It has been a couple of days since the news broke from Sports Business Daily that Fox is poised to enter into a deal with the Big Ten for 50% of the packages that are currently on ABC/ESPN (football and basketball) and CBS (basketball)… for up to $250 million per year for 6 years. Once again, this is just for half of the Big Ten rights that are up for grabs, which would provide for 25 football games and 50 basketball games on over-the-air broadcast Fox (“Big Fox”) and FS1. As observers such as Matt Sarzyniak have noted (who has a great post on the overall dynamics of the Big Ten deal), that amount is approximately the amount that the Pac-12 receives for its entire non-Pac-12 network package. In effect, we’re about to enter into a world where Rutgers and Northwestern are going to earn significantly more TV money than Florida State, Oklahoma, USC and even Alabama and Notre Dame. The Big Ten schools were already ahead before through its creation of the BTN (which everyone should remember how bold and risky that move was a decade ago compared to taking guaranteed money from ESPN), but the gap is going to be blown through the roof if the conference ends up with around $500 million per year for its TV rights without even taking into account the BTN portion. I have had plenty of critiques of Jim Delany and the Big Ten leadership over the years, but their management of TV and media properties has been pitch perfect for the past ten years and far beyond the capabilities (both quantitative and qualitative) of the other power conferences.
Some further thoughts:
- I have seen a lot of scuttlebutt online that this indicates that the Big Ten might be leaving ESPN entirely, but personally don’t believe that for a second. For several years, I’ve been predicting that Fox and ESPN will ultimately split the Big Ten’s rights going forward and that is still the most likely outcome. ESPN reportedly “lowballed” the Big Ten in its initial offer, yet that is not necessarily outcome determinative since ESPN did the same thing ten years ago (which eventually spurred the creation of the Big Ten Network) and the parties still eventually got a deal done. It would have been difficult for ESPN to unilaterally come in with a massive offer several weeks ago with the continued cost-cutting throughout its organization and the possibility that this might be the time when the sports rights bubble (to the extent that there actually is a bubble) is going to pop. Essentially, ESPN bet that there wouldn’t be anyone willing to pay the Big Ten’s high asking price (just as it bet that the BTN wouldn’t be successful)… and it looks like they’re going to lose that bet badly.That being said, I’ve written many times before that ESPN’s supposed financial woes are being completely misinterpreted by many sports fans. The reason why so many Disney investors are spooked by any cord cutting and ESPN subscriber losses is because ESPN is, by far, the most profitable media and entertainment entity in the entire world. Note that I said “media and entertainment entity” – this is not just about sports networks. Let’s put it this way: ESPN currently delivers monthly subscriber revenue to Disney that is the equivalent to the domestic gross of Star Wars: The Force Awakens every single month guaranteed… and before they sell a single ad. Disney has relied upon ESPN to deliver monopoly drug dealer profits for years to prop up their entire business. Now, ESPN is “only” making oligopoly drug dealer profits.
All of this is to say that ESPN still makes a ton of money that is far, far, far beyond what Fox, NBC, CBS, Turner or any other entity with sports interests could ever dream of. Even in cost-cutting mode, ESPN still needs to invest in core properties in the same way that the rest of the cost-cutting Disney organization will authorize massive budgets for Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar and Disney Princess movies. ESPN leadership can now go back to their overlords at Disney and say, “Look – we tried to get the Big Ten on the cheap and that clearly isn’t going to happen. We have now already let Fox into the door to becoming a top tier sports network competitor and we can’t let someone else, especially NBC/Comcast, to get even more traction on top of them. We need to the funds to pay up here.” Anyone that thinks that ESPN can just plug in more SEC or ACC games into its lineup is fooling themselves. The Big Ten provides a massive lineup of football games in the best time slots on ABC and ESPN and have consistently garnered the best ratings of any of the conferences next to the SEC. The people at ESPN aren’t dumb – they know the difference between a short-term administrative cost cut and a long-term investment in their core product… and the Big Ten has been a huge part of their core product since almost the beginning of the network.
- By the same token, let’s not pretend that the Big Ten wants to get away from ESPN. I have seen some Big Ten fans profess a desire to leave ESPN entirely, but that would be as short-sighted for the conference as it would be short-sighted for ESPN to let the Big Ten go completely. The fact of the matter is that if you were to show the exact same game on ESPN versus FS1, the viewership on ESPN would be magnitudes higher. We have already seen a track record of Major League Baseball, Big 12 and Pac-12 games where similar games on ESPN crush the ratings on FS1. There has to be great concern that the notion that “fans will just find the channel if they want to watch a particular game” isn’t necessarily completely true. ESPN is, and will be for the foreseeable future because the stranglehold that they have on sports rights overall, the “default channel” for sports fans. Just walk into any sports bar across the country and, outside of NFL Sundays, the vast majority of TVs are going to be tuned into the ESPN mothership. A game that is shown on ESPN literally gets a ratings bump, whereas that same game on FS1 gets a ratings discount.This greatly matters to the Big Ten, which is trying to position its TV deals in the same way that the NFL has over the past few years. Money certainly matters, but long-term money (the proverbial golden goose) is directly correlated with exposure… and no one can provide exposure like ESPN. Indeed, even with the increase in cord cutting and falling numbers of subscribers, every single other media company in the United States would kill to have ESPN. We have already established that they have the top-rated and most profitable TV network, but it goes beyond just that aspect. Who has the #1 sports news website? ESPN. Who has the #1 sports radio network? ESPN. Who has the #1 sports mobile app? ESPN. Who has the #1 streaming sports network? ESPN. Who has the #1 sports podcast network? ESPN.
That is what a lot of Big Ten fans that care too much about supposed “SEC bias” on ESPN are missing: there is simply no replication for the multi-platform 27/7 exposure that ESPN provides.* Many other companies have tried to apply the ESPN playbook for years and years (see the CBS and Fox efforts to build their own sports websites and radio networks with only a fraction of the audience of ESPN) and have failed. When a Big Ten game is on ESPN, it gets promoted on (a) Mike and Mike on TV, radio, streaming audio and podcasts simultaneously, (b) SportsCenter on multiple networks several times per day, (c) ads on ESPN’s websites and mobile apps, (d) countless other TV, radio shows and podcasts for an entire week, including the all-important College GameDay for college football fans. Other than Inside the NBA on TNT (which is powered by the on-air brilliance of Charles Barkley, there is not a single cable TV platform in any sport that has anywhere close to the audience that ESPN has for even one of its minor shows, much less SportsCenter, GameDay or Mike and Mike.
(* Note that it isn’t an accident that ESPN is a master of corporate synergy considering that it is owned by Disney, whose entire existence is based on leveraging its brand across countless platforms. I have never heard of someone that likes Universal Studios, the Jurassic Park movies and NBC call themselves a “Comcast Fan” or a fan of Fox shows and movies call themselves a “Fox Fan” (which is distinct from a Fox News Fan that is an entirely different breed), but you will find millions of Disney fans that travel to Disney parks, watch Disney movies and TV shows and buy Disney merchandise with the Disney branding being a the predominant factor. My sister is a prime example of a Disneyphile. Disney and ESPN simply are masters at synergy via corporate culture that can’t really be replicated even if you followed the exact same playbook elsewhere… and believe me when I say that every one of their competitors have tried.)
At the end of the day, the Big Ten still needs the exposure that only ESPN can uniquely offer. It’s instructive that out of the 4 major pro sports leagues and 5 power college conferences, the only one that doesn’t have a presence on ESPN is the NHL (which has by far the most limited fan base of that group). Just because the Big Ten could theoretically live without ESPN doesn’t mean that it actually wants to do so at all. That’s why I believe that time will heal wounds due to mutual interests and a deal will get done between the Big Ten and ESPN for the other half of the TV rights that are currently in play. The Big Ten won’t take a lowball amount from ESPN, but I think they know well enough to provide a bit more leeway for ESPN’s bid in acknowledgment of their superior platforms for overall exposure compared to Fox. Both the Big Ten and ESPN need each other here.
- In looking at the imminent Fox deal with the Big Ten, this seems to be set up to put a weekly football game on both Big Fox and FS1. This will end up being quite a boon for Fox’s college football game inventory quality. From a personal standpoint, I just hope that it improves that actual college football game production quality, which I have found lacking compared to ABC/ESPN and CBS. (I think that NBC’s Notre Dame productions have quality visuals, but the commentary is the college football equivalent of listening to Hawk Harrelson’s calls of White Sox games.) Regardless, if this means that most or all of the games that would have ended up on ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPNEWS are on Big Fox and FS1, then that’s an upgrade in terms of viewership exposure as long as the Big Ten keeps its presence on ABC and the ESPN mothership.Further to what I’ve stated before, I don’t think Fox is as flush with funds as much as ESPN (because absolutely no one is as flush with funds as ESPN), but Fox certainly has a lot more incentive to make a bold move with it being in the upstart position. In particular, FS1 has had a rocky history in its short life. On paper, FS1 has the best sports rights outside of ESPN on paper with MLB, Big 12, Pac-12, Big East, NASCAR, Champions League, FIFA (World Cup), UFC and USGA (U.S. Open) properties, but it doesn’t seem to have a cohesive brand even compared to NBCSN (which seems to have become the yuppie/hipster sports network largely relying upon the NHL, English Premier League and Olympics), much less ESPN. At the very least, the Big Ten may push Fox over-the-top in terms of being a legit college sports destination that it hasn’t quite been up to this point.
Realistically, Fox can never achieve the synergy that ESPN can provide, but there are strong potential cross-promotional opportunities between Fox’s over-the-air NFL package and the new Big Ten coverage along with the clear connection between BTN (which is 51% owned by Fox) and the rest of the Fox organization. The NFL broadcasts on Fox are by far the strongest on the network (which ought to be the case since they are also by far the largest ratings drivers for Fox), so let’s hope that the Big Ten can receive at least comparable quality in terms of treatment.
- The reported 6-year timeframe of the Fox deal is unusual compared to the much longer-term deals that the other power conferences have signed. In fact, the Big Ten will end up back at the negotiating table before any of the other power conferences once again. On the one hand, this presents some risk to the Big Ten since they are not locking in today’s high rights fees into the late-2020s or even 2030s. On the other hand, every time that the Big Ten has bet on itself, it has ended up succeeding, whether it was with the formation of the BTN or taking its rights to the open market in a period of uncertainty for sports programming values with decreasing cable subscriptions. By the same token, Fox may be hedging on cable subscriber fee uncertainty itself, as Dennis Dodd had suggested.In any event, the short length of the TV deal means that conference realignment talk might cool down in the immediate term, but will pick up a huge amount of steam in the next 5 years. Whether it’s a coincidence or not (and I tend to think “not”), the end of the 6-year deal term in 2023 is shortly before the expiration of the Big 12’s grant of rights agreement in 2025, which makes any possible damages for a Big 12 defector to be much lower and/or negligible compared to a Big Ten windfall. The same usual suspects of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as Big Ten candidates. It will also be interesting to see how schools in other conferences (particularly the ACC) are going to adjust to an environment where each Big Ten school could be receiving nearly $60 million per year in media revenue starting in 2017 (as estimated by Awful Announcing), which would lap the SEC’s revenue (much less any of the other power conferences). A few million dollars per year difference in TV revenue may not have been enough to sway the most valuable schools (e.g. Texas, North Carolina, etc.) to switch conferences, but when we’re looking at an eight figure annual gap, it could change the dynamic quite a bit.
The announcement by Jim Delany at the end of 2009 that the Big Ten was exploring expansion was leading to this moment of a new TV contract. Nebraska added a national name brand for football, while Rutgers and Maryland added two massive media markets based on the East Coast. This isn’t the end, though. I still believe that ESPN is going to end up with the other half of the rights. It will be interesting to see what happens with the CBS basketball package (which hasn’t been talked about as much) since that provided great exposure and time slots for the Big Ten (such as the Big Ten Tournament Championship Game leading into the NCAA Tournament Selection Show) even if the contract value itself pales in comparison with football. Digital rights are going to be a much more significant factor in this new contract compared to 10 years ago, while some second tier sports such as hockey, baseball and lacrosse could end up seeing more telecasts beyond the BTN with multiple other networks. The Big Ten’s new Fox deal is a great start and it’s a sign of great things once we get the final overall media rights picture for the conference.
(Image from Detroit Free Press)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
B1G #1
LikeLike
deux
LikeLike
Great, this may give the Illini almost enough money to pay all their lawsuits…
LikeLike
GEAUX TIGERS!
LikeLike
The 6 year window is a brilliant move to set themselves up for conference expansion. A couple years of watching B1G schools make tens of millions more TV revenue might even get some of the folks at Texas and Notre Dame thinking about their position.
LikeLike
With these $s, its hard to imagine expansion being easy for the B1G. There aren’t many schools that could justify these numbers.
LikeLike
Bullet: They aren’t looking for anything but prime targets, however that is defined. Lots of people didn’t see the value of Rutgers/Maryland but they certainly contributed, it would seem. I remember one article post Pac 12 media deal where Scott (I believe) was asked what the ill fated P16 might have generated. He responded close to 5B 12 year deal. These B1G numbers are great, but not out of line when compared to what a 2011 P16 deal might have been. Inflation and demand marche on, and live sports remain DVR proof.
LikeLike
I’ve got to believe that the SEC won’t sit back and wait for Delany to make another big move. Does Slive make a preemptive strike and strategically invite more schools just to keep the B1G out of the South?
LikeLike
Mike Slive retired. Greg Sankey is the commish now.
LikeLike
Gotcha. Well Sankey is going to be dunzo if he let’s the B1G become the only super-conference with flags planted in key southern states. Delany will have won the arms race.
LikeLike
On the plus side, new FtT content.
On the bad side, his Purpleness is no longer with us.
LikeLike
@SlartyBartFast – RIP, Prince. Such a talent and far too young.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ummm, add, dang it!
LikeLike
Let the calls of pay for play grow ever louder.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – It’s inevitable (and IMHO, justifiable).
LikeLike
Any more justifiable than when an Ivy (Harvard?) was making more off football then their med school cost? Granted it was a long time ago, but a principle shouldn’t change because price tags changes. Especially when it is the same demand, just being satisfied through a new (TV decades ago), growing capacity (digital broadcast and cable), and changing (multiple viewing platforms and Internet).
If an athletic department, or parts of it, cease to be a part of the educational experience (become defacto pro) alumni will over time have no more association with the team(s) than they do with their favorite/local pro teams. Lots of people donating millions for those pro teams to start/support a school?
LikeLike
“alumni will over time have no more association with the team(s) than they do with their favorite/local pro teams.”
Well said. While I follow college football as much as I used to…I don’t love it as much. And I feel like I could turn it off someday, if it just feels like my school sponsors a minor league team with a bunch of players and coaches that couldn’t care less about who they play for.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I’ve written about this a few times before, but my very strong feeling is that the vast majority of alumni don’t care. I know enough that we have an underground economy in college sports where alumni are actually pretty explicitly paying players and/or providing benefits (e.g. finding the parents of top recruits new jobs) to attend their favorite schools. Frankly, the amount of shady underhanded practices that alums are willing to justify or look away from as long as their schools win is already pretty astounding. We (college sports fans) really have very little to be sanctimonious about here. Paying players simply removes the hypocritical pretense that it already isn’t occurring in the first place (and it IS occurring EVERYWHERE – no Division I school is immune, especially in the power conference ranks). Now, I’m sure there’s a subset of fans that will say that they won’t ever watch another game, but (a) I generally don’t believe them because we hear that all the time about a whole host of issues where “I’ll never watch X again if Y ever happens” and no one EVER follows through and (b) even if they did follow through, there are so many other sports fans who seriously do not care whatsoever (and if anything are waaaaaay more disgusted by the hypocrisy of the NCAA and college leaders on this issue) that such group won’t matter in the scheme of things.
I’ve never been shy about stating that schools should be free to make as much money as they want in college sports. I don’t find it bad or evil – I’m a pure free market capitalist in that regard. By the same token, though, the NCAA has placed an artificial cap on wages (AKA $0), which is so blatantly in violation of labor and antitrust laws that the organization knows full well that they’re going to get screwed if there’s more litigation. It’s the fault of the NCAA and schools to not get out ahead of this issue with their “all or nothing stance”. Maybe the Olympic compensation model (where athletes could earn endorsement money) might placate people if it ever gets instituted, so we’ll see. My view is that the more money the better and everyone should be compensated as they would be in the free market. You could argue that non-revenue athletes might be “overpaid” (in that the value of their scholarships exceed the revenue they’re bringing in to the university), but power conference football and basketball players are underpaid by that standard as a general rule. The Olympic compensation model might be a way to address that insofar it’s a system where such football and basketball players are the ones that will likely receive the benefits as determined by the marketplace.
LikeLike
If you want free market then get out of schools, off state property, don’t use state backed bonds, school backed leverage to build, power, staff, market and fill stadiums and arenas. Try to get a media contract without the school and its history. Start from scratch and build what you like.
The market is/has spoken. There are alternative professional opportunities in the primary sports, but the “customer” (the players) are buying the college route as the better bargain and preparation in most cases. The schools are not responsible for what rules, limitations, or opportunities some other organizations offer. They are responsible to themselves.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
I disagree with most of what you said, but it’s a discussion that just goes in circles as nobody ever changes their opinion.
“Now, I’m sure there’s a subset of fans that will say that they won’t ever watch another game,”
I’m part of that subset. The day those guys are on salary instead of scholarship, I won’t watch it.
“but (a) I generally don’t believe them because we hear that all the time about a whole host of issues where “I’ll never watch X again if Y ever happens” and no one EVER follows through”
Don’t generalize to that extreme. I cut the chord to avoid paying for the SECN (like I said I would). I haven’t watched a non-OSU CFP game (like I said I wouldn’t). I know I’m a small minority, but some people do mean it.
More importantly, I think you underestimate how much amateurism means to a lot of alumni CFB fans. The cost of tickets has gone through the roof. A free market and paid players would likely remove the tax deduction available for donations to the AD. This will drive a lot of people to stay home and cost schools millions in donations. As the teams separate from the schools, a lot of schools will see an opportunity to drop a ton of Title IX required expenses because football is no longer affiliated with the schools. Then you’ll have NFL-lite football out there on its own.
“and (b) even if they did follow through, there are so many other sports fans who seriously do not care whatsoever”
Sure there are. But they’re either already CFB fans or never will be because the NFL is better. You won’t gain any fans by paying players, but you will lose some.
“(and if anything are waaaaaay more disgusted by the hypocrisy of the NCAA and college leaders on this issue)”
Are any of those people likely to start liking the sport once it becomes NFL-lite?
“that such group won’t matter in the scheme of things.”
To the media companies, no. To the schools? That’s a very different question. If just a handful of megadonors at each school care, it’s a big deal.
LikeLike
Interesting point of view, but I completely disagree with paying athletes. Nor do I agree that its an eventuality.
LikeLike
Yep. I don’t blame the athletes…but it doesn’t mean it won’t eventually feel like nothing more (instead of mostly) than the minor leagues and big business. And then I have the option to tune out. Ah the good ol days…
LikeLike
Frank, why does everyone say the 25 games is for half of the inventory. With 63 conference games and another 20+ OOC games. Aren’t there really 75 games they could sell? Or does the BTN get a guaranteed number each year?
LikeLike
BTN was essentially its own carved out package of rights i.e. games. Those games aren’t touchable here. What the Big Ten is attempting to sell is the rights ESPN currently holds for one more season.
LikeLike
Big Ten to Fox is huge for the Big East
LikeLike
Not going to be hard for ESPN to fill those slots if they still get the other half of the deal. B1G typically has ESPN and ESPN2 in the early slot. ESPN has a bunch of ACC inventory syndicated. The mid day slot is usually a 3 way regional ABC game with B1G usually getting mirror coverage on ESPN in the other areas. Just have the other two games fully national (instead of 2/3). That’s 14 games right there. 1 early slot replacing Purdue-Iowa isn’t hard to replace.
LikeLike
I suspect we will see an announcement within the next 60 days on the second rights fees.
LikeLike
Do you think Fox will just get the games currently on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPNEWS, or will some of those games go to ESPN to replace ABC and ESPN games going to Fox? If it’s the former, I can’t imagine Fox would be happy if it turns out they probably pay more than ESPN to get a clearly lower-tier package of games.
LikeLike
Fox isn’t paying $250 million for ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News games.
LikeLike
.This is usually the way it works now. ESPN gets a prime time Game ( usually SEC), ABC gets Notre Dame ( road), and Late ESPN and ( or) ESPN 2 gets Pac-12 and ( or) Mountain West. ESPN 2 usually gets Penn State @ 3:30PM, and the others are divided up. Fox gets a lot of Big XII Games and not so many Pac-12. Keep in mind, the B10 in going to 9 Conference Games, so there will be plenty for Fox as well,as for ESPN.
I wonder if they try and add a permanent crossover game ( such as Penn State/ Nebraska) for Fox and ESPN to help with the Ratings?. I suspect that Michigan/Ohio State will be divided up three times each, and the same for Penn State White Out Night ( Michigan or Ohio State).
LikeLike
They already have the cross-overs.
Over the next 6 years, OSU-UNL, UMich-UW, and PSU-Iowa are every year.
LikeLike
“The reported 6-year timeframe of the Fox deal is unusual …”
“Over the next 6 years, OSU-UNL, UMich-UW, and PSU-Iowa are every year.”
Huh, what a coincidence.
LikeLike
Yes, but those crossovers start in 2016 and the TV deal in 2017. In 2022 the pairings will rotate. If Fox just liked the parity-based scheduling they could have gone for 11 or 17 years.
LikeLike
Assuming that the impetus for the six years came entirely from Fox.
If the impetus came in whole or in part from the Big Ten, that timing allows the Big Ten to fiddle around with the schedule starting in the last year of the Fox contract to polish things up for the contract to come.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Assuming that the impetus for the six years came entirely from Fox.”
Which is a big assumption. I’m not assuming that until I see some evidence one way or the other.
“If the impetus came in whole or in part from the Big Ten, that timing allows the Big Ten to fiddle around with the schedule starting in the last year of the Fox contract to polish things up for the contract to come.”
What fiddling would they want to do? Drop back to 8 games? Almost any other change they could make during a TV deal with no consequences.
LikeLike
Any changes which boost TV value made in the middle of a contract would only help if they primarily help BTN revenues.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Any changes which boost TV value made in the middle of a contract would only help if they primarily help BTN revenues.”
What changes could they make to boost TV value? They’re already playing more brand-brand games than an equal distribution would generate. They aren’t going to 10 games. They don’t seem to have any interest in adding weeknight games. What type of changes are you thinking of?
LikeLike
Also, in terms of ratings, the 3 biggest B10 games now are UMich-OSU, UMich-MSU, and OSU-MSU.
PSU has to challenge for the conference title again to break in to that club.
LikeLike
Where did you read that about the crossovers? I am probably the biggest Nitt fan posting here, and we could win 5 National Championships in a row, and we are not equalling Ohio State/ Michigan, Michigan/ Michigan State or even Wisconsin/ Minnesota. But why Iowa/ Penn State and Michigan/ Wisconsin? Minnesota ( Old Oaken Bucket) is bigger ( as is Penn State / Nebraska).
LikeLike
It’s based on the future schedules already released (2016-2019) plus Delany’s comments a couple of years ago about parity-based scheduling. Richard figured out the plan and posted it here several years ago.
The B10 split teams into 3 tiers after making divisions:
Tier 1 – NE, WI, IA and OSU, MI, PSU
Tier 2 – MN, NW, IL and MSU, UMD, RU
Tier 3 – PU and IN
Crossover schedules for Tier 1 teams:
Game 1 = locked Tier 1 team for 6 years (then it rotates to the next Tier 1 team)
Game 2 = rotation of Tier 2 teams
Game 3 = rotation of the other 2 Tier 1 teams and the Tier 3 team
Crossover schedules for Tier 2 teams:
Game 1 = locked Tier 2 team for 6 years (then it rotates to the next Tier 2 team)
Game 2 = rotation of Tier 1 teams
Game 3 = rotation of the other 2 Tier 2 teams and the Tier 3 team
Crossover schedules for Tier 3 teams:
Game 1 = locked Tier 3 team
Game 2 = rotation of Tier 1 teams
Game 3 = rotation of Tier 2 teams
Result:
Tier 1 teams play the other Tier 1 teams 10 times in 18 years and everyone else 6 times
Tier 2 teams play the other Tier 2 teams 10 times in 18 years and everyone else 6 times
Tier 3 teams play the other Tier 3 team 18 times in 18 years and everyone else 6 times
3 * 18 = 54 crossover games
54 = 3 * 10 + 4 * 6 (Tiers 1 & 2)
54 = 1 * 18 + 6 * 6 (Tier 3)
The initial starting pairs:
NE/OSU, WI/MI, IA/PSU, MN/UMD , NW/MSU , IL/RU
If fully carried out, the plan would switch after the 18 years outlined above and lock Tier 1 vs Tier 2 teams to balance out the schedule over the entire 36 year cycle. However, it makes no financial sense to ever do that. Besides, it’s hard enough to believe this plan will last for 18 years. Either the B10 will expand or the season will change length or something else will happen.
LikeLike
FSU and GA Tech to B1G, buckle up as expansion is coming soon
LikeLike
Where you hearing this Hawkeye? It would certainly be a smart strategic move. It would pretty much leave UVA/UNC with no other options. And we all know that Delany wants UNC.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll expand that far south. What I could see is something akin to a P3+1 (the +1 would be the best of what’s left after the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 get programs; also to lessen the chance of lawsuits). This is just a brainstorm (don’t get mad if you don’t like it):
Big Ten: KS, MO, NE, IA, WI, MN, IL, NU, PU, IN, ND, MSU, UM, OSU, PSU, RU, MD, VA, NC, DU
SEC: TAMU, AR, LSU, MSU, MS, VU, TN, KY, AL, AU, GT, GA, SC, FSU, UF, Clem
PAC: WSU, UW, OSU, UO, Stan, Cal, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, UU, CO, TT, UT, OU, OK St, KS St., IA St.
New Conf: BC, SU, UConn, Pitt, Louisville, VT, NCST, WF, USF, Miami, WVU, Cinci (maybe add TCU, Baylor, UCF and/or Houston to the mix)
LikeLike
I hear where you’re coming from transic and your conferences certainly make great geographic/cultural/rivalry sense. So it probably won’t work out that way! I think the biggest hurdle there would be getting UVA/UNC to say goodbye to the South. And if the B1G truly isn’t interested in running a pipeline into the deep south…then there’s not much motivation/votes for the SEC to pick up redundant schools (FSU, Clemson, GT). Again, I do like your idea. I just don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll expand that far south. What I could see is something akin to a P3+1 (the +1 would be the best of what’s left after the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 get programs; also to lessen the chance of lawsuits). This is just a brainstorm (don’t get mad if you don’t like it):
Big Ten: KS, MO, NE, IA, WI, MN, IL, NU, PU, IN, ND, MSU, UM, OSU, PSU, RU, MD, VA, NC, DU
SEC: TAMU, AR, LSU, MSU, MS, VU, TN, KY, AL, AU, GT, GA, SC, FSU, UF, Clem
PAC: WSU, UW, OSU, UO, Stan, Cal, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, UU, CO, TT, UT, OU, OK St, KS St., IA St.
New Conf: BC, SU, UConn, Pitt, Louisville, VT, NCST, WF, USF, Miami, WVU, Cinci (maybe add TCU, Baylor, UCF and/or Houston to the mix)
LikeLike
Why in the World would the Pac Conference want Iowa State and Kansas State? You would be better of with Baylor or Boise then those two.I do not see UNC in the B10 either ( basically I see them as Texas lite. Happy to be ACC King). I have little doubt the B10 wants Notre Dame, and Texas ( or UNC), Would be happy with Oklahoma and Kansas is the fall back School. If they only get one of ND, OU, and UT ( UVA would be the School with UNC), I said before that an expanded Pac ( with UT, TTech, OSU and OU) would be the nightmare scenario for the B10. Why? It would take 2 of those Schools off the Market. If you look at this as musical chairs you know the B10 only has two openings left. You do not want to be stuck in a worse Conference, and Conferences do not want to take steps back. Ex: Since ND joined the B10 ( for hockey), maybe the ACC worries they will move when Land Grants are over, and offers UT a similar deal? Also if UT thinks OU will not stay with them ( Big XII or Pac) maybe they might take it? By the way if Bevo wants the Big 10 NOW Delaney would take it. But that is not happening. I still think it will be OU and Kansas.
LikeLike
I have my doubts about that. In the end, I think it will OU and Texas. Maybe they bring a friend or two like Kansas.
Expansion without a football brand doesn’t make much sense financially at this point. Adding FSU would constitute as a football brand, but the Big 10 would have to add 3-4 schools (UVA, GT, UNC, and probably Duke) just to make it make sense geographically. That’s a huge expansion.
LikeLike
Delany bleeds Carolina blue so you know UNC is a target…and so I’d expect the B1G to lean in the Southeast direction. And justifiable given all of the upsides…the population growth, the talent pool, and a lot of B1G alumni being in that part of the country. I’d imagine that if the B1G has interest from UVA/UNC/GT/FSU (and had to take all of them to make it happen)…it will happen. But I’m just not seeing any evidence yet aside from tweets and posts. But there’s a lot of it.
LikeLike
There is a lot to like about adding those schools, but I don’t see the financial incentive. Football drives revenue. Basketball does bring value but now it is bringing in enough value to not only pay for oneself but increase the payout for 14 other schools. And looking at the prospective payout from the new contract, you are talking a ton of money.
UNC and the likely addition of Duke, probably pay for themselves. Florida State being a good football brand adds value, but what about UVA and GT? If the cable subscription model was a solid revenue stream long term, than maybe I could see it but with cord cutters possibly taking a chunk out of subcription fees, I don’t think those schools would be revenue generators for the other 14 (which would ballon up to 16 if UNC and FSU was added).
Each additional member of the Big 10 has to bring more money than the previous addition because they then have to make enough to add value to more schools. Outside of big brands in football, and to a lesser extent basketball, I just don’t see the financial incentive for many other schools.
LikeLike
Very fair points PSU. But I get the sense that the B1G also has a keen eye on the horizon…and might feel that if it doesn’t land big fish from big (and growing, recruit-rich) ponds now…the long-term trend may not be good. Just a thought.
LikeLike
“but with cord cutters possibly taking a chunk out of subcription fees, I don’t think those schools would be revenue generators for the other 14 (which would ballon up to 16 if UNC and FSU was added). ”
That assumes that UNC and FSU would be available on their own. If one were to assume the opposite, that getting UNC and FSU would require it being a package deal including two other schools in the right part of the country, then the value of UNC and of FSU would be part of the value of the combined package of four schools.
LikeLike
I have to agree that GT doesn’t justify the financial move, unless they are a regional play for Atlanta similar to Rutgers in NY/NJ area. UGA is the big dog, literally and figuratively though in the Atlanta area and the state, so why bring a 2nd fiddle in? The big already has a big DMV presence (MD, PSU, and other big alums), so UVA doesn’t IMHO move the needle financially or regionally. UNC though, is the big dog in NC, and by far the best fit for financial and regional expansion, and is close enough geographically to PSU and MD to create local rivalries in football, BBall, and lacrosse. One of the barriers is that UNC sports fans and ADept appear to have an identify with Tar Heel BBall similar to Notre Dame football, and their passion to the ACC is greater than UMD’s was, hence the financial gain to move to the big would have to be greater than UMD’s. I could see Duke coming along as a partner school in the new big. Hopefully the big doesn’t have a “NC State” problem, similar to the “Tech”/Baylor/A&M/other former SWC Texas schools that demanded a place in the big in order to allow Texas to move.
I will say that in time the big MUST expand south, if only for recruiting expansion as HS football talent and programs continue to be stagnant or decline in the north east and mid west.
LikeLike
$500M/year or $35M/school annually was just about what I predicted
My prediction for the other half of the rights are that the WWL will pony up $125M/year for half of the other half but first pick on football for that half. So 13 games (or about 1 per week). Also the leftover basketball in that half. The WWL still gets a sweeter deal because they get the first pick of half the B10 football games (basically, they’ll be choosing first or second from the B10 slate every week), which the B10 is fine with because they want the WWL to hype their top games.
CBS pays $25M/year for first pick of half of that half of basketball games.
The B10 would have $400M in the bank + the BTN money and still 12 football games left to play with. They could sell those in another contract (some network may be desperate enough to pony up $100M for them). Or they can keep them in their back pocket and subcontract it out every year to the highest bidder (including online, etc.)
LikeLike
Saquon
LikeLike
http://app.fanly.me/article/RhRXdAALMj
OMG, did you see this? Finebaum is a JoeBot! What a rube. Does he sleep with a cardboard cutout of Joe???
(video) Finebaum: Penn State should put Paterno statue back up
http://app.fanly.me/article/RhRXdAALMj
(Sorry, Scarlet, couldn’t resist. 😉
I’m not sure whether the statue will ever return to Beaver Stadium, but the lawsuits will be epic.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Pretty good rundown of the news. I think NBC and ESPN will split the second half.
LikeLike
This is a great possibility. I read somewhere and can’t find it this morning that B1G wants to sell the primetime games as a separate package. So the remaining games could go for more than what Fox paid.
My uneducated guess, NBC and ESPN each pony up $150-175 million each with one getting just the primetime games. My guess that will be NBC. ESPN will get more games but not the best. Filler games for ESPN2, ESPNU.
LikeLike
NYE should only be reserved for the Cotton and the Fiesta (or a Bowl in an EST location where a Pac-10 team has been assigned) because of the historical preference for teams who are situated in the Central Time, Mountain and Pacific Time zones and also the fact that ticket-buyers may believe there’s a chance to make it home before the champagne pops.
LikeLike
The Hawk – NBC Notre Dame announcing team analogy was a bit harsh (for NBC) – but I wonder if they will apply the Notre-Dame rival/skeptic rule (Haden, Flutie) to their potential Big Ten football broadcasts. Could also be a good landing spot for David Diehl, who seems a bit stiff on his CBS NFL gigs.
LikeLike
I felt the NBC Notre Dame announcing analogy perhaps a bit harsh, but I know what Frank was driving at: you always feel like you’re listening to the home team announcers. That’s also the case when you listen to any BTN broadcast.
LikeLike
With regard to the BTN broadcasts, do you mean homers for the greater B16 or homers for the home team in the particular game being broadcast? I think it would be “part of the deal” if it was the former.
NBC/ND is a unique situation as they are not pushing a league (CBS-SEC) or a larger group of conferences (CFA v. Big10-Pac10 on alternating ABC/CBS in the 1980s), but a single team, and thus I would expect some magnitude of homerism, although I woudnt mind seeing/hearing an analyst who was an alum of ND who was forthright in his criticism of the teams effort (Bob Kuchenburg would have been ideal, but might be too un-PC for these times, acting like I would expect a Gary,IN “refugee” to act).
LikeLike
BTN doesn’t really have the same “homerism” that NBC has for ND games unless maybe it is a non-conference “Buy” game against a weak opponent. The NBC ND broadcast offers excellent visual production quality but their sound production is lacking. Watching the ND games is like watching a golf match. Beautiful pictures but the broadcast provides very little atmosphere. Part of that is the personality of the broadcast team.
LikeLike
This is what Bluevod has to say lately:
4/17:
I know first hand FSU is leading talks and lawyers have cleared that GOR for ACC is unforceable. Could be first Domino.
4/19:
Rumors starting to come out but all are guessing schools. They have done great job of keeping quiet. fsu,nc,gt,nc still front. ND? inplay
Why quiet? ACC and none of the network want this public now. No advantage even the Big10 needs it quiet for now.
50/50 prediction for expansion now 60/40 and picking up steam.
4/20:
ESPN will get the Lion’s share on the second half.35 Million per school without BTN. Makes sense why other’s want in
4/22:
So far my Fox and ESPN contact have been spot on. Let’s now see the second half deal.
LikeLike
I get the sense that he’s honestly relaying what he’s hearing (and not just making stuff up)…but it’s impossible to know if his sources are really “in the know” on this topic. And I’m sure there is a lot of gamesmanship going on up the ranks (“let’s let this leak out to create some perceived instability”).
LikeLike
Flugaur source just as sure it’s OU and KU first, but not until gor’s near expiration and this new deal nears going to market again.
LikeLike
He doesn’t seem to recognize that the ACC GOR may not hold water any longer. It has language about a future ACC Network that obviously hasn’t transpired since it was signed. So that may not stand in the way of any defections. Aside from that, I wonder where he’s hearing that OU and KU are in serious talks? I’m really starting to wonder if this is all a wonderful strategy by Delany & Co to distabilize things.
LikeLike
The source people seem to forget, or dismiss saying “things change”, is the B1G CEO’s through Delany (some time ago) when he indicated academics (read: AAU) would be a requirement in any future expansion. Ergo no FSU, no OU, etc.
LikeLike
I also see that Flugaur mentioned UVA/UNC and VT. I’ve never heard VT mentioned anywhere as a likely B1G candidate. So I’m wondering about his sources.
LikeLike
I haven’t it from sources either, but I’ve proposed them as a way to keep the SEC out of the B10 footprint (UVA + VT and draw a hard border) if UNC doesn’t want in but UVA is interested.
LikeLike
On a slightly different level of conference affiliation, the same Flugaur source says ASU hockey is not BTHC bound. WCHA believes ASU has chosen them.
LikeLike
I hadn’t realized ASU hockey was actually in demand. I wonder if members are going to get travel subsidies like they currently do when traveling to the Alaska schools.
LikeLike
@Scarlet_Lutefisk – ASU hockey is *definitely* in demand. This isn’t anything close to an Alaska-like anchor. A power school in an attractive market is worth oodles more to university presidents than a hockey power like North Dakota. Also, don’t make the mistake of using distance as being equal to travel costs. It can be a heck of a lot cheaper to fly from Detroit or Columbus to the major airport hub of Phoneix than limited flight airports in places like North Dakota. ASU hockey is big-time valuable on conference realignment metrics. Remember to think like a university president.
LikeLike
I am located near ASU Ground Zero (Mesa, AZ right by Tempe), and there is NOTHING about where the Sun Devils will be playing.That said, I still think the BEST possible option will be a Current B10 School adding Hockey (Like before I am thinking Iowa or Nebraska). The truth is with the exception of my Nittany Lions, the School I follow the most is ASU, and I do not see where they benefit the B10 enough. Both Associate Members (Johns Hopkins and (soon to be) Notre Dame), bring a lot more to the table then does ASU. Both are within the footprint of the B10,, strong Academics, in the case of Johns Hopkins (if they join the CIC their Research $$$$$ will help), Having Notre Dame for Hockey can work as a “Trial Balloon” and maybe it can lead to All Sports in the Big 10. Once we know who gets Part 2 of the TV Contract (ESPN, Comcast/NBC (or both)), then the answer to who is Team # 8 (if anyone) will be determined. My gut says Iowa.Why? I did a Google Search and note this: A new arena and athlete training center are part of a project that Coralville hopes to build in the Iowa River Landing (IRL), a 180-acre mixed-use development located on Interstate 80 at Exit 242 (1st Avenue).
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ncaa-isnt-going-broke-no-matter-how-much-you-hear-it/
College sports aren’t ever going bankrupt despite the cries of doom and gloom. Revenues are climbing just as fast as expenses and always have.
LikeLike
It is fascinating to me how quickly the economics of expansion has changed. Just a couple of years ago, if Maryland and Rutgers each could bring to the conference $30 million, that probably would have been enough. Between them, they cemented the mid-Atlantic from DC to NYC. Lot’s of B1G alumni, no room for the ACC (or B1G 12?) to take back that territory. Perhaps a largely defensive move that looked to Delaney as though it would also work financially over the long run.
While I do not think that any of us know for sure, but is certainly seems that RU and UMd were a financial home run, without waiting for the long run. From a posting made here a few days ago, the NYC TV market includes 6% of the TV homes in the entire country. That does not include Rutgers coverage in South Jersey which is in the Phila TV market. I think that Baltimore and DC were another 3% of TV homes. Combined, those two schools are in markets with in excess of 10% of all of the TV households in the entire county.
Now each B1G school is looking at $50 million plus within a few years. For a new member, the need to bring in more than $50 million is going to be a tough haul. ND and Texas could probably do it as part of the B1G, but what other schools?
The next B1G expansion, if there is one, will need to be based on more than pure numbers. (The numbers have already been provided by RU and UM).
Georgia Tech – fine school – but far and away the number 2 school in GA. FSU, super football power (not AAU), but will they get the B1G network onto TV’s all over Florida? UF might do that. I do not know about FSU.
NC and UVa would not earn $50 million, but are so significant to B1G that financial concessions would likely be made by the B1G to those two.
OU and Kansas. Offer many things, but not likely to be worth anywhere close to $50 million. Is OU worth a major financial concession? Is KU?
What other schools could even begin to approach $50 million in value?
If there ever was a chance at the B1G looking at UConn, Iowa State, Syracuse, Pitt, etc., this $50 million is the final nail in the coffin.
LikeLike
“but will they (FSU) get the B1G network onto TV’s all over Florida?”
Good question. It’s a big pond…but I’d think the the demand between FSU and a lot of B1G alumni would probably do it. I’m sure the decision-makers have evaluated this…and it’s a key factor in the decision. My guess is that if the B1G is pushing all the way down to GA (GT)…it won’t stop there. If they happen to focus westward instead (OU, KU)…then FSU isn’t on the table.
LikeLike
How satisfied is Vanderbilt within the SEC? In tandem with GT, FSU and perhaps VA, it could allay the administrators concerns about barely-AAU FSU and provide some planks on the bridge between Ohio and Georgia. I could see them clinging to their SEC membership like a lifeboat, but the Big10 could provide a break-even financial situation with higher prestige. They could have a full stadium with fans of other Big schools seeking the Nashvegas experience. If UNC’s price is too high and it insists on Duke or even NC State coming along, Vandy might make sense.
LikeLike
I’m sure Vandy would entertain the B1G’s courtship far more than any other SEC school. But I just don’t see it being on Delany’s wish list. Too few spots left on the stringer and too many big fish still out there. That’s creative thinking though.
LikeLike
You’re not going to fill a stadium any better than the sec does. Vandy stays an academic king of an athletic power conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think you necessarily want to look at the incremental value for each school addition. It’s really the economic law of scarcity. The fewer the conferences and “target rich” schools the greater bargaining leverage the conferences have with the TV networks. NCAA distributions are based on units earned so Kansas would bring a lot to the table from that perspective. The more schools also increases the more bowl opportunities. I could see a scenario where the B1G gets full cut from the Orange bowl for example squeezing out the ACC or others. You could also see a different distribution model for the Playoff. Obviously the Rose is divided 50/50 between the B1G and the PAC but the B1G can have a strong secondary bowl relationship with the Orange etc… where the PAC does not.
And then of course is BTN. Each school/state addition would hopefully be incremental to the current payout of $8-10 Million / school. That is not very difficult. Essentially each state that is added almost all falls to the bottom line for the network after considering broadcasting/production costs for the schools games/programming.
Bottom line is the incremental value for each addition isn’t necessarily the value the additional school generates but rather the aggregate increased value of each legacy school plus the new additions.
LikeLike
Florida is full of retired people from B1G states. It should be a profitable B1G market.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“It is fascinating to me how quickly the economics of expansion has changed. Just a couple of years ago, if Maryland and Rutgers each could bring to the conference $30 million, that probably would have been enough.”
It’s always been that way, though. This is why expansion tends to happen near the end of TV deals. The deal was about to make a big jump no matter what, so add the new guy at the lower value which is easier to provide. If the B10 had just signed a new TV deal in 2012 are you sure RU and UMD are members now? The money wouldn’t be the same as this offer but it would’ve been a sizable jump from where we were.
“While I do not think that any of us know for sure, but is certainly seems that RU and UMd were a financial home run, without waiting for the long run.”
It’s hard to say how much of the jump was due to the new additions since the B10 was already projecting a big increase with this deal. They certainly didn’t hurt it and presumably boosted it some. The proposed deal is higher than the B10 was projecting. Was that conservatism on their part (didn’t want to make a promise they couldn’t keep) or did RU and UMD bring more value than expected? I doubt we’ll ever find out.
“Now each B1G school is looking at $50 million plus within a few years. For a new member, the need to bring in more than $50 million is going to be a tough haul. ND and Texas could probably do it as part of the B1G, but what other schools?”
What you have to remember is that the value of the B10 is increased by new additions in non-linear ways. UNC would add a lot of TV homes, a MBB blue blood and another great research university. UVA adds less but there is a lot of synergy with them, UMD and UNC. There are also non-financial issues to consider like recruiting future students. And if the P5 becomes the P4, how much extra power and value does the B10 get?
“FSU, super football power (not AAU), but will they get the B1G network onto TV’s all over Florida? UF might do that. I do not know about FSU.”
Yes FSU would get statewide coverage. It might not be at quite as high a rate in some areas but FSU fans are numerous and spread out all over the state.
“What other schools could even begin to approach $50 million in value?”
I think you hit all the most likely candidates except for Duke. It’s still presidents making these decisions, so Duke, UNC and UVA have more value than they do on paper for the AD. On the other hand, you may underestimate OU and KU. OU is a major CFB brand which turns into TV revenue. They also could provide a bridge to UT which would make OU highly valuable. KU is in a similar position but with lesser inherent value since their strength is MBB instead of CFB. Still, if they’re the bridge to UT they would have tons of value.
“If there ever was a chance at the B1G looking at UConn, Iowa State, Syracuse, Pitt, etc., this $50 million is the final nail in the coffin.”
There never really was much of a chance for these schools.
Based on the value equation, the B10 is coming down to very few acceptable expansion candidates (only talking full members):
ND & someone
UT & someone
ND & someones
UT & someones
UVA & UNC
UVA & UNC & someones
UVA & UNC & GT & someone
maybe OU & KU
List of potential someones – GT, FSU, OU, KU
LikeLike
That wish list looks pretty spot-on (i’m a little less sure about OU/KU). I do keep wondering what the SEC is up to right now. It’s almost like they’ve been forgotten. And that’s dangerous.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/04/21/college-football-college-basketball-scheduling/83350976/
The future of college scheduling is package deals – to get the paycheck football game you also agree to some games in other sports (usually MBB).
LikeLike
Haven’t been around in a while, good to see everyone’s still checks in around here; I came by to comment on the first half of the new TV deal:
I think the most important aspect is the 6 year timeframe in terms of what it means for expansion.
The Big Ten will likely explore expansion to 16 (or 18) around the time that the next TV deal is signed. The 6 year time frame makes me feel almost certain that we will see an announcement that the Big Ten is exploring expansion opportunities in 2022-2023 given that the other conference (namely ACC/Big 12) will likely be arriving at the end of their GOR periods.
Important note here: Big 12 GOR ends in mid-2025, ACC GOR ends in mid-2027 (assuming they aren’t extended before they are near expiration).
My hunch is that the Big Ten will explore its next expansion round around 2022-2023 (presumably the Big Ten will sign a new TV contract in 2022 covering 2023-2029ish).
Thus, the Big Ten will be armed with another short contract signed in 2021 that is far beyond what the Big 12 and ACC are paying their individual members. At that point, if the gap is something like $40m+ per school per year; I think any school would have to listen to that kind of money.
That’s the kind of money that might shake loose UVa/UNC/FSU/Oklahoma/etc. for example. Either way, I think the years to focus on are around 2022-2023 and what that would mean in terms of expansion to 16-18 or further.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I think the most important aspect is the 6 year timeframe in terms of what it means for expansion.”
I agree that is significant, but it raises several questions for me.
1. Who wanted the 6 years, Fox or the B10?
2. Why 6 and not 8 (when the B12 GoR expires) or 10 (when the ACC GoR expires)? 2023 is earlier than ideal for expansion. You’d rather add new schools just before the deal ends and that would be easier when the GoRs end rather than having to get schools to leave early.
3. Was there something other than expansion driving the choice of 6 years if the B10 chose it? Did they want to be first in line rather than last next time? Do they expect media changes in the near future? Do they think certain other bidders would be available then?
4. If the B10 chose 6 years, was it so they could get another 6 years next and then be on the market in 2029, not long after the ACC GoR expires?
“Thus, the Big Ten will be armed with another short contract signed in 2021 that is far beyond what the Big 12 and ACC are paying their individual members. At that point, if the gap is something like $40m+ per school per year; I think any school would have to listen to that kind of money.”
I don’t think the gap will get that big that quickly. Certainly not to the B12.
LikeLike
Its right before the Pac 12 deal expires. Who could add that type of value besides Texas and Notre Dame? USC.
B1G absorbs the most valuable members of the Pac in a western wing? USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Colorado?
OU/KU makes no sense. Try to do the divisions. And neither feeds the BTN sufficiently. Not enough people in those states. OU doesn’t satisfy the AAU preference.
LikeLike
And really, you should think like a university president. And remember that Delany will almost certainly be retired before then.
Do university presidents want to control the world? Or do they want to be on top of the world without a lot of company, 14 schools making more than anyone else? Why would they want to bring a bunch of others up there with them?
They are likely to be fat and happy and have no desire to see each other less by expanding.
This deal kills expansion for the Big 10. They have no need and probably will have no appetite. In any event the schools who could sufficiently sate their hunger:
Notre Dame (don’t need the money)
Texas (don’t need the money)
Stanford (has more money than anyone)
Florida (no way they leave the SEC for a yankee conference)
LikeLike
bullet,
“And really, you should think like a university president.”
Okay. How does that help explain the choice of 6 years over other time frames?
“And remember that Delany will almost certainly be retired before then.”
He’s 67 now I believe. He could easily still be around in 6 years.
“Do university presidents want to control the world?”
I don’t know. maybe.
“Or do they want to be on top of the world without a lot of company, 14 schools making more than anyone else?”
14 isn’t a magic number.
“Why would they want to bring a bunch of others up there with them?”
Is 2 “a bunch”? Is 4?
“They are likely to be fat and happy and have no desire to see each other less by expanding.”
Or they still worry about the demographics for the future students and want to expand more. Or they worry about limited state funding and want to increase the money available from athletics. Or they worry about the NCAA losing lawsuits and schools having to pay out a bunch of extra money, thus needing greater revenue.
“This deal kills expansion for the Big 10.”
I don’t think it kills it out of hand, it just restricts the acceptable additions even further.
“In any event the schools who could sufficiently sate their hunger:
Notre Dame (don’t need the money)
Texas (don’t need the money)
Stanford (has more money than anyone)
Florida (no way they leave the SEC for a yankee conference)”
I agree UF and Stanford aren’t coming. I don’t think they were ever targets, either. ND doesn’t need the money but that doesn’t mean they might not want it in the future. If the B10 expands sufficiently, ND can get the eastern exposure they want with less travel for Olympic sports and more money. Likewise, UT doesn’t need the money but they might want it.
Schools you neglected:
VA + NC = 18.4M people (about the same as NY) -> UVA + UNC has real value
GA = 10.2M people -> GT has value as a partner
LikeLike
The fact that the term is so short makes me at least consider the notion of Delany staying on another 6 years. It might seem ridiculous, but Slive retired at 74…, that’s the age that Delany would be at around 2022…
I think Delany setting in a short contract term makes it more likely that he just stays on through the next expansion round.
LikeLike
“OU/KU makes no sense. Try to do the divisions. And neither feeds the BTN sufficiently. Not enough people in those states. OU doesn’t satisfy the AAU preference.”
-Why do you think the divisions would be difficult? Purdue goes East. Done.
LikeLike
I agree with this … two Western schools makes for the least divisional challenges.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“Its right before the Pac 12 deal expires. Who could add that type of value besides Texas and Notre Dame? USC.”
Riight…
Trojans don’t wrestle. DQed
“B1G absorbs the most valuable members of the Pac in a western wing? USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Colorado?”
Let’s see, maybe we’d like to destroy the Rose Bowl and hook up with the WAC…they don’t play FB…the MWC then, for the premier bowl matchup. Sweet.
I thought you said colorado wasn’t worthy of dysfunctional B12. Now they are B1G value?
“OU/KU makes no sense.”
KU makes BB sense. Restoring OU/UNL rivalry while ending RRR makes national viewership sense. But no, I just don’t see the B1G that disruptive.
“Try to do the divisions.” That is just a bit more scheduling adjustments considering how much change has already happened.
“And neither feeds the BTN sufficiently. Not enough people in those states.” Might breach threshold to make BTN a universal basic tier channel nation wide on all providers?
“OU doesn’t satisfy the AAU preference.” No, it doesn’t. But when have little things like stated requirements stood in the way of fanatical fan fantasy?
LikeLike
B1G championship game would be the Rose Bowl. LOL. I think any Big Ten expansion is going to be contiguous to the foot print and no sooner than the next media deal.
LikeLike
Restoring OU/UNL rivalry while ending RRR makes national viewership sense. But no, I just don’t see the B1G that disruptive.
The RRR was a non-conference game for decades. It could be again.
LikeLike
Marc:
“The RRR was a non-conference game for decades. It could be again.”
True. But would it? UT isn’t scheduling Aggies.
Perhaps I should have said reduced the prominence of RRR by emphasizing OU/Neb (thanksgiving day game?).
LikeLike
bullet,
“Its right before the Pac 12 deal expires. Who could add that type of value besides Texas and Notre Dame? USC.”
If the P12 was the reason, it would more likely be because Fox could then free up more space for B10 games than because the B10 wanted to expand to CA.
“B1G absorbs the most valuable members of the Pac in a western wing? USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Colorado?”
CO doesn’t have much value as I recall from them leaving the B12. I’d guess OR is more valuable from an athletic standpoint. Better yet, just take the CA 4 as a western pod.
I just don’t see any way traveling all the Olympic sports would make sense, though.
“OU/KU makes no sense. Try to do the divisions.”
Easy:
West = OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, KU, NW, IL
East = OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
They’re better than the current ones with no need for locked games and better balance.
“And neither feeds the BTN sufficiently. Not enough people in those states. OU doesn’t satisfy the AAU preference.”
OU adds the same way NE did, via national brand and big games. It boosts ratings and that leads to revenue. KS and OK combine for 6.8M people (more than IN), plus OU leads to fans in TX as well. And KU adds significant MBB value and MBB fans nationally.
I’m not saying I’d add them, but the case can be made for them.
LikeLike
I’m just throwing CU in there from the Pac as they fit in a 5 team quad. Oregon doesn’t.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m just throwing CU in there from the Pac as they fit in a 5 team quad. Oregon doesn’t.”
You listed 6 schools, so I assumed you were doing 6/4/4/6 pods. If you’re doing pods of 5, how do both CU and UW fit?
Ignoring pods, how does CO fit better than OR? OR is a major rival of UW and near enough to be a travel partner. CO is all by itself geographically.
LikeLike
West-USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/UW
Central-Colorado/UNL/IA/MN/WI
North-IL/NW/UM/MSU/OSU
East-IU/PU/PSU/MD/RU
4 5 school quads that could be rotated, 2 years West Central and North East, 2 years East Central and North West, 2 years North Central and Coast to Coast.
LikeLike
Why would the Big Ten go that far West though? Southeast or Southwest expansion are the only realistic possibilities.
Nobody wants to try to create the NFL or some sort of cross-country league here… that was only on the table if the Big Ten stayed at 12 and had a scheduling alliance with the Pac-12.
LikeLike
bullet,
Okay, I was thinking fit in terms of the school fitting the B10, not how you could make pods.
“West-USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/UW
Central-Colorado/UNL/IA/MN/WI
North-IL/NW/UM/MSU/OSU
East-IU/PU/PSU/MD/RU
4 5 school quads that could be rotated, 2 years West Central and North East, 2 years East Central and North West, 2 years North Central and Coast to Coast.”
The East is pretty weak in that setup while the North is loaded. Potentially the West could be a killer, too. It also the same as eliminating divisions and locking 4 games and rotating the other 5 but with some of the wrong games locked. You might as well drop divisions at that point.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Why would the Big Ten go that far West though?”
They wouldn’t.
“Southeast or Southwest expansion are the only realistic possibilities.”
bullet knows that. He finds it silly when people talk about UT joining the B10, so he extends the silliness.
LikeLike
Those are all terrific questions:
1. I think it’s worth noting that Fox may have been the side pushing for the short time-frame as a way of seeing what the ratings value is there as well as seeing the value of the contract.
But in some sense, it could have been both sides willing to consider a short-term contract. I don’t think it’s necessarily exclusive. When the Big Ten and Fox got to years, they must have looked at the other conferences and where they are; we know those years by heart, certainly Delany and Fox (which has the Big 12 deal as well) do too.
2. As far as the GORs go, I actually think 6 is near ideal; 8 might be too close to expiration of the other conferences’ TV deals. In some sense, if the Big Ten signs another 6 year deal quickly, then it can focus on expansion and pluck schools away before the other conferences have new TV deals in hand. I think that’s an advantage in terms of getting the next TV deal out of the way; then the other conferences like ACC/Big 12 will be under the cloud of expansion questions as they try to get to the last years of their contracts…
I think it will look like Nebraska leaving the Big 12…, as in that happened before the Big 12 got into negotiations for their TV deal.
3. Delany is a risk-taker in some sense as we’ve seen, but I honestly think expansion is the only obvious pro-short term contractual reason for the Big Ten. I think it’s too risky given decreases in cable TV subscriptions across the country to go to a shorter term otherwise; cable subscription decreases will eventually eat at BTN; it’s hard to see the value being recouped otherwise even with streaming. Maybe Delany sees something else there (he is more of a media guy than I’ll ever be), but I don’t see it.
4. I think the 6 year term basically shortens the game and makes it more easily to work expansion into the fold; i.e. once you expand, you know the next contract revaluation will be coming up soon. Shorter terms are generally pro-expansion in that sense. I think there’s a ton of advantages if the Big Ten goes for a quick “re up” on the 6 year contracts and then shifts to expansion before the other conferences even get to their next deal. At that point if Big Ten schools are earning $60+m per year in 2023-, then how do the current old deals look offering <$30m per year…?
LikeLike
This pretty much signals that the big ten is thinking of near term expansion, and there are only a limited number of schools that add enough value to justify inclusion. For this deal to be short term feelers must have already been positively received. In my opinion in four years the BIG will take two of:
Texas
Notre Dame
Florida
UNC
BIG is in a position to be very selective here. In 6 years BTN revenue will be dominant. And no other conference will have anything like it.
My guess: ND and UNC. My hope: Florida and Texas. They are more culturally compatible. UF is a BIG school in all but geography.
LikeLike
I also could see the SEC “multiplying by dividing” into 2 explicit 10 to 12 team conferences. The current east division adding the higher profile ACC teams in same states and NC/VA. The current west adding Utx, ok, 1 to 3 other teams, getting Mizzou in exchange for another west team. This could the answer to a southern incursion along I.75 +2 by the B1G.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“I also could see the SEC “multiplying by dividing” into 2 explicit 10 to 12 team conferences.”
I’d think they’d want 2 conferences of 9 so they can stick with 8 conference games and still have 2 CCGs.
LikeLike
Brian, isn’t it supposed to be equal sized divisions for a CCG, under the new rule? 10 or 12 apiece would allow a CCG out of a division round robin and half or more cross division under 8 conference games.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Brian, isn’t it supposed to be equal sized divisions for a CCG, under the new rule?”
Yes, but we’re talking about the SEC becoming a league of 2 separate conferences. It’d be like the NFL having the AFC and NFC but without having a Super Bowl (SEC championship game) because that would make them 1 conference. Instead they’d probably stage that SECCG as a bowl for the best teams not to be in the CFP/NY6.
“10 or 12 apiece would allow a CCG out of a division round robin and half or more cross division under 8 conference games.”
9 would let each half act like the B12 but with only 8 conference games so they can still schedule all their usual cupcakes.
LikeLike
Yes, I get that now … using the play a conference round robin and top two playoff alternative of the current rule. I’ve re-read the NCAA press release on the rules change, which is clearer than the news account I had googled up previously.
I don’t quite see how the league split would work out. For the Vols, they’d want to be in the one with Bama and the Gators. For Bama, they’d want to be in the one with Auburn. Who do the Gators want to be with … and does the chain stop before 9 schools or does it keep going?
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“I don’t quite see how the league split would work out. For the Vols, they’d want to be in the one with Bama and the Gators. For Bama, they’d want to be in the one with Auburn. Who do the Gators want to be with … and does the chain stop before 9 schools or does it keep going?”
They can use an OOC game to maintain any rivalry that’s lost in the split. What better way to keep the money in the family than play all your major OOC games against the other half of your own league?
LikeLike
UF is so not a B10 school. Very much an SEC school.
UNC will also require a lot of their friends (UVa/Duke/NCSU) to come.
LikeLike
Correct. I think some folks only look at it from their vantagepoint and don’t realize that some of these schools aren’t going to just leave the South to join what they perceive as a MW/Northern conference just for what they see as a nice short-term tv deal. No way UNC is the only B1G school from its region of the country. Heels wouldn’t be remotely comfortable doing that. “We’re going to be playing where?”
LikeLike
I agree 100% The Gators are going no where. The SEC is an outstanding Conference. Do not forget some of the rivalry games they play ( especially Georgia). I also think North Carolina is a no go. They do not want to be the Southern Outpost of the Big 10. Florida State both factors apply: In their case it is not playing Miami ( and Florida in a Non Conference Game) plus not wanting to be a B10 Southern Outpost. The most realistic teams are the ones I have mentioned: Oklahoma and Kansas ( if they could get Texas and ( or) Notre Dame they would ( I would say ND is more likely than UT)). One thing that is certain is the B10 Schools will have a whole lot of money. What you would like to see is because of it, some of the lesser Schools of the B10 get better ( Illinois comes to mind), I also would like to see more Schools add Hockey ( Iowa and ( or) Nebraska?). I know that is the plan @ Rutgers and Penn State. I hope others take advantage of this opportunity?
LikeLike
uf fans would start lighting torches. It’s not remotely a b1g school on quite a few levels. I take it you’ve never spent much time in the south. it’s a fine school but the idea that uf is interested is leaving the SEC…is absurd.
LikeLike
If y’all knew any Gator fans, you really wouldn’t want FU.
http://theadvocate.com/news/15567771-32/comment-about-mans-florida-gators-clothing-leads-to-argument-at-baton-rouge-club-a-car-chase-and-gun
LikeLike
According to @Bluevod an hour ago, the FOX deal may contain contingencies for “new entries.” Is he implying more $$ if a select Uni (or more) follow and join the Conference?
LikeLike
He’s probably referring to standard clauses that adjust the deal if the membership changes (automatic pro rata bump with a chance to discuss a bump per team based on the addition).
LikeLike
Yes, exactly. It’s a standard clause. People for some reason think it’s “news” because @Bluevod says it, which he’s just stating the obvious.
LikeLike
drwillini,
“For this deal to be short term feelers must have already been positively received.”
That assumes the B10 chose to only do 6 years. What if Fox only offered 6 years?
“In my opinion in four years the BIG will take two of:
Texas
Notre Dame
Florida
UNC”
There is literally zero chance of UF ever leaving the SEC.
“In 6 years BTN revenue will be dominant. And no other conference will have anything like it.”
I think the SECN will be very much like it. They already charge a lot more per household in their footprint.
“My guess: ND and UNC. My hope: Florida and Texas. They are more culturally compatible. UF is a BIG school in all but geography.”
I see how you think ND is too different in terms of academic culture and being independent for so long. UNC and UT are very similar in my mind in terms of their difference from the B10. UF may be more B10 than FSU, but they are so southern it’s laughable to suggest they’d leave the SEC.
LikeLike
I actually agree with this. My main point is that there are likely no viable candidates for the B1G, and it might stay at 14 teams for the next 100 years.
LikeLike
It’s probably semantics, but it really comes down to what you consider “viable.”
Single schools that would clearly interest the B10 and aren’t in the SEC:
UT, ND
Pairs that would interest the B10:
UVA & UNC
maybe OU & KU (I don’t think so, but many do)
Possible interest from B10 if others also came:
GT, FSU
Schools listed above that want to join the B10:
OU & KU (they’d probably prefer to stay in a healthy B12, though)
Schools that might be convinced by money:
UVA, UNC, GT, FSU
Those schools combine for $37M in subsidies to their ADs with a minimum of $7.1M at FSU.
Schools that would need other events to change their current stance:
UT, ND
LikeLike
I actually agree with this. My main point is that there are likely no viable candidates for the B1G, and it might stay at 14 teams for the next 100 years.
No conference has ever kept the same membership for 100 years, or even 50 years.
LikeLike
Only mistake in all of this in my opinion is the short time frame. That opinion goes beyond sports though into larger questions. I’ll be very surprised (to put it midly) if the next deal is as good as this one.
That said, this is an amazing start to the negotiations and agree ESPN (like them or hate them) makes most sense for the other side.
LikeLike
Television model as we know it, is changing. Maybe the networks were very reluctant to make a long-term commitment unless at a very reduced per year cost; B1G might’ve wanted a very short term deal just before a couple conferences GOR’s expire.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Only mistake in all of this in my opinion is the short time frame.”
That assumes the B10 chose the time frame. What if that’s all that Fox offered?
“I’ll be very surprised (to put it midly) if the next deal is as good as this one.”
And many/most said this deal would underperform the B10’s projections since the sports bubble was bursting. The naysayers have been wrong every time they claimed media revenue wouldn’t keep growing. Based on ratings, CFB is still undervalued compared to the NFL according to experts.
LikeLike
“Television model as we know it, is changing.”
As long as live sports are basically DVR proof it really doesn’t matter what form distribution takes. Content is king, especially content that demands live access.
LikeLike
I know that this is all a fantasy world, but even in a fantasy, U Florida is not going anywhere. The Gators could probably live without the Miami game, but the only way that UF would change conferences would be if Georgia, Alabama, LSU and maybe of couple of others came with them. In other words, never could happen. The thing more certain than UF in the SEC is the annual UF-FSU game which is mandated by the Florida legislature and will not go away.
If someone from UF even whispered the desire to leave the SEC, there would riots in the streets of Gainsville and in the legislative halls of Tallahassee.
While money to the B1G may be many millions more than the PAC 12, ACC and Big 12, the SEC will be right there.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I know that this is all a fantasy world, but even in a fantasy, U Florida is not going anywhere.”
Agreed.
“The Gators could probably live without the Miami game, but the only way that UF would change conferences would be if Georgia, Alabama, LSU and maybe of couple of others came with them. ”
Miami means nothing to UF. They’ve played twice in the past 10 seasons. FSU is their OOC rivalry game. As for SEC foes, UF’s ties are to UGA, AU, LSU and maybe TN. The other eastern teams stink (UK, Vandy) or are new (MO, SC). The SEC never played each other a lot historically so UF has only played AL 32 times total in the regular season.
“While money to the B1G may be many millions more than the PAC 12, ACC and Big 12, the SEC will be right there.”
Agreed. As long as football is king, the SEC will be just fine.
LikeLike
Yeah, anytime I see uf to b1g mentioned…i know we’ve sailed the conference expansion ship into the twilight zone.
LikeLike
Agree with those that think the prospect of Florida going to the Big Ten is crazy. Yes, it’s an AAU flagship school that delivers massive TV markets. However, UF is sort of like when you see a house that looks perfect on Zillow, but then when you actually visit it and walk around the neighborhood, you realize that you’ll never fit in. Florida is an SEC school through and through to its core.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, FSU is far, far more likely to be willing to switch conferences into the Big Ten than UF. I can say that as a certainty being down here and having been around movers/shakers in both schools.
LikeLike
“The Gators could probably live without the Miami game”
UF cancelled the Miami series after the ’87 season…the gators were tired of losing more often than not to the Canes at that point. They’ve only played 4 times since as regular season games. Plus two bowl games. The gators only winning a single game against UM going back to the mid-80’s. So the series likely won’t ever be renewed. No upside for uf…and a heckuva lot of (proven) downside.
LikeLike
bluevod (who seems to be driving a lot of the latest expansion chatter) is now saying even more firmly that FSU is likely #15 and the B1G domino. For what it’s worth…
LikeLike
Does Bluevod have a track record of knowing what university presidents are thinking about expansion? He does have an inside track to Michigan athletics, and has demonstrated it repeatedly, but that doesn’t mean he knows squat about expansion.
LikeLike
I think he’s just someone who repeats rumors he hears from his sources (in the MI AD and elsewhere).
LikeLike
Most Michigan fans would not agree he has demonstrated an inside track to Michigan athletics. He spews vague statements, or, as Brian noted, rumors that already exist. I wouldn’t put an ounce of faith in his statements.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/florida-gators-nfl-draft-busts-schools
Where do NFL busts come from?
1. UF
2. PSU
3. OkSU
4. FSU
5. UNC
6. WI
All had over 40% of their 1st round picks become busts, with UF over 50%.
Safest choices:
1. Miami
2. TN
3. OU
4. OSU
5. AL
6. USC
All were under 30% with Miami (15%) the only one below 20%.
The overall bust rate was 32.7% just for reference.
A couple lessons to take away from this: Teams shouldn’t write off a player who went to a small school, avoid players from Florida colleges located outside of Miami and do not draft Penn State pass rushers — we’re looking at you, Carl Nassib.
LikeLike
If FSU looked to be heading to the BIG, do you think that the SEC would step in and make a pre-emptive offer to FSU? My guess is that FSU would much rather be in the SEC than the BIG and that FSU should be able to add to the SEC bottom line, especially with the CBS contract expiring in the near future.
LikeLike
It probably completely depends on who else would be joining FSU from the ACC. If UVA/UNC/GT are also going…I think it would very much sway a lot of folks in the B1G direction. I do agree that the vast majority of FSU supporters wouldn’t just want to be stuck out in left (south) fields on an island. That would be awkward (similar to WVU in B12). I do agree that if this all turns out to be real…the SEC will be wise to try to lock the B1G out of the south (and certainly out of FL).
LikeLike
unproductive,
“If FSU looked to be heading to the BIG, do you think that the SEC would step in and make a pre-emptive offer to FSU?”
Not quite. I’m not sure the SEC really wants FSU so I think they’d prefer to make a counteroffer if and when the B10 has already made an offer. Then the SEC would decide if it’s worth it to them to accept FSU.
“My guess is that FSU would much rather be in the SEC than the BIG and that FSU should be able to add to the SEC bottom line, especially with the CBS contract expiring in the near future.”
I think the fans would definitely prefer the SEC. I think the faculty would prefer the B10. I think the AD would prefer the SEC to reduce travel, but if enough ACC teams came along that could change. Overall I think FSU would prefer the SEC if all else (money) was equal or close enough.
Now, whether FSU would make them money is a different question. I don’t think adding FSU impacts the CBS deal much. It’s already a top game every week and the state of FL already watches it, so FSU doesn’t add much there (TAMU didn’t add much value either and they’re in a new state). FSU also doesn’t do much for the SECN. I think they’re biggest impact would be on the ESPN deal. The part you skipped is who would be #16 for the SEC. That’s an important part of whether FSU makes money for them.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’d guess that the majority of casual FSU fans would prefer the SEC too. But they won’t call the shot. Either will the alumni, the AD, the FSU Board of Trustees, or an influential booster. If FSU Prez Thrasher (former State of Fla congressman and FSU alumnus) wants to go to the B1G…I’d bet on him to make it happen. He’s 72, has seen it all, and wants to leave a legacy. And isn’t worried about ruffling feathers or his next job.
I love FSU AND the B1G (for a variety of reasons)…so I personally hope this pipe dream happens (along with UVA/UNC/GT)…if the ACC can no longer compete with the big boy conferences ($$$).
I’d much rather see the B1G move southward than the SEC lock it all down (and become King). The stakes are higher than ever if the dominoes indeed do fall.
LikeLike
If Thrasher is 72, then he might not be around when the next re-alignment domino falls.
LikeLike
One quick thing to consider: both Fox and Big Ten know all of the terms of the other conferences in terms of contract years/GOR expiration/etc. I think the 6 year term was something both sides wanted. That’s just my hunch of course, but I think the shorter contract works out best for both sides.
The Big Ten can go all in on expansion after signing a short-term extension (another 6 year deal) around 2022 with $60m+ per year going to each school, and Fox will gain if the Big Ten adds schools and increases the value of the property. Fox will basically be just shifting money around if a Big 12 school joins the Big Ten around 2023-2024, and it will be gaining value if it gets ACC schools…
Ask yourself this question: if you’re Fox, would you prefer to pay Oklahoma/Kansas each $30m per year in the Big Ten or $15-20m per year in the Big 12 (for that half of the contract)? Etc. And if those two schools shift, all of a sudden, you don’t have to pay anywhere near as much to the Big 12 when it gets re upped… you’re basically just shifting money around from the other Big 12 members to OU/Kansas…
(Just using those 2 as an example above).
I just think the expansion possibilities are way too obvious with this timeline, and I think both sides know it and were aiming for that.
LikeLike
“The Big Ten can go all in on expansion after signing a short-term extension (another 6 year deal) around 2022”
That’s very possible. The big risk being that the SEC has time to swoop and protect its turf. If the SEC is able to add just a couple more key schools/real estate,,,they’re probably king of the hill for decades to come (including the long-term TV contracts). Whether that be UNC/UVA (with possibly FSU/GT) and/or UTx/OU.
I hope the B1G isn’t about to get blind-sided by the SEC. They’ve been suspiciously quiet…
LikeLike
I don’t really think the SEC is in a position to be the first mover; typically the SEC has been more reactive to Big Ten moves (I’m thinking about Penn State and Nebraska specifically and then SEC reacting in moves to 12 and 13-14 as a result of those Big Ten moves).
I think the same situation will play out in some respect…
The SEC will watch what the Big Ten does in early 2020s; if Big Ten moves to 16, I think SEC will follow if the right schools are there.
Note: I think with limited exceptions, Big Ten has to be first mover on ACC to shake those schools loose.
LikeLike
I don’t think Nebraska or Penn State (certainly not in 1990) were ever hot targets for the SEC. They like big markets…and a contiguous footprint. If they ever get the sense that the B1G has serious designs on the southeast…I’d expect them to lock it down. Or at least try. The B1G was no threat to them whatsoever until very recently.
LikeLike
TOM,
“I don’t think Nebraska or Penn State (certainly not in 1990) were ever hot targets for the SEC.”
Agreed. But I think his point was that the B10 going to 11 with PSU was the move that led to the SEC adding AR and SC. Then the B10 finally went to 12 with NE and the SEC quickly added TAMU and MO.
One can argue that those moves were not cause and effect but inevitable moves for the SEC because:
1. The era of independents was ending (SC)
2. The SWC was doomed by years of scandal (AR)
3. Only a fool ignores a great opportunity (TAMU & MO)
But many people have said the B10 really drove both rounds of expansion.
“They like big markets”
They do? AR, LA, MS, AL, TN and KY are big markets?
“and a contiguous footprint.”
Who doesn’t? But I think they’d be willing to skip a state if a much better opportunity existed in the next state.
“If they ever get the sense that the B1G has serious designs on the southeast…I’d expect them to lock it down. Or at least try.”
They don’t care what the B10 has designs on. It’s when they get the sense that southern schools are willing to listen to the B10 that they’ll consider being more active. The problem is that blocking the B10 would force them to take schools they don’t really want. I think they’d rather let the B10 in while the SEC still dominates the state anyway (GT in GA, maybe FSU in FL). As for ACC and B12 territory, I think everyone will be sniffing around as the GoRs end.
“The B1G was no threat to them whatsoever until very recently.”
The B10 isn’t a threat to them anyway. The SEC is never going to fail.
LikeLike
I was referring to the B1G getting Nebraska (not a big market)….and PSU (not being contiguous by a long-shot). I misunderstood the original poster’s comment (taking it that somehow the SEC was interested in those schools). My mistake.
Obviously every conference has some small market teams. Not can or (probably) should be done about programs that have been with conferences for decades….centuries!
LikeLike
Not that I’m buying into BlueVod but fun to consider and talk about. How interested do you think FSU would be in the B1G? Are they truly interested in the B1G, are they a good fit, does the B1G really want them?
When FSU was negotiating with the Big XII their supposedly their was talk they required multiple partners to leave; e.g. Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami to Big XII…
What will the SEC do when they sniff the B1G potentially invading one of their states; Florida (FSU) or potentially Georgia (GT)? Does the SEC decide FSU is too valuable enough to not offer?
LikeLike
Tiger,
“Not that I’m buying into BlueVod but fun to consider and talk about.”
I think we are all in that same boat (except those that hate when we talk about this stuff).
“How interested do you think FSU would be in the B1G?”
The fans or the school? The school is interested, the fans not very much (except for the $$$).
My guess at their preferences:
1. ACC with comparable money to B10/SEC
2. ACC only lagging B10/SEC by about $10M/year
3a. SEC – more from the athletic side
3b. B10 – more from the academic side
4. ACC with comparable money to B12
5. B12
6. ACC with money lagging everyone
FSU wants to join the AAU and getting into the B10 and CIC would help them with that. Travel would be bad, but it would also be a problem in the B12 and they supposedly considered that. Especially if several other ACC schools came along, travel might be less of an issue (and UMD got a travel subsidy so FSU might, too).
“are they a good fit,”
They are a big state school with decent academics and research. On the other hand they’re very southern, they emphasize different sports, they aren’t AAU and they’re over 800 miles from any current B10 school.
“does the B1G really want them?”
Nobody knows. I don’t think they’re high on our list due to their academics and location but others think the B10 would be fools not to take them.
“When FSU was negotiating with the Big XII their supposedly their was talk they required multiple partners to leave; e.g. Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami to Big XII…”
They wanted some shorter travel and we’re using their leverage. They’d ask the same type of thing of the B10 but presumably some different schools.
“What will the SEC do when they sniff the B1G potentially invading one of their states; Florida (FSU) or potentially Georgia (GT)? Does the SEC decide FSU is too valuable enough to not offer?”
I think the SEC would let GT go and not care. UGA owns the state and GT wouldn’t get BTN on statewide. It might not even get on in Atlanta (Comcast).
FSU would be riskier for them to let go, but I’m not sure FSU makes money for the SEC so they might not have a good choice.
LikeLike
Thanks for the responses, most what I expected and very interesting to hear an actual Seminole fan’s perspective. My perspective from afar is their fanbase is pretty split in regards to be anti-SEC (more vocal minority?) vs pro-SEC and where their allegiances lean.
The question of whether the SEC would have interest in Florida State was arguably the one I was most interested in. [agree they’d have no interest in GT.]
We do know the B1G wants to move more to the south, but how far south do they want? Confident Virginia and North Carolina are highly desired targets by the B1G, debatable on whether they’d be interested in Georgia Tech, Florida State, or Oklahoma…
From a B1G perspective, adding Virginia, North Carolina and even Georgia Tech really interest me. I’m on the fence with Florida State as I haven’t seriously put much thought, research into them fitting in as B1G members as the possibility has always been pretty far fetched to me and glad to hear others opinions who might’ve.
LikeLike
Tiger,
“We do know the B1G wants to move more to the south, but how far south do they want? Confident Virginia and North Carolina are highly desired targets by the B1G, debatable on whether they’d be interested in Georgia Tech, Florida State, or Oklahoma…”
GT is geographically southern but that’s about it. Atlanta is mostly transplants and many are from the mid-Atlantic or North. It’s similar to Duke in that fashion, but not as northern as Duke is. Also remember that Atlanta is only 1/3 of the way into GA and just a 250 mile drive from Charlotte. It’s actually farther north than Myrtle Beach, SC (basically the same as the NC/SC border at the coast). In other words, it’s not much of a stretch if UNC is on board.
LikeLike
“The question of whether the SEC would have interest in Florida State was arguably the one I was most interested in.”
I can’t imagine the SEC being comfortable with a FSU-B1G partnership in a state that doesn’t take a backseat to anyone holistically in population/growth/recruits. And in a state with an ever-increasing load of B1G fans/alumni. Check that…the SEC wouldn’t just be uncomfortable with the idea…it would probably cause an emergency session. “Live from Tallahassee…FSU-Ohio State in a a Big Ten cross-division Top 5 battle!”
LikeLike
“…“Live from Tallahassee…FSU-Ohio State in a a Big Ten cross-division Top 5 battle!”…”
make that … “Live from Tallahassee…FSU-Ohio State in a a Big Ten battle for Eastern Division dominance!”
… which is why I am quite ambivalent about ACC four-pack scenarios. Not a whole lot of “Old Big Ten” in the likely Big Ten East, and I’d think a better than 50:50 chance the Buckeyes would be in there with a bunch of newbies.
LikeLike
I hear you. I’d feel the same way if I was a king-of-the-hill B1G team. I really don’t see any of this happening.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“make that … “Live from Tallahassee…FSU-Ohio State in a a Big Ten battle for Eastern Division dominance!”
… which is why I am quite ambivalent about ACC four-pack scenarios. Not a whole lot of “Old Big Ten” in the likely Big Ten East, and I’d think a better than 50:50 chance the Buckeyes would be in there with a bunch of newbies.”
Which is why I think they’d drop divisions and schedule as one big conference instead (I think they could get the rule changed to allow it).
LikeLike
“Which is why I think they’d drop divisions and schedule as one big conference instead (I think they could get the rule changed to allow it).”
That would be my hope, but I’m not going to bank on it.
LikeLike
Brian, curious about your point that GT wouldn’t bring Comcast in ATL. I know you’re down there…GT is a smallish sized school but I thought it had a decent – and definitely affluent – alumni base in the Atlanta metro area. If they can’t deliver even ATL Comcast, they’re a non-starter.
I’ve always been bullish on GT. A great academic school in a major market and I would love to see a rivalry develop with Purdue.
LikeLike
BoilerTex,
“Brian, curious about your point that GT wouldn’t bring Comcast in ATL. I know you’re down there…GT is a smallish sized school but I thought it had a decent – and definitely affluent – alumni base in the Atlanta metro area. If they can’t deliver even ATL Comcast, they’re a non-starter.”
I say that for a few reasons:
1. GT has fewer than 50k alumni in the Atlanta area in a metro area of 5.5M (61k alumni in all of GA).
2. GT has a lot fewer unaffiliated fans than UGA in Atlanta (5:1 or worse).
3. A lot of other SEC schools have large fan bases in Atlanta, some larger than GT’s. Based on Facebook likes, GT is at best 4th behind UGA, AL and Auburn (the data only shows the top 3).
4. Comcast is known to be a tough negotiator over sports networks. They made it hard to get BTN on in Philly despite all the PSU alumni there (this was before RU was added).
With that many SEC fans (plus a lot of ACC fans as FSU isn’t too far away), I’d expect a lot of pushback from people not wanting to pay more for BTN. They’d probably reach a compromise at a lesser rate than elsewhere to make sure it was on. Other parts of Atlanta have Cox but those tend to be more suburban and less GT-friendly I think.
“I’ve always been bullish on GT. A great academic school in a major market and I would love to see a rivalry develop with Purdue.”
This is all just my opinion. Maybe bullet disagrees. I could be underestimating the power of the BTN negotiators.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it.
LikeLike
Brian: I would think that GTech has stronger relative support in the Atlanta suburbs than in Atlanta itself.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian: I would think that GTech has stronger relative support in the Atlanta suburbs than in Atlanta itself.”
In a few of them, yes, but not overall. And Charter (I said Cox but meant Charter) tends to be in less affluent suburbs, and those areas have a lot of unaffiliated fans that heavily lean UGA based on recent success.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’m just a lone FSU grad (so take the rather small sampling pool for what it’s worth):
My preferences would be:
1. The ACC not only survives but thrives! It adds UTx and UND becomes a full time member. This is where we’re getting into fantasy land.
2. B1G. With UVA/UNC/GT. A lot of reasons why this is where my heart lies. I might even (due to my personal bias) put this into the #1 slot after further thought.
3. SEC.
4. Nothing else.
LikeLike
“When FSU was negotiating with the Big XII their supposedly their was talk they required multiple partners to leave; e.g. Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami to Big XII…”
I’ve never heard that FSU ever had any real intention of joining the B12. At most, I got the sense there was some gamesmanship going on. FSU pushing back on Tobacco Road stuff. I can tell you that the vast majority of Noles who I know were not excited about the idea…beyond having UTx and OU on the schedule. Anyone who really thought about the long-term impact wasn’t very comfortable with it. I’m very very very glad it didn’t happen.
LikeLike
There was a lot of gamesmanship going on around 2010-2013 in terms of players trying to negotiate better outcomes for themselves in their conference situations. That’s especially true of the “king”-type schools that have more control over their future conference affiliation than most.
Texas, FSU, Oklahoma, etc. are schools that have that kind of leverage.
