTAr or UALR. Idado and NM State may get the boot, but I doubt the reason is to make the Sunbelt an all-sports league.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        I’ve seen suggestions that some of the Sun Belt West Division was in favor of having NMSU join all-sports, while the East Division schools are opposed. I suppose its possible for affiliate members to have travel subsidies carved out of the $1m CFP money per school to the conference, and they may not want to head all the way out to Las Cruces without that subsidy.

        Adding Coastal Carolina suggests for FB an Eastern Division of Appy State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Troy and South Alabama and a Western Division of Louisiana, ULM, Arkansas State, Texas State, NMSU and Idaho.

        If they dropped Idaho in favor of UMass, that would seem like it would shift USA to the Western Division and have UMass in the East. If they carved out travel subsidies from the CFP money, that would also result in each division having an equal distribution of both long distance trips as well as travel subsidy.

        Like

  5. Geoff says:

    Go Bucks and Rock Chalk too!

    Like

  6. largeR says:

    GO B1G

    Like

  7. BruceMcF says:

    I remember the 80s when Illinois was always a threat to be a spoiler for the Buckeye’s season … IIRC, there was a stretch there when Illinois and OSU traded off wins in alternating seasons … and it seems that if the Badgers can establish a winning program just a little bit north of Chicagoland, with a quite challenging undergraduate academic level to navigate their FB players through, the Illini ought to be able to do so just a little bit south of Chicagoland.

    Similar to Wisconsin, the Illini may need to become a “system” school to do so, recruiting FB athletes that fit their system well without necessarily being widely viewed as 4-star or 5-star recruits. But building that requires getting the coach that can build that kind of program.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “This begs the question that has been circulating quite a bit these days” … {sigh} … “begging a question” is making an assumption or assumptions that implies the conclusion to an argument on their own, so the evidence presented is just for decoration.

    At the same time that people arguing on the internet has seen something of an epidemic of actually begging the question, there has also been such an epidemic of people using it as if it means “raising the question” that the majority of people use it as a synonym for “raise the question”.

    Its an obscure enough phrase that its perfectly fine to not use it in its original meaning, but if intending to mean “raise the question” … “raise the question” is a perfectly fine way to say that. It does not really beg to be substituted.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      In the early Cooper/Mackovic overlapping era, the Illini were a lock to beat OSU. Wisconsin seems to have a system which incorporates its in-state strengths (big lumberjack linemen, RBs from SE Wisconsin) on offense. Illinois always had the tough LBs (which may have run its course with Leman), but I wonder if what the local HS’s are putting out now are not better suited to run Northwestern U-type offenses. Illinois right now doesnt seem to maximizing the CCL and the other catholic schools (which is sort of the MSU formula).

      Like

    • Brian says:

      BruceMcF,

      “I remember the 80s when Illinois was always a threat to be a spoiler for the Buckeye’s season … IIRC, there was a stretch there when Illinois and OSU traded off wins in alternating seasons …”

      It was even worse than you recall. IL went 8-4 versus OSU from 1983-1994 including 5 straight wins from 1988-1992.

      “Similar to Wisconsin, the Illini may need to become a “system” school to do so, recruiting FB athletes that fit their system well without necessarily being widely viewed as 4-star or 5-star recruits. But building that requires getting the coach that can build that kind of program.”

      Boise and TT did the same thing.

      What is the most popular style of offense in Chicagoland high schools? The spread? Triple option? Pro set? IL’s best bet would seem to be either a basketball on turf offense or the option since the other styles are covered by better programs. I think they could thrive with an option attack as the weather makes passing in November a bit questionable. On the other hand, PU made it work so IL could too.

      Like

      • Tom says:

        I think they they should go up tempo spread. Indiana (at times) has shown how effective it can be despite limited talent (IU five year recruiting average: 55). IU’s defense remains awful so it hasn’t translated into wins but If you hire a good coach, Illinois could be in the top 30-35 of recruiting easy. I’m very surprised that more B1G teams (who are at an inherent talent disadvantage) don’t copy the Baylor (five year rank #39), ASU (#35), or IU hyper up tempo offenses.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Yeah, the key could well be to pair it with a defensive system that is effective at creating turnovers, since putting in a defense against an up tempo spread when they were not expecting to be going in is a “force multiplier”. But I don’t know the tendencies of central Illinois and Chicagoland areas as far as turning out defensive players go.

          Liked by 1 person

      • BruceMcF says:

        “It was even worse than you recall. IL went 8-4 versus OSU from 1983-1994 including 5 straight wins from 1988-1992.”
        I must have been recalling 1982-1988, I went to graduate school in Knoxville in 1989 and was not following the Buckeyes as closely as I had before.

        Like

  8. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  9. morganwick says:

    Whether or not cable networks continue breaking the bank for sports rights, the days of cable networks ponying up for high-profile, championship sports events that once seemed unthinkable to move to cable just ten years ago may be ending. (Note the British Open moving to NBC and returning to broadcast.) No sport wants to go the way of boxing, pushed to the background with their biggest events on pay-per-view or premium channels. ESPN has only been able to acquire rights like the College Football Playoff because they’re in the vast majority of households; if that ends, their ceiling becomes considerably lower. Take that away, and cable’s biggest non-NFL sporting events becomes MLB and NBA playoff games plus NASCAR races and college football bowl games. These agreements are locked up into the next decade, but I fully predict we’ll see at least the CFP championship game on ABC by the end of the current contract.

    With a less attractive slate, ESPN would probably see its subscriber fees go down noticably, which means it’s less able to afford high-profile sporting events, which means lower subscriber fees, and so on. I’m not saying ESPN will ever go back to the days of Aussie Rules Football, but I do think the broken economics of the TV industry that give cable networks so much power to acquire high-profile sporting events are correcting themselves. To the extent broadcast doesn’t benefit from this, it’s as much because broadcast seems to be in the middle of completely self-destructing as because cable companies are trying to inoculate themselves from cord-cutting.

    What we’re seeing is a complete paradigm shift in how media is consumed, where your internet connection effectively plays the same role as a cable subscription used to. Many cable companies also happen to be the dominant ISP, so they’re rather well set up to take advantage of cord-cutting, idiot investors aside. Cable companies are still in the stage where investors pay enough attention to traditional linear TV subscription rates that they try all sorts of tricks to keep those numbers up, but in the long term linear TV is more of a demand management system to prevent high-demand shows and events, especially live events, from swamping the system.

    Like

  10. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux Tigers!

    Like

  11. Worth noting: Throughout 2015, the monthly carriage fee income for ESPN and ESPN2 has decreased by ~$2.23 million every month, thanks to cord cutting and trimming. That might be a small percentage of ESPN’s overall carriage fee income, but it adds up in a hurry — ~$174 million in potential income vanishing in 2015, when compared to a steady sub rate over the course of the year. Not exactly Avengers money, but not something you can hide inside a balance sheet, either.

    This is why ESPN didn’t bid on the Premier League, and why ESPN will look to split the Big Ten deal with Fox. You and I are on the same page as far as what we think will happen there. It makes the most sense for both, because the Big Ten is going to get about $250 million per year, and neither network can afford to pay out that full amount over the course of 10+ years.

    I do think there’s an outside chance that CBS will try to sneak in as a partner with Fox to take the Big Ten deal away from ESPN. CBS has had a lot of success with SEC football, and it could convince Jim Delaney that it could do the same for the Big Ten. Not sure ESPN would let that happen, though.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think CBS would want any more than they have with the SEC, a game of the week.

      I could see the B1G splitting their package into a Tier I game of the week and a package for the rest.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        Though if CBS and Fox are going in together, two Tier 1 games with alternating picks is a big slice of the 3-4 games a week that ABC/ESPN currently take. And that does complement BigTen BBall on CBSSN, if CBS is angling to keep those.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      What You Pay For Sports,

      “Worth noting: Throughout 2015, the monthly carriage fee income for ESPN and ESPN2 has decreased by ~$2.23 million every month, thanks to cord cutting and trimming. That might be a small percentage of ESPN’s overall carriage fee income, but it adds up in a hurry — ~$174 million in potential income vanishing in 2015, when compared to a steady sub rate over the course of the year. Not exactly Avengers money, but not something you can hide inside a balance sheet, either.”

      Advertising revenue for sports on TV has been rising, though. That counters some/most/all of this drop.

      “This is why ESPN didn’t bid on the Premier League, and why ESPN will look to split the Big Ten deal with Fox.”

      A lack of available TV windows may be a more important reason.

      “You and I are on the same page as far as what we think will happen there. It makes the most sense for both, because the Big Ten is going to get about $250 million per year, and neither network can afford to pay out that full amount over the course of 10+ years.”

      http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/

      The Big Ten is projecting that schools will make about $33M per school per year just from TV in 2017-8. That’s roughly $400M per year for the 12 schools getting the full payout (RU and UMD will be getting adjusted amounts). Since the BTN deal isn’t changing much, I’m guessing the tier 1 deal is expected to be more than $300M per year to start.

      “I do think there’s an outside chance that CBS will try to sneak in as a partner with Fox to take the Big Ten deal away from ESPN. CBS has had a lot of success with SEC football, and it could convince Jim Delaney that it could do the same for the Big Ten. Not sure ESPN would let that happen, though.”

      I could see the B10 trying to get a prime time game of the week package. That would probably require some combo of ABC, CBS and FOX to find enough slots. Beyond that, I think the B10 wants to stay on ESPN but might move the ESPNU/ESPNEWS games to FS1. Maybe even the ESPN2 games except reverse mirrors, too.

      Like

      • I’d be surprised if the next Big Ten deal is worth $300 million a year or more, given the current environment. Ad money might be growing, but if that growth has to make up for a loss of revenue elsewhere, it will surely be reflected in the offer the networks make to the Big Ten. ESPN and Fox can only pay rising rights fees for so long if their own income remains flat.

        I also think a lot more games will move to broadcast TV in the next deal, and ESPN might end up leveraging ABC more, much like they’re starting to do with the NBA. Fox would do the same with its broadcast network. That might be enough to push CBS out of the picture — although if the Big Ten really wants $300M/year, it will probably have to get all three networks on board somehow.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          You seriously think the B1G will only average 600k more per school than the PAC in a deal struck 6 years later? And that is with the PAC holding back more inventory for the P12N than the B1G does with BTN.

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          The current environment could well prevent the deal from coming in north of expectations, but there is going to be competition for the rights, and the winning bid is not going to be able to get away with under pricing it on today’s market value due to concerns about how the value will be monetized in the out years.

          Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      “I do think there’s an outside chance that CBS will try to sneak in as a partner with Fox to take the Big Ten deal away from ESPN.”

      I don’t think that would happen. However, I could see CBS & ESPN partnering up in a different way. CBS could license more SEC games from ESPN, giving CBS a few more primetime games and a selection of early games throughout the year. ESPN would then have extra time slots & cash to bid to get the entire Big Ten package themselves.

      Why might this happen?

      -CBS & ESPN have negotiated several agreements over the SEC recently, so they can work together. I believe CBS sub-licenses basketball games from ESPN. CBS & ESPN had to come to some agreements to get the SEC network started. And just this offseason, ESPN sub-licensed SEC football games to CBS for the first 2 weeks of the season (CBS previously aired US Open Tennis the first 2 weeks of the season, so their contract with the SEC doesn’t cover these 2 weeks).

      -CBS would get more games that get good ratings & could stay focused on one conference.

      -ESPN would be able to keep Big Ten games off it’s cable competitors (FS1 & NBCsports). CBS promoting SEC football also doesn’t hurt it’s interest in the SEC Network.

      I’m not saying it’s likely to happen, but it could be something ESPN is contemplating.

      Like

  12. Carl says:

    We are …

    Like

  13. Carl says:

    Imagine that … 🙂

    Like

  14. Carl says:

    Imagine that … 🙂

    Adam Schefter (Verified) @AdamSchefter

    Five times in today’s 40-page ruling, Judge Berman put quotation marks around “independent” in reference to Ted Wells’ investigation.

    11:20 AM – 3 Sep 2015

    Like

  15. Carl says:

    Oops. I apologize for the double post. It was unintentional.

    Like

  16. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  17. Brian says:

    http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2015/09/04/michigan-football-tv-ratings-utah/71720022/

    MI at Utah set a ratings records for CFB on FS1.

    According to Fox, the game posted a 1.73 Nielsen household rating (2.868 million viewers), Fox Sports 1’s biggest college football number in its brief history.

    FS1’s previous record was a 2013 game between Oregon and rival Oregon State, which drew 2.179 million viewers (a 1.35 rating).

    But going against the behemoth ESPN, it wasn’t quite the same impact as ESPN’s primary game from the night, North Carolina-South Carolina, which earned a 2.1 rating. That ties ESPN’s fifth-highest Thursday night opener in the past decade or so.

    A blog called sportstvratings.com posted more details, placing the U-M game as the second-most watched of the night, behind the UNC-SC game, which had 3.6 million with its game concluding within East Coast primetime (5:54-8:19 p.m.). U-M’s game ran from 8:29-11:50 p.m. Eastern time.

    I know they hyped the heck out of that game and it was Harbaugh’s first game for them, but it was 2 unranked teams that aren’t rivals playing OOC late on a weeknight. Drawing 80% of ESPN’s ratings is great. They have to be excited about bringing that number into the negotiations with the B10.

    Like

  18. vp19 says:

    For the second time in slightly more than three months, a Maryland team has knocked off top-ranked UCLA — but this time, it came at home (before a record Ludwig Field crowd of 8,449) and it didn’t come in baseball, but men’s soccer, as the #6 Terps edged the Bruins 2-1 in OT: http://www.testudotimes.com/2015/9/4/9263819/mens-soccer-maryland-2-ucla-1-ot

    Later today, I’ll be in Pasadena to see another UCLA team — football — take on Virginia.

    Like

  19. Duffman says:

    The issue may be in what splitting it all up means

    Disney can sell 2 opposite dimensions and use 1 to leverage the other right now. If given the chance I would drop 95% to 99% of the channels out there and the Disney ones would be the first to go. I have less desire to watch pro sports of any kind on TV and find that moving to year round college sports is filling my viewing time. Add a movie channel and some educational stuff and that is all I really watch.

    Sure I want to watch ESPN on the weekend but I have pretty much turned off any of their talking head programs. Reality shows and blocks of 1/2 hour infomercials has turned me off. So has broadcasting a 2 hour movie that now fills 4 hours with commercials. Even the IFC channel has moved from uncut movies to all these dumb shows. I feel they should be paying me to watch this many commercials.

    If my electricity costs 50 dollars a month but my cable costs 100 dollars a month we have a real problem. The question of a bubble is not “if” but “when”

    Like

  20. Richard says:

    B10W will be a dogfight.

    Any one of 5 teams can win it.

    Like

  21. Mack says:

    Some schools probably already hoping next season is better. PSU lost to Temple (10-27) for the first time in 40 games (since 1941) . Kansas gave SD St its first FBS win (38-41). Texas looking at another down year after getting blasted by Notre Dame 3-38. WSU loss to Portland St. (17-24) at home edges out CO loss to HI (20-28) on the road. Vanderbilt lost to W. Kentucky (12-14).

    Like

  22. vp19 says:

    I note Iowa State’s 31-7 win over Northern Iowa came before a record crowd of 61,500 in Ames (seats were put in the south end zone during the off-season). If ISU attendance is regularly 55K+ over the next 10 years, it should find a home in a P5 conference (probably an enlarged ACC) even if the Big 12 collapses a decade or so from now.

    Like

    • bob sykes says:

      They’re in the B12.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Good for ISU, but 61,500 seats is just average by CFB standards (even assuming they always sell out), and sports revenue today is driven mostly by factors other than gate attendance.

      In population, Iowa ranks 30th among the 50 states. (Only eight P5 programs reside in states with less population.) And Iowa State doesn’t have much of a national following; they have practically none.

      If there’s a contraction in the P5, and Iowa State wants to stay at the big boys’ table, they would need more to offer than just a sold-out stadium. They’d need a winning program, sustained over a period of time.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        So much will depend upon who goes where, assuming it’s the Big 12 that implodes and not the ACC. I sense the only other conference where ISU could land would be the ACC, and so much of that might depend upon if the ACC itself is raided and how much of it is taken.

        Like

  23. urbanleftbehind says:

    If this new guy is does things in the Mitch Daniels way…maybe IA state steps in for the Hawkeyes:
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/04/appointment-businessman-bruce-harreld-next-u-iowa-president-upsets-faculty

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The guy looks like a terrible pick. But that’s a bit like saying the University of Michigan would give up athletics, just because it picked an Athletic Director (Dave Brandon) with a corporate mentality. No: after realizing that didn’t work, they got rid of the Athletic Director.

      Like

  24. bullet says:

    Odd week for the Big 10. The bottom 7 went 6-1. The top 7 are 1-5 with Ohio St. still to play.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “Odd week for the Big 10. The bottom 7 went 6-1. The top 7 are 1-5 with Ohio St. still to play.”

      Part of that is who they played, but also maybe people are wrong about who the top 7 are and who the bottom 7 are. While the top few and bottom few seemed fairly clear coming into the season, the rest was a jumble to me.

      My attempt to match your levels:
      Top 7:
      OSU
      MSU (WMU – W)
      MN (TCU – L)
      WI (AL – L)
      NE (BYU – L)
      MI (Utah – L)
      PSU (Temple – L)

      Bottom 7 (1 ranked foe, 2 G5 foes, 4 I-AA foes):
      NW (Stanford – W)
      PU (Marshall – L)
      IL (Kent St – W)
      IA (IL St – W)
      IN (SIU – W)
      RU (Norfolk St – W)
      MD (Richmond – W)

      The top 7 played 2 top 5 teams, 2 other P5 teams and 2 G5 teams that are decent. The bottom 7 faced 1 ranked foe (that shouldn’t have been ranked), 2 G5 teams and 4 I-AA teams. Only PSU was an upset loss for the top 7.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Agree with Brian.

      Even if you rank Wisconsin 3rd after OSU and MSU, not sure how you decided which ones of UNL, Minny, NU, PSU, Iowa, and UMich are in the top 7 and which are in the bottom 7.

      I reckon that will clear up only after they play each other.

      Like

  25. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The Atlanta Falcons and the SEC ink a deal that keeps the SEC CG in Atlanta forever.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sec-championship-remains-atlanta-least-2026-152904523–ncaaf.html

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      It would be nice to see them at least play that game outdoors at Nissan Stadium (Nashville). The first portion of that deal expires after the GOR era, so that leaves them room to experiment with Charlotte (+UNC/#16), Houston, a FL city or St.Louis (+OK/KU) (if they get a replacement for the Rams and the new stadium is built).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The new stadium will have a retractable roof (actually works more like a camera shutter). They could choose to play in the open air in nice weather.

        The SEC loves Atlanta for it’s centrality and the ease of travel to and from it. Also, the CFB Hall of Fame is now in Atlanta and they want to plant their SEC flag on it. I doubt they’ll leave unless the Falcons force them out.

        Like

  26. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Coaches poll is out.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/polls?poll=3&week=2

    By conference:

    SEC (9) #2 Bama, #7 Auburn, #9 UGA, #14 Ole Miss, #15 LSU, #18 Arkansas, #19 A&M, #21 Mizzou & #23 Tennessee

    Pac-12 (5) #5 Oregon, #10 USC, #13 UCLA, #20 Arizona & #25 Utah

    B1G (3) #1 Ohio State, #6 Michigan State & #24 Wisconsin

    Big-12 (3) #3 TCU, #4 Baylor & #17 Oklahoma!

    ACC (3) #8 Florida State, #12 Clemson & #16 GA Tech

    Ind. #11 Notre Dame

    MWC. #22 Boise State

    LSU’s cancelled game against McNeese St. this past Saturday due to lightning was the first LSU game cancelled since the entire 1918 season was cancelled due to WWI. Now my Tigers’ season opener is this weekend in beautiful StarkVega$ Mississippi. The last time LSU opened the season on the road against an SEC opponent was 2007 with a 45-0 shutout over Miss State. LSU won its second BCS title that season. Also, since 2003, LSU has made or won the title game every four years (03, 07 & 11).

    While it doesn’t really feel like our year right now, who am I to stand in the way of the football gods?

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      If the McNeese game does not get rescheduled, how does a 12-0 (as opposed to a 13-0) LSU team impact a 12-0 BigXII champion bid. It would seem to put them on a level ground in which you might have to take both as a bloc versus taking only 1 12-winner and taking a one-loss team.
      I would also think the McNeese vacancy helps with strength-of-schedule.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        LSU drops a tomato can opponent. Depends how the B12 team schedule compares.

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        urban – dropping a 1-AA team doesn’t level the playing field between LSU and a B-12 champ. Unless the B-12 turns out to be a lot tougher and the SEC a lot easier than everyone thinks, LSU would still have a great scheduling advantage with its conference games. If LSU were to win the SEC, my Tigers would have to beat #2 Bama, #7 Auburn, #14 Ole Miss, #18, Arkansas, #19 A&M, #26 Miss State, and either #9 Georgia, #21 Mizzou, or #23 Tennessee in the SEC CG. TCU may have already played its toughest game until the Friday after Thanksgiving when it plays Baylor. Also, looking at OOC, LSU plays at ACC Syracuse, and host SunBelt favorite Western Kentucky (who did beat Vandy this past weekend), and MAC Eastern Michigan. TCU beat B1G Minnesota, and plays G5 SMU, and 1-AA Stephen F. Austin. Baylor beat G5 SMU, plays G5 Rice, and 1-AA Lamar. If it comes down to LSU versus a B-12 champ for the final spot, with both being 12-0 or 11-1, I like my Tigers’ chances.

        Like

        • Mack says:

          I agree, but if both are 12-0, the B12 champ will only get left out if the ACC, B1G, and PAC champs are all 13-0. An undefeated B12 champ may be the FSU of this year’s playoffs. Even if the consensus is they do not belong, there is no easy way to exclude an undefeated P5 champ.

          Like

        • djbuck says:

          The SEC plays the same non conference teams As every other conference.
          Toledo and Jacksonville St. proved mouths should be closed.
          The only advantage the SEC has that no other conference can beat 0.1 grade point averages.

          Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        urban – the game won’t be rescheduled. That’s why I wrote cancelled. LSU has had to reschedule many games, including moving venues due to hurricanes, but this is the first game since WWI, that has been cancelled. No makeup. At least I’ll get a credit on my season tickets next season.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Brian says:

          They could have chosen to play on Sunday with no fans but opted not to do it. I can understand why, but MS St will benefit a little from having a game under their belts (probably not enough to win the game, though).

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Both teams have conference games this week. Also, McNeese had no hotel rooms. They planned on bussing back to Lake Charles after the game. Lake Charles is about two and a half hours away from Baton Rouge. Neither team was interested in playing on Sunday.

            LSU is honoring the $500k check to McNeese as well as refunding all the fans who purchased tickets.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        If the McNeese game does not get rescheduled, how does a 12-0 (as opposed to a 13-0) LSU team impact a 12-0 BigXII champion bid. It would seem to put them on a level ground in which you might have to take both as a bloc versus taking only 1 12-winner and taking a one-loss team.

        They were going to get zero credit for beating McNeese — but any game, even against the proverbial tomato can, is one that they could theoretically lose, or win unimpressively. This means that, perversely, the cancellation helps them, because the latter two possibilities are off the table, whereas the expected outcome (a walk-over) was never going to help their playoff case anyway.