The public inklings were that there were all sorts of Big 12/ACC maneuvers being discussed behind the scenes: i.e. Texas getting a “ND-like” package to go independent in football with rest of sports in ACC or joining the ACC with a group; there was also the FSU to the Big 12 discussion with FSU bringing along a group of ACC schools.
The thing is, everything that gets discussed publicly is also on the minds of the big money types and the “important people” associated with the “king”-type programs.
Still, I think Brian makes a good point above that FSU is happy with the ACC as long as the money differences don’t get too large.
If we’re sitting here in 5-6 years and the ACC schools are taking in $30m less than Big Ten schools, I do think there will be a problem.
Is that enough to create some kind of scenario where FSU can bring a bunch of schools to another conference? None of us know that for sure, but there are all sorts of possibilities.
For what it’s worth, if FSU does leave the ACC, that would basically create a huge hole in the ACC’s football situation given just how many major ACC TV games have involved FSU in the past. Replacing that inventory is not really possible, it’d be a huge hole in the ACC’s football value…
LikeLike
Now Mr. blue is straight-up saying it’s a go for FSU to B1G (though he perhaps left himself a little wiggle-room if it doesn’t happen. But pretty tough to walk this one back…
LikeLike
Mr. blue is now either breaking the biggest expansion story in history or just “jumped the shark”. Gotta love it. It’s entertaining at least. Also looks like he’s giving it precisely a “65% chance” ha
LikeLike
I love predictions. I have shoveled 6″ of partly cloudy off my sidewalk more than once.
LikeLike
Did “Bluevod” tell his followers about the FOX deal news before anyone else? If he is indeed connected as he says, the specifics of that deal should have been posted before the SBJ reported it.
LikeLike
He seemed to know that there were talks going on of some kind…but nothing specific enough to show that he has a source that’s very close to the situation. And he certainly didn’t relay any hard numbers of what the Fox contract was going to be worth before SBJ did. Most of his stuff was all over the board on expansion…primarily ACC teams. And it’s still pretty much crickets everywhere else.
LikeLike
@TOM – Well everyone knew that talks were going on since they announced they were accepting bids. I would think if someone was truly an insider they would drop advance knowledge about the FOX deal.
LikeLike
Heh, that’s jumping the shark quite a bit…
If this does go down, here’s how it would look:
Big Ten signs deals for roughly $425-450m per year average over next 6 years (through 2023) with Fox/ESPN/CBS combination…
Big Ten re-ups those deals in 2022 for around $550-600m per year over another 6 year deal covering 2023-2029; which means something like $60m per year including BTN money.
Big Ten announces exploring expansion possibilities: Big Ten adds OU/Kansas around 2024, Big Ten adds FSU/Ga Tech around 2025-2026, Big Ten adds UVA/NC around 2026-2027.
Fox ups Big Ten TV deal and BTN deals (theirs portion) to $700m per year (so aggregate is $900m per year) in 2027 and extends both to 13 year term (ending around 2040). Big Ten’s other deal gets renewed in 2029 for 11 years at around $500m per year average.
That’s the timeline that a OU/Kansas/FSU/Ga Tech/UVa/UNC kind of expansion would look like… (or any other expansion) along with some aggressive money projections.
There is no quick and easy solution here; this will be a drawn out situation involving multiple contract agreements and 2-3 expansion episodes over a 5 year period.
LikeLike
z33k,
“That’s the timeline that a OU/Kansas/FSU/Ga Tech/UVa/UNC kind of expansion would look like… (or any other expansion) along with some aggressive money projections.
There is no quick and easy solution here; this will be a drawn out situation involving multiple contract agreements and 2-3 expansion episodes over a 5 year period.”
The only counter to that is the claim that GoRs might not be as binding as people think. The ACC GoR is supposedly dependent on the ACCN being formed by ESPN and the rumors say that ESPN has chosen not to do it. That would make ACC teams available much sooner. And if GoRs are as weak as some say, then the B12 teams are available too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a good point re: GOR, but does the Big Ten want to test their weaknesses? I don’t think the Big Ten thinks it’ll ever be at risk of poaching, but if it does extend deep into other regions (Southeast/Southwest), I don’t know that it wants to blow up the GOR paradigm…
But yeah, that’s really the only way that we’d see earlier movement.
LikeLike
I remember many years when the National Enquirer made 100 predictions. Do you know how many they got right? Zero. I wonder if Bluevod can beat that number? These predictions are straight out of the National Enquirer. Does anyone want a 20 team B10? Minnesota never playing Michigan or Illinois never playing Ohio State? I do not see or want that happening
LikeLike
Well, it depends on what it looks like, but yes when we start talking about 18-20 team setups, it’s impossible to imagine without 4/5 team divisions/pods in the setup, and probably only around 5-6 locked games at maximum with other 3-4 rotating for football.
The thing is, as we see cable markets changing as a result of millennial viewing habits and cord cutting generally; I do think college sports are headed for a major shakeup/shakeout in the next 20 years that will result in a rationalization of the conferences.
What does that look like? To me, I think it means that there will be consolidation towards the 3 stable platforms (Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12) with a “best of the rest” emerging out of the ACC or Big 12.
College sports aren’t immune to the market changes going on in television; in some sense, the ever escalating costs and $ involved will make it so that the sport is rationalized… like how the major professional sports are into dominant/monopoly type leagues.
It will look a lot more like European soccer but regionally, I don’t think it’s a given that the current setups is the long-term equilibrium.
Generally, if you’re a major conference or you’re ESPN or FOX or CBS; you want the “kings” of the sport to be together in fewer leagues.
Shifting the money towards higher rated leagues is a better outcome in a world where television viewing habits are changing so rapidly and TV viewing is becoming ever more fragmented because of how many options people have on weekends.
LikeLike
The NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL have had this set up for years. But things are quite different in College Sports. If a City cannot ( or will not) support its team they have the option to move. That
Option does not apply to say Wake Forest. For that reason, the Demon Deacons are likely not going out of the sports business despite the fact they suck at football, are medocre in basketball, and have bad facilities? What about Schools That excel in basketball and are awful in football ( Kansas, Kentucky and Indiana come to mind). That is unless Conferences decide to throw Schools out for poor performance ( Temple years ago), or Conferences go out of business like the old Southwest Conference. Since that happened only One Power Five Conference member that lost its status regained it ( TCU). If the B10 can add Oklahoma and either Notre Dame or Kansas and stop there, that 16 team Conference ( in my opinion) would be ideal. We do not need 20 Schools in the B10.
LikeLike
I understand everything you’re saying, but what I mean by all of this is that “relegation” in college sports does occur when schools are left behind in leagues that lose value…
We saw this happen with the old Big East (now AAC); we saw it happen with the old SWC (worth noting that TCU managed to overcome this and reach the Power 5 again but look at where SMU, Rice, and Houston are now).
Schools like SMU and Rice were major college sports schools for 80 years… until they weren’t after the mid-90s realignment.
This is a part of the sport, and there’s no reason to believe that the tectonic plates have permanently stalled.
The main reason for that is because college sports viewing is likely to become ever more fragmented in the future. If you look into the the future in 20 or 30 years, there will be so many options at anyone’s fingertips whether mobile or streaming with far more options than are available now.
What this means is, in order to generate the same type and value of viewership, the schools that have drawing power will likely need to be put together in tighter configurations.
Cable cord cutting will likely plateau at some point with some equilibrium that would be reached presumably, but the net effect will be that to generate the same type of viewership, we’ll need more of the big brands together in fewer conferences.
LikeLike
Also for what it’s worth, I do think 16 is enough for the Big Ten if Delany and co. really want to push another expansion. I agree that 20 is just not really that enticing at the moment as an alum/fan.
But I can see why 20 would be floating around the minds of the Big Ten presidents…
LikeLike
z33k,
“We saw this happen with the old Big East (now AAC); we saw it happen with the old SWC (worth noting that TCU managed to overcome this and reach the Power 5 again but look at where SMU, Rice, and Houston are now).
Schools like SMU and Rice were major college sports schools for 80 years… until they weren’t after the mid-90s realignment.”
SMU is a special case since they cheated worse than any other school ever and got caught and got the harshest penalty ever. They were unlikely to regain their position of prominence regardless of what other realignment took place as rightly no other schools wanted to be associated with them.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Well, it depends on what it looks like, but yes when we start talking about 18-20 team setups, it’s impossible to imagine without 4/5 team divisions/pods in the setup, and probably only around 5-6 locked games at maximum with other 3-4 rotating for football.”
I disagree. The best way to do that for the B10 would be to treat it as one big conference and lock several games per school. That may form self-contained pods for some schools, but others would overlap.
20 teams:
9 games = 3 * 100% + 16 * 38%
9 games = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
9 games = 5 * 100% + 14 * 29%
18 teams:
9 games = 3 * 100% + 14 * 43%
9 games = 4 * 100% + 13 * 38%
9 games = 5 * 100% + 12 * 33%
“The thing is, as we see cable markets changing as a result of millennial viewing habits and cord cutting generally; I do think college sports are headed for a major shakeup/shakeout in the next 20 years that will result in a rationalization of the conferences.”
Nothing is business ends up rational unless it’s all under one umbrella. Until there is 1 person (or small group) in charge of CFB, conferences won’t make sense from a fan perspective.
“College sports aren’t immune to the market changes going on in television; in some sense, the ever escalating costs and $ involved will make it so that the sport is rationalized… like how the major professional sports are into dominant/monopoly type leagues.”
I think they are largely immune. Someone is still going to pay them for the games even if the model changes. The big change would be if media companies found a way to make ads unavoidable in regular TV. That might kill the sports value.
The major sports started as 2 main leagues that eventually merged. CFB already is one group under the NCAA, and also is a lot of separate groups. As long as schools control the teams you can’t look at this like a pro sports league. Presidents have bigger concerns than team owners do.
“Generally, if you’re a major conference or you’re ESPN or FOX or CBS; you want the “kings” of the sport to be together in fewer leagues.”
No, TV likes them spread out so they can pay less.
LikeLike
Brian I don’t think it’s that simple though; if you look at the aggregate picture; when a major school shifts, the conference that it leaves does lose overall value.
It’s hard to measure in the grand scheme because old contracts near expiration have always been heavily undervalued in the past, but I’d imagine the Big 12 for example, is getting at least $5-10m+ extra per school per year if they still had their “original 12 team” format.
That’s the part where rationalization is; that money is shifted elsewhere in the landscape.
Or the total decimation of the Big East, that money was all shifted elsewhere. It’s hard to figure out the exact numbers just because we’re talking apples and oranges when you have expired contracts being re-upped into much higher paying contracts 10-15 years later in these cases.
The other point I’d make is that a more centralized/rationalized college sports world would also probably feature more highly rated games and more concentration of those games into fewer contracts spread around…, in short I think it’s a win-win in some sense: more centralized money and specific leagues drawing much higher ratings on average than otherwise.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Brian I don’t think it’s that simple though; if you look at the aggregate picture; when a major school shifts, the conference that it leaves does lose overall value.”
That’s ignoring that the AD is a small part of the bigger picture which is the university. It might make great financial sense to group the top 50 FB programs as tightly as possible, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense for other sports or the universities overall. And maximizing AD profit isn’t the #1 goal for most presidents.
“The other point I’d make is that a more centralized/rationalized college sports world would also probably feature more highly rated games and more concentration of those games into fewer contracts spread around…,”
That’s the NFL. Part of what separates CFB is the diversity of program levels and the regional nature of most games. Fans of the top programs expect to win over 75% of their games every year. NFL fans might be content with 10-6 and making the postseason but CFB fans won’t donate millions to go 7-5. And CFB fans certainly won’t except 8-4 conference champions. CFB fans like to see big intersectional OOC games, but they also like the traditional conference season. And schools aren’t going to chase TV money if it alienates the alumni from donating in the future (especially if it hurts the academic donations).
“in short I think it’s a win-win in some sense: more centralized money and specific leagues drawing much higher ratings on average than otherwise.”
This is just like fans explaining why CFB will end up in a 4 x 16 arrangement. It may make perfect sense in your head but I’m seeing the motivation for the school presidents to do it.
LikeLike
Re: the point about wins and losses…, would that really change though in terms of expectations?
Most configurations for 16/18/20 include up to 2 kings being added with 4 non-kings. In some sense, unless the next move is Texas with OU and ND, I don’t think the expectations for wins/losses for the top programs has to change.
If you’re talking about OU/Kansas or FSU/Ga Tech, it doesn’t. And the other schools to round it out would be UNC/UVa/Duke.
I think a 16/18/20 team configuration can handily support up to 6-7 10+ win teams annually assuming the kings regularly play 3-4ish kings max in a year.
The current Big Ten East is probably as rough a configuration as possible with Michigan State performing beyond its recent historical peaks combined with Meyer/Harbaugh at OSU/Michigan.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Re: the point about wins and losses…, would that really change though in terms of expectations?”
It would have to. If you’re grouping the top programs as tightly as possible to maximize TV money, part of that is dropping the weaker programs. No more IL, PU, IN, RU, … games for B10 schools. No more OOC cupcakes, either. More games against tougher teams means more losses. 3 conferences of 16 (or 4 of 12 ) is 48 teams.
Top 50 programs by W% the last 15 seasons (just the B10):
OSU, WI, NE, IA, MI, PSU, MSU (all top 30)
Near misses: 56. UMD, 60. NW, 62, RU
I’m not claiming W% is the best way to pick the schools, it’s just an easy objective metric.
The point is you’re looking at a lot more losses for teams that are used to higher W%.
“Most configurations for 16/18/20 include up to 2 kings being added with 4 non-kings.”
Just doing that doesn’t really count as rationalization of CFB to me. Rationalization to maximize TV money would have to go much farther than that.
“I think a 16/18/20 team configuration can handily support up to 6-7 10+ win teams annually assuming the kings regularly play 3-4ish kings max in a year.”
The SEC has been good at cranking out 10 win teams due to a very low upset rate in SEC games. That said, let’s look at their 10 win teams:
14 teams:
2015 – 4
2014 – 4
2013 – 5
2012 – 6
Average = 4.75 (33.9%)
12 teams:
2011 – 5
2010 – 4
2009 – 2
2008 – 3
2007 – 3
2006 – 4
2005 – 3
2004 – 3
2003 – 4
2002 – 2
Average = 3.3 (27.5%)
Average % = 29.3%
29.3% of 16, 18, 20 = 4.7, 5.3, 5.9
Other 14 team conferences:
ACC:
2015 – 3
2014 – 3
2013 – 3
B10:
2015 – 6
2014 – 3
Average = 3.6 (25.7%)
25.7% of 16, 18, 20 = 4.1, 4.6, 5.1
Overall average for 14 teams = 4.1
Overall average = 28.4%
The point of all the math is to show that 5-6 10 win teams seems the most likely result of going to 20. So which fans are going to accept not getting there as frequently anymore out of OSU, MI, NE, PSU, OU, ND, UT, MSU, WI and IA? And it gets worse if other programs start sneaking in some 10 win seasons on occasion. Going 9-3 repeatedly at many of those schools gets you fired.
LikeLike
I just want to note that I don’t believe the Big Ten, SEC, or Pac-12 would ever drop members (neither would the Big 12 or ACC), so in some sense schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt should be able to maintain their status indefinitely.
I mean that schools left in the ACC or Big 12 will have their status lowered if/when Texas/OU/FSU/UNC/etc change conferences.
For the reasons we’ve both stated, I think even if the college sports are rationalized, I think the minimum number of seats at the table for “big payouts” is something like 48-52.
LikeLike
Lowered to AAC or MWC?
LikeLike
Somewhere in-between…, I think the future of the Power 5 is more like a top 2, middle 1, bottom 2 followed by the Group of 5…; the remainders in the Big 12/ACC (or some combination thereof) will be better off than the AAC or MWC probably but not that close to the Pac-12 probably.
I could easily see it working out like something like this:
B1G-16/18 earning $60m per school per year in mid-2020s, SEC-16 earning $50m per school per year (depending on whether renegotiate).
Then Pac-12 follows with around $30m per school per year (possibly up to $40m if they get to Pac-14/16 with right schools in central time zone).
Then ACC/Big 12 remnants at around $15-20m per school per year in the right configuration.
This is all assuming that at least one national brand leaves each of the ACC and Big 12.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I just want to note that I don’t believe the Big Ten, SEC, or Pac-12 would ever drop members (neither would the Big 12 or ACC), so in some sense schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt should be able to maintain their status indefinitely.”
I agree that won’t happen, which is why “rationalization” doesn’t make sense to me. The most rational thing to do if you’re trying to maximize the money would be to drop the least valuable programs in each conference and regroup the rest into 3 or 4 conferences. If all you mean by rationalization is further expansion, I don’t think that really qualifies as rationalization.
LikeLike
I knew that there would be a lot of discussion about money and expansion. Thank you David for injecting a bit of sanity.
1. B20 or B24 is not a “conference” in any sense. It is simply a way to more efficiently negotiate tv rights. What is the goal of expansion — to enable conference schools to better conform to the needs of television and cable providers? If so, why? Increase revenue, spend more on new facilities, salaries and operating expenses and contribute a tiny percentage of revenue generated for any other academic activity? Is all of this being done to net $10 to 15 million? For example, IU has 600,000 living alums — 15% donate. Donate $25 a year as an alternative to all of this stuff (and no one suffers from CTE from school-sponsored activities) — or is this just a discussion of fans who want to be entertained?
2. FSU? Forget about research prowess — 25% of the entering undergraduate class at FSU reports a 24 or lower ACT. This is IUPUI territory. These scores are more rigorous than Wayne State (ACT = 21) or Roosevelt University so I guess you find FSU acceptable? Why do you guys “hate” the Big 10?
LikeLike
rich2,
“1. B20 or B24 is not a “conference” in any sense.”
Of course it is, and in many senses.
“It is simply a way to more efficiently negotiate tv rights.”
No, it also makes scheduling easier than being independent.
“What is the goal of expansion — to enable conference schools to better conform to the needs of television and cable providers? If so, why? Increase revenue, spend more on new facilities, salaries and operating expenses and contribute a tiny percentage of revenue generated for any other academic activity? Is all of this being done to net $10 to 15 million?”
Forgive us for not all coming from rich private schools with multi-billion dollar endowments and huge brand names that can afford to leave money on the table. If state schools can reduce the burden on the students and taxpayers to support the AD, they have to consider it.
“For example, IU has 600,000 living alums — 15% donate. Donate $25 a year as an alternative to all of this stuff (and no one suffers from CTE from school-sponsored activities)”
I’m sure IU will drop football right after ND does.
“or is this just a discussion of fans who want to be entertained?”
??? Of course it is. Discussing highly unlikely expansion scenarios is one way we entertain ourselves around here. You’ve been around here long enough to know that.
“2. FSU? Forget about research prowess — 25% of the entering undergraduate class at FSU reports a 24 or lower ACT. This is IUPUI territory. These scores are more rigorous than Wayne State (ACT = 21) or Roosevelt University so I guess you find FSU acceptable? Why do you guys “hate” the Big 10?”
Why do you care?
LikeLike
@rich2, Brian
I think it’s important to note that the changes in TV viewing habits, sports/stadium attendance (at the non-big name brands especially), as well as Big Ten states’ populations all play a role in this…
The Big Ten has certainly been in a great spot historically, but we all know where the population growth in the US is (barely non-negative across most of the footprint), and we all know what US migration patterns look like. Sure those things could reverse in a few decades, but we’re talking about patterns that have persisted for decades now and appear to be strong enough to persist at least the next few as well.
Delany and the Presidents look 25-50 years down the road when making expansion decisions. They aren’t making these decisions just for the present, but they’re making the decisions to both secure the Big Ten financially now and in the future.
Money makes the world go ’round, we all know that; given how important the finances are to running ADs, if they spot opportunities to further secure the Big Ten schools’ financial positions, they’ll make those moves.
That’s the reason we’re at a 14 team Big Ten, and it’s the reason there will likely be serious consideration of 16+ size configurations.
LikeLike
In a later tweet, Bluevod said: “No deal is done but I would raise to 65% chance on latest info.”
This is brilliant! If it all happens, he can say, “I told you so.” If nothing happens, he can say, “I told you it wasn’t a done deal.”
If it sorta/kinda happens (e.g., a few schools, but not all), he can take credit for being at least directionally correct.
In other words, he can claim to have been right, regardless of what goes down. For his next profession, he should write horoscopes.
LikeLike
I’m becoming increasingly skeptical of the latest round of expansion rumors.
LikeLike
These things come out of the blue, but the important thing to note is that the timeline matters:
Anybody who understand that (with respect to GORs, TV contracts, etc.) would be shocked if there’s conference realignment in the Power 5 in the next 5 years.
The earliest probable year for expansion noise is around 2022 at the very earliest.
The years that we would likely see teams move are around 2025 (Big 12) and 2027 (ACC); possibly a bit earlier than those years specifically (I could see moves made as early as 2023, but it’s difficult to see movement earlier).
As a statistician, here’s how I’d place the odds on Big Ten expansion specifically:
2016-2021: odds of expansion are around 5% over that time frame. It could happen but it’d be out of the blue.
2022-2026: odds of expansion probably rise to around 30-35% over that time frame. I still think it’s not the baseline scenario, but it could become the baseline scenario as we get closer to those dates and as we get more information on the Big Ten’s TV deal and what the money differences between the Big Ten/SEC and ACC/Big 12 look like in those years…
I’m not yet comfortable saying “the Big Ten will expand to 16+ for certain by 2027”, but given what the first half of the TV deal looks like, I could get there if the whole TV deal is around an average of $425-450m across the 6 years…
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. With respect to the ACC GOR, I haven’t read the contract, but understand that it’s not exactly iron-clad due to the failure to launch the ACC Network. No idea if that’s true…and I’m no attorney…but that has been a hot topic long before this latest expansion rumor.
LikeLike
Yeah, any of the lawyers on this blog will tell you that something like this is likely to be negotiated and settled outside the courtroom in the case of schools leaving; lawsuits would likely be filed, but these kinds of situations are almost always settled. Even Maryland leaving the ACC was settled, and we all know how bitter that situation was.
As far as “breaking” GORs goes, my hunch is that if a school does move, it would be announced within 2-3 years of the GOR ending (2025 Big 12 GOR ends, 2027 ACC GOR ends) so that the exit fee would be negotiated based on the value of the school over those years of TV rights.
I’m one of those who are skeptical that any school would ever face a situation where they weren’t on TV for a year or longer; I find it hard to believe that would happen.
And yeah, there’s all sorts of rumors about the ACC Network and whether there’s some kind of $2m extra fee per school, etc.; I don’t actually know what’s true there so I’m not versed on that.
LikeLike
http://hawkeyenation.com/2016/hn-podcast-b1g-tv-deal-expansion-talk
This was a pretty good listen. Especially the parts related to population growth related to the B1G’s long-term prospects.
LikeLike
One of those characters on the pod cast was obsessed with median age demographics. The “younger” states tend to be lower tax states with higher job growth. Also states which observe high immigration rates. The median age also doesn’t factor that in certain parts of the country the populous is living longer. Plus you also have the boomerang impact of 20 somethings moving away but then returning to start a family. I think weather has a much smaller impact on net migration trends then available job opportunities.
I tend to agree with their analysis about Fox using the B1G to launch credibility to their network. They believe there is a 6 year window to prove FS1 has staying power to compete. Would think the B1G would absorb some risk if FS1 doesn’t show enough growth.
LikeLike
Does the B1G have enough national appeal (really any conference at this point) to take on such a tall order? It’s still a very regional conference, even with the recent adds (that aren’t exactly monster brands).
LikeLike
Tom, this may not be a direct response to your comment, since I have not heard (and will not hear) a 40 minute podcast. The two recent adds -RU and MD – are the only P5 schools from Northern Virginia to more than one hundred miles (in any direction) beyond NYC. There is one G5 school in the area and that is Temple in Philly. No one has ever mentioned Temple as a likely P5 addition to any conference. That “small” UMd and RU geographic area covers more than 10% of the TV households in the entire country with just two teams. They are not monster brands, but they are the only football schools in monster locations.
MD has also opened a potential geographic bridge to UVa and UNC.
The movement of MD from the ACC to the B1G and addition of RU has sort of stranded three ACC schools (Pitt, Cuse and BC) in the northeast. BC and Cuse have both really struggled in football for some time now. Time will tell if the same football fate awaits Pitt. UConn is the only remaining northeastern school and their football is totally collapsing in the AAC.
Yes, Pitt and Cuse are still basketball brands, which makes the ACC happy, but does not drive huge economic value.
It looks as though Delany knew what he was doing, even with less than monster brands.
LikeLike
That was no slight by the way (the B1G still being largely regional…it’s more national that most). I just meant it terms of the premise that the B1G is poised to make Fox Sports a true force that will be able to go toe to toe with ESPN. Again, because of the B1G. Seems pretty optimistic until/unless the B1G becomes a juggernaut (adds elite ACC schools, UTx, UND).
LikeLike
TOM,
Fox has a lot of sports rights beyond the B10. The question is if adding B10 games will help drive more consistent viewing of Fox and FS1. It’ll lag ESPN for a while no matter what, but at some point you’d think it has to reach a tipping point where Fox has enough things of interest to drive it into closer competition with ESPN. Very few businesses can maintain a virtual monopoly for as long as ESPN has.
LikeLike
Yes, a key value question for FS1 is how well the different Big Ten schools complement their existing regional strengths … well, for Fox OTA as well, but it’s more critical for FS1, which is looking to grow its mindshare, to step up from clustering with ESPN2 (though possibly above it), to clustering with ESPN Mothership (even if trailing behind it).
LikeLike
UNC has received amended notice of allegations bet hasn’t released it yet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article73736122.html
LikeLike
Supposedly they have released it now.
UNC on Monday confirmed receipt of the amended Notice of Allegations (NOA), which again details the results of the NCAA’s investigation into a scheme of paper classes that benefited athletes in disproportionate numbers. Hours later, the university released the amended NOA.
The foremost question during an eight-month wait for the amended NOA was how it would differ from the original NOA that UNC received nearly a year ago, last May. The answer: The amended NOA doesn’t differ drastically.
UNC still faces charges of five Level I violations – the most serious the NCAA Enforcement Staff can accuse an institution of committing. The five charges outlined in the amended NOA are nearly identical to those outlined in the first NOA.
The five charges outlined in the amended NOA are as follows:
1. Jan Boxill, the former women’s basketball academic counselor, providing extra benefits.
2. Debby Crowder, the former African- and Afro-American Studies Department administrative assistant, committing unethical conduct.
3. Julius Nyang’oro, the former chairman of the AFAM Department, committing unethical conduct.
4. A failure to monitor the ASPSA (academic support for athletes) and AFAM departments.
5. And a lack of institutional control.
One of the key differences between the amended NOA and the original is that in the original UNC faced a broad charge of impermissible benefits associated with the suspect AFAM courses that are at the heart of the case. That charge is not included in the amended NOA.
Another difference is that football and men’s basketball aren’t named in the amended NOA. Those sports were included in the original NOA, though people associated with them – coaches, members of the support staff – were not charged with wrongdoing.
…
It was unclear on Monday whether the amended NOA cited additional individuals for wrongdoing, or whether it expanded the scope of the case to include academic fraud. Another key question is whether the amended NOA charges UNC for using ineligible athletes in competition.
That was one of the main questions surrounding the arrival of the first NOA: whether the athletes who received the impermissible benefits described in the document were therefore made ineligible by the receipt of those alleged benefits.
If UNC is found to have used ineligible athletes in competition, it would increase the likelihood that the university is forced to vacate past victories and championships. One of the central questions of the case has been whether UNC will be forced to vacate men’s basketball national championships.
Ten members of UNC’s 2005 national championship team, for instance, majored in AFAM. By the 2008-09 academic year, when UNC won its second national championship under coach Roy Williams, men’s basketball players’ enrollments in the suspect AFAM classes had declined considerably.
Even so, under Williams men’s basketball players accounted for 167 enrollments in the suspect AFAM classes that are at the heart of the case. Those classes began in 1993, according to Kenneth Wainstein’s independent investigation, and ended in 2011.
The NCAA has used the same timeframe for its investigation. The act of being enrolled in one of the suspect courses, though, did not constitute a violation, according to the first NOA.
How much the amended NOA differs is now a primary question in the case.
LikeLike
Looks like Men’s Soccer gets to be the fall guy.
What a Sad joke.
LikeLike
If they don’t penalize basketball, they’ve basically given them a pass on the largest academic scandal in NCAA history.
LikeLike
More rumors about UTEP to the MWC. This time without Rice.
http://krod.com/rumors-flying-that-utep-could-move-to-mountain-west-conference/
LikeLike
NMSU certainly hopes the rumors are true (and that they can replace UTEP in CUSA).
LikeLike
Loki:
I didn’t see anything excluding possiblity of Rice moving too. Is Hawaii getting booted (which would make the Owls the 13th).
LikeLike
There was a Dodd article from December 2015 that talked about the UTEP Miners and the MWC, I wonder if that is where that came from? If it was my choice I would prefer Rice to UTEP for obvious reasons ( Academics, the Houston Market and a better football program). If I could get the Houston Cougars that would be better then UTEP as well.
LikeLike
Tirico leaving ESPN for NBC is a potentially interesting development.
LikeLike
Tweeted by Clay Travis earlier today: “Told Brad Nessler will leave ESPN and do NFL for CBS, until he takes over SEC for Uncle Verne.”
Tirico and Nessler are two of the best at ESPN.
LikeLike
Told Brad Nessler will leave ESPN and do NFL for CBS, until he takes over SEC for Uncle Verne
Sean McDonough is rumored to take over for Tirico on ESPN’s NFL package, which will leave college football with mostly second tier announcers.
LikeLike
The probability is Tirico will replace Michaels and ( or) Costas. But if Nestler leaves as well, you wonder of ESPN will actually pass on the Big 10 Package, and allow Comcast/NBC to pick it up? You could make an argument that since the Fox package is only 6 years, you wait to see what the Market is then? Why? 1: Many of the other Sports contracts ( MLB PAC and others) will expire. 2: ESPN can show more ACC Big XII, PAC and SEC Games instead? 3: You do not know when and if the bubble will burst? 4: Disney Stock not doing well.
LikeLike
Skip Bayless is out too according to reports. ESPN really is slashing spending on personnel.
LikeLike
From Awful Announcing via Sports Business Journal (http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/with-fox-reportedly-in-with-big-ten-what-will-happen-to-espn.html)
WITH FOX REPORTEDLY IN WITH BIG TEN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ESPN?
Posted by Ken Fang on Apr 25, 2016 10:45
As was reported last week, Fox is close to landing a media rights deal with the Big Ten. A conference source has told Awful Announcing that the could be finalized as early as this week.
With Fox in a pre-existing relationship with the conference as it operates and owns 51% of the Big Ten Network, it’s not surprising that it was able to sign what could amount to be one-half of the league’s media rights.
What is surprising is that ESPN which holds the football rights and a good portion of the basketball rights through the 2016-17 season, in essence gave a low bid to retain its portion of the deal. According to Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand and Michael Smith, ESPN’s bid was well below Fox’s and could be a sign that the Worldwide Leader is going to be more cost-conscious. And while ESPN is talking about bidding on a second package of Big Ten rights, it’s thought that it may not be competitive with the networks which are interested in picking up the conference.
And if ESPN gets shut out of the Big Ten which would be shocking, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to be getting out of college sports. It’s still committed long-term to the SEC and College Football Playoff, plus there are coaches who want to be on ESPN to help recruiting (see the Big East on Fox).
But if ESPN won’t go above and beyond for the Big Ten, who could take its place? CBS/Turner and NBC are at the table. With CBS/Turner, it means that they could partner with Turner taking a Thursday night football game while CBS could have a Saturday football window leading into the SEC or perhaps even an occasional prime time game. And they could also divide basketball games giving Turner some much needed inventory leading into the NCAA Tournament.
NBC which was shut out of the BCS conferences now has an opportunity to get in with the Big Ten. It certainly has some open windows during college football season, but according to SBJ, the Peacock prefers exclusive windows and the Big Ten would mean sharing rights with Fox/Big Ten Network and compete with other conferences at the same time.
So the Big Ten certainly has some options, but if goes without ESPN, it may find itself going into uncharted waters without its high visibility. But the Big Ten can counter that this particular set of rights is a six-year deal and if the ratings are low, it can return to ESPN once the deal expires. Plus, the Big Ten knows that it will have plenty of suitors again after the 2023 academic year and we’ll go through this speculation anew.
END OF ARTICLE
The collective wisdom on this blog feels that the Big Ten will still maintain its relationship with ESPN because of its ratings and ability to promote the conference with its on air pre-game shows and daily sports newscasts. That said, what would the ramifications be if the other large part of the B1G’s football and men’s basketball rights were to end up not with ABC/ESPN, but on CBS/Turner or NBC (and I assume, NBCSN)?
LikeLike
It would mean a different set of buttons on the remote would show more wear?
LikeLike
I do agree that it would mean the buttons on my remote control would show different wear as well. But would a change in stations mean, for example, a change in viewing habits? For those who Big Ten fans who watch ESPN’s College Gameday, would they opt out and go to FS1 or whatever the coverage is on NBC or CBS/Turner? Since I don’t watch those shows, it’s a no impact situation for me. Would not having the Big Ten on ABC/ESPN change their coverage of the conference? How, if at all, does that effect recruiting?
Since NBC has the rights to the Notre Dame home football games, how do they handle the time slots for the additional Big Ten games? Does ND have to “give” in terms of time slots to accommodate the B1G on Saturday afternoons or vice versa?
We’ll see what happens in due course, but between this and the conference expansion discussion, the offseason is pretty interesting. I saw the Bluevod twitter post above about the six potential members joining the B1G. If the conference went with a two division model, east-west setup, then it might look something like this:
B1G West – Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
B1G East – Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Brian laid out the different scenarios above. My preference would be eleven conference games (nine against your division, two against teams in other division, one home-and-home non-conference). That would allow Oklahoma and Notre Dame to play Texas and USC, respectively and at least allow the teams in the two divisions to play one another once in a five year period.
If you went to five 4-team pods that rotate annually, I imagine they might go something like this based on geography, rivalries and relationships, i.e., Pod D being all former ACC members:
Pod A – Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B – Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
Pod C – Notre Dame, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D – Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Each team would play the four teams in their pod annually, five from the other pod that rotates annually and three non-conference games. The teams in the 20-team conference would play one another at least once every three seasons and having those three OOC games gives each program a level of scheduling flexibility they might necessarily have in the two 10-team division scenario.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I saw the Bluevod twitter post above about the six potential members joining the B1G. If the conference went with a two division model, east-west setup, then it might look something like this:
B1G West – Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
B1G East – Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State”
So we basically kick IN, PU and PSU out of the B10? That seems harsh for IN and PU. The divisions also seem highly unbalanced with OSU, MI, NE, OU, MSU, WI and IA all on one side versus ND, PSU and FSU.
“My preference would be eleven conference games (nine against your division, two against teams in other division, one home-and-home non-conference). That would allow Oklahoma and Notre Dame to play Texas and USC, respectively and at least allow the teams in the two divisions to play one another once in a five year period.”
I just don’t see anyway the schools approve 11 games. I don’t think 10 would be approved. Several of those schools have a locked OOC rivalry they have to keep (FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, IA, ND x2). In addition, the need for 7 home games to fund the AD hasn’t gone completely away.
“If you went to five 4-team pods that rotate annually, I imagine they might go something like this based on geography, rivalries and relationships, i.e., Pod D being all former ACC members:
Pod A – Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B – Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
Pod C – Notre Dame, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D – Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State”
Pod C is the pod of death with Pod A not far behind. I pity MN in that alignment. The CCG would be pointless when A and C are paired, too.
“Each team would play the four teams in their pod annually, five from the other pod that rotates annually and three non-conference games. The teams in the 20-team conference would play one another at least once every three seasons and having those three OOC games gives each program a level of scheduling flexibility they might necessarily have in the two 10-team division scenario.”
This is why I think you drop divisions entirely and just do 4 locked games with 5 rotating (play everyone once every 3 years). It maintains rivalries better than pods but otherwise gets the same results.
LikeLike
As far as Comcast/ NBC is concerned, The NFL is shared ( Thursday Nights for example), so is the PGA Tour. So NCC will share of necessary. The big question is will ESPN try and lowball the B10 and if so, by how much?We know Delaney will not give in he did it twice before to Disney/ESPN.
LikeLike
cutter,
“WITH FOX REPORTEDLY IN WITH BIG TEN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ESPN?
Posted by Ken Fang on Apr 25, 2016 10:45
…
But if ESPN won’t go above and beyond for the Big Ten, who could take its place? CBS/Turner and NBC are at the table. With CBS/Turner, it means that they could partner with Turner taking a Thursday night football game while CBS could have a Saturday football window leading into the SEC or perhaps even an occasional prime time game. And they could also divide basketball games giving Turner some much needed inventory leading into the NCAA Tournament.”
There is zero chance the B10 is looking to add Thursday night football games. The B10 has fought against weeknight games for decades, and now the NFL is dominating that night.
“The collective wisdom on this blog feels that the Big Ten will still maintain its relationship with ESPN because of its ratings and ability to promote the conference with its on air pre-game shows and daily sports newscasts. That said, what would the ramifications be if the other large part of the B1G’s football and men’s basketball rights were to end up not with ABC/ESPN, but on CBS/Turner or NBC (and I assume, NBCSN)?”
It would really hurt the ratings for the B10, but it would also hurt ESPN. Lots of B10 fans already feel that ESPN is anti-B10. Giving a lowball bid again and then not covering the B10 as much once they don’t have B10 rights would just reinforce that opinion and lead to more B10 fans not watching ESPN.
LikeLike
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/cord-cutting-19-young-adults-24-pew-research-center-1201666723/
Of Note: ” Some 19% of adults in the 18 to 29 age range have become cord cutters, dropping cable or satellite TV service, while another 16% have never had a traditional subscription TV package.”
If I can add correctly, that is 35% of 18-29 year olds without cable (that is, without ESPiN).
LikeLike
http://nocable.org/learn/cable-tv-cord-cutting-statistics
Of note:
“States that Love to Cut the Cord
I did some digging into our site statistics to see what the most popular states were for Cable TV cord cutting. We based this list off of two things: Our Google Analytics and the zip codes input into our homepage’s lookup form.
California
Florida
Pennslyvania
New York
Michigan
Texas
North Carolina
New Jersey
Ohio
Louisiana”
The author has these states listed 1 through 10 (but the numbers did not translate with the c&p).
LikeLike
LOL
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/cordcutting-on-the-rise-globally/277828
cord cutting is a trend in the western world. I LOLed at the long comment to this article. Basically, he is spot on for why consumers are shifting.
Cable is equivalent to “Polaroid, Kodak, Oldsmobile, buggy whip and [the] ice box”
LikeLike
According to this projection, by 2025, only 50% of 18-35 year olds will have cable. 35% will be cord-nevers and 15% will be cord-cutters. FYI, there is also the category (generally) of cord-shavers.
LikeLike
There are people getting ESPN through Sling and the ESPN app.
But a lot of younger people just aren’t that into major sports, too.
LikeLike
http://www.twice.com/news/statistics/cord-cutting-second-screen-activity-continue-rise-cta/60288
of note:
“A total of 88 percent of millennials (ages 18 to 34) engage in second-screen behaviors when watching TV, CTA found. Seventy-one percent engage with social media while watching video content. That’s 40 percentage points higher than adults 35 and older. Also, 70 percent of millennials watch content on another device during TV commercials, a rate that is 32 percentage points higher than adults 35 and older.”
Note that last sentence. (I could not figure out how to bold font it).
LikeLike
“Note that last sentence. (I could not figure out how to bold font it).”
Use basic HTML. I’ll have to type it out here, but it should be understandable. Things inside quotation marks are me spelling out the character because it won’t show up if I type it. Also, ignore the extra spaces before or after ” but it makes it more legible here.
“less than sign” b “greater than sign” Note that last sentence “less than sign” /b “greater than sign”
Like this: Note that last sentence
LikeLike
<b>Note that last sentence </b>
LikeLike
Yes, that.
LikeLike
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160120/06340233384/espn-pretends-it-saw-cord-cutting-coming-says-departing-subscribers-old-poor-anyway.shtml
I found this amusing. Quite a number of articles on this website discussing cord-cutting, how the statistics are “massaged” by Neilsen, etc.
LikeLike
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160114/06532833339/56-would-drop-espn-heartbeat-if-it-meant-saving-8-month-cable.shtml
LikeLike
Here is the main page I got to from google. This shows the articles on techdirt dot com related to “cord cutting.”
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cord+cutting
As noted, some interesting articles.
LikeLike
cord cutting in Canada. 25% are now cord-cutters or cord-nevers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/08/cord-cutting-canada-tv_n_9644652.html
Yeah, yeah, I know … who cares about Canada …..
of note: “Additionally, Rogers recently launched Sportsnet Now, a streaming service for live sports — something that has been lacking in the streaming world so far, along with live broadcast news.”
LikeLike
There are 2 major issues regarding cord cutting: 1) where/when does it stabilize, and 2) what do the alternative financial arrangements look like for media companies and sports leagues/conferences.
Those 2 issues are what everyone (every media company, communications company, conference, professional league) needs the answers to…
I’ll make some points here: It’s worth noting here that there are still 2 million people paying for AOL dialup, and cable is not likely to reach that kind of problematic point (the reason for stating that is that habits are sticky, particularly for older generations of people, even when things go obsolete).
1) Pay TV has decreased from around 87% of households at the peak in 2010 to around 83% by late 2015. That’s where the decrease of 7 million from 99 million ESPN subscribers to 92 million has occurred.
2) Where do those numbers stabilize and possibly begin to grow again (in terms of millions of households/subcribers); I think at worst Pay TV will probably stabilize around 60-65% and ESPN subscriber numbers should stabilize around 70-75 million before starting to grow again with population growth. Of course, this will depend on what alternative streaming arrangements exist in the future, subscriber numbers can change dramatically based on that.
3) The biggest worry is that over time millennial households will be replacing boomer households with lower cable rates; that means that even population growth may not really suffice to stabilize the numbers.
4) What does this mean for alternative financial arrangements: It seems very difficult to recreate the financial power that the cable/Pay TV bundle provides. Non-sports viewers have effectively been underwriting the massive costs of sports contracts, and it’s hard to see how that gets replaced.
5) Just as an example, look at that “56% would drop ESPN to save $8” number; are there enough among the remaining 44% willing to pay $20-25 just to keep the ESPN gravy train going for sports leagues? That’s really what all of this comes down to in some sense. The question may not be as directly posited though because we still live in a “bundle era” and the proxy for that question has become cord cutting as well as streaming packages like Sling, so the answer may never be so clear cut. In some sense streaming bundles will likely replace cable bundles for large numbers of millennials, but again the financial differences are what would matter there.
6) What does all of this mean for the Big Ten (or other conferences)? I think it means that we have to watch carefully what happens to BTN, SECN, Pac-12N, LHN, and their subscriber rates as well as how the ESPN financials stabilize. I also think that changes in terms of financials does mean that there is likely to be more conference realignment to further strengthen the TV packages that the leagues can offer.
7) By 2020, we’re likely to see the entire Big Ten and SEC earning over $100m per school in terms of annual revenue with some schools approaching and exceeding $200m…; the money from TV packages continues to become an ever larger part of the budget and any change in the projections of TV money could cause problems in the system.
LikeLike
Very interesting points. I am curious about your #7. How do you see the SEC and B1G getting to $100m each school and who/wow!/WTH is getting $200m a year? LOL
Anyway, one reason I linked the article about Canada was because of the reference to the all-sports streaming service. If that works in Canada, you might see efforts to get that afloat here.
I think you are right that what we are really talking about is stabilizing. Millennials are shifting how content is watched/purchased, but that doesn’t mean the extinction of cable. Just a new equilibrium between the various options.
I also think that the creation of so many sports and conference specific channels will help insulate the sports channels from the streaming trend. MLB, NFL, SEC, B1G, etc., all now have a built-in incentive to keep something like cable alive and viable. To create an all-sports streaming option, you need to have all the sports. But most of the sports would not (now) agree to allow streaming because it would damage the revenue streams now coming from cable.
If there is ever any sort of all-sports streaming (like Netflix for movies), it wills till get tied to the need for cable.
LikeLike
I meant every school would be above $100m in budget/revenue at AD level in those two conferences with ever larger portions coming from TV rights (irreplaceable at this point).
Ohio State and Michigan should each have over $200m in annual AD budget by 2020.
I agree with your other points; I think as much as we view the conferences as rivals or sports leagues as rivals; ALL conferences/leagues have an incentive to see the cable gravy train at least continuing to function… even if parts of the overall financial picture start to include other options like streaming bundles/packages.
LikeLike
Click to access notes03_2016.pdf
Here is some research from 1Q 2016. Not sure how any of it applies/impacts the B1G’s TV deals, but I found it, so I am posting it. 🙂
LikeLike
Here is more research that I found that I am posting. The article itself is very “meh” but there is a very interesting bibliography at the end with many interesting links. I don’t have time to look at them all, but I thought I’d leave it here if anyone else is interested.
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=ama_proceedings
LikeLike
G’morning.
I’d like to offer a jumble of alternative thoughts on how/why ESPN might want to “take a pass” on the B1G media rights.
FtT said in his article about Star Wars and the B1G that ESPN would still want the B1G tv rights because, essentially, “premium content is king” and the B1G provides premium content.
But what if ESPN doesn’t see it that way? Maybe ESPN sees the B1G as, not Star Wars, but maybe like the Indiana Jones franchise. Popular, but not over-the-top popular and not quite so popular with the younger demographic.
That is thought one.
Now add another thought.
What if cord-cutting is a regional phenomenon? I started researching this morning with the question: where is cord cutting occurring? The best I could do was the link above which I’ll repost here:
http://nocable.org/learn/cable-tv-cord-cutting-statistics
According to that very meager information, cord-cutting is more prevalent in B1G country. (Maybe. But ESPN has the numbers. They know where they have lost subscribers.)
Suppose, for a minute, that the cord-cutting is significantly more prevalent in B1G areas. If true, then a very reasonable business model would be to put your effort into the regions where you are getting your best returns and the least threat from cord-cutting (SEC and ACC regions). If cord-cutting accelerates, let the BTN and FOX take the full brunt of the revenue loss.
Another thought. If you (ESPN) spend all your money on the B1G rights, you might not have enough money to re-up your other sports properties when they come up for renewal in 2022-24 (such as MLB).
Another thought: with the fast rise of streaming services and the market-entry of so many new options (e.g., Playstation Vue), this is a risky environment. It is tough to predict what is going to succeed and what will fail. Maybe a cautious wait-and-see attitude is better in 2016-17?
Another thought: maybe NOT getting the B1G tv package is actually better for your (ESPN) bottom line. These questions: how much money will ESPN lose (or not make) if they pass on the B1G’s tv package? None? Very little? Given bundling and given that BTN and FS1 are sports tier channels, how many subscribers are deleting/shaving ESPN? If none or few, ESPN still gets its carriage fees, makes about the same money but doesn’t have to pay for the B1G rights. Slightly different question: does ESPN lose less money (assuming they lose any) than they have to pay to get the B1G tv rights? In other words, NOT getting the B1G tv package might enhance the bottom line or be profit-neutral.
Another thought: now that we all know the deal is only six years, ESPN might see the risk level as “acceptable” to allow themselves to be out-bid for the B1G tv rights.
Not sure what to do with all of these thoughts.
LikeLike
If ESPN gets poor ratings in the large B1G media markets their subscription rate leverage would drop significantly. They are going to need content to generate ratings and putting more ACC games on during the 11AM window is not going to cut for the B1G media markets. In fact I could see ESPN’s 11AM window dramatically suffer.
LikeLike
I think the problem with your analysis is that there is a reversion effect built in:
Big Ten states on average have historically had much higher rates of cable penetration (up to 85-99% at the peak) than the average state, whereas a lot of rural states with less population centers (South and West) have much lower plateaus from which to fall (i.e. more states where cable penetration has never reached 85%).
Cable/Pay TV are bound to fall farther in states that had more cable penetration to begin with (i.e. the Northeast states, the coastal states/population center states).
As far as ESPN goes, ESPN has spent so much on sports packages that the loss of subscribers is really pinching at them even as they remain enormously profitable. They’re looking more at 10-15 years down the road. There isn’t a conference or league (except maybe the NFL) that is “essential” to ESPN for content, but realistically, even ESPN can’t afford to just throw money at everyone.
ESPN might lose a bit if they don’t take the Big Ten given that the Big Ten has been a cheap/profitable contract for the past 10 years especially with most T1 rights going at $100m per year, but even at $150-175m for 15-20 football games and 30 basketball games, it’s still probably a profitable deal, just nowhere near the situation they’ve had in the recent past. But that’s the case for any severely undervalued deal (i.e. like Steph Curry on the Warriors only earning $12m per year).
LikeLike
“Another thought: now that we all know the deal is only six years, ESPN might see the risk level as “acceptable” to allow themselves to be out-bid for the B1G tv rights.”
The ratings will be lower on Fox so maybe ESPN thinks they can get the Big Ten for a lower offer at the end of the six years.
LikeLike
Good article and follow-up from John Ourand and Sport Business Daily.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/04/25/Media/Big-Ten.aspx
LikeLike
Some highlights:
Word is that ESPN already has set up meetings to bid on what remains of the Big Ten’s rights. But if ESPN’s bid wasn’t competitive for the first package, we’re skeptical that it will be competitive on the second one.
That’s a huge assumption. I think they were less interested in having all the rights this time. Let Fox overpay for the first half and then come back with fewer competitors for the second half and hope to get a better price.
ESPN’s noncompetitive bid was an attempt by the network to “skim the cream” from the top of the package and try to create a smaller package with the best games, one source said. ESPN will continue to negotiate with the conference for the second package.
This makes a lot of sense. ESPN has so many commitments that they wanted to give themselves more flexibility to keep people happy. They wanted a small package of the best games but the B10 wanted to split the best games into both halves of the deal instead of having a deal like the SEC where CBS gets the best stuff and ESPN gets the rest.
The big question is: What other networks are serious about doing a deal?
NBC Sports Group has been at the Big Ten table, and it has open broadcast windows that the Big Ten likes. But a Big Ten deal does not fit with NBC’s programming strategy. With the Olympics, NHL, EPL, Notre Dame and second half of the NASCAR season, NBC diligently has followed a strategy of cutting programming deals where it can carry a sport exclusively. Even “Sunday Night Football” fills an exclusive window for NBC. With the Big Ten, however, it would be sharing rights with Fox and the Big Ten Network, and its windows almost certainly would compete with other college sports programming.
CBS and Turner make an intriguing combination. The two have partnered on the NCAA tournament, and could team up again on the Big Ten. CBS would like to keep its basketball schedule and could add a Saturday Big Ten football game on either side of its weekly SEC game to create a compelling doubleheader. Turner could use a Thursday night Big Ten game early in the fall to lead into its “NBA on TNT” Thursday night games. Turner also could use Big Ten basketball games as a lead-up to its NCAA tournament coverage.
I’d hate to see MBB get buried on Turner (I don’t think people will think to look there for a game during the season). Football on CBS would be interesting as it would force them to have more neutral coverage and announcers.
Then there’s Fox, which also will be interested in testing the waters on the second package, but only at the right price.
It’s hard to believe they have the money and windows for all the rights.
■ Why did the Big Ten do such a short deal?
When conference media deals expire:
Conference Year
Big Ten 2022-23
Pac-12 2023-24
Big 12 2024-25
ACC 2026-27
SEC 2033-34
Media negotiations typically come down to timing and leverage, and the Big Ten’s six-year deal with Fox is no different. The length of the deal means that the Big Ten will see a sizable increase now, while leaving it in position to take another bite from the apple when this deal expires in 2022-23. The Big Ten, by bucking the trend of doing long-term deals that go out anywhere from 12 to 20 years, will be able to go back to the table before any of its conference brethren. In the most recent cycle of contract renewals, the Big Ten went last, which originally was thought to be an advantage. The other leagues theoretically would complete their deals, and the Big Ten would come in and obliterate them all. Sources tell us that the first half of the Big Ten package will fetch around $250 million annually from Fox. The second half of the negotiations will determine if this theory was right or wrong.
So does that mean they try for another 6-year deal after this one so they can start the next round in 2029?
If there’s a sports rights bubble that’s going to burst, it’s not going to happen until the 2020s when many of the big sports rights deals expire.
■ Should ESPN’s commitment to college sports be questioned?
No. ESPN still is the most important network to college sports given the network’s ownership of ESPNU and SEC Network. ESPN carries the College Football Playoff and 95 percent of bowl games. It owns college bowl games, kickoff classic games and preseason basketball tournaments, not to mention its longtime deals with just about every conference out there. But … this deal solidifies Fox’s position in the college sports world and certainly narrows the gap between the two. In addition to its 51 percent stake in BTN, Fox has deals with the Big 12 and Pac-12 conferences, and its college multimedia rights business has taken off.
What remains to be seen is if this can push FS1 onto the same level as ESPN for ratings rather than being more like ESPN2.
■ Will coaches freak out if their games aren’t on ESPN?
Yes, and so will administrators throughout the conference. … One senior official at a Big Ten school said his peers “were scared to death” at the prospect of not having games on ESPN, which could eat into their recruiting.
Which is why it’s worth it to take less money if that’s what it takes to get ESPN to buy the other half (or a subset of the other half).
LikeLike
I cannot stand ESPN and have not for years. There is only one sport they do best and that is College Football. Guys like Mike Tirico and Brad Nestler are solid professionals. But they are the exception. The Chris Berman’s and Stephen A. Smith’s are unwatchable and they are not the only ones. Not to mention their not so hidden agenda, featuring stuff like the stupid ESPY’s that they promote like Oscars. There was a reason why it used to be called Everything Sox And Pats Network. Since they went Hollywood they are even worse. I am a Yankees, Steelers and Islanders ( and of course, Nittany Lion fan), so my teams are either automatically disliked ( Yankees and Steelers) , ignored for the WNBA or X-Games that no one cares about in the case of the Islanders, or seem to be ( Penn State) for The likes of Vanderbilt/ Kentucky Football. Guess what? I live without ESPN. BTN, MLB Tonight, NHL Tonight, and NFL Network work very well for me. I would prefer CBS/ Turner or even Comcast/ NBC for my Nittany Lion Games, anyway.
LikeLike
I understand this from a fan’s perspective, but the last paragraph of today’s Sports Business Daily update on the Big Ten negotiations is a critically instructive one: the actual athletic administrators and coaches would literally lose their s**t if they were off of ESPN completely. They want NO part of that. Whether we like it or not, when it comes to the channel that recruits (both football and basketball) care about, there’s only ESPN and everything else is second tier. They dream of being on SportsCenter and College GameDay along with putting on their signing day hats on ESPNU… and they couldn’t even name the counterparts on FS1 or NBCSN.
We need to separate the sports pundit culture at ESPN (which I agree can be nauseating at a lot of levels) from what actually matters to any league that is on ESPN: which network provides the best exposure to the largest TV audience possible and will keep the talent coming in (AKA the elite recruits). As I’ve noted, ESPN has an entire ecosystem built around TV, radio, web, podcasts and mobile that no one has been able to replicate (and it isn’t for a lack of their competitors trying). The Big Ten needs to balance exerting the power that it has as an important property (which it definitely is here) with not getting too big for its britches (as you see what happened to the NHL and how absolutely no other widely watched pro or college league has dared to not have an ESPN presence in today’s environment, including the mighty NFL). I think the Big Ten will end up getting the money they want AND the exposure on ESPN, which is still critical.
LikeLike
Easiest way to solve this is to basically further split that half so that ESPN gets around 33-40% of the overall package with CBS taking the remainder of that half…
Something like $140-150m per year for 20 football games and 20 basketball games has to be doable here. CBS can pay like $25-30m per year, and FOX will get the rest for $250m per year (including CCG).
Something like that is a straight up winner and ESPN doesn’t significantly increase what it’s paying from now.
LikeLike
“the actual athletic administrators and coaches would literally lose their s**t if they were off of ESPN completely. ”
ESPN knows this, which is why they low-balled on the first half. Why overbid? They know the B1G needs to come to them for the second half. Let Fox set the bar high on the first half, ESPN knows they are landing the second half.
Who else is left? NBC? Turner?!?! The second half HAS to be on ESPN. And they can’t sell the top tier to CBS, you want ESPN/ABC televising big games and hyping them up. If you sell the top tier to CBS, ESPN is left with a whole lot of mid-tier and bottom-tier games that they won’t bother talking about, or talk about how boring they are. Fox is certainly getting some assurances at top-tier games themselves.
The remaining half will end up on ESPN.
LikeLike
Delany has gambled with exposure moving a lot of inventory to BTN in the past. I think he cares more about the money than the ESPN exposure We will see how this shakes out but I think B1G presidents care more about the money. In the SEC the coaches would have a bigger say and would take less money for the exposure.
LikeLike
I must be in a minority, but my opinion is you don’t just show up and win because of the name on the jersey (in this, the corporate logo). A little bit of a discount (emphasis on little), maybe, because of historical performance, but you gotta at least compete. Content is king. If B1G fans can find BTN they will find FS1, NBC, CBS or whoever just as easily as ESPNU or ESPNews or the Duce. It is ESPN that would be losing the largest college sports fan base.
PS: how many kids would really choose a college based on which among the major broadcast and cable channels shows them? And coaches are prone to paranoia regarding recruiting perceived disadvantage.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I tend to agree with your view. I don’t believe College Game Day would ignore B1G schools. If their goal is to have a national audience they are going to need to discuss all schools and not just the schools they have the rights to. They are certainly going to promote the game of the week on ABC etc.. but as we have seen in the past that doesn’t always equate to ratings. That is usually driven by the rankings and the fanbases of the schools. If most of the top match ups are on Big Fox or OTA NBC exposure will not be a problem. The regional matchups on FS1 that were previously shown on ESPN 2 or ESPNU will have little impact.
LikeLike
Most of us here are pretty core Big Ten or college football fans in general, so I think there’s a significant underestimation about how much the ESPN exposure *specifically* helps games. Look at the ratings last year:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Week 1 is a prime example. FS1 actually had a coup of being able to show Jim Harbaugh’s first game as coach at Michigan, which was the biggest story of the offseason. Fox promoted the heck out of that game with ads on every single available outlet that reaches sports fans. Yet, when the ratings came in, it lost to an inferior North Carolina-South Carolina game on ESPN and only *tied* the TCU-Minnesota game that was later on ESPN in the overall rating. We’re talking about a low profile *Big Ten* team in a worse time slot on ESPN getting the same rating as a king of the Big Ten with the debut of a coach who was the biggest offseason story in college football on FS1. That’s simply a *massive* red flag to me.
Looking further, out of the 13 regular season weeks last year (not including championship game week), ESPN had at least *two* games with a higher rating than *over-the-air* Fox 9 times (plus one other week where ESPN had one game with a higher rating than over-the-air Fox). Meanwhile, ESPN2 had at least one higher rated game than the best-rated FS1 game every single week of the year! Even ESPNU and ESPNEWS games beat FS1 games in the ratings more often than not.
I’m actually shocked by how little some Big Ten fans seem to be worried about this (as if they are being blinded by what they personally don’t like about ESPN and can’t see the bigger picture). The Fox ratings haven’t just been bad – they have been horrible and it’s not just about the matchups. As evidenced by the Michigan-Utah game ratings along with ratings for high profile events like the MLB playoffs, the same game on FS1 is going to get a significantly lower rating compared to it being shown on ESPN. Big Ten fans honestly *should* be much more worried than they are – we are a strong conference, but not teflon-proof to the greater dynamics of the media industry and overall viewership patterns.
It’s one thing if we have a mix of games on ABC/ESPN and Fox/FS1 (while removing the ESPN2, ESPNEWS and ESPNU games). I’d call that an overall upgrade for exposure. However, if we’re leaving ABC/ESPN completely and just be on Fox/FS1 (or have the second half taken by NBC/NBCSN), then that’s a big-time downgrade and it will absolutely be used against us in recruiting. Is it always going to be outcome determinative for every recruit? No. However, I honestly think a “Big Ten isn’t ESPN” argument is going to weigh more heavily on the minds of recruits than a “Big Ten has cold weather” argument. Whether we think it should or not, it absolutely matters to recruits that want to build their own personal brands. If every school loses a 5-star here or a 4-star there because of TV exposure concerns, then that builds up over time. People can argue that this is all speculation, but the ratings data that I’ve linked to above is straight quantitative data.
The only possible combo that could somewhat mitigate a complete lack of presence on ESPN is if there is some type of CBS/Turner proposal (*not* CBSSN). Turner has a legit cable platform with a proven track record of garnering high cable ratings for sports via the NBA and NCAA Tournament, while CBS leveraging the SEC and Big Ten together can be a powerful college football combo that can push back on ABC for over-the-air dominance. I still don’t think that is as strong as the multi-platform industrial sports complex that ESPN has in its arsenal, but it’s a much better fighting chance compared to putting all of the eggs in to the baskets of Fox/FS1 and/or NBC/NBCSN.
LikeLike
I think the ratings for the Mich/Utah game were muted to a certain extent as most B1G fans are not yet familiar with FS1. That would change over time. Plus neither school was ranked.
I think putting football games on Turner would be a disaster. I don’t think there is much crossover between NBA fans and college sports fans. Also, their production quality is terrible. Watching any of the MLB playoffs vs. FOX is like night and day.
Count me in the camp of not being overly concerned about exposure provided that there are plenty of National games on Big FOX and NBC.
LikeLike
@Kevin – This is just my personal preference, but I think Turner’s production quality is pretty high (although I’d say that it is better for NBA games compared to MLB). I don’t think that we can say that there isn’t much crossover between NBA fans and college sports fans – if anything, the college sports leagues want more of the NBA’s young and growing demographics very badly because the future is dependent upon them. What other sport has better crossover with college sports besides the NFL (which inherently crosses over with virtually all other sports since it has huge and broad across-the-board viewership)? Turner has MLB and the NBA. The NHL has a much smaller overall audience. Also, the carriage and ratings for both TNT and TBS are significantly higher than FS1 and NBCSN. You’re going to find TNT and TBS in your average run-of-the-mill hotel room along with ESPN (which is my eyeball standard as to whether a channel has truly broad carriage and viewership), whereas FS1 and NBCSN are much more hit or miss.
Like I’ve said, I don’t think Turner would be better than ESPN in terms of exposure. However, I believe Turner compares favorably to FS1 and NBCSN (especially if it’s combined with over-the-air coast-to-coast CBS coverage).
LikeLike
Also, as I noted in my post, there is a grand total of one non-ESPN cable sports show that has *any* real audience: Inside the NBA on TNT. There might be lots more hours of shoulder programming on FS1 and NBCSN, but no one watches it. Whether we credit the presence of Charles Barkley to the success of Inside the NBA, it shows (a) Turner has at least the ability to create a broadly-watched sports program besides the games themselves and (b) just how hard it is for a non-ESPN sports program to break through.
LikeLike
I certainly hope you are correct that the Big 10 ends up with BOTH exposure and dollars. I just wonder if ESPN has gotten so arrogant that they are to quote Clint Eastwood “A legend is his mind” and they forget the SPORTS part of ESPN in favor of the ENTERTAINMENT part ( see Sports center in LA as an example of this)? Letting people like Mike Tirico go to a competitor, and acting like they can just plug someone in his place, makes me wonder if they believe that they can simply plug in any game ( ACC, Big XII, PAC-12 and especially SEC ) instead of B10, and people will turn in just because it is ESPN? Jim Delaney is one person who is willing to think outside the box and stand up to them ( going back to when BTN was created), and if he feels ESPN/Disney wants to undervalue the Conference, he will not hesitate to go to a competitor. Guess what? Wherever the Nittany Lions are ( I will find them( same for millions of other fans, which is no different then getting Sunday Ticket, MLB Extra Innings and NHL Center Ice to see the teams and games we want instead of relying on ESPN)).
LikeLike
ESPN absolutely promotes the product they have to offer. Big 10 wouldn’t get ignored, but would get significantly less coverage if they weren’t on ESPN. Its amusing to hear B1G fans complain about ESPN bias against their conference when nothing could be further from the truth.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I must be in a minority, but my opinion is you don’t just show up and win because of the name on the jersey (in this, the corporate logo).”
Frankly, the big guys often win just this way in business because they present lower risk.
“A little bit of a discount (emphasis on little), maybe, because of historical performance, but you gotta at least compete. Content is king. If B1G fans can find BTN they will find FS1, NBC, CBS or whoever just as easily as ESPNU or ESPNews or the Duce. It is ESPN that would be losing the largest college sports fan base.”
Hard core fans will find those games, but casual fans default to ESPN and will watch whatever they have on (or a broadcast network). Most people have no idea what channel number FS1 is on their package.
“PS: how many kids would really choose a college based on which among the major broadcast and cable channels shows them? And coaches are prone to paranoia regarding recruiting perceived disadvantage.”
You mean the same kids that will pick schools for their cool uniforms and the frequent use of alternative uniforms? You don’t think they could be swayed by who is being shown on ESPN? Most recruits aren’t even big CFB fans until they start getting recruited. All they know is ESPN for sports.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Frankly, the big guys often win just this way in business because they present lower risk.”
Their bid on the first half wasn’t accepted. What I’m saying is if the second half bid isn’t any better, and there are better bids from others, ESPN shouldn’t be rewarded (and basically colluded with) for having a pseudo monopoly – with discounts.
“but casual fans default to ESPN and will watch whatever they have on…”
1: are we catering to soccer mom, and bored looking for anything to watch guy so much to not take a superior bid?
2: they have had some part of every major conference so watching them in the past is not the same as a situation where a major segment is not there.
“You mean the same kids that will pick schools for their cool uniforms and the frequent use of alternative uniforms?”
Alabama, PSU, OU, UT, USC etc. have multiple bizarre uni’s?
“You don’t think they could be swayed by who is being shown on ESPN?”
1: There is still a scholarship limit. There aren’t a bunch unused that a kid can just on a whim decide on a destination.
2: again, if ESPN carries everyone it’s “the” channel destination. If not, it’s an important channel – but no longer the sole destination.
LikeLike
bullet,
“ESPN absolutely promotes the product they have to offer. Big 10 wouldn’t get ignored, but would get significantly less coverage if they weren’t on ESPN.”
Very much so. And remember, ESPN can only show limited highlights from games on other networks. They always provide more game coverage of games shown on their own networks.
“Its amusing to hear B1G fans complain about ESPN bias against their conference when nothing could be further from the truth.”
No, you’re thinking about coverage versus being ignored. Nobody would deny that ESPN covered the B10 a lot. The complaints are about what all their talking heads actually say about the B10, which was mostly negative for most of a decade. Some of the negativity was deserved, but the rest was ESPN full jumping on the ESPN bandwagon and mocking everyone else as lesser. And even neutral media analysts say that people like Mark May were blatantly anti-OSU and anti-B10 well beyond any facts to support their opinions.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Their bid on the first half wasn’t accepted. What I’m saying is if the second half bid isn’t any better, and there are better bids from others, ESPN shouldn’t be rewarded (and basically colluded with) for having a pseudo monopoly – with discounts.”
But you’re assuming all else is equal. We’re saying that it isn’t equal because ESPN provides benefits in terms of exposure that the other networks can’t match. The question is how much those benefits are worth.
“1: are we catering to soccer mom, and bored looking for anything to watch guy so much to not take a superior bid?”
There are a lot more casual fans than serious fans, and serious fans will find you anywhere while casual fans won’t. So yes, you have to cater to casual fans.
“2: they have had some part of every major conference so watching them in the past is not the same as a situation where a major segment is not there.”
That all depends on how major the neutral fans consider the B10 to be, doesn’t it? It’s huge to us but most southerners couldn’t care less. Nobody outside the midwest cares about half of the B10 teams.
“Alabama, PSU, OU, UT, USC etc. have multiple bizarre uni’s?”
OSU does solely because of recruiting. UT wore alternate uniforms last year and the players have been asking for more. OU has alternate uniforms. USC is looking at wearing one this year. Very few schools have avoided the plague that is alternate uniforms. And they all say they do it for recruiting because the kids get really excited about them.
“1: There is still a scholarship limit. There aren’t a bunch unused that a kid can just on a whim decide on a destination.”
No, but it can mean more of the better players go to ESPN teams (SEC especially). The B10 has enough problems recruiting without handing an edge to the southern schools.
“2: again, if ESPN carries everyone it’s “the” channel destination. If not, it’s an important channel – but no longer the sole destination.”
Or the ones that aren’t on it are out of sight, out of mind to most fans. My guess is ESPN remains “the” sports channel for quite a while so the B10 would be taking a huge risk by leaving them.
LikeLike
Brian:
I’m not saying some consideration, in moderation , isn’t war rented. It’s just too many seem to be saying we have to bow to the Mighty Mouse. It can’t be a low ball offer..
“…so the B10 would be taking a huge risk by leaving them.”
As was done to an extent to form the BTN?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I agree that the Big Ten shouldn’t accept a lowball offer, but I could certainly see providing a haircut financially and/or better picks compared to Fox in recognition of the additional benefits from ESPN. At the end of the day, ESPN is going to be “the” sports channel for a very long time. It has the NFL, NBA, MLB and the 4 other power conferences into the next decade. That position is pretty much intractable with or without the Big Ten. The BTN was certainly a risk, but those were ultimately about games that were being shown on ESPN Plus syndication. We’re now talking about the exposure for the cream of the crop of the Big Ten’s games for both football and basketball – it’s a much different type of risk. Widespread viewership matters much more here, whereas the BTN was focused on monetizing what the Big Ten believed to be underpaid second and third tier games. There’s a reason why ESPN is getting paid nearly $7 per subscriber per month – it is the single biggest driver of age 18-49 male viewers on all of television (both OTA and cable), and that is the single most valuable demographic group for advertisers. That revenue might go down due to cord cutting and shaving, but ESPN’s relative place in the sports network hierarchy is still dominant without the Big Ten.
Now, there is some long-term risk for ESPN here. They’ve let the fox into the henhouse (pun intended) if FS1 truly becomes a legit competitor (even if it can’t realistically overtake ESPN if only because of the presence of the NFL) and probably aren’t keen on watching NBCSN (AKA Comcast, which is a big-time threat to ESPN in terms of hammering them on cable subscriber fees) get more traction, either. At the end of the day, though, the risk is more on the Big Ten side than the ESPN side. Being able to monetize Illinois vs. Purdue on BTN was taking a game that was underpaid and underexposed and giving it a national platform that wasn’t there before. In contrast, Michigan vs. Ohio State on any channel other than ABC or the top basketball game of the week in any slot outside of Super Tuesday prime time on ESPN is a clear reduction in the potential audience. That’s the main difference from my perspective.
I’ve said in my earliest conference realignment posts that “Average Joe Sports Fan” is the target, NOT the hardcore Big Ten fan that will follow their team to obscure channels. ESPN is still the #1 province of “Average Joe Sports Fan” and that won’t change with its NFL, NBA, MLB and other power conference coverage. I don’t have a problem with having part of the package on Fox properties, but firmly believe leaving ESPN entirely would be a long-term mistake for the Big Ten. That being said, I don’t believe that it will come to that – ESPN (even in cost-cutting mode) still has the resources to make the best bid by far. They have a history of underbidding in the beginning of negotiations and then still getting a deal in the end.
LikeLike
Frank:
Understand and basically agree. I guess my concern is with the seeming circular logic trap. Can’t go without unless they are no longer primary sports channel, which the will remain unless/until several important entities go elsewhere, which they can’t do because of the need to be on primary channel, which they will remain unless/until…
There is probably a number that would be worth the risk, but I doubt most coaches would agree initially.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’m not saying some consideration, in moderation , isn’t war rented. It’s just too many seem to be saying we have to bow to the Mighty Mouse. It can’t be a low ball offer.”
It can’t be a terrible offer, no, but the B10 might have to live with a decent sized discount. After all, ESPN offers something the others don’t so there is more value to their bid than just the $$$.
“As was done to an extent to form the BTN?”
Yes, except this time around we’re talking about major games. BTN offers a bunch of other advantages that leads me to believe they were going to form something like it no matter what. But the third tier games BTN gets aren’t the ones that would hurt B10 exposure. The games left to bid on now include half of the good stuff and we don’t want that all buried.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Understand and basically agree. I guess my concern is with the seeming circular logic trap. Can’t go without unless they are no longer primary sports channel, which the will remain unless/until several important entities go elsewhere, which they can’t do because of the need to be on primary channel, which they will remain unless/until…”
That’s the way monopolies work. That was the computer industry for a very long time for example. I think what it would take is the NFL leaving and sending their stuff elsewhere. That would hammer ESPN’s leverage. The NFL can afford to take a risk that nobody else can.
LikeLike
“That’s the way monopolies work.”
Not all monopolies … but yes, some do. Microsoft’s monopoly position in a number of markets rest on “we use it because everyone else uses it” logic.
In computers, Microsoft’s use of its monopoly position in some markets to gain a monopoly position in other markets was only really stymied by Apple coming up with a pocket computer that also made phone calls.
Now, whether ESPN is a monopoly or the market leader in an oligopoly is a wonderful invitation for an argument over semantics, but I expect that the analogy to draw here is that more than a few expect that where ESPN’s dominant position in the market is most vulnerable to suffering a sharp drop rather than an incremental change is in the shift to streaming.
Now, ESPN seems to see the same threat, and is doing its level best to head off the threat, but Microsoft looked like a possible player in the “smartphone” computer operating system market until it finally got swamped by Apple and Google.
LikeLike
Sounds like ESPN is just tightening the belt another notch. Letting some talented but long-of-tooth announcers go (who no doubt command big compensation packages) probably won’t have any impact on the network’s long-term fortunes. And it frees up payroll to invest in other talent that can reach younger viewers. In regards to the conference contract/expansion game…ESPN is probably willing to play hard-ball with the B1G. They know the B1G would be taking a big risk by completely severing ties and doesn’t want to go down that path. And ESPN is probably willing to take the chance of being “all in” with other conferences that are in much faster growing markets. Push the SEC to lock down the south and become THE conference for the long haul…and ESPN will be sitting pretty. I’m sure there’s a lot of “strategery” going on right now. I wouldn’t write ESPN (Disney) off just yet.
LikeLike
We have all contemplated the rationale for the B1G to agree to a 6 year deal with Fox. I don’t know if it is coincidence but the new members to the conference have also had a similar 6 year buy in period. Likely just a coincidence but just a thought.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/04/25/ncaa-satellite-camp-ban-us-department-of-justice-inquiry-college-football/83506978/
The DOJ is looking into the satellite camp ban.
The DOJ’s interest, according to one of the people who spoke to USA TODAY Sports, is based on whether an NCAA ban of satellite camps — a term used to describe off-campus coaching clinics attended by prospective student-athletes — could jeopardize or lessen opportunities for youth players to be seen or have access to college football coaches.
Listen to the rest of the country, NCAA. Undo this ban before you have yet another major lawsuit/legal issue on your hands.
LikeLike
If the two conference reps that didn’t vote as directed actually did, this would be moot. Gotta believe the presidents will reverse.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/04/25/emu-faculty-students-drop-out-division-football/83493156/
EMU’s faculty and student government want to drop D-I football. The BoR says it has no plans to do so. You can read the full 30 page report at the site.
Eastern Michigan University should drop out of Division I football and find a different league for its other sports, all in order to save students money, a new report issued by the university’s faculty and students says.
“Culturally and geographically, EMU football will simply never succeed from an attendance and financial standpoint,” faculty member Howard Bunsis, who helped prepare the report, said in a presentation to the Board of Regents on Friday. “It is a losing proposition — always has been, and always will be. We hardly raise any money for football, and our attendance is the lowest in the country. Some of you believe that we are close to succeeding, if we just throw more money at the situation. This proposition is insane.
…
Getting rid of Division I football is a moral imperative – it will save students money and lower student debt, the report said. The report also found that each student paid $917 out of pocket to support athletics at Eastern. “Should the university be saddling students with unnecessary debt for athletics programs that added little to no value to their education?” the report says.
…
“The option of EMU dropping sports completely is not one that we support,” the report says. “Though athletics is a significant drain on resources, and increases tuition for students and their families, the loss of tuition revenue from students in the non-revenue sports could hurt EMU financially, and moves us away from important values of teamwork, discipline, and community.
…
“Eastern Michigan should drop Division I football, and join the Horizon League, where football is not required,” the report says. “Alternatively, EMU can still play football, but at the Division II or Division III (non-scholarship) level within the Horizon League, which would save even more resources. The advantage of joining the Horizon League is EMU athletes could still compete at the Division I level in Olympic and other non-revenue sports, but spend much less.”
…
“… there is no active plan among the Board of Regents to specifically evaluate football. On an overall level, the Board has high regard for our current football program, its outstanding coach and its success going forward. We expect to have a great season in 2016,” he said last week in a statement.
…
But while the university is looking carefully at its spending in all areas, there are no plans nor discussions ongoing about cutting that subsidy Morris told the Free Press last week. However, another board member – Jim Stapleton – said he believes there needs to be serious discussions about cutting sports.
…
The statement noted that athletics spending represents less than 8% of the current budget. Athletes make up less than 3% of the student body.
LikeLike
“Alternatively, EMU can still play football, but at the Division II or Division III (non-scholarship) level within the Horizon League, which would save even more resources.”
An innovative! solution!
Of course, against current NCAA rules, which require you to play Football in Division I if you are play Football and are a Division 1 member … which may be why nobody else has been pursuing this innovative! solution.
LikeLike
There are only a few Horizon members that play only club football (Green Bay, Milwaukee, Wright State). EMU should put feelers out on the Missouri Valley Conference’s interest. MVC might want a Michigan presence and MVC also gives the option to Eastern if they want to continue as an FCS football program or not have it (like Bradley, Wichita State).
LikeLike
Except EMU doesn’t have any intention of dropping down from FBS football and leaving the MAC, so sending out feelers to the MVC would be a bit of a waste of time at present.
LikeLike
If the B1G and SEC schools are receiving $30 million plus per team (may very much plus), the other P5 conferences are receiving a minimum of $15 million per team, how long can G5 football teams compete at less than $5 million? How long can Cincinnati survive in Ohio with ten percent of the revenue of Ohio State? How long can UConn subsidize its sports to the extent of nearly $30 million per year? http://ctmirror.org/2015/11/16/uconn-ranked-third-for-sports-subsidies/
Note that in the article RU sports subsidy was even more, but RU won the realignment lottery and UConn lost.
LikeLike
The Big 12 and ACC both distributed around $25 million + last year and that doesn’t include the Big 12’s Tier III. Not sure what Pac 12 did, but it had to be over $20 million. So the gap from any P5 to G5 is very big and growing.
LikeLike
Yeah, the TV money (once Rutgers is fully vested in a few years) will basically be able to replace all/most of Rutgers’ subsidies.
I’m assuming Rutgers will be getting around $45-50m in its first year fully vested around 2021…, at that point, we’ll hopefully see most of the subsidies eliminated.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“If the B1G and SEC schools are receiving $30 million plus per team (may very much plus), the other P5 conferences are receiving a minimum of $15 million per team, how long can G5 football teams compete at less than $5 million? How long can Cincinnati survive in Ohio with ten percent of the revenue of Ohio State?”
That’s only conference payout money. You should look at total revenue for the AD. It’s still a big gap, but the ratio isn’t as bad.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
1. TAMU $193M
3. OSU $167M
…
48. UConn $72M (top G5 school)
53. WSU $54M (bottom P5 school)
54. UC $53M (2nd G5 school)
The gap is large, but UC is making 32% of the revenue of OSU. Also, UC has a lot lower expenses (fewer sports, fewer athletes, fewer and smaller facilities, etc).
“How long can UConn subsidize its sports to the extent of nearly $30 million per year?”
As long as students are willing to pay for it. UC does the same thing ($23M). Very few schools have no subsidy (12 of 231). 30 schools have over $20M in subsidies. But ASU has over $19M as a longtime member of the P12 (40th largest subsidy). CO is over $12M (I’m ignoring RU and UMD because they are in a transition period financially). AZ and Utah are just under $9M. WI is just under $8M and is the beginning of a bunch of P5 schools in the single-digit millions. There are G5 schools all the way down to #213 of 231 with only a $1.7M subsidy, but that was 32% of their revenue. P5 schools are mostly under 12% subsidy with only 6 higher (topped by RU at 33%). No G5 school is below 25% and the max is 91%.
The key is how important are athletics to the school. The sense of community for students, the free advertising to students in other places, the ability to bring alumni back to campus for fundraising pitches, it all matters.
LikeLike
The New York Times on UConn’s problems
And a column from the Hartford Courant http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-0102-20160102-column.html
LikeLike
Despite being from NY I always disliked the Times and among the reasons were a diminished amount of sports coverage. It was ballet over Yankees. So what they say about sports should be taken with a grain of salt. The conclusion that the Big 10 took Rutgers ( which is hardly the worst College Program in America), because of AAU is not true, it’s the New York Television Market. Rutgers is within that footprint and The Huskies are not it’s that simple. Look at The new Fox Contract and BTN with Cablevision, and you see why Rutgers was the better option.
LikeLike
David Brown. I agree with you completely regarding the Times. I bought the times 7 days a week for 30 plus years. If I was traveling, I found a store in Florida, CA, wherever and bought the times. As of now, I have not purchased a single issue of the NY Times in about 10 years. Sports is a very low priority at the NY Times. The AAU comment is partially correct, but clearly the B1G was looking for the NY TV market, not the Hartford, CT market. RU also covers part of the Philly TV market in South Jersey.
LikeLike
Interesting – I live in Chicago and actually read the New York Times and Wall Street Journal more than the local Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times these days. The Times and Journal are probably the only two newspapers that haven’t completely gutted their news-gathering operations. The Chicago Tribune, in particular, was a great and legit national paper back in the day, but it’s a shell of former self now. Granted, I don’t really pay any attention to the Times sports section at all – I only read it for political/world/culture news. Honestly, I’m obtaining most of my sports news from Twitter (both Tweets and links from specific people that I follow) compared to any other source today.
LikeLike
I was curious about something and looked up Sunday circulation. NYT was first. LA Times was well behind. Houston Chronicle was right behind LA Times, not the Tribune, which was #6.
LikeLike
To be fair to the NYT, they put a more general business/sports reporter on that assignment, so it is what it is.
But yes, anyone that’s paid attention to Big Ten expansion can tell you why Rutgers was the most obvious (available) school to pair with Maryland.
Location of the school and alumni/fans. There isn’t another school with close to that many alumni/fans concentrated in the NYC market (with a large portion in the Philly market as well).
The AAU side of things is important, but I’m not quite sure it’s as essential as many make it out to be.
I think it’s fairly obvious that the next pair of schools invited into the Big Ten will likely include a non-AAU (Oklahoma or FSU) whenever the next expansion is. Just looking at the ACC and Big 12, those are the two most obvious “next Penn State/Nebraska”-type candidates to build an expansion round around…
Of course, the 2nd school in the next round will probably be AAU as a way of balancing that (KU or Ga Tech or UVa).
LikeLike
Disagree.
The B10 members want to add schools that make it better for them. RU and UMD are AAU and brought footprint, recruiting grounds, etc.
UNL brought die-hard fans but still was unlikely to win the B10 title often.
FSU and OU are kings, but non-AAU and threaten OSU and UMich dominance.
The next round will have some combination of ND, Texas, the UNC family (+UVa, Duke), and GTech.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten is the initiator in the next round of expansion (around 2023-2027), why would ND, Texas, or UNC be a first mover?
I think FSU or OU has a much higher chance of being willing to consider a move just as Nebraska was.
ND, Texas, and UNC are nice to contemplate as they were in 2010 at the top of the list, but I still think they’re just stalking horses for the schools that are more willing to move.
Of course, who knows what Texas would do if OU actually thinks about leaving…, but I think UNC holds tightly onto the ACC as long as it can given just how many schools are its peers around it.
The only way I see UNC moving is if FSU bolts and then the Big Ten invites 4 more after that but it could still end up like Texas staying in the Big 12 (i.e. spurning the Pac-16)…
LikeLike
I agree with z33k. The B1G isn’t going to land UTx or UNC as lone or relative outposts. They’ll need serious motivation. You need to look at it from their perspective. “We’re going to be playing where??” If the answer to Texas is “well OU is joining too…and of course we’ve already got Nebraska…” then it might work. If the answer to UNC is “FSU and/or GT and/or UVA are joining too…and we’ve already got Maryland…” then it might work. But if you think that UT and/or UNC are going to jump on board way and be stuck way out in left field(s)…I’d absolutely bet that they don’t.
LikeLike
PS I’d be shocked if the B1G adds UVA/Duke/GT/UNC as the southern group. That’s a lot of historically mediocre/bad football and a lot of redundant TV turf. That would probably be financial subtraction by addition in terms of the per team payout.
LikeLike
If there’s one truism to realignment, it’s that money is a great motivator. The Big Ten is looking at a potential television deal that pays its fully vested members around $44M to $45M in revenue starting 2017/8. Add in the revenue from the college football playoffs/postseason, the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and other sources and we’re looking at a low $50M figure.
Any new school to join the conference would have to get fully vested–Rutgers and Maryland are looking at getting there after their first six years in the conference and Nebraska will obtain that status in 2018. That might prove to be a deterrent to a school looking to go to the Big Ten (depending on the projected revenue flow) or it might be an incentive to make the move now and be in a fully vested position when the B1G comes up for its next contract following this one.
In June 2015, the ACC announced it had made $302.3M in revenue and it distributed 90% of it to its membership. The conference had a big jump in television dollars plus the new college football playoff format added to the conference’s coffers. ACC distributions to its full time members varied from school to school, with a low of $17.9M to Wake Forest and a high of $20.2M to Duke and FSU. Notre Dame received $4.9M. See http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/
Right now, the prospects for another big jump in the conference’s revenue stream don’t appear to be that great. There seems to be little opportunity to create an ACC Network using the models of the Big Ten, SEC or Pac 12. The CFB playoffs might expand to eight teams, but that lifts all the conferences revenue wise. There also don’t appear to be any major expansion targets available to the ACC at this time either.
Potentially, if the Big Ten deal does get the conference to the $50M mark per fully vested school in a few years and the ACC teams are looking at roughly half that (I assume they have escalator clauses that will raise their paydays), then you can see a power reason right there to make the move (which is one of the reasons why Rutgers and Maryland did it).
The Big 12 schools are in a somewhat similar boat. Unless the Longhorn Network is rolled into a Big XII Network, they won’t have a conference wise network either. A handful of schools in the Big XII do package their third tier rights for extra income though (from $7M to $10M per school). The conference also most recently distributed $252M to its members with the amounts ranging from $27M to $23M for the eight fully vested schools (average $25.3M for all the schools, including partially vested TCU and West Virginia). That was announced in May 2015.
Will the Big XII expand to twelve teams and/or have a conference championship game? I imagine those questions and the bottom line for those decisions are being looked at now (not to mention how it helps or hurts getting into the four-team CFB playoff). If the conference does expand, does that help or hurt the money numbers for the conference? I think most of the membership in the Big XII thinks the latter.
So if you’re Oklahoma or Kansas and a chance to join the Big Ten comes along in the near future, do you make the leap? Conference distribution wise, OU probably makes about the same as all the fully vested Big Ten schools right now, but a large gap begins emerging in just a couple of years.
These individuals schools obviously have to look at their athletic department budgets and priorities. If the university is using general funds or student fees to support the its AD, is that an issue for tax payers or the state government or the students themselves? Also, if you want to compete with programs in the Big Ten and SEC, what sort of resources do you need to have in hand to do it? Will the donors and other stakeholders be in favor or against such a move? Lots of questions there.
I can see why some schools might find a move to the Big Ten attractive–either from the academic (where research dollars are a big par of the budget) or the athletic side. Virginia, for example, requires large student fees and donor participation to pay for the athletic department. UNC is a barely breakeven athletic department operation. FSU had to have an across the board 2% budget cut within the AD to pay for extra student athlete benefits that the NCAA recently allowed (expanded training table, etc.)
Schools like Texas and Notre Dame don’t have those sorts of problems. If the Big XII were to lose some more members, then Texas could go to the Pac 12 or the Big XII would add some more to replace the losses while UT cashes its checks from the Longhorn Network. The ACC doesn’t really provide ND much money, but as long as the Irish can keep their non-football teams there and get late season ACC football games on their schedule, then they’ll be fine as well.
We’ll see what happens when the Big Ten television contracts are finalized. But let’s say a school like Virginia could join the Big Ten tomorrow, get as much money from the B1G as a partially vested member as they currently do from the ACC, then be in a position to be a fully vested conference member when the Big Ten renegotiates its contract again six years down the line. Do you think UVa in an expanded B1G would get more money in 2023 or 2024 than it would if it stayed in the ACC (which renegotiates its deal in 2026/7)? That’s the multi-million dollar question these university presidents and athletic directors have to ask themselves (along with what sort of challenge they can make against the grant of rights agreement they signed).
LikeLike
If UNC is told by the B10 “we will take you +UVa+Duke+GTech or FSU”, UNC will jump.
I think folks are too football-focused. FSU and OU are kings in football (but still not superkings like ND, Texas or some SEC and B10 schools), but by all metrics other than football, UNC, UVa, Duke, and GTech add more to the B10 than OU or FSU do.
Other sports may rise up in popularity and replace football. If so, taking a school solely for the football when they are lacking in other aspects would look foolhardy.
LikeLike
TOM, cutter
Yeah, I agree with what both of you are saying.
I just don’t think there’s any incentive for Texas or ND to consider moving; even if everything collapses around them; I think they can keep deals like ND’s ACC deal (or make one in the case of Texas) and still have a reasonable degree of power/independence in terms of not joining another conference and just being “another” major school.
Oklahoma has publicly griped (and private agitation has leaked) about the Big 12’s lack of a network situation, and a much larger Big Ten contract will exacerbate that.
Ditto for FSU: FSU has made it well known that the ACC needs to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC in terms of TV money for them to be happy.
If the Big Ten’s contract really does escalate as projected (and there’s no ACC or Big 12 network in a few years), I do think we’ll see serious consideration of either FSU or Oklahoma leaving their conference with a partner.
LikeLike
Richard,
You’re missing that FSU and OU (to a slightly lesser degree) are eyes-on-TV’s Super Kings…and have been so for decades. Throw in elite recruiting grounds (Fla) and strategic reasons (landing other schools like UTx, UNC/UVA, etc)…and they’re at the top of the wish list. AAU is secondary. The stakes are sky-high and the wrong decisions now will have huge implications in the coming decades for the B1G.
LikeLike
Tom;
You’re missing the statement several years ago by Delany that academics would be a primary concern in any future consideration of expansion.
From a purely athletic standpoint, as many have said, it’s a mistake to eliminate certain teams/schools. But it’s the CEO’s of elite educational institutions that make the decisions.
LikeLike
The football fan in me salivates at the thought of adding FSU and OU, but I know that the other factors will matter to a large degree.
For the B10, stuff like AAU status matters.
Given the choice, the B10 presidents would rather match the Ivy League in academics (which, granted, isn’t going to happen when you look at the middle or the bottom) than the SEC in football.
LikeLike
TOM,
“You’re missing that FSU and OU (to a slightly lesser degree) are eyes-on-TV’s Super Kings…and have been so for decades.”
No, he’s well aware of that.
“Throw in elite recruiting grounds (Fla) and strategic reasons (landing other schools like UTx, UNC/UVA, etc)…and they’re at the top of the wish list.”
For unaffiliated fans, sure. For alumni, maybe. For the presidents of the B10 universities? No.
“AAU is secondary.”
AAU status is just shorthand for top level academics. ND will never be AAU but their academics are more than good enough to fit in the B10. Other schools aren’t AAU and don’t have elite academics. B10 presidents care who they are affiliated with more than fans just can understand.
“The stakes are sky-high and the wrong decisions now will have huge implications in the coming decades for the B1G.”
That cuts both ways. What if the FB programs die off at FSU and OU? Then what do they bring to the table but subpar academics? What if football stops being the cash cow that it is now?
LikeLike
Brian, Richard
Those are fair points. If the Big Ten insists on AAU, then we’ll stay at 14 unless something dramatically shifts.
My hunch is that if we do expand, it’ll be because FSU or Oklahoma tries to bolt. Perhaps the Big Ten will pass if it’s OU and a Pac-14 with OU/KU (or some other pair) comes to pass.
But if it’s FSU, that’s really where it gets more interesting to me; I think the Big Ten presidents at least would consider FSU+Ga Tech.
It’s worth noting that Ga Tech has $230m in AD debt that takes around $13m+ of their budget away every year.
So perhaps they would be amenable to considering that.
If a FSU/Ga Tech pair is on the table then perhaps a grab can be made at UVa as well to go along with them, etc. to beef up the package.
Regardless, I still don’t think the odds of Big Ten expansion in the 2020s are above 30-35%, so it’s certainly not a given even though expansion discussions always have that kind of feeling.
LikeLike
None of you are asking the basic question. Do the B1G presidents want to be 16 or 18 or 20? If the answer to 18 or 20 is no then #15 and #16 will be very selective. They waited a long time for #12.
LikeLike
Some earlier discussion of what the B1G is looking for in potential future partners, in terms of academics, athletics, geography, etc. got me thinking: what would a national conference of the top academic schools in each P5 conference look like? I obviously don’t think each conference would have the same number, but I imagine it would look something like this:
USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Vandy, Florida, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame. Gives you 15, maybe include A&M to get to 16.
Pretty impressive list for all sports.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I think they will be just as selective considering any addition. As you said they waited (perhaps on ND?) a long time for #12. I doubt they are trying to fill an arbitrary number in an artificial time frame.
LikeLike
bullet that’s a great question but #13-14 came very quickly after Nebraska for a reason: the paradigm shift that has occurred in college sports and cable/TV since the last contract was signed due to BTN (and SECN, Pac-12N, LHN) etc. in some ways forced the hand of the Big Ten presidents.
It’s worth noting that historically the Big Ten could just sit around and rely on its historical advantages (being positioned in the “dominant” region of the country for manufacturing/population through the 1980s), but given demographics (stagnant population in Big Ten while other regions grow rapidly) and media/technology advancements: the pace of changes over past 15 years and next 15 years means that the Big Ten might need to get to the “endgame” sooner rather than later.
It’s hard to just “sit still” when you consider the changes that millennials are bringing to TV/media markets; that’s why the big media companies are changing at a rapid pace. When you think about just how quickly companies like Google and Facebook have come to gain huge chunks of advertising market share, it makes you realize just how fragile future endeavors can be (thinking about how fast the shift has occurred from PCs to mobile; PCs have had a shorter shelf life as a dominant technology than TVs did)…
That’s partially why I think odds of Big Ten expansion in the 2020s is reasonably high (I’d put it at 30-35%).
Do I think the Big Ten presidents have seen 16-20 team configurations? Yes. But it comes down to whether the presidents think they need to pull the trigger on such things as well as whether they think its in the schools’ as well as conference’s best interest.
Needless to say, a lot of this is about considering the strengths and weaknesses of the Big Ten’s position in 20 or 30 years.
I still think it needs work. Only the SEC (and Pac-12) can sit still in my opinion. Pac-12 might be a disaster #3 for a while but it’s by far the dominant player in the western timezones and its relative position won’t weaken.
LikeLike
Er, I meant Pac-12 would be distant #3, no idea how disaster got in there…
LikeLike
“AAU status is just shorthand for top level academics. ND will never be AAU but their academics are more than good enough to fit in the B10. Other schools aren’t AAU and don’t have elite academics.”
I hear what you’re saying. And my very limited (but very real) direct experience with attending both a non-AAU (FSU) and an AAU (Michigan State) probably clouds my judgement. By that…I noted no appreciable difference. In fact, the level of competition (and quality of the undergrad courses and professors) in FSU’s biology department were better than in MSU’s zoology department (the equivalent department at the time). This was back in the 90’s so things may have changed. I also suspect that MSU’s agricultural related departments generate a lot of research dollars…which certainly helps with AAU admission. Anyway…you’re either in the AAU or you’re not (and have the accompanying research $ to justify it)…so there’s certainly something to it. I do not dispute the fact that schools like UVA, Mich, NW, etc…are on a different level…
On another note…the ACC better be throwing the kitchen sink at UTx, OU and Notre Dame. Perhaps ESPN/Disney is more motivated than ever to make something work.
LikeLike
bullet,
“None of you are asking the basic question. Do the B1G presidents want to be 16 or 18 or 20? If the answer to 18 or 20 is no then #15 and #16 will be very selective. They waited a long time for #12.”
We asked the question earlier. The general consensus was that they probably don’t want 20. I’m not sure if they even want 16. But it’s a question we can’t answer with any certainty so after giving our guesses, we tend to move past it. If the answer is no, then expansion talk stops and we have nothing to do here.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Some earlier discussion of what the B1G is looking for in potential future partners, in terms of academics, athletics, geography, etc. got me thinking: what would a national conference of the top academic schools in each P5 conference look like?”
How you define “top academic schools” can really vary.
“USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Vandy, Florida, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame. Gives you 15, maybe include A&M to get to 16.”
Your list broken down by conference:
ACC – North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
B10 – Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern
B12 – Texas
P12 – USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal
SEC – Vandy, Florida, Missouri, TAMU
Ind – Notre Dame
1. TAMU is a better school than MO, so you have to include them if you are going to include MO.
2. Are you sure we should include UNC right after their academic scandal (I’m kidding, mostly)?
3. Based on the Times HER rankings:
Top 16: Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Duke, MI, NW, UW, IL, GT, UT, WI, UNC, MN, USC, PSU, Pitt
Next in line: Vandy, OSU, MSU, ND, PU, UMD, UF, RU, CO
4. From USN&WR:
Top 16: Stanford, Duke, NW, Vandy, ND, Cal, UCLA, USC, UVA, WF, MI, BC, UNC, GT, IL, WI
Next in line: PSU, UF, Miami, OSU, UT, UW, UMD, Clemson, PU, SU, UGA
%. By combining the lists:
Top 16 on both lists (11): Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Duke, MI, NW, IL, GT, WI, UNC, USC
Top 16 on 1, NiL on the other (5): UW, UT, PSU, Vandy, ND
2 NiL: OSU, PU, UMD, UF
1 Top 16: MN, Pitt, UVA, WF, BC
1 NiL: MSU, RU, CO, Miami, Clemson, SU, UGA
LikeLike
Despite being from NY I always disliked the Times and among the reasons were a diminished amount of sports coverage. It was ballet over Yankees. So what they say about sports should be taken with a grain of salt. The conclusion that the Big 10 took Rutgers ( which is hardly the worst College Program in America), because of AAU is not true, it’s the New York Television Market. Rutgers is within that footprint and The Huskies are not it’s that simple. Look at The new Fox Contract and BTN with Cablevision, and you see why Rutgers was the better option.
In the modern expansion era, every school the Big Ten accepted — or, to the best of our knowledge, even considered — was in the AAU at the time, except for Notre Dame. UConn is no Notre Dame.
I think it’s pretty clear that any non-AAU school would face an enormous, and possibly insurmountable, hurdle to get into the Big Ten, unless that school was an absolute home run in every other way, as ND is, and UConn is not.
In that sense, I don’t find the article inaccurate at all.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“The New York Times on UConn’s problems”
It’s unfortunate that a NYT writer didn’t do more research since he’s writing about the NYC media market. His own paper published Nate Silver’s piece a few years ago estimating the number of fans of various schools in NYC, with RU over 600k and UConn at 150k. UConn likes to claim they bring the NYC market but I’ve never seen any evidence to support that. Then add in RU ties in Philadelphia which work well with all the PSU fans in the area. Plus NJ is a much more populous state (important for the BTN). On top of all that is RU being AAU while UConn isn’t. The only advantage UConn has is the quality of the athletics programs but they aren’t good enough in football for that to matter.
To me the article smacked of UConn feeling entitled to be in the P5 despite not doing anything to earn it outside of basketball.
“And a column from the Hartford Courant”
This was even more about UConn entitlement.
This is a columnist’s mission statement as much as a New Year’s resolution: Document exactly why the University of Connecticut has not gained membership in one of the Power Five conferences. Determine exactly what it would take to gain membership in one of the Power Five conferences.
…
And those who have kept UConn out? The hard questions will be in the email.
A state university that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in athletics and has won four national titles in the two major sports since 1999 — Florida with two in football and two in basketball is the only other — should not be looking in from the outside. No way.
Why mention the two major sports when you’ve done nothing but stink in the one of them that actually matters for expansion?
It’s a university, not just a sports program. Improve the school and you’d be more attractive to P5 conferences. Improve the football program and you’d be more attractive. Move from the middle of nowhere Connecticut to a larger market and you’d be more attractive. Don’t be hated by several members of a P5 conference because you sued them over sour grapes when they joined the P5 and you’d be more attractive. Have more fans and you’d be more attractive. All of this is obvious stuff. Then you need a conference to have an opening that needs filling since UConn will never be a #15.
LikeLike
Well if UConn had bitten the bullet and moved up in 1991 to the Big East, they might be in a P5. But they have been in the top level of football only a dozen years, and that was mostly by classification only, not by performance.
LikeLike
Idaho to FCS. Not surprising, but I thought they would hold out longer.
http://footballscoop.com/news/source-idaho-to-drop-to-fcs/
LikeLike
As I stated above, I think the B10 will endeavor to get ESPN to take half the non-Fox side of the TV package for $125M. So 12.5 football games and 25 basketball games, but they may be able to entice ESPN with the first pick of football games in that half and the CCG half the time. So each week, essentially, ESPN would have first or second pick of the B10 football games. I had originally said CBS with first pick of basketball games in the non-Fox half for $25M, but I’m going to amend that up to $50M.
Which means that there would be 13 second-tier football games that the B10 would try to get for $75M.
CBS _may_ spring for that, but once they have ESPN signed on, the B10 may be willing to farm that out to the highest bidder.
What you could see happen is
1. Fox getting to pick the primetime games before the season starts (6 on Fox, 6 on FS1, no more than 4 appearances by any one team).
2. ESPN getting the top pick of the day games each week to be shown in the afternoon.
3. CBS and Fox splitting up the 3rd and 4th picks every week with CBS showing their B10 game before their SEC game in the .morning.
UMich-OSU special, excluded from all this, and split between Fox, ABC, and CBS somehow.
LikeLike
You’re looking at three different network entities vying for top games to put in the evening prime time broadcast or in an important afternoon slot from the Big Ten. The conference will have to be very schedule conscious in order to “feed the beast” with three or four major conference football games each week in order to do it.
I suppose it’s possible seeing that the B1G is going to a nine-game conference schedule and that we’ll start seeing parity based inter-division scheduling. Adding a couple of programs like Oklahoma or Florida State (or Notre Dame) wouldn’t hurt either. An Oklahoma-Ohio State or Penn State-Florida State (or Michigan-Notre Dame) game on the conference schedule would sure help. 🙂
LikeLike
The problem with this is are two fold. 1: Fox wants to show other games ( other then Big 10( USC playing UCLA, Oregon, ASU, Stanford and Notre Dame ( home) comes to mind). 2: Not all Big 10 teams like late games. Penn State ( I suspect that at least 7 games are 3:30 or later starts in 2016), Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota and Nebraska are teams that will play them. But you rarely see Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Illnois play 3:30 or later games (especially at home):
LikeLike
For Purdue, Indiana and Illinois, that is as likely to be about demand to have them play in the 3:30pm slot as it is about their interest in playing it. It could be that only MSU is a direct read on the school’s reluctance to play them.
LikeLike
That may be true, but BTN can show Schools like Indiana or Purdue @3:30 or later if they would not object. Not to Mention Minnesota Football generally IS on BTN and which DOES play later games and is not exactly Ohio State either. In addition, Penn State has not been great the past several years, but I notice they and Mississippi State seem to end up on ESPN 2 one right after the other at least a couple of times a year. I can tell you Beaver Stadium ( at State College, PA) is no bargain getting out of at Night after dark ( especially late in the Season when bad weather occurs and if there are 100,000 or more people at the game). But Penn State still plays more Home Games @ 3:30 ( or later) then early kickoffs. Generally speaking they play Ohio State ( or Michigan) as a White Out ( Night Game ) @ home, I believe Temple will be a Night Game ( Stripe Out ( this is new but will be an Annual Event ( like next year when Pitt comes to State College)), Rutgers ( I suspect BTN like two years ago) and Michigan ( this year) will likely be Road Night Games. I am interested to see the Schedule when it comes out.
LikeLike
It always bemused me how much Ohio State and Michigan fans seem to prefer to earlier start times. As a fan in the Central Time Zone, I absolutely hate the 11 am CT start times when you’re actually attending games. It was definitely brutal waking up for those games in college when I was invariably always up late on Friday night. For me, 2:30 pm CT is the perfect start time for a game (both in person and as a TV viewer). As David Brown noted, the BTN actually provides some much needed flexibility on that front where schools like Illinois can play later even if they’re not on ABC.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It always bemused me how much Ohio State and Michigan fans seem to prefer to earlier start times.”
1. How many times have you tried getting home from a 100,000+ seat stadium in a major city after a game ends at/near midnight (picture 2 Bears games letting out at once)? It’s just as bad when it let’s out at 7:30 since every restaurant is already busy and there is more traffic out and about. The night games mean a higher percentage of drunk drivers, the late afternoon game mean s more traffic and inconvenience.
2. Football is meant to be played under the sun.
“As a fan in the Central Time Zone, I absolutely hate the 11 am CT start times when you’re actually attending games. It was definitely brutal waking up for those games in college when I was invariably always up late on Friday night.”
I never had a problem getting up for a noon game and I worked Friday nights until well after midnight. You don’t see OSU or MI fans asking for pre-noon starts, though. I could see where 11am would stink.
“For me, 2:30 pm CT is the perfect start time for a game (both in person and as a TV viewer).”
The old days had it just right with games generally starting at 1:30pm. Even in November the sun was still up when the game ended but sleeping in wasn’t a problem either.
LikeLike
11AM games suck for those of us in the Central time zone. They are great for TV because the games start early and not much waiting around but attending and leaving the house at 6 or 7AM to travel 2-3 hours and get some tailgating in really blows.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“11AM games suck for those of us in the Central time zone.”
Move to a better time zone? Like I said, I can see where morning starts would be hard but noon is a good thing. You can get home in time for prime time games.
“They are great for TV because the games start early and not much waiting around but attending and leaving the house at 6 or 7AM to travel 2-3 hours and get some tailgating in really blows.”
You could always get a motel room closer to the stadium. Or don’t tailgate. I’ve never been big on tailgating as a necessary part of watching a game. I do more of it when watching games at a friend’s house than when I go to actual games. There are too many better things to do when you’re at the game (tour campus, pre-game activities, etc). I can drink and eat any day.
LikeLike
UMass faculty urge dropping out of FBS
http://footballscoop.com/news/and-now-umass-faculty-leaders-are-calling-for-the-school-to-drop-out-of-fbs/
LikeLike
Faculty groups always do this and are almost universally ignored.
LikeLike
Mike. At Rutgers, there is a Group of 1000, under the leadership of an Econ Prof named Killingsworth, still thinks RU should eliminate football, even being in the B1G. They just hate athletics, particularly football
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/27/11517760/nfl-draft-worst-ncaa-football-teams
Another look at who produces the best and worst 1st round picks, based on data since 1990 for P5 schools with at least 12 1st round picks. Only 25 schools had that many picks. The data for the all P5 schools is included at the bottom (ISU hasn’t had a 1st rounder since the 70s).
Worst:
1. NE
2. CO
3. PSU
4. WI
5. TAMU
6t. MI
Best:
1. OU
2. AU
3. Miam
4. Cal
5. BC
8. OSU
LikeLike
“Idaho’s fate seems to have been sealed when NCAA legislation passed allowing schools to stage championship games with only 10 teams.”
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25568947/idaho-will-become-first-team-to-drop-from-fbs-to-fcs-in-2018
Imagine the possibilities if the “how ever you want” CCG deregulation had been adopted.
LikeLike
Idaho was not the first School to leave Division One Football (University Of Chicago anyone?), nor will they be the last. I do think the discrepancy between the Elite schools ( Power 5 as well as Notre Dame, BYU ( and Big East basketball)), the Middle two ( AAC and Mountain West), and the bottom feeders will increase ( check out the new Conference USA TV Contract). Although there will be a few Schools that potentially can move up to a higher level ( Rice to the Mountain West comes to mind, because they offer great Academics the Houston Market and good baseball). However, if I am a School like North Texas, UMass or Mew Mexico State maybe it does make sense to drop down or give up football if I have no chance ( or hope) to compete?
LikeLike
I heard someone today making the argument that more schools like that should try being an independent. Play anyone anywhere like FSU and USM and others used to do. Rake in several large paychecks for losing at a big boy and cut the financial losses for your program.
LikeLike
FSU won far more often than not in the glory days of the “anyone, anywhere” indy era under Bowden. The problem in this era…if you start getting good…the big boys won’t schedule you or bring you into their conference!
LikeLike
Yes, but they started out as a terrible program. They were 3-8 the year before Bowden was hired and 1-21 combined in the 2 years before that. Before that they were a 6 win sort of team, but nothing special.
The other thing to remember is that FSU used to only have 5 home games. Then it became 6 as they started winning more.
You are 100% correct that a lot of teams duck quality OOC games, but the CFP and mandatory P5 OOC games are changing that. A quality independent that gets counted as a P5 equivalent (like BYU) can get a lot of games now.
LikeLike
Imagine the possibilities if the “how ever you want” CCG deregulation had been adopted.
You mean, if there were a free market—the way every other industry works? That would be horrible.
LikeLike
The only industrys (coming imediately to my mind) that don’t operate within a regulated system is the illicit sex and drug trade. Let’s emulate them…
LikeLike
Yes, it’s true that most industries are regulated in some sense. But usually, the reason for regulation is not the reason you gave, i.e., to keep afloat a marginal participant in an “industry” (FBS football) that has 125-odd other participants.
It sucks to be you, if you’re an Idaho fan who loved seeing your beloved Vandals in FBS. But preserving Idaho as a viable FBS program is not why the regulation existed, or should exist.
LikeLike
Great empathy.
And the B12 may not even hold a CCG.
Sorry Idaho, and probably NMSU. You turn from asset to liability at the whim of the I want my cake and eat it too crowd, even when they only get part of the cake.
Yeah, we were asked “what’s the harm?” Now it’s: “too bad, don’t care.”
LikeLike
ccrider55
I think everyone had more empathy in the 00s when everything TV-related seemed like it’d go upwards forever.
I think we’re seeing reality set in as far as these things go…
The only schools that are “safe” for the future are the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12 schools + Texas/OU/ND/FSU/UNC/UVa along with possibly a handful of others (maybe KU/Ga Tech/Miami/Va Tech)…
That’s around 46-50 schools give or take. Everyone else is at the mercy of TV/cable money and millennial viewing habits as media contracts evolve in the future.
It’s a harsh view, but it’s the basic reality in terms of the future of live sports where actual eyeballs on games will become a requirement for high values unlike the past where bundles ensured all boats rose indefinitely.
Also, none of us really knows what the future looks like? i.e. What does VR mean for live sports? Is the future people watching games with VR as if they’re there in the stands or on the ground?
The only thing I’m certain of is that college sports are being “rationalized” by those outside forces in a way that shifts the money towards the “revenue producers” that bring in the eyeballs…
LikeLike
Z33k:
You may have missed the last couple years of disagreement between Marc’s laze faire attitude regarding regulation of CCGs and a concern that a regulation may serve more than one purpose. He said it (how a conference decides a champ) is nobody else’s business. The counter was they could always do that, but not in an extra exempt game without satisfying the requirements to allow it. It was relaxed to allow less than 12 team conferences, but kept RR and division champs meet req. (I think I’m being fair in this rehash…Marc?)
The result? No CCG in B12 (yet). And no conference affiliation for Idaho or NMSU (they’ve been made redundant). A rule changed – no one instituted a game to take advantage, but two are losing conference affiliation directly because they’re no longer for that conferences CCG. These are a couple of the kind of unintended consequences Delany spoke of.
LikeLike
Okay those are fair points. And yes, admittedly I am a step out of this since I’m picking up from a couple years back.
LikeLike
Satellite camp ban recended.
http://amp.usatoday.com/story/83616450/
People are making this a bit too dramatic. They effectively are enacting the intended result that would have already been had a couple reps voted as directed by their conferences three weeks ago.
LikeLike
Because it was overturned, the ACC has lifted their conference rule prohibiting their coaches from participating in satellite camps more than 50 miles from their campus. That leaves just the SEC with such a rule and I expect them to lift it soon as well.
The good part is that the Board of Directors told the D-I Council to sit down and looking at all things recruiting before making new rules. This is exactly what the B10 and others had been advocating – a holistic approach to fixing recruiting rules.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/04/28/sec-allow-coaches-satellite-camps-greg-sankey-statement/83660154/
And there it is. The SEC has lifted their ban on satellite camps.
“While we are disappointed with the NCAA governance process result, we respect the Board of Directors’ decision and are confident SEC football programs will continue to be highly effective in their recruiting efforts.
“We continue to believe football recruiting is primarily an activity best-focused in high schools during the established recruiting calendar, which has provided opportunities for football prospective student-athletes from all across the country to obtain broad national access and exposure but with appropriate guidance from high school coaches, teachers and advisors that focuses on both their academic and athletic opportunities as they decide where they will play college football.
Conveniently they forget to mention the weather advantage the current calendar gives them, let alone being closer to the recruits.
LikeLike
Sooooo, the ACC and SEC aren’t opposed to satellite camps now?
LikeLike
They are, but they are even more opposed to letting everyone else have them but restricting their own coaches.
LikeLike
They are [opposed to the camps], but they are even more opposed to letting everyone else have them but restricting their own coaches.
It is entirely possible that once the SEC and ACC coaches start attending such camps, they’ll no longer be so eager to ban them.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It is entirely possible that once the SEC and ACC coaches start attending such camps, they’ll no longer be so eager to ban them.”
It’s possible, but I highly doubt it. It would be more of SEC coaches poaching from each other, so a lot more work for no net change really. The P5s the benefit are the schools outside of great recruiting areas, so mostly northern schools and/or schools in small states. That’s half of the B12, a few in the ACC, P12 and SEC plus most of the B10.
LikeLike
And up in the NW corner of the US sports world, the Mariners return to local ownership.
http://m.mariners.mlb.com/news/article/174893796/
A $1.4B valuation for the franchise and properties.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15420427/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-says-wants-move-team-las-vegas
Mark Davis wants to move the Raiders to Las Vegas in 3 years and is willing to spend $500M to help pay for the stadium. I think the NFL’s anti-gambling stance is softening a little since they are so interested in London that the hypocrisy is quite apparent. The NFL is clearly looking to move a team to London in the next decade so there is no good reason to bar Las Vegas from having a team.
LikeLike
Move the Raiders to London.
Two birds, one stone.
LikeLike
Soccer hooligans – built in fan base?
LikeLike
They would fit in with Raider Nation quite well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132634/first-round-or-not-b1gs-2016-class-of-qbs-still-historic
It’s been 21 years since the B10 had a QB drafted in the first round. Will the streak continue? Probably. But this may be the best QB draft class the B10 has ever had with as many as 5 QBs getting drafted and several having the potential to be starters (Cook, Hackenberg, Jones?). The B10 record is 4 QBs drafted (only twice), but add in Sudfield and then a wildcard like Rudock and the B120 could hit 5.
LikeLike
I have been listening to some NFL draft guru’s on the Mike Francesa show on WFAN in NY. Boy did they have bad things to say about James Franklin at PSU, with regard to Hackenberg. They did not come out and say it, but they sure implied that Franklin may have cost Hackenberg millions by his misuse of the QB. The implication was that Hackenberg should have been a high first round choice, but will be a low first round in a best case and could slip as far as the third round.
LikeLike
Yes, a lot of people look at what he did under O’Brien and think he would’ve improved from there with quality coaching. But he got moved into a bubble-screen offense with no OL and had no chance to showcase his skills. The question now is if he can be fixed by a good coach or if he’s shell-shocked and will never return to his earlier form.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132628/what-b1g-players-could-be-first-round-nfl-selections-in-2017
ESPN lists 7 potential first rounders from the B10 in the 2017 draft (2 OSU, 2 MI, 1 each from MSU, IN, IA).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15412486/does-college-football-need-commissioner
Does CFB need a commissioner? ESPN presents both sides as well as some potential candidates, but I don’t see anyway you could ever have one. The opportunity for bias and endless accusations of bias would make it an impossible job.
LikeLike
Given the conference commissioners, I find it difficult to believe that another layer of bureaucracy would be introduced, especially one that would only fractionally represent each conference. Giving anyone that kind of power is asking for problems in college sports especially when the conferences themselves are competitors on many major issues (such as the camp ban).
LikeLike
Commisioners are employees of the chancellors and presidents. That’s where the power is, and who would need to decide on a new governance structure.
LikeLike
I think the problem is that they gave themselves autonomy but haven’t really put together the system to make that work effectively. I think they need some permanent staff to do research and present information to the relevant people in the conferences on various issues so they can make informed, intelligent votes. Players, coaches, ADs, and faculty reps all need to give input to avoid mistakes like the satellite camp ban. Take the time to do things right but don’t wait for next year’s annual meeting to have every discussion. They should spend at least as much time as the CFP committee does on the playoff each week.
LikeLike
They already have a “playoff commissioner” and he’s a joke. He makes politicians look like they live in a spin free zone and are paragons of honesty.
LikeLike
???
You expected all roses and lilacs from a beauty contest system overlayed with an image of competition based selection?
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy tweets supposed BTN night games.
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN 6 hours ago
@BigTenNetwork primetime: 9-1 Oregon St at Minnesota; 9-3 Fresno St at Nebraska; 9-10 UNC at Illinois, ISU at Iowa; 9-17 Duke at N’western
LikeLike
Those are all pretty decent games. I’d watch them if I had BTN and was home when they were on.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-hard-to-tell-how-good-nfl-teams-are-at-the-draft/
538 examines how good the NFL is at drafting and concludes that it’s hard to tell.
LikeLike
In a piece where Wilner (not so) subtly takes shots at Larry Scott and tries to give a bit of hope to those who’d like him gone, he does a good job of explaining why it just won’t happen because a group (fans, or even within the schools ath depts) want it. In so doing he explains why what seems to fans an obvious move (OU or FSU) is anything but to the only ones that matter.
“Now, when it comes to understanding what happens on the front lines of collegiate athletics – on the fields of play, on the recruit trails, at booster events and at infinite points of fan engagement — there are three types of chancellors/presidents
Those who know nothing.
Those who know almost nothing.
Those who don’t care.
After all, the CEOs are running billion-dollar universities, of which athletics is but one facet. The core group of CEOs responsible for hiring Scott saw that the league was $3 billion richer and turned to other matters.”
LikeLike
While that is certainly true, there are also ADs whose business it is to follow those kinds of developments closely as well as the college commisioner himself.
I understand the “think like a college president” is the most important part of the “will a conference expand? question”, but I think that’s a far later step in the game (i.e. closer to when the invites are handed out than when the conference starts looking at expansion).
For example, if the Big Ten is looking at expansion (I’m talking in a modern sense like Maryland/Rutgers, not the haphazard Penn State addition which was chaotic in the past), to me that starts first with Delany surveying the landscape with Silverman and looking at where TV money is going as well as the structure of media markets generally.
Then they bring that to the presidents and ADs but I think a large part of the basis for expansion is driven by the commissioners themselves looking at the landscape. That doesn’t mean they have total control over the process, but at least in the “setting up the expansion process” phase of discussions I believe they pretty much direct that in the modern day (Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers additions).
These things take a while though to develop; a full expansion process probably takes around 4-5 full years to occur from the conference looking, doing its diligence, poking around at who’s available, etc.
As in all things, Delany is a media-savvy guy (as obviously is Silverman), I think they both are following developments in media/TV very closely; every development with Disney/ESPN’s prospects etc.
It isn’t lost on media people that cable markets are being shunned (in terms of network value to media companies); that’s why we’re seeing so many media companies looking at alternate routes (i.e. Comcast plowing money into its theme parks, looking at Dreamworks, Verizon looking at ways to become a digital media/ad company with AOL and possibly Yahoo, etc.).
Just look at the prospects of Viacom versus its brother CBS; Viacom (with all its cable properties) is struggling mightily whereas CBS has been much stronger over the past 5 years.
Now, that’s the broader landscape of media generally, how it impacts conferences and sports TV contracts is obviously what Delany/Silverman et al. will follow extremely closely.
This 6 year contract that the Big Ten is looking at means that the Big Ten has to immediately start looking at the next one (which will again be signed around 2022); that means the Big Ten is paying especially close attention to that side of the equation.
Look at the ACC as well, while Wilner points out that the Pac-12 could just “set it and forget it” with their media deal (as could the SEC with its deal going into the 2030s); the ACC has this giant questionmark about whether it will create an ACC Network with ESPN that has been an ongoing issue/debate.
Some of the ACC beat writers have been focused relentless on that question when they talk to AD and other conference officials.
Yes, this doesn’t quite reach the level of presidents who have far more important concerns than the $50-200m AD at most of these institutions which are multi-billion dollar enterprises, but there are definitely people that are focused on it closely.
LikeLike
“…if the Big Ten is looking at expansion (I’m talking in a modern sense like Maryland/Rutgers…”
When the PSU add was being explored (poorly handled, but not haphazardly selected) Rutgers was high on the list of requirements the CEO’s had set, and remained high through decades.
Diligence and poking around is an ongoing, never ending affair. What I’m saying is the ADs and commish do the work within/following the guidance/parameters of the CEOs. The ADs may be informed, or they may not be, or they may be set up to be disinformation sources. The commish answers only to the cop/c.
LikeLike
Sure, that’s why when I think about expansion, I think about what the odds of expansion are in any given year.
Until the 2020s, expansion is unlikely (because of GORs, TV contracts, etc.); but once we get to around 2021-2024; the probability will start to rise dramatically.
It’s all a question of where Delany (if he’s still in charge for one last expansion/TV contract), Silverman, the presidents, see things going.
If they look out on the TV/media landscape and see a potential for long-term erosion in the Big Ten’s position (whether due to demographics, cable/cord cutting, millennial TV habits, replacement revenue sources (for declining subs not appearing as fast), technological changes), then they’ll have to determine whether expansion is worth considering and whether anyone’s available that fits the bill.
That’s the point at which the Big Ten presidents really enter the discussion, if Delany thinks something needs to be done to secure the next 100 years for the Big Ten…
Admittedly, the next Maryland/Rutgers combo is UVa/UNC but those are unlikely to happen as 15-16 unless FSU bolts first and causes severe stress in the valuation of the ACC’s TV rights.
At that point, Delany has to go to the presidents to ask them what they’re looking for; if they want to consider 18-20 team models or not (i.e. take 2 more as preparation for another 2-4 or whether 16 is final for that round); whether FSU or OU is worth looking at for #15 (this is where the AAU discussion will happen, whether it’s enough for one of those with multiple AAU to be satisfactory, etc.).
That’s really when things get interesting I suppose.
Still, I’d put the odds of expansion fairly low until the 2020s; the odds probably rise to around 30-35% at that point (again there’s no obvious expansion so I don’t think it’s more likely than not, but I do think there are some weaknesses in the Big Ten’s long-term position that possibly still need addressing – admittedly though those are only solved by taking 2+ teams in the Southeast or Texas, so that’s something else to consider).
I understand why Wilner writes his points, but that’s really a shallow way of looking at it (in my opinion).
When you dig deeper at the changes in media that are ongoing and you look at contract timing etc., you can find some “clarity” that lead you to certain scenarios that lead to plausible expansion episodes.
Obviously, 95+% of fans don’t do that, but I don’t think most of the regulars fall into that case. Most of us watch the metrics carefully (money, contracts, media landscape numbers, motivations, etc.). Most fans just think “oh it’d be cool to have X in the conference because they’re good at football or X is a big name” or whatever. Wilner’s basically addressing a strawman in some sense because we all know that expansion typically occurs in specific windows (years when the tectonic plates of college sports are shifting).
LikeLike
One final thing:
I think two of the biggest factors that we haven’t quite seen yet but will be revealed this year are 1) what happens with the ACC Network (and the corresponding agreements between the ACC and ESPN regarding that) as well as 2) the specific $ amounts on the Big Ten contracts going through 2023.
Once we know those, I think we’ll know whether expansion/realignment are more likely than not. If the ACC Network doesn’t happen and ESPN really can’t come with a way to adequately compensate the ACC schools along with a Big Ten contract around $425-450m average; I think I would feel comfortable favoring at least even odds of expansion in the 2020s for the Big Ten (and probably SEC as well).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“In a piece where Wilner (not so) subtly takes shots at Larry Scott and tries to give a bit of hope to those who’d like him gone, he does a good job of explaining why it just won’t happen because a group (fans, or even within the schools ath depts) want it. In so doing he explains why what seems to fans an obvious move (OU or FSU) is anything but to the only ones that matter.”
Link: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/04/28/pac-12-larry-scotts-future-guerrero-incident-changing-dynamics-ceos/
Okay, now let’s move to bigger topics and issues – namely, the state of the conference under Scott’s leadership.
If you’re looking for the Hotline to call for Scott’s head, this will disappoint. The goal, as always in this space, is to inform the public discourse with context and measured praise and/or criticism.
And if you’re frustrated with the state of the Pac-12 Networks … if you’re irate over the lack of a deal with DirecTV … if you’re perplexed by the focus on China … if you’re aghast at the comments about Guerrero … and if you’re wondering when the Pac-12 will announce that Scott is being replaced as commissioner — well, you’ll be waiting a long, long time.
It doesn’t work that way. Short of a major legal or ethical breach, conferences don’t cast aside commissioners. Even if Scott’s job were in immediate jeopardy, which it’s not, the situation would be handled in a graceful, subtle manner. (More on that in a few minutes.)
…
Then came your quote.
Then
But here’s the thing: The athletic directors – there aren’t dummies.
Many of them are super sharp, have deep institutional knowledge and understand what’s happening on the front lines.
As Scott, who had no background in college sports, continued to run the conference like a pro league and deal directly with the CEOs for approval when needed … as the Pac-12 Networks flagged … as the backlash mounted against night football games … as the conference cast a perplexing eye toward Asia … as other conference caught up and surpassed the Pac-12 in media revenue … as all that unfolded, the frustration on the front lines, with fans and athletic department personnel across the campuses, mounted.
If those were the only issues, the dynamic deep within the league might remain as it was – wholly unchanged from the early days of Scott’s rubber-stamping tenure.
But something else has changed, folks: The CEOs have changed.
Of the 10 who hired Scott, only three remain.
…
Many of the other CEOs, multiple sources said, are either reasonably happy with the state of the league, or indifferent. The Tier 1 money is flowing, the conference has its own media company, and the reports from Scott indicate all is well.
But while the group isn’t clamoring for immediate change, there’s a trace of skepticism in some of the halls of power.
The CEOs appointed in the past few years – and that’s seven of them, including the two yet to begin their appointments – are not tied to Scott as their predecessors were.
They have come on board at a time of growing frustration with the Pac-12 Networks and the number of night games, and they are made aware of the issues by athletic department personnel that itself is frustrated and deals weekly with frustrated fans and donors.
The pivot point, in my estimation, came in early September, when Scott was furiously attempting to cut a deal for Pac-12 Networks carriage on DirecTV. The window he had waited for – AT&T’s purchase of the satellite carrier — had seemingly created an opportunity to jump-start the negotiations and reach an agreement. Scott cut the best deal he could and took it to the CEOs …
And it was rejected by an 11-0 vote, with one abstention (Washington State).
The article goes on to say that Scott isn’t a college sports lifer so if hasn’t already started to look around for his next job, expect him to do so soon. He only has 2 years left on his current contract.
LikeLike
Wilner seemed to have a sudden falling out with the Pac offices and Scott around the time he was giving solid assurances of OU/OkSU going to the Pac…and then that imploded.
The Gurrero thing is a drum beat for him. Scott answered a question about the PAC voting no on satellite camps. If he doesn’t answer, or is obscure, is Wilner likely to be happy? No. He’s just driving emotion to elicit readers, and would harp on lack of response, and lay responsibility for the unauthorized vote on him.
He lays out the reasons Scott is secure, and then suggests he isn’t. How on earth is the reach to China and Asia a problem that needs to slow/stop? An additional couple hundred international students (who less than 25% receive US based scholarships) per school is worth considerably more than the hoped for DTV deal. Add that every year and how’s that pencil out? Where do the CEO’s concerns lie?
I was just using Wilner’s description of how CEO’s take fan concerns over their employee’s performance into account (they don’t) and transposing that to their taking fan concerns over expansion (or not) into account (again, they don’t).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“He lays out the reasons Scott is secure, and then suggests he isn’t.”
Well, I think he’d argue that he explained why Scott wouldn’t get fired but pointed out reasons why he might not get a raise (and thus would be likely to go elsewhere). He also pointed out that Scott probably isn’t a Delany or Slive who wants to be commissioner in college his whole career.
“How on earth is the reach to China and Asia a problem that needs to slow/stop? An additional couple hundred international students (who less than 25% receive US based scholarships) per school is worth considerably more than the hoped for DTV deal. Add that every year and how’s that pencil out? Where do the CEO’s concerns lie?”
My guess is Wilner is just presenting the concerns he’s hears from fans all the time. Maybe the fans feel like the China push is distracting Scott from bigger issues at home.
“I was just using Wilner’s description of how CEO’s take fan concerns over their employee’s performance into account (they don’t) and transposing that to their taking fan concerns over expansion (or not) into account (again, they don’t).”
I know. I just used your comment as a starting point to post the link and then looked at the rest of the article. Those of us not in the west don’t realize how upset the P12 fans are about their various TV issues.
LikeLike
Something similar is going on in the ACC (not to the extent of the Pac-12 fan issues but close); Va Tech’s AD had to respond to a set of posts misinterpreting a private speech he gave recently:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-babcock-acc-channel-clarity-post.html
LikeLike
Also this interview with Clemson’s AD: http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/acc-network-picking-up-steam/
LikeLike
z33k,
From your first link:
“I said that I hoped we would have some kind of clarity, one way or the other, by the end of the calendar year,” Babcock told me Tuesday evening via phone, “and we’d likely get an update at our meetings in May. That was it. I’m quite sure that’s what I said. I’m always very careful about what I say on the (subject).”
From the second:
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich told The Clemson Insider earlier this week the ACC is paying close attention to what is happening with the other Power 5 Conferences and there is a sense of urgency by the conference going forward in terms of where it is in its discussions with ESPN and a possible plan to start an ACC Network.
It’s like it would kill everyone in the ACC to give honest and open answers about the ACCN. Do they have a deadline to make some sort of decision? If so, when is it? If not, why not?
Then some relevant Q&A:
Does the ACC worry about falling behind the Big Ten or the SEC in rights fees because it has not started its own network, yet?
Radakovich: “We do. There is no question. That is why the urgency of moving forward with this network is top of (our) mind each and every day.
“The ACC has had its best two years in competitive national rankings than it has had in a lot of years. Football, basketball … There are some really good things going on in this league. The real question is, without some additional revenue, can we sustain it. That’s where the urgency is.
“Do we have to be where the Big Ten is? I don’t know if we will ever get there. If that is an aspiration, then it could be an aspiration that we chase forever. Do we need to get to where the SEC is? They have been ahead of us right now. How do we get in the game? That is what we need to be able to do as a league is get in the game and that is what this network will allow us to do.
…
“It’s clear they’re bringing in more revenue than we are and we have to be able to help mitigate that at some point and time, and the network is a way to do that.”
Interesting to see him view the B10’s revenue as a potentially unattainable goal. It’s also important that they’;re wondering if they can stay competitive without catching up somewhat in revenue.
Does ESPN have a deadline when it comes to creating an ACC Network?
“I hope at (the spring meetings) we get a really good update from the league as to where we are. I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations. I know with Commissioner Swofford that is the first thing he thinks about every time he walks into the office.
“What we have to understand is if we get a network, this is not only revenue coming to the Atlantic Coast Conference, but is also a revenue producer for (ESPN). So as they look to expand their opportunities of revenue, this is a pretty good way to do it. We have a lot impetus on both sides to be able to get this done.
“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.
That sounds like excuses for several more years of delay. ESPN must love that the ACC is buying that.
With the changing landscape in television and the different ways people watch television now, how have those things slowed down the process of getting an ACC Network?
Radakovich: “Our partner is ESPN. They own our rights through 2026-’27 in our current agreement. They are a really good partner to have because, ….
“I will put my bet on the really smart people on ESPN to understand how to monetize live sports television because it is not a weekly serial sitcom or something else that it is easily DVR and watched at another point in time or movie. Live sports are really a unique situation as it relates to television. They are at the forefront of owning rights and being able to create those types of monetization of those rights.
“How are we going to gather it in five years? I have no idea. But will it be paid for? Probably, in some way shape or form.
“It goes a little beyond the cord cutting. You can cut the cord, but you better have some type of line that brings the information to you. Even in your own house with WiFi, you have to able to have something to bring that in. Then the idea of paying for that particular bundle of service, it moves away from your cable operator and into another way to consume that information.
“We are putting our dollars on the ESPN horse in this race, knowing they have motivation to go out and monetize this right they have already purchased.”
And that’s what most of us have been saying. People may cut the cord but sports will still be paid for somehow. Maybe ESPN starts costing $25/month in a streaming world a la carte, less if you bundle in some other Disney channels, but they’ll find a way to get paid.
LikeLike
Regarding … “We are putting our dollars on the ESPN horse in this race, knowing they have motivation to go out and monetize this right they have already purchased.”
There is never a guarantee that the incumbent dominant oligopolist will hold that spot after a major technological / institutional shift. However, they are still the most likely to … because when it is not the incumbent, who it actually ends up being normally being a surprise.
Even if it were only 40% likely that ESPN will end up being the best monetizer (sic) of sports programming after the shift has settled out, they are still likely to be the best bet, because the other 60% contains a bunch of obvious picks at even worse odds … and the surprise.
Except when it’s “the surprise”, we at best find out in the midst of their meteoric rise, and most often find out after the fact what were the markers for their success.
While it’s a shot in the dark, my gut feeling is that ESPN is not merely “the shortest odds available,” but is better than a 50:50 shot to end up on the other side of the transition as still the dominant sports programming monetizer in the business.
LikeLike
He is only talking about Pac 12 CEOs. Big 12 and SEC usually know.
LikeLike
Yeah, they’re mostly in the “don’t care” group. 😏
LikeLike
This…
This is just depressing. CUSA is only worth $400k per school?
http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/odu-budgets-for-at-least-a-reduction-in-tv-revenues/article_b52006e3-ebea-528c-bbde-f00cae3db1b7.html
LikeLike
I didn’t even realize Sun Belt was at $100k, and yes the Group of 5 numbers are a stark reminder of just how stratified D1 sports are nowadays.
LikeLike
A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that if we make up a $500k shortfall per year from the endowment we could possibly run out of money in 11,000 years.
LikeLike
Or interest rates will rise a half point and Rice will be flush forever. First world problems.
LikeLike
From your article:
“Televised college sports revenue is largely sucked up the Power 5 leagues. In the case of the ACC, the league paid enormous sums in TV rights fees to both Virginia Tech ($19.3 million) and Virginia ($15.4 million) in 2014-2015.
The so-called Group of Five mid-major conferences make far less. The American Athletic Conference pays about $2 million per school in TV revenue and the Mountain West about $1.64 million. The Mid-American Conference, which pays about $670,000 per school, could move ahead of Conference USA. The Sun Belt Conference receives about $100,000 per school, although that payout will increase with Idaho and New Mexico State leaving the league in 2017.”
LikeLike
Bringing us back to the question of how football teams like U Cincinnati and U Conn can survive over the intermediate period. Last year at least, the AAC was clearly the best G5 conference. I guess that several AAC schools will hold on and hope for a P5 lifeline.
LikeLike
For the CUSA, those left behind as the Old Big East morphed into Turbo-CUSA got a downgrade, those replaced from the Sunbelt as CUSA morphed into the Turbo-Sunbelt got a smaller pay increase than they expected when they moved up, and those left behind in the old Sunbelt are basically treading water.
And of course all FCS call-ups are reminding themselves that all of this talk of G5 “TV money” is ingnoring the CFP money, which exaggerates most of the disproportionality between the TV money that the G5 conferences receive. If (AFAIU) each conferences gets $1m/school capped at $10m (used to be capped at $12m, but they put more money into the third tier), that would put the AAC at about $2.9m/school, the MWC at about $2.5m/school, the MAC at about $1.5m/school, CUSA at about $1.2m/school and the SBC at $1.1m/school.
LikeLike
And thus why G5 teams play paycheck games.. It’s a sad reality but casual fans only watch big names, so that’s who TV pays.
LikeLike
Brian, you nailed it when a G5 team can make more in one paycheck game than they earn from TV for the season. Ouch.
LikeLike
But with moves by the P5 conferences to increase the number of conference games within the framework of the 12 game regular season schedule, the number of available “paycheck” games will decrease?
G5s holding on only works if the P5 remains a 5 conference operation. With P4s at 20 each, maybe there’s a chance for the wheat of the AAC and MWC to push through. I think its more likely you see a P4 at 16 with some unfortunate drops. Thats why I think on the basketball side, the Big East is better off not expanding until they gauge whether or not its possible Wake, Syracuse and Boston College through in the towel on FBS football (not dropping but maybe going into FCS ala Georgetown, Villanova, and St Johns).
LikeLike
The drop in the number of G5 guarantee games by the Big Ten in going to a 9 game conference schedule is quite small. In part, that is because at the same time the Big Ten AD’s agreed to stop scheduling FCS games, which a majority of the Big Ten had been scheduling on a regular basis. In part, that is because the 9 game conference schedule leaves much less leeway to sign 2-1’s and 3-1’s with G5 schools, and so converts some previous Home and Away contracts (many unbalanced) into additional demand for G5 guarantee games. For instance, the MSU initiative to schedule 3-1’s with each of the Michigan directionals in the MAC is now no longer likely to be repeated for a second round.
LikeLike
Todd McShay’s concern is Tunsil learning not to throw coach under bus? No concern over coaches paying players? Oh yeah, ESecPN network protection.
LikeLike
To be fair, McShay views it from the NFL point of view where players get paid. Only college fans see this as a big deal, and many of them are misguided enough to think it isn’t a big deal (or even not a problem at all).
LikeLike
Apparently the NFL or ESPN handlers thought enough of it to cut Tunsil’s question session and hustle him off the platform.
To be fair, McShay (and all of us) were caught by surprise and simply didn’t know how he should address it in a NFL draft show/forum. Even a friends jr high FB playing son recognized that was something really unusual.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Apparently the NFL or ESPN handlers thought enough of it to cut Tunsil’s question session and hustle him off the platform.”
Of course they don’t want to have negativity during draft coverage.
“To be fair, McShay (and all of us) were caught by surprise and simply didn’t know how he should address it in a NFL draft show/forum. Even a friends jr high FB playing son recognized that was something really unusual.”
Yes, and you’re right that ESPN is falling all over themselves to protect Tunsil. I found 3 links on their home page about Tunsil. Two are news stories that don’t bother to question any of Tunsil’s claims (how old the video was, that both of his accounts were hacked). The third literally calls for people to root for Tunsil because he was treated so badly.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15425255/root-laremy-tunsil-miami-dolphins-handled-bong-video-twitter-instagram-grown-nfl-draft-2016
Tab title – Root for Laremy Tunsil of Ole Miss
Headline – Laremy Tunsil didn’t deserve draft-night humiliation
And let’s remember, Tunsil only dropped to #13 and the modern NFL has contract slotting with restricted pay for rookie contracts. Last year an OT also went at #13. He got $11.4M guaranteed over 4 years with $6.55M as a signing bonus. This year the top tackle went at #6 and the Ravens claimed they had their guy rated higher then Tunsil coming in so the leaks didn’t matter. The only other OT went at #8. Last year’s #8 got $14.5M over 4 years with $8.8M in signing bonus. So yes Tunsil probably lost a little money last night, but the teams knew about the underlying issues before so maybe that’s why 2 teams chose other OT’s first.
LikeLike
And today the Dolphins claim that Tunsil had an “allergic reaction” so he can’t make the previously scheduled press conference to introduce their 1st round pick.
LikeLike
Draft notes:
I feel bad for Myles Jack who dropped out of the 1st round over a knee injury that everyone says he should completely heal from. Several AL players dropped, but admitted cheater Tunsil only dropped a few places. Good to see character is still so important to the NCAA.
1st Round by conference:
SEC – 8
B10 – 6
ACC, P12 – 4
B12 – 3
Ind, AAC – 2
CUSA, I-AA – 1
Pretty good 1st round for the B10 and OSU.
4 top 10 picks (3 for OSU – new school record)
6 top 20 picks (5 for OSU – new school record)
6 1st round picks (5 for OSU – ties school record)
I’d hoped OSU could get 6 picks with either Bell or Thomas also going, but teams made other choices and they were both borderline 1st rounders. OSU should have a large number of guys drafted tomorrow as well (5+). Hopefully the rest of the B10 does well, too.
Still no 1st round QB, though. Maybe next year, but I doubt it. OSU’s Barrett probably won’t leave early and isn’t a prototypical NFL QB anyway. MI, MSU, PSU and IN have new QBs. RU and UMD are rebuilding. In the West, many QBs return but I don’t see any potential 1st rounders (Beatherd? Lunt? Leidner? Armstrong?).
LikeLike
What’s also notable is that 7 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 21 picks played at cold-weather schools.
LikeLike
z33k posted this in a reply further up the chain… http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/acc-network-picking-up-steam/
It makes me wonder if ESPN and the ACC are up to something.
LikeLike
There’s 2 alternatives for the ACC/ESPN:
1) Attempt a full ACC Network (like the Big Ten Network/SEC Network) and hope to build it up to 40+ million subscribers at around a $0.20+ monthly rate…; but I don’t know how willing ESPN is to risk throwing that on top of how hard they’re fighting for every penny for their current cable lineup in their upcoming cable contract negotiations. An ACC Network like that could work (especially in states like NC, VA, SC, and perhaps FL) and might generate something like $3-4m per ACC school…
As time goes on, I’m suspecting that ESPN has become extremely hesitant to attempt this given the current cable dynamics as well as cost cutting at ESPN.
2) Attempt something like an “OTT Digital Network” (WWE and MLB are most well known for this)…; something like a subscription service for $7.99-$9.99 per month (or a $99 annual offering) for most of their events and hope to build it to something like several hundred thousand subscribers. Something like that could generate $2-3 million per school if it builds up over time. It’s probably less risky in the sense that there wouldn’t huge network overhead built in as in the case of the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12.
Eventually, I expect to see separate OTT offerings to non-subscribers of the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12, but that’s probably after we see cable cutting advance another few years at least. The ACC could be first in front to experiment with something like that though.
LikeLike
Well there’s always a 3rd alternative: do nothing and just give the ACC schools a small bump in yearly TV money around $2 million per school, but I don’t think that’ll satisfy anyone in the ACC.
LikeLike
I have often thought that with all of the conference networks and the emergence of Fox is there really a reason to retain ESPNU? Could that channel be converted to the ACC network? Not sure ESPNU can justify its existence to broadcast MWC or MAC games. Over time I am struggling to believe ESPNU can survive.
LikeLike
I’d imagine any attempt to materially change a network would trigger provisions for renegotiation of cable deals, so I’m not sure that’d be such a great thing, but it’s a distinct possibility.
ESPN News is probably a more likely choice if something like that were to happen.
But still, given what ESPN is dealing with in terms of its dramatically increased payouts (NFL, NBA, CFP, etc.) as well as cord cutting; I’m skeptical ESPN wants to take on the risk of an ACC Network at this time.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/acc-network-launch-pushed-back-further-at-espns-request.html
Even just 6 months ago, ESPN told Ga Tech’s president that they wanted a delay,
‘According to Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson (via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution), ESPN — which has been in talks with the ACC to partner up on a conference network — asked to delay plans so that further preparations could be made.
“(ESPN) had come back and said that in some of the other instances where (conference) networks have started, they lost considerable amounts of money in the first couple of years,” Peterson said at a quarterly board meeting for the Georgia Tech Athletic Association. “What they’d like to do is delay the start for a couple years and do the necessary preparation.”’
Nothing has changed for the positive for ESPN since then…
LikeLike
It might be a whole new ballgame with the B1G/Fox deal…
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I have often thought that with all of the conference networks and the emergence of Fox is there really a reason to retain ESPNU? Could that channel be converted to the ACC network? Not sure ESPNU can justify its existence to broadcast MWC or MAC games. Over time I am struggling to believe ESPNU can survive.”
ESPN can’t fulfill all of its contractual obligations without ESPNU available to show games. They put G5 games and lesser sports on ESPNU all the time. ESPN would have to move those to a more expensive channel if ESPNU disappeared and there literally aren’t enough hours in the day to show all the games they have contracted to show if you remove a network from their roster.
LikeLike
If I’m Swoffard and the ACC brass…I’m swinging for the fence. And the timing couldn’t be better (strategically, not financially) to get ESPN’s attention. It’s a long-shot for them perhaps….but they should fight for every possible elite expansion option to sweeten the TV deal pot. How bad would ESPN love to effectively lock down the entire south between the SEC and ACC?
LikeLike
I’m sure ESPN would more easily be on board if it was 3-4 years ago.
Right now though, ESPN is dealing with the combined effect of several billion dollars in higher outlays (NFL, NBA, CFP, etc.) as well as several billion dollars less in revenue (cord cutting) and all that goes with that (cost cutting, allowing talent to walk, low-balling the Big Ten).
If ESPN’s low-balling of the Big Ten was what they really thought Big Ten rights are worth in an era of cost cutting, then I don’t think they would move forward easily on these things.
Pledging a lot of resources to any new network is going to be a sore subject at ESPN when you consider the current downsizing at ESPN.
LikeLike
Yep I get that. It’s why i mentioned that it may be strategically good timing…but NOT financially (which is usually more important). There is an increasingly clear line drawn in the sand between conferences and their TV partners…and the competition is coming after ESPN hard. Do they fight back or just keep cutting costs?
LikeLike
Via Frank’s tweets:
http://www.uscho.com/2016/04/29/nchc-set-to-vote-on-adding-arizona-state-sources-say/
Sources say the NCHC will vote on adding ASU hockey as their 9th member in early May. If not, then the WCHA is seen as their landing spot since the B10 said a few days ago it was not interested in adding ASU.
So does the B10 stay at 7 members or do they seek #8? My guess is they stick to 7 for a while and see what happens while keeping their eyes out for a potential #8, preferably from inside the current membership.
LikeLike
Well, Nebraska is the only reasonable #8 barring a $100 million windfall hitting another school for hockey specifically.
They have the ice facilities (convertable main arena + potential practice ice arena), so it’s really just a matter of Title IX and making the scholarship endowment work ($20-25m would probably cover that).
They’re the ones that are reasonable for an inside #8. I hope it happens inside if possible; not really sure anyone outside the Big Ten fits if Arizona State is not happening.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2016/04/the_big_ten_could_be_nearing_a.html
A look at the B10’s potential Fox TV deal.
Now let’s ask another question: What channel is FOX Sports 1 on? Oh, you don’t know? Don’t beat yourself up.
Most people don’t really know the answer to that question off the top of their heads. And that may start being a problem for the Big Ten.
Reports surfaced this week that the Big Ten could be on the verge of closing a $250 million dollar deal with FOX Sports for half of its broadcasting rights, according to the Sports Business Journal, which could jeopardize those noon Big Ten games on America’s favorite network. There’s still a chance that ESPN could bid for the second half of the remaining Big Ten rights, but, according to the SBJ, the network’s initial bid was not comparable to the one put forth by FOX.
…
• The Ohio State impact: If ESPN eventually bids and retains the Big Ten deal, its biggest motivating factor will probably be to have Ohio State and Michigan games. Everyone wants to watch those teams, so it shouldn’t be particularly concerning from a recruiting standpoint if you’re a Buckeye fan.
…
• If the game is big enough, you’ll find it: FOX, which owns roughly half of the Big Ten Network, has had the rights to the Big Ten Championship Game since the conference rolled one out a few years ago. Everyone found it because everyone wanted to watch it. But, if you’re anything like most people, you had to look up what channel it was on.
Really? People didn’t know what channel Fox was? FS1 I understand not knowing, but Fox?
• The problem is for teams like Northwestern: People are clearly going to be less motivated to find the Illinois-Iowa game on FOX Sports on Saturday mornings when they wake up. Everyone has a similar ritual: Watch College Game Day, then roll into the noon games to get football-packed day started.
• So it hurts smaller Big Ten programs: …
But Illinois and Northwestern? Of course that program wants to sell TV, and saying ESPN — and actually being viewed by random college football fans on Saturday mornings — is much more valuable than being on the channel that’s sometimes complicated to find.
• Could something other than money be a factor? The NHL was once on ESPN, and some would say that the NHL is now less popular because it’s not. ESPN is still clearly the most influential network when it comes to college football, so does the Big Ten lose something in the chase for money by going to a secondary network. Money is clearly the name of the game, there’s no argument there, but exposure is huge.
It’s not great analysis, but I think he’s basically right that this is a bigger issue for the smaller brands in the B10 than for the kings.
LikeLike
Do we really believe that a high school player will not go to Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, etc., because their game will be on BTN or FS1, not ESPN? If the kid is a star and is worried about maximum TV, then he should be recruited by and go to one of the kings.
If you are a high 4 star player and you are being recruited by Ohio State or Michigan, do you go there as opposed to Iowa or Indiana because of ESPN exposure, or for other reasons? If you are not a super star, then are you in a position to worry about that TV distinction?
While I certainly understand the issue that losing ESPN loses fan exposure and perhaps long term popularity, will it really effect recruits?
As someone who is old enough to be the grandfather of a high school senior, maybe I am too far away to really understand the mind of an 18 year old. (My oldest grandchild is in 4th grade, so he does not count for this)
If you are a Texas high school star, what could be better than the LHN? As far as I know, that has not really helped the Longhorns recruit that much.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Do we really believe that a high school player will not go to Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, etc., because their game will be on BTN or FS1, not ESPN?”
Yes, I fully believe some of these recruits are that petty/shallow/shortsighted/whatever. They make decisions for silly reasons (they’re 18). They later admit that things like uniforms and recruiting parties swayed their decisions. Why wouldn’t being on ESPN be yet another silly factor that might sway some of them?
“If the kid is a star and is worried about maximum TV, then he should be recruited by and go to one of the kings.”
Some stars want to go to the schools you listed, either for the academics or the location or a coach they like. But if they think it might hurt their exposure and thus their NFL chances (they all think they’re going to the NFL), they won’t do it. And perception is as bad as reality, so just thinking it’ll hurt is enough. It doesn’t have to actually hurt them.
LikeLike
Here is the problem with that argument : Except for when they play Notre Dame when is Purdue NOT on BTN. The only reasons why four and five star kids would go there is if they are going to Study Engineering ( and Stanford and Cal are not only rated higher but have better football teams). Stanford # 2 Cal # 3. By the way, Illinois is # 5 and Michigan # 7 Both ahead of Purdue # 11. Or if they want to stay local ( and Notre Dame is still in Indiana). Even Penn State NOT noted for Engineering is # 19. If kids are looking at the NFL and as a Penn State fan I hate to say this they are looking at places like Ohio State and Michigan. Especially OSU after 5 out of the first 20 picks played in Columbus.
LikeLike
David Browne,
“Here is the problem with that argument : Except for when they play Notre Dame when is Purdue NOT on BTN.”
From 2015:
PU/IA – ESPN2
PU/NE – ESPNU
PU/MN – ESPNU
PU/MSU – ESPN2
PU/VT – ESPNU
PU/IN St – ESPNN
PU/Marshall – FS1
From 2014:
PU/NW – ESPNU
PU/WI – ESPNU
PU/NE – ABC (regional)
PU/MSU – ABC (regional)
PU/IL – ESPN2
PU/ND – NBC
PU/CMU – ESPNN
PU/WMU – ESPNU
“The only reasons why four and five star kids would go there is if they are going to Study Engineering … Or if they want to stay local ( and Notre Dame is still in Indiana). Even Penn State NOT noted for Engineering is # 19.”
Who said it only impacts 4 and 5* kids? Others may be less worried about the NFL but they still care about all their friends seeing them on SportsCenter.
LikeLike
I think it will affect them indirectly. If you are watching random programs, you are more likely to be watching random ones on ESPN than FS1. That means, throughout high school, you might have greater exposure to smaller/middle programs on ESPN than FS1, which helps them become more desirable later.
LikeLike
If you are a Texas high school star, what could be better than the LHN? As far as I know, that has not really helped the Longhorns recruit that much.
The LHN is five years old, and so far it has not been very successful. ESPN has been the worldwide sports leader for decades, and it is on basic cable almost everywhere.
As Frank said upthread, “ESPN has an entire ecosystem built around TV, radio, web, podcasts and mobile that no one has been able to replicate (and it isn’t for a lack of their competitors trying).” LHN has not achieved anything remotely like that.
ESPN has been doing it since long before these recruits were born. If they followed sports on TV (which it is likely they did), they were watching ESPN. Their perception of ESPN as the worldwide leader was probably imprinted on them before they played their first snap of touch football.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132669/nfl-draft-conjures-question-how-did-ohio-state-not-win-the-2015-national-title
Following OSU having 5 1st round picks with 5 more expected to go tonight and another 5 on Saturday, the question naturally becomes: what kept OSU from winning the national title this year (or at least playing for it)?
That’s just scratching the surface of everything they accomplished over the last three or four seasons, though Thursday night did once again stir up one lingering question: How exactly did the Buckeyes fail to repeat in 2015?
Those players didn’t control everything that happened and there is certainly nothing at all to be ashamed about after going 12-1, finishing No. 4 in the country and winning the Fiesta Bowl to cap a career. But for every player drafted in the first round, here’s a look back at just how Ohio State’s bid to go back to back came up short.
“1. An all-time fluky finish”
If MI just successfully punts that ball, OSU wins the East and plays Iowa in the CCG.
“2. A leg infection”
Ezekiel Elliott was hospitalized for several days during the week before the MSU game. If he’s healthy he gets more than 12 carries and maybe that game ends differently.
“3. A preseason injury”
OSU had to replace Devin Smith with a new deep threat, and the coaches were thrilled about Noah Brown until he broke his leg about a week before the opener. Brown’s speed was one of the reasons Jones won the starting job and then suddenly he had nobody to hit deep.
“4. A change in the press box”
Tim Beck is no Tom Herman, especially not in his first year with OSU. OSU’s offense was helped tremendously when Ed Warriner also went into the press box to help call plays, but that didn’t happen until after the MSU game unfortunately.
“5. A burden of expectations”
Heavy is the head that wears the crown. But I think it was the inconsistent play that made the expectations seem so heavy. They’d score 50+ against a bad team but allow 28, or they only score in the 20s but hold the other team to less. They couldn’t put the pieces together and that made everyone talk more about what was wrong.
These weren’t the only reasons, and I’d lump several of them under bad luck. It does take luck to win a title and OSU had more than their fair share in 2014. It went the other way in 2015. But 2015 will be one of those seasons that OSU fans regret for a long time, much like many of the Cooper years when so much talent got wasted by losses to MI.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15429358/iowa-hawkeyes-rehire-kirk-ferentz-son-law-tyler-barnes-staff-position
Iowa has rehired the son-in-law of football coach Kirk Ferentz to a staff position, three years after he departed following questions of nepotism.
Iowa announced Friday that Tyler Barnes would be the team’s new director of recruiting. Barnes, 30, had been working as an assistant at Vanderbilt since 2013.
Barnes was hired in 2012 to work as an entry-level assistant for the Hawkeyes when he was dating Ferentz’s daughter, Joanne.
Ferentz pushed to extend Barnes’ temporary position for a second year without disclosing to athletic director Gary Barta or others that Barnes was his future son-in-law. That avoided a public search for the position.
The university later moved the supervision of Barnes outside the football program, and he left Iowa for Vanderbilt months later.
Ferentz’s son, Brian, also is an assistant.
Does Ferentz only interview people at family gatherings? And why does Iowa let him keep hiring relatives and make supervision a hassle for themselves?
LikeLike
Of course he pulls that type of stunt after a 12 win season so any sort of controversy is muted…
LikeLike
Round 2 notes:
22 defensive players taken, the most ever in round 2
Things are still going well for the B10.
By conference (2nd round/total):
SEC – 8/16
B10 – 7/13 (2 OSU, 2 PSU, IL, IN, UMD)
ACC – 6/10
B12 – 4/7
P12 – 2/6
Ind – 2/4
Other – 3/7
Most players per school so far:
OSU – 7
AL – 6
ND – 5
The first B10 QB off the board is Hackenberg at #51.
LikeLike
And round 3 is done:
More good news for the B10 except for Connor Cook fans. Lots of MSU fans downplayed the talk about off the field concerns with him but 6 QBs have gone and he’s still on the board. It looks like the NFL agrees with his MSU teammates who didn’t make him a captain.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000658122/article/ohio-state-sets-record-with-10-picks-in-drafts-first-three-rounds
OSU set an NFL record with 10 players taken in the first 3 rounds (old record was 8).
By conference (3rd round/total):
B10 – 10/23 (3 OSU, 2 NE, MSU, MI, UMD, PSU, RU)
SEC – 6/22
ACC – 4/14
P12 – 4/10
B12 – 2/9
Ind – 3/7
Other – 6/13
Most players per school so far:
OSU – 10
AL – 7
ND – 6
The Browns and Ravens have 9 picks combined in the 4th round. There are a lot of big name QBs still out there (Connor Cook, Cardale Jones, Nate Sudfield, Kevin Hogan, Dak Prescott, Brandon Allen) so expect a run on them.
LikeLike
Rounds 4 & 5:
Round 4 was good for the B10, but not round 5. Overall things are still going well, though.
Round 4 by conference:
ACC – 3
B10 – 9 (includes 2 QBs – Cook and Jones)
B12 – 5
P12 – 2
SEC – 9
AAC – 3
CUSA – 2
Ind – 1
Other – 7
Round 5 by conference:
ACC – 1
B10 – 2
B12 – 6
P12 – 7
SEC – 7
MAC – 2
SB – 2
Ind – 0
Other – 8
Total by conference:
SEC – 38
B10 – 34
B12 – 20
P12 – 19
ACC – 18
AAC – 6
Ind – 8
MWC – 7
Other – 25
By school:
OSU – 12
AL, ND – 7
Clemson, UF – 5
LikeLike
OSU notes:
12 players drafted in 4 rounds is another new NFL record
OSU has had at least 1 person taken from every position group (OL, TE, WR, RB, QB, DE, DT, LB, CB, S)
The 5th round was the first round without an OSU player selected
15 of OSU’s 22 starters in the 2014 NCG have been drafted. There’s 1 more with a chance today and 2 more still start on the OL.
And EKU’s Noah Spence should’ve been in this group of OSU players. And Duke’s Jeremy Cash.
LikeLike
Round 6 by conference:
ACC – 3
B10 – 10 (2 QBs)
B12 – 6
P12 – 4
SEC – 8
Ind – 0
Other – 15
By school:
OSU – 12
AL, ND – 7
UF – 6
Clemson, PSU – 5
LikeLike
Round 7 by conference:
P12 – 9
ACC, SEC – 5
B10, CUSA – 3
B12 – 0
Ind – 0
Other – 7
Totals by conference:
SEC – 51
B10 – 47
P12 – 32
ACC, B12 – 26
Other – 25
AAC, CUSA – 10
MWC – 9
Ind – 8
MAC – 6
SB – 3
Average picks per school:
SEC – 3.64
B10 – 3.36
P12 – 2.67
B12 – 2.60
ACC – 1.86
The 51 picks is the third-most for the SEC in the last nine drafts. In 2013, the SEC had 63 players selected in the draft.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25573383/ohio-state-wins-tennessee-loses-among-teams-with-most-2016-nfl-draft-picks
Totals by school:
12 – OSU
9 – Clemson
8 – UCLA
7 – AL, UF, ND
6 – Baylor
B10:
5 – MSU, PSU
4 – NE
3 – IL, IN, UMD, MI
2 – MN, NW, WI
1 – IA, PU, RU
The full list is at the link.
OSU had 1 player drop lock a rock into UDFA status after being graded a 5th rounder. I haven’t heard any rumors about why yet. We had another player rated as a 7th rounder that also went UDFA. If those 2, or the other OL who went UDFA, had gotten drafted OSU could’ve tied the recent NFL and school record with 14 picks in 1 draft.
So where are the 2017 mock drafts? Who are the QBs, LTs and DEs rumored to go 1st next year?
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks for keeping tabs. My brother and I were betting SEC v BIG with this particular draft.
I won the bet (not a hard one to make based on recent history & mock publications), but great draft for the BIG.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the below link, & I have not scrutinized the numbers. Thus, I don’t know if these stats are based on current membership with inherited numbers. Sure enough, the BIG gained on the ACC & OSU has obviously moved up the list while creating greater distance w/the schools behind them.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-04-28/nfl-draft-colleges-conferences-most-represented-last-10-years
PS Everyone, time will tell but Md & Rutgers, due to in-state talent & fresh coaching hires, as well as the stability of the BIG – looking good on the recruiting trail for 2017. Recruiting and culture change should never be overlooked & history moves forward. We shall see.
–Gfunk (still mourning Prince here in the Purple State)
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I won the bet (not a hard one to make based on recent history & mock publications), but great draft for the BIG.”
Yes, I was amazed we kept it so close. Obviously a ridiculous draft by OSU helped, but in the future MI and PSU should get their numbers back up. A few other schools were down from the norm as well.
“I don’t know if you’ve seen the below link, & I have not scrutinized the numbers. Thus, I don’t know if these stats are based on current membership with inherited numbers. Sure enough, the BIG gained on the ACC & OSU has obviously moved up the list while creating greater distance w/the schools behind them.”
I have no idea how they reached those numbers and don’t feel like doing to the work to find out. But it’s easy enough to update with the 2016 numbers:
By conference since 2005:
SEC – 570
ACC – 475
B10 – 465
P12 – 413
B12 – 284
But those numbers aren’t really meaningful. The best would be per school averages while they were members of that conference.
By school since 2005:
USC – 78
LSU – 72
OSU – 69 (was #7)
FSU – 67
OU – 67
AL – 67
UGA – 65
UF – 62
Miami – 55
Clemson – 55
LikeLike
Thought some of you might find this “branding and culture” analysis interesting. It focuses on the Big 12, but talks about the strengths of the various conferences.
http://big12fanatics.com/expansion-project-brand-culture-pt-2-numbers/
LikeLike
The first part of this analysis also has some interesting thoughts about UVa and UNC as possible B1G schools. The analysis pretty much says it will never happen. http://big12fanatics.com/expansion-project-brand-culture/
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“The first part of this analysis also has some interesting thoughts about UVa and UNC as possible B1G schools. The analysis pretty much says it will never happen.”
I’d counter that the author basically is repeating the opinion of his one source from UVA. Like most states, VA varies greatly from west to east and north to south and from rural to urban. Saying the DC suburbs and the rest of northern VA don’t have anything in common with the B10 now is silly since it borders on MD and is home to tens of thousands of B10 alumni. He talks about VA being in the Tidewater, but that is only a portion of each state. The Hampton Roads area is in it (Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Newport News) but it still only makes up 20-25% of the state’s population.
I’d say about half of VA’s population is Southern (Piedmont and Tidewater areas). As you get into the mountains it becomes more Appalachian than Southern, and clearly that fits with parts of MD, PA and OH just like NoVA fits with MD and PA. My point is that the school is more Southern than the state is anymore. UVA is very much an ACC school but the ACC isn’t as Southern as it used to be.
As for finances, UVA had a $13.56M subsidy for athletics last year (almost 15% of budget and about $900 per undergrad). Historically only UMD got more money in student fees in the ACC than UVA. The year before, UVA lost $3.7M on athletics. In other words, UVA is pushing the limits of what they can afford.
None of this is to say that UVA to the B10 is an obvious move or likely to happen any time soon and I’ve never been a fan of expansion. But people who don’t want UVA to leave the ACC are predisposed to exaggerate the differences in order to make the choice seem worse. These same people say UMD made a terrible mistake because they also don’t fit the B10, but a lot fewer UMD fans are saying that now and they haven’t even gotten a full B10 paycheck yet. I think UVA fans could have a similar reaction.
LikeLike
I was going to write everything you said, so obviously I don’t need to repeat anything you wrote.
The only thing I’ll add is that UVa is a school in transition like UNC or Duke or many of the other “Southern” schools that have really become huge magnets for “coastal” students from the North (or areas similar to the North) as national recruiting of students blossomed in the 90s onward for top schools generally…
It’s very hard to judge the schools solely based on the opinions of likely older boosters who remember a UVa that was very different from what it is now… (but in a modern sense, those boosters still hold a lot of sway).
The one thing that’s more unique about UVa that probably won’t change is how closely tied its identity in the ACC probably is to UNC/Duke et al. compared to UMd where (at least from the fans) we heard a lot more push-back against the “Tobacco Road” cabal.
That one difference is fairly important though, and it’s why I think most of us believe a school like FSU would have to do something first to shake the foundation of the ACC before UVa would consider a change…
But you bring up the money situation, and that’s always something to keep an eye on; when a school experiences huge athletic subsidies, that’s generally a situation that may eventually require rectifying… as is Ga. Tech’s debt situation (eating up around $13-14 million per year of its budget for debt payments on a debt over $200m for facilities build).
LikeLike
z33k,
“The only thing I’ll add is that UVa is a school in transition like UNC or Duke or many of the other “Southern” schools that have really become huge magnets for “coastal” students from the North (or areas similar to the North) as national recruiting of students blossomed in the 90s onward for top schools generally…”
I did a quick check.
https://avillage.web.virginia.edu/iaas/instreports/studat/dd/enrl_state.htm
UVA students in 2014:
VA – 58.2%
B10 footprint and the northeast – 18.3%
SEC footprint + OK – 9.6%
West + Plains – 4.6%
Other – 9.2%
1990:
VA – 59.2%
B10 footprint and the northeast – 23.6%
SEC footprint + OK – 9.9%
West + Plains – 3.1%
Other – 4.2%
UVA has had a lot of northern/midwest in it for a long time. That’s dropped slightly as it’s gotten more foreign and western students over the past 25 years.
“The one thing that’s more unique about UVa that probably won’t change is how closely tied its identity in the ACC probably is to UNC/Duke et al. compared to UMd where (at least from the fans) we heard a lot more push-back against the “Tobacco Road” cabal.”
UVA has very strong ties to UNC, but was also tied fairly closely to UMD. UVA does like their access to power in the ACC, though.
“That one difference is fairly important though, and it’s why I think most of us believe a school like FSU would have to do something first to shake the foundation of the ACC before UVa would consider a change…”
Or UNC could decide to go at the same time, which seems the most likely case for either UVA or UNC leaving. I think they are a matched pair that will go together or not at all.
“But you bring up the money situation, and that’s always something to keep an eye on; when a school experiences huge athletic subsidies, that’s generally a situation that may eventually require rectifying… as is Ga. Tech’s debt situation (eating up around $13-14 million per year of its budget for debt payments on a debt over $200m for facilities build).”
Yep. One thing presidents don’t like to see is the AD losing money so they have to take a lot from the academic side, especially if there is a quality organization out there happy to give them a $10M – $20M raise.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s good data on UVa, I didn’t realize its prior enrollment situation was already that well attuned to the Midwest before.
Other thing about money is: you *always* have to make an effort to try to keep up with at least the group behind the Joneses.
Sure, a school like UVa or Ga. Tech (or Northwestern or Illinois etc.) may never actually try to pay a coach as much as say Ohio State or Alabama or Michigan, but things like pay and such typically scale across a sport so that when the bar is raised, the rest of the salaries follow. There’s no way to avoid that effect, especially in the Power 5.
You can’t fall too far behind the “pack behind the Joneses” or you end up in a situation where the median pay scale starts moving out of your range.
And that applies to other things like facilities too. If the top schools are spending hundreds of millions, you at least have to make some kind of effort to keep pace.
LikeLike
The B1G is dreaming if it thinks it’s going to get UNC/UVA to go as a lonely southern pair to an overwhelmingly midwestern conference. Native or transplant…the decision-makers and fan bases there are not looking for reasons to plan road trips to their northwest. Not as a lonely outpost. “We’re playing where?” The only thing in common UNC would have in common with any of those schools aside from UMD (perhaps)…would be good academics. It’s crazy talk.
LikeLike
TOM,
That’s probably true, but we’re just discussing that the issues that may cause schools like FSU, OU, or Ga. Tech to at the least consider a change in affiliation are the same issues that would cause UVa or UNC to consider it as well (mainly various financial issues in terms of trying to keep up with TV pay from SEC/Big Ten/Texas type schools).