        There is practically no believable scenario in which an undefeated P5 team (or Notre Dame) is left out of the playoff. The only interesting scenarios are just like last year, where there are more 1-loss conference champions than playoff spots. It is hard to imagine a 1-loss SEC winner losing a strength-of-schedule argument against anybody, and even a 2-loss champ could push out 1-loss champs from other leagues.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

      So is the AP poll.

      OSU stays unanimous #1.

      SEC – 10 (MS St also made it)
      P12 – 5
      ACC, B12 – 3
      B10 – 2 (also have #26 WI and #28 NW)
      Other – 2 (ND, Boise)

      Like

      • bullet says:

        So should David Boren have said everybody but the SEC is at a psychological disadvantage?
        AP is certainly sold on the SEC.

        Like

      • Tom says:

        I think 7-8 SEC schools should be in the top 25, but 10 is overkill:

        #25 Miss State looked unimpressive against a CUSA opponent that went 3-9 a year ago, yet they rise into the top 25?

        #23 Tennessee put up 59 against BGSU but still gave up over 500 yards of offense. They won the game (although in not as lopsided a manner that the score would indicate) so I wouldn’t move them down and they were previously #25, but an increase of two spots?

        #21 Missouri moves up three spots after winning 38-3 against an FCS team? Again, I wouldn’t move them down after starting at #24 but is that much more impressive than Iowa beating the FCS runner up 31-14 or Illinois winning 52-3 against Kent State or Rutgers winning 63-13 over another FCS team?

        In my opinion, Wisconsin and Arizona State both have a case that they should be ranked ahead/instead of these three SEC schools, all of which would have lost to Alabama or A&M at “neutral” sites. Northwestern beat a ranked Stanford team, they should be in the top 25. After all, Utah beat an unranked Michigan and is now in the top 25. BYU went on the road and beat a power 5 team (granted on a hail mary), but only TCU and Ohio State did the same. They should be ranked.

        Long story short, glad that we now have a committee in charge of things.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I don’t worry about week 1 polls. At least wait until after 4 games or so to see who isn’t getting enough credit and who is overrated.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      Toledo-Stony Brook got cancelled at halftime. Georgia-ULM got called with 10 minutes left and I read that nobody in the stadium could even see the lightning (but it was on radar).

      Definitely a lot more regard for safety. I remember going to a Georgia-Florida game in Jacksonville in the 90s, getting drenched by the torrent while wading through a foot of water in the parking lots with lightning in the distance, figuring we would be among the few in the stadium. And we got to our seats just before kickoff and virtually every seat was already full. No delays. Heavy rain most of the game and lightning in the distance for a good part.

      Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/9/8/9270871/bowl-projections-college-football-playoff-predictions-2015

    A CFP projection:

    Orange – 1. OSU vs 4. ND
    Cotton – 2. AL vs 3. TCU

    If those were the correct teams and seeds, shouldn’t the sites be reversed so TCU doesn’t get an advantage over AL? The site is irrelevant for OSU vs ND, so giving AL the edge over TCU should be the priority.

    Like

    • Mack says:

      From Birmingham, Jerryworld is 150 miles closer than Miami. Alabama has done fairly well playing there also. Maybe TX is considered as much of a SEC state as FL now. TCU is only about 20 miles away, but at least half the stadium would be in Red in an AL-TCU matchup. Now If LSU was the SEC champ the entire stadium would be in Purple.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      My projections:
      Cotton: 1. ‘Bama vs. 4. MSU
      Orange: 2. OSU vs. 3. Oregon

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Brian – there is no way TCU has a home field advantage against Alabama in Jerry World for a playoff game. In 2013, LSU played TCU in the Cowboys Classic and my Tigers had a decided advantage. In the 2011 BCS NCG in New Orleans, LSU only had a bout a 60/40 advantage on Bama.

      TCU has great fans but not enough t-shirt fans to fill up the place. TCU only has about 70,000 living alums. On the other hand, Bama’s numerous t-shirt fans will take out a second mortgage to get in the stadium for a playoff game.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Well Alabama has had trouble getting students to their games. They’re getting a little spoiled. TCU won’t expect to get there that often. They matched Wisconsin in Pasadena in the Rose Bowl.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Perhaps Brian was referring to TCU being able to sleep in their own beds and practice in their own facilities right up until the game, if they choose to?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Exactly. I realize TCU fans probably won’t buy more tickets, but the game would essentially be at home for them. That has to be an advantage.

          Let me put it this way – what if it was #3 UT vs #2 AL in Jerryworld? Would people consider that a problem?

          Like

  28. urbanleftbehind says:

    Ohio State used to be a non-entity in Chicago area T-shirt fans, but I think its recent rise in this metric has come largely at the expense of Notre Dame.

    Like

  29. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    US News & World Report rankings are out.

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

    By P5 conference.

    Pac-12: #5 Stanford, #20 Cal, #23 UCLA, #23 USC, #52 Washington, #89 Colorado, #103 Oregon, #115 Utah, #121 Arizona, #129 Arizona State, #135 Oregon State & #140 Washington State.

    ACC: #8 Duke, #26 Virginia, #27 Wake Forest, #30 BC, #30 North Carolina, #36 GA Tech, #51 Miami, #61 Clemson, #61 Syracuse, #66 Pitt, #70 VA Tech, #89 NC State, #96 Florida State & #168 Louisville.

    B1G: #12 Northwestern, #29 Michigan, #41 Illinois, #41 Wisconsin, #47 Penn State, #52 Ohio State, #57 Maryland, #61 Purdue, #69 Minnesota, #72 Rutgers, #75 Indiana, #75 Michigan State, #82 Iowa & #103 Nebraska.

    SEC: #15 Vandy, #47 Florida, #61 Georgia, #70 Texas A&M, #96 Alabama, #102 Auburn, #103 Mizzou, #103 Tennessee, #108 South Carolina, #129 LSU, #129 Arkansas, #129 Kentucky, #140 Ole Miss & #161 Miss State.

    Big XII: #52 Texas, #72 Baylor, #82 TCU, #108 Iowa State, #108 Oklahoma!, #115 Kansas, #146 K-State, #149 OK State, #168 Texas Tech & #175 West Virginia.

    Possible realignment targets: #41 Tulane, #57 UConn, #61 SMU, #66 BYU, #140 Cincy, #156 USF, #168 UCF, #180 New Mexico, #187 Houston, #187 Nevada, #194 East Carolina, NR Memphis & NR UNLV.

    Of interest to some on this board: #4 Chicago, #10 Johns Hopkins, #18 Rice & #18 Notre Dame.

    I know many poster here deride the USN&WR rankings, but schools and parents do care.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      That the highest-rated public instititution is only No. 20 is a disgraceful indictment of the lack of importance state governments place on higher education.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        The ratings are based heavily upon freshman SAT/ACT scores, the percentage of undergraduate applicants accepted and the amount of research (dollars, papers, grad students) per faculty. Private schools focus on only these things and select for elite students and elite researchers. Public schools are supposed to be serving a broader public with a larger focus on teaching and public service (e.g., ag extension). Their generally lower ranking merely reflects their assigned tasks, which are openly denigrated by the ranking bodies. It doesn’t imply a lack of support or neglect by state governments. State governments also have other things to worry about like crime, roads, Medicare, etc., and public universities do not warrant the top priority among state concerns. Harvard’s Board of Trustees could not care less about Cambridge’s homeless, if there are any in that elite town. They care only about Harvard’s reputation. That is their only job.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      Few takeaways:

      *Is it just me or has Iowa (#82) been slipping in the rankings? Pre-Nebraska, I always thought MSU and Indiana brought up the rear of the B1G.

      *I’ve pushed for a Virginia and Virginia Tech addition to the B1G. Would VT (#70) be accepted given that its not AAU?

      *Four power 5 leagues have at least one academic elite, the Big 12 does not have any (UT Austin is still pretty good though).

      *I realize there are other metrics but I’m not so sure how likely an Oklahoma (#108) or KU (#115) addition to the B1G would be. Both would really drag down the conference.

      *Rice (#18) deserves a lot better than CUSA. Perhaps it could give the Big 12 its academic elite?

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        *I’ve pushed for a Virginia and Virginia Tech addition to the B1G. Would VT (#70) be accepted given that its not AAU?

        I doubt that the B1G would want two schools in the same state, even if both were in the AAU. If they’re going to take only one school, they’re going to want the better one, and that’s UVA.

        (That’s before you consider the fact that the USNews ranking is not what they rely on, even though it’s probably the most visible rating to laymen.)

        Like

    • bullet says:

      ARWU came out recently:
      AAC 79-102 (201-300 world)-Cincinnati, Houston, South Florida; 103-125 (301-400 world) Temple, Tulane, Central Florida, UConn

      MWC 66-78 (151-200 world)-Hawaii; 79-102 (201-300 world) Colorado St., New Mexico; 103-125 (301-400 world) San Diego St., Wyoming; 126-146 (401-500 world) Utah St.

      MAC 79-102 (201-300 world) SUNY-Buffalo

      CUSA 45 (84 world) Rice; 79-102 (201-300 world) UAB; 126-146 (401-500 world) FIU

      Independent 52-65 (101-150 world) UMass; 79-102 (201-300 world) Notre Dame; 103-125 (301-400 world) BYU

      ACC Duke 23 (31); UNC 29 (39); Pitt 41 (70); 52-65 (101-150) Georgia Tech, Virginia; 66-78 (151-200) NC St., Miami; 79-102 (201-300) Florida St., Virginia Tech; 126-146 (401-500) Boston College, Clemson, Syracuse, Wake Forest; not ranked-Louisville

      Big 10 Michigan 17 (22); Wisconsin 18 (24); Northwestern 19 (27); Illinois 21 (29); Minnesota 22 (30); Maryland 30 (43); Penn St. 36 (60); Purdue 37 (61); Rutgers 39 (64); Ohio St. 40 (67); Michigan St. 50 (99); Indiana 52-65 (101-150); Iowa 66-78 (151-200); Nebraska 79-102 (201-300)

      Big 12 Texas 27 (37); Iowa St. 66-78 (151-200); Kansas 79-102 (201-300); Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Oklahoma 126-146 (401-500); not ranked-West Virginia, TCU, Baylor

      Pac 12 Stanford 2 (2); Cal 4 (4); UCLA 10 (12); Washington 13 (15); Colorado 26 (34); USC 32 (49); Arizona 46 (90), Arizona St. 47 (93); Utah 47 (93); Oregon St. 66-78 (151-200), Oregon 103-125 (301-400), Washington St. 103-125 (301-400)

      SEC Vanderbilt 34 (53); Florida 44 (83); Texas A&M 51 (100); Georgia, Tennessee 66-78 (151-200); LSU, Kentucky, South Carolina 79-102 (201-300); Missouri 103-125 (301-400); Auburn, Arkansas 126-146 (401-500); not ranked Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi St.

      Like

  30. ccrider55 says:

    Wilner on P12N

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/09/09/pac-12-networks-update-on-negotiations-with-directv-and-att/

    Whatever they do, always keep 51% ownership.
    I think this could be a big mistake. BTN and SECN partner with large sports broadcast entities. P12N…potentially with Ma Bell’s bastard child?

    Like

  31. ccrider55 says:

    Back to thoughts about semi pro vs an Ivy model, sounds like Notre Dame won’t be in the former.

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/10/notre-dame-president-remains-against-paying-college-athletes

    Like

    • Brian says:

      https://www.osu.edu/alumni/news/ohio-state-alumni-magazine/issues/september-october-2015/16-questions-for-gene-smith.html

      Gene Smith thinks multiple schools would follow suit for one reason or another.

      What about providing athletes payment for their images or likenesses?

      I’m not in favor of that. It changes the collegiate model significantly. If the O’Bannon case, which was approved by a judge in California, is not overturned on appeal, then we’ll be into a mode where we have to pay for student-athletes likenesses. Now it wouldn’t happen right away. There would be a long length of time before we got clarity on what the judge meant specifically in her ruling. But if we get to that, you can pay up to $5,000 per athlete for their likeness. That changes the collegiate model significantly. We’d have a lot of schools that would drop sports.

      Like

    • bob sykes says:

      It wouldn’t only be Notre Dame and Northwestern. Many public institutions like my alma mater Purdue would likely go down the Ivy route. The quality of athleticism would go down sharply (I know, less so at Purdue.), but fan enthusiasm likely would stay high. Go to an Ivy game this fall. I had a nephew that played at Cornell. His parents drove over 200 miles to every home game and went to every game in New England.

      College athletics would be much healthier. People like Cardale Jones who don’t want an education would not be on campus, and there would be less distance between the actual students and the student/athletes.

      It might solve the NFL’s problems with college draftees, too. According to today’s WSJ, the college game has diverged so much from the pro game that most incoming college quarterbacks have not heard of things like cover 2 and can do only the most rudimentary reading of defenses. College defenses also have been simplified to counter the no-huddle high tempo (and very simplified) offenses. The NFL would have to build its own minor league like baseball, soccer, hockey and the NBA. So be it.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “The quality of athleticism would go down sharply…”

        This is my only disagreement. I’m not sure it goes down sharply, unless only 10-20 teams/schools choose the academics first model. Is there going to be a space on the pay for play rosters to add all of the better athletes? And would all of them choose to go?

        Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Most of the B1G teams could survive, even thrive, as an “Ivy”. I just wonder if the NFL would institute a “from-the-ground-up” AAA-AA-A setup corresponding to market size like MLB, or would they perhaps “rent” facilities from former G5 and high FCS since some (but perhaps not all) of the lower level programs perhaps might not retain such interest. Some may seek and take a “bailout” from the NFL to pay down the cost of recently built or improved facilities. Ann Arbor might not be an ideal affiliate for the Lions, but I’m sure places like Toledo (UT) and Kalamazoo (WMU) might consider it.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Why would the NFL take on the cost of a minor league system as long as FB is still being played collegiately? No more than two teams worth of players make it to the NFL. There are 10,000+ players playing D1, and not costing the NFL anything.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            That’s exactly right. There is no need to take on an expensive minor league system, when the NCAA gives it to you for free.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        bob sykes,

        “College athletics would be much healthier. People like Cardale Jones who don’t want an education would not be on campus, and there would be less distance between the actual students and the student/athletes.”

        It’d be more appropriate to say the Jones didn’t want an education. He’s matured since then and seems to truly value the opportunity now. It doesn’t change your point, I just wanted to note that he’s no longer the poster boy for that.

        “It might solve the NFL’s problems with college draftees, too. According to today’s WSJ, the college game has diverged so much from the pro game that most incoming college quarterbacks have not heard of things like cover 2 and can do only the most rudimentary reading of defenses. College defenses also have been simplified to counter the no-huddle high tempo (and very simplified) offenses. The NFL would have to build its own minor league like baseball, soccer, hockey and the NBA. So be it.”

        1. Many of the football factories would go along with the changes, and some of those schools are the drivers of these modified offenses (OSU, OR, etc). The NFL is still going to face that issue.

        2. As long as some colleges go along, the NFL won’t start a developmental league. The top players will be at a smaller number of schools making it even easier to use college as the minor league.

        3. Only if all schools dropped down would the NFL start a new league, and even then it would be tough to prosper. They’d have to rent college stadiums most likely.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          3: Why?
          Was Jerry Rice hindered by playing at a lower school? Rothlisburger? Favre? Etc.

          The talent will still be displayed and coached as now, just with a different set of scholarship regulations. Unless the NFL feels the players are actually being seriously diminished/damaged by college participation they will still have the same talent pool. They just might have to do a bit more fundamental coaching to reform them in the image the NFL (minus Philly) currently favors.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “3: Why?
            Was Jerry Rice hindered by playing at a lower school? Rothlisburger? Favre? Etc.”

            Actually yes, they all were hindered but overcame it. But if all the schools drop to taking sports less seriously, the time spent on the game and the skills taught wouldn’t be sufficient preparation for the NFL. Colleges are hitting less and less in practice and playing quite differently than the NFL already. If the talk of reducing the time commitment is followed up, players may spend half the time they do now on football (or even less). In addition, it would also probably mean a greater emphasis on education so a lot of players that get admitted now wouldn’t get admitted anymore. If the NFL wants to maintain it’s current level, it will have to take over the developmental duties that college is dropping.

            “Unless the NFL feels the players are actually being seriously diminished/damaged by college participation they will still have the same talent pool.”

            See above.

            “They just might have to do a bit more fundamental coaching to reform them in the image the NFL (minus Philly) currently favors.”

            The current NFL rules don’t allow time for that teaching to happen. The NFLPA keeps reducing the time the players are available. Something will have to give.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          It will be a big game of chicken. In the end, hardly anyone drops voluntarily. Yale used to fill their 70,000 seat stadium. Princeton replaced their 45,000 seat stadium with a 20,000 seat stadium.

          Attendance goes down, donations go down, luxury box prices go down, seat prices go down and TV revenue drops. They just aren’t going to do it. Now eventually, the G5 schools will be forced financially to drop down or drop football entirely.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Another benefit of limited substitution being re-implemented.
            1) You force smaller sizes reducing injury;
            2) You force smaller sizes leaving players healthier when they leave the sport;
            3) You separate yourself from the pros, perhaps driving the creation of a minor league for the few. The pros will want the specialists and the giant 300+ lb linemen. That also reduces the value and pressure to pay those who remain, which will still be the vast majority of players. But the value won’t be so distorted by the 1% who will go pro.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Attendance goes down, donations go down, luxury box prices go down, seat prices go down and TV revenue drops.”

            When the Ivys de-emphasized they were an outlier, and their “product” diminished in comparison to the rest of D1. If the majority of D1 went a non pro model it wouldn’t be to de-emphasize. It would be to emphasize the educational nature of all the schools departments. They wouldn’t be an outlier, and I see no reason for much change in interest either from fans or the media.

            PS: in overall value of the school I don’t think the Ives have been hurt by average T shirt fans perception of one department.

            Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “People like Cardale Jones who don’t want an education would not be on campus, and there would be less distance between the actual students and the student/athletes.”

        -Jones is an honor roll student and turned a multi-million dollar paycheck to stay in school & finish his degree. Earlier this year he tweeted that he still can’t believe he said something so stupid.

        But please…continue.

        Like

      • “The Ivy League has some really dedicated fans!”

        Sure, just a couple hundred of them, compared to a couple hundred thousand, but it’s not zero!

        Like

    • Brian says:

      http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13631750/pac-12-proposes-allowing-athletes-make-money-names

      The P12 proposes that players be allowed to make money off their name and likeness for non-athletic business ventures.

      Other proposals for NCAA rule changes:

      • The SEC and ACC each have proposals that would prevent football coaches from holding so-called satellite camps away from their campuses.

      • The Mountain West has proposed allowing NCAA-sponsored events to be played in states that allow sports wagering.

      • The Mid-American Conference has proposed lifting all restrictions on communicating with recruits over social media.

      • A proposal that creates new academic misconduct rules with also be considered. The proposal would require schools to publish and follow an academic misconduct policy for all students; define impermissible academic assistance; and determine when a student worker’s involvement would be considered academic misconduct.

      • The Division I Council wants schools to consider a measure that would give men’s basketball players 10 days from the end of the NBA combine to withdraw their names from the draft, allow college players to enter the draft multiple times and allow them to participate in the combine and try out for one NBA team per year.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Allowing college players to make money off their name and likeness for non-athletic ventures will be perfect for boosters to payoff players above board and legally. No more need to slip the star running back a couple of hundred collars. The big booster car dealer in Birmingham can just hire the RB to star in a car commercial for a quick $5,000, per month. Sure would be easier for Auburn to pay Cam Newton, without those pesky rules. Just hire him as your spokesman,

        This would solve some Title IX problems. In no female athlete can get a sponsorship, too bad.

        Of course, I am not sure how happy the top flight left tackle will feel, if he cannot market his own likeness, but he is keeping the $50,000 (or much more) QB standing on his feet.

        Naturally, the SEC and ACC want to stop off campus camps. They want to protect their turf from the B1G, or whomever. Will the Big 12 or PAC 12 support that?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Depends on how they write it.

          I think the intent was to allow them to do businesses on the side. I think there was some non-rev athlete who had to choose. Imagine if Michael Dell was a golfer and had to choose between golf and making computers.

          Of course, as you mention, there’s a lot of potential for abuse.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            There was Jeremy Bloom, the punt returner and Olympic gold medalist and World Champion skier who wasn’t allowed to get endorsements for skiing and still play NCAA football, so he quit 2 years early. He played in the NFL for several years, though.

            The NCAA rules have changed since then, so you only become ineligible in the sport you get paid in (former minor leaguers can play football for example).

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bloom wasn’t trying to be paid for his skiing. That was allowed (Danny Ainge: BYU basketball and Bluejay baseball concurrently). He was looking to market his persona and fame (commercials, endorsements, etc) in areas not directly a sports activity, and not for the a sport activity.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            His endorsements were based on his skiing, not football. Endorsements are how skiers get paid. Prize money is miniscule. And he was declared ineligible for taking the money. It sounds like the P12 wants to change that.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            In other words he was wanting paid indirectly, not for participation or results. Picture the Boz taking up golf and getting enforcements for demonstrating how much abuse a particular brand of clubs can take, with the unspoken agreement that he must be with school “X”.

            I’d like to see the particulars of the Pac’s proposal, because it surprises me that they would support such an idea. Devil may be in the details.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I agree, the details of the proposal are very important. The ESPN.com writer may have mischaratcerized it in an attempt at brevity.

            Like

  32. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/123355/breaking-down-nfl-rosters-by-conferences-and-colleges

    A breakdown of all the NFL rosters by conference and school.

    Total players: SEC 297, ACC 231, Big Ten 217, Pac-12 215, Big 12 127, American 96, Mountain West 70, Conference USA 55, MAC 52, Sun Belt 30

    Average per school: SEC 21.2, Pac-12 17.9, ACC 16.5, Big Ten 15.5, Big 12 12.7, American 7.9, Mountain West 5.8, Conference USA 4.2, MAC 4.0, Sun Belt 2.7

    Big Ten: Ohio State 25, Penn State 24, Iowa 22, Wisconsin 22, Nebraska 21, Michigan 18, Rutgers 16, Michigan State 15, Maryland 14, Purdue 12, Illinois 9, Minnesota 8, Indiana 6, Northwestern 5

    Top 20
    36 — Miami
    35 — LSU
    33 — Alabama, Georgia
    32 — Florida State, USC
    30 — Florida
    28 — Oklahoma, Oregon
    26 — Cal, Notre Dame, Tennessee
    25 — Auburn, Ohio State*
    24 — Clemson, Penn State, Texas
    23 — Stanford
    22 — Iowa, Wisconsin

    * This number should jump up as OSU looks to have a big draft class (10+) and potentially challenge the record of 14. They won’t all make teams, but there are as many as 9 projected to go in the top 2 rounds. Not that non-OSU fans really care, but I wanted to explain why this number seems low.

    Rookies
    By conference: SEC 50, ACC 45, Pac-12 37, Big Ten 32, Big 12 21
    By school: Florida State 9, Auburn 8, Miami (Fla.) 8, Alabama 7, Clemson 7, Louisville 6, Stanford 6, Georgia 5, LSU 5, Oregon State 5, Washington 5

    Like

  33. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13625028/pittsburgh-panthers-west-virginia-mountaineers-resume-backyard-brawl-2022

    How happy are Pitt fans right now?

    1. A new head coach providing the hope for a better future.
    2. The PSU rivalry is back for 2016-2019.
    3. The Backyard Brawl is back for 2022-2025.

    They also have series with UC, TN and ND coming up.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Maybe they’ll get back to the top 10 in NFL players produced, as they had been in the 1980s to mid 90s. The Hugh Greens stay home now and their running on legacy local products (Revis, Donald).

      Like

  34. Tom says:

    Caught a bit of the Western Kentucky – LA Tech game last night, and I’m watching the Miami – FAU game now. Both on FS1. Anyone notice how they are calling the games from the studio in Los Angeles? These are lower tier games (although Miami is no slouch) but it seems really cheap/low budget to me.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Honestly it should be a red flag to anyone in the Big Ten all in Fox camp. This isn’t a web stream of water polo in the Bejing Olympics with a 12 hour time difference. The fact Fox didn’t send a crew to either of the Thursday or Friday games is an embarrassment.

      Like

      • Pat says:

        ESPN has been doing this for basketball and football the last 1-2 years. Where have you been?

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          They’ve never done it for college football and college football and college basketball are far from the same thing.

          Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          And ESPN was pretty universally panned when they did it last year on college basketball (they’ll keep doing it). It makes sense on certain games like ESPN3 only games where there is going to be a limited web only audience. It does not make sense on FS1 with Miami when you are trying to position yourself as a serious competitor to ESPN.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            If you are going to do that, why not just use the local announcers. NCAA tourney had different channels with the homer announcers.

            Like

  35. bullet says:

    Looking at the Saturday TV schedule here in Atlanta. 37! games on today. When you throw in the TH/F games and the networks not listed (BTN,P12N,LHN) it totals 48 games on the air.

    Almost all the P5 games are on the air. I didn’t look to see who was off this week, but even if everyone played, its a pretty high %.

    Big 10 12/14 (3 BTN)
    Big 12 7/10 (1 LHN)
    SEC 13/14 (5 SECN)
    ACC 7/14
    Pac 12 10/12 (4 P12N)

    (does highlight the ACC’s need for a network)

    MWC 11/12
    CUSA 10/13
    AAC 6/11
    MAC 5/12
    SB 2/11
    Ind 3/4
    FCS 10 (only 1 involves only FCS schools-local Kennesaw St.)

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Almost all the P5 games are on the air.

      I think it’s the rare P5 game that cannot somehow be watched on TV, provided, you buy enough channels.

      Like

  36. ccrider55 says:

    Ohio St freshman wrestler became the U.S.’s youngest world champion last night at 198lbs. Great set of wins, especially in the finals over the heavily favored Russian.

    Like

  37. ccrider55 says:

    The PAC CEO’s say no thanks to ATT/DTV.

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/

    Like

  38. vp19 says:

    The natives are getting restless in College Park. With 14 minutes to go, Maryland trails Bowling Green 27-20 (even though that includes another Will Likely punt return TD) — and it comes on a day when three of Randy Edsall’s Terrapin coaching cohorts — among them Mark Turgeon and Brenda Frese — were honored on the field for winning B1G coach of the year honors in 2014-2015.

    Like

  39. ccrider55 says:

    Team Stats RICE TEX
    First Downs 30 11
    Total Plays 96 38
    Total Yards 462 277
    Passing 257 131
    Rushing 228 149
    Penalties 6 / 55 4 / 42
    Possession 44:02 15:58

    Loki: how does Rice not win this game?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Texas got up 21-0 in the 1st quarter and then let Rice run up and down the field after that.
      Defense and special teams didn’t let UT offense on the field.

      Stats you aren’t showing-Rice 5 TOs, UT 1. Punt return yardage-Rice 0, UT 175 (1 TD, 1 to 6 yd line). Interception return yardage-Rice 0, UT 3 for 62. Fumble returns for TD-Rice 0, UT 1 (26 yards).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        When you throw in kickoff returns, Texas had more return yardage than regular offense. Year to date, they have more return yardage than regular offense!

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Ouch.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The Texas offense is pretty hard to watch. At least they have finally put the freshman Heard in as QB. Texas is ahead of only Akron in total offense per game.

            The defense will be fine. It started off pretty putrid last year as well. The offense needs some help. Texas will win several games on raw athletic talent.

            Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Rice beat Rice.

      Any of Texas’ remaining opponents are going to look at that film and lick their chops. Texas may only win two more games with that run defense. Once they’re playing P5 teams who aren’t a full second slower in the 100 these big plays don’t happen.

      Rice will still reach 8-4 this year. Excepting Baylor every remaining game is winnable.

      Like

  40. bullet says:

    Moses Malone passes. One of the most underrated of the all-time greats. He was one of the first 3 players to come straight out of HS to the pros. He won a championship with Dr. J and the 76ers in ’83, but what he did in 1981 with the Rockets was more impressive. He took a team with a losing record to the NBA finals, pushing the Celtics to 6 games. And it was with a starting lineup of Malone, Billy Paultz, Robert Reid, Tom Henderson and Mike Dunleavy. It was a team stronger on coaching ability than talent. Bench included Rudy Thomjanovich in his final year, Calvin Murphy near the end of his career, Calvin Garret, Allen Leavell, John Stroud, Lee Johnson and Bill Willoughy (one of the other 3 to come out of HS-and the one who should have gone to college-enormous athletic ability-but never did much in the pros).

    RIP Moses.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/13/us/moses-malone-dead/index.html

    Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/gamedayfinal091215/week-2-performances-arkansas-razorbacks-auburn-tigers-expose-flaws-sec-claim-conference-superiority

    Mark Schlabach (notorious SEC shill on ESPN.com) points out that yesterday’s performance pokes a hole in the standard SEC logic of how much harder an SEC schedule is. Clearly the SEC has several excellent teams again, but the East looked bad and so did a couple of West teams. It’s only 1 day, so we shouldn’t read too much into it but it’s an interesting result after getting 10 teams in the AP poll.

    You have to think AU will drop a little. UGA and MO might slip a bit. AR better drop out of the poll, and both TN and MS St probably will. We’ll find out in an hour.

    Like

    • m(Ag) says:

      Auburn should have dropped out. They have 2 weak results in 2 weeks of play (Louisville lost to Houston yesterday). Obviously they aren’t eliminated from playoff contention, but at this point they shouldn’t be ranked. The same is true (although to a lesser extent) with Missouri and Baylor. Plenty of time for them to get back, but they don’t look like top 25 teams at the moment.

      UT dropping out of the top 25 in the coaches poll was a dumb thing that polls do all the time. If they truly believe OU is the 17th ranked team in the country, then UT deserves to be ranked a bit behind them for playing them to a draw in regulation. It’s also non-sensical for LSU to be ranked 14 while MSU isn’t ranked at all Move LSU back or MSU up.

      If I’m going to continue to rant about the coaches poll (which you could do every week): Notre Dame should be lower, as dominating the Longhorns just isn’t impressive as they would like to think, while Georgia Tech should be a top 10 team. Of course, next week will sort that out one way or another.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        You also have to allow for it being early. Any early loss tends to hurt a lot because there are currently over 50 undefeated teams. How do we know they aren’t better than teams with a “good” loss? Maybe that loss isn’t as good as we think.

        Like

  42. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches Poll is out.

    Top 10, big movers and B10 teams:
    1. OSU
    2. AL
    3. TCU
    4. MSU
    5. Baylor
    6. FSU
    7. USC
    8. UGA
    9. Clemson
    10. ND

    13. OR
    15. AU
    21. Utah
    22. BYU
    23. WI
    24. NW

    SEC – 7
    P12 – 5
    B10, B12 – 4
    ACC – 3

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

      And the AP Poll.

      Top 10, big movers and B10 teams:
      1. OSU
      2. AL
      3. TCU
      4. MSU
      5. Baylor
      6. USC
      7. UGA
      8. ND
      9. FSU
      10. UCLA

      12. OR
      18. AU
      19. BYU
      23. NW
      24. WI

      SEC – 7
      P12 – 5
      B10, B12 – 4
      ACC – 3

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Just like last year, OSU and ‘Bama are the 2 best teams.

        I still don’t get why a bunch of prognosticators picked Auburn instead of ‘Bama for the playoffs in the preseason.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I agree it seemed and still seems unwise, but the theory was:

          1. Will Muschamp will magically fix the defense.
          2. New starting QB Jeremy Johnson would be a Heisman candidate in Malzahn’s offense.
          3. The AL game is at home.

          Like

          • Tom says:

            As m(Ag) said, Auburn should not be ranked.

            Missouri remains questionable at #22 although they did drop a spot.

            I would have kept Tennessee ranked, no shame in losing in double OT to then #19 OU.

            You could argue that Miss State should still be ranked after missing a walk off field goal to win against then #14 LSU, but I felt they shouldn’t be ranked last week so I don’t have a problem with them falling out.

            I’d say the SEC has a legitimate claim to 6 ranked teams. Alabama looks like the class of the league, from what I have seen so far only Ole Miss and Texas A&M can touch them. Maybe LSU with pure athleticism but their offensive style plays right into Alabama’s defensive style.

            Good to see Wisconsin and NW in the polls (they should have been ranked last week).

            I would have moved MSU up to #3. Still don’t think they are as good as OSU or Alabama, but I would take them over TCU. At the same time, I would have kept Oregon at #7 after almost pulling off the comeback against then #5 MSU.

            Oklahoma State is a curious addition at #25, probably would have gone with Temple instead.

            Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13662471/texas-longhorns-fire-athletic-director-steve-patterson

    UT fired they’re AD after only 22 months. He’ll probably get quite a buyout since he had a guaranteed deal through 2019.

    Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, former Texas coach and ESPN analyst Mack Brown, Louisville AD Tom Jurich and NCAA executive vice president Oliver Luck are among the leading candidates to replace Patterson, sources told ESPN’s Brett McMurphy.

    Sources told the American-Statesman that Brown has met with Fenves but is not being considered for the permanent job. Jurich and Luck were both candidates to replace Dodds in 2013.

    What do you think of the decision and who do you think will replace him, bullet?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Ugh.

      * their AD

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I believe they offered 1yr pay, or face being fired for cause and risk getting nothing.

      Like

      • hankcarf says:

        He was mistreating the alumni.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “I believe they offered 1yr pay, or face being fired for cause and risk getting nothing.”

        http://www.hookem.com/story/breaking-steve-patterson-expected-out-as-texas-athletic-director/

        Patterson had a guaranteed contract that runs through August 2019. When Patterson was hired in November 2013, the UT System Board of Regents approved a five-year, guaranteed contract worth $1.4 million annually. His deal included an annual 2.5-percent cost of living pay increase. The contract has no buyout clause, which means UT is on the hook for the remaining balance.

        UT’s fiscal year began Sept. 1. Patterson would be owed at least $5.6 million on his contract, although it’s possible Patterson and school officials could negotiate a lower amount.

        Editor’s note: The original version of this story has been edited to reflect that Patterson has been fired by the University of Texas.

        They may have reached a settlement as you described, but I don’t know why he’d agree to that. He was fired, he didn’t resign.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Brian:

          http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1586647-sources-fenves-weighing-patterson-s-future

          Last line, first paragraph.
          Although, it is from the Chipster. Place what faith you care to in it.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            After Texas president Gregory Fenves discussed his decision to fire athletic director Steve Patterson with regents Monday night, Fenves met with Patterson Tuesday morning and told him he could accept reassignment within the athletic department, or accept a 1-year buyout of roughly $1.4 million, or possibly face being fired for cause, two sources told HornsDigest.com.

            All I’m saying is that it’s being reported he was fired, making it sound like he chose option 3 not option 2.

            Like

          • hankcarf says:

            I wonder if his contract has a “you can be fired for being an ass” clause.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Oh, I agree, probably. It might still be reported as a firing if he took the $ offer.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yeah, I expect most people would look on a contract buy-out as being sacked while having the good fortune of working on a contract that makes it worthwhile to pay the buy out. I reckon Vols fans looked on the multiple head coaches that the Vols were at one time paying not to coach the Vols as men who had been sacked for incompetence as a head coach.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      No clue who will replace him. It won’t be Bowlsby or Brown. I doubt Luck will switch.

      Patterson had ticked off about everyone. Made some comment about needing funding for a new tennis facility (old one removed for football stadium expansion) and the tennis coach quit. The university had already agreed to fund the new facility. Apparently ticked off a lot of people negotiating on city funding for the new basketball arena as well, saying they might just renovate. President had to come out and say they arena couldn’t stay because the new medical school was going there. He charged an alumni group $25 a head if they wanted to go on the field. He told grandfathered season ticket holders (no donation) they would lose their tickets if they re-sold them. It has been well documented how he ticked off Jamail and other big boosters with his secrecy on the Charlie Strong hire. And of course he raised ticket prices notably after a bad season. The list could continue.

      Basically, he didn’t communicate well and had no ability to schmooze. If you are an AD and can’t do that, you need someone who can, preferably the head coach. But Charlie Strong hates that and doesn’t do it very well. He had to hire a bunch of people to try to do it for him, but having assistants try to do that just doesn’t work.

      It was inevitable. I was just surprised it happened so quickly.

      The President sent out this e-mail.

      DEAR LONGHORNS,

      I write to let you know that Texas Men’s Athletics Director Steve Patterson has resigned. An agreement is pending approval by The University of Texas System Board of Regents.

      Steve brought important ideas and changes to our athletics program, and I appreciate the good things he accomplished in his time at UT. I wish him the best in his future endeavors.

      I have asked Mike Perrin, a Houston attorney and former Longhorn letterman football player, to serve as interim athletic director at least through August. Mike is a devoted Longhorn and respected Texan who I firmly believe will strengthen relationships with and among our student-athletes, coaches, faculty, staff, students and alumni.

      I want you to know that I have full confidence in Coach Charlie Strong, Coach Shaka Smart, and all our other coaches. They work hard to win with integrity and give our student-athletes the full support they deserve.

      Athletics is vitally important to the Longhorn nation, shining a bright light on the university. I look forward to continued success in our programs and seeing you all at games this year, supporting our teams and our student-athletes.

      Sincerely,

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It’s risky to name a lawyer with no sports administration experience as interim AD of a department that large. I’m sure he’ll lean on his staff while he focuses on the schmoozing side for now, but it’s still a risk. I know he rubbed people the wrong way, but many of his ideas don’t sound that crazy to outsiders. How he presented them and how they clashed with UT culture is another kettle of fish, though. At least you know the AD can afford to pay his settlement.

        Like

  44. Tyson says:

    I like the idea of Tom Jurich being named AD. His experience moving Louisville to the ACC should come in handy when it’s time to do the same for Texas

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Are you assuming Texas is going to the ACC in some Notre Dame-like capacity? Logistically, it would leave UT’s non-football programs in a travel situation similar to WVU in the Big 12. And I’m not sure Jurich would still be in Austin by the middle of next decade, when the next round of realignment is likely to take place.

      Like

  45. Brian says:

    This could be a big weekend for the B10 with 5 games featuring the B10 West versus the ACC Coastal (the two worst P5 divisions in CFB, supposedly). The ACC is favored in 4 of them and hosts 3 of them. Winning at least 3 would help the B10’s reputation.

    IL +9 @ UNC
    NW +3.5 @ Duke
    PU +5.5 vs VT
    NE +5 @ Miami
    IA -3 vs Pitt

    Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/researchers-find-evidence-of-cte-in-96-of-deceased-nfl-players-they-tested

    Playing football is bad for you.

    Researchers published findings this week that 87 of 91 deceased NFL players tested were found to have evidence of the brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.

    The study was conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Boston University and found that 96% of former NFL players tested had evidence of the degenerative brain disease, with 79% of all football players tested — who played at all levels — showing signs of the disease.

    The researchers tested the brains of 165 former football players who competed at the high school, college, semi-pro or professional level. Of those tested, 131 showed signs of CTE.

    It must be said that there is a major caveat in the research, because those people and families who agreed to be tested are more likely those who suspected they might have that disease.

    Those are ugly numbers, but as they mention selection bias may be a huge factor in the results. How many families who didn’t sense anything wrong with their loved one would agree to have their brain examined?

    But then there was this quote from Frontline:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/new-87-deceased-nfl-players-test-positive-for-brain-disease/

    Forty percent of those who tested positive were the offensive and defensive linemen who come into contact with one another on every play of a game, according to numbers shared by the brain bank with FRONTLINE. That finding supports past research suggesting that it’s the repeat, more minor head trauma that occurs regularly in football that may pose the greatest risk to players, as opposed to just the sometimes violent collisions that cause concussions.

    I hate to break it to them, but OL and DL make up roughly 40% of the starters on a football team (5 OL + 4 DL = 41%). If playing on the line was worse for CTE, they should represent a significantly larger fraction of those testing positive than the 40% of starters that they are.

    Like

    • bob sykes says:

      I have long believed that football should eliminate the helmets and pads. That would result in a more rugby like style of play, since blocking and tackling techniques would have to change. A bit rougher than flag football. Since football would since have passing, it would become a more open, fluid and even higher scoring game. Rugby looks like fun to the players (all of whom are very beefy and large), but the actual spectacle is subpar for watchers, escpecially the scrums and aborted runs. Sideins have some merit.

      Like

  47. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/05/26/ncaa-athletic-finances-revenue-expense-division-i/27971457/

    The NCAA’s annual report on AD finances is out for 2013-2014. 24 schools qualified as self-sufficient this year, all P5 schools.

    By NCAA definition, self-sufficiency means an athletic department’s generated operating revenues — not counting money from student fees, university funding or direct government support — are at least equal to its total operating expenses, which is legalese for taking in more money than you spend.

    Oregon led the nation with $196 million total operating revenue and an $83.5 million difference between its generated revenue and its total operating expense of $110.4 million. However, the school reported that its revenue included in-kind facility gifts of $95 million — the value of a football training facility funded primarily by Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife.

    The other 23 schools meeting this standard are all from the Southeastern, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 conferences, including Texas, which led the nation in total operating expenses at $154.1 million and reported transferring another $9.7 million back to the university. Texas’ total operating revenue was second to Oregon’s at $161 million.

    The Atlantic Coast Conference, the other member of the Power Five, did not have any schools meeting the NCAA benchmark, though North Carolina State came close, with a deficit of just more than $165,000. That means athletics departments at schools in conferences outside the Power Five all ran deficits — and four of the six largest are from schools in the C-USA, AAC and Mountain West.

    Rutgers, which was then in the AAC but has since moved to the Big Ten, had 2013-14’s largest deficit at $36.3 million. The AAC’s Connecticut had the third-highest ($27.1 million), ODU the fourth-highest ($26.8 million) and Mountain West’s Air Force the sixth-highest ($25.8 million).

    The deficits get smaller and the number of self-sufficient schools gets larger if viewed another way. Though athletics departments get money from student fees, university funds and government support, they also send money to their schools through payments for scholarships and facilities and through transfers like Texas’.

    When those amounts are balanced, USA TODAY Sports found, all 50 of the public schools that were in a Power Five conference in 2013-14 were self-sufficient. But only three Bowl Subdivision schools outside the Power Five and two non-FBS schools were self-sufficient.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

      The database of numbers.

      The top 20 all topped $100M in total revenue.

      B10 (7) – 3. MI, 5. OSU, 8. WI, 12. PSU, 15. MN, 16. IA, 18. MSU
      SEC (7) – 4. AL, 6. LSU, 9. UF, 10. TAMU, 13. AU, 14. TN, 19. UGA
      B12 (3) – 2. UT, 7. OU, 11, OkSU
      P12 (2) – 1. OR, 20. UW
      ACC (1) – 17. FSU

      Remember, private schools aren’t included (no ND or USC).

      Like

  48. Brian says:

    The first playoff’s semifinals were almost perfect in terms of the teams and the sites:

    AL vs OSU in the Sugar
    OR vs FSU in the Rose

    4 of the top brands in the two biggest bowls.

    What would the perfect playoff be from the bowl’s/ESPN’s POV?

    For maximum national interest, I think you need ND (east coast and midwest) and USC (west coast) plus 2 other top brands. To me, the other top brands are probably AL, MI, OSU and UT. I think UT is a strong choice to get that giant TX audience. I’d guess AL is the other choice to get the southern fans. Besides, ND pulls enough midwestern interest to not want to double up there with OSU or MI.

    Having AL, ND, USC and UT, now we need pairings. ND and USC play during the season, so we have to split them up for the ideal semifinals. That almost has to mean USC vs UT and AL vs ND.

    The final choice is which pair of bowls host the games – Rose/Sugar, Cotton/Orange or Fiesta/Peach. Obviously the best pair is Rose/Sugar between their bigger brands and locked time slots on 1/1.

    Result:
    Rose – USC vs UT
    Sugar – AL vs ND

    How much will the other years suffer in comparison to 2014 based on the scheduling, lack of novelty and lesser brands? Will any year top 2014?

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Emphasizing individual fan bases? This isn’t the NFL. I’d far prefer to see any B1G/PAC matchup in the Rose (or other semi location) to any of the other supposed more popular teams. Even WSU vs Indiana. Nationalizing college football interest around a limited number of teams will hurt the majority of teams, and the sport itself in the long run.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “Emphasizing individual fan bases? This isn’t the NFL.”

        The CFP basically is. It’s a number game, and casual fans are they key to peak ratings. Traditional fans like you and me don’t factor into their thinking because we’re a small minority and they assume many of us will watch no matter what.

        “Nationalizing college football interest around a limited number of teams will hurt the majority of teams, and the sport itself in the long run.”

        Do you honestly think they spend a second thinking about it like that? ESPN is in it to make a profit now. Besides, many would argue that CFB already has nationalized interest around a few teams (the kings) already. The BCS started that process. Look at the limited number of regional broadcasts anymore.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Brian:

          “Do you honestly think they spend a second thinking about it like that? ESPN is in it to make a profit now.”
          No, but ESPN is the transmitter of the content. It’s not the creator.

          “Besides, many would argue that CFB already has nationalized interest around a few teams (the kings) already.”
          That’s the narrative constantly pushed by the national media. It’s so much easier for them than actually following and becoming knowledgable about different regions and teams. See: every “sports talk” show getting immersed in the cult of personality de jour. Farve, Winston, Manzell, etc to the neglect of almost everything else.

          “The BCS started that process. Look at the limited number of regional broadcasts anymore.”
          Agree, but it risks recreating MBB situation with only a season ending event drawing significant interest if you don’t maintain regional/local interest throughout the season.

          Living on the left coast now I watched a fair amount of every PAC game yesterday, crappy match ups or not. I actually learned something about each team which may be informative when better competitive games (conference games) happen.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “No, but ESPN is the transmitter of the content. It’s not the creator.”

            I was careful to ask about the ideal playoff from the bowls’/ESPN’s POV. You’re welcome to indicate your personal ideal version, too, which is what you started to do. I just want to be clear that I was asking from a specific POV.

            My personal one(s) would be different, certainly:
            Again, I’ll mostly leave out OSU to reduce my bias (not in the Rose, though). I’ll also aim for some variety.

            1. Tradition
            Rose – OSU vs USC
            Sugar – AL vs OU

            2. History
            Orange – NE vs Miami
            Cotton – UT vs ND

            3. Newcomers
            Fiesta – TCU vs OR
            Peach – Clemson vs UF

            “Agree, but it risks recreating MBB situation with only a season ending event drawing significant interest if you don’t maintain regional/local interest throughout the season.”