I mean they’re not isolated from the forces that are affecting college sports even though they’re considered to be at the core of the ACC.
LikeLike
The B1G is dreaming if it thinks it’s going to get UNC/UVA to go as a lonely southern pair to an overwhelmingly midwestern conference. . . . It’s crazy talk.
Where there is money to be made in college sports, it does not stay on the table indefinitely. If the revenue gap between the Big Ten and the ACC remains as large as it is now, and continues to widen, the ACC’s major programs won’t be able to ignore it forever. Sooner or later, they will have to act.
Of course, it would most likely not be UNC/UVA moving to the Big Ten, while everything else stays the same. There’s no way the ACC can lose two founder schools, including its anchor school, without a bunch of other dominoes falling. The only question is which domino falls first.
Again, this is assuming that the revenue gap continues to widen, as it appears will be the case.
LikeLike
TOM,
“The B1G is dreaming if it thinks it’s going to get UNC/UVA to go as a lonely southern pair to an overwhelmingly midwestern conference.”
A lonely pair? Bit of an oxymoron, no?
VA borders 1 B10 state and almost borders another. Including them, over 30% of the conference would be eastern. Would the B10 make for more travel? Sure.
UVA had average distance to all ACC schools but UMD of about 350 miles. The eastern division of the B10 (assume IN goes west) would average 373 miles of actual driving distance (UNC, UMD, RU and PSU are all under 350 miles, OSU is just over 400). In other words, the East would be about the same as the whole ACC.
“Not as a lonely outpost.”
Two schools by definition can’t be a lonely outpost. Add in that VA borders MD and it’s just silly talk.
““We’re playing where?””
I’m sure they’ve never heard of DC, NYC, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis to name a few.
“The only thing in common UNC would have in common with any of those schools aside from UMD (perhaps)…would be good academics.”
Yes, how important could good academics be to the presidents of major research universities? UNC would also find a fellow MBB blue blood, there’d be a solid lacrosse conference to join, there’d be a bunch of other state flagships. The schools would have plenty in common, it’s the fans that would worry more.
LikeLike
Just adding to what Brian said: UVA and UNC are already traveling to the likes of Chestnut Hill, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and South Bend. Miami is a fairly long distance away, and not culturally southern. Maryland is a former conference mate. Columbus is actually a shorter distance from Charlotte than Louisville.
The travel, in other words, is not a significant issue, and could be reduced even further, depending on what happens to the rest of the ACC.
LikeLike
Brian,
You lost me at Detroit (as a selling point to UNC/UVA). I know you technically meant Ann Arbor. I doubt most of the B1G towns are very good long-term travel destinations for UNC/UVA folks. They’re not to me and I’ve been to most of them. Chicago is great. As far as the loney “pair” comment…it’s relevant when you’re talking the conference realignment game (This isn’t romance).
I get it…the B1G just wants to annex those two schools. I just don’t see the interest being returned unless the payout disparity remains the same for decades to come. And given the ever-changing network $ game and demographic shifting southward…the B1G does sit in a potentially precarious spot. Delaney is rightfully pretty prideful at the moment….
LikeLike
TOM,
“You lost me at Detroit (as a selling point to UNC/UVA).”
I wasn’t claiming those as a selling point, just a response to claiming UVA/UNC fans wouldn’t know where they’re playing. The B10 isn’t all small college towns.
“I know you technically meant Ann Arbor.”
It’s a suburb about 10 miles away from downtown, so yes I consider it basically Detroit..
“I doubt most of the B1G towns are very good long-term travel destinations for UNC/UVA folks.”
I neither know nor care if their fans consider B10 cities good long-term travel destinations. That is so far down the list of important considerations for expansion that it’s negligible. the fact that many of the schools are near major airports should be a selling point for people considering flying to games.
“As far as the loney “pair” comment…it’s relevant when you’re talking the conference realignment game”
It’s only relevant if it makes sense. How is a pair lonely, especially when a long time rival is in a neighboring state?
“I get it…the B1G just wants to annex those two schools.”
I don’t know that they do and I certainly don’t want to annex them. 14 is too many as it is.
“I just don’t see the interest being returned unless the payout disparity remains the same for decades to come.”
From fans, maybe, but you are talking about state universities choosing to give up $20M+ per year while UVA is providing another $10M+ in subsidies to the AD. As state funding declines, you don’t think a school president will start to see a use for all that extra money? Even the BoV has to take that sort of number seriously. In one decade you’re talking about turning down $400M per school. Fiduciary responsibilities anyone?
LikeLike
Ann Arbor is a small city about 40 or 50 miles from Detroit, not ” a suburb about 10 miles away from downtown”. West and north of that turns into “farmville” pretty fast.
LikeLike
“state universities choosing to give up $20M+ per year”
The assumption is that those payouts are sustainable. And what happens if B1G misses out and the SEC or ACC (it would have to “sweeten the pot”) beats them to the punch? A lot of folks are predicting that ESPN is just going to wave the white flag and surrender to Fox, Delany, etc. I bet they’re looking at very creative strategic options right now. The B1G is increasingly viewed as the big bully (a very recent thing)…and that puts it at risk of other forces lining up against it.
LikeLike
TOM,
“The assumption is that those payouts are sustainable.”
They’re contracts. Unless you believe Fox or ESPN is going to file for bankruptcy, those payouts are guaranteed for years.
“And what happens if B1G misses out and the SEC or ACC (it would have to “sweeten the pot”) beats them to the punch?”
What if they do? It doesn’t change anything I’ve said, it just becomes the SEC offering them too good of a deal to turn down. I’d love to hear how the ACC is going to significantly sweeten their deal when they can’t even get their network started, but that obviously the preferred option for UVA and UNC.
What if the gap to the B10 continues to grow? The $20M is based on 2017-2018 projections. What if the gap grows by $1M per year or more?
“A lot of folks are predicting that ESPN is just going to wave the white flag and surrender to Fox, Delany, etc.”
They are? I haven’t seen that. I’ve seen a lot of people expecting ESPN to get the other half of the deal but very few have predicted numbers for it.
“I bet they’re looking at very creative strategic options right now.”
One would hope.
“The B1G is increasingly viewed as the big bully (a very recent thing)”
By whom?
“…and that puts it at risk of other forces lining up against it.”
It’s business. Other forces have always been lined up against it.
LikeLike
Wilson Roberts,
“Ann Arbor is a small city about 40 or 50 miles from Detroit, not ” a suburb about 10 miles away from downtown”.”
Yes, that was incorrect. I should have said metro Detroit, not downtown. I was originally going to give the distance to downtown but changed my mind.
“West and north of that turns into “farmville” pretty fast.”
Yes, I lived in said farmville for years. Ann Arbor is still at least an exurb of Detroit because the population follows I-94 west that far.
LikeLike
In a nutshell, the B10 does really well in part because of all the large schools and rabid fans. The SEC, B12 and P12 are all pretty close with varying strengths and weaknesses. The ACC lags well behind having smaller schools with smaller brands.
LikeLike
I do not put the Pac-12 in the same fan passion breath as the Big 10 or SEC. I am in Mesa, Arizona and trust me there is no crazed demand for the Pac-12 Network ( even for ASU or UA Games). The Arizona Republic during the Pac-12 Tournament was not screaming that Direct TV pick it up ( very different then Yankee Games and Comcast in New Jersey). That was Larry Scott’s mistake. If people in Mesa are not getting rid of Direct TV for Cox or Dish what makes him think people in New York will?
LikeLike
I agree that the Pac-12 lags in fan engagement. But Arizona might be the worst possible case: a basketball school, in a state with a high percentage of transplants, and lacking the long history that the core “Pac-8” schools have together.
LikeLike
On Frank’s last post I linked an article from the UH paper about hypothetical conference realignment to four conferences of 18 to make 72 total. I discussed his conferences a little, especially his choice of teams to bump up to P4 status, as well as the realities that would prevent this from happening.
Part 2 looks at how his plan could change the regular season.
1. 12 games = 8 division games + 2 crossover games (rotates annually) + 2 OOC games (1 from each of 2 of the 3 other conferences, rotates annually until all 54 are played)
No cupcakes is good, but the lack of choice of OOC games isn’t. I’d at least arrange it as 2 conference challenges in the OOC (North vs West & North vs South for example) to add some spice.
2. Everyone gets 6 home game and 6 road games (each group of games is split equally). He makes no mention of what happens to neutral site games. Presumably teams would play them at least 2 years in a row to give up a road and a home game (annual rivalry ones could continue as always if they want).
The big boys are going to need a major pay raise to afford dropping a 7th home game. And why would they want to elevate a bunch of teams to their level and then split the money more fairly than they do now?
3. Division winners (by division record only) play in the CCGs. The tiebreaker is head to head (crossovers and OOC games don’t matter for this).
Part 3 looks at the postseason.
1. The CFP expands to 8 with auto-bids for the 4 champs.
2. The committee still does rankings and chooses the next 4 best teams as at-large teams as well as seeding the field.
Multiple teams from 1 conference can get at-large bids.
3. The quarters are played in 4 of the NY6 bowls. The semis are played at 2 of the 4 sites that hosted quarters. The NCG is at 1 of the 2 sites that didn’t have a quarterfinal.
I’d at least give the semis to the other 2 sites that didn’t have quarters I’d also bid out the NCG to cities that don’t host major bowls to spread the game around to new places (indoor or warm weather sites only).
4. The committee also seeds teams for the other 2 NY6 bowls.
LikeLike
Maybe UNC is the first to move, risking GOR to move ahead of loss of AAU and accreditation.
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25573979/uncs-academic-scandal-leaves-professors-university-in-danger
Just kidding, sorta.
It did make me wonder what effect an actual action like losing accreditation would have on conference membership. I’d assume remaining in good standing would be a requirement of most conferences. Wonder if it’s spelled out.
LikeLike
UNC is “on probation” with the accreditation organization. This is as far as it is going, based on what is known so far. Another proverbial “shoe,” and probably several shoes, would have to drop, for them to be at any risk whatsoever of becoming unaccredited.
LikeLike
I agree. I was just musing, wondering how some hypothetical academic clusterf¥€k might cross conference membership requirement boundaries, if in fact there are such.
LikeLike
They’re only on probation for now, but that in itself is a major problem. Loss of accreditation would mean that UNC students were not eligible for student loans, and UNC faculty were not eligible for federal research money. These losses would shut down the school.
When this scandal broke, I opined that it was much more serious that the Penn State scandal, because it discredited the core activity of the school, its reason for being. Some people pooh-poohed that judgement. I’m glad to see the accrediting agency agrees.
UNC’s main problem now is that its administration refuses to come clean and address the scandal. Their friends at NCAA are also trying to cover up its full extent. An activist, honest, NCAA would give the basketball program a death sentence a la SMU football, strip the school of its titles, enter forfeits for all the team victories during the 11 years or so the scandal operated, and demand repayment of all NCAA monies received. They should also suspend all the coaches involved.
LikeLike
They’re only on probation for now, but that in itself is a major problem.
No, it’s not. Show me what they have lost: enrollment? applications? recruits? donations? None I have heard of. The scandal itself was uncovered in 2011. Five years later, it’s priced into the stock. And the probation itself was announced almost a year ago.
Loss of accreditation would mean that UNC students were not eligible for student loans, and UNC faculty were not eligible for federal research money. These losses would shut down the school.
Perhaps, but as I wrote above, something much more significant than what is already known, would need to be uncovered. I won’t say that’s impossible, but it has been five years.
When this scandal broke, I opined that it was much more serious that the Penn State scandal, because it discredited the core activity of the school, its reason for being. Some people pooh-poohed that judgement.
It depends what you mean by “pooh-poohing that judgement.” I agree that it would undercut the core mission of the school, if it were more pervasive. But the malfeasance—disgusting as it was—was confined mainly to one department, to a handful of courses frequented by athletes. As a percentage of the number of degree programs the university offers, or as a percentage of the number of students—as a percentage of, really, anything, it was minuscule. Unacceptable, but nowhere near pervasive.
UNC’s main problem now is that its administration refuses to come clean and address the scandal.
Oh, really? Have you read this page?
An activist, honest, NCAA would give the basketball program a death sentence
Nope. To paraphrase Jerry Tarkanian, The N.C.A.A. is so mad at North Carolina, it’s going to give Cleveland State two more years of probation.
LikeLike
I know in the SEC, conference bylaws require all members to be accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, so (at least in theory) any school that lost its accreditation would automatically be suspended (if not expelled) until the accreditation was restored.
LikeLike
ABC/ESPN announces the seven B1G night games for the 2016 season.
Date Time (ET) Matchup
Sat, Oct. 8 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. No. 3 Michigan at Rutgers
Sat, Oct. 15 8 p.m. No. 10 Ohio State at Wisconsin
Sat, Oct. 22 8 p.m. No. 10 Ohio State at Penn State
Sat, Oct. 29 5:30 p.m. Northwestern at No. 10 Ohio State
7 p.m. Nebraska at Wisconsin
Sat, Nov. 5 8 p.m. Nebraska at No. 10 Ohio State
Sat, Nov. 12 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. No.3 Michigan at No. 17 Iowa
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2016/05/espn-selects-seven-big-ten-college-football-games-for-2016-saturday-prime-time/
LikeLike
Another great chance for Rutgers to be embarrassed in prime time. On the other hand, RU and Northwestern (at 5:30 pm) are the only non-football brands on prime time ABC/ESPN.
Those Michigan tickets will be worth big bucks to scalpers at RU. Great time of year for a night game in NJ, nationwide TV, highly ranked Michigan, with several NJ star players. (Two of last three years the highest rated B1G recruit was from NJ and went to Michigan – both top three national ranking. Peppers (2014) and Gary (2016). And, in addition, Michigan got a five star NJ running back last year. Two five star players from NJ to Ann Arbor in the Class of 2016 – that s*cks for RU)
LikeLike
greg,
4 straight weeks for OSU (2 on the road then 2 at home) seems like overkill, especially with only 2 MI games (both on the road).
Only 1 ranked vs ranked game, probably because MI @ MSU and OSU @ MSU will be at 3:30 (MI @ OSU will be at noon as always).
LikeLike
4 straight weeks for OSU (2 on the road then 2 at home) seems like overkill, especially with only 2 MI games (both on the road).
I assume the Buckeyes’ brain trust embraces this, as I am pretty sure no one makes you play a home night game you don’t want.
Michigan has no home night games this year, despite two obvious candidates (PSU, Wisconsin). Harbaugh and Warde Manuel, the new AD, simply decided they weren’t going to play in Ann Arbor at night. On the road, Michigan is playing the same number of night games as Ohio State: two.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer had said bringing in recruits for night games is easier because they don’t have to get up early to fly after playing a game the night before.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I assume the Buckeyes’ brain trust embraces this, as I am pretty sure no one makes you play a home night game you don’t want.”
The OSU preference is for 3 night games – 2 at home and 1 on the road. This is 4 in conference, plus any BTN picks up (hopefully none), plus the game at OU is likely at 8pm.
LikeLike
I definitely don’t understand the decision to have no night games at home this year. I thought Wiscy would have been a great choice, especially after such a gap since the last time we played (2008 I think?)
LikeLike
Surprise…
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25575360/big-12-learns-what-we-all-knew-12-teams-title-game-are-best-for-league
(Will they really drop a conference game? Seems like some have soft enough schedules already.)
In related news, kids prefer ice cream to vegetables.
Wonder how much they wasted, err, paid to get told the obvious.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“(Will they really drop a conference game? Seems like some have soft enough schedules already.)”
I think that’s just the most successful scenario – 8 games + CCG. Presumably it would come with a demand to schedule better OOC if the Baylor’s of the world want to be taken seriously.
“If we do nothing, we’ll fall behind the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of [revenue],” Bowlsby said. “We may be every bit as competitive as we are today, but we’ll fall behind financially.”
Bowlsby previously told CBS Sports that, if the league stands pat, it will be “$20 million [per school]” behind the SEC and Big Ten in 12 years.
I know bullet disputes the numbers, but it’s what Bowlsby said. Regardless, a CCG adds revenue so a conference worried about falling behind almost has to add one. Then the question becomes whether expanding helps financially. If so, then they could consider renegotiating their TV deal to let them drop a game. My best guess is they stay at 10 and add a CCG for now, and that requires 9 B12 games.
LikeLike
And this:
Chuck Carlton
Chuck Carlton – Verified account @ChuckCarltonDMN
Bowlsby also said that football championship game, possible expansion and TV network issues are “almost inseparable” in Big 12 discussions.
“Almost” is a critical word.
LikeLike
The last sentence is mine.
LikeLike
I read Frank’s Tweet about this. Texas having TCU and Texas Tech block Expansion. Typical Bevo behavior ( ask Nebraska about it sometime). The truth is Texas did not care if Nebraska ( or even A&M) left, and they do not care about Oklahoma either. They know quite well that there Schools that in order to remain Power Five will do whatever UT wants. They also know they can get Notre Dame & BYU ( as well as other big schools) to play them. As long as that Longhorn Network is paying them huge $$$$ and they have alternatives like ACC or Independence they can and will do whatever they want. Would UT fans and the City of Dallas miss UT & OU? Of course. But I am sure there are many fans who miss A&M, and they are not playing them anymore.
LikeLike
Typical bull droppings, yes. People believe the “insiders” instead of reading them for entertainment. All the Big 12 schools vote their own interest. Its not clear that expansion doesn’t decrease dollars per school. Nobody controls other votes.
LikeLike
Well with the Fox deal, that $20 million or so looks real.
LikeLike
You know, for a sport as popular as college football, it amazes me how little these schools actually make. Oh sure it seems like it’s a lot of money, but that’s only because their prior contracts were terrible. Major League Baseball made $9 billion in gross revenue in 2014 alone, whereas we’re all blown away by the potential sale of $250 milllion over six years. Both organizations largely leave their members to negotiate rights deals individually (or at least conferences in the NCAA).
You might argue that’s where the market is at, but I disagree: we’re in an era where cable subscribers, let alone viewers, are at a premium. For content that traditionally draws huge interest like sports, that only increases the value tremendously. Remember, sports are a scarce resource – you can’t make new sports content on a Hollywood back lot (and lord knows ESPN has tried).
If the schools decided to once again negotiate en bloc (beyond conferences) and not trigger the antitrust violations outlined in NCAA v. Board of Regents, they could successfully raise their prices. It’s tricky, but it’s possible – I believe ultimately the P5 will do this, though that might not be in my lifetime.
LikeLike
Major League Baseball made $9 billion in gross revenue in 2014 alone, whereas we’re all blown away by the potential sale of $250 milllion over six years.
That’s not exactly apples to apples. $250m is for a fraction of the inventory, and the bulk of it for a sport that plays only 12 games per season. It also includes none of the post-season.
LikeLike
That’s 1.5 billion – 250 mil/yr over 6 years. And that’s for only partial rights, as Marc notes. Not saying there isn’t significant future increase potential but it’s not peanuts now.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s kind of like comparing almonds with apples.
That $9B is for 30 teams. Playing a 162 game season. Including media, gate, merchandise, everything.
Meanwhile, the $250M is only for half the tier 1 TV contract.
LikeLike
Frank tweeted this out…
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2016/05/02/what-we-know-ucs-big-12-chances/83720444/
It’s believed seven of the 10 schools favor expansion. But Big 12 bylaws call for a super majority vote of 75 percent (so at least eight schools) to make a major change. Texas is believed to be influencing Texas Tech’s and Texas Christian’s decisions to also be reluctant to expansion.
Texas Tech has long fallen in line with Texas. Both are public universities that have been in the same league together since 1956, when they were in the Southwest Conference. Texas and Texas Tech were founding members of the Big 12 in 1996.
TCU is believed to be following Texas’ lead because the conference’s power broker reportedly helped the Horned Frogs get into the Big 12 four years ago.
LikeLike
@Mike – Yes, I think that’s an *extremely* important quote. There has always been speculation that Texas would sway other in-state schools on expansion issues, but we rarely see a newspaper report (which should be distinguished from opinion pieces from columnists) state this outright. Basically, everyone other than the schools that Texas can control seems to want expansion. It’s interesting that Baylor is NOT listed as one of the schools that is being swayed by Texas. When you think about it, this makes sense since Baylor was clearly getting ditched by Texas in the Pac-16 proposal several years ago, so they harbor no illusions that UT will protect them.
LikeLike
I actually believe that Baylor has a chance to go to the SEC ( due to their strong Academics and improving sports program), so unlike Texas Tech they can afford to be detached from Texas. I suspect that you can divide the Big XII into three camps. Those who have Power Five options: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and of course, Texas. Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU and West Virginia who do not. Texas Tech is in its own category ( basically serving as riding herd for Bevo. Hoping UT will lead them to a better place ( of course UT cares about them as much as they did about A&M)). Just wait until that Longhorn Network Contract is over and the Red Raiders lose value for Bevo, then we will see how fast Texas Tech gets ditched by UT.
LikeLike
Baylor has a shot only if the ACC does not get cracked up by the B1G. Otherwise the SEC will take the lower tier coastal schools if made available. A Baylor-Oklahoma pair has the “both FB and BB are good” advantage over Kansas, should OU want in on the SEC.
LikeLike
Baylor’s power anything depends on B12 survival, or perhaps being included in a reconstituted fourth conference if both ACC and B12 lose significant pieces. They’ll vote with UT if required, in their own self interest.
LikeLike
I actually believe that Baylor has a chance to go to the SEC ( due to their strong Academics and improving sports program)….
I cannot see the case for Baylor to the SEC. Of all the P5 conferences, the SEC has the least reason to expand. Any additions they consider will have to be extremely compelling. A conservative Christian private school with the Big XII’s second-smallest enrollment (only TCU is smaller) ain’t gonna cut it.
All of the SEC’s other schools are large publics, except for Vanderbilt, which is a secular private and practically an Ivy in terms of academic prestige. Baylor is nowhere near that. I would guess that any SEC expansion needs to grow the footprint. They’re not going to add another Texas school, unless it’s UT (not that I expect to see the Longhorns in the SEC).
LikeLike
TCU has a better shot at the SEC than Baylor does. It’s in a better location and has similar sports value.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It’s interesting that Baylor is NOT listed as one of the schools that is being swayed by Texas. When you think about it, this makes sense since Baylor was clearly getting ditched by Texas in the Pac-16 proposal several years ago, so they harbor no illusions that UT will protect them.”
Which is why it’s a little weird that TCU is helping UT. TCU isn’t any more protected by UT than Baylor is. I understand being grateful for their help in joining the B12, but you don’t risk your own future for that. Maybe they can be swayed by the details in the research.
LikeLike
This reads like the Cincinnati reporter talked to Berry Trammel who is an Oklahoma sportswriter and troll.
LikeLike
This debate within the Big 12 and the parts leaking out are what make me continue to think that the only options Texas will consider in the future are staying in the Big 12 or the “5 game ACC package” type of deal (maybe with the Big 12 if OU leaves).
Texas still wants to wield clout that it won’t have anywhere else, although a 12 team Big 12 probably removes some of Texas’ clout especially since the 2 new members won’t be beholden to Texas (they’ll probably side with OU on major issues if it comes down to it at least in the near term similar to the way TCU is apparently siding with Texas here).
Also, this makes me wonder about a possible OU split up with Texas (in terms of conference affiliation not the RRR); the two schools have been split on so many major issues in terms of Big 12 governance, but OU hasn’t been willing to pull the trigger on any alternative (partly because they might have their own “OSU problem” and partly because they want to keep a big part of their schedule in the state of Texas).
LikeLike
“…probably removes some of Texas’ clout especially since the 2 new members won’t be beholden to Texas…”
If they are in it’s through the “grace” of UT. OU may have driven it, but they won’t decide it.
LikeLike
That’s true assuming that TCU holds the line with Texas Tech (no reason atm to believe they won’t).
If the Texas trio does insist on “no”, then it does seem like it’d require some sort of negotiated deal before 2 more get added if expansion were to happen.
I suppose things get more interesting if TCU does end up bolting for OU’s side of the argument and it comes down to an 8-2 vote.
LikeLike
Its a Texas quad. If TCU were to switch I’d bet on Baylor changing to whatever side UT wants.
But perhaps UT isn’t dead set against, as long as they can squeeze concessions. Like everyone agreeing to what turned out to be the LHN the last time the conference was at risk.
LikeLike
Nobody “agreed” to the LHN. Every school always had the right to do that. You would have to commit to a conference network for it not to happen and only Texas and Nebraska had any interest in a conference network.
LikeLike
That’s why I said “what turned out to be…”. The conference understood that that ability is what kept the B12 together. Without it there may have been a P16 the year of OU/OkSU’s flirtation with PAC.
LikeLike
I don’t know why Powers and Dodds would have decided differently a year later. A&M had far more value to the SEC than to the Big 12, so it wasn’t a big loss. That was the only difference.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t be changing their mind as much as returning to the alternative they nearly made chose, because the reason for that 2010 choice disappeared. Had the PAC not required signing over ALL media rights, allowed for a longhorn branded/controlled entity, it was a P16 in 2010. That was the single/final reason it didn’t happen. If the B12 a year later reneges and doesn’t allow one either do you think a GOR would have been signed?
If Neb and UT had such an interest in a conference networks, why is only one of them participating in one?
LikeLike
I love unnamed sources (sarcasm) but here’s one in the Austin Statesman: “the Texas source said…“If we get rid of LHN, it will be to change conferences, in my opinion.””
Isn’t this a not so veiled threat?
Is this really a good fit for the B1G?
LikeLike
I wonder if UT/ESPN would be willing to bundle LHN and the B12N together for carriage agreements in TX, meaning TX markets would have to add the B12N in order to carry LHN? ESPN could run the B12N the same way they do the SECN so they’re adding their own product to the agreements.
LikeLike
No, the reason Texas didn’t go in 2010 was because they figured out they could get the same thing in the Big 12.
LikeLike
You mean the LHN? Yes, the B12 was the only place they could do that. Am I missing something? That was my point. Without it (rest of B12 agreeing to teams retaining certain media rights) they were probably gone (and the era of $4.5-5B T1 rights fees would be a half decade old now). Now ESPN/UT have crippled the potential of a B12N, ’cause they ain’t letting the LHN go (other than to change conferences). And their T1 deal is as much dependent of media willingness to pay more, in order to avoid paying a lot more to a “super conference”, as it is the quality of the inventory in the shell of the former B12.
LikeLike
Frank also tweeted a link to this:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/05/02/In-Depth/Media-rights.aspx
John Ourand looks at the struggles smaller sports properties are having getting paid for their TV rights and discusses whether that means a bubble is leaking.
LikeLike
I thought bubbles pop, not leak. Perhaps live sports rights aren’t as fragile as the simplistic description writers like to employ?
LikeLike
Since the people buying these rights are buying them to use them, its lazy reporting to call it a bubble in the first place.
If something is a asset bubble, then a substantial fraction of people are holding assets only because of an expectation that the price of the asset will go up faster than the economy as a whole, so they can make a windfall capital gain on the asset … so news that suggests that the price won’t be going up is likely to spark a rush for the exit.
Which is why bubbles always burst, because no asset prices can outgrow the economy by a significant percentage on an indefinite basis. The opportunity to cool things off without bursting the bubble was before the bubble formed.
It is certainly conceivable that in ten years time some networks will look back on some of these deals and find out that they overpaid. That happens with fairly high frequency with long term deals, since the future is uncertain and among the bidders with the resources to win, it is often the one with the most optimistic valuation that wins the bidding war.
And those who speculate that this may end up being the case will continue to call it a “bubble”. Because there are deadlines to meet and “bubble” has become a link bait term.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/05/03/memphis-lobbies-possible-big-12-expansion-spot/83881902/
Memphis has been campaigning for a B12 spot.
Navigate Research concluded adding two teams would increase the league’s chances of being in the four-team College Football Playoff by “4-5 percent.”
And from another article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/05/02/big-12-expansion-membership-title-championship-game-new-schools/83853258/
The modeled result of solely adding a championship game indicated a four- to five-percent increased likelihood for a Big 12 team to make the Playoff.
That’s a potential 10% increase in CFP likelihood if they expand to 12 and add a CCG (if both statements are correct).
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Tim Brando tweeted this:
Schools in the AAC had better understand how good they’ve got it. West Virginia was a reach, and Memphis, UCONN, Cinn. are too.
Schools in the AAC get paid almost nothing compared to P5 schools. Being the best of the second class citizens isn’t having it good.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25576548/wichita-state-interested-in-joining-mountain-west-may-bring-back-football
Wichita State is looking to move to a better conference and might bring back football.
Individuals representing Wichita State’s athletic interests have approached the Mountain West Conference about membership, multiple sources told CBS Sports.
Led by president John Bardo, Wichita State has been exploring its conference options in both basketball and football. Last year, Bardo commissioned an ongoing feasibility study to bring football back to the athletic program. The school dropped the sport in 1986.
The 12-member Mountain West only has 11 basketball-playing members as Hawaii plays basketball in the Big West. Wichita State may value its basketball on a larger stage with momentum created by highly successful coach Gregg Marshall.
…
Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said he did not have direct contact with Bardo or Wichita State officials. He added that if Wichita State plans to park its basketball program in a new conference, “It ain’t going to be us.”
…
One MWC source considered it unlikely that Mountain West’s media rightsholders (ESPN, CBS Sports Network) would renegotiate their current contracts to include additional revenue for a 12th basketball school.
…
Other possibilities for the Shockers, including the American Athletic Conference and Conference USA, have been mentioned by various sources.
Sources told CBS Sports that Conference USA would not accept a basketball-only school. Given the upheaval caused by UAB dropping football, it would be unlikely the league would welcome Wichita State with an upstart football program.
Texas-El Paso has been mentioned as a possible 12th MWC member in basketball (13th in football). Many of the Miners’ former WAC partners reside in the Mountain West. The Miners have been in Conference USA since 2005-06.
UTEP officials have stressed there is no formal interest on their part in the Mountain West.
If Wichita State adds FBS football, it would cost in the neighborhood of $50 million to build the program from scratch, several industry sources told CBS Sports. A renovation of Cessna Stadium, the old football facility would cost at least $20 million alone.
Documents updating the progress of that football feasibility study are expected to be publicly available within 30-45 days.
LikeLike
FSU & GA Tech to B1G
LikeLike
So now playoff chance is up 10-15 %.
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25577058/expansion-would-improve-big-12s-playoff-chances-by-10-15-percent
They’re in a bigger hurry now than when TCU and WVU were added? Weren’t they trying to fulfill media comittments already signed back then?
LikeLike
There seems to be an issue in even cutting the conference schedule from nine to eight. That move alone would most likely require a renegotiating of the media rights deal with ESPN and Fox, which lasts through the 2024-25 academic year.
One of the original reasons the Big 12 stayed together five years ago during conference realignment was the implementation of a nine-game conference schedule. Adding that extra game provided more inventory (games) for those networks.
Conference games, especially those that include Oklahoma and Texas as the most watched teams, are more profitable than nonconference games.
10 teams with 9 conference games:
B12 games = 45
OOC games = 30 (roughly 20 home games)
Total games ~ 65 games for their TV deal
12 teams with 8 conference games:
B12 games = 48
OOC games = 48 (at least 32 home games)
Total games > 80 games + a CCG
They could at least satisfy their current inventory requirements, so the deals should be violated. Would the extra OOC games + the CCG justify paying 2 new schools a pro rata share? Probably. I don’t think they’d get a pay bump, and maybe the newbies would get less for a while, but the current 10 shouldn’t lose money.
Adding a fourth nonconference game might also be counterproductive to schedule strength. One Big 12 source said it has become much tougher in general to schedule nonconference “guarantee” games. The source expects that trend to continue as more schools like Idaho drop out of FBS.
Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione said such a model “would create additional pressure to find a fourth game that would be compelling. The world has changed.”
If it’s harder to find guarantee games, then maybe they should try playing other P5 teams. You’d have to require 1 P5 OOC game just to match everyone else anyway and it wouldn’t be hard to ask for 2 of them per team. That leaves 2 cupcakes to get to 7 home games.
LikeLike
Any thoughts about how the Big XII would split into divisions?
When they had 12 members before, they split their kings 2–1, with Texas and Oklahoma in the South, and Nebraska in the North. The North also had the league’s two historically weakest football schools, Kansas and Iowa State.
This was about as unbalanced as you’d expect. The South won the championship game in 11 out of 15 years. In 13 out of 15 years, the South representative was Texas or Oklahoma; the other two, it was Texas A&M, which is no longer in the league.
The North representative was Nebraska, Colorado, or Missouri in 12 out of 15 years, and all three of those schools are no longer in the league. (K-State won the North division the other three years.)
One of the reasons for splitting the way they did, was that Texas and Oklahoma wanted to keep their annual regular-season match-up, but didn’t want to have to beat the other twice to win the conference. But with Nebraska gone, I cannot conceive of a remotely competitive divisional alignment where those two schools stay together.
Another problem, is that the Texas schools like playing each other every year, and every other school wants to be in Texas as much as possible, for recruiting reasons. They’d probably have to split it up something like the following:
Div 1: OK, OKSt, Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, New #1
Div 2: Texas, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, New #2
This alignment splits the Texas schools, splits the two historically weakest programs (Kansas and Iowa State), and splits up the new members. The only must-lock game is Texas-Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Any thoughts about how the Big XII would split into divisions?
…
Another problem, is that the Texas schools like playing each other every year, and every other school wants to be in Texas as much as possible, for recruiting reasons. They’d probably have to split it up something like the following:
Div 1: OK, OKSt, Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, New #1
Div 2: Texas, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, New #2
This alignment splits the Texas schools, splits the two historically weakest programs (Kansas and Iowa State), and splits up the new members. The only must-lock game is Texas-Oklahoma.”
To preserve rivalries, I’d try this:
N – OU, OkSU, ISU, KU, KSU, newbie (BYU, etc)
S – UT, TT, Baylor, TCU, WV, newbie (UC if they are 1 of the 2)
That keeps the SWC schools together and the Big 8 schools together. You lock OU/UT but let the rest rotate. Since you are essentially playing everyone half the time, that’s 2 TX teams per season for the North division with 1 game in TX for sure. In addition, they are guaranteed a game in OK as well which is close to TX.
For UT and OU:
8 = 5 + 1 + 2 = 6 * 100% + 5 * 40%
For the rest:
8 = 5 + 3 = 5 * 100% + 1 * 40% + 5 * 52%
LikeLike
It’s hard at 12 since the Oklahomans and Kansans want to be in Texas.
At 14 it would be easier if either or TCU or Baylor would be willing to play East … four newbies, WVU, Iowa State and one Texas school in the “Eastern” division … but if a 12 team conference with the schools presently available is watering down the per school payoff a bit, 14 with the schools presently available would make it appreciably worse.
LikeLike
Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel thinks that the Big 12 should stay at 10 members, and push to expand the playoff to six or eight teams.
Money quote: “There can’t be one fan in the Big 12 wishing his or her team could play Cincinnati more but Texas less.”
Wetzel is on his usual hobby horse about the corrupt bowl system. What he doesn’t mention, is that the Big 12 can expand tomorrow, but the playoff can’t expand unless the other P5 leagues agree—which they don’t.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel thinks that the Big 12 should stay at 10 members, and push to expand the playoff to six or eight teams.”
Actually, he had a line in there saying he thinks things should stay unchanged for a while to gain more perspective. But barring that, then yes he says they should push to grow the playoff.
“Wetzel is on his usual hobby horse about the corrupt bowl system.”
Which wasted half of the article and I almost didn’t even bother to read the rest since the bowls are irrelevant to the discussion.
“What he doesn’t mention, is that the Big 12 can expand tomorrow, but the playoff can’t expand unless the other P5 leagues agree—which they don’t.”
Worse than that, I think they all agree not to expand it right now. They have continued to refuse to make being a conference champ a requirement, so why assume a 6-team CFP would grant 5 autobids? At 8 it seems more likely, but they won’t be promised the top seeds.
LikeLike
They have continued to refuse to make being a conference champ a requirement, so why assume a 6-team CFP would grant 5 autobids? At 8 it seems more likely, but they won’t be promised the top seeds.
They were not going to design a playoff that Notre Dame couldn’t get into. Since Notre Dame clearly can make the 4-team playoff without winning a conference, it might have seemed a bit perverse to impose that requirement on everyone else.
But as FTT has so often pointed out, university presidents like certainty. As a condition of expanding, they’d probably insist that each conference is guaranteed a bid. That would still leave either 1 or 3 slots for independents and/or deserving teams that did not win a conference.
(For a variety of reasons, I have trouble imagining that they’d expand to 6. I think it’ll be 8, if they expand at all.)
LikeLike
Fox’s Clay Travis makes many of the same points as Wetzel, but also observes that it’s hard to come up with balanced, competitive divisions, without breaking something else (the RRR, Texas access for the non-Texas schools, etc.).
He also concludes that the playoff should expand, without suggesting how the Big 12 could make this happen.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Fox’s Clay Travis makes many of the same points as Wetzel, but also observes that it’s hard to come up with balanced, competitive divisions, without breaking something else (the RRR, Texas access for the non-Texas schools, etc.).”
He has a couple of good points buried in his usual crap.
Some points I take issue with:
1. B12 expansion is dumb because he doesn’t understand it.
Just because he doesn’t understand the logic doesn’t mean it’s illogical.
2. No one makes a lot more money except the new additions.
True, but that assumes a vast increase in money is the only reason to expand. What about the increased stability of not always being talked about as the smallest and weakest P5 conference? What about the benefits of becoming more national? Then there’s the CCG money ($2M per school or more). And maybe they don’t pay the newbies as much as everyone else for a while (buying into the brand of the B12) so the other 10 make even more. There’s also increased CFP money for making it more often.
3. The B12 gets weaker in CFB and MBB (assuming UC and BYU are added). I think BYU and UC would normally be middle of the pack additions for the B12 in both sports. Adding quality depth gives you a buffer for a top program having a down year and gives you more quality inventory for TV.
“He also concludes that the playoff should expand, without suggesting how the Big 12 could make this happen.”
Exactly. As if that’s somehow under their control.
He’s anti-CCG and anti-divisions, two points I agree with wholeheartedly. But in Travis’s case he wants to drop CCGs in part so the CFP can expand to 8 teams, figuring that any P5 conference with two elite teams can just get them both in the CFP. I just think CCGs are unnecessary. It’s okay to have co-champions. In fact, I’d rather have co-champs than deny a deserving team their share of the title because they lost an extra game. CCGs also risk rewarding a team that didn’t accomplish as much during the regular season and that should never happen.
I think the time for dropping divisions is coming as more and more people realize how silly it is to lock all those games and rarely see other schools in your conference.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/116660/the-sec-should-fight-to-abolish-divisions-in-college-football
The author says the SEC should push the NCAA to abolish divisions. This would be the plan we’ve frequently discussed where you lock 4 or 5 games to maintain rivalries while rotating the rest. The top 2 would then meet in the CCG. What he doesn’t explain is why divisions need to be abolished rather than just changing the CCG rules to allow for a large conference (more than 10) not having divisions nor a full round robin. Why prevent someone else from having divisions if they want them?
LikeLike
The writer doesn’t quote a single SEC source—even anonymously—indicating that the league might be considering this. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens, eventually, but it’s just fan fiction until someone in power, or close to power, starts saying it.
I agree with Brian that the NCAA wouldn’t abolish divisions, so much as de-regulate the CCG so that leagues can qualify the two participants any way they want. The same leagues who blocked that very proposal the last time, would quickly support it as soon as it suited their self-interest.
Now, where have I heard that idea before? I wonder, where?
LikeLike
“The same leagues who blocked that very proposal the last time…”
That “last time” the rule was addressed hasn’t even had a season under the new changes.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The writer doesn’t quote a single SEC source—even anonymously—indicating that the league might be considering this.”
No, but the other article I linked said there is growing sentiment for the SEC to drop divisions and go to a 9 game schedule.
“I agree with Brian that the NCAA wouldn’t abolish divisions, so much as de-regulate the CCG so that leagues can qualify the two participants any way they want.”
No, they would re-regulate them to allow no divisions without a full round robin (for conferences of 11 or more) with the top two teams making the CCG as a new third option. I doubt they’d make it the free for all you desperately want.
LikeLike
I doubt they’d make it the free for all you desperately want.
I save desperation for other things. But if they selfishly decide that the “free for all” approach is what they need, then the “free for all” is what they’ll get. It’s beyond obvious that they care about nothing else, including any of the purported reasons for what they did the last time.
LikeLike
Allowing B12 a CCG 13th game exemption without expanding was to which other conference/school’s benefit?
Idaho? NMSU?
LikeLike
It was to the Big 12’s benefit, because it gave them an option they didn’t have before — in other words, exactly what they sought.
You don’t seriously believe that the concerns of Idaho and NMSU were animating the decision, do you?
LikeLike
I must have misunderstood your statement, but they are representative of the concern for unintended consequences. And I bet their plight will be informing any future discussion about further changing that rule.
LikeLike
I must have misunderstood your statement, but they are representative of the concern for unintended consequences. And I bet their plight will be informing any future discussion about further changing that rule.
If a majority of the P5 feel they can make more money by further de-regulating their conference championship game, do you seriously think they’ll say, “Wait! What about Idaho??”
LikeLike
Yes. They are representative of collateral damage. The P5 have disproportionate power, but they haven’t yet chosen to break away from the NCAA. Until the hey do they will need to take the other thousand members into some consideration. They still need them (or they would have separated already).
LikeLike
Can you find a few people with voting authority who regret the decision they made, because it screwed Idaho? I haven’t heard of any.
LikeLike
If the B12 does anything other than hold a CCG while not expanding I’d think every yes vote would feel like they had cast a “let’s make Idaho and NMSU redundant” ballot. What benefit did anyone gain (except those jettisoning schools)?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/116690/roundtable-what-will-the-sec-look-like-in-10-years
Several bloggers predicting what the SEC will look like in 10 years. There are a few interesting bits:
Another wave of expansion will hit and with the College Football Playoff expanding to at least eight teams within the next decade (sooner rather than later if the NCAA is smart), the SEC will go to nine conference games. The league finally will get rid of divisions (you’re welcome, Auburn and Missouri) and crown its winner by having an outright champion.
What, no SEC title game? Well, once the playoff expands (thank you) and the SEC moves to nine conference games, coaches will let their athletic directors and presidents know that they aren’t going to want to play more than 12 games before the playoff. Makes sense, so you either eliminate a nonconference game or the championship games. Less nonconference games hurts the smaller schools and since championship games affect fewer teams, buh-bye.
Mega-conferences are all the rage, but don’t expect 20-team leagues. Twenty teams makes it nearly impossible for every team to see each other in four years. So get ready for 16-team leagues.
The SEC will go after North Carolina, and it’ll go after Texas. But with those schools tied to others that might not get the SEC approval, the SEC will nab Virginia Tech (an SEC favorite for a while) and Virginia. Between the two, you get academics and quality sports outside of football.
—
Will superconferences emerge? Maybe.
Will the SEC move to a nine-game annual conference schedule? I hope so, although the league’s coaches seem resistant to that idea.
Will the conference realign along true geographic boundaries? It would make sense, and there seems to be some interest around the league in that notion.
If Auburn shifted into the Eastern Division and Missouri — one of the league’s westernmost campuses — jumped to the West, it wouldn’t disturb much. …
Flip-flopping Auburn and Mizzou would bring more balance to the divisions and reinstate some popular old rivalries. Win-win. Here’s hoping it happens.
—
Sam Khan Jr.: If the SEC were to expand, about 10 years from now is a fitting time frame. The Big 12’s grant of rights expires at the completion of the 2024-25 season, and the ACC’s expires at the end of 2026-27. I mention those two conferences because those are where the most likely expansion candidates would come from. The College Football Playoff’s initial 12-year contract ends at the completion of the 2025-26 season and that’s important because what the makeup of the playoff is (remain at four teams? Expand to eight or perhaps more?) ultimately would impact the conferences and their futures.
All that said, my guess is the SEC won’t be too much different in 10 years than it is now. Expansion, while possible — who wouldn’t want to get their hands on the revenue SEC teams are getting? — seems unlikely to me if for no other reason than there aren’t too many teams in those aforementioned conferences that would be seeking a new conference home and would add significant value to the league as a whole. And if it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense.
I think the changes the SEC could undergo would be much smaller in scale. By then, I think the SEC will have finally moved to nine conference games since three other Power 5 conferences are there now (Big 12, Pac-12 play nine, the Big Ten begins playing nine in 2016) and the SEC being at eight could become a difference-maker when comparing potential College Football Playoff contenders’ resumes in the coming years (the Big Ten committed to nine conference games plus a Power 5 nonconference opponent every year with no FCS teams). I could see a scenario — which my esteemed colleague Edward Aschoff pitched earlier — where the league either abolishes divisions or makes some changes to them in an effort to get a better quality SEC championship game. But outside of those types of things, I think the league will remain mostly intact.
LikeLike
New Mexico State president is polling the faculty about where they belong in the football universe.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/college/blogs/cruces-sports-extra/2016/05/04/nmsu-survey-regarding-conference-alignment-horizon-league/83937868/
Indy FBS/WAC
Indy FBS/Horizon
All in for Big Sky FCS
LikeLike
Of the 3 options, the Big Sky is the obvious winner. NMSU has never manged to be competitive in I-A and going independent could be really tough. Why on earth would the Horizon want a member in NM?
LikeLike
I know it’s just a theoretical proposal, but B12 going to 8 games means at least 12 teams looking for additional OOC games. (Sign to play them all – become a ghost member/record improver. Or would Kansas feel encroached on?)
LikeLike
It’s tough to get games on the weekends you need them, though. September is easy, but October and November provide greater challenges. I’d guess finding 8 games a year is pretty easy and then some of those last 4 can be problematic. After all the travel, I’m not sure how much they’d make trying to stay independent anyway. I-AA saves them 22 scholarships and FCOA and reduces the size and salaries of the coaching staff.
LikeLike
Not only would KU object, but I think NM pols might also push for the Lobos to be in that fluffer role in the feint hope that they are eventually invited as a full B12 member in a western pairing or quad.
LikeLike
Isn’t the Horizon League far far from New Mexico? I thought it was an Ohio/Illinois/Wisconsin thing. Why would either party have interest in that combination?
LikeLike
Yes, that’s exactly where it is. That’s why it makes no sense for either side.
LikeLike
Why not All In Southland FCS?
LikeLike
Maybe the Southland had no interest in them since it’s such a compact conference now. I also have the impression that the Big Sky is a better I-AA conference for football.
LikeLike
On the other hand, the Chair of the Board of Regents says they are not moving.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/college/nmsu/2016/05/05/chair-nmsu-football-staying-course-fbs/83978532/
Who’s in charge here?
LikeLike
Looking at the three options, it’s quite feasible for no option to get a majority, but to have a majority of responses in favor of NMSU staying FBS independent and a majority in favor of NMSU playing basketball in the Big Sky.
LikeLike
Scratch that, midterm grading has scrambled my brain, and I misremembered the options.
But HL / FBS-independent still looks like a stalking horse response, to avoid anti-WAC votes from automatically being turned into anti-FBS votes.
LikeLike
Idaho’s full consultant report is now available as a pdf linked from this page:
http://www.uidaho.edu/president/communications/ftball-announcement?utm_campaign=ftball-conf-announcement2016&utm_source=press-release_vandal-vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general
LikeLike
Looked like a lot of typical fan comments – “We should stay FBS and join the MWC.” This despite the report stating that both the MWC and CUSA have no interest in Idaho.
The only realistic choices were the WAC and football independence or bringing football to the Big Sky where all their other teams play. I know it’s a blow to their pride, but the Big Sky is clearly the right answer for them. They’ve only been I-A for 20 years anyway and were Big Sky before that.
LikeLike
Interesting, but nothing new to most of those here.
http://adimeback.com/interview-with-a-flugempire/
LikeLike
IMHO – Flugar has been trolling for followers for a long time now.
LikeLike
4) This is a UConn blog, so give us the reasons UConn makes sense for the Big 12
… It’s been Big Ten perception since Feb 15th that the Big 12 will expand with UConn/Cincy. Reasons? It’s not because of football, just like when the Big Ten expanded with Rutgers and Maryland. It’s about expanding eastwardly into new markets, which have residents with disposable income, and in which its universities’ academics meet all Big 12 benchmarks, and in which ESPN and FOX give their “ok.”
There is support for BYU in Big 12, but BYU does not have FOX support. FOX wants Big 12 to go east with both additions.
There is support for UCF in Big 12, but UCF does not have ESPN support. ESPN is working on ACC Network for its 2 Florida “properties” of FSU & Miami, FL.
There is support for Memphis, and what a closer relationship with FEDEX can do for both the University of Memphis and the Big 12 Conference, However it’s academics do not meet all benchmarks.
UConn is a flagship university in a state that just committed themselves to $1.5 billion in research funding. UConn’s market is full of disposable income with a fan base big enough to support a fledgling Big 12 Conference Network.
…
5) In the interest of equal time, and to give Russ something to mock our fans with, why wouldn’t UConn get invited to the Big 12?
Texas.
Let’s make something clear. If Big 12 expansion does not happen now, it’s a clear indication that Texas themselves have given up on the future of the Big 12. The model they have loved to govern is being shown in the sunlight of data that it doesn’t work in this landscape of college football. Which by the way was Boren’s plan from day 1.
It’s UConn/Cincy in the Big 12 or Texas has decided themselves that they need to move out of the Big 12 knowing their model has lost out in the internal politics of the conference.
I wasn’t aware the B10 had decided that UConn was the clear #2 for the B12. Nor did I know that the B12 not expanding mean UT has given up on the B12 and will leave. In fact, I thought the opposite was true.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA are closer to Austin than Storrs, Connecticut. UConn is 400 miles further on average from the Big 12 schools than BYU is.
UConn is a total non-starter despite all the talk lately. They have had a lousy football team for decades and only a dozen of those years have been in FBS. And football drives most of the revenue.
LikeLike
Conference USA TV deal may be as low as $2m per year.
No, not per team, total.
http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160504/BLOGS06/160509923/macs-espn-deal-looks-even-smarter-today-than-it-did-in-2014?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1
LikeLike
The reality is a lot of smaller schools( those who are not in the AAC, MAC or Mountain West) will likely either have to drop down to a lower level or give up football due to Economics. The real question will be 10 years from now will the Non Big 10/SEC Power Five bottom feeders like Wake Forest, Boston College and Washington State, end up like Rice, Houston and SMU after the end of the Southwest Conference? For example: If I am the Pac-12 and I am trailing the Big 10 and SEC, and OU and Kansas go to the Big 10, maybe economics require. I get rid of Washington State and add Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State? Something to consider
LikeLike
“…maybe economics require. I get rid of Washington State and add Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State? Something to consider.”
No, it’s not. Only one power conference (BE) has ever removed a member (who had just been admitted). And that actually was at the decision of that school to not meet requirements within timeline set at admission, and drop out basically voluntarily.
The only possible losses would come from conference dissolution, and who doesn’t get a lifeboat offer from another.
LikeLike
If I am the Pac-12 and I am trailing the Big 10 and SEC, and OU and Kansas go to the Big 10, maybe economics require. I get rid of Washington State and add Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State?
Since you’ve excluded Oklahoma, I assume you have the Sooners going to the Big Ten, along with Kansas. In that case, the Big XII would clearly be kaput. Rather than kick out Washington State (with the horrendous politics of that), the Pac-12 would probably add Kansas State to the three you mentioned, giving them another pretty good football school, and extra games in the Central time zone.
Wake and BC have greater reasons to worry. They’re private schools, and don’t have in-state sister schools to lobby for their interests. Still, a lot of dominoes have to fall, before those two schools are in any serious danger.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“The real question will be 10 years from now will the Non Big 10/SEC Power Five bottom feeders like Wake Forest, Boston College and Washington State, end up like Rice, Houston and SMU after the end of the Southwest Conference?”
I think that’s a lot more than 10 years away. The presidents don’t like kicking someone out since they know they could always be next on the chopping block. The SWC dissolved over cheating as much as anything.
“For example: If I am the Pac-12 and I am trailing the Big 10 and SEC, and OU and Kansas go to the Big 10, maybe economics require. I get rid of Washington State and add Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State?”
The P12 isn’t that far behind, and dropping WSU wouldn’t help that much. Dropping to 11 would be a 9% raise per school if nothing else changed, but other things would change. If the P12 could add UT they might, but they won’t drop someone to do it. The schools are far from the point where they’d need to cut schools.
LikeLike
Because of the CFP payout, there is much less discrepancy between the G5 school media revenue than it would at first appear. Take $2m total for CUSA and $10m total for the MAC. Add in the $10m CFP first tranche + $300k/school that are APR bowl eligible, and it’s $1.15m/school CUSA and $1.97/school MAC. If CUSA ends up ahead of the MAC in the G5 conference rankings, that would narrow further.
LikeLike
That’s still 71% more for the MAC schools ($820,000). Yes, the absolute value isn’t all that big, but every dollar matters to these schools. It’s an extra paycheck game. It’s the salaries for the whole football staff (or much of it). It’s FCOA for all their athletes plus some. It’s several women’s sports needed for Title IX reasons.
LikeLike
Yes … as you noted below, the timing of the MAC was quite fortunate … it was among the last of the “secondary” contracts signed under a “collect a diversity of smaller live sports as ESPN3 fodder” mentality. But a decade ago, the MAC would have viewed a prospective ~$1.15m/school as a stretch goal.
I’m sure that the MAC is happy to be getting that extra media money, and CUSA will be missing the revenue they once had (for many of them, only briefly) … but on the $20m-$30m AD budgets at that level, it will still be a secondary consideration.
LikeLike
Meanwhile the MAC’s new deal is worth $10M per year. They were lucky to sign it before ESPN started cutting back.
LikeLike
Sounds like Rice is making phone calls to get the Big 12 to invite UH.
LikeLike
If we’re not in the MWC/AAC soon I fear we’ll be in D3 soon.
LikeLike
You don’t think they’d go I-AA instead? That way you keep NCAA tournament money and can play top level baseball.
Well, if the B12 expands that should create a hole in the AAC for you. I don’t know where Rice would be on their list of choices since they have U already, but it’s a chance.
LikeLike
Can you imagine how the already empty Rice Stadium would look when Abilene Christian comes to town instead of Baylor? The study Rice did a decade ago came to the conclusion that there is no real workable level for us between FBS and D3. FCS has almost all of the cost and few of the benefits of FBS and D2 is really not much of a thing in our area.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Can you imagine how the already empty Rice Stadium would look when Abilene Christian comes to town instead of Baylor?”
How much emptier can it get?
“The study Rice did a decade ago came to the conclusion that there is no real workable level for us between FBS and D3. FCS has almost all of the cost and few of the benefits of FBS and D2 is really not much of a thing in our area.”
I-AA let’s you keep all that NCAA tournament money at least. Plus, there is a no-scholarship level of I-AA football. Join the Pioneer Football League with other privates like Butler, Valpo, Dayton and USD. It’s football only, so the rest of your sports can go in a D-I conference like the MVC.
http://www.pioneer-football.org/
LikeLike
Amusing article supporting BYU to the B12:
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865653602/Going-the-distance-BYU-Big-12-arent-that-far-apart.html?pg=all?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fpost-cm.gwallet.com%2FpwpVQw
LikeLike
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/court_filing_says_joe_paterno.html
Here we go again.
A new bombshell dropped in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal Thursday.
It came in the form of a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case involving Penn State, and its full ramifications can’t immediately be gauged.
But that line was eye-popping in itself.
The line in question states that one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”
The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State’s athletic director at the time.
All, the opinion states, are described in victims’ depositions taken as part of the still-pending insurance case, but that, according a PennLive review of the case file, are apparently under seal.
“There is no evidence that reports of these incidents ever went further up the chain of command at PSU,” Judge Gary Glazer wrote, in determining that because Penn State’s executive officers – its president and trustees – weren’t aware of the allegations, he would not bar claims from that time frame from insurance coverage.
LikeLike
> Here we go again.
You got that right. It is another sensational, unproven allegation. In this case – just like in the 2001 case – we don’t even know who the alleged victim is supposed to be. There is definitely a reason for this at least in the 2001 case. (To be clear, I believe Sandusky was a child abuser – indeed, as I have previously posted, I believe there was and is a cover-up and that Sandusky, unfortunately, is only a small part of the full story.)
Brian, you once stated that the Freeh report was “independent”, and you’ve made it clear that the report provides sufficient grounds for all kinds of ridiculous sanctions and sanctimony – to the point that Paterno, Penn Staters, and Penn State were not even worthy of due process.
The evidence against the claims in the Freeh report is now overwhelming, and the report itself is about to be tested in a court of law in the first of multiple lawsuits. It is conceivable that some people will end up in jail, and it is likely that some will be liable for millions of dollars. (In case you haven’t read it, the claims in the Freeh report are not even self-consistent, and Freeh, in deposition, now calls them mere “opinions”.)
Since we’ll soon know which claims are correct, Brian, I’ll ask you three questions for the record:
1. Do you believe the Freeh report was independent?
2. Do you believe the Freeh report provided evidence of a Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier conspiracy?
3. Do you believe the Freeh report was itself part of a conspiracy?
LikeLike
http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/home/id=1202756889767/Judge-Nixes-PSUs-Coverage-for-Many-Sandusky-Abuse-Claims?mcode=1202617075166&curindex=0&slreturn=20160406070959
I seem to only be able to get the first page of this article even tho’ I came at it from google.
Some extra quotations from the judge’s Opinion. (Can anyone find a link to the opinion?)
“Glazer’s ruling contained numerous citations to the Report of Special Investigative Counsel, often referred to as the Freeh report, which outlined the findings of Louis Freeh’s investigation into Sandusky’s conduct and the school’s handling of the reported abuse. The report faulted Penn State leadership with failing to stop the abuse.
Glazer’s ruling initially noted that the coverage would apply for pre-1992 claims, as Penn State’s executive officers did not know of Sandusky’s actions.
“Head coach [Joe] Paterno, the assistant coaches, and the athletic director were not executive officers, nor were they risk managers with a duty to report incidents to PMA,” Glazer said. “Since they apparently neglected to inform their supervisors, including the risk manager, of the 1976, 1987 and 1988 incidents involving Sandusky, PSU cannot be charged with knowledge of Sandusky’s molestations sufficient to require it to have notified its insurer, PMA.”
LikeLike
I am curious to see the opinion itself. As the lawyers on the Board know, procedural rules for certain motions and pleadings require the Judge to assume the truth of factual allegations (even though it is for the ultimate fact-finder to determine the truth of the allegations).
LikeLike
> As the lawyers on the Board know, procedural rules for certain
> motions and pleadings require the Judge to assume the truth of
> factual allegations (even though it is for the ultimate fact-finder
> to determine the truth of the allegations).
Yes, exactly. That’s why those connected to the cover-up are happy for huge payouts but want to avoid trials that actually examine the evidence. The trials are coming.
The following article mirrors the others (of course they are all basically repeating the same things) but adds one fact that has been a constant since November 2011.
Paterno knew about Sandusky in 1976
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160506_New_documents_allege_Paterno_knew_about_Sandusky_as_far_back_as_1976.html
“Investigators who worked on Sandusky’s criminal prosecution in 2012 have said that they interviewed dozens of potential accusers who detailed abuse by the assistant coach dating back decades, but that none told them that Paterno knew about the abuse.”
LikeLike
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandusky-case-bombshell-did-6-penn-state-coaches-witness-abuse-n569526
yes, it seems that, procedurally, the Judge assumed the truth of the allegations. NBC phrased it as: “the court was not required to verify the allegations.”
LikeLike
I know: stop linking. But here is what I was looking for this morning. Deadspin has the whole opinion.
http://deadspin.com/court-opinion-reveals-joe-paterno-reportedly-knew-of-je-1775014993
that is all.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I know: stop linking.”
There is no reason not to link to relevant articles on this topic unless Frank asks us to stop. It’s a major news story that involves a B10 school. Would we stop posting links if UNC was in the B10?
LikeLike
@ carl:
that’s a mysterious post. i wonder if you can answer your own questions to educate us.
i am aware that many question the accuracy of the Freeh Report and its conclusions. my view is that the Freeh Report has been shown to be variously inaccurate and incomplete and that the conclusions overreached. Which is NOT to say that the Freeh Report was entirely inaccurate. It seems that various parts of the Report are sufficiently supported to be admissible in a court of law. Apparently, Judge Glazer accepted parts of the Freeh Report as legally sufficient.
i am aware of vague suggestions that the PSU board of directors/regents was trying to “cover its’ own @ss” and thus supposedly asked Freeh to make Paterno the scapegoat. Is that how you are intimating that Freeh was “not independent” and part of a conspiracy?
I am not aware that evidence exists of such instructions from the BoD to Freeh.
But maybe you can shed some light on questions 1 and 3.
As for your number 2, the answer is yes (although I need to know how you are defining conspiracy).
We are all aware that there are many types of evidence. We are also all aware that many types of evidence are excluded from a Court of Law because the evidence lacks sufficient indicia of truthfulness, cannot be sufficiently tested/challenged and/or has been improperly gathered.
As an example, there is actual evidence that Johnny Manziel took money for signing autographs when he was the A&M QB: the photos and the “testimony” obtained and reported by the media. However, that evidence was not sufficient for the NCAA and/or a court of law.
We are all further aware the evidence needs to be “sufficient” in some manner. It either needs to be “big” or small evidence needs to “pile up” before we conclude that, “yes, that is what happened.” The Freeh Report contains some evidence (copies of emails) that Paterno and the other 3 agreed to look the other way. For me, I have not been quick to jump to conclusions. But the small evidence is piling up. I want to know about this 1976 incident. I want to know about these allegations from 1987 and 1988.
LikeLike
> that’s a mysterious post. i wonder if you can
> answer your own questions to educate us.
No mystery – I’ve been explicit about this for a few years now – and no technical legal games. I’m talking about black and white, undeniable evidence that:
1. The Freeh report was not independent. (Even the Big Ten was involved. I haven’t posted this before because I know very little about it.)
2. The Freeh report’s “evidence” was explicitly manipulated to fit the desired narrative.
3. The Freeh report itself was part of a conspiracy in the sense alleged in the Paterno v. NCAA lawsuit.
The Freeh report was designed to produce the kind of unthinking reaction and non-sequitur response that is often seen in this blog’s comments (today, for example, by Brian). The purpose of the distraction was to cover up the truth and act as a deterrent to further inquiry (because … “child rape!”).
Multiple lawsuits now have access to the Freeh report docs, as do BoT members, and they will be coming out in court. I expect fiduciary breach to be on the table soon.
> I am not aware that evidence exists of such instructions from the BoD to Freeh.
It will become apparent soon enough (I expect within a year – but maybe even before football season starts).
Paterno may very well be guilty of something, and if he is, then so be it. However, the Freeh report provides no evidence of this, and that will also become evident to everyone soon enough.
With regard to “evidence piling up”: if that were actually the case, then what you are saying would be fair and true – but it isn’t the case. The “evidence” all springs from the Freeh report and the fact that PSU didn’t want to (and couldn’t, after the Freeh report) defend itself. In statistics, this is called systematic bias.
The other problem is that since the notion of the Freeh report has been cemented in the public’s mind, people (including the media) typically ignore all the contrary evidence that has been accumulating for the past four years. Brian’s post is an example of this. Brian has never – to my knowledge, at least – posted an article that goes against the Freeh report’s narrative. The article he did post includes no new evidence – let alone verifiable evidence – of anything against Paterno. For Brian, this is typical. In psychology, this is called confirmation bias. (Yawn. 😉
LikeLike
“No mystery – I’ve been explicit about this for a few years now – and no technical legal games. I’m talking about black and white, undeniable evidence”
Except for all the other people that have seen it and don’t agree it is undeniable evidence of what you claim.
“1. The Freeh report was not independent. (Even the Big Ten was involved. I haven’t posted this before because I know very little about it.)”
But you have all that black and white undeniable evidence. You just said so.
“2. The Freeh report’s “evidence” was explicitly manipulated to fit the desired narrative.”
No legal games, but putting evidence in quotes as if all the emails and documents and witness/victim statements in the case aren’t real evidence is fine, right?
“3. The Freeh report itself was part of a conspiracy in the sense alleged in the Paterno v. NCAA lawsuit.”
Right. Good thing you’re here to stop the Illuminati, Bilderberg Group and Freemasons from keeping JoePa down.
“It will become apparent soon enough (I expect within a year – but maybe even before football season starts).”
But you claimed to already have all the black and white, undeniable evidence to back you up. Now it won’t be available for a year?
“Paterno may very well be guilty of something, and if he is, then so be it. However, the Freeh report provides no evidence of this, and that will also become evident to everyone soon enough.”
Nobody ever claimed the Freeh report proved JoePa was guilty of anything. It showed he knew about it at some point and did very little about it, but he did fulfill his minimum legal requirement by telling his superior about it a few days after learning about it.
“With regard to “evidence piling up”: if that were actually the case, then what you are saying would be fair and true – but it isn’t the case.”
Especially when you dismiss everything as “evidence” rather than accepting it as evidence.
“The “evidence” all springs from the Freeh report and the fact that PSU didn’t want to (and couldn’t, after the Freeh report) defend itself.”
No, it doesn’t. The evidence is emails and statements from victims and witnesses. Freeh didn’t create those, he included them.
“In statistics, this is called systematic bias.”
Something JoeBots are very familiar with.
“people (including the media) typically ignore all the contrary evidence that has been accumulating for the past four years.”
Evidence contrary to what? Are you claiming kids weren’t molested by Sandusky? Are you claiming JoePa never knew about it? Are you claiming administrators never knew about it? Those are the things people say based on the Freeh report. Where is the evidence that contradicts any of those points?
“Brian’s post is an example of this. Brian has never – to my knowledge, at least – posted an article that goes against the Freeh report’s narrative.”
I have mostly posted links to articles about the case/situation, often including quotes. I do the same for lots of other stories. It doesn’t mean I agree with what’s written necessarily. I just post anything I think is relevant and might be interesting that I come across. We may get into discussions of it after that or not. And I’ll take almost any opinion over that from a JoeBot.
“The article he did post includes no new evidence”
All, the opinion states, are described in victims’ depositions taken as part of the still-pending insurance case, but that, according a PennLive review of the case file, are apparently under seal.
Depositions are evidence and the article includes as much as it can about sealed depositions.
” – let alone verifiable evidence – ”
It’s easily verifiable by a judge. Either those depositions exist or they don’t. Either they say what the company claims or they don’t. Just because we can’t read them right now doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Whether the claim is true or not is never 100% knowable by those who weren’t there.
“of anything against Paterno.”
It’s an allegation that we haven’t heard before. That’s newsworthy even if you don’t like it.
LikeLike
YAWN.
Do you ever get tired of posting the same crap over and over? Go sell your conspiracy theory somewhere else for a while. I’m sure lots of PSU fans will buy it.
LikeLike
> YAWN.
I’ll take this to mean that you believe the Freeh report is legit but are afraid to go on record saying so.
Just two more questions, Brian, for the record:
1. Have you read the Freeh report?
2. Did you find any problems with it?
(Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
Take it however you want. I really couldn’t care less.
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No.
LikeLike
Brian, are you aware that even Louis Freeh is now claiming that the Freeh Report is simply an ‘opinion’ (per his most recent court filing)? So, it appears that you have a lot more confidence in the Freeh Report than the Louis Freeh. As Carl has mentioned, stay tuned because lots of illuminating information will be coming out in the next 12 months…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15470707/houston-cougars-memphis-tigers-boise-state-broncos-possible-candidates-big-12-college-football-expansion
10 candidates the B12 should consider for expansion with pros and cons for each one.
BYU
Boise
UCF
UC
CSU
UConn
UH
Memphis
USF
Tulane
“We wanted to show the football coaches what we thought was germane to [them] — how you get to the playoff,” said commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who also noted that Navigate’s algorithm “has successfully predicted all eight teams in the last two playoffs.”
The article also contained this tweet:
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25577845/big-12-leaves-spring-meetings-with-a-purpose-live-up-to-its-name
And more on the B12.
The Big 12 may have broke camp at their Fiesta Summit spring meetings without a decision, but it left with a purpose.
“It’s looking at the long-term viability of the conference,” said Shane Lyons, West Virginia’s athletic director.
These expansion talks are mostly about the Big 12 living up to its name. An expansion to 12 teams (from its current 10) would at least provide increased security. Call it a buffer against further losses of teams in the future.
…
During that presentation, the league was told by Navigate Research that in its current 10-team configuration the league has a 62 percent chance of reaching the CFP in any given year.
Sounds ominous … and exciting … and confusing. But that number only means something if there is a comparison. What’s the SEC’s percentage? The rest of the Power Five?
“They’re at a disadvantage” compared to those other leagues if they don’t expand, said a person with knowledge of the presentation. “It’s clear.”
…
One industry source said the financial gain would be minimal at best.
…
It’s clear the league is trending toward expanding. The “who” part is confounding. Forget the assumption that West Virginia needs a “travel partner” — a school close to Morgantown to help ease travel stress. West Virginia is almost 1,000 miles from its nearest conference rival, Iowa State.
“We don’t need a travel partner,” said Lyons, who sounds up for anything.
LikeLike
“It’s clear the league is trending toward expanding. The “who” part is confounding. Forget the assumption that West Virginia needs a “travel partner” — a school close to Morgantown to help ease travel stress.”
A travel partner would not be about easing travel stress on WVU, it would be about easing travel stress on the other Big12 schools, and only relative to adding another far-flung school that is not close enough to be a travel partner for away games to Morgantown.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“A travel partner would not be about easing travel stress on WVU, it would be about easing travel stress on the other Big12 schools, and only relative to adding another far-flung school that is not close enough to be a travel partner for away games to Morgantown.”
Exactly. If the non-revenue sports can play 2 games on an eastern trip rather than just one, it saves a lot of time and money. All it does for WV is provide 1 road football game which fans can drive to and tailgate.
LikeLike
Forget the assumption that West Virginia needs a “travel partner” — a school close to Morgantown to help ease travel stress. West Virginia is almost 1,000 miles from its nearest conference rival, Iowa State.
You don’t play your “travel partner” all that often. In football, the difference would be one game every other year. That is, one road game in alternate years that won’t be quite as far as it was before. You’re still getting on an airplane. In basketball, assuming they play a double round-robin, it would be one game a year. Other sports would be similar.
It would be a little better if the Big 12 added two Eastern schools (though not a LOT better), but most people think BYU is a shoo-in, assuming the league expands at all.
LikeLike
They need to find a way to make the geography (likely geographies) as contiguous as possible so that it’s not just TX/OK/KS/IA and a bunch of distant islands (like WVU). If they’re going to go beyond their core territory…try to get the others relatively close together so it creates natural rivalries and doesn’t become an insane travel burden for every away game. So if you want BYU…then go for Colorado State, Boise State, etc. If you prefer UCF…then go with Memphis, Tulane and perhaps USF (market duplication but may be worth it). A mish-mosh of BYU, UCF, Cincy and UConn (while perhaps better individual brands and markets)…will not be sustainable for those programs.
LikeLike
TOM,
“They need to find a way to make the geography (likely geographies) as contiguous as possible so that it’s not just TX/OK/KS/IA and a bunch of distant islands (like WVU). If they’re going to go beyond their core territory…try to get the others relatively close together so it creates natural rivalries and doesn’t become an insane travel burden for every away game.”
It’s just tough to do in that part of the country. If you assume all P5 teams are unavailable, that leaves them few viable choices.
Current states with G5 schools:
TX – UH, SMU?, Rice?
I doubt they’re looking for more TX schools, but maybe UH has an outside shot.
Contiguous states with viable G5 schools:
CO – CSU?
IL – NIU?
LA – Tulane?
OH – UC
PA – Temple?
How many of these are real options?
Now expand that to include contiguous to the other new addition (which I know is what you meant):
Assuming BYU:
ID – Boise
NV – UNLV?
Unfortunately Boise is in the wrong direction. Maybe UNLV is of minor interest for its market, but it’s also in the wrong direction.
Assuming UC:
none
No help there.
Other options:
Memphis is a bridge to WV (and UC) but isn’t particularly near anyone
UCF and USF would clearly work well together
“So if you want BYU…then go for Colorado State, Boise State, etc. If you prefer UCF…then go with Memphis, Tulane and perhaps USF (market duplication but may be worth it). A mish-mosh of BYU, UCF, Cincy and UConn (while perhaps better individual brands and markets)…will not be sustainable for those programs.”
But the schools added have to make some sense in their own right. I’m not sure you can say that geography should trump the rest.
LikeLike
Your post seems to assume they’ll add four. Most people think it’ll be two, at most. As it is, quite a few of these schools have serious drawbacks. Finding the right two is hard enough.
Expansions are about brands and markets for football; and for some conferences, academics. Geography is something they consider, but it’s pretty far down the list.
If they add BYU (for instance), the 12th school won’t be the best program geographically close to Provo. It’ll be the best program available, almost regardless of location. (Well, I do think it’ll be in the Eastern time zone, to get West Virginia’s yes vote.)
LikeLike
I am 99% certain that the Big 12 would not do this, but a really gutsy move would be the two Florida schools, UCF and USF. Control the I 4 corridor, add two major TV markets and make a real claim to Florida as a Big 12 school. Yes, for now lousy football, small stadiums, poor support, etc.
As a longer term play, try to capture the middle of Florida and believe that games with Texas, OU, etc., will raise awareness of and interest in the Big 12 throughout the state. Try to give the Big 12 control of Texas (ignoring A & M) and grabbing a sizable stake in Florida. Florida is big enough and has enough recruits to feed one SEC school, two ACC schools and two Big 12 schools.
LikeLike
Seems like it’s going to happen, the Big XII is going to take a couple mediocre G5 programs that they hope will help them in the CFP.
Imo it dilutes the Big XII and forces the Big XII winner, much like the ACC, to be at least 12-1 to be a part of the CFP. Caveat being an impressive OOC win and 11-2 and no other strong 11-2 teams deserving. Financially it’s probably a good short-term move but long-term I don’t think you strengthen your conference by inviting the likes of Cincy, UCF, Houston, UConn, etc.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25578448/pac-12-still-finding-its-footing-in-the-power-five-college-football-playoff
Dennis Dodd describes the struggles of P12 football.
It’s not so much about an underachieving conference network and the dissatisfaction that surrounds it. This is not as much about the age-old problem of playing games while half the nation sleeps.
…
This about Pac-12 football. From this view in early May, it’s not particularly good. Oregon is down. USC is in transition with a new coach. Stanford is replacing a senior quarterback. Arizona’s junior quarterback — a two-year starter — is trying to keep his job.
Cal lost the No. 1 draft pick. Colorado is just not a factor.
The implications are ominous.
…
Meanwhile, the Pac-12 contemplates its place in the sport. The league was the odd conference out in Year 2 of the CFP, the only Power Five with a two-loss conference champion.
Stanford, 12-2, was the only Pac-12 team in the top 14 of the final CFP standings. Even after a Rose Bowl win, the Cardinal were the only team in the conference in the top 18 of the final AP poll.
…
It’s hard to find — at least for me — a Pac-12 program that will start the 2016 season in the top 10.
And if there is one, it’s Stanford. No pressure, David Shaw. Your conference is in danger of becoming the first Power Five to miss out on the College Football Playoff twice. Not only that, but it would happen in consecutive years.
“We have a mathematical issue which is, you have Power Five conferences and Notre Dame and four [playoff] spots,” Shaw added. “At some point we’re going to get to the point where we say, ‘How do we rectify this?’ There is so much parity.”
The answer, of course, is expanding the playoff but that’s not going to happen for a while.
Meanwhile, the Pac-12 must get its look together.
…
Scott has done amazing things especially for a guy with little college experience when he was hired in 2009. The failed raid on the Big 12 to form the Pac-16 at least planted the seed of how conferences could look in the future.
But the Pac-12 Network(s) were a bold idea that has failed at this point. Folks just haven’t been able to see the product as Scott struggled to get his baby on DirecTV.
Production value is great. The shows are well thought out, written and executed. The Pac-12 in 60 — game replays compressed into an hour — is a must-see.
But if no one is watching a must-see, what good is it? The decision not to partner up (ESPN? Fox?) was a mistake.
The conference overall seems to be hitting some sort of wall. Those late-night Pac-12 games? That isn’t going to change because when you sell your rights, the network(s) has/have the power to start those games whenever it wants.
…
And let’s not forget it’s going on 12 years since the Pac-12 won a national championship.
“There is a different mentality sometimes out West as far as an importance goes,” Rodriguez said. “Because of sunshine and beaches and weather. There’s a whole lot of talent out West. But there’s a lot that like football, not love it …
“You wake up in certain parts of the Southeast and Midwest and they love it. They think about it 24-7. That’s not always the case out West.”
Check the opening week schedule. The Pac-12 could be on the backburner of the national discussion before we get to Labor Day. Kansas State opens at Stanford. Arizona plays BYU in a neutral site game in Glendale, Arizona. UCLA goes to Texas A&M.
Oh wait, did we say opening week? There are still four months left before we get there. That’s 120 days to contemplate the Pac-12’s place in the universe before we next snap a ball.
“We’re still the most competitive conference out there top to bottom,” Shaw said. “We’re still going to have battles every single week that are difficult. There’s still going to be a champ at the end of this thing that knows there is a hard road.”
LikeLike
It’s easy for anyone to criticize the Pac-12 in hindsight.
But yes, it’s clear that mistakes were made by the Pac-12 in terms of its TV deals: not partnering the Pac-12 Networks and agreeing to a TV deal with so many night/late games.
Of course, back when these things were rolled out, they were seen as clear winners, but now they’re at the forefront because the Pac-12 Networks have been struggling and without USC playing great, the conference has less exposure.
Bottom line, they need to figure out the network issue pretty quickly (not sure there’s an easy fix though; cable cord cutting makes ESPN/Fox more cautious and those two each already own a majority of a conference network).
And of course, USC needs to go back to being USC…
LikeLike
Of course, back when these things were rolled out, they were seen as clear winners, but now they’re at the forefront because the Pac-12 Networks have been struggling and without USC playing great, the conference has less exposure.
Actually, I recall quite a bit of skepticism about the Pac-12 network, from the get-go. You could be right about the heavy reliance on night games: maybe everyone did think that was a clear winner. It reminds me of the BCS. The suits believed it would be a great idea to give each of the biggest games its own night of the week, and those games flopped.
And of course, USC needs to go back to being USC.
The kings always come back, though it could take a while. In 2011, the first year of the expanded Big 10, the league had four kings, none of which reached the inaugural championship game.
In 2012, two of the four kings were ineligible, Michigan backslided, and the championship game was Nebraska vs. a Wisconsin squad that had come in 3rd in its division. Wisconsin won the game, giving the Big Ten an 8-5 champion.
Everyone was writing the Big Ten’s football obituary. So naturally, Ohio State roared back the next year, and won the national championship.
LikeLike
Pac 12 Network well thought out? It’s like Maxwell Smart saying ” I like it when a plan comes together.” It is not just Direct TV that had no Pac 12 but Charter. Games in standard definition, live hoops during the Pac 12 Tournament ( ex: USC/ UCLA) not being showed in Arizona so reruns can be seen on Pac 12 Arizona. 11 million subscribers compared to 60 million plus on BTN and SEC. Did I mention how little $$$$ the member schools are getting from Pac 12 when compared to BTN? Mr. Scott needs to be beamed to Conference USA or somewhere
LikeLike
Pac 12 is very safely a P5 and even a P4 due to geography with no competition in their time zone. Pac 12 football is pretty good football just the fan support is lacking which only hurts them financially. More than anything, they need one of the ‘haves’ to join elite status; whether that be Oregon, USC, Stanford or someone else steps up. Them beating each other up only makes the conference looks worse than it really is when the football they play is quite solid.
LikeLike
Tiger,
“Pac 12 is very safely a P5 and even a P4 due to geography with no competition in their time zone. Pac 12 football is pretty good football just the fan support is lacking which only hurts them financially.”
Aye, there’s the rub. How far can they lag behind before it reduces their competitiveness? Are the willing to skimp on Olympic sports to keep up in the revenue sports? Are they willing to lower their standards to find new members? Are they willing to make sacrifices to entice Texas?
“More than anything, they need one of the ‘haves’ to join elite status; whether that be Oregon, USC, Stanford or someone else steps up.”
These things are cyclical. At some point USC will get a good coach again and be elite. UCLA might turn the corner. UW should be on the rise. Utah and CO should be improving.
“Them beating each other up only makes the conference looks worse than it really is when the football they play is quite solid.”
The curse of the 9th game, as the B10 is about to find out. The P12 has never had a 9-0 team and the B10 might take a while, too.
LikeLike
The Hofheinz family is suing the University of Houston to stop them from renaming the basketball arena, Hofheinz Pavilion. I don’t know if they’ll win. I’ll let all you lawyers on here figure that out. But Section V of their petition is the best thing I’ve read in the few legal things I’ve ever looked at.
Click to access 2016-05-04_hofheinz_petition_in_intervention___counterclaims_final.pdf
LikeLike
A deal’s a deal.
Not a good look for UH.
LikeLike
You are right. That’s tremendous. I’m a U of H fan, but I hope the Hofheinz descendants kick its ass.
LikeLike
I have no legal knowledge, so this may be a stupid question, but…there’s a prayer section to their petition? That’s a thing?
LikeLike
Yes, that is a thing. It is a “Prayer for Relief”. They certainly did not have to use that particular language, but it is a real thing.
LikeLike
Q: I’d like to direct your attention to what I believe would be a spring break of 2002, around that time. Do you recall Michael McQueary calling you and asking to have a discussion with you about something that he observed?
Mr. Paterno: I’m not sure of the date, but he did call me on a Saturday morning. He said he had something that he wanted to discuss. I said, come on over to the house.
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Mr. Paterno: In the shower.
Q: When did you — did you do something with that information?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I can’t be precise.
I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.
LikeLike
Well, you have to have priorities. You don’t want to ruin someone’s weekend over a little thing like that. Nor would you want to bother the police.
LikeLike
> You don’t want to ruin someone’s weekend over a little thing like that.
More confirmation bias. (Yawn. 😉
That’s what Paterno actually testified to, but after 10 years his recollection was wrong. From the Freeh report:
“On Sunday, February 11, 2001, Schultz had a conference call about the ‘reporting of suspected child abuse’ with Penn State’s then outside legal counsel, Wendell Courtney. Courtney conducted legal research on this issue and had another conference that day with Schultz about the matter. Courtney charged 2.9 hours of time to Penn State for his legal work. Courtney’s work on the 2001 matter is confirmed in an email Courtney sent to Schultz in 2011 when Penn State received subpoenas for testimony by Schultz and others concerning the criminal investigation of Sandusky.”
In other words, Paterno was informed by Mike McQueary on Saturday morning, February 10, 2001. By the next day, Sunday, Paterno had travelled to and from a speaking engagement in Pittsburgh, read the Penn State handbook on the proper reporting procedure, and followed the Penn State handbook to a T by meeting with and reporting the incident to his boss Tim Curley.
Brian, I hate to be a broken record, but …
Just two more questions, for the record:
1. Have you read the Freeh report?
2. Did you find any problems with it?
(Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
You seem to think that disproves what we wrote when it just backs us up.
He heard about it on Saturday and didn’t report it until later. Greg quoted the testimony and you support it. I also pointed out the neither he nor McQueary called the police and you support that.
LikeLike
> You seem to think that disproves what we wrote when it just backs us up.
Uh, nice try, Brian, but no. The bolded quote is:
“but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends”
and your response is
“You don’t want to ruin someone’s weekend over a little thing like that.”
Your clear implication is that Paterno was both callous and waited all weekend to report. Indeed, neither of these implications is true.
There is no evidence that Paterno was callous or that he waited all weekend – or that he waited even a day. We just don’t know. At worst, his meeting with Tim Curley happened on Sunday, after he’d referred to the Penn State handbook and fulfilled a speaking engagement in Pittsburgh on Saturday.
For all we know, Brian, if they met on Sunday (i.e., during the weekend) instead of Saturday, it was Tim Curley who delayed the meeting, and Joe relayed the information over the phone on Saturday. We just don’t know.
Confirmation bias.
> I also pointed out the neither he nor McQueary called the police and you support that.
Yeah, why didn’t McQueary call the police? That’s a good question and a real mystery, given what he testified to 10 years later, after getting caught sending pictures of his junk via his PSU cell phone to a woman not his wife.