            Agreed.

            “Living on the left coast now I watched a fair amount of every PAC game yesterday, crappy match ups or not. I actually learned something about each team which may be informative when better competitive games (conference games) happen.”

            UCLA vs BYU and USC vs Stanford were good.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      I read somewhere once that the Big 4 in terms of TV draw (assuming that the teams were equally good) were ND, Texas, UMich, and USC, with tOSU 5th. It’s possible that with the hype of the ESS-EEE-SEE and ‘Bama’s titles in recent years that ‘Bama may be among that group as well, however.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “I read somewhere once that the Big 4 in terms of TV draw (assuming that the teams were equally good) were ND, Texas, UMich, and USC, with tOSU 5th. It’s possible that with the hype of the ESS-EEE-SEE and ‘Bama’s titles in recent years that ‘Bama may be among that group as well, however.”

        I would have guessed those were the top 4 in general with OSU and AL trending up. But as a group I suspected the overlap of ND and MI would make an outside team more valuable and that ND was worth more than MI. The south wasn’t in that group of 4, so I guessed that AL would be the best southern school for drawing ratings.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      How much will the other years suffer in comparison to 2014 based on the scheduling, lack of novelty and lesser brands? Will any year top 2014?

      The power in CFB is heavily concentrated with a handful of teams…so no, I don’t think 2014 is the last time that four national brand names will reach the playoff. And certainly, in most years there will be at least two or three.

      As long as each semi-final has at least one team with a national following, it is less important to ESPN who the opponent is (although, of course, they want the best match-up possible). The only thing ESPN truly doesn’t want is a semi-final in which neither team has sex appeal: say, Kansas State vs. Minnesota.

      If ESPN were choosing, Notre Dame and Texas would be in the playoff every year, but if they could get four teams as good as 2014, they’ll take it. I agree that, from their viewpoint, 2014 was very close to ideal.

      MLB is no different. Television would prefer Yankees vs. Dodgers every year, but sometimes they get stuck with two small-market teams.

      Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches poll is out after another crazy weekend with lots of ranked teams struggling.

    1. OSU
    2. TCU
    3. MSU
    4. Baylor
    5. MS
    6. UGA
    7. FSU
    8. ND
    9. LSU
    10. Clemson

    Movers and B10:
    12. AL
    18. USC
    19. NW
    20. GT
    21. WI
    24. Stanford
    25. AU

    SEC – 7 (50%)
    P12 – 6 (50%)
    B12 – 4 (40%)
    B10 – 4 (29%)
    ACC – 3 (21%)

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Pollsters are stupid.
      ‘Bama still far above Ole Miss.
      USC still far above Stanford.
      Auburn still inexplicably ranked. The Auburn pre-season hype looks more and more ridiculous by the week. They weren’t even all that good the previous year, going .500 in conference play and losing their bowl game.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Nevermind about Ole Miss; I see them now.

        But USC still being ranked above Stanford and Northwestern is a joke.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Richard,

          “Pollsters are stupid.”

          Illogical and/or uninformed might be more fair. They also are stubborn about their opinions of teams.

          “‘Bama still far above Ole Miss.”

          The only justification for keeping AL close to MS is that AL kept it close despite 5 TOs and that fluke TD catch. Also, they beat WI.

          “USC still far above Stanford.”

          I assume Stanford’s loss (only 6 pts) is being held against them more because it was NW.

          “Auburn still inexplicably ranked. The Auburn pre-season hype looks more and more ridiculous by the week. They weren’t even all that good the previous year, going .500 in conference play and losing their bowl game.”

          This is the weirdest one for me. Other than preseason hype, AU hasn’t shown anything in a while as you say.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

      And the AP poll.

      1. OSU
      2. MSU
      3t. TCU
      3t. MS
      5. Baylor
      6. ND
      7. UGA
      8. LSU
      9. UCLA
      10. FSU

      Movers and B10:
      12. AL
      17. NW
      19. USC
      21. Stanford
      22. WI

      P12 – 6 (50%)
      SEC – 6 (43%)
      B12 – 4 (40%)
      B10 – 4 (29%)
      ACC – 3 (21%)

      Like

  50. Tom says:

    Ole Miss – I think the Rebels should be #1, so no problem with them jumping to #3.

    Alabama – Dropped a bit too far to #12. Despite losing the turnover margin by 5, they still had a chance to beat Ole Miss. That’s not likely to happen again. I also don’t see another offense in the SEC capable of stressing the Alabama defense the way Ole Miss did. Maybe A&M.

    LSU – Moved up five spots. In my view they are getting too much credit after beating what will turn out to be an average Auburn team, which is laughably still ranked in the coaches poll.

    Northwestern – Looks like the writers are correcting themselves by moving NW up 6 spots after a good but not great showing against Duke.

    Stanford – Should be ahead of USC

    Missouri – Steadily dropping. Only a matter of time before they fall out but still ridiculous that they are ranked.

    Tennessee – I said this last week, they should be ranked. I’m guessing the winner of Tennessee vs. Florida, which is receiving votes, ends up ranked next week. Also, don’t count out out Auburn from sneaking its way back into the top 25. They host Mississippi State, which is lurking at #26, this week.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Tom,

      “Ole Miss – I think the Rebels should be #1, so no problem with them jumping to #3.

      Alabama – Dropped a bit too far to #12. Despite losing the turnover margin by 5, they still had a chance to beat Ole Miss. That’s not likely to happen again. I also don’t see another offense in the SEC capable of stressing the Alabama defense the way Ole Miss did. Maybe A&M.”

      At this stage, polls are largely circular logic. MS should rank high because they beat a good AL team, and AL is good because they kept it close against MS despite 5 TOs.

      This is how the SEC keeps dominating the polls, because no conference loss ever hurts them.

      Like

  51. urbanleftbehind says:

    Bret Bielema’s wanted his demise at Arkansas to follow at least 1 NYD-6 Bowl Appearance and dovetail with the expiration of Ferentz’ Iowa contract. Looks like he might be a couple of years and done instead.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The SEC did that too.

      The Big Ten has actually stated that they’ll consider Notre Dame, BYU, Army, Navy, UConn, and Cincinnati as meeting the P5 scheduling requirement. Mark Rudner, the Big Ten’s schedule guru, said that this was based on their RPI for the last 5-6 years. He also said they are open to adding more teams to that list. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boise and Air Force.

      The SEC counts ND, BYU, and Army towards their P5 requirement. The ACC counts ND and BYU only.

      Despite Rudner’s mumbo-jumbo about RPI, it’s really about TV ratings. Army (historically the weakest of those teams) usually draws well on TV and in the stadium, even in years they aren’t very good.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2015/09/17/indiana-university-football-kevin-wilson-big-ten-conference-scheduling-jim-delany/32552461/

        IU received an exception from the league to count Connecticut (2019, 2020) and Cincinnati (2021, 2022), both members of the American Athletic Conference, as “Power Five” opponents.

        “We looked at their RPI for the last five or six years,” said Mark Rudner, the Big Ten’s senior associate commissioner. “If someone comes to us with a request, we’ll evaluate it. That’s what happened with these two. Those seemed to fit.”

        Rudner said teams such as Notre Dame, an independent, obviously fit the spirit of the rule, which is to increase the level of competition.

        Rudner said Big Ten has denied one request for an exemption and accepted another. He declined to name the schools.

        I think it’s a function of who B10 teams have already scheduled. It’s also smart to count the better G5 teams as they are tougher games than the bottom of the P5 anyway. And the PR is always good for including the service academies. The last thing the P5 need to do is tick off government by not playing the academies.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I wonder which of Boise, Fresno, UCF, and USF was accepted and which denied.

          MSU may not apply for an exemption for Boise because they may likely line up a P5 those years.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Noteworthy that Bucky moved USF out to 2019 from 2017.

          My guess is that USF got denied while the other 3 were approved. Maybe Wisconsin and Illinois hope USF will get better in the meantime?
          Otherwise, they may have to juggle a bit.

          Like

      • Commander says:

        Perhaps they should REMOVE Kansas from the list.

        Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Well, why not South Florida – they were in the last iteration (2005 – 2013) of the Big East also? Have the UCs been invited into a multi-year audition?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Because no B10 team has them on a schedule right now? Because no B10 team has applied to get USF exempted? Because UC and UConn won the BE to make a BCS bowl?

        USF never won the BE. They won 14 games in the previous 4 seasons combined. They are basically UConn without the BCS game. My guess is nobody has asked about an exemption for them yet.

        Like

  52. frug says:

    More signs of changing times for the World Wide Leader.

    http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/21/layoffs-are-coming-to-espn/

    Multiple sources inside and outside of ESPN tell The Big Lead that the network will be laying off “200 to 300” employees in the coming months.

    These are the first ESPN layoffs since 2013, and might not be the last, as Disney has notified ESPN to trim $100 million from the 2016 budget and $250 million in 2017.

    Like

  53. Brian says:

    http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2015/09/23/college-conferences-push-back-against-gambling-and-daily-fantasy/

    The P5 conferences are pushing back against daily fantasy sports gambling. ESPN has already pulled their “Cover Alert” from CFB games. The P12 has said they will not accept ads from those companies.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13720883/athletic-directors-debate-how-legislate-student-athlete-staff-participation-fantasy-leagues

    Under NCAA rules, a player would lose a year of eligibility for playing fantasy sports for prizes as it is deemed gambling by the NCAA.

    Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

    For those interested in recruiting rankings, this gives composite rankings for each current team as opposed to a single recruiting class. Think of it as a running average that helps smooth out the annual fluctuations.

    Like

    • Tom says:

      Within the B1G, 6 of the 8 most talented teams are in the East (Nebraska and Wisconsin are 5 and 6, big gap between 5 and 6 though). The West is actually the higher rated division this year per Sagarin but the talent gap will only grow as PSU recovers from sanctions and Rutgers and Maryland hire better coaches (presumably).

      Michigan State (#4 in the B1G) already has a more talented roster than Nebraska and these rankings do not include MSU 2016’s class, which is rated #12. MSU is just behind PSU for #3 but actually has a higher average recruit ranking. MSU will likely step back next year without Cook, but they won’t fall very far.

      Like

  55. Brian says:

    http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/09/ucla_blocks_michigan_from_te_c.html

    One of the worst rules in CFB rears its ugly head again. A player has left UCLA’s team and wants to transfer elsewhere. However, coach Jim Mora is blocking him from considering MI, MSU and OSU.

    What? Are they too close to UCLA for you? None of them are on UCLA’s future schedules.

    Like

  56. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/24/big-12-could-ban-enrollment-freshmen-misconduct-history

    The B12 is looking into banning incoming freshmen athletes with a history of violence. All P5 conference should be doing this.

    Like

  57. Ross says:

    Looks like there are rumors of ASU joining the Big Ten in hockey as an affiliate member. Interesting choice…that’s a lot of traveling for them to do.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      There are a limited number of choices as to affiliation.
      Once you’re on a plane the mileage difference is simply not a deal make or breaker.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Ross,

      “Looks like there are rumors of ASU joining the Big Ten in hockey as an affiliate member. Interesting choice…that’s a lot of traveling for them to do.”

      The Alaska schools make it work, so I’m guessing ASU and the B10 can afford it. There are lots of B10 alumni out there so attendance might be decent, too. Having more teams is good for the B10 in hockey. Six is a little weak.

      Still, I’ve only heard rumors. Is there anything more substantial out there yet?

      Like

  58. vp19 says:

    Unless there’s a Lazarus-like revival in Charlottesville, the Cavs will begin the search for a new football coach by the end of November.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Harsin probably is set up to take over for Strong or Sarkisian. As for UVA they have to join the FleckFuentestakes like several others.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I can’t imagine Strong getting fired this soon. He didn’t forget how to coach when he got to Texas after so much success at Louisville. He just has to get his guys in, and I suspect there will be a massive turnaround next year, if not by November of this year.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          He won’t get fired this soon. But he has stupid teams, makes stupid decisions and has his teams look poorly prepared. And his teams usually get killed in the 3rd quarter which is a clear reflection on the coach. And Hartsin will never get hired in Texas. He was horrible as an offensive coordinator. He needs to stick in the MWC where he only plays P5 level teams occasionally.

          That said, it sure looked like some bettors had the fix in for the Oklahoma St. game. There was a defensive holding call on a lineman on an offensive lineman on a running play when the offensive lineman had his arms wrapped around the defensive player. When Strong complained, he got an unsportsmanlike conduct very quickly. I’ve never seen the first call and haven’t found anyone else who has either and I’ve never seen unsportsmanlike on the coach in the college game. Those two calls set Oklahoma St. up for a tying FG.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Texas lost after Strong called TO on a 3rd and 10 at the Texas 25 with 48 seconds left when it looked like OSU intended to let the clock run out and go into OT. Texas didn’t make the FD and OSU got it with 42 seconds left. For the 2nd week in a row UT’s kicker made an inexplicable mistake, this time just dropping the snap and having to rush off a 10 yard punt leaving OSU in FG range. If Strong doesn’t call that TO, it goes to OT.

            Like

          • Tom says:

            Realistically, you have to give a coach 4 years. BUT, if you are at a major program like Texas and you are not showing signs of improvement, 3 years may be all you get.

            Most recent example of this was Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. He went from 3-9 in year 1. 5-7 in year 2, 7-6 in year 3, but the improvement was not enough and he was gone. For what it’s worth, I felt he should have gotten one more year but I couldn’t fault the AD for making the change (although I fault him for replacing Rodriguez with Hoke).

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I’ve never seen unsportsmanlike on the coach in the college game. Those two calls set Oklahoma St. up for a tying FG.

            Bo Pelini would earn them every once in a while.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Bo would have had 6 or 7 a game if they called them like they did on Strong Saturday.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            B12 officials jealous of the attention the B1G and PAC officials regularly receive?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Laughing!

            For the first time since Saturday night. Texas fans are pretty irate. Most of the calls could be justified as typical bad breaks on close calls going against you, but the last two-the defensive holding and unsportsmanlike on the coach were inexplicable.

            Shaun King (so far as I know) has no Texas connections. Pretty much everyone else talking about it are Texas fans. He has a gif of the unsportsmanlike penalty. He describes it as borderline fixing.

            http://sports.yahoo.com/video/mad-king-ridiculous-wronging-texas-213941986.html

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not having been a fan of a “King” (other than a brief youthful infatuation with the Yankees) I have long seen kings benefit more often than not from what seems to be biased officiating. Unlike some of my friends I’ve never wanted it to go the other way. If a sporting event is to mean anything the rules need to be enforced consistently, evenly, and fairly. That was so egregious I find myself supporting a king. In fact, you really wonder what Vegas has to say. If I ran a book I’d take B12 games off the board (unless I had some inside info…).

            Like

      • vp19 says:

        If Maryland doesn’t beat UVa to the punch. After today’s 45-6 humiliation at WVU, the fan base wants Edsall gone. At Testudo Times, many are even calling for the Terps to hire Tressel, which isn’t happening.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          @vp19

          Do you pull the trigger now on Edsall and risk the recruiting class? I only ask because I think it was known that Maryland would take a step back this season and not be very good after having to replace a lot of key players from a year ago.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            It should be easier to hire a new coach with B1G membership and new facilities on the horizon than it was at the end of 2010, when Maryland was an ACC member with financial problems.

            Like

  59. gfunk says:

    Wow! Michigan’s close loss to Utah, actually a game they should have won, exposes Sparty – a team that has looked mediocre thus far. When OSU looks bad, you can tell they won’t play that way for long due to talent, coaching & motivation. MSU, not sure the talent is there to make sudden changes, esp in game.

    Michigan is looking more and more like the pain in the behind they were for so long in the BIG & that’s not good for OSU.

    I was going through BYU’s history, I couldn’t find them being shut out since at least 2011. Sure they’ve had equivalent losses or greater to today’s Michigan loss, but no shut outs. I stopped looking past 2011.

    NW was sloppy against a decent Ball State team, but still won.

    It looks like 5 BIG teams in the top 25 tomorrow.

    MAC is getting better and Bowling Green ends the season 2-0 against the BIG, albeit Maryland & Purdue look to be the worst BIG teams. Edsall’s days are numbered. Maryland could be a decent football school with a good coach, nice talent in the area.

    Minnesota’s terrible qb runs a great 2 minute offense, well at least against Colorado State and Ohio. This team would be ranked and undefeated if even a mediocre offense.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Thorson is a redshirt freshman and will make freshman mistakes. He’s very inconsistent and thus, so is NU’s offense (which alternates between acceptable and awful).
      We had a dominating defense (and Stanford and Duke is really making that unit look good), but the D suffered a ton of injuries in the Ball St. game. Hope they aren’t serious. After being decimated by injuries, in the second half, the NU defense allowed their first TD this season in 4 games where the opponent had to start from outside FG range (the first 2 TD’s they gave up this season, the opponent got the ball inside the ‘Cats’ 30 yardline thanks to awful turnovers by the offense).

      Minny-NU could be a M00N game.

      Like

  60. Duffman says:

    Undefeated and 1 loss teams after 4 weeks
    ________________________________________________

    ACC / P5 / 14 teams
    (4) | 4-0 NC State + 3-0 Clemson, Florida State, and Miami
    (5) | 3-1 Syracuse, Boston College, Duke, and UNC + 2-1 Pittsburgh

    B12 / P5 / 10 teams
    (6) | 4-0 Oklahoma St and TCU + 3-0 Oklahoma, Baylor, Kansas St, and West Virginia
    (1) | 3-1 Texas Tech

    B1G / P5 / 14 teams
    (5) | 4-0 Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa, and Northwestern
    (5) | 3-1 Penn State, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

    PAC / P5 / 12 teams
    (3) | 4-0 California, UCLA, and Utah
    (5) | 3-1 Stanford, Southern Cal, Colorado, and Arizona + 2-1 Washington State

    SEC / P5 / 14 teams
    (5) | 4-0 Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas A&M + 3-0 LSU
    (4) | 3-1 Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi State, and Alabama

    IND / ?? / 3 teams
    (1) | 4-0 Notre Dame

    ————————————————

    AAC / G5 / 12 teams
    (4) | 4-0 Memphis + 3-0 Temple, Navy, and Houston
    (1) | 2-1 Tulsa

    CUSA / G5 / 13 teams
    (2) | 3-1 Western Kentucky and Marshall

    MAC / G5 / 13 teams
    (1) | 3-0 Toledo
    (1) | 3-1 Ohio

    MWC / G5 / 12 teams
    (2) | 3-1 Boise State + 2-1 Air Force

    SUN / G5 / 11 teams
    (2) | 3-1 Georgia Southern + 2-1 Appalachian State

    Like

  61. Brian says:

    It’s been a pretty strange season so far. None of the top teams have looked consistently great (many have bumbled through multiple games) and there have been some crazy upsets. Utah blowing out OR on the road?

    Not a lot of changes at the top of the polls, but plenty of fresh faces at the bottom.

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches poll:
    1. OSU
    2. MSU

    Like

    • Brian says:

      WTF? Sorry about that. To continue:

      http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

      Coaches poll:
      1. OSU
      2. MSU
      3. TCU
      4. Baylor
      5. MS
      6. UGA
      7. ND
      8. LSU
      9. FSU
      10. UCLA

      12. Utah +5
      17. NW +2
      18. WI + 3
      24t. OR – 11
      26. MI (that Utah loss looks a lot better now)

      SEC – 7 (50%)
      P12 – 6 (50%)
      B12 – 5 (50%)
      B10 – 4 (29%)
      ACC – 2 (14%)

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

      AP poll:
      1. OSU
      2. MSU
      3. MS
      4. TCU
      5. Baylor
      6. ND
      7. UCLA
      8. UGA
      9. LSU
      10. Utah +8

      16. NW +1
      19. WI +3
      22. MI

      P12 – 6 (50%)
      B12 – 5 (50%)
      SEC – 6 (43%)
      B10 – 5 (36%)
      ACC – 2 (14%)

      Like

    • Richard says:

      May not actually be strange.

      May just be the case that Utah and UMich are better than people thought they would be in preseason while Oregon, MSU, and TCU (and maybe OSU) are worse.

      The UMich-MSU game will tell us a lot.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        Could be quite the showdown if Michigan gets by Maryland and Northwestern.

        I don’t see them having issues with Maryland, given how Maryland has played this year (though the Hoke years have made me inherently scared of all road games).

        Northwestern will be interesting. They appear to have one of the top B1G defenses, especially after Stanford and Duke put up some points this past weekend. My biggest question is will Michigan be able to sustain some offense against them? That would show real improvement to me on that side of the ball. I don’t see the defense having problems given how unimpressive NU’s offense has been this year.

        The UM-MSU game could certainly make for an attractive gameday location if UM is 5-1 and MSU is 6-0. Could be something like #2 MSU @ #15 UM

        Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Time for a rogues developmental league – SMU and Miami-FL can be charter members. Friends of mine who are Pony alums are livid that UNC has thus far gotten off for what they feel is far worse (fake classes, fake academic program).

      Like

  62. bullet says:

    Big win for NCAA:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdtZ5uI-V3BZN1NaZTl6WUk/view?pli=1

    $5,000 payment thrown out. Cost of Attendance kept.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Agreed. Most headlines will read NCAA lost the anti trust accusation, but it appears FCOA is all the remedy required. I find the mentions of the need/ability for college sport to remain amateur, and the ability of the governing organization to prescribe the methods, most telling. They simply said if you’re saying you are being compensated by being able to play in order to go to school, make sure that is actually a true statement, i.e. FCOA. Nothing more required.

      I guess we can stand down from the Northwestern, Stanford, etc watch.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        I still think we’ll see a point in the future, probably in CBB simply due to the number of players on a team, where a game is revving up to begin, and the players are going to refuse to play.

        Football is much more difficult, I think, since you need far more players to agree. I could definitely see a single team of players in basketball banding together over the issues involved here.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Players refusing to play? Cut them! And ask for the value of all accrued FCOA to be returned. They aren’t being forced to go to college. I’d rather watch/support substitutes from a dorm rec league than allow that attitude.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            Let me guess – you are over 50, white, Republican and male. If the help gets uppity, just fire them. The schools make millions, but don’t give the players anything.

            Like

          • Craig Z says:

            Except tuition, room and board, books, tutoring, and a stipend. Other than all that, you are correct.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Mark:

            Yes, yes, no, and yes. How exactly do those personal statistics alter the argument just restated yesterday in the O’Bannon appeal? “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Craig Z:

            You left out a few things the schools are providing above the mandated minimum: trainers, coaches, nutritionists, tutors, medical, facilities/stadiums, payment for staffing/operating and maintaining same, travel expenses/arrangements, an AD that arranges competitions, promotion of the athletic events, sum oozing the alumni that few players even recognize, arrangement of schedules in order to compete, and negotiated the broadcasts of these spectacles without which the players notoriety would be extremely limited.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The court case basically just said the NCAA had to treat the players no different than other students. Previously, they were treating them worse as other students could potentially get COA in scholarships or financial aid.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            None of these items are provided just for the benefit of the student – they are provided so the school can make money. One of the best parts of the NFL is the honesty that it is about cash – college football is a joke because legions of old white guys act like it is about students representing schools for fun when it is really just the NFL with no salaries, different marketing and an inferior product.