In any case, do you know what the Penn State handbook recommended? Do you know what the lawyer recommended? Do you know what Pennsylvania law about reporting child abuse was at the time? (Rhetorical questions: I’m sure you don’t.)
Here, by the way, is what the NCAA handbook recommends TODAY:
“know and follow campus protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate campus offices for investigation and adjudication” and “cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere” with investigations.
(http://www.centredaily.com/news/article42861264.html)
In other words, Paterno did exactly what the NCAA handbook recommends today.
—
Again, just two more questions, for the record:
1. Have you read the Freeh report?
2. Did you find any problems with it?
(Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
I fail to see any directive to not call the police when you witness a felony. Of course you should also inform the appropriate campus officials, but feel free to find one expert on the legalities that suggests a witness should never report a felony to the police but to administrators instead.
LikeLike
> I fail to see any directive to not call the police when you
> witness a felony.
Of course not. There isn’t one.
If you think Mike McQueary should have called the police, join the club. But Mike didn’t even tell his father and father’s best friend (a doctor) that he witnessed anything sexual. They testified that they pressed him on this three times on the night of the incident, and three times he said he didn’t see anything sexual. He only heard sounds he thought were sexual.
Paterno didn’t witness a felony. And McQueary has been consistent that he didn’t tell Paterno details.
Clearly you don’t understand Pennsylvania law in 2001 and the way reporting worked then. If you called the police, they would tell you to call CYS, because the police didn’t (and don’t) handle reports of child abuse. Due to the nature of the offense – i.e., the trauma to the child and the stigma attached to anyone who is falsely accused – child abuse allegations are investigated by trained professionals working under strict secrecy.
So the more appropriate action would have been to call CYS, and Curley and/or Schultz (both? – I forget) have testified that they called CYS. Freeh says (without evidence) that they didn’t. The rumors are that there is a CYS witness who says they did. I’ll probably find out when you do if the rumor is true.
On the other hand, everyone agrees that Curley called and made a report to the head of The Second Mile, who was actually a mandated reporter. The child abuse reporting law stated not that mandated reporters must actually report child abuse suspicions, but that a mandated reporter “shall report or cause a report to be made”. Make of that what you will – we’ll see what the lawyer, Wendell Courtney, says he advised if he testifies. In any case, it sure is weird that the head of a children’s charity – a mandated reporter – was told of suspicions, decided not to report, and has suffered no blowback. (“Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?” Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that’s what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind.) Why is that?
There is much more to this story than meets the eye at first glance.
Federal and state investigations are still ongoing.
—
Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
Anyone know where I can find a blog about college sports, business of same, conference and team achievement and/or issues, and NCAA/CFP concerns?
LikeLike
Unfortunately there’s a conspiracy to prevent all talk about such subjects on the internet. Would you settle for a LOLcat or two?
I’ll put Carl back in my mental kill file now. I should know better than to talk to crazies by now.
LikeLike
> I’ll put Carl back in my mental kill file now. I should
> know better than to talk to crazies by now.
Okay, let’s wrap this up. Today was a good day.
As I’ve told you before, Brian, I sometimes engage you to put on record that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I am consistently surprised by how much you argue given how little you know.
You answered my first three questions, but three times today I asked you two followup questions that you didn’t answer. My assumption is that you didn’t answer because you haven’t read the Freeh report and didn’t find any problems with it. If my assumption is wrong, I look forward to a correction from you, and then I will correct the record.
Here is the record:
1. Brian believes the Freeh report was independent.
2. Brian believes the Freeh report provided evidence of a Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier conspiracy.
3. Brian does not believe the Freeh report was itself part of a conspiracy.
4*. Brian has not read the Freeh report.
5*. Brian did not find any problems with the Freeh report.
6. Brian could not care less (“YAWN.”, “I really couldn’t care less.”) but sure has a lot to say.
Keep watching, Brian! I can’t wait to find out which one of us is crazy! 😉
(*) Assumptions based on repeated refusal to answer.
LikeLike
I am a Penn State fan but by no means a Paterno crazy. I even said Sandusky and what happened was worse then SMU( I will even go Black Sox of 1919). But That said, if you watch the last several years of football you would know he was essentially King Lear, and he had no idea what was really happening. Now if his mind was clear and he knew what was happening that is different, I am really into legal niceties.
LikeLike
I meant NOT into legal niceties the tablet has a mind of its own
LikeLike
And that’s fair. That’s what makes these recent allegations so bad – they’re from 1976 and the late 80s when JoePa was on top of his game.
LikeLike
Not that I am in charge and not that this is my blog, but maybe we should refrain from linking? I foresee a “drip drip drip” (or splash splash splash) of stories over the next week or two. NBC now (and I assume other media) has posted details from Victim A (from the early 1970s). If you expect/want legal niceties, there are none. But … wow. If true, more than “wow.” (I admit I am skeptical.)
I also did not know there had been 27 (or 30) settlements by PSU (the number varies from article to article). again, wow.
Finally, are the lawyers advising PSU complete morons? You settle this lawsuit if you are competent at your job.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Not that I am in charge and not that this is my blog, but maybe we should refrain from linking?”
Why? Is this not a relevant topic for this blog? We certainly discussed the previous round in depth, and this is a major story.
“I foresee a “drip drip drip” (or splash splash splash) of stories over the next week or two. NBC now (and I assume other media) has posted details from Victim A (from the early 1970s). If you expect/want legal niceties, there are none. But … wow. If true, more than “wow.” (I admit I am skeptical.)”
You can wonder if the alleged victims are lying about either the abuse or telling someone, but what possible reason would coaches have to lie about witnessing abuse and not reporting it? It just makes them look terrible and protects a school they don’t work for anymore.
“I also did not know there had been 27 (or 30) settlements by PSU (the number varies from article to article). again, wow.”
Yep. And these sorts of facts are exactly why we shouldn’t stop talking about this. People need to know the full extent of what happened.
“Finally, are the lawyers advising PSU complete morons? You settle this lawsuit if you are competent at your job.”
They didn’t want to pay the $60M. What I really want to find out is how the insurance company found these earlier allegations while others didn’t. Are they really the first people to look hard for more victims?
LikeLike
> Yep. And these sorts of facts are exactly why we
> shouldn’t stop talking about this. People need to
> know the full extent of what happened.
I’m glad you’re coming around, Brian. I’ve been saying the same thing since 2012, but every time I say it here someone comes out of the woodwork and calls me crazy. Go figure.
Yes, people do need to know the full extent of what happened. As I’ve been saying, it didn’t start in 1998, it wasn’t because of Paterno, and it’s not even all about Sandusky. (Keep watching, Brian.)
> What I really want to find out is how the insurance
> company found these earlier allegations while
> others didn’t. Are they really the first people to look
> hard for more victims?
How the insurance company found the earlier allegations while others didn’t?
You might want to reread the stories and think about them carefully. [Hint: what would motivate an insurance company to look at (alleged) victims’ stories?]
At least some of the people in these stories live in State College and are well known. You might want to do a little research to avoid future surprises.
Once you’ve done that, then you might consider when Ganim may have discovered the victim she talked to in her story and why the story is being published now. (In case you don’t know/remember, Ganim is a Penn State grad.)
BTW, you might also want to check out the accuracy of Ganim’s 2011-2012 Pulitzer Prize winning stories and how she obtained her info. It might prove surprising …
LikeLike
> Yep. And these sorts of facts are exactly why we
> shouldn’t stop talking about this.
> What I really want to find out is how the insurance
> company found these earlier allegations while
> others didn’t. Are they really the first people to look
> hard for more victims?
Hey, Brian, have you been able to figure out yet why the insurance company was looking into stories of child rape? If not, let me know and I’ll share what I’ve been able to come up with so far.
Changing the subject slightly, since you’re thinking about these things now, would you see any potential legal issues for the PSU BoT if they spent millions of dollars on payouts to people who PSU’s insurance company claims weren’t really victims?
Maybe you can help me with another question I’ve been wondering about: what if they spent millions of dollars on payouts to people who *were* victims of Sandusky but for whom PSU had no legal liability? Could there be any potential legal problems in this case?
(In case they’d help, Penn State’s charter and articles of incorporation are available on the Internet.)
Here, just one more issue I’m struggling with. It’s far out, I know, but I just can’t seem to wrap my brain around it: What if the Freeh report had originally been scripted to protect certain BoT members against other legal liabilities? In the context of the victim payouts (and fines, and loss of bowl revenue, etc.), could there be any legal issues here?
Please let me know what you think – I’m having such trouble putting it all together.
(You may not remember, but Erickson said that the payouts were fine because they would be covered by insurance.)
Oh, one last thing. Have you been able to ascertain yet through your research the likelihood that Ganim’s story is true? I so agree with you – it’s really important to talk about these things. And I’m so happy to see that you’re proactively helping child rape victims. It’s refreshing! So many people just pay them lip service.
LikeLike
Carl (May 7, 2016 at 6:13 pm):
> At least some of the people in these
> stories live in State College and are
> well known. You might want to do a
> little research to avoid future surprises.
> BTW, you might also want to check out
> the accuracy of Ganim’s 2011-2012
> Pulitzer Prize winning stories … It
> might prove surprising …
How does it happen that a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist — originator of almost all the national stories on the “facts” of the Sandusky case — uses well-known local crackpot Bernie McCue as the source for her recent story about 1970’s “Victim A”?
(Ganim is the reporter who received the leaked, sensationalized — and, since the Sandusky trial, proven to be wildly inaccurate — Sandusky grand jury presentment.)
Then — when people recognize that McCue’s story is that he was “good friend[s]” with the alleged victim when he was ~35 and the alleged victim was at most 17 — McCue changes his story and disses Ganim’s reporting:
(Link isn’t to the original tweet because McCue subsequently shut down his Twitter account.)
As if this isn’t already strange enough, on April 16, 2016 — BEFORE GANIM PUBLISHED HER STORY — McCue, who claims to have known the “Victim A” story since early 1972, tweeted the following:
—
Bernie McCue @BernieMcCue · Apr 16
@VexPith @FlMtNittany I have a degree from PS, taught math @PS, attended many football games & respected Joe until the scandal broke in 2011
—
(https://www.scribd.com/doc/313168608/Tweets-With-Replies-by-Bernie-McCue-BernieMcCue-Twitter-1 — Link isn’t to the original tweet. Not only did McCue subsequently shut down his Twitter account, but he had already deleted this tweet once Ganim’s story was published.)
So … Ganim’s source knew of Paterno’s cover-up of sexual abuse since 1972 and still “respected Joe until the scandal broke in 2011”.
The reporting in this case boggles the mind — as does what some people will believe once they hear a story that’s too good to check …
Brian (May 8, 2016 at 12:43 pm):
> Could they all be lying? Sure, anything’s possible.
It is you who have said it.
Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
Hopefully the 1970’s (alleged) victims’ stories will finally be vetted, something Penn State failed to do before making the payouts. Let the chips fall where they may …
“BELLEFONTE – A Potter County senior judge asked lawyers for Joe Paterno’s family and the NCAA to try to develop a plan to vet the stories of two 1970s-era sexual abuse victims of longtime Paterno assistant Jerry Sandusky.”
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/07/judge_opens_door_to_deposition.html
LikeLike
If those allegations are proven, and Joe Paterno’s mind was sound and he covered it up/ enabled Jerry Sandusky, I have no problem throwing Joe Paterno out of the Hall Of Fame. But what you see people doing these days is dragging people through the mud for money ( for those who are not happy with Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump this is a reason why. Many qualified people do not want to see themselves ( or worse family) and have every mistake they and ( or) family ever made on TV exposed on TV so they avoid public service). Even worse are unfounded alligations like Bush was responsible for 9/11 or Obama is a traitor. The main reason why Sandusky happened ( besides himself and the pursuit of money. By the likes of Penn State President Gerald Spannier) is Penn State is very isolated and elitist ( this from Penn State’s biggest booster on this blog). No child should be molested, and defenders of it ( like those who want that Paterno Statue back up, like he is Christ, Abe Lincoln, or a war hero) should really question themselves. But those ( like in Oakland, PA ( Pitt Campus)) who somehow see this tragedy ( which it is) as a victory for their School should shut up as well.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“But what you see people doing these days is dragging people through the mud for money ( for those who are not happy with Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump this is a reason why. ”
I understand wanting to have all the facts before reaching any conclusions. I’ll just point out that 2 of the allegations are assistant coaches saying they saw abuse and didn’t report it. They have no financial stake here and it just makes them look bad to not have reported it. Can you think of any reason they’d lie in this fashion? The real question is how did they not tell JoePa at some point, especially since one of the claims has one coach telling several other assistants about it. Are we supposed to believe that not one of them bothered to tell JoePa or anyone else? It’s possible, but it’s hard to imagine.
“But those ( like in Oakland, PA ( Pitt Campus)) who somehow see this tragedy ( which it is) as a victory for their School should shut up as well.”
Yes, there are no winners here. But I assume those Pitt fans are mighty sick of the Joebots they’ve had to put with these past few years on top of PSU elitism throughout JoePa’s tenure. The desire to cut others down to size is an unfortunate aspect of human nature.
LikeLike
Maybe this can get the subject changed just a bit.
Bluevod
@Bluevodreal
Hearing NC academic fraud and being on probation for accreditation may stop them from Big 10.https://twitter.com/bluevodreal
LikeLike
By the time that NC to the B1G is a serious possible issue, this whole story will be old news.
LikeLike
Pretty sure he’s just trying to cover for him not knowing anything and previously predicting UNC to the Big Ten. I have no doubt he’s wrong about UNC being on probation for accreditation as well.
LikeLike
You’re saying UNC isn’t on probation?
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/06/12/accrediting-body-places-unc-probation
I believe they were placed on probation for 1 year. Not sure if/when that expires.
LikeLike
The year is about to end (probably the standard 7/1-6/30 year), but SACS can decide to extend it for another year if they feel UNC needs more time to reach compliance status. SACS is about to decide what to do soon.
Click to access UNC%20Chapel%20Hill%20CDC.pdf
What will happen in June 2016?
The SACSCOC Board of Trustees will consider the accreditation status of UNC-Chapel Hill following review of a First Monitoring Report submitted by the institution addressing the standards cited above for non-compliance, and the report of a Special Committee that will visit the institution in spring 2016. The Board will have the following options: (1) remove the institution from Probation without an additional report; (2) continue accreditation and continue the institution on Probation, authorize a Special Committee, and request an additional report; and (3) remove the institution from membership with SACS Commission on Colleges for failure to comply with the Principles of Accreditation. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the SACSCOC Board of Trustees in June 2016.
LikeLike
Should have clarified, I meant anything additional as a result of the ongoing/updated investigation. So far as I can tell, nothing new is coming from that in terms of the academic side.
LikeLike
By the time that NC to the B1G is a serious possible issue, this whole story will be old news.
This.
Expansion is a 100-year decision. Assuming the Big Ten could get UNC (hardly a sure thing), they’re not saying no to that. Bluevod’s logic is the identical logic that, according to some fans, was going to get Penn State kicked out of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I’d think that the worst it could do is put a hold on things until it’s concluded. My understanding is that they are on probation and if they do not do enough that probation could be extended (or greater actions taken). Somewhere I read that members of the accreditation group did not think they (UNC) was taking it serious enough.
In that respect I could see there being a hold up. Think of the negative press involved in letting UNC join if they then got hammered further. No reason to rush things.
LikeLike
Right, but other than Bluevod fantasies, there’s not a credible scenario for UNC leaving the ACC anytime before the early/mid-2020s, as the Grant of Rights approaches expiration. By then, these issues will almost certainly be in the rear-view mirror.
LikeLike
Yes. The only way this gets extended so far that it impinges on perceptions 7+ years in the future is if there is an additional scandal, in which case it is that additional scandal which is the primary problem and this turns into the sign that there were more serious problems waiting to be uncovered.
I hope that doesn’t happen, as one of our best students among the sophomore class is weighing up offers to UNC, UVA, Maryland & Wake Forest, and seems to be leaning toward UNC.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“By the time that NC to the B1G is a serious possible issue, this whole story will be old news.”
Agreed. 7+ years is forever for a story like this unless another major shoe drops and UNC gets hammered athletically (death penalty) or academically (loss of accreditation).
LikeLike
Kyle Peter,
“Maybe this can get the subject changed just a bit. ”
He also says:
* The end game is superconferences of 20 but “may not happen this round.”
* The FBI is looking into the Tunsil/Ole Miss case despite their spokesman denying it
And there’s a link to an article saying ND is considering joining the B10.
http://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/michigan/rumblings-notre-dame-could-have-eye-on-joining-big-ten/
The article is mostly worthless, but has a couple of recent Tim Brando tweets of interest:
Sources tell me the ACC Network (long anticipated)may happen sooner than some expect. Keeping an eye on Notre Dame. BIG10 remains an option
— Tim Brando (@TimBrando) May 3, 2016
@joeovies prestige means nothing. Ratings mean nothing! The only thing that truly matters? The SIZE of the check. Period.
— Tim Brando (@TimBrando) May 3, 2016
Other recent Brando tweets:
* [B12 expansion] It won’t happen. The only school that makes financial sense for the BIG12 is BYU,and there scheduling issues are sadly a problem
* An ACCN will happen, but probably not a linear channel
* He believes the ACCN will bring enough money to force ND to join the ACC in CFB. Then UConn would be the logical #16.
* The ACC going to 16 will force B12 expansion if it doesn’t happen now, but a CCG will happen ASAP
* CFB needs and will eventually have a commissioner
LikeLike
The only school that makes financial sense for the BIG12 is BYU,and there scheduling issues are sadly a problem….
Sorry, I don’t buy it. Expansion is 95% about football, and BYU plays football the same days as everyone else.
For the Olympic sports, the only constraint is that BYU won’t play on Sundays, and there are plenty of ways around that. BYU has been in one league or other for a long time, and somehow they always managed it.
LikeLike
I agree with you.
LikeLike
I think this as a Texas writer.
http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/06/the-big-12-is-already-dead-kill-the-expansion-chatter/
LikeLike
You lose Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M and there were and are no suitable replacements. Only U. Texas and U. Oklahoma have any hope of remaining in a P4.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Texas Tech and OSU will hope to be add ons; Kansas has a chance to be a partner if Oklahoma splits from the rest…
But yes, only Oklahoma and Texas control their destinies.
LikeLike
I’m not 100% positive Oklahoma does after the difficulty they encountered looking towards the B1G & Pac when it looked like the B12 was going to disintegrate.
LikeLike
@Skarlet_lutefisk has a point. It may be that only Texas has the power to be a first mover. However, there is no credible scenario where Oklahoma gets left by the side of the road.
For all of the other current Big 12 schools, there is at least a chance—in a few cases, I’d call it an extremely good chance—that if the league breaks up, they’d land in a far worse spot than they are now. That’s one worry that Oklahoma does not have.
LikeLike
Just like Texas the Sooners will be fine. The SEC, PAC ( or as I suspect) B10 are options for them. The Jayhawks with their strong hoops will be also be fine. I think Oklahoma State and Texas Tech find homes as well. Baylor or TCU might as well. The screwed schools will be Iowa State, Kansas State, and possibly West Virginia. I think the most logical grouping is UT, Tech, Ok State and probably TCU heading West. OU and KU to the B10, WVA to the ACC ( they hope) or AAC, and The others to AAC or Mountain West. The fly in the ointment is of course, Bevo. Maybe they get a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC ( especially if the ACC believes ND is leaving), or they head there outright with Tech? I think KU will be the most likely to end up in the Big 10, then OU, ND and UT in that order.
LikeLike
The writer tosses out an old chestnut that, I think, demands a serious critique: “Equilibrium is probably four, closed off, 16-team super conferences.”
At no time in history, have all the power conferences had the same number of teams. They are independent actors, pursuing different and selfish agendas, which at times are mutually contradictory.
For the Big Ten to reach 14 teams, three other leagues needed to lose members they would have desperately preferred to keep. For the ACC to get to 14, it needed to pillage the Big East. And so on.
They are not all going to simultaneously agree to expand to precisely 16 members, and stop there.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. But it could happen.
Plausible steps:
1. B12 fractures when the GoR ends and UT, TT, OU and OkSU finally join the P12
2. B10 gets UNC and UVA when the ACC GoR ends
3. SEC taken NCSU and VT
4. ND joins ACC along with UConn, UC, WV
5. ACC adds TCU and BYU for football only
That gets us to:
P16 – 16
B10 – 16
SEC – 16
ACC – 16
Left out in the cold:
Boise, ISU, KU, KSU, Baylor, TCU’s other sports (MVC?)
LikeLike
Wouldn’t #5 have KU to the ACC, with either TCU or BYU?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Wouldn’t #5 have KU to the ACC, with either TCU or BYU?”
It could, but I don’t think the ACC wants to add all that travel for minimal value. KU football has negative value and hoops might not even cover it. The sports outside of FB for BYU/TCU don’t add much value if any. Then add all the other sports having to travel to KS and TX/UT and I think the ACC would lose money adding KU and a western partner.
Just get BYU football (WCC has the rest) and travel is a non-factor while gaining a lot of CFB value. TCU is the same way plus you get visibility in TX. Anyway, it’s just aplausible list, not the only plausible list.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. I just thought a pair (travel partners) of approximately similar distance, including a BB blue blood…
Just can’t see KU being left out.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Oh, I agree. I just thought a pair (travel partners) of approximately similar distance, including a BB blue blood…
Just can’t see KU being left out.”
I struggled with the same issue. On the surface it seems impossible. But once you look at individual steps it becomes possible. KU’s best hope for a new home is the B10, and that didn’t happen in this scenario because OU went west and the B10 went east. Maybe if the SEC gets UNC and UVA then the B10 would consider KU and VT?
Perhaps the SEC would be interested to pair them with MO and add another AAU school along with a rival for UK, but getting into NC and VA seemed like higher priorities for them (KU and UNC/NCSU instead?).
The P12 probably isn’t interested unless KU can replace OkSU.
I’m just not sure the ACC gets enough value from KU, especially without a standard ACCN.
LikeLike
The ACC is not going to add UConn and Cincinnati and ignore Kansas. That’s about as likely as Ohio St. skipping this latest B1G deal and heading to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Looking at what the ACC would already have at 14 including Notre Dame after losing UNC & UVA, and the imagined schools on the board when they reload I’m not sure they don’t add two western pairs of travel partners, Kansas & KS St, TCU & Baylor, and spoil the OCD symmetry of the 4×16.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The ACC is not going to add UConn and Cincinnati and ignore Kansas.”
What value does KU bring to the ACC?
1. The ACC already has huge MBB brands. Besides, UC is a decent brand in MBB and CFB and UConn matches KU in MBB. We also know the MBB never drives expansion decisions because the money isn’t there.
2. KC isn’t a huge market. UC brings Cincinnati and OH access while UConn helps the ACC in Boston and NYC (especially with ND also on board).
3. KU is almost 650 miles from ND (the closest ACC team in this scenario). Why would the ACC want to send all their Olympic sports so far?
4. KU football provides negative value. UC is decent and at least UConn is inside the existing footprint and mediocre.
5. KU is AAU (for now). UC and UConn are decent schools, both Carnegie Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity. UConn is #57 in USN&WR while UC is #140 (KU is #115).
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Looking at what the ACC would already have at 14 including Notre Dame after losing UNC & UVA, and the imagined schools on the board when they reload I’m not sure they don’t add two western pairs of travel partners, Kansas & KS St, TCU & Baylor, and spoil the OCD symmetry of the 4×16.”
That’s possible, but I was looking for a set of plausible steps that could make 4×16 happen. That said, why would they want KSU?
LikeLike
I was looking for a set of plausible steps that could make 4×16 happen.
I think you achieved that. At the same time, for it to happen, an awful lot of coincidences would need to line up just perfectly. That’s why I am skeptical of the idea that the four surviving leagues would agree among themselves to conveniently align in a 4×16 format. They could very well do that, but it would be a coincidence, it’s not the most likely outcome, and it probably wouldn’t last.
I’m not sure they don’t add two western pairs of travel partners, Kansas & KS St, TCU & Baylor, and spoil the OCD symmetry of the 4×16.
The notion of a “travel partner” is vastly overrated. No doubt Kansas and KState would love to stay in the same league, but most of their travel (and most of everyone else’s) would still be very long distances.
LikeLike
KU is one of the 4 basketball true bluebloods. ACC is a basketball conference. Plus KU is part of the “club” as well as being part of the AAU club. And KU has had two top 10 seasons in the last 20 or so years. UConn has never finished the season ranked and has only been FBS for a dozen years. Cincinnati has one in their history and most of their history has been dismal. KU is a far better football program than either of those.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think you achieved that. At the same time, for it to happen, an awful lot of coincidences would need to line up just perfectly. That’s why I am skeptical of the idea that the four surviving leagues would agree among themselves to conveniently align in a 4×16 format. They could very well do that, but it would be a coincidence, it’s not the most likely outcome, and it probably wouldn’t last.”
I agree 100%. It could happen, but it wouldn’t be a planned outcome. As for whether or not it would last, it depends who misses the final cut. There are 65 P5 schools now. If a few of the best G5 get moved up while a few of the weaker P5 get dropped, who else will ever get moved up later? The financial gap between a P4 and the G6 would be so big as to make competition almost impossible. Maybe schools like UCF or USF could grow into powerful programs based on size and location, but it’s doubtful. We know the P5 like to keep all the money for themselves, so why grow the pool if you don’t need to.
LikeLike
bullet,
“KU is one of the 4 basketball true bluebloods.”
Yes.
“ACC is a basketball conference.”
Something the football schools have been pushing to change. That’s why UConn isn’t in already.
“Plus KU is part of the “club” as well as being part of the AAU club.”
AAU means much less to the ACC. “Club” membership means next to nothing except for their own club (other ACC members).
“And KU has had two top 10 seasons in the last 20 or so years. UConn has never finished the season ranked and has only been FBS for a dozen years. Cincinnati has one in their history and most of their history has been dismal. KU is a far better football program than either of those.”
I never claimed UConn was a decent football program. But UC is clearly better than KU while UConn is on par.
Past 20 years W%:
35. UC 0.589
80. UConn 0.469
103. KU 0.371 (tougher conference)
Past 20 years BCS bowls:
UC – 2
UConn – 1
KU – 1
Past 20 years AP poll points:
55. UC – 23,053
57. KU – 20,635
88. UConn – 1874
2015 attendance:
UC – 37,096
UConn – 28,224
KU – 27,282 (better conference)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd: “The notion of a “travel partner” is vastly overrated. No doubt Kansas and KState would love to stay in the same league, but most of their travel (and most of everyone else’s) would still be very long distances.”
The travel partner’s travel distances have nothing to do with travel partners, and the long distances involves are the point of travel partners: without long distances, there is no substantial benefit to having them.
And they are not just about cost, either. Long trips are additional stresses on student athletes, and combining two games at the travel partners in the same trip reduces the total stress.
And if OK State are good enough to be attractive to get into the current class of PAC-12, it seems to me that Kansas State would be good enough to be attractive to a wounded ACC.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
Didn’t OU/OkSU get (supposedly) denied by the PAC?
LikeLike
“At no time in history, have all the power conferences had the same number of teams. They are independent actors, pursuing different and selfish agendas, which at times are mutually contradictory.”
Even more, they are membership clubs composed of over 60 independent actors, pursuing different and selfish agendas.
Just because we sometimes talk about them as if they are corporations, they remain cooperatives, with all of the petty parochial concerns that have so often in history prevented cooperatives from pursuing grand strategic visions.
LikeLike
Some more rumors about why Connor Cook dropped in the draft:
1. He’s super arrogant.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state-university/spartans/2016/04/30/personality-issues-caused-connor-cooks-fall-draft/83773076/
But even though Cook has the talent to contribute in the NFL, sources made it clear why he slid so far in the draft. Teams view Cook as arrogant, a player whose personality flaws could be an issue in a locker room full of alpha males.
…
Cook not being a captain as a senior was an obvious red flag, but considering the undeniable leadership of center Jack Allen, that might’ve been an issue teams could overlook. Instead, as teams questioned Cook’s leadership, they found other reasons to lower his stock.
“His teammates haven’t spoken well of him through the draft process,” one high-ranking NFC scout said. “Just not a leader and doesn’t have top QB intangibles.”
…
As much as Cook contributed to Michigan State’s impressive 36-5 record the past three years, teams also had doubts about his accuracy, particularly on short passes.
Of the 14 quarterbacks drafted this year, only one had a lower completion percentage than Cook’s 56.1 percent – Penn State’s Christian Hackenberg at 53.5 percent. And unlike Hackenberg, two of Cook’s offensive linemen were drafted, Jack Conklin in the first round and Donavon Clark in the seventh.
One NFL agent described Cook as having Kobe Bryant’s cockiness without the skills to match. Skipping the Senior Bowl and acting as if he had already earned the right to be a highly-selected quarterback during the pre-draft process rubbed many NFL people the wrong way.
“Have you ever met someone who looks you up and down just to dismiss you? That’s Cook,” the agent said.
2. Apparently, the NFL pays attention to the parents of QBs and Cook’s dad is a real jackass.
http://detroitsportsrag.net/is-connor-cooks-dad-curt-schilling/#more-7716
One of Spiro’s national sources told him that part of the reason that Cook was going to fall was because the NFL really delves into the background of potential QUARTERBACK draftees’ fathers.
Whether you think that is appropriate or not doesn’t matter. We were told that NFL executives believe there is some correlation between how a QB pans out and their sire.
…
Anyway, speaking of shooting the messenger, there is a reason I am telling you all of this today.
You see, Cook’s dad — Chris Cook — appeared on our radar over the last 48 hours. Now, keep in mind we were already being told that Papa Cook’s personality was somehow deflating his son’s draft stock.
…
Anyway, here is the racist, homophobic and horrendous grammar we found in @ChrisCook90’s Twitter timeline:
[lots of terrible tweets]
…
After I went on a Twitter rampage this afternoon highlighting all of these toxic social media missives, I was contacted by a source who stated it was well known around East Lansing that parents of other athletes had made it clear to MSU officials that they DID NOT want to sit near Chris Cook during games.
LikeLike
If I were running an NFL team and came across Chris Cook’s tweets, it would give me pause. It would be difficult for Connor Cook to have grown up in that environment, and not have some of it rub off.
Of course, it may be unfair to tar the son with the sins of the father, but the choice of whom to draft is a big decision, and NFL teams can go about it however they want.
LikeLike
Brian has an agenda which is ” I Hate Penn State” and is as dogmatic as the Paterno crazies, and is
far beyond even Cardiac Hill ( Pitt Panther Blog). No one should want more victims ( Hate Joe Paterno or not). Its like he wants it to be true so more dirt can be thrown on Penn State, and maybe Penn State might get shut down for good ( not just the football program). There are lots of disgusting elitist people out there not just Sandusky. That includes Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert ( maybe we should shut down the Republican Party because of him?). Did I forget the degenerates in Hollywood? If this is true and I hope not (for reasons that have zero to do with Joe Paterno and everything to do with abused children), then throw him out of the Hall Of Fame. I have no problem with that. But that needs to be proven as fact and not National Enquirer level speculation.
LikeLike
Well so much for the “I’m not one of those crazy PSU fans” claim.
But please tell us more about the degenerates in Hollywood and how that applies to the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by a school administration.
LikeLike
Ummm
I actually don’t hate PSU. In fact, I’m almost entirely ambivalent about them outside of wanting OSU to beat them in athletic activities.
I can’t speak to how I compare with Cardiac Hill as I’ve never been there.
I certainly don’t want more victims, and that seems unlikely with Sandusky in jail, but I do hope all the actual victims are found and get the help they need and deserve.
I don’t want any allegation of abuse to be true because that means someone got hurt. I also don’t want any false allegations made because that hurts too. I do want all the truth to come out, preferably all at once so we can move past this issue once and for all. I don’t care if the truth hurts anyone who wasn’t a victim of the abuse, they need to live with their actions/inaction.
The dirt doesn’t fall on PSU, it falls on the people involved (Sandusky, anyone who witnessed abuse and didn’t report it to a higher up/police, anyone who was told about abuse and didn’t report it to a higher up/police). The school didn’t do it, the alumni didn’t do it, the fans didn’t do it. And nobody is trying to shut down PSU over the things that happened.
The only thing PSU and its fans have been accused of is unintentionally creating an environment where the head football coach and the reputation of the football program became so central to their identity that horrible actions were hidden (and thus more victims created) to preserve reputations. All P5 schools are somewhere on this spectrum but I think we all agree this went too far.
You were the one who brought up the word elitist. I used it because you already had, which I thought would make it unobjectionable.
LikeLike
With Joe dead, the 3 stooges trying to stay or get out of jail and everyone else fighting over money, I don’t think its likely the truth is ever clear.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I used the term elitist when describing Penn State because sad to say, it is accurate. For example: One of the people( Gary Schultz) involved in the Sandusky cover up had the Penn State Child Care Center named after him. They also named the Student Center after the Communist Paul Robeson. I am not defending Schultz, Sandusky, Former Penn State Graham President Spannier, Joe Paterno, the crazies or anyone else. Let me tell you I have taken a lot of teasing
from people I know who bring up this ugly incident because they know that I love Penn State. ( it’s like being a Yankee and Steeler fan you know you are a target). But the one thing they know is I will not jump on or off a band wagon and ( or) hide my allegiance towards Penn State. Even here on this blog, I use my real name ( David Brown), place where I live ( Mesa, Arizona) and leave no doubt who I root for. At the same time when PSU is wrong I will say they are wrong, that is called having credibility, and when it comes to a disgusting incident like Sandusky, even more so. But I am not going to allow Pitt Panther fans and other Penn State haters who see this as an opportunity to bury my School. Even though they stunk ( especially against Ohio State and Michigan State) they are still MY Nittany Lions.
LikeLike
I’m sharing this link only because Brian says it’s so important to talk about these things. 😉
Why this response from Barron now?
[Hint to Brian: Fiduciary duty / fiduciary breach. Freeh report. Wait until you hear the real story behind the recent news stories. If you had any curiosity, you could discover the truth for yourself and not have to be spoon-fed. As I’ve been trying to tell you for a few years now, keep watching! ;-)]
http://news.psu.edu/story/409338/2016/05/08/president/president-shares-letter-university-community-regarding-recent
President shares letter with University community regarding recent media reports
May 8, 2016
Dear Friends:
Over the past few days, allegations have surfaced from individuals who claim to be Sandusky victims and from unidentified individuals about the alleged knowledge of former University employees. None of these allegations about the supposed knowledge of University employees has been substantiated in a court of law or in any other process to test their veracity.
I want you to know I am appalled by the rumor, innuendo and rush to judgment that have accompanied the media stories surrounding these allegations. All too often in our society, people are convicted in the court of public opinion, only to find a different outcome when all the facts are presented.
In contrast, over the last two days we have worked to be diligent in reanalyzing the record of reports and depositions to ensure that our reactions and comments are both responsible and trustworthy.
First, the allegations related to Penn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them.
Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report. Others cite assistant coaches that were witnesses or had knowledge – stating it as fact in headlines and text – even in the face of a denial and clear failure to corroborate from the individuals allegedly involved. Other stories are clearly incredulous, and should be difficult for any reasonable person to believe. We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.
I can think of few crimes as heinous as the sexual assault of a child. We are, as individuals and as an institution, appalled by Sandusky’s actions, and unified in our commitment to prevention, treatment and education. I encourage you to visit this link for information on Penn State’s commitment.
Unfortunately, we can’t control the 24/7 news cycle, and the tendency of some individuals in social media and the blogosphere to rush to judgment. But I have had enough of the continued trial of the institution in various media. We have all had enough. And while Penn State cannot always comment on allegations that emanate from legal proceedings, I thought it was important to let you know my reaction to the media frenzy that has ensued over the past few days. I am appalled.
Sincerely,
Eric Barron
President
LikeLike
Thank you Eric Barron for speaking out and Carl for posting. I am sick of the National Enquirer journalism against Penn State. If it is true then throw Joe Paterno out of the Hall Of Fame ( a point I made not once but twice). But what if it isn’t ( see the Duke Rape Case). One of the more disgusting things that Graham Spannier did ( beyond enabling Sandusky) was use Paterno (who was a shadow of himself ( at best)), as a way to fund Construction Projects like the Millennium Science Building. That is what the media is doing to him right now. Taking an unsubstantiated charge and citing it as ” Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.” ( again see the Duke Rape Case), so they can have a story to publish.
LikeLike
> One of the more disgusting things that Graham
> Spannier did ( beyond enabling Sandusky) …
Uh, you do realize that Graham Spanier is proceeding with a defamation case against Freeh *while* *under* *criminal* *indictment*, don’t you? What does that tell you?
In any case, Duke lacrosse and all that …
LikeLike
This is all about the pursuit of money, which is what Spanier did with Paterno and what he did with Sandusky was about that very goal. Nothing more nothing less.
I watched that record breaking game against Illinois on TV and the commentators noted that Sandusky was in Spanier’s box @ Beaver Stadium. I do not know if Freech defamed Spanier, that is for a judge and ( or) jury to decide. I also do not know if legal niceties will keep them out of jail. But I know what I saw and I know Spanier had a PHD in Sociology and taught classes in marriage and family sociology so he is more qualified then say Joe Paterno or myself to see warning signs when it came to Sandusky. It’s not complex ( even though the lawyers want to muddy the water to hide the truth).
LikeLike
David Brown, you are clueless.
Keep watching, David! 😉
LikeLike
David Brown,
“If it is true then throw Joe Paterno out of the Hall Of Fame ( a point I made not once but twice).”
Good for you?
I don’t think most people are concerned with whether or not he’s in the HoF and few would consider it a significant punishment to kick him out.
“But what if it isn’t ( see the Duke Rape Case). … That is what the media is doing to him right now. Taking an unsubstantiated charge and citing it as ” Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.” ( again see the Duke Rape Case), so they can have a story to publish.”
You mean printing the allegations of someone PSU settled with? Doesn’t the settlement indicate some level of substantiation? Not 100%, obviously, but partial? Or allegations from former coaches with no known ax to grind or way to benefit from the allegations? And why on earth should the media sit on such allegations when they relate to a nationally known case where a man was convicted of similar charges? It’s like saying none of the alleged Cosby victims should be heard in the media. At some point, the sheer number of allegations means you have to cover it or you are complicit in covering it up.
Could they all be lying? Sure, anything’s possible. But this isn’t 1 person making an allegation like the Duke case, it’s several people and similar claims have already been proven in court against the same man.
LikeLike
> You mean printing the allegations of someone PSU settled with?
> Doesn’t the settlement indicate some level of substantiation?
🙂
Brian, you should have done the research as I suggested.
> Or allegations from former coaches with no known ax to grind or
> way to benefit from the allegations?
What are the allegations, specifically? Who are the coaches?
How do you know whether they had an axe to grind? How do you know whether they may or may not have stood to benefit in some way? Are you able provide evidence for any of your claims?
Brian, are you really that … obstinate?
I happen to know the coaches and allegations Ganim is talking about, and I also happen to believe they’re true, but you should be very careful about taking Ganim’s intimations at face value.
She’s playing the same game you often play, and just as when you do it, her implications don’t stand up to scrutiny. Everyone who knows anything about the case knows this.
> And why on earth should the media sit on such allegations
> when they relate to a nationally known case where a man
> was convicted of similar charges?
Uh, because untrue allegations cause significant harm?
Why do you think CNN did sit on the allegations for so long?
You really should have done your research as I suggested …
The reason you lack credibility, Brian, is that you argue crap like this when it suits your purpose and are willing to make things up to try to win arguments. You have done this for as long as I’ve been reading this blog.
> Could they all be lying? Sure, anything’s possible.
Brian, you should have done your homework!
> But this isn’t 1 person making an allegation like the Duke case,
> it’s several people and similar claims have already been proven
> in court against the same man.
You should have done your homework, I’m telling you …
I have never seen a less informed Internet personality argue more vociferously.
Well, at least you’re on record.
Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
Carl, he’s a pompous blowhard who doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know…
LikeLike
Not National Enquirer, but some say NBC is as bad…
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandusky-case-bombshell-did-6-penn-state-coaches-witness-abuse-n569526
LikeLike
This is really awful if true, but I am skeptical. This is coming out because the insurers are trying to avoid paying out claims. There’s no corroboration-yet.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-12-conference-expansion-football-playoff-chances-050616
Mandel clarifies some of those Big 12 playoff calculations. Pretty interesting:
….I now have the official numbers courtesy of the Big 12 and will attempt to explain/clarify them below.
— First, it’s important to note that Navigate did not base its study solely on the two seasons played so far with a four-team playoff. Its data is based on the past 10 seasons.
— Second, there is no one set number by which the league’s playoff chances would improve because the ADs and coaches were presented several different scenarios, each of which results in a different percentage. For each scenario, Navigate ran 40,000 simulations.
— Finally – and this where it gets really tricky — there are two different ways to quantify percentage growth. One is the straight-up point difference. For instance, say your boss tells you there’s a 50 percent chance of you getting a promotion, then comes back the next day and says it’s now 60 percent. Your odds increased by 10 percentage points. However, 10 is also 20 percent of 50, so your odds grew by 20 percent.
The following data will list both numbers for the league’s three most likely scenarios.
1) If the conference keeps its current model of 10 teams playing nine conference games but adds a championship game, its playoff chances will increase by 4 percentage points, creating 6 percent growth.
2) If the conference expands to 12 teams, keeps its nine-game schedule and adds a championship game, its playoff chances willincrease by 11 percentage points, for a growth of 18 percent.
3) And in the most favorable scenario, where the conference expands to 12 teams, drops from nine league games to eight and adds a title game, the odds increase by 13 percentage points, for a growth of 21 percent. Note: That includes an assumption that the extra non-conference game is against a “quality opponent.”
Still confused? Then this might help you.
CBSSports.com reported this week per a source that Navigate determined the league’s current playoff chances to be 62 percent. If that’s the case, we can apply the aforementioned numbers accordingly.
— With 10 teams and a championship game, playoff chances go from 62 percent to 66 percent.
— With 12 teams, nine conference games and a title game, playoff chances increase to 73 percent.
— In the same scenario but with eight league games instead of nine, playoff chances increase to 75 percent.
In the end, that projected 21 percent growth for 12 teams/eight games is even higher than any previously reported number and has to be pretty eye-opening to league officials.
However, as I wrote Wednesday, playoff chances are just one of many aspects school presidents will ultimately consider. The biggest issue is how much the conference would increase its television revenue with whatever schools it’s considering adding. The conference has employed a different consultant to prepare those numbers.
Which means more math to come.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Navigate’s analysis was competent, and they weren’t tipping the scales for someone’s preferred outcome. Even so, there are a lot of assumptions that go into such a model. Who vetted those assumptions, and what’s the margin of error?
According to this, if they stay at 10 teams and add a CCG, their playoff chances are just 66%, even though their champ would be playing the same number of games as every other league champ.
I find that very difficult to believe. There is a 100% chance that at least one P5 champ will miss the playoff every year. If it happens to the Big 12 34% of the time, that leaves an average of 16.5% for each of the remaining leagues.
It would take some work to persuade me, that if the Big 12 plays the same number of games as everyone else, their chance’s of missing the playoff are more than double the others.
(We don’t know if Navigate calculated a separate probability for each league, or just calculated “Big 12 vs. the field”. It is certainly arguable that some leagues have higher playoff chances than others, but I’m not even sure that the Big 12 has the worst odds. It could very well be the ACC.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Navigate’s analysis was competent, and they weren’t tipping the scales for someone’s preferred outcome. Even so, there are a lot of assumptions that go into such a model. Who vetted those assumptions, and what’s the margin of error?”
I’d assume Navigate vetted them and probably disclosed their known margin of error. They may have run some simulations with different assumptions to test how much they matter, but we’ll probably never know.
“According to this, if they stay at 10 teams and add a CCG, their playoff chances are just 66%, even though their champ would be playing the same number of games as every other league champ.
I find that very difficult to believe. There is a 100% chance that at least one P5 champ will miss the playoff every year. If it happens to the Big 12 34% of the time, that leaves an average of 16.5% for each of the remaining leagues.
It would take some work to persuade me, that if the Big 12 plays the same number of games as everyone else, their chance’s of missing the playoff are more than double the others.”
Woah. First, you’re assuming 4 champs always make it. I highly doubt that’s what their simulations found. There should be years with 3 champs and maybe even only 2 champs (strong ND + strong runner up).
Assume all conferences are equal for now. Now assume the following odds:
4 champs in = 60%
3 champs in = 30%
2 champs in = 10%
Total = .6*0.8 + .3*0.6 + .1*0.4 = 70%
The odds of anyone’s champ getting in are 70% in that scenario.
Now assume the odds of the champ making it are based on size:
B12 = 0.7*10/12.8 = 54.7%
P12 = 0.7*12/12.8 = 65.6%
ACC/B10/SEC = 0.7*14/12.8 = 76.6%
Now assume the odds of getting an extra team in are purely based on conference size:
4 champs in – 0 at large
3 champs in – 1 at large
2 champs in – 2 at larges
B12 = .6*0 + .3*(0.15) + .1*2*(0.15) = 7.5%
P12 = 1.2*B12 = 9%
ACC/B10/SEC = 10.5%
B12 total = 62.2%
P12 total = 74.6%
ACC/B10/SEC total = 80.5%
I’m not saying my odds for each scenario are correct, but they give you an idea how the B12 could be at 66%.
Then look at things historically. Navigate used 10 years of data. Let’s assume that was 2006-2015 and use the current 10 members.
BCS/CFP titles:
B12 – 0
BCS/CFP title games:
B12 – 2
AP Final Top 4 finishes:
B12 – 5
Maybe they used a bad decade for the B12 to run their simulations (UT has been down post-2005, OU had a down period, perhaps TCU’s MWC results were not weighted as highly, etc).
“(We don’t know if Navigate calculated a separate probability for each league, or just calculated “Big 12 vs. the field”. It is certainly arguable that some leagues have higher playoff chances than others, but I’m not even sure that the Big 12 has the worst odds. It could very well be the ACC.)”
The ACC may have worse odds, but I’d guess they are at least slightly higher due to being 40% bigger.
LikeLike
Woah. First, you’re assuming 4 champs always make it. I highly doubt that’s what their simulations found. There should be years with 3 champs and maybe even only 2 champs (strong ND + strong runner up).
No, I’m not. I was going to add a footnote to point out that I do realize this, but it’s such a minor point that I didn’t bother. If they back-tested 10 years, there was only one of those seasons when ND would have made the playoff: 2012.
It is harder to say for sure how often a conference would have placed two teams. But given the committee’s stated rules in favor of conference champs, I’d say you’ve likely over-estimated those odds, too.
And anyhow: the question isn’t whether some set of assumptions could produce Navigate’s results. As I said at the outset, I’m assuming they’re not totally corrupt, so clearly it is possible. The question is whether those assumptions are really the best ones. That’s what I’m skeptical of.
Now assume the odds of getting an extra team in are purely based on conference size.
This is rather doubtful. Adding Maryland and Rutgers did not proportionately increase the probability of the Big Ten having a top-four team in any given year. Except for Nebraska, no team added to any league during the recent round of expansion is (historically) a frequent visitor in the top four.
As a very quick check, I looked at the last time each school that recently joined the P5, or switched leagues, claimed a national championship:
Colorado: 1990
Louisville: Never
Nebraska: 1997
Maryland: 1953
Missouri: Never
Pittsburgh: 1976
Rutgers: Never
Syracuse: 1959
TCU: 1938
Texas A&M: 1939
Utah: Never
West Virginia: Never
Only three of these schools has won a national championship in my lifetime, and the most recent (Nebraska) did it almost 30 years ago.
I didn’t check how often these schools have been in the top four at the end of the regular season, but it’s well known that the top four are dominated by a relative handful of well-known teams, over and over again. Adding bottom-feeders (or “middle feeders”) to your league doesn’t change that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No, I’m not.”
Yes you did. That’s the only way your math works.
B12 = 66% -> B12 misses 34%
100% chance a P5 conference misses out
100 – 34 = 66% chance someone else misses
66/5 = 16.5% chance for each other P5 conference on average
34% and 16.5% are the numbers you used in your comment, and you had to assume 4 champs getting in to make that work.
“If they back-tested 10 years, there was only one of those seasons when ND would have made the playoff: 2012.”
They did 40,000 simulations for each case. You’re just taking 1 actual result out of 10.
“It is harder to say for sure how often a conference would have placed two teams.”
Obviously.
Possibilities from actual results:
2013 – #1 AL loses on kick 6 to #4 AU and was still #3 in final BCS behind AU
2012 – AL, GA and UF were #2-4 in BCS before CCG weekend
2011 – #2 AL only lost 9-6 in OT to #1 LSU, only 3 champs in top 8
2009 – 5 undefeateds (includes UT and TCU) and UF that only lost to #1 AL in the CCG
2008 – top 4 came from SEC and B12, only 3 champs in top 7
2006 – top 4 came from B10 and SEC
“But given the committee’s stated rules in favor of conference champs, I’d say you’ve likely over-estimated those odds, too.”
I wasn’t basing those numbers on anything specific. I just wanted big gaps in the odds between the three options. I used round numbers for ease of math. The point is to show that if you allow for at-large teams the 66% number make more sense. It also shows that your claim of the B12 getting left out twice as often is a misstatement of what the reported numbers show.
Plug in your own guesses and you’ll still find that your 16.5% number and twice as often are wrong.
“The question is whether those assumptions are really the best ones. That’s what I’m skeptical of.”
They had to make some assumptions. Make your own and do the math.
“This is rather doubtful.”
Of course it is and you know they didn’t make that assumption. But I’m not looking up real data on 66 teams over 10 seasons for a blog comment. If you prefer, you can change that to assume that the power within each conference is distributed similarly and you’d get the same result.
Using real data probably wouldn’t change things drastically. It would help the SEC and hurt the ACC over that period if I had to guess.
“Adding Maryland and Rutgers did not proportionately increase the probability of the Big Ten having a top-four team in any given year.”
It boosted the odds of OSU, MI, PSU or MSU having a really good record, though.
LikeLike
I think I explained that poorly (and had a typo), so let me try again.
My first statement was wrong. You didn’t have to assume 4 champs to get there, but you did have to assume 4 P5 members made it every time and that’s an incorrect assumption to make.
Correct: B12 = 66% -> B12 misses 34%
Correct: 100% chance a P5 conference misses out
Incorrect: 100 – 34 = 66% chance someone else misses
Incorrect: 66/4 = 16.5% chance for each other P5 conference on average
Proof: 66% + 4*83.5% = 400%
That’s every CFP spot. Your numbers don’t account for any Independent or G5 teams ever making it.
Possible results:
SEC – 90% (11 – miss once but get 2 at larges over 10 years)
B10 – 80% (9 – miss twice but get 1 at large)
P12 – 70% (7)
ACC – 60% (6)
B12 – 66% (6.6)
Other – 4% (0.4)
P5 average except B12 = 75% (not your assumed 83.5%)
Obviously the numbers are made up, but the point is you shouldn’t assume only P5 members make it.
LikeLike
I think I explained that poorly (and had a typo), so let me try again.
I also explained it poorly, as well, so let me try again:
I absolutely understood that there could be years when fewer than four P5 champions reach the playoff. I didn’t imagine that any regular reader here would seriously believe I was unaware of, or forgot, that.
What I showed was a back-of-the-envelope illustration of the most common outcome, i.e., that in most years, all four of the playoff teams will be P5 champions. The rules are constructed to strongly favor that outcome, while technically allowing others in unusual years.
A more elaborate analysis, which includes less common outcomes, and which you’ve supplied, more-or-less confirmed what I suspected: you have to make very generous assumptions to get to Navigate’s results.
It was probably like the analysis that led UAB to drop football: constructed to produce the result the client wanted.
LikeLike
This doesn’t match the top 4 before the bowls, but it does give some interesting numbers. Top 4 finishes in the final AP poll in the BCS and playoff era. SEC and Pac 12 have dominated.
FSU ACC 3 8
Miami ACC 3
Clemson ACC 1
VT ACC 1
OSU B10 8 12
NE B10 1
PSU B10 1
MSU B10 1
WI B10 1
OU B12 3 9
TX B12 3
TCU B12 2
Ok. St. B12 1
ND IND 1 1
Boise mwc 1 1
USC P12 7 19
OR P12 5
Utah P12 2
Stanford P12 2
WA P12 1
OR St. P12 1
AZ P12 1
AL SEC 5 22
FL SEC 4
LSU SEC 4
AU SEC 3
TN SEC 2
GA SEC 2
MO SEC 1
SC SEC 1
LikeLike
Not formatting nearly as well as what I see. Its school, conference, number of times by school, with the top line having the total for the conference:
ACC-8
Big 10-12
Big 12-9
Pac 12-19
SEC-22
Ind-1
MWC-1
LikeLike
This is based on current membership, of course, not the conference they were in at the time.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What I showed was a back-of-the-envelope illustration of the most common outcome, i.e., that in most years, all four of the playoff teams will be P5 champions. The rules are constructed to strongly favor that outcome, while technically allowing others in unusual years.”
But you only showed the math assuming that always happens which even you acknowledge is an unfair assumption. Part of the reason the B12 was slated to miss 34% of the time was due to other teams making the CFP. Your math was designed to maximize the gap between the B12 and the rest at the expense of the truth. A fair back of the envelope calculation would have given at least some small chance to ND and the others.
“A more elaborate analysis, which includes less common outcomes, and which you’ve supplied, more-or-less confirmed what I suspected: you have to make very generous assumptions to get to Navigate’s results.”
On what basis can you evaluate the generosity of the assumptions? You don’t have enough data to know what the correct assumptions are. I gave 6 examples in the past 10 years when 4 champs might not have made it. If only half of those actually resulted in only 3 P5 champs, that’s still 30% of the time.
LikeLike
bullet,
“This doesn’t match the top 4 before the bowls, but it does give some interesting numbers. Top 4 finishes in the final AP poll in the BCS and playoff era. SEC and Pac 12 have dominated.
…
ACC-8
Big 10-12
Big 12-9
Pac 12-19
SEC-22
Ind-1
MWC-1
…
This is based on current membership, of course, not the conference they were in at the time.”
Important notes:
1. You included 1998-2005 while Navigate didn’t (apparently).
2. You used the final poll while I assume Navigate looked at pre-bowl results since that’s what they are trying to predict.
As I said, the past 10 years is an unfortunate choice of decades for the B12. UT entered a lull and OU was down from their peak. The P12 is also inflated by USC’s run in the early 2000s.
LikeLike
On what basis can you evaluate the generosity of the assumptions?
It’s not that complicated. I am just saying that, to me, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. I’m not running a school whose athletic future depends on this analysis. If I did, these aren’t numbers I would readily believe.
If someone had asked you the odds, before Navigate’s odds were published, is this what you would have come up with?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m not running a school whose athletic future depends on this analysis. If I did, these aren’t numbers I would readily believe.”
The difference is that they saw all the numbers, not just the 3 or 4 we saw. And they got all the context for the numbers.
“If someone had asked you the odds, before Navigate’s odds were published, is this what you would have come up with?”
66%? Maybe not. But I bet I would’ve been closer to that than you would believe.
My 60/30/10 numbers weren’t intended to be accurate numbers as I said, but as it turns out those numbers don’t matter. You can plug in any 3 numbers that sum to 100 and you’ll get the same result. All that changes is the ratio of champs to at-larges. So let’s stick to the 4 champ scenario for simplicity. Before size weighting, that’s 80% odds for everyone. After size weighting, that’s 62.5% for the B12. That’s the impact of size.
Just based on size:
65 P5 teams with 10 in the B12 = 62.5% for the B12, P12 75%, others 87.5%
67 P5 teams with 12 in the B12 = 72.7% for the B12 and P12, 84.8% for everyone else
Adding 2 teams jumps the number up 10 percentage points.
That’s basically the same result Navigate found but I only took a few minutes. Most of their time was spent looking at the various scenarios I assume. It certainly isn’t surprising that dropping to 8 games helps a little, nor that adding a CCG helps, but I wouldn’t have an easy guess for that without doing some serious work. Obviously I’d also weight conference size by program strength to some extent to get a better result if I was getting paid for this, but the point is that numbers in the 60s and 70s for the B12 wouldn’t actually surprise me after doing some basic math.
LikeLike
Just to demonstrate the math:
Assume every P5 team has a 6.15% chance of having the type of season that gets them in the playoff. With that, you would have:
Big 12 61.5%
ND 6.15%
Pac 12 73.8%
SEC, B1G, ACC 86.1%
Rounding .25%
You would expect the Big 12 to have a lower number of teams to make the playoff.
LikeLike
Exactly. Obviously the numbers change somewhat when you use actual data and adjust for the actual quality of the teams, but size matters in a discussion like this.
It’d be great if the B12 released the report (at least the simulation parts) so we could see the methodology, but I doubt they will.
LikeLike
The disclosure of the analytics is fascinating. The B12 is acknowledging the need for change, and providing specific insights on its options. The three input variables (expansion, championship game and # of league games), and desired outcome (probability of CFP participant), are being used to drive greater cohesion.
The three step solution:
a) Expand, but only by one member – None of the current 8 teams (UCincy, BYU, UConn, UCF, USF, Mem, BSU & CSU), being most discussed/available, is a can’t miss candidate. Nevertheless, schools like OU and WVU have very publicly expressed an interest in expansion; and a majority of schools seem supportive. UCincy seems best positioned…it’s been funding athletics at a P5 level, football is solid (basketball is better), and it’s in the right geography. Ohio is a good gateway to resolving WVU’s isolation. The major point: If you expand with these current options of schools, one candidate is probably the most that the B12 should pursue.
b) Restart the conference championship game – It helps financially, and as a means of keeping-up with all other P5 conferences that have 13 data points. Since the conference would first expand, the championship game could have a more compelling competitive rationale. Teams could be divided into divisions: Red River (UT, OU, TT, OSU & ISU) and Upstart (KU, KSU, Baylor, TCU, WVU & UCincy). The teams with annual aspirations of being in the playoffs (UT and OU) are in the same division so as to guarantee the annual rivalry and no chance of double elimination via the championship game. Scheduling would be problematic (since I assume that all schools must play all division opponents each year).
c) Reduce league games to 8 – This will give greater flexibility to pursue playoff and branding ambitions. Brand programs could more easily schedule marquee OOC games such UT-ND. Traditional rivalries, such as UT-TAM, OU-UNL, KU-Mizzou, WVU-Pitt, could be reestablished. To fix the scheduling dilemma created by the ‘division’ alignment, a couple of Upstart division schools would have to play a 9th game against a conference foe that does not count towards their official conference record.
This solution creates economic value while addressing the issues that OU President Boren has expressed. It is also tilts the B12 structure more favorably to UT and OU interests. Giving these brand schools a slight competitive advantage.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“The three step solution:
a) Expand, but only by one member – … UCincy seems best positioned
…
b) Restart the conference championship game – … Teams could be divided into divisions: Red River (UT, OU, TT, OSU & ISU) and Upstart (KU, KSU, Baylor, TCU, WVU & UCincy). The teams with annual aspirations of being in the playoffs (UT and OU) are in the same division so as to guarantee the annual rivalry and no chance of double elimination via the championship game. Scheduling would be problematic (since I assume that all schools must play all division opponents each year).
c) Reduce league games to 8 – … To fix the scheduling dilemma created by the ‘division’ alignment, a couple of Upstart division schools would have to play a 9th game against a conference foe that does not count towards their official conference record.”
1. They can stage a CCG without expanding, so if all the options are that weak why add anyone? If the options are decent, getting to 12 makes for much easier and more fair scheduling.
2. Yes, they’d have to have divisions and play a full round robin in each division.
3. As you note, that ends up forcing some 9th games from the U division. Why not count those games and just use W% in conference play? The game counts for their opponent after all. Another option is to seek a waiver to avoid having a full round robin in the U division.
LikeLike
Brian,
The bottom-line is that the all the analysis and decisions will likely result in OU and UT creating a more comfortable environment for their athletic programs. At this time, the B12 can not afford choices that are not aligned with these schools wishes.
Pablo
LikeLike
Pablo,
“The bottom-line is that the all the analysis and decisions will likely result in OU and UT creating a more comfortable environment for their athletic programs. At this time, the B12 can not afford choices that are not aligned with these schools wishes.”
Unfortunately for the B12, those schools have different wishes. OU wants 12 members, UT wants 10. OU wants a CCG, UT doesn’t (unless the new administrators have a different position from the old ones). OU wants a B12N, UT doesn’t.
Deep down those can be resolved by throwing more money at the problem, but the issue is how to get the money. OU thinks those are necessary steps to get the money they need to feel secure. UT thinks they’re rich enough as it is and likes the status quo. One of them is going to win and one is going to lose, and the loser is likely to look to escape the B12 when the GoR ends unless they get bought off.
LikeLike
Neither want a ccg with 10 teams.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Neither want a ccg with 10 teams.”
After the Navigate report? I’m not sure.
After hearing from the TV people later in the month? I’m really not sure.
LikeLike
Minimal advantage on adding a ccg with 10.
LikeLike
Brian,
“if all the options are that weak why add anyone?”
Note: This all assumes that the expansion options aren’t likely to provide an increase in long-term media revenue. I believe that the B12 has a different consulting group modeling the financial impact of their options.
First, expansion can create trust and collaboration between B12 power programs. UT can’t afford to lose OU from the conference. Boren is also trying to better evaluate the long-term viability of the B12.
Second, because there is never a certain outcome for the future, even the best/most objective analytics will result in wiggle-room for interpretation. For example, WVU may legitimately determine UCincy as a strong candidate based mainly on geographic criteria; OU may truly need UCincy as a means of leveraging more long-term Tier 3 revenue (i.e., something like a conference network). In other words, UCincy is not a “weak” option.
Finally, expansion is not as problematic as the conference network. UT was able to create the LHN to give the school exposure and revenue. The other B12 schools don’t have the branding and markets to keep up with the Joneses (whether it be UT or BIG/SEC revenue streams). Not sure that even UT’s coat-tails are long enough to address this dilemma for the B12. A one-team expansion can be a hedge for market expansion, while calming the anxieties of non UT members.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“Note: This all assumes that the expansion options aren’t likely to provide an increase in long-term media revenue. I believe that the B12 has a different consulting group modeling the financial impact of their options.”
Yes, and they are talking with the presidents at their meetings in late May.
“First, expansion can create trust and collaboration between B12 power programs.”
I don’t think that’s possible anymore. They are beyond trusting each other. They’ll collaborate when it’s in their best interests, but that always has been and will be true.
“Second, because there is never a certain outcome for the future, even the best/most objective analytics will result in wiggle-room for interpretation.”
Yes, they are getting educated guesses and all sides know that.
“Finally, expansion is not as problematic as the conference network.”
Nothing is as problematic as the B12N.
“A one-team expansion can be a hedge for market expansion, while calming the anxieties of non UT members.”
This is what I don’t get. Going to 11 causes a lot of scheduling issues without solving any major problems. 1 team won’t placate those who want expansion but it’ll aggravate those who oppose expansion. Everyone will be on pins and needles waiting for the inevitable growth to 12 anyway, so why do it in 2 steps and irritate those opposed to expansion even more? I just don’t see any net positives for the B12 in going to 11 with their current options. Maybe they do see it, but I don’t.
LikeLike
Brian,
Disagree that trust is impossible.
The B12 has two essential (UT and OU) members; plus one or two other (KU and possibly OSU) programs that have material independent value. All the other schools are largely dependent on a healthy relationship between UT and OU in order to have their athletic departments flourish within the P5 framework.
Bowlsby’s responsibility is to align the interests of the two essential members. He wasn’t around the previous exodus. Also, the leadership at UT is completely new.
Although a compromise (such as adding only 1 member) does not solve all long-term problems, it can be used to address some needs. It expands the conference markets, it better enables a championship game, it can be used to expand media revenue, and -most importantly- it can be used to refute the perception that the B12 is “psychologically disadvantaged”,
The B12 can not afford to have essential members on opposite sides of critical issues, even when the vote could be 9-1 or 8-2. Bowlsby should be able to convince the non-essentials to sacrifice scheduling equity in exchange for enhancing their long-term financial health.
In 5 or 10 years, the economics may change, or a school with significant brand equity may be available. The B12 just needs to stay ahead of the ACC and PAC in revenues, while competing on the field with BIG and SEC powers.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“Disagree that trust is impossible.”
Fair enough. That just my impression and I have no inside knowledge.
“Bowlsby’s responsibility is to align the interests of the two essential members.”
Sometimes you just can’t do that, though. The B12N/LHN debate may be a good example of that. Expansion seems to be another one.
“Although a compromise (such as adding only 1 member) does not solve all long-term problems, it can be used to address some needs.”
Can it really address those needs, even in the short term, though?
“It expands the conference markets,”
Which is irrelevant unless they add a B12N. The current TV deal isn’t changing because of it.
“it better enables a championship game,”
How so? They can do one with 10 and keeping the RR. 11 forces them into divisions and the scheduling problems of unequal divisions.
“it can be used to expand media revenue,”
How? They’ll get a pro-rata bump for #11 but no overall increase above the current deal.
“and -most importantly- it can be used to refute the perception that the B12 is “psychologically disadvantaged”,”
They’ll be less disadvantaged at 11 versus 10, but 11 is still less than 12. It won’t fix the B12N issue and they can already hold a 13th game as is so expansion doesn’t get any credit for that.
“The B12 can not afford to have essential members on opposite sides of critical issues, even when the vote could be 9-1 or 8-2.”
They did it with NE on the short end and that worked fine for a while. Sometimes programs disagree. MI and OSU don’t always agree but the B10 is fine. LSU and AL don’t always agree and the SEC is fine.
“Bowlsby should be able to convince the non-essentials to sacrifice scheduling equity in exchange for enhancing their long-term financial health.”
Should and can are very different things, and it assumes that he can get UT and OU to agree first.
“In 5 or 10 years, the economics may change, or a school with significant brand equity may be available.”
If they believe a significantly better candidate may be available in 5-10 years (like an ACC team), then they shouldn’t expand at all right now. None of their current options can make any substantive changes in that time frame.
LikeLike
Enlarging by one member would reduce the inventory of football games, since it’s mathematically impossible to play a nine-game schedule with 11 teams. You’d go from 45 games (9 x 5) to 44 (8 x 5.5). So this option won’t happen.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Enlarging by one member would reduce the inventory of football games, since it’s mathematically impossible to play a nine-game schedule with 11 teams. You’d go from 45 games (9 x 5) to 44 (8 x 5.5). So this option won’t happen.”
Theoretically that’s true, but if you read his explanation he added 9th games to some teams so he could keep a full round robin in each division. That gets him back to 45 games.
8 games = 5 division + 3 crossover = 4 division + 4 crossover
6 teams * 5 division games = 30
5 teams * 4 division games = 20
50 division games -> 25 games of inventory
6 teams * 3 crossovers = 18
5 teams * 4 crossovers = 20
38 crossover games -> 19 games of inventory
44 total games as you said.
However, you can’t have 1 division play 18 crossover games and the other play 20. That means that at least 2 teams in the bigger division have to play 9th games to get the smaller division to 8 games for everyone.
2 teams * 1 crossover = 2
2 crossover game -> 1 game of inventory
45 total games again.
The MAC had a similar issue at 13 teams but they didn’t play a full round robin in the larger division in order to keep everyone at 8 games. He specifically said he was keeping the full RR, so that adds the missing inventory back in.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2016/05/07/penn-state-oks-alcohol-sales-football-basketball-games/84067632/
In other PSU news, the school approved allowing limited alcohol sales at sporting events. It would be beer and wine in club seats and suites. Everyone would be allowed to buy drinks at non-athletic events (concerts, etc). No word on when or if they’ll actually start doing it, this was just the BoT approving the proposal.
LikeLike
Brian claimed he is not a Penn State hater, yet he brings this up. Lets get the COMPLETE story. The only Schools in the Big 10 that will not allow Alcohol sales are: 1: Indiana. 2: Nebraska. 3: Michigan. Ohio State is no where to be found on this list. Until every other School especially Ohio State decides to stop selling alcohol then do not single Penn State out.
LikeLike
Where did I indicate this was a bad thing in any way?
LikeLike
> Where did I indicate this was a bad thing in any way?
You didn’t, Brian. David’s as clueless as you are. 🙂
LikeLike
The point is why even bring up this story. It does not matter if they sell booze or not. The truth is I am done discussing this issue.
LikeLike
Because we discuss the finances of college sports here and alcohol sales are a growing trend as schools look to boost the bottom line and/or improve the game experience. We’ve discussed it multiple other times when schools have authorized alcohol sales, including the risk/reward balance. PSU has the combination of a huge football stadium and a relatively remote location (lots of people driving a long distance home) so it seems relevant.
LikeLike
David, Maryland adopted a similar policy a year or two ago, and Syracuse did likewise before that. Aside from the usual drinking-and-driving problems, no big deal. Never deemed this an anti-PSU vendetta by Brian.
LikeLike
To me, it’s a good thing that these schools are looking into further revenue streams like this.
We all know how the expenses side of AD ledgers is increasing just as fast as the revenue side. Some alcohol sales at sporting events are a “no brainer” to me.
LikeLike
Rice sells beer in designated sections. Without that the product on the field last year would have been absolutely intolerable.
LikeLike
Ohio State does not sell alcohol at its sports venues, because state law prohibits alcohol sales or possession on public facilities. I remember many years ago that tailgate parties, even those sponsored by university departments and colleges, did see alcohol use, but the state cracked down. It was quite painful.
Nowadays, there are three places on OSU’s campus where you can get alcohol, all are restaurant/hotel facilities: the new Union on high street, the Faculty Club (once the only place), and the Blackwell Hotel.
LikeLike
Beer is currently sold at Ohio Stadium in the suites & club seats. Gene Smith has stated that the University is looking at broadening the availability to the proles. I think that with it becoming more and more common across the landscape that it will eventually be sold everywhere in the stadium.
The crackdown on tailgating was instigated by Karen Holbrook & not the State.
LikeLike
She was enforcing state law, which had been ignored up to then. She was routinely booed at OSU events whenever her name was mentioned.
LikeLike
They also sell alcohol at the Schott.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2015/08/21/ohio-state-selling-alcohol-in-stadium.html
The Columbus Dispatch • Saturday August 22, 2015
…
This season, for the first time since Ohio Stadium opened in 1922, the university will sell beer and wine in limited areas during the Buckeyes’ seven home games, beginning on Sept. 12 against Hawaii.
OSU announced on Friday that fans in the stadium’s 81 suites and 2,700 club seats will be able to purchase beer and wine. Those areas include 4,370 seats, or about 4 percent of the stadium’s capacity.
…
Ohio State is responding to a market shift in which alcohol sales at college football games have become more common in recent years. A report by USA Today said 32 schools sold alcohol to the general public at football games last season.
Minnesota, Purdue and Maryland are the three other Big Ten schools that will sell beer at their stadiums this season.
…
Smith said Ohio State considered “for a brief moment” the idea of selling alcohol throughout Ohio Stadium.
“I don’t think we’re ready to go toward the outside (with alcohol sales),” said Smith, who added that the size of OSU’s venue presents unique challenges for stadium-wide sales.
Alcohol has been available in limited areas of the Schottenstein Center during men’s and women’s basketball and hockey games since the venue opened in 1998.
“It works well over there,” Smith said. “We haven’t had any issues. Obviously, that’s a little different environment. There is no tailgating. You don’t have the pre-drinking coming into the Schott.”
…
Ohio State allowed alcohol sales at three summer concert events at Ohio Stadium — the Rolling Stones, the two-day Buckeye Country Music Fest and One Direction — as well as during a Cleveland Browns scrimmage two weeks ago.
LikeLike
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2015/11/11/ohio-state-to-sell-beer-and-wine-during-basketball.html
Still no word on football, but Ohio State University will begin selling beer and wine during basketball and hockey games at the Schottenstein Center.
Alcohol will be available throughout the 18,809-seat venue starting with Sunday’s men’s basketball game against Mount St. Mary’s and continuing permanently, the school’s athletics department said in a press release.
Alcohol had been available on the arena’s club level since the building opened in 1998.
The move comes as colleges nationwide search for alternative revenue generators, and as Ohio State tests beer and wine sales in special sections at Ohio Stadium.
The university said it would evaluate stadium-wide sales at the ‘Shoe after the pilot program, considering everything from monitoring underage drinking to having enough concessions and ushers.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“She was enforcing state law, which had been ignored up to then. She was routinely booed at OSU events whenever her name was mentioned.””
That may be, but it wasn’t her intent. She thought there was a “culture of rioting” at OSU when she got hired in 2002 (OSU finally gets over Cooper and wins a National Title in CFB for the first time in 30+ years) and wanted to stop it. This wasn’t based on personal experience (she would do a brunch and then go to her box), she sent employees out to videotape the area the day of the Michigan game (the win that clinched the NCG spot, and versus our nemesis) and there was a riot that night (9 cars flipped, some cars and couches burned, etc).
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/08/30/riots.ART_ART_08-30-07_A1_447OMJ6.html#
Was it really that bad back then?
No, said Dan Slane, former chairman of the Ohio State Board of Trustees. And rowdy fan behavior has never been unique to Ohio State, he added.
…
“I would disagree with that,” Rice said. “It’s far from mayhem.”
“That’s not the culture, that’s not the norm,” said Greg Knoth, 37, a Columbus resident who attended OSU for two years.
“I think people got the impression that she wanted it (a football game) to be like a social event, like a polo match, where people walked with shirts tied around their necks,” Knoth said.
Holbrook said yesterday that she never meant to imply that every Ohio State football game was violent.
And the strict effort by police during tailgating wasn’t necessarily her intent, she said. But police told her they couldn’t arrest only the underage drinkers if adults right next to them also were drinking alcohol.
I’m all for preventing riots, but she took things so far that even a lot of old alumni and boosters hated her, not just students and young alumni (those being the groups most likely to drink too much). My parents don’t tailgate at all and still thought she was a terrible president and hated her tenure at OSU. It’s not good when alumni donors feel that way about the president.
LikeLike
BTN night schedule released:
Date Time (ET) Matchup
Saturday, Sept. 3 8:00 PM Fresno State at Nebraska
Saturday, Sept. 10 7:30 PM Iowa State at Iowa
Saturday, Sept. 10 7:30 PM North Carolina at Illinois
Saturday, Sept. 17 8:00 PM Duke at Northwestern
Saturday, Sept. 24 7:30 PM Nebraska at Northwestern
Saturday, Oct. 1 8:00 PM Michigan State at Indiana
Saturday, Oct. 22 7:30 PM Michigan State at Maryland
Saturday, Nov. 5 7:30 PM Iowa at Penn State
Saturday, Nov. 12 7:30 PM Minnesota at Nebraska
Saturday, Nov. 19 8:00 PM Penn State at Rutgers
LikeLike
Yay, no OSU games. 4 (with @OU a likely #5) is more than enough.
LikeLike
Totals on the ESPN family and BTN:
NE – 5
OSU – 4
NW, IA, PSU – 3
MSU, MI, WI, RU – 2
IL, IN, UMD, MN – 1
LikeLike
More on the UConn attempt to convince either the B1G or the Big 12 to bring them on board. This includes a billboard in NYC near the Lincoln Tunnel entrance west toward NJ. The link is to “On The Banks”. In the comments to the article, there is a link to an interesting Hartford Courant article about an add in a Texas newspaper for their SMU basketball game.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/5/9/11639266/uconn-conference-realignment-power-5-rutgers-big-ten-big-12-new-york-city
LikeLike
Frank, you tweeted that if distance does not matter, UConn would be a strong candidate for the Big 12. Why?
What does UConn offer the Big 12 other than a wonderful women’s BB team and very good to excellent men’s BB. Women’s bball adds zero eyeballs or value to any conference. Men’s bball adds a little bit more, but not that much.
UConn is worth nothing in NY. RU by far was the most popular college football school in NYC (before B1G membership). This is only for the actual city, not NJ which has 9 million people and no other P5 or G5 football. Notre Dame (subway alums no doubt) was a distant second, then farther down the list were Penn State, Syracuse, UConn and Michigan. UConn is just not relevant in NYC.
UConn can put up billboards and take out full page adds in the NY Times. Does anyone think that newspaper adds and billboards will impress a bunch of University presidents from the B1G or Big 12?
I do not know, but I presume that UConn is just as irrelevant in Boston. Like NYC, Boston is a pro sports town and they do have Boston College, as well as relatively nearby (Providence) Big East bball.
UConn brings a medium to small sized population (3.5 million) and medium to small TV markets. Yes western CT (Fairfield County) is in the NYC television market, but that does not move the needle in the market.
Oh, yes, I forgot, UConn offers zip in football.
The only P5 where UConn can possibly fit is the ACC. When UConn missed the last ACC expansion, their last lifeboat left them behind.
Due to the litigation against BC and the ACC, it is possible that UConn may never get invited by the ACC. I certainly have no clue and I doubt that anyone on this board knows if UConn is permanently banned from an ACC invitation.
LikeLike
Oklahoma BOR and Boren may not be on the same page.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/theres-infighting-at-oklahoma-over-potential-big-12-expansion/
LikeLike
Several bloggers are saying the board can’t stop Boren. To those more informed, is this quote inaccurate?
“It seems clear the regents have the final say in the expansion discussion at Oklahoma despite Boren’s powerful influence.
“The simple reality is that the board is the boss of the University of Oklahoma,” said Gerald Gurney, an OU assistant professor and former senior associate athletic director for academics. “It is the official governing body of the University of Oklahoma.”
LikeLike
At least one other regents member, Oklahoma City Thunder chairman Clay Bennett, is against expansion, Weitzenhoffer said.
“One-hundred percent [with] what we’ve been talking about,” Weitzenhoffer said of Bennett’s position. “We just want to let him [Boren] know, we don’t like it.
“If it goes forward, it may get to the point where we may not be able to stop it.”
…
“We will have a lot of input [on Oklahoma’s view of expansion],” Weitzenhoffer said of the regents. “The problems is, the reason I got so bent out of shape on this is we’re coming to that crunch time and they’re all trying to decide what to do.
“We think all these Big 12 presidents can do this thing without going through boards of regents. We’re not sure about Texas. The fact is we just want to make sure he [Boren] understands where we are. I don’t want to speak for all of us.
“We’re going to force the president to tell us where we stand.”
Those two quotes are the source of the confusion, I assume. He makes it sound like Boren and the other presidents can do what they want.
Gee has also been public about his desire to expand. Judging from informal conversations, Weitzenhoffer told CBS Sports that he believes at least Kansas and Iowa State are also in favor of expansion.
“I’m not convinced that Texas is,” he said. “I don’t know what the situation is in Texas. I don’t think they want it. They’re very coy about it. I’ve talked to the [Texas] regents office a couple of times. I can’t really get anything out of them.”
The only way expansion makes sense, Weitzenhoffer said, is snagging teams from a Power Five conference.
…
“I don’t think anybody can [be shaken loose],” Weitzenhoffer said, adding, “We’ve been fiddling with Notre Dame for years … but they’re not going to be leaving.”
…
Weitzenhoffer explained why the Big 12 stands to gain little in expanding to schools most commonly mentioned — Boise State, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Houston, Memphis and South Florida, among others.
“Those are the ones I keep hearing,” Weitzenhoffer said. “They have no seating capacities in their stadiums. They really don’t build them up. They really don’t have any TV. I really don’t know what we have to gain by that.”
“The problem with Cincinnati is … then they start getting all this money,” Weitzenhoffer said. “Then what do we do? We build up somebody we don’t want to build up.”
Yes, heaven forbid you elevate a team in your conference.
LikeLike
I hear you, but on his side he’s saying why elevate someone not currently in. His point seems there are no non power 5 schools worth elevating, and that by doing so it could hurt OU (and the other current members). He apparently doesn’t buy the “threat” that doing nothing poses.
LikeLike
He also said he doesn’t see a big enough increase in money to justify expanding and said the candidates all have stadiums that are too small (BYU?) and have “no TV.” Last I checked, Cincinnati would be one of the largest markets in the B12. So would Salt Lake City (and all the other LDS nationally). I wonder if he’s seen the detailed presentations about expansion possibilities yet or is just going off vague reports?
LikeLike
I’m not disagreeing, or agreeing. The point is he is looking for large oaks, and says he’s seeing the largest saplings instead. All the large oaks are taken (in his mind, looking at the forest rather than the trees).
It does make some sense. You can’t trade the four they lost for TCU, WVU, plus any two potentials floating in the inter webs, except maybe perhaps BYU, and not be diminished in each case.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’m not disagreeing, or agreeing. The point is he is looking for large oaks, and says he’s seeing the largest saplings instead. All the large oaks are taken (in his mind, looking at the forest rather than the trees).
It does make some sense. You can’t trade the four they lost for TCU, WVU, plus any two potentials floating in the inter webs, except maybe perhaps BYU, and not be diminished in each case.”
I understand and I agree to a certain extent. But from some of his other comments he sounded just plain uninformed (not knowing BYU would be the 3rd largest stadium in the B12, not recognizing the TV value of SLC or Cincinnati). Sure, those schools don’t get as much TV coverage now, but they have large home markets that do care and would watch them. I don’t know what they’re worth to the B12, but it sounds like he doesn’t either. That’s why I wondered if he (and the rest of the board) he been given a detailed briefing yet. Perhaps Boren is waiting until after the presidents meet in late May so he’ll have all the data to present at once (the media consultants will talk at those meetings in addition to Navigate).
LikeLike
Several bloggers are saying the board can’t stop Boren. To those more informed, is this quote inaccurate?
I am fairly certain that the board can fire Boren. But all we know now is that two regents disagree, and that’s certainly not enough firepower to remove a long-tenured and popular president.
Boren’s argument has been that the Big 12 needs all three of: 1) expansion; 2) a CCG; 3) a network. I am not seeing how it could create a viable network without UT’s cooperation, even if it accomplishes the first two.
LikeLike
From Frank’s tweets:
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/05/07/carlton-expansion-title-games-longhorn-network-factors-future-big-12
While it’s a stretch to say Big 12 expansion is probable, it may be more likely now than at any time since the addition of TCU and West Virginia.
…
While Navigate will also be in Las Colinas, another significant presentation will be delivered by TV consultants Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures.
BHV has been testing the waters on a conference TV network and what a new television deal would be worth if the Big 12 expands and extends its current deal that runs through 2024-25.
…
Rest assured, Texas will not agree to anything unless it’s guaranteed all the money remaining on its current LHN contract with ESPN — and maybe not then. Consider what Texas AD Mike Perrin said in Phoenix:
“I can’t say I’ve got an open mind on any of these issues,” Perrin said. “I can say I’ve got an open mind for receiving data.”
The Big 12 and its partners will have to do a lot of selling to Texas President Greg Fenves and Perrin. LHN or not, Texas appears to really like 10 conference members and no more.
…
Since any expansion dovetails with a TV network, look to the markets of possible candidates. For now, the top four are believed to be Connecticut, BYU (which has a national following), Cincinnati and possibly Colorado State (Denver market), although the situation is fluid.
…
If things go well, the presidents could emerge on June 3 talking about a framework to go forward. That would imply mutual agreement and potentially big things by the end of summer.
If all you hear is talk of constructive dialogue, think roadblocks.
LikeLike
The Big XII is not run out of Oklahoma ( Norman or Stillwater),Kansas City, or even Dallas, it is run out of Austin. It is that simple. Think of every vote Nebraska lost to UT down through the years. Bevo gets almost everything it wants ( maybe A&M going to the SEC was the exception). I suspect that they will this time as well.
LikeLike
Texas and Nebraska agreed on nearly everything. No two schools were more aligned financially. They jointly funded the study on a Tier III network when nobody else was interested.
They didn’t agree on partial qualifiers. Nebraska used them more than anybody else in the country. In fact, they had more than any other conference in the country. Nebraska lost that vote 11-1. And it was part of the deal creating the Big 12. Nebraska was pretty arrogant bringing it up again. And a couple years later, the NCAA basically copied the Big 12 (and SEC) rules so it was irrelevant..
Nebraska lost 7-5 on moving the conference HQ to Dallas. 7 schools wanted to be near a big airport. 5 wanted it driving distance.
Kansas (and Nebraska, but they never won in bb) lost 7-5 on rotating the conference bb tournament from KC. They wanted it there all the time.
Nebraska lost 11-1 on putting the last two ccgs in Jerry World, the biggest, most elaborate stadium in the country and one that paid them more than anywhere else. Nebraska wanted to pass on the money and fancy stadium in order to have a chance at a virtual home game. Everybody else wanted the money and fancy stadium.
Other than those 4 votes, they pretty much agreed on every significant issue. And 2 of those votes were before the conference even started and the bb vote was in the first year.
LikeLike
Yeah this makes me wonder if UTx, in a lot of instances, was on the side of the more rational votes…and then they are called an overlord because they’re on the winning side?
LikeLike
Just to be fair, remember that that description of events was provided by a UT fan. A NE fan might describe things differently.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15490089/penn-state-legal-settlements-jerry-sandusky-accusers-cover-alleged-abuse-dating-1971
Responding to questions about the president’s statement and claims against the school, university spokesman Lawrence Lokman told The Associated Press and ESPN’s Josh Moyer that he could confirm that the earliest year of alleged abuse covered in Penn State’s settlements is 1971.
Sandusky graduated from Penn State in 1965 and returned as a full-time defensive coach in 1969.
Just confirmation of some facts.
Lokman declined to answer questions about what steps the university took to verify abuse claims during the settlement process or about …
As he should.
LikeLike
These new claims are so implausible. These ‘victims’ were able to speak with Joe Paterno?? They and nobody else (i.e. parents)never called the police?? They stayed silent for 40 years??
Penn State was handing out settlements with little to no verification – in fact, they have already said that both of these claims were deemed to be false but it was less expensive to provide a settlement than to engage in a legal fight.
Check with the experts… when money is involved, many false claimants will surface trying to cash in. If you assess the implausible details in both of these claims, it’s obvious this is the case!
LikeLike
So your argument is that a bunch of people somehow heard that Penn State was doling out settlement money for no reason and jumped on the gravy train with false accusations, and it is just a coincidence that those false accusations accused a guy convicted of those very same crimes years later?
The idea that word was out on the street in the 70’s and 80’s enough for multiple people to come to PSU with false accusations for profit doesn’t exactly fit in with the “Joe didn’t know anything about Sandusky until 2001” we have been hearing for years.
LikeLike
> The idea that word was out on the street in the 70’s
> and 80’s enough for multiple people to come to PSU
> with false accusations for profit doesn’t exactly fit in
> with the “Joe didn’t know anything about Sandusky
> until 2001” we have been hearing for years.
phil, can you explain what you mean here? I don’t understand how what you are saying relates to the stories of last week.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132889/ranking-the-big-tens-5-all-time-qbs
In honor of the B10’s 120th anniversary, ESPN is rolling out a set of top 5 all-time B10 players (including all the history of RU, UMD, NE and PSU).
Top QBs:
1. Frazier, NE
2. Brees, PU
3. Long, IA
4. Griese, PU
5. Smith, OSU
Honorable mentions: Otto Graham, Northwestern; Art Schlichter, Ohio State; Eric Crouch, Nebraska; Benny Friedman, Michigan; Rick Leach, Michigan; Mark Herrmann, Purdue; Rex Kern, Ohio State
This has long been the weak spot for the B10.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132908/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-des
Top DEs:
1. Smith, MSU
2. Robeson, RU
3. Brown, PSU
4. Wistrom, NE
5. Bosa, OSU
Honorable mention: Simeon Rice, Illinois; Dave Robinson, Penn State; Mike Vrabel, Ohio State; Lamarr Woodley, Michigan; Neil Snow, Michigan; Brandon Graham, Michigan; Tom Burke, Wisconsin; Dave Schreiner, Wisconsin
LikeLike
Griese only #4?
LikeLike
Who should he be above?
Long did slightly better in Heisman voting than Griese (2nd and 7th vs 2nd and 8th) and was only the second QB to reach 10,000 yards. Brees set all the PU passing records and several NCAA records. Frazier was great for his system and made multiple All-Century teams at QB.
Remember, these are only about CFB.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132936/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-wrs
1. Oosterbaan, MI
2. Rodgers, NE
3. Carter, MI
4. Howard, MI
5. Richter, WI
Honorable mention: Cris Carter, Ohio State; Braylon Edwards, Michigan; David Williams, Illinois; Gary Collins, Maryland; Bobby Engram, Penn State; Bob Carey, Michigan State; Irving Fryar, Nebraska; David Boston, Ohio State; Charles Rogers, Michigan State; Andre Rison, Michigan State, Al Toon, Wisconsin
No Terry Glenn?
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132928/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-dts
DTs:
1. Nagurski, MN
2. Suh, NE
3. Glover, NE
4. Reid, PSU
5. Karras, IA
Honorable mentions: Bobby Bell, Minnesota; Jim Stillwagon, Ohio State; Leo Nomellini, Minnesota; Bruce Clark, Penn State; Wayne Meylan, Nebraska; Calvin Jones, Iowa; Mark Messner, Michigan; Moe Gardner, Illinois
No Bill Willis or Dan Wilkinson?
LikeLike
Hard to argue with the top 5 DTs, though.
LikeLike
If you leave off the two that never played in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
You mean the 3 that didn’t? Yes, ESPN stated at the beginning they were going to do that whether fans like it or not. My guess is they want PSU, NE, UMD and RU fans to feel included, but it is silly. Put their players in the HM section since they didn’t play in the B10.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15492344/wish-college-football-expansion-realignment-looked-like
One ESPN writer produces his personal 5×16 utopia scenario. He knows it isn’t realistic.
[quote begins – they used italics in the piece]
Note: New members are in italics, while those switching divisions are denoted with an asterisk.
Big 16
North
Air Force
BYU
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
South
Baylor
Texas
TCU
SMU
Tulane
New Mexico
Houston
Rice
…
SEC
East
Auburn*
Charlotte (ECU/UCF?)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
West
Alabama
Arkansas
LSU
Memphis
Mississippi State
Missouri*
Ole Miss
Texas A&M
…
ACC
Southern Division
Clemson
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Northern Division
Boston College
Connecticut
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
West Virginia (Navy?)
…
Big Ten
East Division
Cincinnati
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Purdue
Wisconsin
Yes, per Notre Dame’s contract with the ACC, should they ever join a conference football-wise, that’s where they would end up. But this is our Power 5 Utopia, where we can do whatever feels right. And the Irish feel right in the Big Ten. They just do. Remember our regionalism mantra!
In Ryan McGee’s ideal world of college football expansion, Notre Dame and Michigan would be conference rivals, even if it can’t happen in real life.
In that spirit, we’re also recruiting Cincinnati to lock down Ohio. Get over it, Ohio State. This would lead to some awesome in-state squawking, and you know it. And as much I want to move Maryland back to the ACC or do the same with Rutgers, that’s never happening. Maryland and the ACC are like your aunt and uncle who were last seen throwing Thanksgiving dinner at each other. It doesn’t matter how pretty their wedding pictures are. Those photos are old and crusty now. They’re never getting back together, not even in our Utopia.
Pac-16
North
Boise State
Cal
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Utah*
Washington
Washington State
South
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Colorado State (Air Force?)
Hawaii
UCLA
UNLV (Nevada?)
USC
[end quote]
LikeLike
Yes, per Notre Dame’s contract with the ACC, should they ever join a conference football-wise, that’s where they would end up.
I am pretty sure that ND’s commitment—that if they place their football in any conference, it has to be the ACC—is only to the end of the GOR.
Since most expansion scenarios probably don’t happen till then, I would say the Irish are free agents.
LikeLike
The contract between ND & the ACC runs until 2027.
LikeLike
That’s scarcely more than a decade away — an eternity for fans, but the bat of an eyelash for university presidents who are thinking long-term. By five years from now, those presidents are going to be looking very hard at where they want to be in 2027.
LikeLike
If it’s not too late and other conferences make creative moves before then. I think we’re all due for a “didn’t see that coming…”.
LikeLike
[i]Big 16
…
Rice
…[/i]
I’m all-in.
LikeLike
That’s about the most unrealistic one I’ve seen. Charlotte?????????????
LikeLike
I guess the SEC REALLY wants into NC. lol
LikeLike
http://www.campusrush.com/college-football-recruiting-satellite-camps-punt-pass-pork-1786640054.html
Coaches discuss how to fix recruiting without banning satellite camps.
For example, Patterson would like to see a rule that dictates a set number of days in which coaches may work camps either on or off their campuses.
…
Require off-campus camps to take place at a four-year NCAA institution. This would allow Power 5 schools to send coaches into recruit-rich regions—as Oklahoma State coaches do when they work camps at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton, Texas—but it would eliminate the opportunity to grease high school or juco coaches in exchange for special consideration during the recruiting process.
…
Patterson also believes the NCAA needs to change the dates of its dead periods. … The NCAA recently adjusted one winter dead period, and it most recently ran from Dec. 14, 2015 to Jan. 13, 2016. Patterson said this was approved with the intention of also approving an early signing period. Since the latter never went into effect, the longer dead period only forces coaches to compress their January recruiting. … Patterson would like to see part of the dead period moved into the summer, which would also curb the amount of time coaches could work camps.
UNLV coach Tony Sanchez, meanwhile, would rather see the satellite camps go away and be replaced by regional camps or combines that coaches would be allowed to attend. Coaches were permitted to attend such camps until 2007.
…
Sanchez, the former head coach at Bishop Gorman High in Las Vegas, would also like to see the offer-and-commitment cycle slow down. Now, players are pressured to commit before the NCAA allows written offers or official visits. The question is how to ban a verbal scholarship offer, which doesn’t officially exist under NCAA rules. Arizona’s Rich Rodriguez thinks he has the answer.
A year ago, Rodriguez began exploring the idea of eliminating National Signing Day and allowing colleges to sign players at any point during their high school careers. This notion sounds counterintuitive to people who don’t understand how recruiting works in 2016, but it would slow the process because each offer would correspond to one of a school’s 25—or fewer—scholarships a year. Think about it this way: If you had to present a diamond ring the first time you said, “I love you,” how long would you wait to utter those words? “It’s an easier solution than looking at changing the recruiting calendar and visits,” Rodriguez said. “Most of the other issues can be tied directly to that.”
…
Unless a prospect’s transcript absolutely sparkled, admissions would probably stop the coach from extending the offer. And if the coach extended it anyway and the player didn’t qualify? “If you sign him and he didn’t qualify, you made a mistake,” Rodriguez said. “You’ve got to eat it.”
When I proposed this idea, I suggested that players would have to stick with the school they chose or face penalties associated with breaking the National Letter of Intent. Rodriguez is nicer than me. He is in favor of creating a clause that releases a player from his commitment if the head coach he signed to play for leaves or gets fired.
…
Meanwhile, one coach is less interested in making or changing rules than he is in enforcing the ones already on the books. Texas Tech’s Kliff Kingsbury is still waiting for the promised crackdown on rule-breakers that would punish head coaches whose assistants run afoul of the NCAA’s bylaws. “The biggest thing for me is that at times it seems like it pays to bend the rules a little bit,” Kingsbury said. “You hear about and you see things going on, and it seems there are no true consequences.”
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25581803/ncaa-ads-consider-pooling-athletes-for-cheaper-better-health-insurance
Schools are looking at pooling athletes to make health insurance cheaper.
Many NCAA athletic directors are exploring the idea of pooling their school’s athletes together in order to purchase cheaper health insurance that could provide better and longer-term medical coverage for players. If the plan goes through, this would be the first comprehensive medical insurance model in college sports instead of a piece-meal approach handled individually by states, conferences and universities.
The idea is for the Division 1A Athletic Directors’ Association to use its collective purchasing power to reduce insurance costs. The company leading the plan estimates that $282 million could be saved and coverage for all college athletes would extend until they are 26 years old.
Critics of college sports’ current health insurance model complain that it’s inefficient, contains costly gaps in coverage for the NCAA and its members, and creates policies that don’t guarantee equal coverage for athletes across all conferences and schools. The NCAA requires that athletes have insurance paid for by the school, the athlete or his or her family. The insurance must cover up to the $90,000 deductible of the NCAA catastrophic injury program.
LikeLike
From twitter:
Darren Rovell ESPN Senior Writer
Texas voters approve bond that will help finance high school stadium for McKinney ISD that could cost $62.8 million
It’ll seat 12,000.
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/high-school/high-schools/2016/05/07/done-mckinney-residents-vote-new-stadium-one-priciest-state
This article compares it to some other HS stadiums in north Texas.
LikeLike
McKinney has multiple HSs. Allen (mentioned in the article) only has one. And their stadium got closed because of structural problems. Never heard how much it cost to fix. Katy, also mentioned, is up to 8 high schools.
LikeLike
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ousportsextra/ou-sports-david-boren-ou-regents-chair-issue-statements-on/article_2f86dabc-970f-5d36-a175-46b363a547db.html
Boren went and brought his Board Chair back in line:
By Monday evening, here was where Weitzenhoffer stood …
“I first want to make it clear that I have complete confidence in the leadership of the University of Oklahoma,” Weitzenhoffer’s statement read. “President Boren has proven to be a visionary and effective leader of the university. I am confident that our President will lead the university in the right direction on matters related to the Big 12 Conference. He has and will continue to have my full support.”
—————————————————————————————
More importantly: the money quotes:
“I remain firmly committed to my belief that we should all work together to make the Big 12 Conference even stronger through holistic reform,” Boren said, “that allows for possible expansion and the creation of a Big 12 network.”
Boren going as public as possible with the Big 12 Network demand and “reform” demand.
LikeLike
Oops. Dirty laundry in public. You aren’t really surprised at these statements, or reading too much into them, are you?
LikeLike
Not really, but I was surprised at how OU’s Board Chair seemed to come out of nowhere on this; not sure I’ve heard him making statements like that before. Boren roped him in quickly though.
LikeLike
OU fans were speculating that he was upset about other things. Apparently OU sold a painting his family had gifted to the university and fired a band director he was fond of.
LikeLike
That actually makes sense if there was a rift behind the scenes there.
Still, Texas holds a lot of cards here; I don’t see any reason for Texas to budge on the LHN, and there’s still the major question of whether ESPN/FOX will pay for further additions (I can assume they’d pay at least pro-rata for the right 2 + CCG, but anything else like reducing to 8 games etc., some of these things might be more iffy).
It’s nice to look at these expansion scenarios just in terms of the % of likelihood of getting to the CFP, but we all know the money is as important or more important…
LikeLike
I often wonder if Oklahoma President David Boren is making demands that he knows the Big 12 cannot or will not achieve, thus putting forward a pretext for OU’s departure for another conference.
His three demands are expansion to twelve teams, a conference championship football game and a conference-wise network. The first demand is problematic because there don’t appear to be two very good likely candidates that will fill the position adequately, i.e., provide a significant uptick in conference revenue to make up the projected shortfalls the Big XII will have relative to the Big Ten and the SEC.
The second demand is doable, even with a ten-team conference, now that the NCAA rules have changed. That would be the easiest of the three to accomplish.
The third demand appears to be the hardest. While some sort of deal may be set up to make sure Texas doesn’t lose any money for its third tier television rights if the Longhorn Network became the Big XII Network, it’d be impossible to replace the unique branding that the LHN gives UT. If Texas doesn’t budge on the issue at all, then the entire conference, including Oklahoma, is pretty much back to Square One.
We’ll see what happens at the meetings later this month. Boren is making all the right noises about conference unity, but in the past five years or so he’s seen Colorado, Texas A&M, Missouri and Nebraska leave for other conferences. Boren was also witness to seeing Texas back out of the move to the Pac 12 at the last minute because of problems with revenue sharing and the LHN. I also have to imagine that Boren was a major party in the discussion with the Big Ten back when this all started to have five Big XII schools (Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas) become part of the Big Ten and expanding it to 16 members.
Then there’s the growing revenue disparity between the Big Ten, the SEC and the other three Power Five Conferences. In due time, we’ll have a pretty good idea of what sort of revenue numbers the B1G will be looking at when the television negotiations are finished. More likely than not, it will be in the $40M plus range, which means Oklahoma is going to be making less in annual conference distributions than all the fully vested schools in the Big Ten, big and small. In a time when states are squeezing education budgets and expenses at athletic departments are going up (not to mention the possibility of paying athletes), it has to be a concern.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I often wonder if Oklahoma President David Boren is making demands that he knows the Big 12 cannot or will not achieve, thus putting forward a pretext for OU’s departure for another conference.”
I’m sure the thought has entered his mind. More likely he’s making multiple demands so he can compromise on 1 or 2 and still get something.
“His three demands are expansion to twelve teams, a conference championship football game and a conference-wise network. The first demand is problematic because there don’t appear to be two very good likely candidates that will fill the position adequately, i.e., provide a significant uptick in conference revenue to make up the projected shortfalls the Big XII will have relative to the Big Ten and the SEC.”
They may not gain a lot, but they also wouldn’t lose. Expansion should mean more CFP appearances, and that’s got both monetary and PR value. It could also mean more NCAA tourney money and more bowl money. Not huge gains by any means, but not much cost to them either.
“The second demand is doable, even with a ten-team conference, now that the NCAA rules have changed. That would be the easiest of the three to accomplish.”
Yes, it’s hard to see a conference complaining about being behind financially turning down this free payday.
“The third demand appears to be the hardest. While some sort of deal may be set up to make sure Texas doesn’t lose any money for its third tier television rights if the Longhorn Network became the Big XII Network, it’d be impossible to replace the unique branding that the LHN gives UT. If Texas doesn’t budge on the issue at all, then the entire conference, including Oklahoma, is pretty much back to Square One.”
It’s obviously the biggest problem, and the best workaround probably requires partnering with ESPN for the network. ESPN will try to maximize the profits from the B12N to make up for what the LHN isn’t making for them. Perhaps ESPN would force TX carriers to bundle LHN and B12N. Having 11 other schools boosts the chances of getting a network at least a little bit.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15462529/alabama-crimson-tide-no-1-clemson-tigers-move-post-spring-way-too-early-top-25
ESPN’s latest pre-season top 25:
1. AL
2. Clemson
3. MI
4. FSU
5. OU
6. LSU
7. Baylor
8. Stanford
9. ND
10. OSU
16. MSU
23. IA
LikeLike
Seems about right to me (relative positions of Big Ten schools), but this year feels so different from the past 3-4 that anything can happen at the top (especially because of the Ohio State draft).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Big Ten misses the CFP this year, but then again I don’t think anybody saw Iowa going 12-0 to the Big Ten championship game and making that a play in game, so it’s too early to speculate. Ohio State’s been recruiting at such a high level, that if anyone can reload quickly from losing that many to graduation it’s either them or Alabama.
LikeLike
Hello board,
5- or 6-year reader here with a question for the forum–
Much of the public dismisses Houston as a candidate for the B12, due to their location. What do you think?
I say they’re not dead in the water until the B12 starts collecting carriage fees, i.e. when pigs fly.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15502359/documents-show-big-12-flirting-houston-memphis-ucf-colorado-state-expansion
LikeLike
Its been repeatedly said that there are 6 or 7 candidates and that those are BYU, UH, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF and UConn. Memphis is probably low on the list because of academic reasons. There seems to be little interest in the Florida teams. UConn just makes no sense.
That leaves BYU, Houston and Cincinnati as the most likely candidates.
Houston makes enormous sense IF they want to do a conference network w/o Texas. Houston is at a disadvantage if they want to do a network with Texas as they don’t add to the area covered.
There is some concern about recruiting cannibalization, but UH is already doing pretty well with Tom Hermann. They were the only non-P5 in the top 40 in recruiting last year in the ESPN ranking.
When AAC did their TV deal, there were 4 members listed as “Class A” which meant if two of them left, the deal was void. Those 4 were Houston, Cincinnati, Temple and UConn.
LikeLike
bullet,
From your link:
On Feb. 24, Memphis president David Rudd penned a letter to Gee and copied Oklahoma president David Boren and Baylor president Ken Starr, the other two members of the composition committee, as well as former Big 12 board chairman and Kansas State president Kirk Schulz. In the letter, Rudd pledged that Memphis will make a $500 million investment in academic and athletic infrastructure over the next five years. Rudd also enclosed a letter from FedEx chairman Fred Smith, who stated that the delivery services giant headquartered in Memphis will be behind the school’s Big 12 campaign.
“We strongly support the university’s efforts to become a member of an expanded Big 12 athletic conference,” Smith wrote to Rudd in a letter dated Feb. 23. “In support of [Memphis’] Big 12 aspirations, we have researched college conference sponsorships and are prepared to become a major Big 12 sponsor of football and basketball.”
Smith also wrote that FedEx would be prepared to sponsor a Big 12 championship game.
“We believe the University of Memphis and the Big 12 are a great fit and hope our support will contribute to the University of Memphis becoming a member of this storied athletic conference in the near future,” Smith wrote.
A little bribery never hurts. Can any other candidates offer the corporate support that Memphis will bring?
LikeLike
Bitchingest,
“Much of the public dismisses Houston as a candidate for the B12, due to their location. What do you think?
I say they’re not dead in the water until the B12 starts collecting carriage fees, i.e. when pigs fly.”
Location is an issue. Does the B12 need yet another TX team? They’re already in that market on TV and for recruiting. A school in a new area would add more on the TV side even without a B12N.
UH’s CFB and MBB recent history don’t help much either. Last year the FB team was great and Sumlin had a couple of good years, but 1991-2005 was pretty bleak. The MBB team has been mediocre for a while (1 NCAA trip in over 20 years).
I’m just not sure how much value UH brings other than being a 12th team.
LikeLike
fbschedules.com casts a critical eye at the Big Ten’s schedule mandate, which requires each team to play a P5 non-conference opponent, but generously counts Army, Navy, Air Force, Cincinnati, and UConn as meeting that requirement (along with “power independents” BYU and Notre Dame).
LikeLike
The Bottom Line
Combined, Army, Cincinnati, Navy, UConn and Air Force are 136-206-12 (40%) vs. the current Big Ten programs. Since 1990, the number drops to 33-65 (33.7%).
Compare that to the ACC’s (arguably the weakest of the Power conferences) all-time record vs. the current Big Ten; 636-690-36 (48%). That number includes the entire league top-to-bottom, from a 17-41-1 all-time mark vs. Ohio State, to a dominating 110-45-2 record vs. Rutgers.
At minimum, based on history, Big Ten members have a 10-15% better chance of scoring a win over Army, Cincinnati, Navy, UConn and Air Force than they would against an ACC member. It’s a number that grows vs. the heavier-hitting Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.
Yes the academies aren’t that strong, especially Army. On the other hand, it may be a smart political move to include them. More important is the list of who is using each team to count as their 1 P5 OOC game based on current schedules.
Army – nobody
Navy – nobody
AF – nobody
UC – IN, PU, NE*
UConn – IL, IN
* NE’s OOC schedule isn’t complete for that season
Does anyone really object to IL, IN and PU treating teams like UC and UConn as peers? Who has more BCS appearances lately?
UC – 2
UConn – 1
IL – 1
PU – 1
IN – not since 1967
LikeLike
Yes the academies aren’t that strong, especially Army. On the other hand, it may be a smart political move to include them.
I believe they also do reasonably well on TV. People like to watch the service academies.
Does anyone really object to IL, IN and PU treating teams like UC and UConn as peers?
Every league has its perennial doormats, but no league with a so-called “Power 5” scheduling requirement has interpreted it so loosely. And the rules don’t limit it to habitual losers. I wouldn’t be surprised if other programs decided to take advantage of it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Every league has its perennial doormats, but no league with a so-called “Power 5” scheduling requirement has interpreted it so loosely.”
But they have all made exceptions. Let’s give it a few years to see what happens. Besides, the B10 added a 9th game and dropped I-AA games as well as adding the P5 requirement. Nobody else has all of those features to counterbalance a few more exceptions to the P5 OOC rule.
“And the rules don’t limit it to habitual losers. I wouldn’t be surprised if other programs decided to take advantage of it.”
But they haven’t yet, so there’s nothing to actually complain about. Why regulate something that isn’t even a problem yet Mr. Laissez Faire?
LikeLike
– rimshot –
LikeLike
“And the rules don’t limit it to habitual losers. I wouldn’t be surprised if other programs decided to take advantage of it.”
But they haven’t yet, so there’s nothing to actually complain about. Why regulate something that isn’t even a problem yet Mr. Laissez Faire?
Except…it’s not a complaint. Go back and read what I said: “I wouldn’t be surprised.” That is not a call for further regulation. It is an observation. I think other programs should schedule those teams, if they believe it will help themselves. That is how Laissez Faire works.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Except…it’s not a complaint.”
The writer was complaining (see headline: “How Weak is the Big Ten’s Strength of Schedule Mandate?”). But if no decent team is counting these weaker foes as their one P5 OOC game, then the mandate isn’t weak because the schools are following the spirit of the rule as well as the letter of it.
You supported the writer by saying no other conference has such a loosely interpreted mandate. When you went on to say that you expect others to “take advantage” of the lax rules, that carried a negative connotation to me.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you consider taking advantage of loopholes in sports a good thing based on some of the other views you’ve expressed here.
LikeLike
Posting a link to an article does not mean that one agrees with everything it says. You should know this, since you post more links here than anybody.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you consider taking advantage of loopholes in sports a good thing based on some of the other views you’ve expressed here.
“Loophole” tends to have a slightly negative connotation, i.e., an exception that really shouldn’t be there, but was inserted to please a special interest group. I have no idea whether, in this particular case, it’s a “loophole,” or simply a rule that was conceived as a whole, and is crafted exactly the way it was meant to be.
Yes, I think that sports programs should work within the rules to benefit themselves. That seems to me an awfully uncontroversial idea. Sports are supposed to be competitive, after all. Someone has to lose, and as long as you don’t cheat, it might as well be the other guy, not you.
LikeLike
“Yes, I think that sports programs should work within the rules to benefit themselves.”
But you’ve expressed (a number of times) that rule #1 is Laissez-faire. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t have to accede.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Posting a link to an article does not mean that one agrees with everything it says.”
No, but agreeing with the article in your comment does indicate agreement with at least parts of it. Twice you said things indicating agreement with the writer’s POV (“generously counts Army…, “no league … has interpreted it so loosely.)
Then you said others might take advantage of the rule though nobody has yet. As I said previously, that phrase can have a negative connotation and that’s the way it came across to me.
““Loophole” tends to have a slightly negative connotation, i.e., an exception that really shouldn’t be there, but was inserted to please a special interest group.”
The article took for granted (and you agreed in tone as shown above) that those teams shouldn’t really count, so there’s the exception that really shouldn’t be there. Schools appealed to have those other teams included. As I showed, so far only 3 schools with weak CFB programs are using those other 5 to satisfy the mandate. That’s the special interest group. It seems we’ve met the criteria for a loophole.
LikeLike
“Yes, I think that sports programs should work within the rules to benefit themselves.”
But you’ve expressed (a number of times) that rule #1 is Laissez-faire. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t have to accede.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that anyone should ignore the rules they don’t agree with. What I have said, is that the NCAA has too many rules; that, in general, my bias is to have fewer of them, and let the marketplace decide.
Of course, that does not mean no rules at all. But we’re talking about an organization that, until very recently, regulated bagels and cream cheese on recruiting trips.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t think I’ve ever said that anyone should ignore the rules they don’t agree with.”
You actually did advocate that in at least 1 discussion. Not for all rules but for the specific one under discussion at the time. You said they should force the NCAA to stop them because you didn’t believe they could/would.
What I have said, is that the NCAA has too many rules; that, in general, my bias is to have fewer of them, and let the marketplace decide.
“Of course, that does not mean no rules at all.”
Except for the areas where you’ve said there should be no rules at all, you mean.
“But we’re talking about an organization that, until very recently, regulated bagels and cream cheese on recruiting trips.”
The NCAA is forced to have a ridiculously thick rule book by the coaches that insist on abusing every privilege the rules allow. If they could show the same restraint as a 4 year old on Halloween the NCAA could drop half of their rules. Harbaugh and satellite camps is a a great example. He abused them to the point of getting them banned, then the instant they were okay again he doubled down on his antics guaranteeing that complicated rules will be put in place for the future.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how all-time records that go back decades or 100 years mean very much. I’d assume that schools like Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois, etc are comparatively much weaker today than in the leather helmet days. The trend no doubt has gotten better for the ACC. I’m not remotely saying it’s better (it’s not) but you can pretty much throw out the ancient head to head match ups in terms of present day relevance.
LikeLike
Only if you only value recency. Boise has been good recently…
LikeLike
No idea where Boise fits into this discussion. FSU, Clemson, VT and Miami are very relevant to my original point however. Ancient W-L’s are basically irrelevant even comparing today’s relative strengths.
LikeLike
I meant “when” not “even”
LikeLike
TOM,
“I’m not sure how all-time records that go back decades or 100 years mean very much.”
They don’t in this context. She used RU’s all-time record against the ACC, for example, but they are 1-0 as a B10 member. What do those other 156 games matter? RU was practically a I-AA program for much of that time.
A better measure is the record over the past 20 years (the BCS era + 2 years to get a nice round number).
Record for the teams that were in the B10 for that game versus each team/conference (vs ACC I only counted the 11 that were always in the B10):
ACC: 32-26 (0.552)
B12: 40-42 (0.488)
P12: 47-58 (0.448)
SEC: 28-45 (0.384)
The ACC was by a small margin the easiest P5 foe for the B10 (B10 was 0.485 against the ACC, B12 and P12 combined).
Army: 1-2 (0.333)
Air Force: 2-3 (0.400)
Navy: 2-5 (0.286)
UC: 3-11 (0.214)
UConn: 2-2 (0.500)
Other 5 combined: 10-18 (0.357)
Yes, these other 5 are weaker than the ACC. But the 12 worst non-B10 P5 programs over that period went 45-66 (0.405) versus the B10. That’s on par with the exempted 5 and a lot of those games came against bad B10 teams (IN vs UK, for example).
If you add in BYU and ND, the exempted group looks much better, obviously.
LikeLike
Could expansion be more attractive to Big 12 members if two new schools had a fairly long “buy in” to the conference? Nebraska, UMd and RU each have six year buy in, supposedly primarily because of costs sunk into the B1G network. There is no Big 12 network, so that reason will not work.
Despite this, the G5 schools are pretty desperate. If the Big 12 offered Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, USF, or UCF a $5 million initial payout, that amount would double their AAC money. Then increase them a few million per year for 6 or 7 years. Any one of these schools would probably jump at any chance to get into the P5, no matter what the immediate payout. Even at a reduced level the new schools would earn many millions more in the Big 12 than they will in the AAC.
If the Big 12 survives, eventually the new schools should be earning at least $20 million per year above AAC levels. That would be tens of millions behind the B1G or SEC, but still an improvement.
BYU might not accept that type of deal, but any AAC school probably would.
The new schools should be able to easily pay for themselves at the reduced level.
LikeLike
Could expansion be more attractive to Big 12 members if two new schools had a fairly long “buy in” to the conference?
Yes, in the sense that it would improve the economics of the deal during the buy-in period.
No, in the sense that:
A) It underscores the fact that these new members really aren’t equals.
B) At least some members will have fewer games against the conference kings, and fewer games in recruiting-rich Texas.
C) Expansion is a long-term game, and university presidents are generally long-term thinkers. If you don’t believe these schools belong, a 7-year buy-in probably won’t change your view.
LikeLike
On the other hand, they could use the buy-in to cover the period until their next new TV deal when money should rise again and then balance everyone out. This is especially true if they can’t get a full pro-rata deal and switch their scheduling model (if they want to drop to 8 games).
Bring the 2 newbies up to $15M per year and they are still getting a big boost while the original 10 can get a little extra as well. Say it’s because the new members need to build brand equity.
LikeLike
That was my theory. Even if expansion is a 50 year proposition (or whatever), perhaps this makes the economics a bit more attractive to everyone and allows UT to get some extra money, while not harming any of the other 9 current members. Yes the two new teams are not equal (for a while), but compared to the AAC, equality of funding from the Big 12 might not be needed.
LikeLike
More importantly, none of the candidate schools would improve the quality of play in the Big 12, and some, like UConn (football) and Memphis, might hurt it. Doesn’t that diminish the value of the Big 12 to any television network? I don’t see that expansion is an obvious good thing.
LikeLike
If improving the quality of play is a requirement, then there is no Big 12 expansion.
Then again, UMd and RU certainly did not improve the quality of play in the B1G. Both teams may have the potential to become solid mid level B1G teams and maybe even top 5 or 6 teams in the league, but neither is likely to be fighting for the B1G championship in the next few years (or next 10 or 15 years). The only reason that either could even possibly become a consistent top 5 or 6 B1G team is because both are in very good recruiting areas.
Everyone knows that neither UMd nor RU were invited because of their quality football programs. Does that also apply to “new” Big 12 schools? We certainly cannot know the answer.
LikeLike
I don’t think the MD/RU comparison is quite relevant. Both brought very large markets into the B1G. I don’t think any of the candidate schools bring anything like DC/NYC to the table.
LikeLike
Temple would “bring” Philadelphia. That’s the #4 market (DC is #7).
If UConn claims Boston, that’s #8.
BYU brings SLC (#34) plus LDS people nationally.
Cincinnati is #36 with #49 Louisville and #64 Dayton near by.
Those aren’t all NYC and DC, but they aren’t nothing.
LikeLike
Yes, except UConn cannot bring Boston. UConn in the ACC with BC would work, but I cannot imagine how the Big 12, other than UT and OU, would even wake anyone up in the Boston market. UConn in any P5 would grab the Connecticut market, but that is it.
I am not too sure that Temple can bring Phila, when competing against PSU, RU, and maybe even Pitt. The Phila TV market includes a section of Eastern PA and also South Jersey. I would imagine that the big brand in the market is PSU. Now that RU is in the B1G and considering the Jersey part of the market, I would guess that RU is number 2 in Philly TV – perhaps a distant 2. I do not know.
Temple is hoping to build a new football stadium with a 35,000 capacity. I do not know, but I presume that would be the smallest P5 stadium in the country – if they actually build it. Not at all surprisingly, there are protests against the new stadium at Temple.
LikeLike
UMd and RU certainly did not improve the quality of play in the B1G.
I don’t think the MD/RU comparison is quite relevant. Both brought very large markets into the B1G. I don’t think any of the candidate schools bring anything like DC/NYC to the table.
Maryland didn’t improve the average quality of play, but they didn’t terribly reduce it either, assuming they are able to perform as they have historically. Their all-time winning percentage is fairly similar to that of Iowa and Purdue; better than that of Illinois, Indiana, or Northwestern; and better than that of Minnesota in recent decades.
Unless you are categorically opposed to expansion—which I realize some people are—you don’t say no to Maryland, given the other benefits they bring to the table: DC market, solid AAU state flagship, rival for PSU, potential gateway to UVA/UNC.
Rutgers will reduce the quality of play in almost every sport they compete in, but they were the most logical 14th school, assuming you accept the premise that the opportunity to add Maryland couldn’t be passed up.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Yes, except UConn cannot bring Boston.”
Probably not, but many said the same about RU and NYC. UConn might bring a chunk of Boston and a chunk of NYC. That’s still a lot of people.
“I am not too sure that Temple can bring Phila,”
Me neither, but they’re in that market. I’m just pointing out that some major media markets are involved in these expansion talks, not arguing that these AAC teams can actually bring those markets. A small percentage of a big pie is still a decent sized piece of pie.
LikeLike
Brian, perhaps many B1G fans or people on this board thought that Rutgers would not bring NYC.
Anyone who follows college sports and is in the NY metro area knew better. Certainly Delany (and B1G presidents) knew better. While NYC is hardly a football town, RU was (and is) by a vast amount the most popular college team.
In addition, the NYC television market includes about 5 million people in NJ. In addition, there are 4 million more in NJ the Philly TV market.
That is 9 million people for whom the ostensible home team is RU.
This ignores the huge number of B1G alumni in the NYC area just waiting for the ability to go to a local school to watch their team. One of my sons is a Wisconsin alum. He couldn’t contain himself when they were coming to play RU in NJ. He would be thrilled to pay extra for the B1G network to watch his Badgers.
Remember ,when Rutgers played Louisville in 2007, the Empire State Building was lit up in Scarlet. I cannot think of any other time when the Empire State Building was lit up for a college football game. That was in the Big East. Louisville was ranked 3rd and RU around 15th.
Imagine the excitement – in NYC – if RU were ranked in the top 20 playing a top 5 ranked OSU or Michigan.
Again, RU is the only P5 school within 240 miles of NYC. Temple (90 miles) and UConn (140) miles are the only G5 schools within that same radius. There is just not a lot of college football near NYC.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Brian, perhaps many B1G fans or people on this board thought that Rutgers would not bring NYC.”
I was talking more generally than that. The national opinion contained a lot of doubters. Most of us here tended to trust Delany to know what he’s doing.
“Anyone who follows college sports and is in the NY metro area knew better.”
I think it largely depended on who they were a fan of. Lots of SU and UConn fans from metro NYC said RU wouldn’t bring NYC.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd it not really accurate that RU will bring down the quality of B1G sports all around.
The women’s soccer team reached the B1G final and lost to PSU. Finished the season the top 10. The wrestling team wound up ranked 10th in the country. The men’s lacrosse team finished in the top 20 and most commentators felt that they were cheated by not being among the 16 NCAA teams. (RU beat Johns Hopkins twice and had a much better record, but Hopkins made the tournament) Women’s bball has had a couple of bad years, but they were recently consistently top 20 for a while.
I think that the RU baseball team is now 6-8 in B1G games and tied for 8th in the conference. Not great, but not terrible.
I really do not know much about the other 20 or so sports.
The big revenue sports are different. Men’s bball has been an abomination for years. Bball can be turned around fairly quickly – though I am not saying it will happen. They have a new coaching staff which seems to be quite competent. The last coach, former RU hero Eddie Jordan, apparently thought that he was still coaching an NBA team and did not need to recruit. He seemed to keep waiting for the college basketball draft and Jordan could not figure out why he did not have a first round draft choice. (Seriously, now that he is gone, high school and AAU teams around NJ say that they never saw an RU recruiter under Jordan. Maybe that is why he did not sign an instate player since 2011)
Football should be in the middle of the B1G pack. Not beating OSU, or Michigan with Harbaugh’s recruiting, but still winning 7 or 8 games per year.
The absolutely dismal history of RU football should not be relevant to what happens a few years from now.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Marc Shepherd it not really accurate that RU will bring down the quality of B1G sports all around.”
It is if he means it overall and not each sport individually. The overall performance of RU sports is dismal (for now). RU has the worst overall AD in the B10 and it isn’t even close.
“The women’s soccer team reached the B1G final and lost to PSU. Finished the season the top 10. The wrestling team wound up ranked 10th in the country.”
M soccer, W soccer and wrestling were the only 3 sports RU finished in the top half of the B10 in the fall and winter (spring seasons aren’t all done). RU finished last in 6 sports and was 9th or 10th in 5 others.
“The men’s lacrosse team finished in the top 20 and most commentators felt that they were cheated by not being among the 16 NCAA teams. (RU beat Johns Hopkins twice and had a much better record, but Hopkins made the tournament)”
From what I’ve heard JHU had a much, much tougher schedule and beat 2 or 3 other NCAA tournament teams. RU beat nobody of note other than JHU. Maybe neither deserved a tournament bid.
LikeLike
Brian, RU HAD an absolutely horrible AD. Perhaps the worst of all of the P5 ADs. (You could probably throw in all of the G5 schools and she was in the running as worst AD of all of those schools too)
Julie Hermann was hired for only one reason when a female member of the Board of Governors pushed her through, even though Hermann was not even on the list of finalists.
There was an absolute uproar when she was appointed and sadly she was as bad as expected.
Hermann has been fired and the new AD, Pat Hobbs (former dean of Seton Hall Law School) has been very widely praised for what he has done as AD – hiring new football and men’s bball coaches, raising funds, etc.
Oddly, there is great optimism regarding RU sports – for the first time in years.
LikeLike
I fully expect RU to improve tremendously as the B10 money starts rolling in. I’m just talking about where they are now.
LikeLike
Brian, maybe all the B1G money will help RU and maybe the historical incompetence will continue. Only time will tell. In NJ, people have been waiting for the “sleeping giant” to awaken for a long time. Will the money be the kiss of the beautiful B1G princess on the ugly RU frog? Who knows.
At least the new football and basketball coaches are now starting to get paid decent (not great) money, so there is hope. There are just so many top athletes in NJ – football, bball, soccer (Eg RU grad Carli Lloyd – the best woman’s soccer player in the world), wrestling, lacrosse, etc., that there is a chance.
Karl Anthony Towns, top bball senior in the county, to UK, and now about to be NBA Rookie of the Year, NJ. Rashan Gary, number one football 2016 HS senior to Mich. Some wrestler who is going to Penn State is the number 2 ranked HS wrestler in the country. The list goes on and on – with none of them staying home. (Except Carli Lloyd and she was not the best college player in the country)
Certainly the feeling is that things are finally looking up with RU sports, but ??????. Those hopes have been dashed before. No one can ever ignore the chance that RU sports will self destruct.
There is certainly no tradition of success and those lousy sports really do hurt RU.
(As a very personal example, in 1995 my oldest son got a full free ride to RU, did not go because of the shitty sports and wound up in Madison, WI. He was later offered a partial academic scholarship to Duke Law School, also did not take that money and went elsewhere, which was fine).
As far SU and UConn fans thinking that RU would not bring NYC, OK fine. The total of all SU and UConn fans combined in NYC is less than half of the RU fans, and that was pre-B1G.
As you can imagine, the three schools ringing NYC (RU – 40 miles, UConn – 140 miles, and SU – 240 miles) might disagree about which one was likely to get more attention. Even when UConn and SU were winning men’s NCAA bball championships, it really did not get wake up fans in NYC. No Empire State Building lightings. UConn’s one BCS football game did not resonate in New York either.
You also must realize that RU fans enjoy nothing more than the fact that UConn is stuck in P5 and Syracuse is sort of trapped in upstate NY P5 ACC anonymity. Basketball only goes so far.
When Boeheim retires, will Cuse bball stay the same? Can Ollie keep UConn bball at the top? If Ollie does, will some P5 school offer big dollars and steal him? Can UConn compete with P5 money for a hot mens’ bball coach?
Either of those schools, particularly UConn would gladly rename their campus after Delany if they ever had a B1G invite.
LikeLike
As far SU and UConn fans thinking that RU would not bring NYC, OK fine. The total of all SU and UConn fans combined in NYC is less than half of the RU fans, and that was pre-B1G.
I’ve lived in NJ/NY for almost all of my adult life, and I am 55. RU football has very little fan support in NYC. Granted, Syracuse and UConn have even less, but that’s not exactly anything for a Rutgers fan to brag about.
You also must realize that RU fans enjoy nothing more than the fact that UConn is stuck in P5 and Syracuse is sort of trapped in upstate NY P5 ACC anonymity.
I would expect Rutgers fans to gloat about that. It’s what fans do. And when your athletic department overall has given you so little, naturally you cling to whatever victories you can, however symbolic.
When Boeheim retires, will Cuse bball stay the same? Can Ollie keep UConn bball at the top?
King programs have a very strong tendency to remain kings. They have built-in structural advantages that tend to persist. Naturally, a Rutgers fan is going to want to see them turn into losers, but I wouldn’t bet on that, if I were you.
Either of those schools, particularly UConn would gladly rename their campus after Delany if they ever had a B1G invite.
True.
LikeLike
Syracuse has P5 money and a huge bball arena. They have a reasonable chance to hire a top coach and keep going. We shall see. As a G5, can UConn keep good coaches? Time will tell.
Even kings can collapse, structural advantages or not. Michigan football had many lean years, What about Nebraska football – they are a king, but it has been a long time. Will Nebraska’s glory years (I mean playing for a national title) ever come back?
I would not bet against Cuse bball. I think that UConn has problems long term, unless they give up on football (not at all likely) and get back into the Big East. (also not likely) So, yes, as a G5 school I would bet against UConn men’s bball.
Auriema might be at UConn for another 15 years and women’s bball will be great as long as he is there, but women’s bball just does not move the needle at all.
“I’ve lived in NJ/NY for almost all of my adult life, and I am 55. RU football has very little fan support in NYC. Granted, Syracuse and UConn have even less, but that’s not exactly anything for a Rutgers fan to brag about.”
College FB is not a big deal in NYC at all. The fact is that RU was (and is) by far the leading college FB team in NYC and the market is so huge that a little part of it is significant.
With St. Johns and the Big East, NYC cares a little bit more about bball, but still NY is a pro town.
Again the NYC television market includes 5 million (or more) people in Northern and Central NJ. They are not counted as part of the RU fans in the City. That 5 million alone well exceeds the TV markets for UConn or Cuse.
Honestly the biggest thing that RU sports fans have had to brag about in recent years is admission to the B1G. I just happened to be in New Brunswick a couple of years ago, shortly after the B1G announcement. A huge billboard had the scarlet R and “We are B1G”. This was huge at RU, as I am sure everyone on this board knows. (That is why many say that RU was the biggest winner of the realignment lottery – and I agree with that)
A close second to brag about has been Carli Lloyd. (10 years after she graduated). Not much.
It is just a sign of incredible incompetence that a college football team 40 miles from Manhattan, and the only college football team within 140 mile of NYC (other than Temple in Philly) could be so bad so long, This is despite being in state with 9 million people and loads of recruits.
Despite all of that, RU is now in probably the best conference in the country. For now, that is enough for most fans. The belief is that time and money will cure RU sports ills. Again, we shall see.
LikeLike
I think Syracuse is quite happy where they are. They have said in the past they weren’t interested in the Big 10. They are in a conference with similar sized schools with a really strong focus on basketball and more “brands” in basketball than anywhere else.
They don’t want to be with a bunch of Enormous State Universities with 80-110k football stadiums.
LikeLike
Cuse probably belongs in the ACC rather than the B1G. The problem is that at least BC has suffered mightily in football since being in the ACC. Will that happen to Cuse, which really has not had much of a football program for a while?
Also when the money difference between the B1G and ACC starts to grow significantly, will Cuse feel the same way?
To continue to beat a dead horse, Julie Hermann was a terrible AD for her short time at RU. Of course, RU has had lousy ADs for decades, so Julie Hermann was one of a long list.
Here is a link to an article which I just saw regarding the joy at RU at joining the B1G
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/5/4/11594432/remember-to-say-thanks-to-jim-delaney?_ga=1.192003116.703444265.1360262470
LikeLike
The idea of a network is to offset the drain from adding schools.
On top of that, a network needs inventory. Adding schools gives you 2 more football games and 4 more basketball games per week, during the respective seasons for those sports.
The problem is that at least BC has suffered mightily in football since being in the ACC.
Really? In 14 years in the Big East (a weaker conference), they never placed higher than 3rd, except in their final season, when they tied for first.
In their first 5 years in the ACC, they finished 1st or 2nd in their division every year, advancing twice to the CCG. They benefited from FSU being in the dumps, but still, they were not struggling at all.
Since then, yeah, BC football has at best mediocre, but with the right coach, there’s no reason they couldn’t be competitive again.
LikeLike
Syracuse has P5 money and a huge bball arena. They have a reasonable chance to hire a top coach and keep going. We shall see. As a G5, can UConn keep good coaches? Time will tell.
G5 is a football concept. It has nothing to do with basketball.
Even kings can collapse, structural advantages or not. Michigan football had many lean years, What about Nebraska football – they are a king, but it has been a long time. Will Nebraska’s glory years (I mean playing for a national title) ever come back?
Kings don’t win every year, and they do have lean periods, but they have an overwhelming tendency to bounce back.
Nebraska isn’t doing that badly, except in the minds of greedy Husker fans. In Bo Pellini’s seven seasons, they won 9 or 10 games every year. They were also 1st or 2nd in their division in 5 out of 7 seasons. The list of teams who did all that, over the same time period, wouldn’t be very long.
We’re only one year into the Mike Riley era, so I wouldn’t be so fast to write off the Huskers.
LikeLike
Marc, actually P5 and G5 are basketball terms, and field hockey terms, and soccer, etc. It is called money and that is relevant to every college sport, except the small handful of schools with wealthy athletic departments.
Money is certainly relevant to UConn, which has an athletic dept. deeply in the red, and is in a state deeply in the red. There is talk of Hartford, the state capital and 3rd biggest city, declaring bankruptcy. There is no extra money in the state to support UConn sports, beyond current levels.
In 2014, Kevin Ollie signed a 5 year extension pursuant to which he could earn $3 million/year, which puts him in the top dozen bball salaries. Will UConn continue to support Ollie at those levels – absolutely as long as he keeps winning big time.
The difference between UConn and most PO5 schools is at least $15 million per year and growing. If some school with lots of money offers Ollie $4 (or more) when his contract ends, can UConn match that? Probably, as long as men’s bball makes big money.
My point is simply that, fair or not (and it isn’t fair) I have to believe that G5 schools are going to fall further and further behind their P5 neighbors. It may take years, but eventually that will take its toll.
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2015/12/11/uconn-still-allocates-over-71-million-to-athletics-amid-budget-troubles
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie: I certainly agree with you that UConn has a more precarious position as a basketball powerhouse than Syracuse. But a number of schools have sustained “basketball king status” without power five football dollars. Villanova is an example we are all familiar with. If you are laying bets, UConn is more likely to achieve it, than not.
And I would certainly be skeptical of any conclusion that is largely driven by fan resentment, as yours appears to be. In an earlier post, you had Syracuse and UConn in the same sad boat, until you were called on it.
[Rutgers] Men’s bball has been an abomination for years. Bball can be turned around fairly quickly – though I am not saying it will happen.
To the contrary, it is never easy to create a strong program where none exists, nor has ever existed. Penn State has been in the Big Ten since 1993, but has only three NCAA tournament bids to its name, only once advancing beyond the opening weekend. That’s just one example. Don’t like that one? I can find 20 more.
It is just a sign of incredible incompetence that a college football team 40 miles from Manhattan, and the only college football team within 140 mile of NYC (other than Temple in Philly) could be so bad so long, This is despite being in state with 9 million people and loads of recruits.
It’s a structural problem. Begin with the fact that the entire Northeast and mid-Atlantic region has just one football king, Penn State, despite the region’s enormous population. Starting from New Jersey and looking to the Northeast, there are just three P5 programs (Rutgers, Syracuse, BC) in a number of densely populated states. No other part of the country has less big-time college football per capita than the Northeast.
And of course, of those three programs, Rutgers has the worst history, with no bowl appearances before 1978. Before that, they were playing what we would call now an FCS schedule. It is only fairly recently that they have even attempted to play major college football.
LikeLike
My comments are really not driven by fan resentment. From my comments, I am hardly defending “dear Old Rutgers”, which is today having President Obama speak at graduation to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the school. I am focusing on money and what it means for coaching, facilities, etc.
I merely pointed out that many RU fans who post on line take special delight in the problems of UConn. For a number of years RU and UConn did have a major rivalry. It happens. On UConn boards there are still any number of comments questioning why RU was invited to the B1G – and it has been close to 4 years, but the pain is still there.
For some reason, on RU football boards there are a few Syracuse trolls who never shut up (probably NJ residents who went to Cuse). That in turn magnifies resentment toward Cuse. Of course all of this involves the less than 1% of fans who get involved in these on line forums.
As an avocation, I follow economic issues in the Northeast pretty closely and this is the basis for my comments. If RU had not gotten the lifeboat from the B1G, I would understand the argument for dramatically downsizing football, if there were no economically viable path forward. RU was not going to the Big 12 and I do not expect any ACC invitations for some time.
I do not think that RU really would have downsized football beyond P5, but student fees would have had to fund the money to continue play in the AAC. Certainly there would not have been extra NJ state support or powerful alumni to the rescue. There also would not have been a major facilities upgrade, which is now underway and desperately needed. Without extra money for better coaches and adequate facilities, mediocrity is a goal, not a disappointment.
At Cuse there is now a controversy over the condition of the Carrrier Dome and how and whether it will be repaired, replaced, etc. Because Syracuse is a P5 basketball school (OK, football term but same money), they should be able to fund it.
http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2016/02/carrier_dome_questions_vancouver_offers_clues_to_issues_syracuse_university_face.html
The economy of upstate NY is a disaster and getting worse, not better. I do not believe that NY State will come to the rescue of Cuse with major money.
There is a economic solution, called fracking, but it is a political issue and banned in NY State. Will those problems rub off on a private college, with P5 income? Maybe, but there could be problems post Boeheim. Would I bet against Cuse staying as a bball power, no but only because of the ACC money.
As to UConn, the state is an absolute financial mess. CT has managed to go from one of the richest states in the country to financial fiasco very quickly.
GE, which was a fixture in CT, is pulling out and moving to Massachusetts, due to CT tax policies. Imagine moving to MA to get away from taxes. GE told CT that they would move and take hundreds of top paying jobs, if CT continued forward with tax plans. The state called the “bluff” of GE and now GE is moving.
UConn is raising tuition 31% in the next four years. Students are now paying nearly $900 per year to support sports. That will rise significantly. At some point will the “rubber band break”. I do not know, but without P5 revenue, it is much more likely.
The difference between UConn and Nova is very simple – football. That is why I said that if they downgraded football and went back to the Big East, bball would do fine. That will not happen and actually may not make economic sense for UConn in any event. It is just a tough situation.
I personally fully appreciate the importance of college sports, or I wouldn’t be wasting time here. We have three sons. One went to a B1G school and the other two to an ACC athletic power. I get it.
The economics of college sports have changed dramatically in the last few years with huge money going to a small group of schools and others on the outside looking in. That will get much worse over the ten or 15 years.
As to an RU basketball turnaround, all that is needed is a couple of strong recruiting years in a row to at least be respectable. There are so many good high school/AAU players in this area, that it is certainly possible.
The biggest disappointment really was Eddie Jordan. To find out after he left that he actually did almost no recruiting was unreal. To hear NJ and AAU coach after coach comment that they never saw the RU coach was astonishing. With no recruiting and a few injuries to players, it is easy to see why a B1G bball team would really stink, with only 7 scholarship players actively on the team.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132958/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-rbs
Top RBs:
1. Grange, IL
2. Griffin, OSU
3. Dayne, WI
4. Heston, MI
5. Rozier, NE
Honorable mentions: Tom Harmon, Michigan; Charles “Chic” Harley, Ohio State; Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin; Leroy Keyes, Purdue; Lorenzo White, Michigan State; Anthony Thompson, Indiana; Bruce Smith, Minnesota; Nile Kinnick, Iowa; Alan Ameche, Wisconsin; Ki-Jana Carter, Penn State; Eddie George, Ohio State; Howard Cassady, Ohio State
Tough call to pick just 5 from the B10 as we have 18 Heisman winners (and 19 trophies). I would’ve left out Heston from the top 5 as it’s just too hard to judge accomplishments from that era (he played 1901-1904) since there was little to no competition and the game was so different.
Where’s Jay Berwanger, Chicago’s best player and the first Heisman winner? If we’re counting all of the history of newbies, surely we shouldn’t neglect Chicago.
Also, where are the rest of the great FBs?
Just from OSU:
Bob Ferguson – 2x AA, UPI PotY, won the Maxwell Award and barely lost the Heisman to Ernie Davis.
Pete Johnson – shared the backfield with Archie Griffin and still ran for over 2300 yards and is OSU’s TD leader for a game (5), season (25) and career (56) and is #2 in total points behind a kicker.
Top LBs:
1. Butkus, IL
2. Spielman, OSU
3. Fitzgerald, NW
4. Arrington, PSU
5. Gradishar, OSU
Honorable mention: Jack Ham, Penn State; A.J. Hawk, Ohio State; George Webster, Michigan State; W.T. Dunn, Penn State; Dennis Onkotz, Penn State; Broderick Thomas, Nebraska; Tom Novak, Nebraska; Dana Howard, Illinois; Percy Snow, Michigan State; Shane Conlan, Penn State; Paul Posluszny, Penn State; James Laurinaitis, Ohio State; E.J. Henderson, Maryland, Larry Station, Iowa
Tom Cousineau (HoF, 2x AA, #1 draft pick)?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133005/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-tes
Top TEs:
1. Kramer, MI
2. Fesler, OSU
3. Kwalick, PSU
4. Young, PU
5. Battaglia, RU
Honorable mention: Jim Mandich, Michigan; Vernon Davis, Maryland; Junior Miller, Nebraska; Bob Higgins, Penn State, Dallas Clark, Iowa; Marv Cook, Iowa; Max Morris, Northwestern; Lester Belding, Iowa; Doug Kingsriter, Minnesota; Kyle Brady, Penn State; Matt Spaeth, Minnesota; Bob Shaw, Ohio State; Billy Joe Dupree, Michigan State; Lance Kendricks, Wisconsin
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132989/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-cbs
Top CBs:
1. Woodson, MI
2. Kinnick, IA
3. Woodson, PU
4. Fletcher, WI
5. Cassady, OSU
Honorable mentions: Antoine Winfield, Ohio State; Darqueze Dennard, Michigan State; Shawn Springs, Ohio State; Prince Amukamara, Nebraska; Troy Vincent, Wisconsin; Eugene Wilson, Illinois; Ralph Brown, Nebraska; George Taliaferro, Indiana; Lynn Chandnois, Michigan State; Malcolm Jenkins, Ohio State; Desmond King, Iowa
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/112012/texas-quieter-but-not-muzzled-as-key-big-12-decisions-loom
A look at UT and why they’ve been so quiet amidst all the B12 turmoil.
“A lot of Big 12 members were interested in the possibility of a Pac-10 membership offer at the time, but they were pretty much following the lead of Texas,” said Kevin Weiberg, the former Big 12 commissioner who served as the Pac-10’s deputy commissioner in 2010. “It was very much apparent that Texas was very influential.”
Dodds’ statement and others like it affirmed Texas’ power in the realignment frenzy. Why did Nebraska leave for the Big Ten and Texas A&M for the SEC? Why did Larry Scott’s master plan for the Pac-16 seemingly succeed then fall apart? Why was the Big 12 twice saved from certain destruction? Why do Big 12 members continue to grumble, at least privately, about the league’s revenue distribution model? The answers are all, at least in part, Texas.
…
Is Texas just another seat in the room, muzzled by challenges on the football field and with the Longhorn Network, as well as having a fairly new president, an interim athletic director and an embattled coach? Or, is UT still a power player but one content to listen, absorb and study rather than flex its muscles whenever possible? The second image seems to be coming into focus.
Those who observe Fenves, who has an engineering background, and Perrin, a longtime attorney, describe them as smart, intent listeners who process information before giving their opinions. They’re not timid but tend to take a patient approach.
…
Texas is still in prime position to shape the Big 12’s future. If Big 12 viability hinges on a league-wide network replacing the Longhorn Network, as many believe, Texas still must be sold on a plan — new league members, enhanced league revenue — that ensures its interests are protected, and its pockets are filled. It would take a lot for Texas to back away from LHN and the financial assurances it provides.
…
“There’s no question Texas is a very important institution to the Big 12, both in the overall stature of the athletic program but the academic power as well,” Weiberg said. “It’s the type of member any conference would like to have, so I think there will be a respect around how Texas feels about a lot of these issues.”
Round 3 of potential Big 12 realignment carries a different tenor. Current members aren’t looking to leave (“It’s more an offensive undertaking than a defensive,” Bowlsby said). While there isn’t necessarily consensus on how to proceed, infighting within the league has so far been limited. Bowlsby described the Big 12’s most recent presidents’ gathering as the most productive of his tenure.
“Having said that,” Bowlsby continued, “they don’t all agree on everything. But to the extent they disagree, it’s usually legitimate issues that pertain to their institution.”
Asked if the Big 12 is a league where certain members resonate more than others, Bowlsby smiled and said, “You can probably figure those out.”
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Michigans-satellite-camps-are-going-international-45277325
MI is now having a satellite camp in Australia.
That’s right, Michigan has gone international. The camp marks the 28th different camp the Michigan coaching staff will participate in during the month of June, now covering 15 different states and two different countries.
LikeLike
“…now covering 15 different states and two different countries.” And continents, and hemispheres.
LikeLike
Without checking the article, I’ll just assume many (if not most) of those satellite camps will be near Ann Arbor at least if they’re conducting that many in June.
Still, Harbaugh seems to be going all out on this; his staff is going to be full-time year-round at this rate…
LikeLike
As of May 11, Michigan is participating in thirty-five camps both on campus in Ann Arbor (seven), Detroit (Sound Mind, Sound Body) and at satellite locations (27) in the U.S. and Australia. This doesn’t include the camps in Hawaii and American Samoa that have been mentioned by the media, but not officially confirmed by the university.
See http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/05/michigan_also_has_satellite_ca.html#incart_river_index
Eight of the camps are going to be in Ann Arbor or Detroit (Sound Mind, Sound Body). Some of the camps are multi-day events. Here’s the remaining camps by state:
Florida (4)
California (4)
Texas (3)
Ohio (3)
Alabama (2)
New Jersey (2)
These states have one camp: Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
As I understand it, a couple of the coaches are going to American Samoa and Australia early in the camp tour. Then the entire staff will end the camp tour at the locations in Hawaii and American Samoa (and likely get some R&R in the process).
The first camp is June 2 and the final one on the list is June 25. I imagine the camps in Hawaii and American Samoa comes sometime after that June 25th date.
LikeLike
That puts it into perspective; a fair bit more travel than I’d have guessed. Still, credit to Harbaugh if/when they pull that off without a hitch. The guy clearly loves the recruiting part of the job.
Never was a surprise to me that he’d leave the NFL to come back to college (and I know ESPN was trying to pour water on it until it happened); always had the persona that he cared more about the relationships than you see among NFL coaches.
LikeLike
How do you figure that z33K? Ever hear Richard Sherman, Doug Baldwin, and Andrew Luck – to name just three guys – talk about their “relationship” with Harbaugh? Sherman and Baldwin hate him, and Luck was not sorry to see him leave Stanford before his senior season.
LikeLike
Harbaugh is going to be universally hated among head and assistant coaches everywhere.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15510851/syracuse-ad-steps-accepts-same-job-minnesota
Not a surprise here; Minnesota is a department at $100m in revenue, and this is before we even start talking about the new Big Ten FOX TV contract.
Even mid-tier programs in Big Ten/SEC are now starting to distance themselves from mid-tier programs in other conferences. I think that’s an important factor in these expansion discussions.
Minnesota paid his $500k buyout to Syracuse according to Twitter.
LikeLike
From Frank’s twitter:
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29877976/impending-vote-cut-uc-santa-cruz-sports-sparks
UCSC will drop sports entirely unless students agree to a $90 fee per quarter to support it. This is in addition to asking for an additional $38/qtr to support physical education and another $10/qtr to support the student union.
UCSC has a total budget of $722M and spends $2M on athletics but only budgets $1.4M for sports. They demand that the students make up the difference or they’ll cut all sports.
So long, Banana Slugs.
LikeLike
The NCAA should help fund the program just to keep the only Banana Slugs around.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15518292/ole-miss-rebels-officials-confirm-laremy-tunsil-text-messages-checking-alterations
Ole Miss has verified that Tunsil and a coach did have a text conversation as leaked during the draft. Now they’re trying to verify if the messages were altered before being leaked.
LikeLike
Unless UT does decide against LHN, and ESPN willing to give up that control of th B12, may as well put the expansion pot on the back burner (or back in the cabinet).
“John Shinn
John Shinn – @john_shinn
Boren: If there’s not going to be a network, there’s no need for expansion. If there is a network, there almost has to be expansion. #Big12
1:42 PM – 12 May 2016 from Oklahoma, USA”
LikeLike
I think Boren is correct. Expansion probably only makes sense if they add a network. The increased CFP odds probably don’t add enough value otherwise.
With that said, I think this helps trim the list of expansion candidates. The 2 newbies have to help from a footprint perspective (which virtually eliminates UH and Boise I’d think).
Which of these can actually deliver their home markets and add something to a B12N?
Temple – #4 Philly
UH – #10 Houston (Do they add anything above what the B12 already has?)
USF – #11 Tampa
UCF – #19 Orlando
UConn – #30 Hartford + small pieces of NYC & Boston
BYU – #34 SLC + LDS members everywhere
UC – #36 Cincinnati
Memphis – #50 Memphis
I’d say Temple, UH and Memphis don’t really fit this bill. I still question UConn’s geography on top of this. That leaves UC, BYU, UCF and USF for me.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot CSU. I also think geography hurts them.
CSU – #17 Denver
I’m not convinced CSU brings Denver, but it might. Especially since CU spent so long in the Big 8/12.
LikeLike
CU barely even brings Denver. Boren softening his pro-expansion rhetoric as Dennis Dodd writes yet another story on it:
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/behind-the-hype-oklahoma-president-calms-down-big-12-expansion-talk/
LikeLike
http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/12/texas-should-join-the-big-ten/
Positive read about Texas to B1G by a UM alum.
LikeLike
I stopped reading when I got to this: “The Big Ten Could Accommodate The Longhorn Network”
LikeLike
1. It could (not would, necessarily, but could). His idea was basically to pay UT less because the LHN is paying them instead. He didn’t bother with details beyond that. However, with UT and OU the B10 could consider regional networks like the P12 has and the LHN would just be one of them.
2. He also assumed 10 games when discussing the schedule which seemed odd. I think 9 is the realistic maximum for now.
LikeLike
What stood out to me was that UT had to go to the B1G since it was the only conference that they could argue places them back ahead of A&M. Anything else would be viewed as a loss to the Aggies.
LikeLike
While that’s not a reason to switch conferences, is his analysis wrong in that regard? Following TAMU to the SEC would be viewed as TAMU winning I think, and the B10 is the only other conference that will match SEC money in the future.
LikeLike
UT doesn’t think that way.
LikeLike
bullet,
“UT doesn’t think that way.”
Exactly, which is why I said it’s no reason to switch conferences. I was asking if his analysis of which conferences would count as wins was wrong.
LikeLike
Brian:
Your question assumes UT would ever concede any scenario where aTm “wins”, whatever that means in this context. To them, almost by definition, if UT stays or if it moves some day it will have been in its own best interest and a win.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Your question assumes UT would ever concede any scenario where aTm “wins”, whatever that means in this context. To them, almost by definition, if UT stays or if it moves some day it will have been in its own best interest and a win.”
Actually, I was looking for the answer from an outsider’s POV not UT’s.
LikeLike
Brian:
Ok, but I can’t see how an outsiders perspective is informative.
“I was asking if his analysis of which conferences would count as wins was wrong.”
I’d suggest that joining the AAC or MWC would not be a win. There would be obvious benefits to joining B1G, and if only talking $s and FB the SEC (ignoring aTm). With a ND like deal and ACC is a win. Going PAC protects TT, OkSU, solidifies RRR (and in same division), and while not quite as high as B1G the academics there are like minded.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Ok, but I can’t see how an outsiders perspective is informative.”
The original piece is an outsider’s view of what UT would think if they were honest about it. We’ve already said that UT would never actually call any move they make a loss, but that doesn’t mean they (or their fans, or fans in general) wouldn’t view it as one.
“I’d suggest that joining the AAC or MWC would not be a win.”
Obviously, but UT would never choose either.
“There would be obvious benefits to joining B1G, and if only talking $s and FB the SEC (ignoring aTm).”
But you can’t ignore TAMU. That’s the only reason why the author (and I) would consider the SEC a loss. It also sets the money bar.
“With a ND like deal and ACC is a win.”
But fully joining the ACC?
I’m not sure UT really covets what ND has in the ACC deal, either. It may be their best plausible choice in their eyes, though. Would the money match what TAMU gets (or at least be close)? Probably.
“Going PAC protects TT, OkSU, solidifies RRR (and in same division), and while not quite as high as B1G the academics there are like minded.”
Money and exposure are potential problems. As is going back to the P12 after spurning the chance earlier.
LikeLike
I guess I just reject labeling somethings in different times and circumstances as black or white, a win or a loss. In this case it’s just about fanboy embarrassment.
UT, while not going to give back $s they are currently receiving, isn’t in a desperate hunt for dollars (i.e. They were doing a LHN even if it cost them rather than be an income producer).
While not as fanatic in the west, a move there would be into the then single power conference (this assumes the B12 dissolves or effectively is no longer a power in P5) covering a third of the US population. CA and TX combined make exposure/recruiting a non issue.
In 2032, when the LHN contract expires (if not renewed) we can see what choice they make, and then assign a meaningless external fan centric label as concrete ramifications become apparent.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I guess I just reject labeling somethings in different times and circumstances as black or white, a win or a loss. In this case it’s just about fanboy embarrassment.”
That’s fine, but that is exactly what the article was about. Why keep discussing it to say you aren’t interested in its central premise? After acknowledging it had no place in the decision making, all I asked was if anyone thought his analysis of fanboy embarrassment was incorrect in terms of what the fanboys would consider wins and losses.
LikeLike
You’ve never commented with a correction to what you consider a flawed/false premise?
To jump in the cesspool, no it wouldn’t be a “loss” if they joined any other P5. That would be something to be evaluated decades later. Aggie probably disagrees 😉.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You’ve never commented with a correction to what you consider a flawed/false premise?”
Generally not 3 times in quick succession, no.
LikeLike
To jump in the cesspool, no it wouldn’t be a “loss” if they joined any other P5. That would be something to be evaluated decades later.
No one switches conferences, and then waits decades to evaluate it. The opposite is what happens: they forecast what the outcome will be decades later, and on the basis of that, make a decision.
I think it’s true that if Texas joined the SEC, the fanboys would have a field day, for the reasons stated. This is no reason not to make the move, if it’s actually the best bet for Texas long-term. Fanboys have a notoriously short time horizon, the exact opposite of university presidents.
LikeLike
And yet you responded to each, “correcting” my “misinterpreting” of the question.
To be clear, my view of UT to the SEC would be a mistake, but for many other reasons than the simplistic view of win or lose.
LikeLike
Marc:
Utah and TCU could say “win” by getting in the game. Most judgments we to win/loss require that a period of time pass to evaluate whether the projections made that caused the change have been met.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And yet you responded to each, “correcting” my “misinterpreting” of the question.”
Yes, but I’m not the one uninterested in the article’s central premise.
LikeLike
This writer’s input about Texas vs. A&M reads like a 3rd grader’s first essay. I doubt Texas is really thinking about how it will compare to A&M. As Bullet said…that isn’t how Texas thinks. Besides a move to the B1G, Pac or ACC or remaining in the B12 won’t affect Texas’ standing or change A&M’s standing. Texas and A&M are fine as they are and any success or failure will be determined by the AD, coaches and performance…not their conference choice.
LikeLike
Besides a move to the B1G, Pac or ACC or remaining in the B12 won’t affect Texas’ standing or change A&M’s standing.
You don’t think it matters which conference they are in? That’s novel.
Texas and A&M are fine as they are…
The fact that they came within inches of joining the Pac, is a pretty good indication that all is not well in the Big 12.
Granted, they ended up staying, but no other conference is hampered by these constant (and highly publicized) existential debates.
LikeLike
John Shinn @john_shinn 4h4 hours ago Oklahoma, USA
Boren: If there’s not going to be a network, there’s no need for expansion. If there is a network, there almost has to be expansion. #Big12
Doesn’t that just put all the power into Texas’ hands?
A Big 12 Network without Texas doesn’t succeed regardless of whether you add schools. So if the Network question has to be determined first, Texas/LHN situation need to be solved…
In which case the whole thing about 3 schools “stopping” expansion is moot because Texas doesn’t need anyone else’s help to quash the Big 12 Network.
LikeLike
Texas basically has to decide whether it just wants to be paid off for rolling in the LHN.
To me, I’m not sure this is a workable solution…; LHN is 100% Texas; Big 12 Network by definition would feature Texas far less.
How to compensate for that is the key in some sense; but it means you basically end up with heavily lopsided payouts regardless.
Texas would need at least a 20-30% bump to what they’re getting from LHN to make this worth it (let’s just say $20m averaged over contract), so you’re left with around $6-7m per year for the other schools…
Still, Texas has an AD that should be crossing $200m per year soon; just how much is $5m or so for giving up an exclusive network?
And who’s the partner ESPN? (Since they own the LHN?)… What does that mean for a potential ACC Network?
LikeLike
It would almost have to be ESPN to make this a workable situation. ESPN could bundle the LHN and B12N in TX. Maybe the B12 has to treat this like the P12 and consider LHN a regional network. It could be done if UT wants to make it work.
LikeLike
That is the ONLY way it happens unless Fenves and Perrin have a dramatically different view (which I doubt-although the LHN isn’t their “baby”) of the value of the exposure the LHN provides.
One thing that doesn’t get mentioned is that, in addition to the $15 million, Texas has a 70% profits bonus once the LHN generates $295 million + expenses. Now it may never get there, but 2032 is a long ways away.
LikeLike
I really doubt UT goes anywhere without a Pac 12 type solution (their 2 school regional subnetworks). Its really Big 12 or Pac 12 for Texas. Independence makes no sense. ND style deal with ACC makes no sense either (in terms of geographic, financial or football competition).
LikeLike
I’ve pretty much come around to the view that Texas won’t leave the Big 12.
My expectation is that future rounds of expansion will come from schools leaving the ACC; also one other thing, if Oklahoma understands that, then they also understand that if they hold tightly with Texas, then someday the Big 12 might be inviting in schools like Miami and Clemson (which likely have no other landing spot if the ACC explodes).
If the Big 12 and OU are patient and willing to hold together (not at all a given), there might be good things later…
LikeLike
Keep in mind that half of the LHN revenue goes to the academic side. And also that the Texas AD was going to do the LHN if they had to pay to get it on. Getting paid $15 million a year was a bonus for the AD.
LikeLike
Some of the programming is from the academic side as well.
LikeLike
ESPN article making it sound like a Big 12 (or ACC) network is unlikely.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15509233/with-many-hurdles-big-12-tv-network-savior-league
LikeLike
Somebody has to explain to me why exactly ESPN wants to assume the risk of 2 more regional conference networks that will be nowhere near as successful as the SEC Network.
They already have a huge lineup that they have to advocate for in the coming years; adding ACC Network and Big 12 will make this messy. How many extra dimes do they pull out of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina for the ACC Network? How many extra dimes do they pull out of Texas for the Big 12 Network (stronger situation in terms of overlap for Big 12 Network but still).
They’re fighting huge subscriber losses (by next contracts for ESPN, they might have lost at least 10% of their sub base) as well as shrinking ad revenue recently.
ESPN is a hugely profitable enterprise that is not at risk of demise, but the days of “gravy train” earnings are done.
ESPN is in a similar position as Apple in that respect.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Somebody has to explain to me why exactly ESPN wants to assume the risk of 2 more regional conference networks that will be nowhere near as successful as the SEC Network.”
ACCN:
They already own the rights and allegedly owe the ACC $45M if they don’t start a network. Long term can ESPN make more money from those rights by starting the ACCN than by selling them off to Raycom and such?
B12N:
How much more would some of these schools cost ESPN if the B12 dissolves and they move to bigger conferences?
The stability of the ACC and B12 also has value to ESPN. Keeping them on a more level playing field is to ESPN’s advantage.
LikeLike
http://landgrantgauntlet.com/2016/05/12/the-big-12-may-have-their-final-four-but-expansion-hinges-on-texas-the-acc/
The Dude of WV writes about B12 expansion.
The Big 12 honestly doesn’t know what it will do, and the majority of information circulating is a product of either leaks from the candidates or a misunderstanding of the process.
…
My point is, don’t buy the hype. The three wise men of the expansion committee can praise a candidate all day long, but what matters is who gets an invitation. Right now, that is nobody, and none of them may ever get their ticket punched to the Big 12.
The cruel fact is that, BYU aside, none of them meet the minimum standards for admission to the Big 12. None of them add enough value to the Big 12 to be worth the pain of expanding. None increase revenues.
…
What many of the reports of Big 12 expansion fail to point out is this: expansion is only feasible with the advent of a conference network and increased revenues. What should be painfully obvious, is that expansion without a network does more harm than good to the conference. Which, means Texas holds all the cards.
A Big 12 network is impossible without the Longhorns’ cooperation, and they are very reluctant to give up their cash cow.
…
However, what if Texas can be assured of receiving the same proceeds, or more, as they do with the LHN with the Big 12 network?
Recently Bob Bowlsby told CBS reporter Dennis Dodd that the Big 12 was sitting on top of a gold mine of unrealized revenue. Currently there are 11 football games and 60 basketball games available for tier three rights, which are worth an estimated $75M per year to the conference..
Estimates are that a Big 12 network, with expansion eastward, would eventually be in 50 million cable homes with an average subscriber fee of around $0.50, of which the conference would get a split. How does $150 million per year sound?
Combine right fees and cable fees and the hypothetical total is around $225 million per year. Do the math and be prepared to gasp.
Give Texas $20 million off the top for their sacrifice, and the remaining 11 members bank $18.6 million before expenses. Even if the Big 12 received only 50% of the $18.6 million the remaining $9.3 million would be in the ballpark of what the Big Ten and SEC bank from their networks.
Keep in mind, those revenues don’t include the Big 12’s share of advertising revenue from the new network, or sponsorship money for what would be a newly minted conference championship game.
…
The math seems to work out, and Texas is aware of this. So, why are they reluctant? Maybe Texas truly doesn’t think any of the candidates available are worthy.
Or, maybe it’s something else?
Maybe, Texas thinks there will be better options available in the near future, and they want to wait and see how the landscape changes over the next year before rushing into expansion with candidates that seem less than perfect.
There is speculation that at least one current member of another Power Five conference is interested in the Big 12. Two events must occur before that school would seriously consider a move though, and the Big 12 directly controls only one of those events.
First, the Big 12 must have a network, and second, ESPN must pass on the ACC network.
…
Sources within the ACC all agree that the network is must for the ACC, or revenue challenged schools like North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Florida State will be forced to look elsewhere. Each of them also claims the ACCN is just around the corner. Like Vladimir and the weary Estragon waiting in vain day after day for the arrival of Godot.
…
So why isn’t there a network yet? The reality is the financial risk is too high. Even with being forced to pay an additional $45 million to the ACC. The TV landscape isn’t what is once was, and ESPN’s viewership is not what is was five years ago. Many believe there is a live TV bubble just waiting to burst.
…
A media industry expert tells me that the potential value of a Big 12 network is unaffected by who the Big 12 adds. The value of the network is the Big 12 as a whole and would generate more than $225 million a year in new revenue.
That’s why the Big 12’s composition committee continues it’s work in the hopes that pressure from ESPN, and diplomacy, can convince Texas a conference network is in all their best interests, including the Longhorns’.
…
In the end it may not matter. According to my sources, the Big 12 maybe has five schools solidly in favor of expansion, with three against expansion and two undecided. Texas may never allow expansion under any circumstances, and if Texas votes “no” then Texas Tech and TCU will vote with them.
One thing is for certain: no network means no expansion and that’s the end of this story, and possibly the ultimate end of the Big 12.
LikeLike
His first half makes sense. But then he gets into math. He’s not any better at it than Clay Travis.
If the Big 10 after all these years is only making about $8 million, the Big 12 is not going to generate anywhere near what the Highlander is claiming.
Now I do think he’s right that the additions don’t make a lot of difference in the value of the network. There is no candidate who brings more than 3-4 million people. UConn brings only Connecticut, which is not a high population state. USF, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, etc. only bring their metro areas, not an entire state.
LikeLike
Big Ten is taking in around $110-120 million from the Big Ten Network (its 49% ownership + regular payments) while the network itself probably pulls in around $290-300 million in revenue.
Big 12 is likely looking at something like 60-70% of that given its much smaller direct footprint. Even if it manages to line up enough subs outside, you’re looking at something like $0.30 average on 45-50 million subs.
So, if you put it all together, we’re talking about a network that probably pulls in around $170 million in revenue.
Assuming the same costs off the top; we’re talking about something like $50-70 million distributed to Big 12 schools after it gets solid distribution.
And mind you, none of this includes the fact that the Big Ten Network started off slow in terms of gaining carriage and its revenue; Big 12 Network may not start off that slow, but it won’t go as fast as the SEC Network did…
Is that really a profitable enterprise for Big 12 schools if Texas takes around $20 million off the top to start, and we’re talking about a network that gives around $40-50 million to the conference at the start?
As far as expansion goes, to where? The metros/states we’re talking about for expansion seem to add no more than a million or so cable subs at the maximum and perhaps less…
LikeLike
z33k: “Assuming the same costs off the top; we’re talking about something like $50-70 million distributed to Big 12 schools after it gets solid distribution.”
It would seem that this is the start of the business case that the BTN could make to the Big12. Any modest number of cross-conference contests (in either revenue or subsidy sports) that can be mirrored as a conference away game for, effectively, additional live sporting events at no extra production cost would have to be the cherry on top of the Sunday. The ice cream and bananas would have to be complementarities in both downstream costs and carriage.
And there would have to be some kind of game time scheduling agreement, so that overflow programming channels can be pooled.
LikeLike
The idea of a network is to offset the drain from adding schools. The Big 12 gets a pro rata TV bump (now-consultants will give an idea if that continues in 2025 when the TV contract is up). NCAA tourney and miscellaneous revenue, given decent additions, should give a roughly pro rata bump. Its the playoff and ccg where there is not a pro rata increase. Splitting playoff money 12 ways instead of 10 costs about $1.5 million per school per year. Splitting the ccg costs about $.5 million. So the idea of a network is to offset that $2.0 million drain so that everyone is whole once the new members get full shares.
Now its possible the conference thinks a ccg with 10 is ridiculous and that the risk of losing a second NY6 bowl participant offsets some or all of the $. In that case, expansion only drains the playoff money, not ccg money, and even increases revenue if you assume a ccg with 10 won’t be done. With that assumption, expansion adds about $.5 million per school ($2 million for ccg less negative $1.5 for splitting playoff $).
LikeLike
The idea of a network is to offset the drain from adding schools.
On top of that, a network needs inventory. Adding schools gives you 2 more football games and 4 more basketball games per week, during the respective seasons for those sports.
LikeLike
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/annual-acc-meetings-light-on-channel-details/15701601/
This appears to be the best parsing of the ACC situation to date. Note this passage:
For instance, Swofford gave subtle hints that ESPN could be making an ACC platform for emerging technologies as opposed to a traditional cable channel.
“I think [ESPN] will continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute [live sports] events. And that could be very important going forward to have a partner of that nature,” Swofford explained to Andrew Carter of the News & Observer. “So with technology and so forth, you want to be with people that are progressive and that have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is.”
Running the commissioner’s quotes through my Swofford-ese translator, it sounds to me like the ACC finally had their cord-cutting epiphany.
However, it’s unclear what sort of platform the conference and ESPN will execute. Could be it a dedicated app? Something built into the existing WatchESPN ecosystem? Will it involve a mix of regional channels? It’s hard to pin down, because nobody really knows where television is headed in the next decade.
It’s important to keep an eye on Disney’s television plans to get a better sense of where the ACC might be headed in the future. Wall Street has been tepid on ESPN’s parent company because of cable subscriber loss woes, so Mickey Mouse has been more open to streaming options. Disney has made a suite of their channels, including ESPN networks, available to “over-the-top” streaming services like Sling TV and Playstation Vue. Bob Iger, Disney’s CEO, has also stated a standalone version of ESPN was an inevitability.
——————————————————————————————–
Now maybe the ACC and ESPN will directly announce an actual ACC Network (a la BTN or SECN) in the coming weeks, and this is all obfuscation; but I’m not as sure that’s the base case scenario anymore.
My expectation is more of a combination offering more focused on OTT. Even Disney’s top brass knows that eventually they’ll be looking at OTT streaming for most if not all of their sports rights packages (with a few limited expectations that likely won’t apply to the conferences themselves).
However, the revenue aspect is always the conundrum with starting something like that:
How many subscribers can an OTT “ACC Network” streaming solution produce? How much do they have to each pay? All of that is the crux of the problem.
And it’s worth remembering that the only “clean” states for ESPN/ACC are Virginia and North Carolina; the rest of the states feature overlap with other networks/schools, etc.
LikeLike
Big 12 is likely looking at something like 60-70% of that given its much smaller direct footprint. Even if it manages to line up enough subs outside, you’re looking at something like $0.30 average on 45-50 million subs.
I don’t know where the 40-50M subscriber base number comes from – the current B12 footprint has 6.6M cable subscribers, not 40-50M. If my math is correct, B1G states have 19.1M, and SEC states have 18M cable subs. NY is not included in the B1G count either.
Click to access Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
LikeLike
It’s including outside footprint subs.
Big Ten and SEC each have over 60 million subs. But most subs in either conference are outside of the footprint.
LikeLike
By that I mean BTN and SECN each have over 60m subs.
Big 12 would likely have around 12m in-footprint subs along with 30-35 million out-of-footprint subs (assuming that they did a deal with ESPN ownership).
LikeLike
Got it – that makes sense. To reinforce your point, if you give the in-market subs $1/mo, and the out-of-market subs $.10, that’s $180M in annual revenue before costs. Using 40% profit on revenue, that’s $72M in annual profit, or $7.2M per team. Don’t four of the ten (TX, OK, KS, WV) already take home at least that in Tier 3 revenue per year? I’m not sure I understand the value proposition to anyone but the lower revenue teams.