            There is not one P5 football team that has similar demographics to the student body. Do you think the Notre Dame student body looks remotely similar to the football team? How many out of state football players does Nebraska have compared to the university as a whole? Is 20% of Ohio State’s student body from Florida?

            The amazing part is that the NCAA and the schools have convinced people that a scholarship is great compensation when in reality a scholarship essentially costs the school nothing. Just because a school says it costs $40k a year doesn’t mean that it is worth that.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “None of these items are provided just for the benefit of the student – they are provided so the school can make money.”

            Do you begrudge non profit organizations the ability to create revenue streams that further their mission? In the NCAA, as far as I’m aware, GCU is the only for profit member. The kids are not being held against their will. They are free to choose an alternative. They aren’t free to dictate how the member schools organize and operate (unless you are majority stock holder in GCU. Then I guess you could dictate to that school).

            Like

          • Mark says:

            “No, they don’t. They gross millions (very few gross over $100M and none over $200M) but they generally spend more than they gross. They do redistribute significant revenue from CFB and MBB to other sports, but that isn’t the same as the school making money. Some of those other sports are literally required in order for the CFB and MBB teams to exist (NCAA has a minimum number of teams requirement and Title IX requires a balance between genders). In additions, tens of millions of dollars go right back into those revenue sports (facilities, recruiting, scholarships, staff/tutors/advisors, coaches, etc).”

            The choice that colleges make to waste money and fund sports that few care about and even fewer play with the proceeds of football and basketball does not change the fact that ALL P5 schools and most G5 schools make a profit from football and men’s basketball. They may hide the profit, lie about the profit, make up fake intercompany charges or waste the profit on water polo, stadiums used 6 times a year or weight rooms better than those in the NFL, but the profit exists.

            The players MUST receive part of this profit since they create the value. The issue will not go away until the colleges PAY the athletes their fair share in $$ not “free” tuition & food. Instead of being proactive, the NCAA and schools are digging in and they will continue to lose in court (as they should).

            “Not everywhere. There are minorities and women in power in places, too. It’s almost impossible not to have older people in power since that’s how life works and we’re talking about college age people.”

            Please provide the name of the P5 conference that is not led by an old white man. Please provide the % of P5 presidents that are not old white men. Please name the sports TV networks that are not led by old white men. If the NCAA old boy network allowed more women and minorities into the power structure, they might realize how out of touch they are with 2015 America. Instead we get the “father knows best” approach, shut up and be happy with your scholarship (that we might pull if you’re not good enough and by the way you can’t major in a real subject) while I make $100Million that will not succeed like it did in 1956. Change or die.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            This conversation is over. Let them take their value and go start an actual pro minor league, or join an existing one, since “they create the value.” It doesn’t matter that you don’t understand what constitutes profit, and it won’t change no matter how many times you state otherwise. But they won’t, because they know where the value of college athletics is – in the colleges.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            As an aside, with the number of horrific incidents on campuses recently I’d suggest ending with evolve or go extinct. It makes the same point in a more acceptable phrase.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Sports other than football or basketball are more in the collegiate model and more in line with what was intended when college sports started. Texas built Memorial Stadium as much for track as they did for football.

            I’d like to know how many of the players would be worth the money in tuition, expenses, coaching and facilities that they get. The college costs are around 40k. Coaching and facilities probably pushes it up well over 100k for the P5 programs. How many of them will earn 100k when they graduate? How many would get jobs in the pros as freshmen?

            Reality is that there are only a handful who aren’t overpaid.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mark,

            “The choice that colleges make to waste money and fund sports that few care about and even fewer play”

            Your lack of comprehension is a real shame.

            “the fact that ALL P5 schools and most G5 schools make a profit from football and men’s basketball.”

            ND used to claim to lose money on MBB in its reporting to the federal government. That may change now that they are an ACC member.

            “They may hide the profit, lie about the profit, make up fake intercompany charges …”

            In other words, any evidence that shows you’re wrong will be immediately dismissed out of hand as a trick. Gotcha.

            “stadiums used 6 times a year or weight rooms better than those in the NFL”

            You mean those stadiums that are full of seats people way too much to fill and where the teams play their games? The weight rooms that recruits compare and contrast ion deciding where to play? Yes, what a waste. I’m sure none of that can be viewed as reinvestment for the future good of that team.

            “The players MUST receive part of this profit since they create the value.”

            Maybe if you shout more it’ll make more people agree with you. And where is the evidence that they create the value as opposed to the school name on the jersey?

            “The issue will not go away until the colleges PAY the athletes their fair share in $$ not “free” tuition & food.”

            Despite a court just saying otherwise.

            “Instead of being proactive, the NCAA and schools are digging in and they will continue to lose in court (as they should).”

            He says after they just won in court on a major point.

            “Please provide the name of the P5 conference that is not led by an old white man.”

            The COP/C runs the B10, and it has 3 women and 2 minority men on it (not counting religions as a minority). Delany works for them, not the other way around. Similarly there are 2 women and 3 minority men serving as B10 ADs. OSU is one of the biggest voices in NCAA sports and it has a minority president and a minority AD (neither of whom support pay for play).

            Larry Scott is 50.

            “Please provide the % of P5 presidents that are not old white men.”

            No. Do your own homework. It’s 36% for the B10, a non-negligible percentage. Besides, what counts as old?

            “Please name the sports TV networks that are not led by old white men.”

            The head of ESPN isn’t 60 and his boss is a little younger than him. How young do you expect the head of a multi-billion dollar business to be?

            “If the NCAA old boy network”

            The NCAA is just a collection of university presidents plus staff. Every school has its own old boy network and academics also have one, but to blame the NCAA just reinforces your lack of comprehension.

            “(that we might pull if you’re not good enough and by the way you can’t major in a real subject)”

            Nice strawman, but the schools are moving back to 4 year scholarships that can only be revoked for cause. And few schools restrict the majors you can take. GT requires all students to take calculus, athletes included. OSU won a national title in 2002 with a molecular genetics major as the starting QB. FSU had a Rhodes scholar as a star safety. Most athletes choose an easier path, but few are forced into it. Some majors are very time consuming so it makes it hard to make practice and players are warned about that. They can always quit playing football and major in whatever they want since they’re already admitted students.

            “while I make $100Million that will not succeed like it did in 1956.”

            The Red Cross had $3B in revenue last year, the bastards. Why don’t they give blood donors their fair share?

            “Change or die.”

            Same to you.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          They’d all lose their scholarships instantly and other players would quickly fill those spots.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Bowlsby predicted it would happen the other day.

            Basketball is the easiest to justify as there are minor leagues they could play in.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Which is where they belong if that is there goal, not in school.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Bowlsby predicted it would happen the other day.”

            I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen, I just predicted the outcome if/when it does happen. I believe there are plenty of players dumb enough to try it.

            “Basketball is the easiest to justify as there are minor leagues they could play in.”

            There is no justification for the proposed action. You can make excuses and provide reasons, but it doesn’t justify it. Players can get out of the deal any time they wish if they find the conditions too onerous. Besides, the existence of the NBADL makes it less justifiable since they had an option that includes a salary.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I was saying basketball is the easiest to justify the amateurism as they do have alternatives.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No body/organization needs to justify themselves because of what other organizations, completely unrelated in any direct way, offers. I agree it makes the argument much easier, but it is actually irrelevant.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            By the argument I mean that they have multiple alternatives if they want to get paid. But it doesn’t address the argument that colleges do/don’t need to pay, alternatives or not.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Maybe, maybe not. If an entire basketball team said they weren’t playing, where would the school turn? It’s not like they can pick up players mid-season, let alone an entire team of players. If it spread to other schools, would all of the schools just cut the scholarships and what, forfeit the season?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Ross,

            “Maybe, maybe not. If an entire basketball team said they weren’t playing, where would the school turn? It’s not like they can pick up players mid-season, let alone an entire team of players.”

            Sure they can. Have open tryouts on campus and give out 13 scholarships to the best ones. You’ll fill the team right away. You can get transfers to help rebuild the roster for future seasons.

            “If it spread to other schools, would all of the schools just cut the scholarships and what, forfeit the season?”

            Nope, they’d play regular students. Plenty of people would love a free ride in exchange for playing hoops.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            A basketball team refusing to play would be the ultimate embarrassment for a school and it would cause a lot of attention that the NCAA doesn’t want. Especially if it happened at UNC, UK or Kansas. There would be no replacements, the coach would be fired and the school would be put in a really tough place. If you “get rid of” the students, the school admit that it is a business and not an extra activity and the sham is exposed.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Mark:

            You seem to overestimate the place and value of basketball to a major (or small for that matter) university. Sports are a combination educational activity, and a marketing arm of the real and actually far more valuable/important departments of the U. It would be a bit embarrassing, but insignificant in the longer term. The real money is elsewhere. See: U$C “stealing” near $190M of research funds and projects from a single UCSD department. That is extreme, but that is the kind of money involved in lots of depts in a lot of schools. Dropping sports all together would be small impact long run, and releive admins of a lot of headache. Personally, I’d like to see it happen (an attempt at extortion) just to set the example rather than have to make these arguments.

            Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          “legions of old white guys act like…”

          Ah yes, Mark, this is how you win an argument on the internet! Don’t argue merits…instead try to cast it as a racial issue (showing your own bigotry in the process)! That way people won’t try to use reason! Of course, resorting to such tactics is a strong indication that you feel you don’t have reason on your side.

          Now, about the general argument:

          There is nothing a university can do to stop any player from leaving a school one morning and signing a professional contract that afternoon. If he/she is in good academic & financial standing, there is nothing a university can do to stop a student from playing professional sports while still attending the school.

          The NCAA does not stop anyone from getting paid to play sports; the NCAA does nothing to stop a professional league from forming in any sport. The NCAA only has the power to regulate people who willingly decide to play for the NCAA.

          The fact that the NCAA only allows amateurs to represent its universities in its sporting events doesn’t stop people from getting paid to play sports.

          If you want to argue it’s unfair that a professional league like the NBA & NFL don’t allow 18 year-olds to play for them, that’s fine. A lot of people who support the NCAA have think the same thing. But that argument is with the NBA & NFL, not with the NCAA.

          If the players were worth what is claimed, then another professional league would have sprung up already. They could sign those 18-19 year-olds and just pay them half what they are supposedly “worth”, and keep the other half for operating expenses + profit. The fact that this hasn’t happened is evidence that the players don’t bring the value that is claimed; it is in fact the schools that the provide the popularity behind the NCAA.

          Yes, all the players from Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC could decide they don’t want to represent their university any more; the universities would go on. College athletics would go on. The universities would play walk-ons, and eventually find other people who would like scholarships (or not…college sports could go on just fine if there were no scholarships). People don’t watch college athletics to watch the best athletes at the sport; they watch the professional leagues for that.

          It’s not like we don’t know what happens when the top 18 year-olds in a sport decide not to represent a university. Not that long ago, most of the best basketball players were going straight to the NBA right out of high school. NCAA basketball went on, with little indication that its popularity was hurt. If the top 18 year-olds again decide not to play for the NCAA, whether because they’re going to a professional league or decide simply not to play for the NCAA, the NCAA will still be fine.

          If you don’t like the idea of colleges allowing students to represent them in sporting events against other colleges with a few basic rules (like they have to be amateurs & in good academic standing), don’t watch the games, and don’t donate money to their athletic programs.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            You talk around the problem, but miss the point – the schools are making $100s of millions from free labor. This cannot continue. Either change or die. If it was just local schools playing for fun, nobody would care. But the schools decided to turn it into a business, and a business needs to pay its workers.

            People absolutely watch college sports just as they do pro sports. Almost all of the good & supported college teams are in markets where no pro teams exist. If an NBA team showed up in Lexington, UK would begin to decline. If the NFL went to Columbus, Ohio State would go into a long decline. Don’t kid yourself, NCAA football and basketball are the minor leagues, and they perform best in places without pro competition.

            Last, since old white guys are in power, they are the ones preventing change while younger, often minority former athletes that got taken advantage of are fighting back.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You miss the point. Save GCU, all NCAA members are non profit. Revenue generated supports that model. It pays for part, and in a few cases all of athletic dept expenses. Would these athletes make money if they started a pro league on their own? Maybe a bit if they can find coaches, facilities, insurence, etc and an investor to bankroll the startup years. Again, just because a non profit generates significant revenue that doesn’t require it to suddenly become a for profit business. Or require it to be co-opted by a small, transient group of students.

            The court didn’t require that FCOA be given. It said the NCAA rules keeping scholarship awards to lower than FCOA were too limiting for those willing/wanting to award at the FCOA level. Schools/conferences can chose to award less (some Go5 schools), or no athletics based at all (Ivy’s).

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Mark, none of the players are being forced to accept scholarships. Yes, a handful every year in football or basketball could potentially make real money if they really got paid for their services.

            If the top 200 high school football players and top 50 mens basketball players each year went to a pro league in Europe, college sports would not miss a beat.

            Of course many thousands of minority students are given scholarships by rotten old white men every year. These are kids with no thought of going pro and no chance to go to college without aid due to sports. Yes it is a terrible system providing scholarships to all of those kids. In addition, there are lots of poor minority (and even white (oh no)) kids who get into colleges because they are athletes and then get financial aid because they are poor. Yes, blow up the whole system for the very few. Screw all of those kids from the inner city who escape through sports.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mark,

            “You talk around the problem, but miss the point”

            Or do they miss your point while you miss theirs?

            “the schools are making $100s of millions from free labor.”

            No, they don’t. They gross millions (very few gross over $100M and none over $200M) but they generally spend more than they gross. They do redistribute significant revenue from CFB and MBB to other sports, but that isn’t the same as the school making money. Some of those other sports are literally required in order for the CFB and MBB teams to exist (NCAA has a minimum number of teams requirement and Title IX requires a balance between genders). In additions, tens of millions of dollars go right back into those revenue sports (facilities, recruiting, scholarships, staff/tutors/advisors, coaches, etc).

            “This cannot continue.”

            Of course it can.

            “But the schools decided to turn it into a business, and a business needs to pay its workers.”

            Seems to me a court just said paying them via a scholarship was fine.

            “People absolutely watch college sports just as they do pro sports.”

            Some do, some don’t. It depends on the fan and the schools in question.

            “Almost all of the good & supported college teams are in markets where no pro teams exist.”

            Very few markets have pro teams and most major colleges aren’t in big cities, so your statement is almost meaningless. Also, the location of good teams changes with time. Miami did just fine in the 80s and 90s with the Dolphins around. UCLA hoops was a dynasty with the Lakers in town. ND football thrived right by Chicago with tons of NYC fans. USC did fine in the 70s with the Rams around. OSU has two NFL teams in easy driving distance. MI is right next to the Lions. UT isn’t far from Dallas or Houston. LSU is quite close to New Orleans.

            Of course a local pro team will steal the headlines after a while. Nobody debates that.

            “Last, since old white guys are in power,”

            Not everywhere. There are minorities and women in power in places, too. It’s almost impossible not to have older people in power since that’s how life works and we’re talking about college age people.

            “they are the ones preventing change”

            Sometimes, yes. They also point out that not all change is good. And they aren’t always wrong on those positions either. You seem to have missed that concept along the way.

            “while younger, often minority former athletes that got taken advantage of are fighting back.”

            Right, like all those poor white guys that got free rides to NW for being potentially an above average college football player. What a terrible thing to have almost no NFL future but still get an elite education for free.

            You assume that these people were taken advantage of but don’t bother to offer any evidence. Not everybody agrees with your opinion on that issue.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “You talk around the problem, but miss the point – the schools are making $100s of millions from free labor.”

            Well, you missed my point then. If the athletes were really worth that much, then investors would hire them away for their own league. If the players are worth, say, $500 million (in line with your $100s of millions), they could give the players $250 million in salary and then use the other $250 million for operating costs and profit to themselves.

            The fact that no investors have ever stepped forward and make such a league work is evidence that the players don’t have a value that high. Yes, the universities are getting revenue in the millions to support their athletic departments that have expenses in the millions, but it’s the schools that provide the majority of the value, not the athletes.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I am not so sure it’s such a “big win” for the NCAA. If it stands (meaning that the anti-trust laws apply to them), they remain open to further attack, and if you are open to attack, eventually some of the bombs will land.

      Like

      • It was very much a mixed bag. The appeals court basically threw out the $5k based on a narrow set of facts established as largely a sideshow to the main testimony – essentially saying that as long as the facts are consistent with amateurism being an effective marketing device, it was OK to have restrictions consistent with the definition of amateurism.

        Also (and I do think this is important), they basically established that there should generally be a standard of deference to the NCAA’s ability to regulate its own affairs, and pretty much explicitly threw out the idea of considering this to be a per se antitrust violation.

        On the other hand, they basically reiterated that a LOT of the NCAA’s other defenses (the BoR dicta, the idea that the whole thing isn’t REALLY commercial, the idea that somehow producers aren’t protected by Sherman, etc etc) were bogus. I also thought it notable that they explicitly rejected the logic from Bassett case (“we believe Bassett was simply wrong on this point” – the Basset case argument being that rules against player compensation were “anti-commercial” and therefore somehow exempt), which definitely seems to open up another can of worms for the NCAA to deal with.

        Like

  63. frug says:

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/100

    Times Higher Education released their rankings (which are probably my favorite of all the ranking publications) today. I haven’t had much time to look at them yet, but here they are.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      They go to the top 800 this year instead of only 500. You see some schools that typically weren’t ranked-Auburn, Kansas St., Texas Tech, Miami, Ohio U. and others.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      B10 and expansion schools (World ranking):

      11. JHU
      21. MI
      25. NW
      36. IL
      50. WI
      65. MN
      75. PSU
      90. OSU
      99. MSU
      113. PU
      117. UMD
      123. RU
      201-250. IN, IA
      301-350. NE

      20. Duke
      41. GT
      46. UT
      63. UNC
      79. Pitt
      87. Vandy
      101. Rice
      108. ND
      147. UVA
      161. Miami
      189. ASU (hockey)
      190. BC
      201-250. FSU
      251-300. NCSU, SU, VT
      301-350. UConn
      501-600. OkSU
      >801. OU

      This is why I struggle to see the B10 accepting OU. I know it’s just one ranking and not the one the B10 uses, but it’s somewhat indicative of OU’s reputation.

      Like

      • frug says:

        One thing to keep in mind is that THE relies on self reported data that not all schools chose to provide (Texas and Texas A&M for example did not participate in the initial rankings released 5 years ago).

        I mention this because it would explain Oklahoma’s absence. It’s possible they just missed the cut, but I have never seen an academic ranking where Okie St. finished above OU (and this is coming from someone whose parents both went to OSU)

        Like

        • frug says:

          The same is probably true for Kansas which also went unranked.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          That’s certainly possible, yes. OU was in the 301-350 group in the THE rankings last year, so OU must have been left off the list for some reason. Even being in that group puts them in a questionable spot for me.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Interesting. OU is 401-500 in the ARWU rankings, same as Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech.

        Like

      • Tom says:

        This has been discussed before, but I would continue to keep an eye on Miami. Not AAU, but per these rankings, (which incorporate research), it is well ahead of Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          On the AAU ranking where Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU, Miami (FL) was one of the top ranked schools not currently in the AAU. They were 59th overall and excluding specialized and medical schools, they were 6th among schools not members-behind Dartmouth, Utah, UC-Santa Cruz, RPI and Wake Forest.

          Like

      • Mack says:

        Only 10 P5 schools did not make the list, with 9 from the B12 and SEC. Academics better than Texas Tech is setting the bar fairly low. ACC: Louisville SEC: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State; B12: Baylor, TCU, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kansas. So except for OU, KS and maybe AL the usual suspects for a ranking with research weighted (why TCU & Baylor are not ranked).

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Not a fan of the THE rankings. They use bogus criteria like how international the faculty and student body are (which boosts the British and other European schools as they have a bunch of tiny countries close to each other).

      Otherwise, it’s almost a pure research ranking like ARWU.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “Otherwise, it’s almost a pure research ranking like ARWU.”

        I think that’s too strong.

        https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ranking-methodology-2016

        30% of the score is based on teaching criteria (reputation, faculty:student ratio, etc). Research is also 30% (reputation, $$$ and papers produced). Granted, another 30% is based on citations of their work, but I’d contend that influences their academic reputation significantly as well. Only 7.5% is based on international diversity at all levels with the last 2.5% being based on knowledge transfer to business.

        Like

  64. Brian says:

    And the bad performances and upsets continue:

    #1, #2, #11, #20 and #24 squeak by. #25 kills #3. #5 yields 35 points to an unranked team. #12 beats #6. #7 gets upset at home. #8 gets embarrassed at home by #13. #9 pulled away late from EMU. #19 lost at home.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      We may find out that OSU and MSU (and Wisconsin and Nebraska) were overranked in the preseason while Northwestern, Iowa, and UMich were underranked.

      Oregon is turning out to be a paper tiger this year while VTech is close to dreadful, so arguably, we don’t actually know how good OSU and MSU are this year as they haven’t played anyone of significance yet.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        And neither will for another week, although Rutgers will be at home vs. MSU, which could help. OSU should toy with a Maryland program in disarray, and a majority of Terp fans wish Edsall would fall on his sword so the search for a new coach can begin in earnest.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “We may find out that OSU and MSU (and Wisconsin and Nebraska) were overranked in the preseason while Northwestern, Iowa, and UMich were underranked.”

        It’s a national thing, not just a B10 problem. Nobody at the top has consistently looked strong. I’ll take 5-0 and playing ugly over not being 5-0 though.

        “Oregon is turning out to be a paper tiger this year while VTech is close to dreadful, so arguably, we don’t actually know how good OSU and MSU are this year as they haven’t played anyone of significance yet.”

        We could also remember that both of their starting QBs have been injured so they aren’t the same teams MSU and OSU faced. And that MSU has suffered some serious injuries so their team has changed and may need time to gel with the new players. And how do we really know anyone has faced anyone of significance yet? The season isn’t half over.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Think its wide open this year. Nobody is dominant. We might not have any unbeatens and might have more than 1 2 loss conference champ.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        Sorry about your team. UT fans have to just be sick watching what’s happening this year. I don’t know if Strong will be there long enough to fix the problems or even if he can fix them.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          After the continued bad defense against Rice and Cal (the defense was young, but I expected a turnaround like last year), I became convinced we had hired a Pellini. Good for 8 or 9 wins, but not any better. Not sure we even have that now. OU is a season unto itself, so there’s still time for redemption. If they don’t show up for OU, its going to be a REALLY long season.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          Speaking of long, any of you watch the Alabama-UGA game? There were definitely two TV timeouts in the first quarter and it seemed like there must have been 5 or 6 in the game. I never remember more than a couple in a whole game I had been to before. Is CBS flooding football with commercials? Maybe that’s why the SEC’s ratings are down this year.

          I also have rarely watched prime time TV since at least the 80s and was trying to watch the last half of Quantico Sunday night. The first show was good, but this was a disjointed disaster. What made it worse, was it must have been 50% commercials. It was worse than USA or TBS. Seems like the regular networks are flooding shows with commercials as well. They’re going to drive the Netflix and DVR migrations.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Remember when subscription cable was just starting, and one of it’s supposed benefits was sub fees would reduce the need for advertising?
            Nice idea…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Speaking of long, any of you watch the Alabama-UGA game?”

            Parts of it, but it was too lopsided to stick with.