LikeLike
Yes exactly, that’s the issue here. Some of these estimates we’re seeing are outlandish; the Big Ten and SEC certainly have profitable networks, but their networks are profitable in large part because of ESPN/FOX ownership stakes.
Another issue is a lot of these 3rd tier rights are locked up into the early 2020s. Those can be bought back, but I believe the owner of a lot of those rights is Fox Sports Southwest. Why would Fox Sports Southwest help ESPN start a channel and lose sports rights they have in the Texas/OK/AR area? They certainly won’t.
A part of the problem here is the split between ESPN and Fox. They tend to work together on some things (like first tier/second tier rights splits), but I doubt they’d have any incentive to work together here to help put together a Big 12 Network. It’d hurt Fox Sports Southwest if it’s an ESPN-led network, and I doubt ESPN agrees to letting Fox control it given the LHN situation.
One final thing to consider: we’ve seen what amounts to a lot of stalling on the part of ESPN with respect to the ACC Network.
My guess is that ESPN (and Fox to an extent) are trying to figure out how this shakeout of cable subs (down several million now from the peak in 2012) will play out over the longer run.
Making big outlays towards a network is a risk at a time when ESPN is retrenching and letting significant talent walk out the doors. Fox is still in expansion mode in some respect for FS1/2 but even they need to see results over the next couple of years to justify their investment.
LikeLike
I think those FoxSports SW deals were short term, 3-5 years.
LikeLike
Personally, the Big 12 should look at adding BYU, Cincinnati, Colorado State & Rice. They all are good academic fits for the conference and you let BYU keep their Tier 3 rights and let Texas keep their Tier 3 rights while allowing the remaining 12 members to create a Big 14 Network with FOX Sports. Then rotate the Big 14 Championship Game between ABC & FOX.
Big 14 North
BYU
Cincinnati
Colorado State
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
West Virginia
Big 14 South
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Rice
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133020/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-offensive-linemen
Top OL:
1. Pace, OSU
2. Rimington, NE
3. Parker, OSU
4. Steinkuhler, NE
5. Taylor , NE
Honorable mentions: John Hicks, Ohio State; Tony Mandarich, Michigan State; Dick Wildung, Minnesota; Will Shields, Nebraska; Tom Brown, Minnesota
I’m surprised the HM list is so short considering this is 5/11 of the offense. Only 4 schools had someone make it.
Others just from OSU:
John Hicks – HoF, 2x AA, won the Outland and Lombardi, 2nd in Heisman race
Gomer Jones – HoF center from the 30s, AA
Warren Amling – HoF guard from the 40s, 2x AA (once at OG, once at OT), 7th in Heisman
Gust Zamas – HoF guard from the 30s, AA
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133037/ranking-the-big-tens-top-5-all-time-defensive-backs
Top Ss:
1. Tatum, OSU
2. Webster, MSU
3. Brosky, IL
4. Van Pelt, MSU
5. Curtis, MI
Honorable mention: Mike Doss, Ohio State; Willie Glassgow, Iowa, Tyrone Carter, Minnesota; Bob Sanders, Iowa; Malcolm Jenkins, Ohio State; Jim Leonhard, Wisconsin; Mike Brown, Nebraska; Tripp Welbourne, Michigan; Lloyd Cardwell; Nebraska; Rich Lucas, Penn State; Mark Robinson, Penn State; Billy Hillenbrand, Indiana; Neal Smith, Penn State; George Saimes, Michigan State; Vic Janowicz, Ohio State; Mike Minter, Nebraska; Will Allen, Ohio State
See how much longer this list is? Having stats made their job easier I suppose.
LikeLike
Boren’s comments back off the idea of expansion quite a bit. Seems to me like the options from schools who would be candidates to move up are not strong enough to make this a clear move to make, with the possible exception of BYU. I suspect the last round of expansion stopped in part because the natural breaking point had been reached. When you look at the list, there are really no flagship universities with AAU or other attractive components just sitting out there without a power 5 home. That means adding more schools is about inventory only, and as has been mentioned only a conversation item based on the idea of a Big 12 network.
I suspect the Big 12 is quietly looking into power 5 schools to see if anyone would switch leagues, but short of that, expansion only comes if ESPN and/or Fox (or some unknown network looking to join this space) pay for it AND everyone agrees how to compensate Texas in a way that would make them happy. Certainly not impossible, but seems like more of a long shot than a likelihood.
I suspect money from the Big 12 would better be spent lobbying for a larger playoff and guaranteeing a league spot in a 6 or 8 team playoff. That said, I think SEC/B10 profits have started grumblings from the other three conferences, which makes this all very interesting to watch.
LikeLike
Boren’s comments back off the idea of expansion quite a bit.
From the beginning, a number of us were skeptical of Boren’s previous “expand-or-bust” rhetoric. None of the facts have changed, and those facts are sufficiently obvious that he wouldn’t have been surprised by them.
One theory is that he was laying the groundwork for a future Oklahoma exit. When the Sooners eventually leave, he would then be able to say that he’d done his best to keep the league together, but Longhorn selfishness made it impossible.
I suspect the last round of expansion stopped in part because the natural breaking point had been reached.
The last round ended because the two most vulnerable leagues, the Big 12 and the ACC, persuaded all their members to sign grants of media rights, which effectively made them unpoachable until the 2020s.
I suspect the Big 12 is quietly looking into power 5 schools to see if anyone would switch leagues…
This would surprise me. For the members of the Pac-12, Big Ten, or SEC, the Big 12 is a clear step down. That leaves the ACC, which is almost certainly safe until its GOR approaches expiration. That’s too far in the future to help the Big 12 solve any of its current problems. Even then, it’s far from clear that any ACC will view the Big 12 as an improvement, barring a scenario where the ACC collapses, and they have nowhere else to go.
I suspect money from the Big 12 would better be spent lobbying for a larger playoff and guaranteeing a league spot in a 6 or 8 team playoff.
I think the other four leagues are strongly in favor of keeping it at four teams, at least for the duration of the 12-year playoff contract, which has 10 years to run. They have very little incentive to help the Big 12 strengthen itself, when a few of them might like to poach those teams in the future.
Besides that, I’m not sure how an expanded playoff solves the problem. Regardless of the size of the playoff field, the Big Ten and the SEC will still have a revenue advantage, which will continue to make the Big 12 and the ACC inherently less stable.
LikeLike
NMSU has decided to give independence a go after being dropped from the Sun Belt.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/college/nmsu/2016/05/13/committee-drop-fcs-football-would-cost-nmsu-14-million/84332590/
LikeLike
I understand why NMSU is doing it, but they seem to be using their “undermanned’ (no doubt) football team as fodder to collect paychecks. This is not a value judgment that they should not do it, just an observation. Whether it is right or wrong is a different question.
LikeLike
Some of their analysis doesn’t make sense to me.
According to an Athletic Advisory Committee report, presented by the group’s chairman Mickey Clute, a drop to FCS football would have cost NMSU an estimated $1,444,153, most of which came from the opportunity to play “money” games in the FBS.
…
Expenditures remained the same for the most part, with the exception of a $210,000 savings in scholarships since FCS programs sponsor 22 fewer scholarships than the 85 allotted FBS scholarships.
That’s $9545.45 per scholarship. Really? According to their website even an in-state student should expect 1 semester to cost $7600-$8000. Non-residents are around $15,000.
They also expect almost no savings in anything but scholarship costs and salaries. Shouldn’t overhead decrease by more than the cost of 3 GAs? Why assume all other costs stay constant if you drop to I-AA? Wouldn’t they naturally cut every sport’s budget a little?
It reads a bit like a report written to support the position of the administrators already which was to stay in I-A no matter what.
LikeLike
http://www.campusrush.com/college-football-conference-realignment-scenarios-punt-pass-pork-1801653984.html
Andy Staples with some uninformed comments on realignment and then his own crackpot plan.
For months, I’ve tried to explain why it won’t make much of a difference in the grand scheme if the Big 12 decides to expand. In fact, the conference probably stands a better chance of surviving past its current media rights contract if it stays at 10 members, wins a few national championships and then tries to swipe from the Pac-12 when all of the schools are on the verge of free agency. …
So, I’m going to stop fighting them. I’m going whole-hog on realignment. But first, a disclaimer.
I still don’t believe the Big 12 should expand. (And if you read my No. 2 item in the “First-and-10” section, you’ll see why it isn’t likely to right now.) I would prefer the leagues remain different. …
College football is great because it’s different across the country. It refuses to be a homogenous product. But the pieces are moving around the board in a way that suggests it will become more homogenous and less interesting when this round of media rights deals expires. So, like those of you who have tweeted your crackpot realignment fantasies at me through the years, I’m coming up with my own radical realignment scheme. It’s also a crackpot plan, but I think you’ll agree it would be much more fun than the 16-team superconference format that seem inevitable in about eight years.
…
If things continue the way they are going, realignment will probably shatter one more conference when existing Power 5 media rights deals expire between 2023 and ’27. The age of four 16-team superconferences still seems inevitable, and that stinks. Are programs really in the same conference if they don’t play in football for five years at a time?
So, here’s my scheme. … So we’ll include almost every school currently in a Power 5 conference. This is a scheme that could work when the college sports landscape realigns again—especially if leagues want to sell their rights as one to set a premium price.
There would be four 16-team superconferences, and they wouldn’t leave the NCAA but would decide to have their football operations governed by a federation. … All of the other sports would still be governed by NCAA rules. The federation would sell the first- and second-tier media rights for these 64 teams as a bloc. … Third-tier rights would remain with the conferences, which could use them to program conference networks. …
While the federation would feature four 16-team leagues, those conferences would not act in the way they do now. Their divisions would function independently for football purposes. Each would serve as its own conference, and the only required games would be between divisional opponents. Every team would play a full round-robin schedule within its division to decide a champion. Only division games would count toward a title, so teams could schedule their other five games—or four, because there may not need to be 12 regular-season games—as they wish as long as three of those games come against other schools in the federation. … The division champs would then face off in a conference title game. This, essentially, would be the first round of the playoff. The four conference champions would then face off in a bracket.
…
So, how would it work? For the purposes of this exercise, we’re assuming the Big 12 is the league that gets torn apart. Depending on how successful the conferences are at placing teams into the playoff, we can also imagine a scenario in which the Big 12 survives and the Pac-12 is absorbed.
…
Not every current Big 12 school would make the cut, of course. We have to find a way to fit Notre Dame into the new structure. It’s also possible some other programs could get left behind* in favor of a school from a bigger TV market—perhaps Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut or South Florida would get a call up—but for now we’ll mostly go with the brands we know. I left out Iowa State when I came up with the CASH scenario; I hate to do it again, Cyclones, but this time you are joined by Kansas State. I couldn’t figure out how to shoehorn either into the remaining leagues. There had to be a spot for Notre Dame, and I gave the remaining Pac-16 spot to Houston for geographic and television market-size reasons.
Here is how I would realign the top schools:
*My original plan featured six eight-team divisions with no conference championship games and an eight-team playoff (division champs and two wild cards selected by a committee). I couldn’t figure out how that would possibly work if the conferences wanted to remain intact otherwise. This is a crackpot idea, but even the nuttiest plans require some basis in reality.
The B12 is likely to take schools from the P12? The ACC isn’t even an option to be the conference that folds? 4×16 seems inevitable? Only division games (7 of 12 games) matter for CCG access? They may choose to drop a game?
ACC
Atlantic Division
Boston College
Clemson
Florida State
Louisville
NC State*
North Carolina
Syracuse
Wake Forest
Coastal Division
Duke
Georgia Tech
Miami
Notre Dame**
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
*Because the seven divisional games are the only ones required on a schedule, rivals could play more often. One of the sillier aspects of the current ACC divisional structure is that NC State doesn’t play nearby Duke every season. Because of proximity, Duke, NC State, North Carolina and Wake Forest should all play one another every year. With this format in place, they would be able to do that.
**Why don’t I have Notre Dame joining the Big Ten? The TV money gap wouldn’t be as big with the first- and second-tier rights being sold by the federation, and the Fighting Irish are in the ACC for their other sports.
I appreciate him leaving conferences intact but these division splits are crazy. I know they have multiple OOD games to maintain rivalries but why is BC playing Clemson and FSU rather than ND and Pitt? Why not end the zipper experiment and use geography?
North – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, WV, UVA, VT, ND
South – Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF
Big Ten
East Division
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Purdue
Ohio State
Rutgers
West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Texas*
Wisconsin
*Texas would have to give up the Longhorn Network wherever it goes, but the Big Ten and its more lucrative network would win the bidding war against the Pac-12. And, yes, I realize I have separated Oklahoma and Texas. They didn’t belong to the same conference until 1996, and they still found a way to play every year.
If the B10 could pull UT, why wouldn’t they get OU rather than KU? Surely UT would push for OU, as would NE. I get that KU’s academics are better but turning down OU in this scenario seems odd. Perhaps he feels OU and OkSU are linked but KU and KSU aren’t. Or maybe OU prefers the SEC and/or the SEC took them first so the B10 didn’t have that option.
Pac-16
North Division
Cal
Colorado
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Washington State
Utah
South Division
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Houston
Texas Tech
TCU
UCLA
USC
The P12 wants 4 second tier TX schools? They couldn’t swing any of the better B12 options? And the P12 would let all of the SoCal and TX schools be in one division away from the rest of the old Pac-8? It seems more likely to me that Utah and CO get put in the South so it’s the Old Pac-8 and the New Pac-8.
SEC
East Division
Alabama
Auburn*
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
West Division
Arkansas
LSU
Mississippi State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Ole Miss
Missouri
Texas A&M
*I kept the Iron Bowl as a division game, kept Auburn-Georgia, kept Alabama-Tennessee, restored Auburn-Florida and made the divisions geographically correct. Hooray. If Florida and LSU want to keep playing every year, no one would stop them.
These make sense. And UF and LSU have no desire to play annually.
These divisions aren’t perfect, of course. The federation, which could do pretty much whatever it wanted, might want to mix things up for competitive balance purposes. But if the conferences plan on eventually super-sizing anyway, here’s hoping they will choose an alignment that allows college football to remain our nation’s freakiest sport.
If the federation really had the power, I’d think that the P12 would get at least one better program. I’m not sure all those TX schools would make the cut in “reality.” Are they all really better than UCF and USF? Wouldn’t BYU bring more top the P12 than UH? And Boise doesn’t get a sniff? Does KU football really need to be in this group (since the B12 is the conference he destroyed)? For that matter, does the federation really need to match the conferences for other sports? Maybe this should be the top 64 CFB programs instead.
LikeLike
The fact that ND’s other sports are in the ACC is exactly why they might move to the B1G. Consider what they did with their hockey team. The travel for their other sports in the ACC is much worse. If the B1G will offer a football deal like the one they got from the ACC, they will move their other sports to the B1G.
LikeLike
“If the B1G will offer a football deal like the one they got from the ACC…”
That’s not happening.
LikeLike
The fact that ND’s other sports are in the ACC is exactly why they might move to the B1G. Consider what they did with their hockey team. The travel for their other sports in the ACC is much worse. If the B1G will offer a football deal like the one they got from the ACC, they will move their other sports to the B1G.
The B1G isn’t going to offer ND that type of deal. The ACC offered it only reluctantly, and only because they needed to strengthen their league. The Big Ten doesn’t face the existential threats that would force it to consider kow-towing to Notre Dame.
The Irish don’t mind the travel for their other sports: they were in the Big East before joining the ACC. These are markets they want to be in.
LikeLike
Bob, I agree with everyone else that the B1G will not offer an ACC deal to ND. My question is why the B1G should even consider such an offer. Without full football membership, why should the B1G go out of its way to add ND sports?
LikeLike
I agree that ND will not join a conference for football. My wife graduated from St. Mary’s across the road, and is a member of the ND alumni concert band. She went BSC went ND almost accepted an offer from the B1G several years ago.
And I used to agree that the B1G would never offer them the ACC deal. However, the Johns Hopkins lacrosse deal, the aborted ASU hockey deal and the signed ND hockey deal seem to indicate that something has changed in the B1G’s plans. So, I’m no longer positive and ACC deal is off the table.
As to why the B1G might want them: very good academics, very good athletics (especially basketball), and high national visibility. With respect to the latter, maintaining ND’s national visibility is beneficial to the B1G’s own national visibility.
Never say never.
LikeLike
ND will not join a conference for football.
The only way they’d join would be if their access to the post-season were eliminated or severely compromised without it. Right now, there’s very little chance of that happening.
And I used to agree that the B1G would never offer them the ACC deal. However, the Johns Hopkins lacrosse deal, the aborted ASU hockey deal and the signed ND hockey deal seem to indicate that something has changed in the B1G’s plans.
Those deals are special cases, and quite different from inviting ND (or anyone) for all sports except football. The Big Ten wanted to sponsor lacrosse. Without Hopkins, they would’ve been stuck at 5 teams (the minimum for an NCAA auto-bid being 6). The Big Ten has 6 hockey teams, but it’s a relatively weak league and needs to get stronger.
The Big Ten doesn’t face those challenges across the full range of Olympic sports. They therefore have no incentive to offer ND that type of deal, if they don’t get the one sport in which the Irish offer the greatest value, which is football.
I agree, one never knows, but I don’t think the special cases of lacrosse and hockey, presage the Big Ten being open partial members, unless there’s another unusual situation.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s football is that valuable, B1G ‘should’ (but imo won’t) take them in a 6-game type ACC deal. ND vs Michigan, ND vs Ohio State, ND vs Penn State would be huge games that would be B1G games and receive massive tv ratings.
LikeLike
Tiger,
What makes you think ND would accept a 6-game deal? They still want USC, Stanford and Navy every year plus regional diversity, especially east coast access. I just don’t see them agreeing to 3 road games in the midwest.
If ND would accept that deal, I’d agree that the B10 should at least consider it. ND is any easy trip for most schools so the non-revenue travel wouldn’t be bad. Lots of B10 teams want CFB games against ND but can’t get them. B10 fans would throw a fit about ND getting special treatment but I think the presidents would jump at the chance.
LikeLike
Andy Staples with some uninformed comments on realignment and then his own crackpot plan.
It’s the deadest time of year for college football, and the writers are getting cabin fever. There’s no actual news, so they make their own.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/early-betting-lines-for-38-big-2016-college-football-games/
Some early lines are out for big games.
Sept. 10:
Penn State at Pittsburgh (-9)
BYU at Utah (-7.5)
Arkansas at TCU (-6.5)
Sept. 17:
Michigan State at Notre Dame (-6)
Ohio State at Oklahoma (-9)
Oregon at Nebraska (-2)
Alabama (-3) at Ole Miss
Sept. 24:
Arkansas (-1.5) vs. Texas A&M (in Arlington, TX)
Oct. 1:
Tennessee at Georgia (PK)
Oct. 8:
Oklahoma (-14) vs. Texas (in Arlington, TX)
Washington at Oregon (-4.5)
Oct. 15:
Ohio State (-3) at Wisconsin
Stanford (-1) at Notre Dame
Alabama (-3.5) at Tennessee
Oct. 20:
BYU at Boise State (-11.5)
Oct. 29:
Clemson (-1) at Florida State
Baylor (-4.5) at Texas
Michigan (-2) at Michigan State
Nebraska at Wisconsin (-4)
Florida vs. Georgia (-1) (in Jacksonville, FL)
Auburn at Ole Miss (-12)
Nov. 12:
LSU (-5.5) at Arkansas
Stanford at Oregon (-1.5)
Nov. 19:
Stanford (-13.5) at Cal
USC at UCLA (-3)
Nov. 25:
TCU (-1) at Texas
Arizona State at Arizona (-7)
Washington at Washington State (PK)
Florida at Florida State (-11)
Michigan at Ohio State (-6.5)
Utah State at BYU (-1)
Nevada (-1.5) at UNLV
Auburn at Alabama (-18)
Georgia Tech at Georgia (-11)
Kentucky at Louisville (-16.5)
Mississippi State at Ole Miss (-12)
Notre Dame at USC (-6.5)
Dec. 3:
Oklahoma State at Oklahoma (-12.5)
LikeLike
http://adage.com/article/media/espn-bellies-bar/304048/
Quantifying the assumed.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15574668/espn-abc-kick-2016-college-football-season-tripleheaders
ABC/ESPN have announced their opening weekend schedule with Saturday tripleheaders on ABC and ESPN.
There will be tripleheaders on both ESPN and ABC, with each game featuring at least a top-six team or a matchup of ranked teams
Sept. 3 Ga. Tech vs. Boston College (Dublin) 7:30 a.m. ESPN2
Sept. 3 Oklahoma at Houston Noon ABC
Sept. 3 Hawaii at Michigan Noon ESPN
Sept. 3 LSU vs. Wisconsin (Green Bay, Wis.) 3:30 p.m. ABC
Sept. 3 Georgia vs. North Carolina (Atlanta) 5:30 p.m. ESPN
Sept. 3 USC vs. Alabama (Arlington, Texas) 8 p.m. ABC
Sept. 3 Clemson at Auburn 9 p.m. ESPN
Plus there’s a Thursday night game, a Sunday night game and a Monday night game.
LikeLike
Pretty good viewing day.
LikeLike
Gazette report from the Big Ten meetings, nothing of real note.
All is pretty much quiet on Big Ten media rights front
Conference athletics directors confident in Delany; FS1 doesn’t scare hoops coaches
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/all-is-pretty-much-quiet-on-big-ten-media-rights-front-20160517
LikeLike
So, who knows where the league and ESPN stand as far as media rights go. So, the question Tuesday was the potential of a Big Ten without ESPN. No one blinked about the notion.
“How important is it?” Hollis asked. “I think ESPN has value, but at the same time that value has to attach to what our value is. That’s what the conversation piece is. The important brand for us is the Big Ten Conference, not any one television entity.”
The conversation also includes the viability of platforms. ESPN is its own strong brand with a proven platform. Fox also is a brand with a less proven platform for sports.
Most men’s basketball coaches who spoke Tuesday kept a stiff upper lip about Fox and its cable channel Fox Sports 1 (FS1), which has struggled in the ratings. FS1 carries Big East basketball and averaged just 96,000 on the network (national champion Villanova calls the Big East home, by the way). Last year, the Big Ten averaged 1.2 million viewers for basketball games on ESPN.
“I think it’s been (ESPN) a great partner for the conference,” Northwestern basketball coach Chris Collins said. “I think it’s provided a lot of great exposure, but I have all of the confidence in Commissioner Delany. He’s already shown with BTN and a lot of the moves that were made that maybe people thought might not be the best ended up being great for the league. It’s hard for me or any of us to argue his leadership on what he thinks might be best for the exposure of the league. I think we’re all aboard. I think he’s given us great assurances that everything that’s going to be done is going to be for the best of the conference and best for the exposure of this product.”
Maybe Wednesday, when Delany meets with reporters, there will be more of an update. Sports Illustrated media writer Richard Deitsch tweeted a quote Tuesday from ESPN president John Skipper that said “We’ve been partners with the Big Ten for a long time. Our interest is high. We’d like to remain partners.”
LikeLike
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/05/16/oklahoma-columnist-know-texas-feels-like-important-save-big-12
According to this a proposed B12N vote was 8-4 in favor (9 required), 12 years ago.
LikeLike
You can’t really believe anything Trammel says.
Here is one fact that makes his comment look like total fiction-Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study of a Big 12 network. Why? Because nobody else was interested. That study lead to Texas and Nebraska both starting work on their own networks. Nebraska’s president said they were further along than Texas when their Big 10 bid came.
More likely, the vote was 2-10 with only Nebraska and Texas voting yes.
LikeLike
I agree Tramel can spin, but in this case it’s criticizing OU, not UT. I doubt he would fabricate a vote on a Weiberg proposal that any of the schools, or Kevin could easily and imediately refute. It also doesn’t require that any exploratory study not have happened. Perhaps NU and UT had a difference of opinion as to what the study showed. They were ahead of UT in development? And yet jumped imediately into a one for all conference, abandoning that initiative?
LikeLike
“They were ahead of UT in development? And yet jumped imediately into a one for all conference, abandoning that initiative?”
Surely their own initiative was a second best because the Big12 was not forward thinking enough about a conference network. So “jumped immediate into an all for one conference” that was more foreword thinking about a conference network? Sure, why not?
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
That was my point – a response to bullet’s assertion (a number of times) that UT hadn’t been joined in thinking about a network. Unsaid is that UT seems to have been interested only in doing their own, which is their right as long as living in B12 lite is acceptable.
LikeLike
Evan Grant: I’ve heard this discussion over and over again, I’ve heard about teams that you could attract, there doesn’t seem to be anybody realistic that is very attractive in terms of upping the game TV market-wise. Why does Oklahoma not just start engaging the SEC in trying to join that league and get into that pie?
Tramel: “The academic powers that be, if they were going to leave the Big 12, they’d way rather go to the Pac 12. There’s not a lot of enthusiasm for the SEC on the academic side. There’s not a lot of enthusiasm for the SEC on the football side, either. The people that I hear that want to go to the SEC are all fans.”
Sherrington: Are you saying that Oklahoma is being snobby academically with the SEC and they don’t want the competition in football?
Tramel: “I would say the latter is more true. I don’t think they’re being snobby. I think they look at the Pac 12 as a way to enhance their academic reputation. SEC is about the same as the Big 12. Big 12 used to be better and then the SEC got two of the better academic institutions from the Big 12 and sort of tilted it. But I think they’d rather be in a league with Stanford and Cal and UCLA than in a league with Mississippi State or Georgia.”
LikeLike
Question is would the Pac-12 take OU? Maybe, but Oklahoma State has to be a big anchor for them, if the two are linked.
LikeLike
That linkage is always the question. I believe that the P12 would take OU but not OkSU. The B10 might also do it. OkSU is a deal killer for both conferences. I assume the SEC feels the same way. Why would anyone but the B12 want 2 teams in OK?
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-expanded-playoffs-10-years-alabama-ohio-state-notre-dame-051616
Stewart Mandel on what conferences will look like in 10 years. He expects contraction and consolidation driven by CFP expansion and TV money.
But those assumptions don’t account for major philosophical shifts already taking place both within college athletics, where some administrators already rue various consequences of 14-team conferences (scheduling difficulties, bloated travel costs), and in the softening television rights marketplace. If anything, I expect the next big movement to be contraction, not expansion.
More accurately, call it a consolidation of power.
…
The next window for mass shuffling will start around 2023, when all five* power conferences’ primary rights deals come up within a three-year span. (The Big Ten has not yet formalized its forthcoming TV deals, but reports indicate they will be for six years, ending in 2023. The SEC’s contract with CBS expires in 2024, but its ESPN/SEC Network deal is in place through 2034.) Perhaps more important, the College Football Playoff’s 12-year contract ends with the 2025 season. As I’m about to outline, the next big realignment shift will go hand in hand with the evolution of the playoff.
…
The playoff will inevitably expand to at least eight teams, if not more, when the current deal ends, and it will separate completely from the bowl system. Early-round games will be played on campus, just like in the NFL. In turn, our national focus will narrow almost entirely to teams perceived as playoff contenders, which, if we’re being honest, comprise fewer than half of the 65 Power 5 schools, and certainly none of the other 63 FBS schools. Sorry, but Wake Forest is no threat to pull a Leicester City anytime soon.
Which brings us to consolidation.
…
Whereas the last round of realignment was driven by inventory — bundle together as many schools from as many markets as possible to command the highest possible subscriber fees — the next round will be more about content. Put on the biggest possible games to garner the largest possible audience because the viewers themselves will become the buyers rather than Comcast or Time Warner.
To that end, the best possible way for an Ohio State or Alabama to maximize its value will be to shed the six or so games a year that only its own fans care about and turn every game into a national event. I’m talking one 24-team “conference” of only the biggest names in the sport, funneling exclusively into the College Football Playoff.
Call it the College Football Playoff Confederation.
Think Champions League in soccer, only these “clubs” won’t play another season. In fact, the Confederation may not even fall under traditional NCAA purview. UCLA could still compete as an NCAA member in the Pac-12 or Michigan in the Big Ten in all other sports, but for football, the biggest revenue-drivers would pool together into their own conglomerate.
…
Which means this list would likely look different by 2026, but as of 2016, the 24 are …
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
Clemson
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
LSU
Michigan
Michigan State
Miami
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Penn State
Stanford
Tennessee
Texas
Texas A&M
USC
UCLA
Wisconsin
There’s nothing I can say here that will appease jilted Oklahoma State or South Carolina fans, but here’s the general criteria these schools meet:
• All 24 have either won or played for a national title, or at the very least appeared in a BCS bowl, since that system began in 1998.
• Nineteen ranked among the 24 biggest national fan bases in a 2011 study by statistician Nate Silver.
• All but three ranked among the top 24 nationally in average attendance last season.
• All of ESPN’s top 15 markets for college football broadcasts last season, as well as 12 of the nation’s 20 largest TV markets, are represented.
…
2026 PROPOSED DIVISIONS
East – PSU, Miami, FSU, UF, UGA, Clemson
Midwest – ND, OSU, MI, MSU, NE, WI
South – AL, Auburn, TN, AR, LSU, TAMU
West – USC, UCLA, Stanford, OR, UT, OU
The West is problematic as no other pair really fits, so I’ll fall back on geography and replace OU with TAMU.
W – USC, UCLA, Stanford, OR, UT, TAMU
MW – OSU, MI, MSU, WI, ND, PSU
S – NE, OU, LSU, AR, AL, AU
SE – Miami, UF, FSU, UGA, Clemson, TN
Or maybe go full NFL with 6 divisions of 4 and home and homes in the divisions.
There are also debates to be had about a few of his 24 choices.
• Each team plays five games against its divisional foes, six games against other divisions (two teams from each, predetermined like in the NFL) and one game against whoever it wants from any level, be it an old rival that didn’t make the cut for this list or an FCS bodybag foe.
• The top two teams in each division make the playoff. No committee or BCS formula needed. You could also easily expand the playoff to 12, with the champion of each division getting a first-round bye.
• And just like in pro sports leagues, the Confederation, not the individual conferences/divisions, holds the TV rights for every regular-season and playoff game between any of these teams.
…
Let’s set the price hypothetically at $250 — the same as DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket. And let’s say 11 million people – about the number that watched last year’s LSU-Alabama game – sign up. The cut for each of the 24 schools would be a staggering $114.6 million. That’s nearly three times what Big Ten schools are projected to make ($40 million-plus) when they reset the market next year.
LikeLike
I realize that these are all fantasies, but this is another off the wall idea from someone either killing time or hoping to stir controversy.
This has no chance for several reasons.
If colleges tried this, there would surely be political intervention by Congress. Right now the P5 schools cover enough states for political cover. There are only a few G5 states without also having a P5 presence (CT is one such state with only G5). There are obviously also a number of states with no P5 or G5. The bottom line is that if some Senator from CT decided to try and create political issues to get UConn into a P5 conference, there would not be much support in DC.
Try this and everything changes. My quick count is that the 24 schools are from 17 states. After being in the B1G forever, how would the Senators (and members of the House) from Minnesota, Illinois (drop 2 B1G schools) and Iowa (and one Big 12) feel about looking in from the outside. Cuse and RU are gone, so what about Senators from NY and NJ? Would ND be enough to mollify Senators from IN? How about WA, AZ, CO, UT, KY, KA, MD, etc. All four schools from NC and both VA schools gone. In this situation, the Senator from CT would have lots of help.
Even in SC, Clemson is in, but USC out. OU in but OSU out. What do those Senators do?
There would be a lot of people in DC getting daily pressure that the home team just got screwed. It would really look as though a group of football schools decided to go professional.
LikeLike
While it’s extremely unlikely to happen, he does make a great point about how much value there is to be unlocked by consolidation even though he uses such an extreme example. I guess the point is if you create a NFL of college football, you’d be able to command NFL-like pay for the TV product with a national monopoly on brands.
Of course, there’s all sorts of bigger issues like how the losses pile up in leagues like that, etc. As much as we all talk about consolidation; you don’t want a league where the major brands have to average out to 6-6 records. That doesn’t seem likely in any scenario…
That aside, there’s still incremental potential in terms of a dissection/merger of the ACC and Big 12.
Eventually, I think we see a long-term narrowing down to Big Ten, SEC, then distant Pac-12 then ACC/Big 12 remnants…
As always it all depends on what Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, UNC, and UVa (mainly those 5) see in terms of the broader environment.
LikeLike
Honestly, it’s sad. Supposed knowledgable writers are doing a good job of exposing themselves as either no more knowledgable than Freddy Fan and spewing NFL as the model for university athletics, or as simple click bait whores.
I truly get, and trust, better analysis and evaluation from a number of posters here. And that includes those whose conclusion/position I sometimes disagree with. Most here understand that although the athletic $ amounts seem large, it is actually a small piece of these universities budgets.
LikeLike
The internet has exposed the worthlessness of reporters. But at least now they are pretty much paid what they are worth.
LikeLike
I think the single worst assumption of the media in terms of conference realignment is the notion that somehow everything will shakeout into a nice 4×16 approach.
That hasn’t ever made sense because of the simple fact that there has never been an era in college football where the major conferences had the same # of schools.
Yet, time and time again you see articles on mainstream sports websites about supposed 4×16 or 5×16 approaches.
Everyone on this site knows that typically these things happen incrementally unless a league falls apart (but even that can take up to 10-15 years to fully play out like the Big East’s long shakeout).
LikeLike
It is stupefying how little Mandel knows about college sports. The whole point of conferences is cultural, and the interest in the games is largely the historical context. You sit in Ohio Stadium, which was built because of Chick Harley, and you look down at an arena that hosted Jesse Owens, Hopalong Cassidy, Archie Griffin … Think baseball and its endless statistics and stories. A realignment like Mandel proposes would utterly destroy college athletics.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/waco-police-reportedly-shielded-baylor-allegations-from-public-3-things-to-know/
More bad news for Baylor coming from OTL. This CBS piece summarizes it well.
1. Waco police wanted to shield allegations from the public. Regarding an assault case from 2011 that took place off-campus and involved three Baylor players — defensive lineman Gary Mason, running back Isaac Williams and cornerback Tyler Stephenson — being charged, the Waco police took steps to keep the case out of the public eye due to “the potential high-profile nature of the incident.”
The investigating officer asked the commander that “the case be pulled from the computer system so that only persons who had a reason to inquire about the report would be able to access it,” per ESPN, and the case was instead kept in a locked office.
There was also a sexual assault allegation against former Baylor safety Ahmad Dixon that was kept in “open-case status” for four years. Under Texas’ open records law, keeping the case in such a status shields the case’s details from public view. Dixon, who spoke to Outside The Lines on the record, and the alleged victim both denied that the assault ever took place. Waco police told Outside The Lines they couldn’t say why the case remains open to this day.
2. There are new allegations against former Baylor players that went unreported. Stephenson, one of the three Baylor players allegedly involved in the off-campus assault of another student, came up in other documents as well. In April 2012 a woman told Waco police that after trying to break up with Stephenson, he lured her to his apartment an then “violently restrained her.” The woman told police that Stephenson “pushed me on the couch and wrestled me for my phone so that I couldn’t call for help,” and that after she got outside the apartment and tried to call 911 Stephenson ” charged me and picked me up and threw me against the [exterior] apartment wall. I hit my head and immediately felt dizzy.” She says Stephenson then grabbed her by the hair in a parking lot and tried to take her phone when three men approached the scene and Stephenson fled.
A witness corroborated the woman’s story, but although police prepared an arrest warrant for Stephenson, the case was closed after the woman did not return several messages left for her.
In April 2014, Baylor running back Devin Chafin allegedly grabbed a woman’s arm and slammed it into a car in front of teammates and other witnesses. The woman showed the police photos of her bruised arm and told them that weeks earlier Chafin had “grabbed her by the throat and slammed her against a wall, then threw her to the floor and kicked her.” The police report stated that the woman was uncertain of pressing charges against Chafin, so no legal action was never taken against him.
3. Victims say they didn’t press charges because they felt nothing would be done. The woman who accused Chafin of slamming her arm into a car, grabbing her by the throat and slamming her against the wall went to Baylor football chaplain Wes Leary and told him everything she had reported to the police. She told Outside The Lines that school president Ken Starr and Baylor coach Art Briles were also made aware of the allegations against Chafin, but Chafin was never disciplined by the school for the incident.
As for why she didn’t pursue criminal charges against him, the woman told Outside The Lines she’d “seen other girls go through it, and nothing ever happened to the football players. It’s mind-boggling to see it continue to happen. I can’t understand why. I think as long as they’re catching footballs and scoring touchdowns, the school won’t do anything.”
The student who was allegedly assaulted by the three football players shared a similar sentiment. “He figured because they were football players then nothing was going to be done anyway,” an officer wrote in the student’s police report. “I asked him why he thought that and he said that he has heard anecdotal stories of football players getting into altercations or disturbances and nothing ever being done.”
LikeLike
How far does this go in terms of Baylor “s*&*ting the bed” in terms of surviving to a Power conference after a B12 liquidation? They were a tenuous potential add to the ACC and a reach for the SEC. This probably closes the door to being a tag-along with UT to the Pac.
LikeLike
There was/is no chance Baylor would/will ever sniff the PAC, or B1G. It would take enormous tumult and schools leaving (aTm plus others) for the SEC to possibly consider them. Only potential P5/P4, other than B12, would be a desperate ACC reconstituting after major raid of both conferences. And this was/is the case regardless of their current mess.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/18/big-ten-revenue-jim-delany-pay-salary-compensation-television/84553752/
Apparently today is the day for releasing 2014-2015 tax return info for conferences. No word from the ACC or B12 yet.
By conference (total revenue/per school distribution):
ACC – N/A
B10 – $448.8M / $32.4M
B12 – N/A
P12 – $439M / $25.1M
SEC – $527.4M / $31.2M-$33.9M
B10 details:
The conference had $448.8 million in total revenue during a fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 — a figure that represents a nearly $110 million increase over what it pulled in during its 2014 fiscal year.
As a result, the conference distributed roughly $32.4 million to each of its longest-standing 11 members, amounts that put those schools on par with amounts the Southeastern Conference distributed to each of its 14 member schools from conference revenue that totaled $527.4 million.
Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are each on separately negotiated paths to full shares of Big Ten revenue. In fiscal 2015, Nebraska received $19.8 million, Maryland $24.1 million and Rutgers nearly $10.5 million, according to the new return, which the conference provided Wednesday in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports. The return also showed that the Big Ten loaned Maryland an additional $11.6 million. That money was an advance against future conference distrubutions, deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia said in an interview.
Commissioner pay note: Larry Scoot became the first to earn $4M in a year.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner with some relevant tweets:
Jon Wilner @wilnerhotline
If Pac12 school distribs are < 8M vs SEC, over course of Tier 1 contract, that's $770M gap: 12 schools x 8M difference x 8 yrs left on T1
…
Jon Wilner @wilnerhotline
Important to note on school distribs: Pac12 is -8M vs SEC and -7M vs B1G. But that's only 9 months of SECNet rev and B1G's expiring TV deal
So call it $10M to the SEC to allow for full SECN revenue. That’s $80M per school over the 8 years left on the P12 deal. And the SEC deal might grow faster than that.
The B10 is expecting a bump of at least $8M when the new deal starts, so call it $15M to the B10. To stay conservative I’ll do 2 years at $7.5M and 6 at $15M. That’s still $105M per school over 8 years.
Is the P12 willing to accept that gap? Is there anything they can do about it other than entice UT to join the P12? Would they be willing to accept the LHN as a regional network now in order to get UT?
LikeLike
“Would they be willing to accept the LHN as a regional network now in order to get UT?”
As long as it became PAC property and not ESPN’s channel, and covered TT (assuming TT would be required to accompany UT), yes. They did give USC and UCLA a two year financial guarantee in 2011 so I could see willingness for some financial arrangement to be made. But, that doesn’t address the individuality pride thing UT has with the LHN, so I don’t think it matters unless the LHN is dying/being killed by ESPN.
LikeLike
Pac 12 would require Texas to be at least a part of Pac 12 Network to get carriage in most of Texas.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-increased-revenue-32-percent-in-2014-15-team-payments-on-par-with-sec/
By conference (total revenue/per school distribution):
ACC – N/A
B10 – $448.8M / $32.4M
B12 – $233M / $23.3M
P12 – $439M / $25.1M
SEC – $527.4M / $32.7M
Also of note:
The Big Ten reported $21.5 million in 2014-15 income from investment in the Big Ten Network, up from $12.4 million a year earlier. Those amounts do not include annual rights fees the Big Ten receives from the network.
LikeLike
One very RU centric comment. From this, RU has not yet received any financial benefit to speak of from B1G membership. Over the next four years or so, during the phase in, RU P5 income will increase by close to $40 million per year. Has any college ever had such a jump in sports revenue in so few years? (And no I am not talking about major contributions – such as the one $400 million gift to Harvard last year.)
Right now, RU sports is running nearly a $30 million deficit. By 2021, they should finally at least be even.
Even though UMaryland is now getting much more money than RU, they gave up ACC income, so they will also have a major benefit, but not quite so much.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“One very RU centric comment. From this, RU has not yet received any financial benefit to speak of from B1G membership. Over the next four years or so, during the phase in, RU P5 income will increase by close to $40 million per year.”
Correct, RU hasn’t gotten much of a boost yet. The usual MO is to keep a new member earning at least what they would have in their old conference but not too much more for their 6 year buy-in period. I’d guess RU will see a jump when the new Tier 1 deal starts since they are part of the reason for its value.
“Has any college ever had such a jump in sports revenue in so few years?”
TCU and Utah made sizable jumps recently.
“Right now, RU sports is running nearly a $30 million deficit. By 2021, they should finally at least be even.”
Unless RU decides they need more facility improvements or something. It’s easier to do it now while the school is used to funding the AD.
LikeLike
Brian, RU is actually already spending the money. The new AD, football coach, and basketball coaches are making much more than their predecessors. Probably still in the bottom four or five in the B1G, but no longer off the bottom of the charts. There also payouts to the outgoing AD and coaches. The old coaches really s*cked, but the AD might have been the worst of the three.
There is also a $100 M facilities upgrade under way.
RU received $25 million in tax credits from NJ. It helps when an alum season basketball ticket holder is a State Senator who sponsored and pushed the bill for the credit. Actually there was pretty much no political opposition to the tax credit. Of course, there is the group of academics led by an econ prof,. who think that all college sports should pretty much be banned and they were against it. (They made some noise, got some headlines, and were, as always, ignored)
The credit would never has been granted by the state with B1G membership. Another $25 million has been raised so far. None of this happens without saying that RU is B1G now, so act like we are.
LikeLike
To me college football tradition died when all games stopped being played at noon on Saturdays and the only games at 4PM were on the West Coast and Saturday night games in the South because of the heat.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed long ago. Like it or not I think that ultimately the players are going to be paid. If the Super 24 are getting $114 M you can bet they’ll be paid. The reason the government won’t get involved, because the schools will voluntarily drop out. Syracuse for example won’t have the resources too keep up or may not want to.
Then perhaps we can do away with the sham of “student-athlete”. A lot of these players don’t belong on a college campus and are not really there for a degree. Alabama could form a separate corporation titled “The University Of Alabama Crimson Tide”, sign players to a contract and forget them going to class. Now if someone wants to obtain a degree great, go for it.
Mind you I’m not in favor of this but sadly I think that’s where we’re headed like it or not. Unfortunately tradition is starting to mean nostalgia.
LikeLike
The government gets involved in everything else, including elementary school bathrooms. Do you really think that there are not anti-trust issues here?
If there are no Federal statutes that would cover this mess (and I am positive that there are), Congress would pass some laws in a hurry (and any president would sign them). Naturally, any university which accepts Federal funds (all 24 of them) will be bound by any such new laws, or lose Federal funding. It is really very simple. If Senators (and Reps) from 25 or 30 states get worked up by their constituents, there is no limit the damage that they could do.
By the way, what would the impact be on Title IX of having a mens’ semi-pro like team?
Title IX was originally passed to cover sports, so this would actually be within its actual mandate.
So, no longer scheduling noon football games is just the first step in blowing up the B1G, which has only been a conference for 120 years. Is UCLA really going to give up its relationship with Cal. Will the Board of Regents for the U of California system allow that?
As another example, everyone seem to think that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are joined at the hip. Can OU become semi-pro and leave OSU in the cold.
Why should colleges in the B1G or SEC (or other P5 confs) voluntarily drop out of anything. At least the B1G and SEC teams will all be earning in excess of $50 million/year and perhaps much more than that.
Some of these schools will have invested many tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars, which are being amortized by those B1G (or SEC, etc) checks. They are going to voluntarily walk away?
I am not privy to the league membership contracts, but I would be shocked if the conferences can simply eliminate teams so that some teams can become semi-pro. Therefore, after the GORs expire, all of the 24 teams will need to withdraw from their leagues. Five or six teams, including charter members Wisky and Mich,, as well as The Ohio State U and others will be quiting the B1G. Seriously? How do you think that hundreds of thousands of alums may feel about that?
This, of course, completely ignores whether these 24 colleges really want to become NFL junior. The issue here is whether athletes can or should be paid – on steroids.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I’m just saying that such a scenario is possible. Heck anything is possible now a days. Regarding Title IX what’s to stop a group of Alabama boosters from forming a separate corp. then licensing the name, colors logos etc Since it’s legally not U. of Alabama does Title IX even apply I don’t know. I love the BIG and all it’s traditions, trophies etc. But the “Little Brown Jug” won’t be contested anymore.
I played hockey in college, when BIG Hockey was formed a lot of rivalries and traditions went away.That hurt a lot of people.
I don’t like any of this but as I grow older I’m resigned to everything changing and (sigh) total government intrusion in all our lives.
LikeLike
Guys,
Can we please leave politics out of this? That only leads to trouble, especially in an election year as contentious as this one. We don’t want this site to get overrun by political trolls.
LikeLike
This is basically nothing other than the 24 teams forming a new conference. No anti-trust issues there.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Do you really think that there are not anti-trust issues here?”
It’s hard to tell without the details. I don’t think there are inherently issues from having a 24-team superconference, but how it gets formed could be problematic. If it’s open to all schools and only some choose to join is different from a group of 24 self-selecting and then barring everyone else. It also depends what the other schools do.
Likewise, the devil’s in the details in terms of whether the players are students-athletes or paid players and how tightly the teams remain tied to schools. Where the money goes is also important (to academics, to all NCAA schools, to charity, to facilities and coaches salaries, etc). If they generously share the wealth with all NCAA schools there are fewer problems than if they put all the money into salaries and facilities. Without details there are just too many variables.
“By the way, what would the impact be on Title IX of having a mens’ semi-pro like team?
Title IX was originally passed to cover sports, so this would actually be within its actual mandate.”
Title IX is about opportunities. Paying the players might open a Title IX issue or it might not. Do you have to pay athletes if their sport doesn’t generate profit just because those who did make a profit get paid? Or is basing it purely on whether the team makes a profit enough to be fair? As long as the get equal facilities and coaching, I’m not sure Title IX gets invoked. I do think they’d be stricter about offering a fair number of sports and scholarships for women, though. The other possible issue is that if the football teams move out of NCAA purview and use paid players, schools might actually not need as many women’s sports anymore as 85 male scholarship student-athletes would come off the books. The football teams would have to be outside of the AD and not require players to be students, but it’s possible they could structure it that way.
“Is UCLA really going to give up its relationship with Cal. Will the Board of Regents for the U of California system allow that?”
The UC system has 9 campuses playing college sports. 2 are I-A (P12), 4 I-AA (Big West), 1 D-II, 1 D-III and 1 is NAIA. If they don’t care about that diversity, why would they care if UCLA and Cal play football in different conferences? They have much bigger issues to worry about.
“Can OU become semi-pro and leave OSU in the cold.”
If the alternative is both being left out? Yes. Only idiots would refuse to let one school make millions more in funding. At worst they might require OU to share some of the wealth with OkSU, but more likely the just require OU to share it with the academic side of OU.
“Why should colleges in the B1G or SEC (or other P5 confs) voluntarily drop out of anything.”
Because they don’t want to spend that much or do the things it would take to compete at that level? Why did Chicago choose to drop I-A sports? Why did the Ivies? Some schools just wouldn’t see that as an appropriate activity for them.
“Some of these schools will have invested many tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars, which are being amortized by those B1G (or SEC, etc) checks. They are going to voluntarily walk away?”
What if they’d get more by letting the top football teams play elsewhere?
“I am not privy to the league membership contracts, but I would be shocked if the conferences can simply eliminate teams so that some teams can become semi-pro. Therefore, after the GORs expire, all of the 24 teams will need to withdraw from their leagues.”
Or the conferences could vote to let those teams play elsewhere for the greater good. I’m not saying that’s what would happen, but it’s an option.
“Five or six teams, including charter members Wisky and Mich,, as well as The Ohio State U and others will be quiting the B1G. Seriously? How do you think that hundreds of thousands of alums may feel about that?”
1. It would only be for football in his plan.
2. At least tens of thousands probably would rather see their team playing at the most elite level than in the B10. Not all alumni care that much about B10 affiliation, especially if a lot of money was at stake.
And I’m in no way in favor of this plan, just to be clear. I have zero interest in NFL lite.
LikeLike
Brian, I said that I was done with what I view as an inherently dopey column, with regard to which I have made an inherently dopey amount of commentary. I will be more or less good to my word and not respond to your comment.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Brian, I said that I was done with what I view as an inherently dopey column,”
It is inherently dopey. But hey, it’s the offseason and websites need filler.
” I will be more or less good to my word and not respond to your comment.”
I hadn’t read that comment of yours yet when I started responding or I wouldn’t have tempted you.
LikeLike
It’s hard to tell without the details. I don’t think there are inherently issues from having a 24-team superconference, but how it gets formed could be problematic. If it’s open to all schools and only some choose to join is different from a group of 24 self-selecting and then barring everyone else. It also depends what the other schools do.
Replace “24” with N, and it’s basically the system we have now. We already know that the “haves” can forcibly oust the “have-nots” at any time. It happened when I-A split from I-AA. It happened when the BCS morphed into the CFP Playoff, and multiple former Big East programs lost their top-tier status.
And of course, there have been plenty of occasions when conferences ousted particular schools, such as when the Big Eight kicked SMU, TCU, Houston, and Rice to the curb; or when the Big East ousted Temple; or more recently, when the Sun Belt kicked out Idaho and New Mexico State. (In every case except NMSU, these actions resulted in the school being forced down to the next lower level of the football food chain.)
I think Mandel’s article was deliberately provocative. I doubt that he really believes that the 65 power programs will consolidate to 24. But there will probably be another shift by the mid-2020s or so, even if it’s not as dramatic as the click-bait version that he posted. When you replace 24 with N, you see that the rules have been changing (towards greater commercialization) for as long as the sport has been played, and this trend is therefore unlikely to end where we are today.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Replace “24” with N, and it’s basically the system we have now. We already know that the “haves” can forcibly oust the “have-nots” at any time. It happened when I-A split from I-AA. It happened when the BCS morphed into the CFP Playoff, and multiple former Big East programs lost their top-tier status.”
As I said, I think it would depend on how it formed. Schools are free to voluntarily associate however they want. But 24 schools suddenly breaking conference ties decades old to chase the almighty dollar to this extent might trigger some reaction legally, especially if they try to stick to the amateur model and keep the money to themselves.
“I think Mandel’s article was deliberately provocative.”
Of course it was. Expansion gets more clicks than any other topic and kicking 40 P5 programs out of the elite level will get a lot of CFB fans up in arms.
“I doubt that he really believes that the 65 power programs will consolidate to 24.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
Marc:
“And of course, there have been plenty of occasions when conferences ousted particular schools, such as when the Big Eight kicked SMU, TCU, Houston, and Rice to the curb; or when the Big East ousted Temple; or more recently, when the Sun Belt kicked out Idaho and New Mexico State.”
None of those examples are removal of a perms ant conference member. The SWC members get booted…from the B8? Temple was conditionally admitted to BEast, failed to meet the conditions in time allotted (and chose not to try, or appeal)and left at the end of the time allotted. U Idaho and NMSU were also conditional one sport members that didn’t have permanent membership. Their temp membership was not renewed. Nothing like what is proposed has ever had anything resembling it occur.
LikeLike
None of those examples are removal of a perms ant conference member. The SWC members get booted…from the B8?
I am referring to situations where teams were forced down to a lower level, however it occurred. The Big Eight and the SWC wanted to merge, but they didn’t want a 16-team league. So the most powerful dozen decided to form a new league, excluding the least powerful four, leaving them to scramble for what was obviously a less desirable home.
The fact that the mechanics of the transaction involved the disbandment of two leagues, and the formation of a third, doesn’t alter the substance of what occurred. Mandel’s 24-team proposal amounts to the identical thing, on a larger scale. I don’t think it will happen, but the Big 12 story is a very clear indication that it theoretically could.
The I-A/AA split is another example, and that had a much more profound impact, far beyond what we now call the 65 power schools.
LikeLike
The B8 invited former members of SWC, and then it was decided to reform as a new conference. ISU, KU, KSU, etc would never have voted in a manner that put their membership at risk. The only down “forcing” happens through conference failure. There are 28 members of the SEC and B1G. Are they failing in order to eliminate less popular schools? Even some failed conference members have been picked up. The number of power member schools hasn’t dropped be the same proportion an the number of power conferences.
LikeLike
ccrider55: “The number of power member schools hasn’t dropped be the same proportion an the number of power conferences.”
And, so long as the way that the number of power conferences drops is by defection of key members from one power conference to another, the number of power member schools can’t drop as fast as the number of power conferences, because arithmetic.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
Precisely. As I said elsewhere it’s a game of consolidation, not necessarily elimination.
LikeLike
Doug,
“To me college football tradition died when all games stopped being played at noon on Saturdays and the only games at 4PM were on the West Coast and Saturday night games in the South because of the heat.”
It used to be that 1:30pm ET was the most common game time for many/most schools, but I get your point.
“Then perhaps we can do away with the sham of “student-athlete”. A lot of these players don’t belong on a college campus and are not really there for a degree.”
Better yet we could do away with being NFL Lite and go back to having actual student-athletes playing for the schools.
LikeLike
bullet, I do not practice anti-trust law, but I do know that pro sports leagues are not subject to anti-trust laws only because they have exemptions. A group of 24 colleges that get together to restrain trade to maximize football income would not have any such protection. And with Senators and Reps from 15 or 20 states really angry and very few to defend them, it would get ugly.
Explain to me again how colleges avoid Title IX, while playing semi-pro football.
LikeLike
Playing semi-pro women’s soccer? Not sure how you spin it up to enough other sports to pass muster, though.
LikeLike
Bruce, I am not sure whether this means that you agree with the Title IX problem.
If anyone believes that a college will be able to give male football players major benefits while not giving comparable benefits to women’s soccer players, I suggest that they may not be watching the extraordinary expansion of Title IX, and this is arguably within the original ambit of the legislation.
As another ridiculous aside, why would the rest of the NCAA schools accept these 24 schools doing their own thing? This insane scenario could well be the breaking point where the other schools told these 24 to take their basketball, soccer, etc., and go elsewhere.
There would be no attempt to remove the 65 P5 schools from other sports, since 65 is too many.
Take it to 24 and it might be rational for everyone else to tell these schools to enjoy their semi-pro teams and have their own tournaments in other sports.
This is my last comment on this dumb subject, but there are a huge number of potential consequences to this type of move, not at all considered (or certainly discussed) in the article.
Which again ignores the fact that I do not believe that college presidents, etc., would do this.
LikeLike
As another ridiculous aside, why would the rest of the NCAA schools accept these 24 schools doing their own thing? This insane scenario could well be the breaking point where the other schools told these 24 to take their basketball, soccer, etc., and go elsewhere.
We already have multiple levels of football: P5, G5, FCS, Division II, and Division III. The funding rules are very different from one level to the next.
The disparities have widened over the years, and likely will again. P5 athletes, for example, now receive “cost of attendance” stipends that they formerly didn’t get. Is that the end of it? Probably not.
None of this has ever stopped teams from scheduling ridiculous mismatches outside of their own “level”, that are almost always NOT a fair fight.
LikeLike
Funding and rules are separate categories. The top funded 60-80 used the threat of separation (which they didn’t really want) to influence rule changes that they could afford. Many of G5 will yes these changes too. That’s a completely different animal than allowing a group of 24 to continue to use the existing NCAA system while breaking off. Who they going to play when the rest decide a 270+ pool for March Maddness or CWS will suffice. Good luck with your mini tournaments.
There would certainly be enough TV shelf space and high enough quality in the remaining 80+ D1 to attract significant FB media contracts. You would be basically trying to imediately alter the power portion of D1 that hasn’t varied more than a few schools up/down over nearly a half century. The most significant change has been the near elimination of independents. Not the same as divorcing three quarters of D1 abruptly.
LikeLike
Funding and rules are separate categories.
Separate but heavily overlapping. The rules don’t dictate how much you can spend on your weight room, but they do dictate how many scholarships you can give.
The top funded 60-80 used the threat of separation (which they didn’t really want) to influence rule changes that they could afford.
The threat of separation worked, because the lower-tier programs recognized that it was a serious possibility if the P5 didn’t get what they wanted. Of course, since the P5 have always held most of the cards, most of them never believed the threat of separation would have to be carried out.
It reminds me of the immigration/customs officers at the airport. They all have guns, which I have never seen them draw. But the threat is obviously important, even though shooting at someone in a crowded airport would obviously be the Mother of all Last Resorts. The nuclear arsenal is a more extreme example. You need the threat, even though you never expect to use it.
Many of G5 will yes these changes too. That’s a completely different animal than allowing a group of 24 to continue to use the existing NCAA system while breaking off. Who they going to play when the rest decide a 270+ pool for March Madness or CWS will suffice. Good luck with your mini tournaments.
As I noted in another post, just replace 24 with N, and you immediately see that the top programs generally have been getting what they wanted for a long, long time. A break-away is not necessary, because the lower-tier programs simply accept that they need the top tier more than the top tier needs them.
There is a precedent for non-NCAA schools competing against NCAA schools. For instance, in 1951, Louisville was a non-NCAA program. Johnny Unitas played as a freshman — which he couldn’t have done if the Cardinals had been in the NCAA. The team had a mix of NCAA and non-NCAA opponents on their schedule.
I am not predicting a break-away — I think it’s about as likely as you do — but the obstacles to it are much lower than you seem to believe.
There would certainly be enough TV shelf space and high enough quality in the remaining 80+ D1 to attract significant FB media contracts. You would be basically trying to immediately alter the power portion of D1 that hasn’t varied more than a few schools up/down over nearly a half century. The most significant change has been the near elimination of independents. Not the same as divorcing three quarters of D1 abruptly.
The most significant change was the I-A / I-AA split, which had the effect of relegating far more than “just a few schools” to a lower level of competition. It’s a classic example of the top tier almost always getting what it wants.
LikeLike
“Bruce, I am not sure whether this means that you agree with the Title IX problem.”
I reckon there could well be a Title IX problem all right. The challenge would be showing that equivalent opportunity is being offered.
I understand the argument that if the team is a for-profit entity that is simply paying the school for the right to use its name and logo and the right (but likely not requirement) for it’s players to attend that school, then it’s not an educational activity of the University anymore, and Title IX no longer applies …
… but IANDL, and even if I were, I would buy that argument when a judge has concurred and it has withstood the appeals process.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“A group of 24 colleges that get together to restrain trade to maximize football income would not have any such protection.”
How is this any different from 14 schools forming the B10 to maximize their revenue? The other schools can form the SEC or P12 or B12 or SEC or stay independent. 24 schools forming a superconference doesn’t prevent the rest from doing the same thing.
“Explain to me again how colleges avoid Title IX, while playing semi-pro football.”
Separate the team from the school so it’s not a student-athlete opportunity offered by the school anymore, just a business endeavor licensing the name and colors. Besides, Title IX is about opportunities and women wouldn’t lose any opportunities in this scenario. If the teams stayed as part of the AD, they still might not have to pay players on any team that doesn’t make a profit.
LikeLike
Brian, I will view this as a thread not directly related to the “dopey column”, so I will respond.
I do not view it as inherently different than the B1G or SEC, etc. I view the politics as different. As ccrider correctly stated, there is safety in numbers. When 65 P5 schools, some G5 leagues, the Big East in basketball, and maybe some other basketball schools, all sort of align on major issues, the rest of the NCAA will go along – or face armageddon.
If all of the P5 schools, the Big East, the AAC, and a few others totally pulled out of the NCAA, set up their own playoffs, March Madness, etc., it could work. It might be very ugly for lots of reasons, but they could do it. There might be political noise, but it would go away if enough teams (and states) were protected.
Two dozen schools off on their own for football offers no such protection.
Perhaps I am too vindictive, but if I were one of the other 41 P5 presidents, I would be really unhappy – and try my best to do something about it. Even many G5 schools would be hurt. Some of them would join with P5 leftovers for an “upgraded” G5. Most of the other G5 schools would become third tier. Why should all of those schools accept the “Elite 24” in any other sports?
One example of problems. I understand that a few years ago, Northwestern put in place a $200+ million upgrade of athletic facilities – undoubtedly reasonably relying on $35+ million per year from the B1G. Has NW paid off that money? Will they be able to fund this looking in from the outside?
Yes there will be media contracts for the schools left behind, but it will be for far less money.
How will (among others) the presidents of Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana, all members of the B1G for 100 years or so, react to being told by a few other that they are no longer good enough. Major athletic donors to the three “I” schools left behind and dozens of other schools are certainly major donors to politicians.
At the very least major state universities from 20 + states will be severely harmed by the self proclaimed “Elite 24”. Every one of those schools are tightly connected to Senators and Reps, who are either alum or just serving constituents. For states where one state school is invited and others are left behind, there will be problems in state capitals too.
This would not be pretty.
If those 24 schools are now willing to give up college football and license minor league football, I agree that changes everything. No Title IX issues at all. No outside political interference in Washington. Of course, the pressure in state capitals to not do this would be huge. Though this will not happen, I do not see any major legal problems.
It would be fun to see The Ohio State University rent its stadium to a minor league football team of the same name and then accept payment for the university band to “Dot the I” at halftime. After all, the band would be paid entertainers. Shouldn’t the band members be paid for their time? Would 100,000 people pay to come to that?
I know people who regularly drive hundreds of miles from NJ to go to Penn State football games. Would they do that for the Penn State semi-pro team? There are, after all, two NFL teams in NJ right now. Why not just go the Meadowlands and watch the Giants or Jets?
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I do not view it as inherently different than the B1G or SEC, etc. I view the politics as different. As ccrider correctly stated, there is safety in numbers. When 65 P5 schools, some G5 leagues, the Big East in basketball, and maybe some other basketball schools, all sort of align on major issues, the rest of the NCAA will go along – or face armageddon.
If all of the P5 schools, the Big East, the AAC, and a few others totally pulled out of the NCAA, set up their own playoffs, March Madness, etc., it could work. It might be very ugly for lots of reasons, but they could do it. There might be political noise, but it would go away if enough teams (and states) were protected.
Two dozen schools off on their own for football offers no such protection.”
This is where I don’t follow you. The pro leagues control the number of teams and where they are located. This group of 24 has no way to eliminate the other 104 I-A teams out there. They can’t eliminate the competition. But if the market decides that those 24 deserve a lot more TV money than anyone else, I highly doubt the law would punish them for it. The P5 aren’t being punished for earning more than the G5. The competition all started at the same point (members of P5 conferences) so they couldn’t claim unfair barriers.
“Perhaps I am too vindictive, but if I were one of the other 41 P5 presidents, I would be really unhappy – and try my best to do something about it. Even many G5 schools would be hurt. Some of them would join with P5 leftovers for an “upgraded” G5. Most of the other G5 schools would become third tier. Why should all of those schools accept the “Elite 24” in any other sports?”
It’s natural to consider being vindictive, but the presidents also have to be practical. They can’t afford to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They’d charge those 24 for games (all games become paycheck games) but they wouldn’t boycott them I don’t think. And remember, there’s always the chance that the 24 choose to share the wealth. Rather than keep $115M each, what if they kept “only” $90M each and gave the other $600M to the schools they left behind? That’d be $14.6M per P5 school as a gift plus whatever those schools make on their own and from game guarantees against the 24.
“One example of problems. I understand that a few years ago, Northwestern put in place a $200+ million upgrade of athletic facilities – undoubtedly reasonably relying on $35+ million per year from the B1G. Has NW paid off that money? Will they be able to fund this looking in from the outside?”
NW could probably fund that by checking under the sofa cushions of their alumni. It’s less than 3% of their endowment so they could cover it with earnings from their investments. Besides, the future is promised to nobody. What if no TV network had offered the B10 more than $20M per school per year for the upcoming deal?
“How will (among others) the presidents of Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana, all members of the B1G for 100 years or so, react to being told by a few other that they are no longer good enough.”
How have they reacted to the market telling them that for decades? It’s not like it’s a secret that a few schools are much more prominent and popular in CFB than the others. The networks tell the conferences during negotiations and when picking games for TV windows which games really matter to the bottom line. How did I-AA schools react to getting dropped by I-A? How did the G5 react to getting dropped by the P5?
“At the very least major state universities from 20 + states will be severely harmed by the self proclaimed “Elite 24”.”
This assumes that those schools are entitled to that TV money. Why shouldn’t the 24 maximize the benefit for their home states rather than spreading the wealth to those riding their coattails?
“It would be fun to see The Ohio State University rent its stadium to a minor league football team of the same name and then accept payment for the university band to “Dot the I” at halftime. After all, the band would be paid entertainers. Shouldn’t the band members be paid for their time?”
School bands regularly get paid for performances at various events, but the money goes into covering their expenses (travel, uniforms, instruments, instruction, etc). Any excess goes into funding the music department in general I would guess.
“Would 100,000 people pay to come to that?”
Probably not, but ticket revenue isn’t nearly as important any more. That’s why the NFL keeps downsizing stadiums.
And again, just to be clear, I don’t support this plan in any way. I don’t have any desire to see OSU tied to NFL Lite or for OSU to leave the B10 behind. I would like to see more of these top 24 programs playing each other, but not at the expense of losing all the other games. Some of these teams already play each other OOC and I wish the rest would.
LikeLike
I think you missed one of Jersey Bennie’s important points: the 24 schools would have to find another home for their other sports. Once you relegate 100 or so schools out of big time football, they have no reason to compete with you in any other sport. So, the 24 either shut down their other sports, including men’s basketball, or they set up a multi-sport league.
I think the anger and frustration of the relegated schools would lead to academic reprisals, too.
LikeLike
I think you missed one of Jersey Bennie’s important points: the 24 schools would have to find another home for their other sports. Once you relegate 100 or so schools out of big time football, they have no reason to compete with you in any other sport.
Of course they do. It has already happened, over and over again. In football, DI is split into FCS and FBS; the latter is further stratified into P5 and G5. These levels exist for football only. In all other sports, DI teams compete on one level.
Villanova doesn’t say to Kentucky, “Since you refuse to share your football wealth equally, I refuse to play you in basketball.”
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“I think you missed one of Jersey Bennie’s important points: the 24 schools would have to find another home for their other sports.”
Not according to Mandel’s plan. The conferences would stay as is for the other sports.
“Once you relegate 100 or so schools out of big time football, they have no reason to compete with you in any other sport. So, the 24 either shut down their other sports, including men’s basketball, or they set up a multi-sport league.”
Or the money from having those teams involved means the conferences don’t split up at all. Perhaps the 24 get equal splits and then choose to share it with their home P5 conferences. Does the rest of the B10 really want to stop playing OSU, MI, PSU, NE, MSU and WI in all sports if they share the largesse? $114.6M for 6 teams equates to over $49M each for 14 teams. I’m not saying they would share it equally, but they could make sure the other 8 don’t lose money in the exchange ($35M each for the other 8 leaves $68M each for the 6, for example).
“I think the anger and frustration of the relegated schools would lead to academic reprisals, too.”
They’re going to suddenly declare MI a bad school? Any such reprisal would just undercut their status as being objective when evaluating the quality of schools and then being their opinion doesn’t matter as much.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Does the rest of the B10 really want to stop playing OSU, MI, PSU, NE, MSU and WI in all sports if they share the largesse? $114.6M for 6 teams equates to over $49M each for 14 teams. I’m not saying they would share it equally, but they could make sure the other 8 don’t lose money in the exchange”
So, you’re suggesting six members of the B1G would adopt the UT/B12 unequal sharing and abandon their core philosophy? The SEC, PAC, and ACC members too? And if they all chose to continuing their mostly equal sharing ways, how would that differ much from what we almost have now? I think consolidating to four conferences will give as much bargaining leverage without all the machinations required to implement a super 24 but not lose historic rivals.
History is the foundation of college FB popularity. Destroy it and it truely becomes double and triple A football.
LikeLike
If I understand Brian’s post, he is not saying that he thinks the Mandel plan would happen, or that he wants it to. He is just pointing out how easily those 24 schools could do that, if they wanted to.
If you focus, not on Mandel’s ridiculously low number (24), but on the general idea of schools banding together for their selfish economic interest to the detriment of others, it’s just an extreme version what has been going on for decades. Mandel, to be provocative, showed what it would be like if the same logic were taken to its fullest extent, which I doubt he truly believes will occur.
It’s silly season in football, with zero actual news, so you see these cockamamie proposals from people who know better. Every someone clicks on the story, you pay a little sliver of his salary. Just wait till August, when he’ll have real football news to report on, and this will be forgotten.
LikeLike
Marc:
I’m in agreement and I know Brian wouldn’t favor anything of that kind, especially in a precipitous manor. My disagreement is with the thought that it would be “easy”. The slow motion reconfiguration of conferences is the only way it can happen, without some unknown external force blowing up all the current arrangements and organizations. And that reorganization has not yet resulted in any significant change in the power structure and numbers in a half a century. A few schools have slipped, and a few have risen. Where were Rutgers, FSU, Utah, or even Boise St 50 years ago? Boise was barely a JC. The Ivy’s dropped of their own volition, for their own reasons (and don’t say Harvard, if so inclined, couldn’t spend with anybody. They just chose not to). It’s a game of consolidation, not necessarily elimination.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So, you’re suggesting six members of the B1G would adopt the UT/B12 unequal sharing and abandon their core philosophy?”
No. I’m talking purely hypothetically.
“The SEC, PAC, and ACC members too? And if they all chose to continuing their mostly equal sharing ways, how would that differ much from what we almost have now?”
That’s exactly my point.
“I think consolidating to four conferences will give as much bargaining leverage without all the machinations required to implement a super 24 but not lose historic rivals.”
1. I think you could change Mandel’s plan to leave more games available to play rivals not in the group.
2. I think 1 group of 24 plus the remaining P5 teams provides more leverage than the current P5 arrangement. Last year OSU had 4 games pull over 9.75M viewers (MI, MSU, ND and VT) for an average over 10.5M. The other 4 were all under 6M (PSU, MN, RU, IL) and averaged 5.0M. A concentrated league of the top brands would pull high numbers for almost every game. Add in the numbers for the games the other schools are playing and i think that nets a lot more money.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If I understand Brian’s post, he is not saying that he thinks the Mandel plan would happen, or that he wants it to. He is just pointing out how easily those 24 schools could do that, if they wanted to.”
Exactly. But easily just on paper. The emotions in the real world would make it more difficult to actually achieve. And we all know nice neat plans like this almost never actually happen in real life.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“My disagreement is with the thought that it would be “easy”. The slow motion reconfiguration of conferences is the only way it can happen, without some unknown external force blowing up all the current arrangements and organizations. And that reorganization has not yet resulted in any significant change in the power structure and numbers in a half a century.”
I generally agree. But to play devil’s advocate:
1. All the P5 TV deals and GoRs end in a pretty small period in the 20s.
2. If TV rights look to be losing value (the bubble bursts), the best thing for everyone could be a plan like this with the money being shared with the other schools.
3. As a second part of this plan, the schools left behind would probably form an actual playoff like the other NCAA divisions. With all the big names gone, some other schools could finally get the limelight.
4. There are a lot of court cases pending versus the NCAA and its members. We don’t know how badly they might need the extra money by then.
5. Turning a few teams into NFL lite (and perhaps NBA lite in MBB) might let the rest of NCAA sports keep the amateur model.
6. The P5 already got autonomy. If things get bad enough, what’s to stop the P5 from giving further autonomy to the big 24?
Putting all those things together could result in this sort of arrangement in fairly short order. Theoretically.
LikeLike
Teddy Greenstein@TeddyGreenstein
“Abundantly clear that ABC/ESPN might not be part of next B1G media rights package”
LikeLike
Based on the Athletic Directors and Delany’s comments today this still appears to be posturing for a final round of negotiations. They’re presenting a united front that ESPN low balling them and faux compensating for exposure isn’t going to be acceptable. I still think ESPN is the odds on favorite for the other half of the package.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-espn-big-ten-20160518-column.html
Teddy’s Trib article.
LikeLike
Pretty strong words reported by Greenstein, IMHO.
I agree that it may be “posturing,” but it’s some pretty unusual posturing. I can’t think of any time I’ve read about posturing like this with ESPiN. Usually, the posture is something akin to abject prostration. I maintain my hostile attitude toward the four-letter network, and, thus, I am glad to read that the B1G is not crawling.
Given that the contracts (for TV rights) is for only six years, IMO, it is worth the risk to go with other networks if ESPin does not offer a competitive bid. If ESPin really IS “all that” … well, we’ll learn that and we can go back in 2022.
In the meantime, I read somewhere that the B1G is selling the digital rights separately from the TV rights? No time to confirm, but that would be interesting.
LikeLike
If ESPN severely lowballs again to the point of not being willing to offer $175+m for a half the package (or at least $150m per year for around 40% of the overall rights, compared to the 50% that FOX is getting; maybe CBS takes other 10%), we might see the relationship pretty much ended for at least the next 2 contracts.
It’s a possibility that ESPN could come back around next time with a comparable offer, but unless cord cutting significantly stabilizes in the short term, that’s hard to see. Maybe ratings could push them, but I don’t think ratings are quite as important if the revenue shrinkage is major.
Conference realignment could force the issue for sure though, so that’s one thing to watch.
If the ACC is significantly devalued by their next contract, that would be a game changer…
LikeLike
There is a more obnoxious company then Disney/ESPN and that is Comcast/NBC. Direct TV/ Dish Customers unable to see Blazer Games in Portland for a Decade. No YES Network in New Jersey and Connecticut are just two examples of this. I hope the Big 10 does not give that Contract to Comcast.
LikeLike
Big Ten officials downplay SEC rivalry by Adam Rittenberg
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/127097/big-ten-officials-downplay-sec-rivalry
LikeLike
It’s much more of a fan rivalry than one between the top people. It’s much like UT and NE in the B12 – they had more in common than not but the fans loved to hate each other.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the best way of looking at it.
In terms of athletics issues and budgets, the Big Ten and SEC have by far the most in common (of any of the major conferences) with mostly larger land grant/public schools with large enrollments/stadiums/etc.
The biggest differences are actually pointed out in there; on average the Big Ten schools sponsor more sports while the SEC schools on average spend more on football (those two differences go together somewhat).
The fans’ regional rivalry (North v South) is not really that relevant to the people in power at those schools; many of whom are in the same circles of movers/shakers anyways…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/billion-dollar-buyer-star-makes-strong-case-for-houston-in-the-big-12/
The chair of UH’s board of regents makes the case for why UH is a no-brainer for the B12.
“I’m kind of disappointed it’s not even an automatic — that they’re even considering other schools,” said Fertitta, chairman of the Landry’s restaurant corporation. “Houston’s come a long way.”
…
“Do you think … Texas fans are going to get excited about playing … Connecticut or Cincinnati,” Fertitta asked, “or are you going to get more excited about playing Houston?”
…
“If you’re a school out there and you see what Herman did with that he had, step up,” Fertitta said. “The thing about it is you want to be an SEC conference. You want every team to be powerful — where one of your teams is in the final game every year.
“By adding Houston to the Big 12, all it does is make the Big 12 a power conference.”
…
“When it comes to eyeballs, all you have to do is look at what we did at the end of the year,” Fertitta said. “What I don’t like — and I’m concerned about — as a Houstonian is that the SEC is starting to own Houston. … There’s more talk about the SEC than there is the Big 12.
“I just don’t understand the Big 12 not wanting to own Houston, Texas, which is soon to be the third-largest populous in the United States. To me, it’s a no-brainer. I’m just kind of disappointed and shocked it’s not an automatic.”
Fertitta was reminded former SWC rival Texas — for one — might not be agreeable to giving Houston a leg up into a power conference.
Texas has been coy about taking a stance on expansion. The issue was more clearly defined two weeks ago when a Texas source told the Austin American-Statesman if the school gets rid of the Longhorn Network, “it will be to change conferences.”
…
“That’s kind of disappointing that Texas with their big budget fears the University of Houston,” Fertitta said. “For other schools in the Big 12 to keep them out because they’re scared of them, men need to be men.”
…
“I think this goes back to when we were in the Southwest Conference and we won,” Fertitta said. “Our basketball teams won and our football teams won. That’s where it all comes from.
“I’ve never feared competition. It’s disappointing schools in the Big 12 fear competition.”
…
For all the factors going against it, Houston does have the look of TCU when it was invited to the Big 12 in 2011: Texas school in a large market, recent success, football investment.
There’s a whole lot of recency bias going on there. UH has had 1 good year under Herman and a few with Sumlin. TCU had decades of success under Patterson.
LikeLike
“TCU had decades of success under Patterson.”
Decades?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/win-total-odds-for-top-college-football-teams-released-for-upcoming-season/
Some early win total odds from Las Vegas are out.
Here are some of the big names:
Clemson — 10 (-12o over, EVEN under)
Florida State — 10 (-120/EVEN)
Tennessee — 10 (-110/ -110)
Oklahoma — 10 (+110/-130)
LSU — 9.5 (-140/+120)
Michigan — 9.5 (-120/EVEN)
Alabama — 9.5 (-110/-110)
Notre Dame — 9 (+105/-125)
Ohio State– 8.5 (-115/-105)
Michigan State– 8 (+115/-135)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/south-florida-looking-into-building-an-on-campus-stadium-leaving-raymond-james/
USF is looking into building an on campus football stadium.
LikeLike
I’d agree except UTx has two gor’s. The LHN doesn’t expire until ’32. Bullet (and the UT source that B12 paying 15M doesn’t make them whole) has several times the individual highlighting/promotion of their school was a primary reason for staying in B12 and creating LHN. Would the Texas regional channel of the P1?N be acceptable, even attractive compared to being one of 16 or more members sharing a common channel? Would the PAC members accept buying out the LHN for Texas? Would ESPN even consider it? Would ESPN becoming an equity partner facilitate? Or would the PAC CEO’s remain solid on 100% ownership?
I think the B12 stands until at least ’32, perhaps with changing membership. OU and OkSU tried to leave in ’11 and was rebuffed by the PAC. Would the PAC reconsider in ’24, in anticipation of ’32? I don’t believe the B1G will take them, and not with OkSU. OU won’t go SEC unless it’s the last lifeboat.
As you said a contiguous P16/18 would be formidable, encompassing around a third of the US population. Their is (as I suggested several years ago) only one place TT and OkSU can be “protected” by big brothers.
LikeLike
Oops
Response to Stuart…
🙄
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’d agree except UTx has two gor’s. The LHN doesn’t expire until ’32. Bullet (and the UT source that B12 paying 15M doesn’t make them whole) has several times the individual highlighting/promotion of their school was a primary reason for staying in B12 and creating LHN. Would the Texas regional channel of the P1?N be acceptable, even attractive compared to being one of 16 or more members sharing a common channel? Would the PAC members accept buying out the LHN for Texas? Would ESPN even consider it? Would ESPN becoming an equity partner facilitate? Or would the PAC CEO’s remain solid on 100% ownership?”
I’d think the P12 would have to just accept LHN. In return, UT gets no ownership share in the P12N. UT gets their 1 football game and some hoops and other games but the P12N negotiates the right to replay the games if they’re P12 games (so out of market people can at least watch a replay).
I think the most likely result is that both the B12 and ACC survive for a long time. They’re on par with the P12 for money and all 3 of them earn enough to compete with the B10 and SEC. The money difference just isn’t big enough in the near term to destroy conferences over. The CFP money will grow fast enough to keep everyone financially secure.
LikeLike
Brian, my guess is the scenarios sorta look like this:
No realignment in next 15 years (among P5): odds probably around 50%.
Schools leave ACC: odds probably 25-30%.
Schools leave Big 12: odds probably 15-20%.
If I had to say, the single most important school for all of this is FSU and whether the Big Ten would consider blowing apart the ACC by taking FSU and Georgia Tech.
If not, then nothing will happen. There’s no reason for movement unless that “domino” is put into play.
If the Big Ten is willing to take FSU and Georgia Tech in the 2020s, then it changes things considerably; I could see the ACC’s southern schools carved up among the Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 (with the exception of Wake Forest). You’d probably end up with an 18-20 team Big Ten, a 16 team SEC, and a 12-14 school Big 12 alongside a 12 school Pac-12 as the new “Power 4” with the remainder of the ACC relegated to Group of 5 status.
LikeLike
Brian:
“I’d think the P12 would have to just accept LHN. In return, UT gets no ownership share in the P12N. UT gets their 1 football game and some hoops and other games but the P12N negotiates the right to replay the games if they’re P12 games ”
Not sure what you mean. Why would they need to accept the LHN as is? That’d be a deal ND would be proud of. They could just say no, like in ’10.
Only way it happens is if the PAC gains ownership and control, and it becomes the Texas regional of P1?N. It could by LHN/Texas regional becoming part of a ESPN’s equity stake as a P1?N partner. But I doubt it would happen without the B12 being in actual, final collapse, and ESPN seeing the incentive to try to salvage/strengthen their already considerable investment.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Not sure what you mean. Why would they need to accept the LHN as is?”
That was if they wanted to expand with UT +1 or +3 before the LHN deal ends.
“Only way it happens is if the PAC gains ownership and control, and it becomes the Texas regional of P1?N.”
UT won’t yield that while the current deal is in place.
LikeLike
Unless the conference is failing. It’s ESPN’s network, branded for Texas. UT doesn’t have total control.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Unless the conference is failing.”
Even then they might try to rebuild the B12 and keep the LHN. They can always move after the LHN deal ends.
“It’s ESPN’s network, branded for Texas. UT doesn’t have total control.”
Not total control, but ESPN can’t get rid of it before the deal ends AFAIK unless UT agrees.
LikeLike
Looking over Wilner’s financial overview of the P12 in his blog (below) gives me some thoughts
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/05/19/pac-12-finances-comparing-fy15-sec-big-ten-thoughts-big-picture/
The B12 is not going to get it together as far as a network goes, because it just doesn’t work without the LHN and they have not made a compelling case for Texas to change that. So the B12 core schools need to make a decision about staying together when the GOR ends or going their own way. If they want to stay together a “merger” similar to 4 SWC schools moving to the Big 8 to form the Bog 12 needs to happen with the Pac-12. Only with a Network (P12 has it) which has reach of the entire West from California to Texas in conference with geographic integrity can that core hope to compete with the SEC and B1G markets and Demographics. Neither Texas alone, nor California alone is enough. And 12 schools the Pac-12 is struggling to have enough inventory and reach.
There are two ways it could happen: either a Pac-16 with Texas, OU, KU, and TTU joining in a division with Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado; or a Pac-18/Pac-20, where 6 to 8 schools (definitely excluding Baylor and West Virginia) join. This conference could live with the remainder of the LHN contract, even swapping content. That is the only viable way I see the core of the Big 12 sticking together after 2024.
Otherwise, the Big 12 will break up, OU, KU, uTa finding homes elsewhere, maybe dragging another school or two with them. (a zombie Big 12 will continue on, pulling in AAC and MWC schools, but fall out of the power mix a few years after.) I just don’t see OU or Texas sticking around once the GOR ends.
LikeLike
Good overview of the situation. As far as Pac-12 expansion goes, I’d assume their ideal is a Pac-16 with UT/TT/OU/KU (if OU requires OSU, I assume they’ll be willing to go with that despite some indications publicly to the contrary – at this point, the Pac-12 leadership knows they have no actual alternative expansion scenario than UT/TT/OU+1 and they’ll bite on it if UT changes its mind and is willing to make LHN in to a Pac-12 Texas).