            “There were definitely two TV timeouts in the first quarter and it seemed like there must have been 5 or 6 in the game. I never remember more than a couple in a whole game I had been to before. Is CBS flooding football with commercials? Maybe that’s why the SEC’s ratings are down this year.”

            All the networks are getting worse about it. It’s how they pay for those increased rights fees they keep offering.

            “I also have rarely watched prime time TV since at least the 80s and was trying to watch the last half of Quantico Sunday night. The first show was good, but this was a disjointed disaster.”

            Doing a show with that many flashback sequences is not a wise choice in my opinion. They will quickly confuse the audience and prevent any new viewers from joining in.

            “What made it worse, was it must have been 50% commercials. It was worse than USA or TBS. Seems like the regular networks are flooding shows with commercials as well. They’re going to drive the Netflix and DVR migrations.”

            Yes, TV has gotten really bad that way.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “Is CBS flooding football with commercials?”

            I’ve seen some SEC fans claim that CBS runs more commercials than ESPN for their games. I haven’t seen any article officially verifying that.

            Like

        • Wesley says:

          After today’s twitter fight among the players, which made the national news, Strong will have a difficult time seeing the end of the season as the Texas coach. Could even appoint an assistant as interim coach to sooth the player. Pretty much a freshmen against the upper class men tiff based on losing and playing time jealousy

          Like

  65. Duffman says:

    0 & 1 loss teams after 5 weeks and who picked up 2nd loss
    ________________________________________________

    ACC / P5 / 14 teams
    (2) | 4-0 Clemson and Florida State
    (6) | 4-1 NC State, Duke, and North Carolina + 3-1 Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Miami
    (x) | Boston College picked up 2nd loss

    B12 / P5 / 10 teams
    (4) | 5-0 Oklahoma State and TCU + 4-0 Oklahoma and Baylor
    (2) | 3-1 Kansas State and West Virginia
    (x) | Texas Tech picked up 2nd loss

    B1G / P5 / 14 teams
    (4) | 5-0 Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa, and Northwestern
    (4) | 4-1 Indiana, Penn State, Michigan, and Illinois
    (x) | Minnesota and Wisconsin picked up 2nd loss

    PAC / P5 / 12 teams
    (2) | 5-0 California + 4-0 Utah
    (3) | 4-1 Stanford and UCLA + 3-1 Southern Cal
    (x) | Arizona, Colorado, and Washington State picked up 2nd loss

    SEC / P5 / 14 teams
    (3) | 5-0 Florida and Texas A&M + 4-0 LSU
    (5) | 3-1 Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama, and Mississippi
    (x) | Mississippi State picked up 2nd loss

    IND / ?? / 3 teams
    (1) | 4-1 Notre Dame

    ————————————————

    AAC / G5 / 12 teams
    (4) | 5-0 Memphis + 4-0 Temple, Navy, and Houston
    (x) | Tulsa picked up 2nd loss

    CUSA / G5 / 13 teams
    (2) | 4-1 Western Kentucky and Marshall

    MAC / G5 / 13 teams
    (1) | 4-0 Toledo
    (1) | 4-1 Ohio

    MWC / G5 / 12 teams
    (2) | 4-1 Boise State
    (x) | Air Force picked up 2nd loss

    SUN / G5 / 11 teams
    (2) | 4-1 Georgia Southern + 3-1 Appalachian State

    Like

    • Duffman says:

      Undefeated teams in action in week 6 (all games listed in EST)

      Thursday, October 8
      —————————-
      8 pm / ESPN2 / SMU (1-4, 0-1) @ Houston (4-0, 1-0)

      Saturday, October 10
      —————————-
      B1G
      12 pm / BTN / Maryland (2-3, 0-1) @ Ohio State (5-0, 1-0)
      12 pm / ESPNU / Illinois (4-1, 1-0) @ Iowa (5-0, 1-0)
      3:30 pm / BTN / Northwestern (5-0, 1-0) @ Michigan (4-1, 1-0)
      8 pm / BTN / Michigan State (5-0, 1-0) @ Rutgers (2-2, 0-1)

      ACC
      3:30 pm / ABC or ESPN2 / Georgia Tech (2-3, 0-2) @ Clemson (4-0, 1-0)
      8 pm / ABC / Miami (3-1, 0-0) @ Florida State (4-0, 2-0)

      B12
      12 pm / FOXS1 / Baylor (4-0, 1-0) @ Kansas (0-4, 0-1)
      12 pm / ABC / Oklahoma (4-0, 1-0) vs Texas (1-4, 0-1)
      7 pm / ESPN2 / Oklahoma State (5-0, 2-0) @ West Virginia (3-1, 0-1)
      7:30 pm / FOX / TCU (5-0, 2-0) @ Kansas State (3-1, 0-1)

      PAC
      10 pm / ESPN / California (5-0, 2-0) @ Utah (4-0, 1-0)

      SEC
      12 pm / ESPN / LSU (4-0, 2-0) @ South Carolina (2-3, 0-3)
      7:30 pm / SECN / Florida (5-0, 3-0) @ Missouri (4-1, 1-1)

      OTR
      12 pm / ESPNN / Tulane (2-2, 1-0) @ Temple (4-0, 1-0)
      3 pm / ESPN3 / Kent State (2-3, 1-0) @ Toledo (4-0, 1-0)
      3:30 pm / NBC / Navy (4-0, 1-0) @ Notre Dame (4-1, 3-0)

      Like

      • Mack says:

        Northwestern at Michigan looks to be the best of these games next week. Cal and oSu will be tested. With close escapes against Texas these schools look like pretenders vs. contenders.

        Texas got pounded this yesterday by TCU, and will get pounded next week by Oklahoma. Now that AD Patterson is gone can Charlie Strong be far behind? The last time Texas lost to TCU two years in a row (1956) they fired their coach. Texas will beat Kansas at home (last KS B12 road win was in 2008) and should be competitive against KSU/TT in Austin and ISU on the road. So probably 4-8 at best after 6-7 last year. On a $ per win basis Charlie easily beats out Saban and Meyer. I doubt he will be replaced mid-year since Texas has a temp AD now.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          And the problems at Louisville probably have doomed Tom Jurich’s chances of becoming the new UT AD.

          If Strong is disnissed, 1) who replaces him, and 2) where does he wind up?

          1) I could see some wealthy Texas exes pursuing Saban again, though I don’t see it happening. D’Antonio is another possibility, although it could wind up as another Bielema to Arkansas situation and that might dissuade him from leaving East Lansing.

          2) Some at Maryland think he would be a fine successor to Edsall, and Kevin Plank certainly has the money. Other programs interested in buying low might also be in the picture.

          Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          “Cal will be tested?” What planet are you on? Utah will crush Cal.

          Like

  66. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches poll:

    1. OSU
    2. TCU
    3. MSU
    4. Baylor
    5. LSU
    6. Clemson
    7. Utah
    8. FSU
    9. OU
    10. AL

    13. MS
    14. NW
    15. ND
    16. UGA
    20. UCLA
    21. MI
    23. IA
    24. Boise
    25. Memphis

    SEC – 6/14 = 43%
    P12 – 5/12 = 42%
    B12 – 4/10 = 40%
    B10 – 5/14 = 36%
    ACC – 2/14 = 14%
    Other – 3

    Good balance nationally.

    Like

  67. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Coaches’ poll is out.

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    SEC (6) #5 LSU, #10 Bama, #11 A&M, #12 Florida, #13 Ole Miss & #16 UGA
    B1G (5) #1 Ohio St, #3 Mich St, #14 N’west, #21 Michigan & #23 Iowa
    B-12 (4) #2 TCU, #4 Baylor, #9 Oklahoma! & #19 OK State
    P-12 (5) #7 Utah, #17 USC, #18 Stanford, #20 UCLA & #22 Cal
    ACC (2) #6 Clemson & #8 Florida St
    Ind #15 ND
    MWC #24 Boise St
    AAC #25 Memphis

    Like

  68. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The LSU/South Carolina game will be moved from Columbia to Baton Rouge this weekend due to conditions in Columbia.

    http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=210401612

    I’ll be in South Carolina anyway, as its Parents weekend at The Citadel and I haven’t seen my son in two months. We were planning on driving up to Columbia for the game though.

    Ten years ago, LSU faced a similar situation and had to move a home game with Arizona State to Tempe at the last minute. I went to that game and the Arizona State fans were great. I’m sure my fellow Tiger fans will pay it forward with South Carolina.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Is there talk of LSU giving some of the gate to SC since home games are a large part of funding an AD?

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        After expenses, South Carolina gets everything.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          LSU is hoping to break even. South Carolina will get the ticket revenue. LSU will get concessions to pay for expenses. After expenses are paid, LSU expects to make a contribution to the Red Cross for relief in Columbia.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I assumed something was in the works but I hadn’t heard anything.

            LSU is so much better than SC this season that the location shouldn’t influence the outcome.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Well if they were playing in a real swamp like Columbia is now, it could even things out.
            And home field always makes some difference.

            Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      From Columbia’s (SC) newspaper regarding the welcome South Carolina will receive in Baton Rouge.

      http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/university-of-south-carolina/usc-football/article38295864.html

      Also, game time was moved from 11a CDT to 2:30p. ESPN is televising. Seven different game times had to be shuffled around to accommodate a later kickoff in order to maximize the gate for South Carolina. CBS had to agree to let this game go against its feature SEC game. LSU/USCe (with Heisman trophy winner to be Leonard Fournette) will probably outdraw the CBS Georgia Tennessee game.

      And LSU will be wearing purple jerseys in an SEC game for the first time in almost 20 years.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Purple in a home SEC game, that is. Miss State and perhaps other conference schools have worn white at home when hosting LSU to force the Tigers to “go dark.”

        Like

  69. greg says:

    I haven’t seen this posted, an Ad Age article on Rutgers/Maryland and the BTN.

    http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Nice find. Some tidbits from the article:

      * According to SNL Kagan data, cable operators pay an estimated “in-market” rate of $1 per sub per month, more than double the $0.44 fees charged outside the conference’s home markets.

      * Cablevision alone serves 2.64 million video customers in New York, New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; with the upgraded fee in place, BTN sees its annual payout from the operator rise to around $31.7 million from $13.9 million.

      * At present, buyers say the average unit cost of a 30-second spot in one of BTN’s live football telecasts is on par with the rates charged by the nation’s No. 1 conference-affiliated channel, the ESPN-owned-and-operated SEC Network. That said, there is plenty of room for improvement; in September, the average cost of in-game :30 on both networks was south of $4,000 a pop.

      * More than 1.5 million alumni from Big Ten member schools call the East coast corridor (NYC – DC) home

      * Since Rutgers and Maryland jumped to the Big Ten, BTN’s sub count has risen to some 60 million households, up 15% from the 52 million customers it reached at the end of the 2013-14 academic year.

      * “We’re looking west of Nebraska to make sure people can see the kind of games we can offer,” said Mr. Silverman, who notes that BTN is carried on Time Warner Cable in Los Angeles. “But we are very happy with our distribution. We think the Big Ten is the one true national conference. Our alums are everywhere. The SEC is just a regional conference in terms of its alums and where they live. We truly have a platform and a fan base that will allow us to be the leading collegiate sports network.”

      * Rutgers and Maryland won’t be eligible for a slice of the TV pie until both have put in six years at the Big Ten.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Thanks, Greg. The article mentions the increase of nearly $18 million dollars per year, from Time Warner in NY, NJ and SW Ct. I believe that Time Warner is the biggest cable player in New York City. In NJ the big player is Comcast with Verizon Fios (probably) in second. One can infer (or at least guess) that Rutgers logically should have brought in at least that much revenue from the millions of Comcast subscribers in NJ None of these numbers include increased advertising revenues.

        That might explain why there are no B1G second thoughts about the most recent incredible stupidity at old RU. Adding at least $40 million per year in new revenues in year one buys a lot of understanding.

        In any season where RU miraculously has a good team, the B1G will totally own the New York metro area, as well as NJ. That is 25 million people.

        In 2019, RU will have played 150 years of college football and still cannot get it right.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Until the mid-1970s, Rutgers was an ersatz Ivy where football was concerned, playing Lafayette and Lehigh as well as Princeton and a few other Ivies. Compare that to Maryland’s 61 years in the big-time (if not always football-potent) ACC before joining the Big Ten. This conference move is a major culture change on the banks of the Raritan, not merely for football but for nearly all Scarlet Knights sports.

          Like

  70. bullet says:

    Rough week for Texas. Now Bevo’s sick. Mascot since 2004 has “life-threatening” condition and won’t make OU game.

    http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2015-10-07/bevo-xiv-update-texas-mascot-longhorn-steer-oklahoma-life-threatening-condition-ncaa-football

    Like

    • Tyson says:

      The perfect metaphor for Texas’ season. I for one am praying for miraculous recovery for Bevo and the team.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        I trust Bevo now feels a bit better, as do all of those who wear burnt orange.

        The Longhorns’ upset perhaps no ensures that the winner of the Texas Christian-Baylor game will win the Big 12, particularly after the Horned Frogs stormed back to win at K-State last night. (Could Doug Meacham be one of the candidates to succeed Randy Edsall in 2016? Not sure if he’d be interested — he’s an Okie State alum born in Arlington, Texas, and he’s 50, perhaps not quite the young guy for the long haul — but you never know.)

        Like

  71. greg says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13845985/under-armour-signs-10-year-96m-deal-wisconsin-badgers

    The University of Wisconsin agreed to a 10-year deal with Under Armour on Friday worth a total of $96 million in cash and the retail value of products received.

    The deal will begin on July 1, 2016, after Wisconsin’s 15-year relationship with Adidas comes to an end.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Are they required to wear hideous uniforms? They made Maryland and Texas Tech make themselves look ridiculous.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        Only Maryland’s cheer leaders are wearing the hideous uniforms today. The ones on the athletes look pretty good. They’re giving Ohio State a very hard time, too. tOSU might not be number one tomorrow.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          It turned out somewhat like the Michigan game — a valiant effort for slightly more than one half before a lack of depth did the Terps in — with the only difference being this time, the offense showed up.

          Maryland is heading into an open week, meaning Edsall’s expected dismissal could come today or tomorrow to give the interim guy (Locksley, most likely) time to prepare for Penn State on Oct. 24. (That game will be played in Baltimore, replacing a previous agreement the Terps had to host Virginia Tech there back in ACC days. While a 2018 game vs. Texas is already committed to FedEx, expect all future Big Ten home games to be played at College Park.)

          But things won’t be quiet on campus next Saturday with Maryland Madness scheduled, as Mark and Brenda unveil their Top 5 programs to the public.

          Like

  72. ccrider55 says:

    Well that should buy Charlie Strong some time, and walk Bullet back from the edge. 🙂

    Greg’s chest beginning to puff up a bit?

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      The way things look the B1G Title Game might be Rudock’s Revenge.

      Like

    • greg says:

      “Greg’s chest beginning to puff up a bit?”

      I’m just enjoying the ride. 🙂

      Like

    • Mack says:

      Yes, Charlie Strong will now coach Texas in 2016; however, that should not be a relief for Texas fans. How did Michigan giving RichRod 3 years turn out? Harbaugh has shown that with the talent that schools like Michigan and Texas get a good coach should come in and win immediately. It is not just Strong’s W-L record. The large number of penalties Texas gets and special teams play are indications of poor coaching. It will be better for the new AD since he will be on the job for half a year before he has to review Strong’s performance.

      As far as Maryland’s situation, I think a lot of boosters thought he would be out of there last year. Getting rid if him now will not improve the 2015 record, but will quiet the boosters.

      North Texas had no rumors, but after losing to a FCS team by 59 points for a 0-5 record this year the coach was gone within the hour. The person that scheduled Portland State should have been fired (maybe that was the coach). Texas has lots of lousy FCS teams they could have played.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        There aren’t many Harbaugh’s around, and I’m going to wager that Texas won’t get any of Harbaugh/Meyer/Saban if they get rid of Strong. If Longhorns fans get rid of any coach who doesn’t meet that standard after 2-3 years, I’m afraid that you folks will stay perpetually disappointed.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        The North Texas AD should be fired for the way he handled it, calling him out of a team meeting.

        Like

  73. Duffman says:

    0 & 1 loss teams after 6 weeks and who picked up 2nd loss
    ________________________________________________

    ACC / 14 teams / 5 teams remain
    (2) | 5-0 Clemson and Florida State
    (3) | 5-1 Duke + 4-1 North Carolina and Pittsburgh
    (x) | Syracuse, NC State, and Miami picked up 2nd loss

    B12 / 10 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 6-0 Oklahoma State and TCU + 5-0 Baylor
    (1) | 4-1 Oklahoma
    (x) | Kansas State and West Virginia picked up 2nd loss

    B1G / 14 teams / 6 teams remain
    (3) | 6-0 Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa
    (3) | 5-1 Northwestern, Penn State, and Michigan
    (x) | Indiana and Illinois picked up 2nd loss

    PAC / 12 teams / 4 teams remain
    (1) | 5-0 Utah
    (3) | 5-1 California + 4-1 Stanford and UCLA
    (x) | Southern Cal picked up 2nd loss

    SEC / 14 teams / 6 teams remain
    (3) | 6-0 Florida + 5-0 Texas A&M and LSU
    (3) | 5-1 Alabama and Mississippi + 4-1 Kentucky
    (x) | Georgia and Missouri picked up 2nd loss

    IND / 3 teams / 1 team remain
    (1) | 5-1 Notre Dame

    ————————————————

    AAC / 12 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 5-0 Temple, Memphis, and Houston
    (1) | 4-1 Navy
    (x) | none this week

    CUSA / 13 teams / 2 teams remain
    (2) | 5-1 Western Kentucky and Marshall
    (x) | none this week

    MAC / 13 teams / 2 teams remain
    (1) | 5-0 Toledo
    (1) | 5-1 Ohio
    (x) | none this week

    MWC / 12 teams / 1 team remain
    (1) | 5-1 Boise State
    (x) | none this week

    SUN / 11 teams / 2 teams remain
    (2) | 4-1 Georgia Southern and Appalachian State
    (x) | none this week

    Like

    • Duffman says:

      Undefeated teams in action in week 7 (all games listed in EST)

      Friday, October 16
      —————————-
      9 pm / ESPNU / Houston (5-0, 2-0) @ Tulane (2-3, 1-1)

      Saturday, October 16
      —————————-
      B1G
      12 pm / ABC ESPN2 / Iowa (6-0, 2-0) @ Northwestern (5-1, 1-1)
      3:30 pm / ESPN / Michigan State (6-0, 2-0) @ Michigan (5-1, 2-0)
      8 pm / ABC / Penn State (5-1, 2-0) @ Ohio State (6-0, 2-0)

      ACC
      12 pm / ESPN / Louisville (2-3, 1-1) @ Florida State (5-0, 3-0)
      7 pm / ESPNU / Boston College (3-3, 0-3) @ Clemson (5-0, 2-0)

      B12
      12 pm / ? / West Virginia (3-2, 0-2) @ Baylor (5-0, 2-0)
      7 pm / ESPN 2 / TCU (6-0, 3-0) @ Iowa State (2-3, 1-1)

      PAC
      10 pm / ESPN / Arizona State (4-2, 2-1) @ Utah (5-0, 2-0)

      SEC
      3:30 pm / ? / Alabama (5-1, 2-1) @ Texas A&M (5-0, 2-0)
      7 pm / ESPN / Florida (6-0, 4-0) @ LSU (5-0, 3-0)

      OTR
      12 pm / ESPN3 / Eastern Michigan (1-5, 0-2) @ Toledo (5-0, 2-0)
      12 pm / ABC ESPN2 / Mississippi (5-1, 2-1) @ Memphis (5-0, 2-0)
      7:30 pm / ? / Central Florida (0-6, 0-2) @ Temple (5-0, 2-0)
      ————————————————
      DNP
      Oklahoma State (6-0, 3-0)

      Like

    • Tom says:

      I’m currently a grad student at Georgetown so I’ve followed Maryland football a fair amount the past year. I get that Edsall wasn’t the guy that was going to lead Maryland to new heights but we all knew that last year so why bring him back for another year? And once you’ve committed to bringing him back, why not give him the full season to see how things play out? Aside from the Bowling Green game, the first half of the season went exactly how most people expected. MD was a heavy road underdog to both WVU and OSU, and lost both. Entering the season maybe Michigan was beatable but the way UM is playing now, there’s no shame in a loss (MD was actually far more competitive against UM than NW). Plus, the second half of the schedule is much more manageable with really only two games (at Iowa, at MSU) that would be considered unwinnable.

      Again, I’m an outsider so maybe there were other factors at play that may have forced the ADs hand. It will be interesting to see who they go after.

      Like

  74. vp19 says:

    Southern Cal news: Sarkasian is taking a leave of absence, according to KSPN in Los Angeles.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      He’s going to rehab for substance abuse issues. Apparently he’s going through a divorce and he already mixed alcohol and medication once this season. People claim he was not himself Sunday at meetings and then he didn’t go to practice.

      Like

      • GEO says:

        Re: Sark

        It is time – since this is as public as it gets – that we should have a National Campaign that helps recognize, help, and most importantly not put shame on people who have an addiction to drugs or alcohol. Especially alcohol bc it happens to be legal. Let people come out of the closet so to speak…. Most, believe me, want help and scream internally for help. I am not a USC fan but I am a man who believes that if someone needs help then we should try to help. He is exposed – he should be more exposed to bring awareness. Most stories of people who drink too much come months or years after the fact. Not today. We should not make this anonymous anymore. Step up, reach out, help those who need help. They want it, they need it, and they deserve our compassion. I truly feel bad for him.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          GEO,

          “It is time – since this is as public as it gets – that we should have a National Campaign that helps recognize, help, and most importantly not put shame on people who have an addiction to drugs or alcohol. Especially alcohol bc it happens to be legal.”

          I’m happy to recognize it as an illness, but it’s still a self-inflicted one (like lung cancer for a smoker). You knew the substance was potentially addictive when you took it. I have more sympathy for those that get hooked on pain medication due to an illness or injury getting the habit formed.

          It’s not shameful to be an addict (although some of their behavior is shameful – that’s how they can hit rock bottom), but they have to want help to get better. Sark went to rehab while denying he had an alcohol problem. That denial is problematic.

          Hollywood is full of addicts and people don’t shame them much.

          “I am not a USC fan but I am a man who believes that if someone needs help then we should try to help.”

          We can try to help him help himself, but he has to do the work. There are some drugs in development that may help treat addiction, though.

          That said, USC had to fire him. How could they send an addict into homes to recruit high school kids? No good parents would be fine with a raging alcoholic guiding their children. After he gets treatment and proves he can stay sober for a while, then he can recruit again. But he probably needs to go to the NFL as an assistant for a while.

          Like

          • GEO says:

            Obviously you don’t understand addiction. Most addicted drinkers and smokers start when they are in their teen years. But I am certain you are perfect – and probably 26 years old as well.

            Millions of people drink and aren’t addicted nor do they show up for work drunk. He needs help and we as a society need to stop shaming people who are addicted. But you go ahead. Your views are light years ahead of anything else I have read on this subject. Thanks for your insight Mr. Perfect. Do you drink? Bc if you do and once you actually become an adult you may be next.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            GEO,

            “Obviously you don’t understand addiction.”

            Right. Because nobody can disagree with you and understand addiction.

            “Most addicted drinkers and smokers start when they are in their teen years.”

            So? Did I say otherwise? And in this specific case, his drinking didn’t become a problem until his divorce. He’s not a teenager now.

            “But I am certain you are perfect”

            Thank you.

            “and probably 26 years old as well.”

            I wish.

            “Millions of people drink and aren’t addicted nor do they show up for work drunk.”

            And millions of people get divorced without becoming an alcoholic. Sark isn’t one of those millions.

            “He needs help”

            Yes, he does. Luckily he can afford a great rehab clinic.

            “and we as a society need to stop shaming people who are addicted.”

            It isn’t shaming to point out their dumb decisions that led to their problem.

            “But you go ahead.”

            Will do.

            “Do you drink?”

            Not much. If it became a habit, then I’d start to worry about it.

            Like

  75. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Say it ain’t so, Steve (Spurrier)! Retired immediately after my Tigers crushed his Gamecocks. Even though he used to run it up on my Tigers in the 90s, I always liked him. Heck, I wanted him be the LSU coach not once but twice. In 87, Spurrier applied and didn’t get called back for a second interview. Again, in 04, I was hoping Spurrier had not signed the South Carolina contract, when Nick Saban gave a Christmas Day announcement that he was leaving LSU for the Dolphins.

    Here’s Clay Travis’ ode to the HBC, OBC, or as I always liked to call him . . . Darth Visor.

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/god-bless-steve-spurrier-101215

    Like

  76. Brian says:

    http://btn.com/2015/10/12/btn-shatters-viewership-mark-with-record-saturday/

    As Frank tweeted, BTN set records on Saturday for ratings.

    The Big Ten Network saw its highest viewership in its history on Saturday, with four of the top-18 football teams in the country playing on the network. For the day (12p-12a), BTN earned a 2.04 HH rating in the network’s 12 metered markets,* and topped its previous record set in November 2014 by 30 percent.

    BTN’s games were the highest rated across all cable networks in Baltimore, Chicago, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit and Washington, D.C. and second in Indianapolis, Milwaukee, New York and Philadelphia.**

    “The heightened interest in Big Ten football around the country has generated increased enthusiasm for the conference, the schools and BTN,” said BTN President Mark Silverman. “The results from Saturday’s games have exceeded even our most optimistic expectations.”

    The noon ET game featuring Maryland at No. 1 Ohio State, a 49-28 Buckeye win, averaged a 2.6 HH rating in the network’s 12 metered markets. The 3:30 p.m. ET matchup between No. 13 Northwestern and No. 18 Michigan resulted in the Wolverines’ third-consecutive shutout and delivered a 2.3 HH rating.

    The 8 p.m. ET primetime game showcased No. 4 Michigan State at Rutgers, with the Spartans needing a touchdown in the final minute to secure the victory. Overall, the game earned a 1.7 HH rating.

    It was also a record day across BTN’s digital and social media platforms, with all three games registering among the top-10 most viewed events on BTN2Go, the network’s digital extension. BTN’s social platforms saw record-breaking traffic, including 1.5 million video views across BTN.com, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The Big Ten Network Vine account (@BigTenNetwork) also marked its highest-ever looped Vine, receiving more than 345K loops from Braxton Miller’s highlight move vs. Maryland.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      What does an “HH” rating mean? Anyone?

      Like

      • Carl says:

        Household.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “What does an “HH” rating mean? Anyone?”

        As Carl said, HH means household. A HH rating is the percentage of all households with a TV that were tuned to that channel. There are roughly 115M TV households, so a 1.0 would mean 1.15M households were watching.

        The other common terms are share, which is the percentage of TVs that were on that were tuned to that channel (useful because it normalizes for the variation in total viewers on different dates and times) and total viewers which is self-explanatory.

        Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          “There are roughly 115M TV households”

          note, that’s the number for the US as a whole, the BTN is only measuring viewing in big cities across the Big Ten footprint. Still a large number, but not comparable to the national numbers that ESPN, FS1, etc. release.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            “note, that’s the number for the US as a whole, the BTN is only measuring viewing in big cities across the Big Ten footprint.”

            Yes, they reported the rating only for the 12 metered markets so the HH rating would only be out of all the households in those 12 markets (and could be extrapolated for the whole footprint). I was giving the generic explanation.

            http://btn.com/2014/11/25/btn-has-highest-viewership-ever-studio-crew-coming-to-madison/

            From an older BTN article, here are the 12 markets (they forgot to include their footnotes in the recent piece):

            *Source: Nielsen Arianna Overnights (11/22/14). Metered Markets: Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

            http://www.tvb.org/media/file/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf

            Here are the actual numbers of TV households according to Nielsen:
            1. New York – 7,368,320
            3. Chicago – 3,475,220
            4. Philadelphia – 2,917,920
            7. DC – 2,443,640
            13. Detroit – 1,828,230
            15. Minneapolis – 1,723,210
            18. Cleveland – 1,493,160
            26. Baltimore – 1,099,890
            27. Indianapolis – 1,073,090
            31. Columbus – 907,530
            35. Milwaukee – 882,210
            62. Dayton – 462,200

            That’s 25,974,620 HH, so about 530,000 HH were watching BTN on average during that day. Each HH is a little over 2 people usually, so call it 1.1M viewers. And that’s just in the metered markets. Factor in the whole footprint and it’s closer to 2M viewers. That’s not a huge number compared to a major channel, but it gives you an idea how it stacks up.

            “Still a large number, but not comparable to the national numbers that ESPN, FS1, etc. release.”

            Very true. The B10 footprint is only about 30% of the US population. You can extrapolate that 2.04 HH rating to the whole footprint, but you also have to assume almost no viewers elsewhere.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Huh. They don’t meter Pittsburgh or Cincy or Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek (or St. Louis). All far bigger than Dayton. Harrisburg/Lancaster/York and Wilkes Barre/Scanton are also bigger than Dayton. And Green Bay, Flint, Des Moines, Omaha, and Toledo are almost as big as Dayton.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “Huh. They don’t meter Pittsburgh or Cincy or Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek (or St. Louis). All far bigger than Dayton. Harrisburg/Lancaster/York and Wilkes Barre/Scanton are also bigger than Dayton. And Green Bay, Flint, Des Moines, Omaha, and Toledo are almost as big as Dayton.”

            I thought it was odd, too. I started making the list from Nielsen’s DMA list and noted I was well past 12, so I went and found that older article that lists the 12 markets.

            Like

  77. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13895102/pac-12-commish-larry-scott-says-consider-containing-college-basketball-season-single-semester

    Larry Scott thinks MBB should consider becoming a one-semester sport by pushing back the start date. Jim Delany agrees but sees potential issues with it.

    “I think that’s an intriguing concept that we absolutely ought to explore,” Scott said during the conference’s media day event.

    He added that he doesn’t want to diminish the mass appeal of March Madness at the conclusion of the season, but he said that a one-semester college basketball season would create advantages for the game and help the sport avoid the “overlap” that unfolds each fall.

    He mentioned that “overlap can be a challenge,” with college basketball’s start intersecting with the MLB playoffs, NFL, NBA, NFL and college football.

    “As part of that consideration, we have to realize that March Madness is something very unique,” Scott said. “I do love the idea of making college basketball a one-semester sport, a little bit more compact. That all makes sense on a lot of levels. I think the balance of that is what would it do to the way the college basketball season ends?”

    Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany also acknowledged preliminary discussions about a new-look college hoops calendar, but he saw potential conflicts with other events and the NCAA’s television partners as a likely obstacle to change.

    “Can we move it into a middle of December start time?” Delany asked. “If you pick up a month there, you’re talking about a month on the back end. You’re talking about competition with NBA playoffs. You’re talking about the start of the baseball season. You’re talking about conflicts with [The Masters]. … I don’t think it’s an easy answer at all.”

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      If you only care about where college basketball is in relation to college football & pro sports, this is a good idea.

      If you care about college sports in general, this is a lousy idea. Backing up basketball on top of baseball, lacrosse, softball, gymnastics, track, etc. is not good for college athletics. Hopefully this won’t pass.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        m (Ag),

        “If you only care about where college basketball is in relation to college football & pro sports, this is a good idea.

        If you care about college sports in general, this is a lousy idea. Backing up basketball on top of baseball, lacrosse, softball, gymnastics, track, etc. is not good for college athletics. Hopefully this won’t pass.”

        Football already dominates all the fall sports. Why should the spring sports be protected from hoops? Besides, the regular season ends in early March right now (would shift to early April). The other sports would have time to be out of basketball’s shadow except for the tournament, and that involves relatively few teams after one weekend.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “Why should the spring sports be protected from hoops?”

          Because traditionally basketball is a winter sport?

          I like three seasons with their traditional sports. FB should end at the new year. BkB all should end in March (preferably early). BsB, track, softball, etc should run through the end of the academic year.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Because traditionally basketball is a winter sport?”

            Not really. It’s a year-round sport. It’s traditionally a winter sport in schools, but that tradition started when season were shorter and most schools were on quarters. Also, a shift in the season would make it a one-semester sport which is something the academics deem greatly preferable (see their resistance to letting any other sport be two-semester).

            “I like three seasons with their traditional sports.”

            In an ideal world, so do I. But FB and MBB are the moneymakers in general, so they need to be given some preference to maximize the revenue for the AD. Everyone is worried about people not paying attention to MBB until March, and one reason is that the OOC games are overshadowed by FB. Another is the long season with more tournament games.

            The 1960 national champs played 28 total games (4 postseason, 14 conference, 10 OOC), starting on 12/1. The regular season ended on 3/5 and the tournament ended on 3/19.

            The 2015 champs played 39 total games (8 postseason, 18 conference, 13 OOC), starting on 11/14 (2 exhibition games before that starting on 11/4). The regular season ended on 3/7 and the tournament ended on 4/6. That’s 2.5-4 weeks added to the start and 2 weeks added to the end. Moving the start of the season back to December would be more traditional than leaving it where it is. Eliminating 5-7 games would help, too.

            “FB should end at the new year.”

            Agreed.

            “BkB all should end in March (preferably early).”

            Fine by me. Just stop starting it in November.

            “BsB, track, softball, etc should run through the end of the academic year.”

            It still overlaps a lot since spring semesters tend to end in early May rather than the early to mid-June end of spring quarter.

            How about moving some “spring” sports to summer? That’s really when baseball should be played.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I’d rather let academics dictate sports schedules rather than hoary old notions concerning tradition.
            “‘Cuz that’s the way it was done when I was a young’un” has always struck me as a very weak argument.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            That hoary old notion of seasonal sports is born of the academic calendar.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “How about moving some “spring” sports to summer?”

            Because most of the students are off during the summer. It is college sports, and college sports in general are most successful in college towns that are depopulated during the summers.

            And spring sports have been growing in popularity around the country (baseball in several places; lacrosse in the Big Ten & ACC footprints; softball and women’s gymnastics in the SEC). Indications are that conference networks are boosting this growth. Sabotaging that by throwing basketball against those sports would be a poor decision by college administrators.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            “Because most of the students are off during the summer.”

            More are around now than ever before and the diversity of courses offered over summers continues to improve. Besides, very few students attend any of the spring sports anyway. If athletes are all going to be working out all year anyway, it makes sense to spread the seasons over the whole year.

            “It is college sports, and college sports in general are most successful in college towns that are depopulated during the summers.”

            There is zero evidence that playing over summer would harm anything but student attendance. Since most sports get almost zero attendance and make no money, a drop in attendance is irrelevant. Alumni and adult fans can attend summer games just as easily (if not more easily) as spring games.

            “And spring sports have been growing in popularity around the country (baseball in several places; lacrosse in the Big Ten & ACC footprints; softball and women’s gymnastics in the SEC).”

            Then moving hoops shouldn’t be a problem since those sports already overlap the tourney.

            “Indications are that conference networks are boosting this growth.”

            They’ll show whatever is being played in spring and would probably love to have live games to show over summer. Nothing draws ratings like live games.

            “Sabotaging that by throwing basketball against those sports would be a poor decision by college administrators.”

            Why? Are those other sports going to make them more money than hoops? It’s their duty to try to maximize their revenue streams to reduce AD deficits.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Ccrider:

            Not really, and if it was, it was the academic calendar of over a century ago. These days, most American schools are on a semester system.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            There has been talk about separating the women’s and men’s college basketball seasons so they don’t run completely concurrently, though the difference wouldn’t be more than a few weeks. WBB is a growing sport, perhaps now #3 on the college sports totem pole, and one certainly more geographically balanced than college baseball, although the relative competitive imbalance for now weakens its appeal. Then again, UCLA’s dominance hampered the growth of MBB until the ’70s, and so should WBB competitively develop once the run of the Evil Empire of Storrs finally comes to an end.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Baseball gets pretty good attendance in a lot of places. Last year LSU averaged 10,880 a game. 33 schools averaged over 2,000 a game. That included 12 members of the SEC and schools as varied as Creighton, Nebraska, Rice and Southern Miss.

            Some of the larger track meets get very good attendance.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Hockey gets pretty good attendance some places as well, and they manage to do just fine even while basketball is going on.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Baseball gets pretty good attendance in a lot of places. Last year LSU averaged 10,880 a game. 33 schools averaged over 2,000 a game. That included 12 members of the SEC and schools as varied as Creighton, Nebraska, Rice and Southern Miss.

            Some of the larger track meets get very good attendance.”

            I specifically mentioned student attendance. Summer is at least as easy as spring for everyone else. How many students are attending these games, and how much would that drop over summer? More importantly, how much are they paying for tickets (since revenue is the key here)? Students will attend whatever games are going on, just like TV will show whichever games are going on. And why shouldn’t summer students get to have games to attend?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I imagine it is mostly students.

            Often there is a single athletic fee, so it might not be much of a revenue enhancer. But that’s not the sole factor. And its also a burden on the athletes who can’t get summer jobs or interships.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “I imagine it is mostly students.”

            That wasn’t my experience at GT but I don’t have any hard data either way.

            “Often there is a single athletic fee, so it might not be much of a revenue enhancer. But that’s not the sole factor.”

            No, but it is a major factor here because MBB is a revenue sport.

            “And its also a burden on the athletes who can’t get summer jobs or interships.”

            Many of them can’t do that now anyway because they’re always working out and/or training. Besides, they could shift that to fall like some co-op students do.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            If we’re not concerned about student attendance, then move men’s basketball to the summer. It will get high ratings there (only competing with MLB for awhile), allowing the rest of college sports to get more exposure in their traditional places on the calendar.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            “If we’re not concerned about student attendance,”

            1. I’m only saying that from a revenue standpoint.
            2. Nobody presented any data on student attendance for the non-revenue sports so it’s hard to discuss the impact a calendar shift might have on the numbers.

            “then move men’s basketball to the summer. It will get high ratings there (only competing with MLB for awhile), allowing the rest of college sports to get more exposure in their traditional places on the calendar.”

            Any TV executive will tell you that summer is the worst season for TV ratings. You don’t move your biggest product there (NCAA tourney funds all the rest of the NCAA activities).

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            There are fewer viewers in the summer (possibly leading to lower ratings), but there is also much less competition from other sports or the best scripted television (possibly leading to higher ratings). The networks are increasingly programming year round as people have largely stopped watching reruns; regular season college basketball would probably find itself on broadcast TV at least on Fridays & Saturdays nights. This would boost the TV value.

            I’m not advocating changing the schedule. But if they think college basketball is purely a TV product that has to get out of the shadow of other sports, move it to the summer.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Unlike baseball, a shift to summer for basketball might incur significant extra expense as the arenas have to be cooled at great expense (people help provide the heat during winter).

            Also, baseball would work better nationally in the summer versus the current schedule which clearly disadvantages the northern schools.

            Like

  78. Brian says:

    There’s been a lot of legal wrangling over daily fantasy sports (FanDuel, DraftKings, etc) and gambling lately.

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13897401/daily-fantasy-outlawed-nevada-gaming-control-board-being-unlicensed-gambling

    An important decision just came from NV as the Gaming Control Board just outlawed unlicensed DFS in NV. The operators could apply for gaming licenses but must cease and desist for now. The casinos do host fantasy sports.

    DFS is already illegal in 5 states and more are looking into it. This decision by NV may sway other states since NV is more experienced dealing with gambling.

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13897169/nfl-looking-prevent-congressional-hearing-ties-daily-fantasy-sports

    Meanwhile, the NFL is trying to stop congress from looking into the NFL’s ties to fantasy sports and avoid a hearing on DFS in general.

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13878338/federal-trade-commission-asked-investigate-daily-fantasy-operators

    In addition, the DOJ, FBI, FTC and multiple state agencies all have been asked to look into various aspects of DFS.

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13884984/federal-appeals-court-grants-new-jersey-rehearing-sports-betting-case

    Also, a federal appeals court granted NJ a rehearing on their fight to legalize sports betting in NJ.

    Meanwhile, ESPN is ratcheting up their gambling coverage

    Like

  79. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25342331/conference-usa-to-name-judy-macleod-as-first-female-fbs-commissioner

    CUSA is about to officially break the I-A commissioner gender barrier by making their interim commish the permanent one.

    Like

  80. Brian says:

    Wow, it looks like MI caught NE’s terrible luck.

    MI had 4th and 2 at MSU’s 47 with 10 seconds left. Punting was probably the right call but the risks of a big return, block or bad snap are high enough to make it a risky call. Hopefully the punter gets over it and doesn’t catch too much flak online.

    Like

  81. Duffman says:

    0 & 1 loss teams after 7 weeks and who picked up 2nd loss
    ________________________________________________

    ACC 35.71% / 14 teams / 5 teams remain
    (2) | 6-0 Clemson and Florida State
    (3) | 5-1 Duke, North Carolina and Pittsburgh
    (x) | none this week

    B12 40.00% / 10 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 7-0 TCU + 6-0 Oklahoma State and Baylor
    (1) | 5-1 Oklahoma
    (x) | none this week

    B1G 21.43 / 14 teams / 3 teams remain
    (3) | 7-0 Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa
    (0) | none this week
    (x) | Northwestern, Penn State, and Michigan picked up 2nd loss

    PAC 25.00% / 12 teams / 3 teams remain
    (1) | 6-0 Utah
    (2) | 5-1 California and Stanford
    (x) | UCLA picked up 2nd loss

    SEC 28.57%/ 14 teams / 4 teams remain
    (1) | 6-0 LSU
    (3) | 6-1 Alabama and Florida + 5-1 Texas A&M
    (x) | Mississippi and Kentucky picked up 2nd loss

    IND 33.33% / 3 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 6-1 Notre Dame

    ————————————————

    AAC 33.33% / 12 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 6-0 Temple, Memphis, and Houston
    (1) | 4-1 Navy
    (x) | none this week

    CUSA 15.38 / 13 teams / 2 teams remain
    (2) | 6-1 Western Kentucky and Marshall
    (x) | none this week

    MAC 7.69% / 13 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 6-0 Toledo
    (0) | none this week
    (x) | Ohio picked up 2nd loss

    MWC 0.00% / 12 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 7
    (0) | none this week
    (x) | Boise State picked up 2nd loss

    SUN 18.18% / 11 teams / 2 teams remain
    (2) | 5-1 Georgia Southern and Appalachian State
    (x) | none this week

    Like

    • Duffman says:

      Undefeated teams in action in week 8 (all games listed in EST)

      Thursday, October 22
      —————————-
      AAC vs AAC
      7 pm / ESPN2 / 22 Temple (6-0, 3-0) @ East Carolina (4-3, 2-1)

      Friday, October 23
      —————————-
      AAC vs AAC
      8 pm / ESPN / 18 Memphis (6-0, 2-0) @ Tulsa (3-3, 0-2)

      Saturday, October 16
      —————————-
      B1G vs B1G
      3:30 pm / ABC ESPN2 / Indiana (4-3, 0-3) @ 7 Michigan State (7-0, 3-0)
      8 pm / ABC / 1 Ohio State (7-0, 3-0) @ Rutgers (3-3, 1-2)

      ACC vs ACC
      12 pm / ABC / 6 Clemson (6-0, 3-0) @ Miami (4-2, 1-1)
      7 pm / ESPN2 / 9 Florida State (6-0, 4-0) @ Georgia Tech (2-5, 0-4)

      B12 vs B12
      12 pm / ESPN / Iowa State (2-4, 1-2) @ 2 Baylor (6-0, 3-0)
      3:30 pm / FOXS1 / Kansas (0-6, 0-3) @ 14 Oklahoma State (6-0, 3-0)

      PAC vs PAC
      7:30 pm / FOX / 3 Utah (6-0, 3-0) @ Southern California (3-3, 1-2)

      SEC vs CUSA
      7 pm / ESPNU / Western Kentucky (6-1, 3-1) @ 5 LSU (6-0, 4-0)

      AAC vs AAC
      12 pm / ESPNN / 21 Houston (6-0, 3-0) @ Central Florida (0-7, 0-3)

      MAC vs MAC
      3 pm / ESPN3 / 19 Toledo (6-0, 3-0) @ Massachusetts (1-5, 0-2)

      ————————————————
      DNP
      Iowa (7-0, 3-0)
      TCU (7-0, 4-0)

      Like

  82. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches poll:
    1. OSU
    2. Baylor
    3. TCU
    4. MSU
    5. LSU
    6. Clemson
    7. Utah
    8. AL
    9. FSU
    10. ND

    Big movers/B10:
    11. Stanford +5
    13. IA +4
    16. TAMU -6
    17. MI -3
    17. Memphis +5
    20. Toledo +5
    23. MS -11
    27. WI

    ACC – 3/14 = 21%
    B10 – 4/14 = 28%
    B12 – 4/10 = 40%
    P12 – 3/12 = 25%
    SEC – 6/14 = 43%
    Other – 5

    It’s looking like a fun race for the G5 spot in the NY6 bowls with Memphis, Toledo, Houston and Temple all in the poll.

    Like

  83. bullet says:

    Hasn’t gotten much notice, perhaps because it was a local OU radio guy, but Bowlsby made some interesting comments to him:

    Toby Rowland ‏@TRowOU · Oct 12
    I asked B12 Commish Bob Bowlsby Saturday on air to predict what the B12 looks like in 5 years. He answered, “without a championship game…

    Toby Rowland ‏@TRowOU · Oct 12
    “…w/out a network, w/out being at 12 or even larger, we probably if you add all those things up may be at a little bit of a disadvantage.”

    Like

  84. bullet says:

    The usual suspects:
    Dude of WV Big 12 isn’t expanding unless they miss out on the ccg (a little reason from the Dude), but then, his short list is BYU (almost a lock if they expand according to him), Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, ECU and UConn (he must have gotten this from an ECU “insider”). Says Houston is not being considered.

    Minnesota’s dude-greg flugaur likes to troll the WV dude, but he was saying it was between BYU, Houston and UCF. Until last week. Suddenly BYU and UCF were out and Cincinnati is in and 12th is between Houston and Memphis. Houston is definitely a serious candidate. And Big 12 will expand for 2017 season.

    MHVer3 has been twitter silent lately, but about a month ago he was mentioning BYU, Houston and Memphis, with Cincinnati, UCF, Boise, SDSU and Colorado St. in the running and Big 12 will likely expand by 2.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      Don’t forget the other tinfoil hat, https://twitter.com/gswaim

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Swaim usually seems to copy the WV dude. I scanned quickly and saw a comment that BYU was #1-same as the Dude. Houston, Cincinnati and Boise were other candidates. So he differs on Houston who the wv dude swears up and down in not being considered (the UH president has a picture on her twitter giving a UH book to Baylor’s president Ken Starr so they are clearly getting some attention).

        Haven’t seen mentioned on here but UH regent Fertitta making comments again, saying better than 50% chance UH ends up in a major conference in the next few years. Based on the polls and the ooc record (almost the same as the ACC), they may already be in one.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      meant to say “unless they miss out on the playoffs”

      Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Had a weird thought as I was watching BYU conclude its second Friday night home game of this season against an AAC opponent – if nothing comes of the B-12 expansion talk, BYU, Army and one other G5er should join the AAC which then should be split into 3 divisions “headlined” by a service academy: East – Army, South – Navy, West-Air Force.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Or BYU, Air Force, Army, Navy, Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane in one division;
        Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU, Temple, UConn and Cincinnati in the other.
        That might be a lineup that could attract BYU, Army and Air Force.

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          The private division could just morph into its own league if it is decidely not about player compensation – Wake Forest and Vandy just said hmmm…..

          Like

  85. bullet says:

    There’s been enough talk by presidents and the commissioner, I’m beginning to think the Big 12 will try to become mathematically accurate, leaving the Big 10 and Atlantic 10 in the silly names category (maybe the Horizon and Summit as well, but they aren’t mathematically silly). Big 10 could be alone if the Big East decides to help the A10 correct itself by a raid.

    There is a tactical question. Do they expand before the Big 10 renewal in case Fox and ESPN bust the bank and are reluctant to pay much for a Big 12 ccg? Or do they wait as the networks may be holding time slots and dollars in reserve in order to bid on the Big 10 and the “loser” will be anxious to get that Big 12 ccg?

    Like

  86. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13927159/former-louisville-cardinals-basketball-players-recruits-acknowledge-stripper-parties-minardi-hall

    Things are getting pretty ugly at UL. Will Pitino survive again or is this the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back?

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Knocks out Jurich out of the AD sweepstakes (UT, USC if Haden takes doctors advice) as well. Damned either way – if he “takes out Pitino” a lot of coaches are not going to bother interviewing.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Heard they are renaming the playing surface the “S-court”.

      Like

  87. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13930709/rich-rodriguez-arizona-wildcats-rips-scheduling-pac-12-conference

    P12 coaches aren’t happy with the schedules they’ve been getting all filled with night games. It’s the price the P12 chose to pay to get a bigger TV deal, but now coaches are bringing up player welfare.

    Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez unloaded on the Pac-12 Monday, accusing the league of not caring about student-athlete welfare because of continued late kickoff times.

    The Wildcats, who play 12 straight games without a bye week, have had a 5 p.m. or later kickoff in five of their seven games so far this season. The news that their Oct. 31 game at Washington is an 8 p.m. kickoff, followed by a road trip to USC the following weekend, is what set off Rodriguez during his news conference.

    “I just found out that the game at Washington is at night, so we will get back at 5 in the morning,” Rodriguez said. “I just don’t understand how this happens when you play 12 straight games, then you play night road games and then we are going to play an 8 p.m. road game at Washington, get back at 5 in the morning and then have to go back on the road again. If the conference is really concerned about student-athlete welfare, I think someone should step in, because when do guys get a chance to get healthy? They are not getting treatments on the plane. They can try to sleep, but they are not getting a whole lot of rest when they are traveling. It is just ridiculous in my opinion.”

    I know coaches are notorious whiners about schedules, but all night games is a fan issue too.

    One small suggestion for RichRod, though – make the school pay for hotel rooms after the game instead of flying straight home. At least that way the players can sleep.

    Rodriguez is the second Pac-12 coach in the last couple of weeks to show displeasure at the league’s scheduling. Earlier this month, UCLA coach Jim Mora was frustrated that the Bruins had to play back-to-back Thursday night games, saying, “It’s unbelievable that we’re calling these kids student-athletes, and yet we’re going to force them to miss six days of school so they can play two football games in a row on Thursday nights.”

    Why on earth do players need to miss 3 days of classes for a Thursday night game? They can’t travel on Wednesday night or Thursday morning?

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Depends on where they go and how cheap the athletic department is. If they take the bus from UCLA to Stanford, that’s 5:30 on the bus. Probably a half-hour to load everything and an hour to unload everything and get everything in to the hotel. 1 hour break to eat. If they want to have a (late) 8PM dinner, they’d have to leave by noon (or 1PM at latest). So any afternoon classes on Wednesday would be shot.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      One small suggestion for RichRod, though – make the school pay for hotel rooms after the game instead of flying straight home. At least that way the players can sleep.

      Really! ASU-get a room!

      Like

    • bullet says:

      With the NFL taking over Thursday nights, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the P5 give up on TH night non-holiday games in their next contract round. Ratings are much higher the one or two weeks when there isn’t NFL competition. Those games can’t be worth as much as ESPN and Fox anticipated when they did the deals.

      Like

  88. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13926103/crucial-games-litter-second-half-college-football-season

    We’ve got an exciting November coming up.

    ESPN lists 10 of the most important games remaining in chronological order:
    11/7
    FSU @ Clemson – winner is likely the ACC champ (the Coastal is horrible), loser is out
    LSU @ AL – winner is likely the SEC W champ and probably the SEC champ

    11/21
    MSU @ OSU – MSU has to win to stay alive, first major challenge for OSU
    Cal @ Stanford – winner likely wins the P12N (if Cal stays strong until then)
    Memphis @ Temple – the AAC has 3 undefeated teams right now

    11/27
    Baylor @ TCU

    11/28
    OU @ OkSU
    OSU @ MI
    ND @ Stanford
    FSU @ UF

    Obviously the CCGs are big, too. Also, all the other games between the top 4 in the B12 are in November (none are on CCG Saturday).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://btn.com/2015/10/20/dienhart-we-may-have-to-wait-on-big-ten-title-game-matchup-this-year/

      And then there’s this nugget, say OSU beats MSU while MI beats OSU and all three win out otherwise. The result is a 3-way tie for 1st in the East at 7-1 with all 3 being 1-1 head to head. Going through the tiebreakers, #1-4 wouldn’t decide anything so you get to #5.

      The highest ranked team in the first College Football Playoff poll following the completion of Big Ten regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game, unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other in the College Football Playoff poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game.

      The problem is that the final CFP poll doesn’t come out until Tuesday night at 7pm. That means 3 days of all 3 teams having to prepare both possible opponents. Granted they know each other pretty well, but you really want more than 3 days to put in a gameplan. It could make for an ugly game just when the winner might need the style points to make the CFP.

      In case you wondered, the #6 tiebreaker is overall record which would eliminate MI and OSU would get in over MSU due to the head to head result. I assume this tiebreaker exists in case nobody is ranked in the CFP poll, but if they all have that many losses I’m not sure if it’s possible to get through the first 4 tiebreakers.

      As a reminder, here are the first 4:
      * The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.
      * The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division.
      * The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5, 6, and 7).
      * The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        ??? OSU/MSU/UMich won’t have to play each other again.

        They’d have to play the West winner, which will very likely be known after that Saturday. Sure, 3 teams would have to prepare for the West winner while 2 will be disappointed, but the East winner doesn’t actually suffer a disadvantage.

        The West winner does, but in any case, sloppiness tends to come from poor fundamentals (poor tackling and turnovers), not lack of turnovers. And do you really think the West champ has a chance at the playoffs? I mean, Iowa may have a case if they run thr table and win the CCG, but how likely do you consider that to be?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Richard,

          “??? OSU/MSU/UMich won’t have to play each other again.”

          Yes, sorry, I edited that into a mess.

          As you said, the West champ would have to prepare for all 3 and all 3 East teams would have to prepare for the West champ. That’s wasted effort by 2 of the 3 in the East and an unfair disadvantage for the West champ.

          “And do you really think the West champ has a chance at the playoffs? I mean, Iowa may have a case if they run thr table and win the CCG, but how likely do you consider that to be?”

          I don’t consider it likely but it’d be unfair not to count them as a contender right now. They have a fairly easy schedule to finish out the regular season (UMD, @IN, MN, PU @NE) unless one of those teams starts playing a lot better (currently a combined 3-14 in B10 play). And any given team can win a CCG, especially if the East winner is beaten up and/or emotionally drained.

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        If they get to tie-breaker #5, I suspect there will be a lot of people in the Big Ten saying, “What on earth were we thinking, when we came up with that?”

        Like

  89. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13939337/ncaa-sends-letter-draftkings-fanduel-prohibiting-ads-championship-events

    The NCAA cancelled a scheduled meeting with FanDuel and DraftKings executives and instead banned DFS advertising from all championship events. They also asked that they stop offering DFS for college sports.

    Like

  90. Mike says:

    Wilner tweeting about PAC12 options

    Like

    • Mike says:

      Like

      • Richard says:

        If I was running a company, I would not hire the Pac presidents as a board.

        First, they allowed themselves to get the worst TV deal of the P5 conferences.

        Then, desperate for TV revenue, they gave Scott the mandate of maximizing their next TV contract, which led to all those Thursday and late Saturday games that impact student-athlete welfare adversely.

        Then they took the risk of doing their conference network themselves with no partner, which led weaker distribution of the PTN and the total 12 schools of the Pac taking in money from the PTN that is roughly equal to what one full-share member of the B10 gets from the BTN.

        Then, fat, happy, and content from their new TV deal, they reject a football powerhouse and elite brand in OU, which may hamstring them in the future.

        And finally, they are the only league (who wasn’t raided) who added additions that did not actually drive up the total value of their tier one TV deal.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Not saying you’re completely wrong, but there are probably factors that they value that you do not.
          Universities do not fit neatly in a for profit business model.

          Hanson was behind the times. They moved on to Scott.

          Highlighting student athlete welfare concerns citing travel/times of competition in a sport that causes more traumatic brain injury than any other team sport is a bit disingenuous.

          Their conference network model seems to be what they value. They could sell equity at any time, but they just renewed their commitment to 100% ownership. They see value where you don’t.

          IF OU was in fact turned down, and really was looking to leave, why didn’t they landed in any other conference? That criticism could apply to the other P5 conferences.

          Their adds did allow a ccg, added inventory, made a conf network more viable, brought two new states with respectable and growing metro areas included, two more than adequate academic institutions, and were coming on board as the largest (at that time) T1 contract was signed.
          Not a home run, but a couple solid base hits at a minimum.

          Like

          • One important clarification: the Pac-12 turned down the *pair* of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which is significantly different than turning down Oklahoma alone. I firmly believe that the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC would all be very interested in adding Oklahoma *without* Oklahoma State (such as OU being paired with Kansas). Up to this point, Oklahoma has been a package deal with OKST instead of being a true free agent.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Agreed. Point I was making was the Pac didn’t turn down what other P5 conferences found acceptable. The double cross dependency of OU and UT and siblings leaves me still believing that if OU goes anywhere it’s to the PAC in a redo of the 2010 proposal. But I’m not predicting it to happen, only that nobody else is likely able or willing to make the offer to take four to get two that the PAC made before.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I think that when it comes to adding OU, both the SEC and B10 are in stronger positions in terms of potential adds than thr Pac (while the ACC is too far away).

            As for disingenuous, not really. It’s not like the Pac has given up playing football, and I don’t see how messing up student-athletes’ studies as well as causing brain damage is somehow better or equal to just causing brain damage.

            Or are you saying that the different values that the Pac holds (vs. a purely profit-driven enterprise) includes making student-athlete lives more miserable than a purely profit-driven enterprise would?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Have the B1G and/or SEC decided TT and OkSU are acceptable, and 18 is a good size? Advantage: PAC. They have a card to play the others don’t (this assumes the PAC is willing to make the same offer as 2010), so it would be local politics that would be the deciding factor – can the Kings be separated from their brothers?

            They are still only playing one game per week. Weeks are still seven days? Thursday games just cut into thirsty Thursday activities. Crying about night games is probably lost on LSU. How many visitors to Death Valley get to play afternoon games. Playing night in the desert seems a no brainer, from a player and fan standpoint. All these possibilities were known at the signing of the T1 contract, which has enabled expanded health, training, nutrition, educational resources to be developed.

            Don’t get me wrong. I’d prefer most games on sat afternoon, but what would T1 contract be worth?. The trade off seems fair, although scheduling could be improved perhaps by having ESPN/fox make selections much earlier.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          If I was running a company, I would not hire the Pac presidents as a board.

          That’s not really fair. The Pac-12 holds an intrinsically weak position. They have fewer national brands than the other P5 leagues, and a number of mediocre markets where the passion for football is only lukewarm.

          But they have the same need to fund their athletic facilities as every other P5 league, so they have to schedule games when television wants to broadcast them.

          Then, fat, happy, and content from their new TV deal, they reject a football powerhouse and elite brand in OU, which may hamstring them in the future.

          As FTT noted, what they rejected was the combination of OU+OSU, not Oklahoma alone. I’m not sure I would have taken that deal either. Certainly no other P5 league would.

          And finally, they are the only league (who wasn’t raided) who added additions that did not actually drive up the total value of their tier one TV deal.

          I am pretty sure their deal is worth more than if they had stayed at 10.

          Like

          • frug says:

            You are right that the PAC has an inherently weaker hand than the Big Ten or SEC, but the PAC powers that be have played it played poorly.

            Not only did they did they pull the rug out from under Scott with regards to the Oklahoma schools, when they were given the chance to correct some of that damage the next year (with the Big Ten-PAC scheduling alliance) they did the exact same thing.

            While the PAC’s position in the conference pecking order has marginally improved compared to where they were in 2010 (they have moved ahead of the ACC) they missed a perfect chance to finish off a rival in the Big XII and significantly expand there appeal east of the Rocky mountains.

            Now they are basically stuck in a similar situation to where they were at the start of realignment; well behind the Big Ten and SEC and stuck playing their prime time games after half the country has gone to bed.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            You are right that the PAC has an inherently weaker hand than the Big Ten or SEC, but the PAC powers that be have played it played poorly.

            Not only did they did they pull the rug out from under Scott with regards to the Oklahoma schools, when they were given the chance to correct some of that damage the next year (with the Big Ten-PAC scheduling alliance) they did the exact same thing.

            I have my doubts that the OK/OKSt deal ever would’ve happened, as well as doubts that this was actually a good deal for the parties.

            The Big Ten-PAC scheduling alliance would not have helped the PAC’s problems. Most PAC teams are playing a P5 opponent (or its equivalent) in most years. But instead of spreading those games around the country, they would’ve played Big Ten opponents exclusively. Future series like USC-Texas, UCLA-LSU, UCLA-Georgia, Arizona State-Texas Tech, and so on, wouldn’t have existed.

            Now they are basically stuck in a similar situation to where they were at the start of realignment; well behind the Big Ten and SEC and stuck playing their prime time games after half the country has gone to bed.

            You write as if adding the Oklahoma schools and scheduling Big Ten schools would have obviated the need for prime time games. It wouldn’t.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I have my doubts that the OK/OKSt deal ever would’ve happened, as well as doubts that this was actually a good deal for the parties.

            Well there was nothing that was going to stop it except for the presidents/chancellors and they did.

            The Big Ten-PAC scheduling alliance would not have helped the PAC’s problems. Most PAC teams are playing a P5 opponent (or its equivalent) in most years.

            Colorado and Wazzu are still selling home games because of scheduling problems (and cash issues) which would have stopped with the scheduling alliance.

            And consistent exposure in the Midwest would have ensured them the exposure in the Central and East Time Zones the PAC made clear was one its priorities in expansion.

            You write as if adding the Oklahoma schools and scheduling Big Ten schools would have obviated the need for prime time games. It wouldn’t.

            Except the Oklahoma schools are located in the Central Time zone meaning their prime time games would far more exposure East of the Rockies. That is also true for the Texas and Kansas schools that would have become available after the Big XII collapsed (the Big XII would not have survived without Oklahoma).

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Well there was nothing that was going to stop it except for the presidents/chancellors and they did.”

            Or it was never actually happening. After receiving the BoR approval to explore affiliation change, did the schools take the next step? Or, as one rumor said, did the PAC get informed of OU’s intention to leverage that approval in that coming weeks B12 meetings. A middle of the night announcement about staying at 12 seems like giving UT a heads up and assurance of what the PAC was doing.

            “(the Big XII would not have survived without Oklahoma).”
            UT (and KU BB) could keep it afloat as long as they choose to, as they are doing now.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Not even UT could afford to keep the Big XII afloat for more than a couple years without Oklahoma. The Big XII without Oklahoma would have been a repeat of the SWC after Arkansas left.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I’d also be more inclined to give the PAC presidents the benefit of the doubt that they got some sort of tip off it wasn’t for the fact that they turned around and did the exact same thing the next year with the scheduling alliance with the Big 10.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:

            I agree with you in not understanding the failure of the scheduling agreement, but I don’t think it necessarily indicates anything about potential conference membership offers. One is a “hey, let’s get together occasionally,” while the other is a “for better or worse, in sickness and in health, ’til death…etc.”

            Like

    • Mike says:

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        UCSD has a better shot than those, and they’d need to start a FB team.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          Do you think Boise State would consider a football only invite to the American?

          If we assume that Memphis, Houston, and Temple continue to be fringe top 25 teams (a big assumption considering all three coaches are hot commodities right now), a future AAC could be a decent league.

          It would have the above 3, Boise, and potential fringe top 25 teams in UCF, USF, ECU, and Cincinnati. It wouldn’t have any heavy hitters and it would have a few bottom feeders (SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UConn, but this hypothetical league would be closer to a power 5 league than a Mountain West or MAC (which are virtually identical per Sagarin) type league. Its champion would be almost guaranteed the group of 5’s NYS bid. Perhaps BYU joins as a football only member as well, further strengthening the league:

          EAST
          UConn
          Temple
          Cincinnati
          Navy
          East Carolina
          USF
          UCF

          WEST
          Boise State
          BYU
          Memphis
          Houston
          Tulsa
          SMU
          Tulane

          Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Let’s drink to the Tritons, the bravest of men,
          Vive la campagnie
          For even their Freshmen can hang at least ten.
          Vive la campagnie
          Let’s drink to the Tritons so fearless and brave,
          Vive la campagnie
          At home when they’re reading, or riding the wave.
          Vive la campagnie
          The Tritons they dwell where the sea meets the sky,
          Vive la campagnie
          Their spirits not damp, their professors not dry.
          Vive la campagnie
          Let’s drink to the Tritons, so handsome and brave,
          Vive la campagnie
          They’ll wave at a figure, or figure a wave.
          Vive la campagnie
          The Tritons they live in the southland so far,
          Vive la campagnie
          Where their schooners forever sail over the bar.
          Vive la campagnie
          Let’s drink to the Tritons, both dead and alive.
          Vive la campagnie
          They can dive in the drink, or can drink in a dive.
          Vive la campagnie
          Let’s drink to the Tritons; they learn and they teach,
          Vive la campagnie
          And every man there is a son of the beach.
          Vive la campagnie!

          Like

  91. bullet says:

    http://www.niuhuskies.com/genrel/102015aac.html

    Interesting 17 minute video by NIU Athletics Director. Brett McMurphy re-tweeted a link to it.

    Talks about the various schools that have moved up and the impact-TCU, Louisville and Boise St.

    Hard data on the value of a successful football program to the whole university.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      That basketball (or current lack thereof) though. While it is certainly not driving the decision, thats a potential rude awakening with the schools that would potentially be (still remaining) in the AAC.

      Like

  92. bullet says:

    Well Frank, Back to the Future missed on this one. Cubs didn’t win the World Series in 2015.

    Like

  93. Brian says:

    http://www.hammerandrails.com/2015/10/21/9583240/purdue-announces-60-million-upgrade-to-football-facilities

    PU announces a $60M football facility upgrade. They had a study done by Populous and some pictures of that report are included in the post. Most interesting is a chart comparing all the various facilities at all 14 B10 schools plus ND tweeted by the original reporter.

    Like

  94. Brian says:

    The year of parity continues.

    #7 Utah got blown out by unranked USC.

    #9 FSU outdoes MI’s loss from last week, getting a last second FG tipped and then returned 78 yards for a TD by unranked GT.

    #15 TAMU loses to #24 MS.

    #20 Cal got blown out by unranked UCLA.

    The P12 has only 2 1-loss teams left so their playoff hopes are getting smaller.

    The ACC has to hope #6 Clemson beats FSU now. Pitt, UNC and Duke are all also 6-1 but the highest ranked is #23 Duke. A Clemson loss could easily keep the ACC out of the playoff.

    Pressure could be coming from ND for one of the 4 spots.

    Like

  95. Duffman says:

    0 & 1 loss teams after 8 weeks and who picked up 2nd loss
    ________________________________________________

    ACC 35.71% / 14 teams / 5 teams remain
    (1) | 7-0 Clemson
    (4) | 6-1 Florida State, Duke, North Carolina and Pittsburgh
    (x) | none this week

    B12 40.00% / 10 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 7-0 TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor
    (1) | 6-1 Oklahoma
    (x) | none this week

    B1G 21.43 / 14 teams / 3 teams remain
    (3) | 8-0 Michigan State and Ohio State + 7-0 Iowa
    (0) | none this week
    (x) | none this week

    PAC 16.67% / 12 teams / 2 teams remain
    (0) | last undefeated eliminated in Week 8
    (2) | 6-1 Utah and Stanford
    (x) | California picked up 2nd loss

    SEC 21.43% / 14 teams / 3 teams remain
    (1) | 7-0 LSU
    (2) | 7-1 Alabama + 6-1 Florida
    (x) | Texas A&M picked up 2nd loss

    IND 33.33% / 3 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 6-1 Notre Dame

    ————————————————

    AAC 33.33% / 12 teams / 4 teams remain
    (3) | 7-0 Temple, Memphis, and Houston
    (1) | 5-1 Navy
    (x) | none this week

    CUSA 7.69% / 13 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 7-1 Marshall
    (x) | Western Kentucky picked up 2nd loss

    MAC 7.69% / 13 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 7-0 Toledo
    (0) | none this week
    (x) | none this week

    MWC 0.00% / 12 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 7

    SUN 9.09% / 11 teams / 1 team remains
    (1) | 6-1 Appalachian State
    (x) | Georgia Southern picked up 2nd loss

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Time for a CFP preview with the first set of rankings coming out next week.

      P5 Contenders (0-1 losses, bold means undefeated):
      ACC A – Clemson, FSU (play 11/7)
      ACC C – UNC, Duke (play 11/7)

      B10 E – OSU, MSU (play 11/21)
      B10 W – IA

      B12 – Baylor, TCU, OkSU, OU (play all November)

      P12 N – Stanford
      P12 S – Utah

      SEC E – UF
      SEC W – LSU, AL (play 11/7)

      Other – ND

      G5 contenders (0 losses):
      AAC E – Temple
      AAC W – UH, Memphis (play 11/14)

      MAC W – Toledo

      Like

  96. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    Coaches poll:

    1. OSU
    2. Baylor
    3. TCU
    4. LSU
    5. MSU
    6. Clemson
    7. AL
    8. Stanford
    9. ND
    10. OkSU

    11. IA
    14. Utah -7
    15. FSU -6
    17. MI

    26. TAMU -10
    30. Cal – 11

    B12 – 4/10 = 40%
    SEC – 5/14 = 36%
    ACC – 4/14 = 28%
    B10 – 4/14 = 28%
    P12 – 3/12 = 25%

    Like