Though, I don’t think the Pac-12 wants more than 4 more because 16 allows for the Pac-8/Eastern-8 kind of split so that the West Coast schools are all together…
If they go bigger than that I’ll probably be surprised.
LikeLike
http://www.knowitallfootball.com/2016/05/20/potential-nbc-big-ten-marriage-lot-sense/
Interesting article about a possible NBC-BIG marriage. Would help against cord cutting as NBC is free over the air. Also could it pave the way for ND to the BIG at some point.
LikeLike
I have been very critical of ESPN here, but I certainly would not like Comcast. I am a Directv subscriber and I would worry about Comcast taking away Penn State Games from Directv. This is what they are doing in Philadelphia and have done for 8 years in Portland. Not to mention no Yankees in New Jersey or Connecticut. That writer was so biased it was not funny. NBC has not been as prestigious as CBS ( why do you think CBS has been called ” The Tiffany Network”?). There are 4 teams that I need: Steelers, Yankees, Islanders and of course Nittany Lions. I get Sunday Ticket for the Steelers, MLB Extra Innings for the Yankees, Center Ice for the Islanders and Multiple ESPN’s and BTN for Penn State. I would like Pac-12 for ASU but Steelers much more important which is why I have Directv.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I am a Directv subscriber and I would worry about Comcast taking away Penn State Games from Directv.”
How would they manage that? By pulling their channels from Directv? They don’t want NBCSN carried by Directv? They can’t block NBC from anyone. The B10 wouldn’t let games be moved to any lesser channels (it’s only Fox and FS1 for the Fox deal).
“NBC has not been as prestigious as CBS”
To whom? No broadcast network can claim prestige in the era of “reality” TV. NBC was the leading network for years and years but is down now.
“( why do you think CBS has been called ” The Tiffany Network”?).”
I’ve never heard anyone call it that. When’s the last time you heard that? It was branding by CBS 50 years ago, and probably more common in NYC (where Tiffany’s started) than elsewhere.
LikeLike
Doug,
“Interesting article about a possible NBC-BIG marriage. Would help against cord cutting as NBC is free over the air. Also could it pave the way for ND to the BIG at some point.”
Nothing in NBC’s current sports strategy suggests they are looking for that much CFB. ND provides them with 7 games a year (last year 6 went on NBC, 1 on NBCSN). The B10 would supply 50+. That would mean lots of games having to be on NBCSN (even worse than FS1) or other Comcast-owned channels that rarely show sports. They already have those slots filled with other things right now. I’d much rather be on ESPN than buried on NBCSN.
LikeLike
Nothing in NBC’s current sports strategy suggests they are looking for that much CFB.
I agree that they’ve never signaled much interest beyond their 7 ND games every year. The reasons are obscure to me. I don’t think they’d write a blank check, but they don’t seem to have even tried to do more.
Also could it pave the way for ND to the BIG at some point.
I’m not seeing it. ND is contractually bound to the ACC until the late 2020s. (If they join any conference in football before then, it has to be the ACC.) Past that, you’re beyond the forecasting horizon, since almost all of the various TV agreements will be past expiration by then.
LikeLike
The Austin American-Statesman has a series of articles about expansion.
An expansion primer:
http://www.hookem.com/story/big-12-expansion-primer-everything-need-know/
4. HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD EACH SCHOOL GET FROM A FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME?
By most projections, each Big 12 school would receive up to $3 million apiece from a title game. That would be over and beyond the annual payout each school receives. Last year, every Big 12 school was allotted $25.6 million.
5. WHAT COULD ENTICE TEXAS TO GIVE UP ITS LONGHORN NETWORK?
Not much. One school official told the American-Statesman that Texas is not likely to abandon the Longhorn Network, which pays UT an average of $15 million a year until 2031, because the only single-school network in the nation (other than the school-owned BYUtv) affords it tremendous exposure for the Longhorn brand, a huge recruiting advantage for all of its sports — especially the Olympic sports — and high visibility for Longhorn teams. That’s a lot to give up.
…
9. WHAT’S THE BEST LANDING SPOT FOR TEXAS?
Depends who you ask. A fan interested in sexy games and glamour matchups might pull for Texas to bolt for the SEC. But a Texas administrator might lean toward the Big Ten because of its prestige, its academic cachet and its friendly time zone that, for the most part, is in the middle of the country. One school official told the Statesman that Texas is most academically compatible with the Big Ten and the Pac-12.
…
12. WHAT’S THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BIG 12 DISSOLVING?
Berry Tramel, a columnist at The Daily Oklahoman, put the odds of a Big 12 breakup at 25 percent, which has to raise the eyebrows of the smaller schools in the league. It’s hard to predict if that is overly dire, but the withering criticism of the league’s viability by Oklahoma president David Boren sent some shots across the bow of all the Big 12 programs.
Examining the B12’s options:
http://www.hookem.com/story/examining-big-12s-options-expansion-stand-pat/
An influential Texas source puts the likelihood of expansion for the Big 12 at 15 percent. The source said the Longhorns could eventually go elsewhere, but not before the grant of rights involving first-tier television rights for marquee football and basketball games expires in 2024.
Would Texas ever consider leaving the conference?
“Hell, yes,” he said. “Broadcast rights are pledged through 2024. That is eight years of forced marriage. I see another realignment at that time, if not sooner. The Texas-OU football game would survive regardless of a league change.”
Would Texas leave before 2024?
“Who knows?,” he said. “A lot could happen.”
…
[talking about the B12 meetings]
From reading the tea leaves, it appears no final decision may come until August or later.
…
In a 20-year deal with ESPN, Texas gets approximately $15 million annually for Longhorn Network. The Texas source said the school is unlikely to give up such a powerful branding tool and recruiting exposure for even the same money it would recoup in a Big 12 Network.
LikeLike
Just a couple of comments on this:
3. WHY CAN’T THE BIG 12 JUST RAID ANOTHER POWER 5 CONFERENCE FOR TWO SCHOOLS?
See grant of rights, above.
Well, the SEC doesn’t have a grant of rights. The other three P5 leagues do. The more important point, is that even if the GORs didn’t exist, it is doubtful that any other P5 school would consider the Big 12 a step up.
There may be a couple of ACC schools that would at least consider overtures from the Big 12, but would they take the plunge, with the Big 12’s future so doubtful? I mean, why jump from one unstable league to another one halfway across the country, when you can’t be sure that league will exist in 10–15 years? I don’t think so.
Florida State is probably the ACC team the Big 12 would most like to have. Pre-GOR, FSU’s president issued an unusual public letter to the fans, listing all the drawbacks of the Big 12: scheduling, geography, rivalries, etc.. The weakness of the Big 12 coalition has become, if anything, even more apparent since then.
11. WHY IS A 13TH DATA POINT SO CRITICAL?
Because the College Football Playoff system says so. That’s been the one constant through the first two years of the CFP.
It’s hard to draw confident conclusions from two data points. Even the Big 12’s own internally commissioned study, suggested that adding a 13th game would improve their playoff chances by only 4–5%, assuming you believe them. If it were a political poll, you’d say it’s within the margin of error. That’s not what I would call “critical”. If true, it would mean that years like 2014 — when the Big 12 had two reasonably qualified teams, but neither made the playoff — would not be very common.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s hard to draw confident conclusions from two data points.”
Exactly. Especially since the B12 got in without that 13th data point 50% of the time. I also think the value of the 13th data point has been misconstrued. The value isn’t in having 13 games or everyone would be fighting to play at HI and get an extra data point. The value is in having a high profile game against another top team in the final week of the season. That doesn’t have to be a CCG to work.
2014:
I’ll use the CFP rankings here and substitute the final Sagarin rankings for non-elite teams
The final weekend of games:
#1 AL vs #16 MO (W 42-13)
#2 OR vs #7 AZ (W 51-13)
#3 TCU vs #105 ISU (W 55-3)
#4 FSU vs #11 GT (W 37-35)
#5 OSU vs #13 WI (W 59-0)
#6 Baylor vs #9 KSU (W 38-27)
Final ranking:
1. AL – SEC champ
2. OR – P12 champ
3. FSU – ACC champ
4. OSU – B10 champ
5. Baylor – B12 co-champ (and head-to-head winner over TCU)
6. TCU – B12 co-champ
The only change was TCU dropping from 3 to 6. FSU, OSU and Baylor all beat ranked foes while TCU played a cupcake. FSU, OSU and Baylor all won championships while TCU lost the tiebreaker for theirs. If FSU or OSU had lost, Baylor would’ve made the CFP.
It’s the quality of that final game that matters, not which number it is. The stakes and the quality of the opponent matter.
2015:
The final weekend of games:
#1 Clemson vs #10 UNC
#2 AL vs #18 UF
#3 OU vs nobody
#4 IA vs #5 MSU (L)
#6 OSU vs nobody
#7 Stanford vs USC
Final ranking:
1. Clemson – ACC champ
2. AL – SEC champ
3. MSU – B10 champ
4. OU – B12 champ
5. Stanford – P12 champ
6. OSU
Again, winning a title moved people up. OU dropped as MSU added another top 10 win to their resume while also winning a title.
The question is whether OU would’ve been #3 in the final rankings if they’d beat OkSU on the final weekend instead of the penultimate weekend. With wins over OSU and Iowa in the last 3 weeks, I think MSU would’ve passed OU regardless. Those wins plus MI earlier were a little better than OU’s wins (TCU, Baylor, OkSU) since TCU was injured then and Baylor lost 2 of its last 3 games. OU did win easily against OkSU while MSU squeaked out their win over IA, though.
LikeLike
I also think the value of the 13th data point has been misconstrued. The value isn’t in having 13 games or everyone would be fighting to play at HI and get an extra data point. The value is in having a high profile game against another top team in the final week of the season. That doesn’t have to be a CCG to work.
The start of the season matters, too. Baylor elected to schedule SMU, Northwestern State, and Buffalo — all lousy teams. The Committee probably gave the Bears close to zero credit for beating those opponents.
Ohio State didn’t exactly play a murderer’s row in the non-con, but they did beat two pretty good mid-majors, Navy and Cincinnati, along with a body-bag game against Kent State. They lost to Virginia Tech, but that’s what happens when you take a risk, something Baylor chose not to do.
In effect, going into the final weekend, the Committee was treating Baylor like a 7-1 team (ignoring the three cupcakes), and Ohio State like a 10-1 team.
If Baylor had played a comparable non-conference schedule to Ohio State (and won), they may well have been ranked higher than the Buckeyes going into their respective finales, since Ohio State played a relatively weak Big Ten schedule (other than MSU), whereas Baylor beat several strong teams in the conference portion of its schedule.
So yeah, what hurt the Big 12 co-champs in 2014 was not the lack of a CCG, but abominable non-conference scheduling.
LikeLike
“So yeah, what hurt the Big 12 co-champs in 2014 was not the lack of a CCG, but abominable non-conference scheduling.”
What hurt was the abominable non-conference schedule, AND the lack of a CCG that would added one extra game against a (very) good opponent. It’s not that it is a “thirteenth” data point as much as it is a data point reasonably expected to be of high value, something a weak schedule desperately needed.
LikeLike
What hurt was the abominable non-conference schedule, AND the lack of a CCG that would added one extra game against a (very) good opponent.
I agree with you. But of the two factors that could have helped, the one in Baylor’s control was the non-conference schedule. I do realize that Baylor contracted those games before they knew it would matter.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/mailbag-michigan-wolverines-jim-harbaugh-usc-trojans-notre-dame-fighting-irish-washington-051816
Stewart Mandel’s mailbag piece is relevant to a couple of threads on here.
About his Power 24 Confederation:
I enjoyed your article about college football in 2026 and think you are on the right track about contraction, but reducing to 24 is just crazy. You have excluded the entire eastern seaboard north of Atlanta save for Penn State, excluded Seattle as well as the entire Mountain time zone and 90 percent of the Midwest. I think a contraction like you listed would only be possible at 48 teams with four 12-team leagues.
— Andrew (WVU, California)
First of all, thanks to everyone who wrote in or tweeted responses to the article, which I figured might raise a few eyebrows.
The lineup I laid out was intentionally ultra-exclusive, mostly to emphasize my point about quality of content superseding quantity of teams in the TV/media landscape of the future. I actually started out with an intended target of 36 — four nine-team divisions — and started putting together that list but realized it was starting to stray too far from my thesis. By the time I got into the 30s I was including schools like Syracuse, Illinois and Maryland purely for the TV sets, which is pretty much the exact thinking that drove the last realignment wave. Push it to 48 and you’d basically be keeping the same current structure but just shedding a little dead weight from each conference. I can’t see that going over well.
But I fully admit the 24-team concept may be unrealistic. And just to be clear, I personally do not want to see the highest level of college football become NFL-lite, as many of you referred to it. If it were solely up to me, I’d go back and freeze the conferences where they were circa 1992. I’m also very much against expanding the playoff to eight. I like it at four. But both those ships have or will have sailed by 2026. I can’t predict what the landscape will look like exactly, but I do believe it will involve some movement toward grouping together the sport’s most valuable brands rather than continuing to surround them with less competitive programs solely out of loyalty or tradition.
It sounds cutthroat, but it may be inevitable.
The bolding is mine, but I think that was the thrust of his piece. He sees money trumping conference loyalty somehow. Perhaps the method I suggested (splitting the largesse with your home conference so everyone wins) would make that feasible. Maybe it takes a lesser form with those schools getting paid a little extra to play OOC games against each other.
His 24 by P5 conference:
ACC – Miami, FSU, Clemson
B10 – OSU, MI, MSU, NE, WI, PSU
B12 – UT, OU
P12 – USC, UCLA, Stanford, OR
SEC – AL, Auburn, TN, AR, LSU, TAMU, UF, UGA
Ind – ND
Annual games already played = 35
ACC – Miami/FSU, FSU/Clemson
B10 – OSU/MI, OSU/MSU, OSU/PSU, MI/MSU, MI/PSU, MSU/PSU, NE/WI, NE/eastern king, WI/eastern king
B12 – UT/OU
P12 – USC/UCLA, USC/Stanford, UCLA/Stanford, Stanford/OR
SEC – AL/AU, AL/AR, AL/LSU, AL/TAMU, AL/TN, AU/LSU, AU/AR, AU/TAMU, AU/UGA, AR/LSU, AR/TAMU, LSU/TAMU, LSU/UF, UF/UGA, UF/TN, UGA/TN
OOC – ND/USC, ND/Stanford, FSU/UF
Obviously some schools play more of these games than others but those games are already paid for by the current TV deals. I’m talking about formalizing a process for neutral site games or home and homes between these programs OOC for a little extra money.
You can make 3 groups of 8 by combining regions (SEC = 8, B10 + B12 = 8, ND + ACC + P12 = 8), then split them into pods of 4 to make it easier.
A1 = P12
A2 = ND+ACC
B1 = B10 E
B2 = B10 W + B12
C1 = SEC E + AU
C2 = SEC W – AU
Simply pair 2 pods from different groups to get a regional showdown in the OOC for that year. Each group plays against 1 pod from each of the other groups. The games could be spread over the first 3 weeks to make every week exciting.
Stewart: That’s a terrific idea. Even better if you throw in one of my favorite things from the wide world of sports: relegation and promotion. Good to have interest on both ends, I think.
— Wallace Bever (Ft Myers Beach, FL)
This was by far the most popular suggested revision to my concept, which tells me there’s a lot more overlap between college football and European soccer fans than I realized. And I admit, on paper, it sounds pretty cool. I just don’t understand how you could do it financially given how massive the dropoff would be in TV revenue for teams that get relegated.
Not being a close futbol follower I had to look up how it works in England — clubs that get relegated down from Premier League eventually see checks for a staggering 30 times less after four years of “parachute payments” vanish. Are you telling me that if Alabama falls into a downward spiral its conference revenue would drop (using current-day figures) from $31 million a year to $1 million? That seems crazy to me. Especially since that money funds the non-revenue teams.
A more realistic scenario is that the Confederation has some sort of check-in window every five years or so where whoever’s running the thing could choose to drop a consistently poor-performing program in favor of another. In college football it would take an awful long stretch of losing for a legacy brand like USC or Ohio State to no longer be considered one of the 24 most valuable properties, but perhaps an Arkansas or Stanford would operate on less permanent ground.
Again the bolding is mine.
I think they’d need some blend of objective criteria (W&L) and subjective input (from TV or elsewhere) to make this work.
Stewart, should the Big 12 go on the offensive and drop Texas from its league?
It seems crazy to do that but Texas is clearly the school that does not play well with others. Give them the ultimatum, either fold the Longhorn Network into a Big 12 Network or adios.
— Craig Molineux (Mississauga, Ontario)
Do that and you’re one Oklahoma defection away from the Big 12 becoming a Great Plains version of the American. What would we call that — the Great American?
There is also a new old topic:
If you look at the Top 25 from 50 years ago, it is the same teams as today-USC, Alabama, ND, Ohio State, etc. It looks like only two teams, Florida State and Virginia Tech, have been able to break into the club consistently. What teams in 20 years break into the club, and who will be out?
— Allan Schoenberger (Blufton, SC)
… It is indeed a lot of the same names as today, with the exceptions of Bob Griese-led Purdue at No. 6, and, Wyoming — yes, Wyoming — at No. 15. But it’s more than just two schools that have “joined the club.” While Florida and Miami happened to appear that particular season they did not achieve their modern-day prestige until the ’80s for Miami and the ’90s for Florida. Wisconsin, now a perennial Big Ten title contender, was a doormat for decades. Ditto Oregon in the Pac-8/10. And while only a five-year run so far, that Baylor is now mentioned as a top-10 team as if expected would certainly not have been the case a half-century ago.
Who joins the ranks in 20 years will likely depend in large part on what direction conference realignment takes. If TCU maintains its “have” status, I would not be surprised if that school has cemented its place as a top-25 fixture. Utah has much the same potential. And while Louisville has been pretty good for a decade now, I could see its profile rising considerably over the next two.
Conversely, I worry for Nebraska, a top-10 fixture for decades that has not finished a season that high since 2001. West Virginia feels a bit like its best days are behind it; the Mountaineers will never disappear, but the Major Harris and Pat White peaks may become more rare. And it will be interesting to watch Oregon’s course over the next decade as its once-revolutionary system loses its edge. Will the Ducks remain consistently good regardless, or will they return to their pre-2001 days as a mostly middle-of-the-pack Pac-12 team? All three don’t have built-in recruiting advantages where they’re located and will always have to innovate and/or develop talent better than others to maintain success.
Again, I added the bold. The future for NE is a much-discussed issue.
LikeLike
“…rather than continuing to surround them with less competitive programs solely out of loyalty or tradition.
It sounds cutthroat, but it may be inevitable.”
While loyalty and tradition do contribute, is there evidence that those ore the SOLE reasons conferences have formed? It’s not possible that their surroundings contribute to and support the value of the “more valuable” programs?
It would be cutthroat, and probably damaging to everyone. I don’t see anything suggesting any more than a few losers and winners through consolidation of failing conferences. Nothing approaching inevitability of something so extreme.
LikeLike
If there wasn’t value in stratified conferences all the King programs would be independent.
LikeLike
And one of the values is the presence of weak teams on their schedules. Kings prove their royalty by beating up the princesses of their conferences. tOSU really needs PU and RU. If they only played other kings, they would only win six games a year.
By the way, that’s another problem with Mandel’s asinine scheme: half the schools in his super conference would have losing seasons every year. Does he relegate 12 teams every year?
And why do we need a playoff system? Can’t the two division winners just play each other?
LikeLike
This is one of the major problems that is only lightly touched in conference realignment schemes.
Nobody actually wants an NFL-lite in terms of the outcomes (records of teams), just the theoretical money. That’s a fairly important contradiction.
The 10 or so “kings” can average roughly 10-11 wins under the current “Power 5” scheme.
In an NFL-lite, that 10-2 average becomes 6-6. Maybe the money can override that, but give some of these kings a few 4-8 or 3-9 seasons, and the alumni used to “7-8 easy wins” on the schedule won’t be that happy.
Regardless, the more likely outcome is the continued incremental creep towards fewer “power conferences” as it has been in the past. Currently at 5, we’re likely to see either 4 or 5 emerge as the long-run equilibrium point depending on whether the Big 12 or ACC can hold together (or a combination after losses by one or both conferences). In the most drastic outcome, I’d imagine a Power 3 is the narrowest distribution that we’d see.
Even if TV/media people discuss it, there doesn’t appear to be any consideration of an NFL-lite kind of situation; it’s not even clear who would push for it internally given none of the major internal actors has ever clearly entertained the thought at least publicly.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“By the way, that’s another problem with Mandel’s asinine scheme: half the schools in his super conference would have losing seasons every year. Does he relegate 12 teams every year?”
They could keep the same 24 forever, or do a check-in every 5 years as he mentioned. A team with a losing record every year for 5 years might deserve to drop down and build themselves back up.
“And why do we need a playoff system?”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
“Can’t the two division winners just play each other?”
There are 4 divisions in his plan.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“If there wasn’t value in stratified conferences all the King programs would be independent.”
I disagree. There was net tangible value in them before, certainly, as travel was difficult and sports didn’t earn much money. Now tradition, convenience and values are probably the main things keeping them together. There isn’t net tangible value in CFB conferences for the kings now. Intangible value yes.
LikeLike
While loyalty and tradition do contribute, is there evidence that those ore the SOLE reasons conferences have formed?
Originally, conferences formed mainly for geography. Today, when even the non-revenue teams generally fly to most games/meets, being close to your conference mates matters a lot less than it formerly did.
We already know that schools and conferences are willing to toss rivalries aside. Michigan–Minnesota was an annual game from 1919–98; not anymore. Likewise Ohio State–Illinois, annual from 1914–2002. Obviously, there are many other Big Ten match-ups that are played less often, but those two annual trophy games at one time had some significance to the fan base, and were sacrificed in the name of expansion.
And that’s just within a conference. It only becomes more extreme when schools switch leagues. Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Maryland, all abandoned rivalries of many decades’ standing when they moved. Purdue was Notre Dame’s third-most contested rivalry; now, they’ll meet only occasionally.
(Even before Nebraska left the Big 12, that league had sacrificed Nebraska–Oklahoma as an annual game. I remember when their rivalry was up there with Michigan–Ohio State, as one of the marquee games of every season.)
If there wasn’t value in stratified conferences all the King programs would be independent.
And one of the values is the presence of weak teams on their schedules. Kings prove their royalty by beating up the princesses of their conferences. tOSU really needs PU and RU. If they only played other kings, they would only win six games a year.
That’s an extreme version of the argument: even with Mandel’s 24-team proposal, someone would have a winning record, and Ohio State would probably do better than most. But yeah, the top 24 are not likely to sign up for a system where half of them are losers every year.
Mandel says: “It sounds cutthroat, but it may be inevitable.”
Brilliant! If this happens (or something similar), he can claim to have predicted it. If it doesn’t, he can point out, “Well, I only said it may be inevitable.”
LikeLike
“We already know that schools and conferences are willing to toss rivalries aside.”
Wouldn’t that be better phrased “a few were reluctantly sacrificed for the good of all.”?
We’re all rivalries tossed?
UM/OSU’s regular season game being played earlier to avoid potential CCG rematch back to back?
Were OU and UT in opposite divisions?
On a separate thought, relegation/promotion, we sort of have it now in a short term small form. The season results cause teams to be promoted to bowls of somewhat representative value, and up to the playoffs. The others are relegated to fewer practices and no extra visibility as NLI signing day approaches in Feb. Being mired in the second group is truely being relegated to a position of disadvantage.
LikeLike
“We already know that schools and conferences are willing to toss rivalries aside.”
Wouldn’t that be better phrased “a few were reluctantly sacrificed for the good of all.”?
It is certainly more than a few, for the fans of Texas A&M, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, or Nebraska. Within conferences, you are right: it is only a few. Michigan and Minnesota still play each other; just not annually. It’s clear that this will happen more often, if you believe that expansion is not done.
Whether that’s “for the good of all,” depends on the importance you place on revenue. All of these moves were undertaken to make money, and as far as I can tell, in that sense they’ve all worked more-or-less exactly as intended.
UM/OSU’s regular season game being played earlier to avoid potential CCG rematch back to back? Were OU and UT in opposite divisions?
I didn’t say they were ALL tossed. The suits were certainly open to shifting UM/OSU’s traditional game date, until the fans complained loudly enough. Oklahoma had three especially important annual rivalries, and the mechanics of expansion allowed them to keep only two. Nebraska drew the short straw.
On a separate thought, relegation/promotion, we sort of have it now in a short term small form. The season results cause teams to be promoted to bowls of somewhat representative value, and up to the playoffs. The others are relegated to fewer practices and no extra visibility as NLI signing day approaches in Feb. Being mired in the second group is truly being relegated to a position of disadvantage.
I am not sure that analogy holds much water. In all sports, including pro sports, you lose visibility and stop practicing after your season is over. This is not limited to college football.
LikeLike
College FB used to have only single digit number of bowl games. B1G and PAC limited only champs to post season. Now half of D1 gets the benefit and half doesn’t.
The failure of B12 to retain even several of it’s bigger earners indicates gross money wasn’t the cause. Those leaving aren’t going to go to the WAC or MAC, but a similar financial situation in a more cooperative, collegial, conference apearently was enough to off set the negatives of leaving long time associations. Attitude/philosophy was/is the problem there. Money partially reflects that problem, but it is a reflection.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“College FB used to have only single digit number of bowl games. B1G and PAC limited only champs to post season. Now half of D1 gets the benefit and half doesn’t.”
I believe it’s up to 62.5% now. 80 of 128 teams make it.
“The failure of B12 to retain even several of it’s bigger earners indicates gross money wasn’t the cause. Those leaving aren’t going to go to the WAC or MAC, but a similar financial situation in a more cooperative, collegial, conference apearently was enough to off set the negatives of leaving long time associations. Attitude/philosophy was/is the problem there. Money partially reflects that problem, but it is a reflection.”
Money was a factor, especially predicted future money. But stability (which is tied to money quite closely) was the biggest factor.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“While loyalty and tradition do contribute, is there evidence that those ore the SOLE reasons conferences have formed?”
Of course not. Very few things of this ilk have just 2 reasons for being. It started as a way for similar schools in close proximity to fill their schedules and play against like-minded schools.
“It’s not possible that their surroundings contribute to and support the value of the “more valuable” programs?”
Sure. The value of those programs is built in large part on the hundreds of wins they have. Since CFB is a zero sum game, someone had to lose all those games. Having lesser teams in a conference helps the top teams get gaudy records and rack up lots of conference championships. All that winning builds up the fan bases which brought media coverage which helped recruiting which led to more winning, etc. Location is also an important factor (large population, good HS football, etc).
“It would be cutthroat, and probably damaging to everyone.”
Cutthroat, yes. I don’t see the inherent damage for everyone. The 24 won’t be damaged. By being on the elite level, having a worse record doesn’t hurt. The Cleveland Browns are still more prestigious than any non-NFL team. All the other schools might be damaged (depends on how the money is shared and what form CFB takes for the rest of the teams).
“I don’t see anything suggesting any more than a few losers and winners through consolidation of failing conferences. Nothing approaching inevitability of something so extreme.”
I agree. Few things are inevitable and this isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
Are you sure that the Cleveland Browns are more prestigious than Ohio State? Better MAYBE, but more prestigious?
When mentioning lost rivalries, in the late 1970s and early 1980s Rutgers gave up its longstanding rivalries against football powers such as Colgate, William and Mary, Princeton, Lehigh and Lafayette.
Actually, there is a minor story with Princeton. 2019 will be the 150th anniversary of the first college football game between RU and Princeton. People are trying to decide how to commemorate that, since Princeton is not real big on the idea of an anniversary game. I am pretty sure that 1869 was Rutger’s last national football championship, since it beat Princeton 6-4.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Are you sure that the Cleveland Browns are more prestigious than Ohio State?”
Yes.
“Better MAYBE, but more prestigious?”
Any NFL team would crush a CFB team on the field. Not even close. OSU had 12 players drafted and has some future NFL players on the team. The Browns have 53 NFL players.
“Actually, there is a minor story with Princeton. 2019 will be the 150th anniversary of the first college football game between RU and Princeton. People are trying to decide how to commemorate that, since Princeton is not real big on the idea of an anniversary game.”
I don’t blame them for not wanting to play a B10 team. It’s just a touch unfair. Maybe they could try to schedule a double-header in one stadium instead.
LikeLike
“Are you sure that the Cleveland Browns are more prestigious than Ohio State? Better MAYBE, but more prestigious?”
In Greater Cleveland / Akron, it most definitely is. The only really plausible competition I can see is the Cavs if they win the NBA championship … so while in general NFL > NBA, it’s possible the The Worst NFL < The Best NBA.
LikeLike
“The Cleveland Browns are still more prestigious than any non-NFL team.”
Debatable. 😐
Harbaugh left a successful NFL team for Mich. Sabin flirted, but stayed college.
NFL was forced to expand and absorb the “inferior” AFL. (At 24 or 36 there would be enough outside to create the argument that many left out were worthy (Utah/Alabama, Boise/OU, etc).)
AL and NL, especially with inter league play, are simply MLB with half still “experimenting” with the DH.
NBA has nearly tripled in franchises since the ’60s
Evidence seems to be that even the exclusive pro leagues benefit from including more than just the elite, which implies they are somewhat damaged by not.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Debatable.”
Not really.
“Harbaugh left a successful NFL team for Mich. Sabin flirted, but stayed college.”
Feel free to track the net flow of coaches between CFB and the NFL. Even CFB coaches with no real interest in the NFL admit that’s the pinnacle of football.
“(At 24 or 36 there would be enough outside to create the argument that many left out were worthy (Utah/Alabama, Boise/OU, etc).)”
Worthy of being in the bottom tier of that top group? Sure. That’s always true no matter where you draw the line. But none of the truly elite programs would be left out since there are 15 or fewer of them.
“Evidence seems to be that even the exclusive pro leagues benefit from including more than just the elite, which implies they are somewhat damaged by not.”
No, the evidence shows that adding more teams made them more money. As soon as adding more teams hurts the payout to teams, leagues stop expanding. It has nothing to do with the quality of the other teams. Besides, most of those leagues switched to creating expansion franchises. No AAA team is getting the bump to MLB because they do well.
LikeLike
“No AAA team is getting the bump to MLB because they do well.”
They might, and the entire aaa system could grow to a competitive level given time, money, and ownership commitment (think AFL), if their players/teams were all independent of MLB ownership and control.
Is John Robinson a legend because of Tampa?
No one is arguing NFL players, limited in number, aren’t better than even the cream of college but spread over hundreds of schools and basically limited to years spanning perhaps eligible to vote to just past legal to drink (mostly). The word used was prestige…i.e. pride. Your highest achievement isn’t required to be what you take the most pride in. Roger Clemons said the CWS win was his most treasured accomplishment.
LikeLike
Perhaps rather than pride I should have said honored, admirable, or respected. Traits not necessarily tied to the highest achievement. And maybe I’m all wet. Maybe the higher the paycheck, the higher the prestige.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“They might, and the entire aaa system could grow to a competitive level given time, money, and ownership commitment (think AFL), if their players/teams were all independent of MLB ownership and control.”
“No one is arguing NFL players, limited in number, aren’t better than even the cream of college”
Jersey Bernie questioned whether the Browns were better than the Buckeyes.
“The word used was prestige…i.e. pride.
No, more like honor or respect.
“Your highest achievement isn’t required to be what you take the most pride in. Roger Clemons said the CWS win was his most treasured accomplishment.”
You taking pride in it doesn’t make it prestigious. It’s how people in general view something. The NFL is widely considered the pinnacle for football. Even the worst NFL team is more prestigious than the top CFB team because it’s so much better. That doesn’t hold true through all levels of sports. Being the worst P5 team isn’t more prestigious than being the best G5 team because we know the levels overlap. But the NFL is head and shoulders above even the best in CFB.
LikeLike
I was being tongue in cheek, however, if you wish to be serious, the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of prestigious is
1. standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2 commanding position in people’s minds
The dictionary.com definition is:
1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.
2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public:
From either of those two, can it be realistically be argued that the reputation or the estimation of the Cleveland Browns is high than that of the Buckeyes?
Anyone from Ohio wish to offer an opinion as to which of the two is held in higher esteem, has more cachet, or a better reputation within the state?
Let the Browns win even a division title, much less reach the Super Bowl, then we have a contest.
The question is not which would win. That is silly.
Would any NFL team totally destroy any college team? Very silly question. Obviously the worst NFL team could probably name its score against the best college team.
I was also being tongue in cheek regarding a Rutgers Princeton 150th anniversary game. There is no thought or conversation regarding that. Last year someone did float the idea of a 150 lb game between the teams (Maximum player weight at any position, 150 lbs). Decades ago, RU and PU did play 150 lb football at a club level and obviously no varsity football players.would be in such a game.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“From either of those two, can it be realistically be argued that the reputation or the estimation of the Cleveland Browns is high than that of the Buckeyes?”
Yes, as long as you talk overall prestige and not within their particular subsets of football.
“Anyone from Ohio wish to offer an opinion as to which of the two is held in higher esteem, has more cachet, or a better reputation within the state?”
The locals base their opinions on relative prestige (OSU is very prestigious for CFB, Cleveland is very low for the NFL). But they do recognize that the Browns would wipe the field with the Buckeyes if they played and that being in the NFL is much more prestigious than being in CFB. Every OSU player dreams of making the NFL and they’re thrilled if the Browns draft or sign them.
“Let the Browns win even a division title, much less reach the Super Bowl, then we have a contest.”
No, we don’t. Being in the NFL puts the Browns on top automatically. Not a single Browns player wishes they were playing for OSU instead.
LikeLike
Brian, I think that you are answering a question which was not asked. The issue is simply not which team would win a game.
The bottom line is your comment, “Yes, as long as you talk overall prestige and not within their particular subsets of football.”
The question is which team is more prestigious. By definition that is the team which is more highly thought of, is more esteemed” etc. That is the Buckeyes.
If the question were whether it is more prestigious to be a individual Brown player or to be a Buckeye player, that is a very different question and not even close. Obviously every NFL player has more individual prestige than virtually every college player.
College players who are anticipated to be high first round draft picks may individually have more prestige than the number 52 guy on an NFL roster, though even that may be subject to argument.
One could make the reasonable argument that every player in the NFL has more prestige than the number one draft pick, until he makes a roster.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Brian, I think that you are answering a question which was not asked. The issue is simply not which team would win a game.”
No, I’m also answering that question.
“The question is which team is more prestigious. By definition that is the team which is more highly thought of, is more esteemed” etc. That is the Buckeyes.”
No. OSU is highly thought of within CFB. You can have the greatest AAA baseball team ever and it will never be more prestigious than the worst MLB team. Being in the NFL brings the prestige. OSU can’t touch that. Nobody even thinks about CFB teams in those terms because it’s so obvious. If you want to talk prestige within their subset, that’s completely different.
“If the question were whether it is more prestigious to be a individual Brown player or to be a Buckeye player, that is a very different question and not even close. Obviously every NFL player has more individual prestige than virtually every college player.”
And the NFL team has more prestige because every player would rather be on that team than the college one.
There’s no point continuing this. We disagree about what prestige means in this sense so any further discussion is pointless.
LikeLike
Brain, precisely what I was thinking. We can just agree to disagree.
LikeLike
For our purposes, prestige probably means eyeballs/$…; trying to make prestige about winning doesn’t make that much sense because it leads to conclusions that generally don’t make much sense when you look at the context of sports.
In which case yes, any NFL team is above any college football team.
Local ratings on almost every NFL team are like 30-50% (at least) in their local markets, and almost all draw more eyeballs nationally than any college team. Take the worst 2 pro-teams (Cleveland vs Jacksonville or something like that), put them in a game on Thursday, and you still end up with 10-15 million viewers.
As far as money goes, the same applies…, if an investor was looking at how much they’d pay for Ohio State’s football team vs. the Cleveland Browns, that’s not a contest.
Ohio State’s football team would be worth a few hundred million (probably somewhere around $400m at most), whereas the Cleveland Browns are worth well over $1 billion.
It’s still an apples to oranges comparison, so yes, they’re hard to compare.
LikeLike
Here in Mount Vernon, OH, some 50 miles north of Columbus, based on team paraphernalia, the Browns are clearly more popular than the Buckeyes. In fact, I daily see more Michigan paraphernalia than OSU stuff. Having lived in Ohio since 1972, it is pretty clear that Buckeye fever runs highest inside the I270 outer belt, and that there is substantial preference for other college teams as you move out of Central Ohio. Also, Ohio football fans as a whole might be more pro-oriented than college-oriented, with preferences for the Browns, Bengals and Steelers over the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Perhaps that leaves me as a minority of one with my rather strict dictionary definition. Oh, well, it is not the first time and probably will not be the last, so I respectfully have agree to disagree with everyone.
LikeLike
“noun
1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.
2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public: The new discothèque has great prestige with the jet set.
adjective
3. having or showing success, rank, wealth, etc.”
Rather than being an issue of a strict dictionary definition vs not, it seems an issue of which dictionary definition. In terms of “reputation or influence arising from success, achievement”, the case for saying that the Buckeyes have more prestige is not hard to see, but in terms of “reputation or influence arising from rank or other favorable attributes”, and indeed all of the second sense of the term, it’s an easy call that the Browns definitely have more prestige in Northeast Ohio.
LikeLike
A dozen years ago, the ACC was in an “eat or be eaten” battle with the Big East. The ACC, benefiting from a more established (if not all that more prestigious) football league, not to mention being singular in tone rather than the Big East’s clumsy hybrid, won the war. Had the Big East been more aggressive and pursued the likes of Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech when they were dissatified with ACC leadership, the final outcome could have been considerably different and the ACC might have shrunk to a mini-league of Maryland, Virginia and the North Carolina four, forcing it to replenish from Conferene USA.
A half-dozen years from now, with new GORs on the horizon, the ACC will be in another battle — this time with the Big 12. However, this time it’s highly unlikely it will begin with one league taking from the other, but rather from the more financially powerful B1G or SEC (even perhaps the Pac, probably in a Texas + 3 scenario) wooing the most attractive candidates from one and/or the other. Most of what’s left from the ACC and Big 12 then will merge into a new conference that will be a consensus #4 on the college athletics totem pole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
VP19, I think that the demise of the Big East came about totally due to the hybrid nature of the conference and incompetent, totally basketball oriented, leadership in Providence.
If BE leadership cared about football, they probably could have saved that league, perhaps by grabbing FSU and Clemson, when those schools were really upset about basketball oriented leadership in North Carolina.
A football league with FSU, Clemson, Miami, VaTech, as well as GaTech, BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVa, RU, UConn, and Temple would have been very strong.
Of course that also ignores the “fact” that in the early 1980s the BE refused Penn State admission.
If Penn State had joined with the other northeastern football schools, the geographical realignment that many are mentioning now might have existed. BE in the Northeast, with perhaps a small southern outpost.
The Big 10 in the midwest, SEC in the southeast, ACC along the mid and southern Atlantic coast, PAC 10, and something in the middle of the country with some current Big 12 and some other teams.
Oh well, it did not happen.
LikeLike
If BE leadership cared about football, they probably could have saved that league, perhaps by grabbing FSU and Clemson, when those schools were really upset about basketball oriented leadership in North Carolina.
A football league with FSU, Clemson, Miami, VaTech, as well as GaTech, BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVa, RU, UConn, and Temple would have been very strong.
Of course that also ignores the “fact” that in the early 1980s the BE refused Penn State admission.
It is far from certain that the BE could have pried FSU and Clemson loose from the ACC. The ACC leadership might well have behaved differently, if it had believed the Big East posed a serious threat. (Years later, when they did perceive a threat, they invited Louisville to join over UConn, to pacify the football schools.)
I do agree that the BE certainly would’ve had a shot at those schools, especially with Penn State in the fold. The spurning of Penn State must be the single dumbest move in modern conference realignment history. An “own goal” if ever there was one.
LikeLike
Certainly, the B1G might not have induced FSU or GaTech, but they could have put up a fight and did not. It really was bitter when BC and Miami left. There were no ill feelings toward VaTech, since that was “just business”.
BC had just promised to stay in the BE. That is a major part of why there was so much bitterness and why the State of Connecticut sued BC. The AG of CT was Richard Blumenthal, who is now a US Senator. This is also why many believe that BC will do everything possible to blackball UConn from the ACC. (By the way, knowing Dick Blumenthal a little bit (which I do), I am certain that he would like nothing better than to do something in the US Senate about the G5 status of UConn. There is just nothing that he can do.)
In some ways U Miami was even worse. Donna Shalala was president of Miami. She was very open about how the BE “saved” Miami football, which had really almost collapsed for a while. Then the BE came in and the Hurricanes had a major turnaround. Shalala swore that in return, Miami would be ever faithful to the BE. Shortly after those promises, the Canes split and went to the ACC.
I am sure that there have been many bitter conference changes. This is right up there with the bad ones.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – To be fair to the original Big East, they did NOT turn down Penn State as a full and equal member. Instead, the offer on the table from Penn State and Joe Paterno to form an Eastern football league was that PSU would share equally in the Big East’s basketball revenue, while football revenue would be 100% retained by the individual schools. Essentially, PSU’s “offer” to the Big East would have made Texas look like a communist with respect to the Big 12 in comparison. That’s why the Big East and Penn State never got together – PSU wanted to retain 100% of its football money while sharing equally in the basketball money (which PSU wasn’t really contributing anything to compared to Syracuse, Georgetown, etc.).
I always look at what the Big East “should have done” as a futile exercise. For those that watched LOST, it’s the “course correction” theory of time travel, where you could go back and have the Big East add Penn State or do things differently in the 1990s or after Miami left in the 2000s… and things would still have ended up *exactly* how they are now. Penn State would have ultimately ended up in the Big Ten and Miami was always going to accept an ACC invite, which meant that every other schools was going to bolt for greener pastures in the exact same manner no matter what they did. Adding UCF, Houston and/or Memphis in 2006 wouldn’t have provided even a speed bump to the other schools that received invites from other power conferences – they were ALWAYS going to leave once invited. (The course correction theory, where the future ends up the same even if you change the past, is the opposite of the original Back to the Future time travel premise or butterfly effect theory of how the future is changed with any slight change to the past.)
LikeLike
Or go back to 1953 and have both Virginia Tech and West Virginia be charter members of the ACC. (They weren’t invited because both had backed the Southern Conference’s bowl ban for the 1951 postseason, which Clemson amd Maryland promptly ignored.)
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – To be fair to the original Big East, they did NOT turn down Penn State as a full and equal member. Instead, the offer on the table from Penn State and Joe Paterno to form an Eastern football league was that PSU would share equally in the Big East’s basketball revenue, while football revenue would be 100% retained by the individual schools. Essentially, PSU’s “offer” to the Big East would have made Texas look like a communist with respect to the Big 12 in comparison. That’s why the Big East and Penn State never got together – PSU wanted to retain 100% of its football money while sharing equally in the basketball money (which PSU wasn’t really contributing anything to compared to Syracuse, Georgetown, etc.).
Frank, you’re a bit off here with your post. Joe Paterno proposed an all-sports Eastern Conference which was based on revenue sharing for both football and basketball. Ultimately, it never materialized due to a variety of reasons and schools like Pitt decided to join the Big East. However, Pitt remained independent in football as did Syracuse. In fact, at the time Penn State supposedly tried to join the Big East (there are disputed accounts about this), there was no Big East football. The only BE members who played D1 football were BC, Syracuse and subsequently Pitt and all three were independents as there was no BE football. So, while Penn State may have tried to joined the Big East in basketball, there was not Big East conference for football at the time so, of course, the deal was based on schools (BC, Syracuse and Pitt) retaining 100% of football revenue since there wasn’t a Big East football conference at the time.
LikeLike
I am certainly NOT suggesting that if you put Penn State in the Big East, you can then confidently predict what would’ve happened next. But that doesn’t mean we are unable to form a valid opinion on whether the BE made the right choice.
Mike Tranghese, who was BE Commissioner for 19 years, has called the decision a major mistake. In the same interview, Tranghese quotes BE founder Dave Gavitt as saying at the time, “We will rue the day over this decision.”
The vote to add Penn State was 5-3, with six votes needed to pass. So, a majority of the schools, plus the current commissioner and the future commissioner, all thought it was the right move.
LikeLike
> To be fair to the original Big East, they did NOT turn
> down Penn State as a full and equal member. Instead,
> the offer on the table from Penn State and Joe Paterno
> to form an Eastern football league was that PSU would
> share equally in the Big East’s basketball revenue,
> while football revenue would be 100% retained by the
> individual schools.
@Frank the Tank: I’ve heard various versions of this story, and there seems to be some disagreement, but here’s what Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese said in March 2009:
“I look back on the 30 years, and I think we made one major mistake. We had a chance to take Penn State in 1982 and we didn’t. You look back on it and the whole face of college athletics would be changed now. If we had taken Penn State in 1982, we may still have football independents. The idea wasn’t to take Penn State and start a football league. It was to give Penn State a place. And then they would have been aligned with Syracuse and Boston College. We probably would have brought Pitt in, too, and the four of them probably would have agreed to play and continue as independents. …”
(http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/quad-qa-big-east-commissioner-mike-tranghese/)
Perhaps the cause of the various versions of the story is related to what Tranghese says in his answer to the next question in the interview:
“… What happened in the previous fall, Penn State had tried to form a football league. Coach Paterno has laid a lot of this at Jake’s feet, which I think is wrong. What never got written was that the basketball league was being pretty successful and they couldn’t agree on revenue sharing in football. There wasn’t going to be any revenue sharing. Jake just wasn’t going to do that. …”
This is very close to what you said, but according to Tranghese in this interview the Big East did turn down Penn State as a full and equal member in basketball, and football wasn’t on the table as part of that decision. (“If we had taken Penn State in 1982, we may still have football independents. The idea wasn’t to take Penn State and start a football league.”)
I’ve heard slightly different versions from different sources …
LikeLike
This should also be taken into account when trying to understand what may or may not have actually happened along with the causes:
“Paterno, also the Penn State athletic director at the time, has denied that Penn State formally applied to the Big East for basketball.”
(http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/2007/11/04/The-Big-East-question-revisited-25-years-later/stories/200711040221)
LikeLike
Being from Pittsburgh, Pitt got into the BE because of Penn State. When Paterno voiced his desire for an Eastern all sports league the BE feared they would lose Syracuse, BC and Rutgers. As a defensive move they invited Pitt to join.
Syracuse didn’t want to share revenue but it was also Pitt that didn’t want to share revenue. The football program was riding high and they were convinced they would never see a downturn.
As far as Tranghese, Gavitt and the vote that is true.
LikeLike
Paterno, also the Penn State athletic director at the time, has denied that Penn State formally applied to the Big East for basketball.
This sounds like a half-truth. Paterno isn’t saying they had no discussions; he’s only saying it never reached the point of a “formal” application. This is a textbook face-saving device: before applying “formally”, the applicant first inquires whether the request is likely to succeed.
That way, if the answer is no, they can say truthfully that they never really applied, and don’t have to explain to their fans (or other stakeholders) why they were rejected.
LikeLike
FSU wouldn’t have left the ACC for the Big East, regardless of how nicely it was asked. I’m sorry but this is when conference realignment discussions “jump the shark”. The ACC – real and perceived – was a better league than the BE in just about every aspect. And far more Southern. GT?? Even less of a chance.
LikeLike
“LSU’s mascot, a 500-pound Bengal-Siberian tiger, will receive unique cancer treatments at Mary Bird Perkins in Baton Rouge, Dr. David Baker said Monday, in hopes of keeping the tiger comfortable and extending his life.
The school announced Monday morning that Mike the Tiger has an inoperable, rare form of cancer.”
* * *
“It’s estimated that Mike could live one to two months without treatment, and one to two years with treatment, LSU said.
Mike VI was born on July 23, 2005, and came to LSU when he was 2 years old. He made his debut in Tiger Stadium on Oct. 6, 2007, against Florida.
The average lifespan for a tiger in the wild is eight to 10 years; in captivity, a tiger can live 14 to 18 years, LSU said.
Mike V lived 17 years and died from renal failure.
LSU has had a live tiger mascot on campus since 1936.”
http://theadvocate.com/news/15875919-175/lsus-mike-the-tiger-diagnosed-with-extremely-rare-form-of-cancer
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/05/23/michigan-satellite-camp-australia-prokick-jim-harbaugh
NCAA rules have derailed MI’s satellite camp in Australia.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/05/michigans_camp_in_australia_hi.html#incart_river_index
Michigan’s camp in Australia hits NCAA rules roadblock, but can still proceed with new host
ANN ARBOR — Michigan football can still go to Australia, but plans have changed.
Originally slated to be hosted by ProKick Australia on June 3, Michigan’s down-under satelite camp now must be presented by a new host due to an NCAA ruling that defined ProKick Australia as a recruiting agency.
As a result, Michigan needs a new partner.
ProKick Australia director Nathan Chapman told MLive on Monday morning that, from what he’s been told, Michigan’s new partner is likely to be made official in the next day or two. He would not comment further on his knowledge of those details.
“Our plans won’t work, so they said they’ll be going to a new organizer at a different location on the same day,” Chapman said.
During a youth camp in Ann Arbor on Saturday, U-M coach Jim Harbaugh said the NCAA does not allow Michigan to publicly comment on satellite camp destinations.
While Chapman contests the NCAA’s ruling that his organization is a recruiting outlet, he said time will not allow him to file an appeal and still host the June 3 camp. The option to appeal still exists, but would only serve to host future events.
“They’ve classed us as a data-based recruiting agency,” Chapman said. “We’re like, no, no, we’re just training guys to punt the ball and then we get in touch with coaches or interested coaches call us. But they wanted to class us in that category and they put their foot down, which they have the right to do.”
ProKick Australia trains Australian kickers to punt and kick for American football. It’s placed dozens of players in U.S. college programs, including Blake O’Neill, Michigan’s punter in 2015.
Chapman and Harbaugh met last summer when Michigan began recruiting O’Neill and the idea of a camp in Australia was born.
Once Michigan hired new director of player personnel Tony Tuioti this offseason, that idea was turned into action.
Tuioti’s relationship with Chapman stretches back almost a decade, back to his initial days as Hawaii’s director of player personnel in 2008. Tuioti — who also played college ball at Hawaii — was responsible for recruiting Australia during his run with the Rainbow Warriors (2008-13).
Now, though, Michigan will have to move forward with a new host.
“(The camp) will all go ahead and it’ll be good for Australia and all the good, young kids that will be seen,” Chapman said. “It’s just unfortunate that we can’t be involved with it. Rules are rules.”
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/05/michigan_lands_new_partner_for.html#incart_river_index
Michigan lands new partner for satellite camp in Australia
ANN ARBOR – Michigan secured a new partner for its satellite camp in Australia.
The Wolverines, who were originally aligned with ProKick Australia, will team up with the University of New South Wales Raiders Gridiron Club for the Melbourne Gridiron Development Camp on June 3 at the Heatherbrae Reserve.
“It’s an awesome opportunity for the kids to learn more about the sport and it’s awesome that the Michigan coaches were happy to come out and be part of our camp for the University of New South Wales,” UNSW Raiders coach Paul Manera said. “It’s just a great opportunity for the kids and for the community, but also for people that don’t even play the sport of American football, it’s a great opportunity for them to learn more about the sport.”
Michigan was scheduled to partner with ProKick Australia for a camp on June 3 at the Monbulk Soccer Club, but the NCAA defined ProKick as a recruiting agency. ProKick director Nathan Chapman said his organization isn’t a recruiting service and Manera said that’s not the focus of the new camp, which is open to boys and girls age 15 and older of all positions.
“At the end of the day, with Michigan coming down there it’s to help the players with their skills. It’s not a recruiting mechanism or anything like that,” Manera said. “If there are players down there that want to pursue a pathway to play football in the USA, then it’s their responsibility to obviously contact the respective universities and send them film just like any other kid does in the USA. The purpose of this is not for recruiting, it’s just to help people get better and it’s also to introduce the sport of American football in Australia.”
Manera added that the camp will benefit coaches as well as they look to grow the sport.
“It’s not every day that we get an opportunity to get exposure and learn from these coaches because obviously in Australia all the American football coaches are volunteers,” he said with a laugh. “To actually be able to get expert coaching from these guys who actually do it for a living is just an awesome opportunity for the Aussies.”
LikeLike
Hmmmm…
Anyone surprised?
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15667689/congressional-report-finds-nfl-improperly-intervened-brain-research-cost-taxpayers-16-million
LikeLike
Not really, but I wonder if the NCAA can take some cover behind the NFL on this. If the NFL was distorting the research, then shouldn’t people sue the NFL instead of (or at least in addition to) the NCAA which could only use the science available to them?
LikeLike
From twitter:
Jake Trotter ESPN Staff Writer
It remains unclear whether Texas will support Big 12 expansion. But one Texas mega-booster apparently is. San Antonio billionaire Red McCombs told ESPN radio in San Antonio that he is in favor of the Big 12 expanding back to 12 teams, provided one of those teams is Houston. “I think we need to add two teams to the Big 12 and should have done it two years ago. The first one should be the University of Houston then it would be your choice of several others.” The Big 12 presidents and athletic directors are scheduled to convene in Irving, Texas, next week to discuss, among other topics, expansion.
LikeLike
Wasn’t that pre B12 AD meetings?
LikeLike
I have no idea.
LikeLike
Horns digest says BOR booting Starrr…but Briles stays.
http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1672296-sources-bu-regents-preparing-oust-starr
LikeLike
Great money quote at the end:
“The feeling is if the board got rid of Art (Briles), they’d be sitting in a $300 million mausoleum instead of that new football stadium,” one source close to the situation told HD.
LikeLike
Glad to hear they’re keeping their priorities in order.
LikeLike
A source close to the situation said Starr arrived at his meeting with regents on Tuesday morning “lawyered up” and may not go quietly. A source close to Starr raised questions about how much of the complaints against BU football players actually got to the president’s desk versus being handled underneath him without his knowledge.
A source close to the regents board said Starr was removed as president because he was in a position to review associate dean of student conduct Bethany McCraw, who fielded many of the rape and assault complaints from female Baylor students, and Starr took no action.
The only thing that is clear, according to sources, is that Starr – not Briles – is going to be seen as the fall guy for the school’s inaction after at least six Baylor female students reported they were raped or assaulted by BU football players from 2009 through April 3, 2016.
…
Sources said Briles, who has revived a moribund football program by winning at least 10 games in four of the past five years, including two Big 12 titles and a Heisman Trophy (Robert Griffin III in 2011), will continue as football coach, barring any evidence turning up that Briles was engaged in a coverup.
…
The board appears ready to let go of some Baylor personnel over the handling of rape and assault claims made by BU co-eds, sources said. But the regents board is mixed on the fate of BU athletic director Ian McCaw, one source close to the situation told HD on Monday. Although, another source said they expected McCaw to continue on as AD as long as no evidence of a coverup surfaced.
So as long as there isn’t proof of a coverup, the HC and AD are safe. But the president is out because people under him screwed up? I’m all for firing Starr but he shouldn’t be the only one to go unless proof comes out that he directed the actions/inactions or drove a coverup.
LikeLike
UC San Diego students have voted in support of moving to D1.
LikeLike
6137 Yes
2567 No
124 Abstain
The overall voter turnout was 35.07%
LikeLike
“UCSD, whose 23 teams are currently classified Division II, said in a statement, “The student vote was a key milestone in what will be an ongoing process to get UC San Diego athletics to the Division I level. Included in that process will be securing an invitation for membership into the nine-team Big West Conference which currently includes four UC members—Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis and Riverside—as well as taking additional steps, including review by the Academic Senate, prior to officially submitting an application for NCAA Division I. ”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/sports-breaking/ucsd-will-petition-to-join-big-west/
LikeLike
Under Armor spends big.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-sp-0525-ucla-under-armour-20160525-snap-story.html
Am I mistaken, or is that three quarters of what ESPN is paying for LHN? Makes media rights seem undervalued.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/112293/streaming-could-be-the-answer-to-the-big-12s-woes
Is a streaming service the answer for the B12? Would the Netflix model work for them? Could it make more for them with 11 schools combined than each school running their own version (several already do)?
LikeLike
Sports Illustrated’s sports media columnist Richard Deitsch had John Ourand of Sports Business Daily on his podcast this week. The Big Ten discussion starts around 13 minutes in. Of note Ourand seems to confirm that both NBC and Turner are still at the table in addition to ESPN for the back half of the Big Ten TV deal.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15630304/the-college-football-playoff-made-week-1-see-tv-filled-marquee-games
The CFP is the best thing to ever happen to Week 1 of the CFB season. The value of SOS and getting credit for choosing to play a tough game means a loss isn’t the killer it used to be.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-proposes-rule-banning-michigan-spring-break-practices/
The P12 is throwing out some rule ideas to help student-athletes have more free time.
One idea: “Prohibit practices from occurring during an institutional vacation period when the practices are part of a sport’s non-championship segment (or the spring practice period in the sport of football.”
…
Some other ideas the Pac-12 suggested for legislation:
* Make schools provide athletes with designated “rest days” in addition to required days off with no required athletic activities.
* Require schools to let athletes have at least three days off per week during the offseason from required athletic activities, up from the current two days off.
* Amend the NCAA rulebook’s definition of voluntary athletic related activities “to curtail perceived abuses related to voluntary and safety exception workouts.” The Pac-12 said the current rules allow staff members to have “wiggle room” and abuse the rules so workouts are not voluntary.
* Establish an unspecified time period after athletes return to campus from athletic travel when required athletic activities are not allowed.
* Prohibit schools from requiring athletes to report for home games earlier than four hours before the start of the competition.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2016/05/24/larry-scott-time-demands-student-athletes-want-more-flexibility/84876468/
Larry Scott says the P12’s review found athletes didn’t want to spend less time on their sport, they just wanted more flexibility about when to spend it.
Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said that from speaking with more than 250 athletes spread across every school in his conference this past winter, it’s not that easy — and the reason begins with the athletes themselves.
“I guess if there was one surprise,” he told USA TODAY Sports, “I didn’t find student-athletes asking for less time on their sport. Going into this I was thinking things may be out of whack, our student-athletes may be spending more time than they’d like or they think is appropriate on their sports. I think probably the biggest epiphany is that that’s not the case, that student-athletes have the opportunity to go to our schools because they are the elite junior athletes in the country and they’ve made incredible sacrifices and commitments to get there. I was surprised and impressed how they go into that with eyes wide open about what it takes to continue to excel at that level.”
So what do athletes want from NCAA Division I school officials’ effort to address time demands?
“More flexibility about when they spend the time,” Scott said. “More transparency in advance notice (about team practice and activity scheduling). Knowing when they’re not going to have to practice, so that it gives them more flexibility in the academic side of their life — (setting up) tutoring sessions that they want to schedule or labs that they want to go to or internships they want to participate in, as well as social activities and other things.”
…
That is where Scott and his staff had what he termed “the other — I guess — ‘Ah-Ha’ moment for us.”
It was a determination that “while there are clearly certain rules proposals that would benefit student-athletes that need to be dealt through legislation … a lot of the value we think will come from education (of coaches and administrators) and the sharing of best practices and work that can be done on campuses outside rules. … Just more common sense, with appropriate checks and balances and oversight.”
…
So the focus shifts to the hard-to-regulate area of what constitutes truly voluntary training. The Pac-12 has some ideas there, too, but Scott said: “We really want feedback from our peer conferences and see what kind of reaction we get before we decide exactly how we’re going to process these specific proposals. But we do intend to (pursue) these ideas one way or another.”
LikeLike
I’d like to see some kind of seasonal compartmentalization, reducing the year round nature of each sport, that would ease/promote the ability of those so inclined to do more than one sport. I’ve seen multiple kids start to, and then bail, usually citing the time commitment/overlap required.
LikeLike
The problem is that at the top level cross-training can be detrimental to certain skills/attributes (but beneficial to others). Some things pair well together but others don’t. And the seasons tend to overlap already so you have to pick your primary sport anyway.
LikeLike
“The problem is that at the top level cross-training can be detrimental…”
Dave Winfield, Danny Ainge, John Elway, Tony Gwinn etc. disagree.
LikeLike
Way to omit the rest of that sentence and the next one which explains my point further:
“… to certain skills/attributes (but beneficial to others). Some things pair well together but others don’t.“
LikeLike
Sorry. Seemed like you were suggesting only a few things could cross train. Fact is almost any activity can be beneficial as long as you don’t get injured, and actually can reduce the repetitive stress caused by continually doing same thing. It can be a mentally refreshing break, too. I once saw an unusual HS track (which is 17-20 different sports) state championship double – shot put and high jump. Most college athletes were multi sport in HS, and with lowers time requirements an increased number would continue to be.
LikeLike
No, I was trying to point out that the longer seasons in college mean it’s harder to do fall and winter sports or winter and spring sports, and also that things like distance running require maintaining a certain physique and cardio level that other sports can interfere with. I agree that diverse activities are generally healthier, but going into a second sport not in the right condition for it can be dangerous at the level of I-A sports.
I think the skills involved in college sports (and even high school) have increased considerably as more players have specialized so it’s harder for multi-sport athletes to compete.
LikeLike
The couch potato is now a college “athlete”. 😳
“Finally, following an internal review of the growing interest amongst Pac-12 students in competitive video gaming, the presidents and chancellors approved Pac-12 Networks to commence eSports competitions with Pac-12 universities this upcoming year. Teams from campuses will participate based on a specific game, and the competitions will include head-to-head matchups in studios as well as a tournament in conjunction with a Pac-12 championship event. The game titles and event formats are still to be determined, but will be announced in the coming months.”
LikeLike
Does this mean that the Pac-12 Networks will be televising video game competitions? That will certainly drive the network. With that programming, soon the PAC-12 networks will be far more valuable than the SEC or B1G networks.
So those kids who play video games and never leave the basement will eventually be getting athletic scholarships. This may start as a club sport, but varsity competition will be next.
I wonder if Rivals and Scout will rate them. I did hear that gamers have been invited to the Michigan camp in Australia. Nothing gets past Harbaugh.
There are, of course, Title IX issues, since there are way more male gamers than female gamers. I guess that a new woman’s sport will need to be added.
LikeLike
All will proceed well enough until there are former gamer athletes with intense carpal-tunnel, vision and lumbar problems – Gamer Gate will become Gamer Greats and then the sport will be declared unsafe for future generations. That or its Heisman Trophy-counterpart winner will go on a killing spree and then the plug will be pulled.
LikeLike
Hmmm…
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/13059210/esports-massive-industry-growing
LikeLike
“University League of Legends is working with the Big Ten Network to broadcast the first ever BTN Invitational: A University League of Legends Event live at noon this Friday at PAX East. Watch live via BTN2Go and see it on TV on April 25 at 7 p.m. ET.
The Invitational pits the Ohio State Buckeyes against the Michigan State Spartans for the latest installment in a growing esports rivalry. This will be the third time these teams have faced off this year, after going 1-1 in their uLoL Campus Series regular season matchup and eventually meeting in the playoffs, where Ohio State ended Michigan State’s title hopes.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133325/big-ten-to-tweak-replay-procedures-this-fall-monitor-centralized-system
New replay methods are being tried this year. The ACC and SEC are trying a central command approach to keep things more consistent. The B10 is trying something else.
Here’s how replay will work in all Big Ten games this season: when there is a review, the referee will be handed a computer tablet so he can watch the same replays that the officials in the booth are seeing. In previous years, the referee simply listened on a headset as the replay official decided whether to overturn a call or let it stand.
Big Ten referees have been instructed that they are to be in “listen mode, not talk mode” during the review, Carollo said, and they won’t have any control over the video they are seeing. But they can offer input if they think a rule is being misinterpreted or if the replay officials are missing something. The replay official always will have the final say on the decision, but involving the referee will allow the on-field crew chief to better explain those decisions to fans and to coaches on the sidelines.
…
League athletic directors approved the system, which is far more cost-effective than a central command center.
Of course, the Big Ten could easily afford to set up a centralized system and will also test that out this fall (more on that in a bit). But Carollo not only thinks that in-stadium crews should be relied on, he is not sure whether a command center is necessary.
He offered the following numbers on replay during Big Ten games in 2015. A total of 17,762 plays were subject to replay. Of those, 225 plays resulted in a stoppage of play for a review. Calls were reversed 34 percent of the time, which is about the annual average. Carollo said mistakes were made on about a dozen plays, and of those, about half of them were technical details. A second wasn’t put back on the clock, for example, or the ball was spotted on the wrong hash when play resumed.
So only about a half-dozen reviews all season involved major errors, and given how difficult some of the judgment calls are in football (“Was that a catch?”), there are always going to be some disputed decisions.
…
That said, Carollo understands there’s no price tag for a botched call that costs a team a shot at the Big Ten title, or perhaps even a College Football Playoff berth. So the league is investigating a central command center, too.
Every week during league play, Carollo said, a group of officials will gather in the Big Ten office and will be tied in electronically to a select few games. They will make their own decisions on replays, though it is simply a mock exercise. The Big Ten used that system in some spring games as well, including Michigan State’s.
At the end of the season, Carollo will go back and compare the accuracy of the in-stadium crews to the mock centralized one and see if there’s a notable difference. The Big Ten will also compare notes after the season with other leagues, including the ACC and SEC, to see how their systems worked.
“If it gets results, down the road maybe it does make sense [to go to a command center],” he said.
Carollo worries, however, about what he calls “unintended consequences” of each league having one set of people in a conference headquarters handling all replays. Conspiracy theories could abound and transparency might be a problem. Carollo envisions a potential national replay center, where a set of unaffiliated NCAA officials review every Power 5 or perhaps all FBS games in one, secure location.
LikeLike
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 3h3 hours ago
Confirmed NBC & TNT leading heading into the final stretch for 2nd half TV Deal. ND is in Serious play.〽️😇
13 retweets 14 likes
Reply Retweet 13
Like 14
More
Can’t wait to see how things pan out.
LikeLike
ND is in Serious play.
Has Bluevod been right about re-alignment…ever?
LikeLike
He’s closing on predicting every possibility, so as long as something happens…someday…
LikeLike
“He’s closing on predicting every possibility, so as long as something happens…someday…”
Precisely. With odds always being 50% (+/- 10%). But he’s starting to attract quite a following. People listen to whatever they want to believe…and seek it out.
LikeLike
“People listen to whatever they want to believe…and seek it out.”
Just like with the news, and most everything else now.
LikeLike
I think his claim to fame (so to speak) was predicting Harbaugh to UM before anyone else. I’ve long given up on trying to predict who may be next and just enjoy the speculation and process.
LikeLike
I think his claim to fame (so to speak) was predicting Harbaugh to UM before anyone else.
I was following him then, and I will give him credit for that(*). If he had another prediction about Michigan football, I’d give it some weight. That doesn’t make him a soothsayer on conference realignment and TV negotiations. As @ccrider55 says, at this point Bluevod has predicted so much that, regardless of the outcome, he can claim to have been right.
(*) Even his Harbaugh prediction might simply have been luck. After Brady Hoke was fired, every rational coaching hire (and some that are irrational) was suggested by someone. So, regardless of what Michigan had done, someone was going to be able to say that they knew it all along.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. What stood out most to me was the NBC & TNT leading the way. I’d be perfectly happy with them moving away from ESPN.
As far as Notre Dame, Virginia, Texas, or anyone else joining….well, it’s fun to consider and debate, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen before I believe it.
Bluevod seems to be one of the few who will comment on possible B1G expansion right now. Most others seem focused on the Big12.
LikeLike
He isn’t going that far out on a limb here either though Kyle. The timing is very suspicious given the podcast I posted 2 days ago where John Ourand from the SBJ says NBC and Turner are still at the table with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
As far as Notre Dame, Virginia, Texas, or anyone else joining….well, it’s fun to consider and debate, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen before I believe it.
I would give it some credit, if the rumor at least came from a reputable media outlet, or someone with a demonstrable track record for being right about such things.
He isn’t going that far out on a limb here either though Kyle. The timing is very suspicious given the podcast I posted 2 days ago where John Ourand from the SBJ says NBC and Turner are still at the table with the Big Ten.
I was referring to “ND is in Serious play.” The NBC/TNT negotiations were already reported by others, so Bluevod gets zero credit for that.
LikeLike
He consistently brings FSU as a early mover.
1: I don’t believe they are even two decades from achieving academics that the cop/c would consider.
2: With the Baylor revelations, do you really want to invite someone who has exhibited similar win at all costs attitude (but with better “cleaners”)?
LikeLike
Not to be outdone, a B12 rumor: same general schools but a different destination.
“Tuxedo Yoda @TuxedoYoda
Latest Austin rumor, ACC fball schools could eject due to no conf network. Imagine Clem, FSU, Miami, GT, VaTech & NC St in Big 16.”
So they bail from a conference because no conf net and go to one…with no conf net.
LikeLike
I wonder if the lack of a network would nullify the ACC’s GOR.
As far as the NBC looking at the 2nd half of the BIG TV rights and ND being in play.
This is a possible scenario. My understanding is Nebraska, MD & RU all had buy ins. Now can you imagine mighty ND going through a buy in? Me neither. But if NBC obtains the BIG package and brings along ND, then they could do the buy in with the understanding ND can keep their NBC money so ND doesn’t lose anything. (ND never loses anything and never signs anything not heavily weighted in their favor.) Didn’t Missouri initially balk at the buy in?
Not saying this would happen but the NBC-ND scenario could work from a business standpoint.
Safe weekend everyone!
LikeLike
That was a May 12 tweet
LikeLike
Doug,
“I wonder if the lack of a network would nullify the ACC’s GOR.”
People have claimed that but I’ve never seen anything official.
“My understanding is Nebraska, MD & RU all had buy ins.”
Yes, 6 years of it.
“Now can you imagine mighty ND going through a buy in?”
Yes, as long as it doesn’t hurt them.
“But if NBC obtains the BIG package and brings along ND, then they could do the buy in with the understanding ND can keep their NBC money so ND doesn’t lose anything.”
All of the buy-in deals have at least kept the school from losing money versus their old TV deal. The same would apply to ND. And since the TV deal would grow even more with ND on board, ND would either get a raise or buy in for less than 6 years.
LikeLike
He says that his second-hand source is a former FSU prez. Based on other statements he’s made (and an easy process of elimination)…it’s pretty easy to figure out who he’s referring to. Now whether any of it is real or not…who knows. But I do agree with his general premise that the B1G plowing southward (and acquiring schools like UVA, UNC, GT and perhaps FSU) may be a strategic move. It certainly would make the addition of UMd make a lot more sense that just picking up another TV market (that may only pay short-term dividends given the rapidly evolving marketplace…where BIG brands and epic games may matter most). And fertile recruiting grounds with growing populations.
LikeLike
If you follow the discussion:
Corneilus Green @CGreen63 6h6 hours ago
@Bluevodreal Could you see ESPN re-enter the picture?
—
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 6h6 hours ago
@CGreen63 yes very much so. I would be shocked if they did not. They need it BAD.
—
Corneilus Green @CGreen63 6h6 hours ago
@Bluevodreal My money is on NBC getting the rights. ESPN has to come close, at, or exceed $250m/yr to retain Big Ten rights
—
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 5h5 hours ago
@CGreen63 it will be higher than $250 million
—
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 4h4 hours ago
@CGreen63 I’m going to say it will be $275 to 300 Million.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/pac-12-falling-behind-big-ten-sec-podcast-052316
Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman have Jon Wilner on their podcast. They talk about the P12’s future and the risks of falling well behind the B10 and SEC financially.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-we-will-not-and-should-not-have-a-college-football-commissioner/
Why we won’t and shouldn’t have a CFB commissioner.
But despite the headlines you may read, there is no movement toward a college football commissioner.
More importantly, there will not be one — not now and not soon. Here are several reasons why:
1. No one is going to give up their power.
…
2. There’s nothing to be gained with the one-voice approach.
…
3. It might give players more of a voice, and schools don’t want that.
…
4. College football embraces biases and chaos.
…
That’s where we are with the commissioner talk: Filling a void people want to believe exists without one righteous person looking out for a sport that has never been righteous.
Look, a commissioner might positively help nudge along some conversations before the headaches inevitably drive a fine individual insane. But a commissioner is not happening. And it’s not a bad thing for college football to stick with its biased, chaotic self that we’ve loved and loathed for so long.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/05/24/pac-12-reduces-number-night-football-games-adds-esports-fines-court-field-storming/
You may have heard that the P12 has negotiated for a reduction in night games going forward.
*** A slight reduction in night football games.
The last item might carry the most resonance with fans. It’s not a major reduction — as many as four games on the Pac-12 Networks that would have been played at 7 p.m. or later will be moved to new broadcast windows at 2:30 and 6 p.m.
That overlaps with exclusive windows owned by ESPN and Fox and required modification of the current contracts. Exactly what the conference gave back in return, I’m not sure — could be a small amount of cash, could be a decrease in the number of national broadcasts, could be something else.
The gesture is more important than the practical implications, because the practical implications could be minimal:
We’re talking about a maximum of four games that would have started at night on the Pac12Nets will now start at 6 p.m. or earlier.
So it could be that two games previously at night now start at 2:30 and two previously at night now start at 6 p.m. Or one starts at 2:30 and three start at 6.
That’s not a major change, given the number of 7/7:30 kickoffs on ESPN/2 and FS1 — that inventory is not expected to see a reduction, by the way.
…
UPDATE: For context on the reduction in night games: In 2015, the Pac-12 had 33 games start at 7 p.m. or later on campus on ESPN/2, FS1 and the Pac-12 Networks. (The breakdown: 17 on ESPN/2, 9 on Pac12Nets and 7 on FS1.)
A four-game reduction in Saturday night kickoffs represents a 12% decrease in total, including the Thurs/Fri games. That’s not significant but it’s also not nothing.
Of course, if three of the four are played at 6 p.m. instead of 7, the change become minuscule …
LikeLike
More Big 12 expansion input. Includes the claim by former Kansas State president Jon Wefald that former U Texas president Bob Berdahl “intentionally” harmed Nebraska, since, as then president of the AAU, Berdahl could stopped the expulsion of Nebraska from the AAU.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ex-kansas-state-presidents-book-has-some-fascinating-details-about-realignment/
LikeLike
Later, Wefald alleges Berdahl failed to use his influence to keep Nebraska in the AAU right around the time it joined the Big Ten conference. When it comes to expansion, the Big Ten has always taken academics seriously.
[begin excerpt from book]
Wefald recalled Berdahl harmed Nebraska after leaving Texas. Berdahl was the president of the Association of American Universities (AAU) in 2011 when Nebraska was voted out of the prestigious group. Wefald said Berdahl could have used his influence to sway a close vote.
“The truth is,” Wefald wrote, “no outside academic leader has dented Nebraska’s athletic and academic standing over the years more than Bob Berdahl.”
[end excerpt]
Wefald is said to have added that “if Nebraska had not been a member of the AAU in 2010 when the Big 10 was adding a new school, the University of Missouri, an AAU school, would likely be a member of the Big 10 today.”
LikeLike
Berfahl wrote a letter suggesting the approach to defend membership. Pearl man ignored the suggestions
LikeLike
I’ve never held the AAU vote against anyone. The presidents should vote their conscience about whether a school belongs or not. That takes more courage than playing politics.
LikeLike
Looks like Baylor is firing Briles. Supposed announcement in a minute.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/reports–baylor-fires-coach-art-briles-154936095.html
LikeLike
Different specifics, but does this resemble the mess in the SWC? A win at any cost mentality, until it’s out of all reason?
LikeLike
It resembles Texas.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Different specifics, but does this resemble the mess in the SWC? A win at any cost mentality, until it’s out of all reason?”
I think it’s mountains and molehills. The SWC just paid little or no attention to NCAA rules against paying players. Baylor was ignoring major felonies with their own students as victims. I’d put this more in the class with the Catholic church scandal than the SWC scandals.
LikeLike
Brian:
My point was that there was a desire to disassociate with conference members in the SWC. You are, to an extent, who you associate with. While GOR is in effect I don’t see anything happening, but might this be the final catalyst to cause UT to decide the “neighborhood”is no longer acceptable?
LikeLike
Except some of the major alleged offenders in the SWC made it into the B12.
I could see the B12 considering voting out Baylor for this second major scandal in 15 years (perhaps invite UH instead), but it seems unlikely. Beyond that, the rest of the schools haven’t done anything to drive a conference collapse.
LikeLike
My point was that there was a desire to disassociate with conference members in the SWC. You are, to an extent, who you associate with. While GOR is in effect I don’t see anything happening, but might this be the final catalyst to cause UT to decide the “neighborhood”is no longer acceptable?
According to Wikipedia, the only SWC schools not hit with major NCAA sanctions in the 1980s, were Arkansas, Baylor, and Rice.
It’s hard to reconcile this with your “disassociation” hypothesis. The SEC didn’t invite Arkansas to leave the SWC because of their sparkling record of avoiding sanctions in the 1980s.
Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech, didn’t kick out Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU, because “y’all got sanctioned, and we didn’t”. Baylor didn’t get to keep its seat at the big boys’ table because of its admirable (at the time) compliance record, only because it had the best connections in the good ol’ boy network.
The four top-dog programs did disassociate SMU (the worst offender), but they also disassociated Rice (which ran a fairly clean program). I have to think that the disassociation of SMU was not because UT was offended by the Mustangs’ compliance record, but simply because SMU was no longer carrying its weight on the football field.
LikeLike
A&m and Baylor came along the first time. Rice and a reformed tcu got left behind
LikeLike
Marc:
“The SEC didn’t invite Arkansas to leave the SWC because of their sparkling record of avoiding sanctions in the 1980s.”
You’re suggesting the conference OU and UT were said to not even consider because of pervasive shady practices would have had concerns?
My point was SMU tarred the conference with a very public stain still talked about with incredulity today. Every onnference/school will have missteps. Perhaps I’m wrong, but my understanding is that SMU was so publicly embarrassing that it was a contributor to the dissolution of the SWC (that had other issues, too). You can’t get more public, or embarrassing unless it was at your school.
And yes, Rice got the short end – but they didn’t have an alum as sitting governor at the time. It’s unavoidable Texas politics, and that’s something anyone considering extending an invite should remember.
LikeLike
The scandals just hastened the end. That drove recruits away which forced UT & A&M’s hand when they might have taken a little longer. But the Cowboys and Oilers killed the SWC. It just took a while to die. TCU has finally figured out how to compete in the shadow of the Cowboys without paying players.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/art-briles-daughter-blames-media-calls-father-a-scapegoat-in-facebook-rant/
This is really sad. Briles’ daughter unleashed a Facebook rant blaming the media for the witch hunt that got her dad fired.
His daughter, Staley Lebby, also the wife of passing game coordinator Jeff Lebby, took to Facebook to share her displeasure with the process.
In a lengthy Facebook post, Lebby accused Baylor of being “influenced heavily by the media,” which she alleged conducted a “witch hunt” that “has been the most disturbing thing [she’s] ever witnessed.”
[begin excerpt of post]
“I just stopped crying long enough to be able to write this. But this is all I will say on this outrageous situation – anyone who knows my dad knows he is a man of incredible character and faith. He is one of the most giving & unselfish people I’ve ever been around. He has been through so much in his life and always been a fighter – he’s done everything the right way and for the right reasons. He has always wanted to take over programs that were suffering, like he once did, to take them to the top, which he has done at multiple places. He wanted to be successful for his parents and make them proud. He has worked his ass off in his 40 years of coaching to get to where he is today – he has NEVER been fired, his character has NEVER been questioned and he has NEVER been deemed to do anything unethically.”
[end excerpt]
Lebby continued, calling Baylor’s treatment of Briles the most “disgusting thing” she’d ever seen.
[begin excerpt]
“There is always so much more to a story than being told. This media witch hunt has been the most disturbing thing I’ve ever witnessed. The situation has been blown so out of proportion. Sadly, Baylor was influenced heavily by the media and felt pressured to let him go. I guess a man that has resurrected your program and made you a top 10 program wasn’t worth fighting for or defending.”
[end excerpt]
She added that she would never wear a Baylor shirt again and the “truth would be told” eventually.
It’s like she’s oblivious to the fact that 2 players have been convicted already and that most complaints were covered up or disregarded.
LikeLike
Briles’ daughter unleashed a Facebook rant blaming the media for the witch hunt that got her dad fired…. It’s like she’s oblivious to the fact that 2 players have been convicted already and that most complaints were covered up or disregarded.
Comments by Baylor’s football players are just as bad.
LikeLike
At least the players have the excuse of being young, immature male football players (they can sympathize with those who got busted). Briles’s daughter is an adult and you’d expect a slightly different attitude towards violence against women. At least a couple of players had some more enlightened tweets at the end of that article.
LikeLike
Its pretty pathetic to attack someone’s daughter for defending her Dad. And I’ve long thought Briles was a sleazebag.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/05/26/column-baylor-should-pull-plug-on-its-athletic-program/84996974/
At the other extreme is this call for Baylor to drop athletics entirely.
More than a decade ago, Baylor was at the center of a sordid scandal involving murder and drugs, leading to some of the harshest penalties the NCAA has ever doled out.
Apparently, the Bears didn’t learn their lesson.
Now, with the school accused of covering up numerous cases of sexual assault involving the football team, it’s time to go a step further.
Pull the plug on Baylor’s entire athletic program.
For good.
This is not a step taken lightly, and plenty of innocent people would undoubtedly be hurt. But there’s always collateral damage when it comes to dealing with wrongdoing of this magnitude, so let’s get on with it.
If there’s any honor at the nation’s largest Baptist university, it will make this decision without prodding from the NCAA. At the very least, de-emphasizing the program — such as dropping athletes down to Division II or III — would show that Baylor recognizes the need for drastic action to reclaim its standing as an institution of higher learning, not a criminal organization.
LikeLike
I wonder what the NCAA will do. This situation strikes me as similar to Penn State—but worse. At Penn State, you had one very aberrant offender. At Baylor, you had multiple offenders. At Penn State, Joe Paterno did eventually report Sandusky up the chain. At Baylor, the whole coaching staff ran an elaborate cover-up.
There is no NCAA rule that describes exactly what one is supposed to do when an assistant coach (or ex-coach) is suspected of molesting little boys. There’s also no NCAA rule that precisely defines how allegations of rape by student-athletes are supposed to be reported.
There is, of course, an NCAA principle which states that each member is supposed to behave honorably and honestly, but there is no clear guidance as to precisely how dishonorable and dishonest you have to be, before you’ve violated it. This is as opposed to the rule against paying extra benefits to the players, which is usually pretty clear-cut: you’ve done it, or you haven’t.
So if the NCAA sanctions Baylor, it’ll have to fall back on the same non-specific general principle that it used to sanction Penn State. That approached backfired spectacularly, when the NCAA bypassed its own enforcement mechanism, and eventually rolled back most of the sanctions after it got sued.
One possibility is that the NCAA will be hesitant to step in once again, in an area that is already heavily regulated under state and federal law. Even without NCAA action, Baylor is likely to face huge consequences—civil settlements, etc.—just as Penn State did. It’s not as if, without NCAA action, Baylor won’t pay any price.
On the other hand, perhaps the NCAA will feel they’ve learned whatever lesson came out of its botched handling of the Penn State case, and feel like they can get it right this time.
LikeLike
> At Penn State, Joe Paterno did eventually
> report Sandusky up the chain.
Yeah, according to Freeh, by the very next day, at the latest. By then, at least five people knew of McQueary’s vague report to Paterno.
And Freeh didn’t interview any of them.
Marc, did you read the Freeh report?
> So if the NCAA sanctions Baylor, it’ll have
> to fall back on the same non-specific general
> principle that it used to sanction Penn State.
I sure hope they don’t do that again! In the Corman-McCord vs. NCAA lawsuit, we found out that Emmert called the sanctions a “bluff”!
What’s not as well known is that Penn State was on the side of the NCAA in that lawsuit, and the lawsuit was settled just before Penn State’s own emails were released. There’s a reason for that.
But the emails are accessible now.
Marc, I’ll put you down as believing the Freeh report wasn’t itself part of a conspiracy.
Keep watching, Marc! 😉
LikeLike
I’m not particularly interested in re-litigating the Freeh report, but I’m aware of its shortcomings. Key people either weren’t interviewed at all, or were only interviewed in the final days, when Freeh’s report was already 95% baked. On the other hand, Penn State chose to hire Freeh. You get what you pay for.
Having said that…before McQueary visited Paterno, a lot of people in Sandusky’s circle were aware that he had an unusual interest in little boys that was, at the very least, creepy. I would like to hope that that were going on at your workplace, you wouldn’t say: “Nothing to see here!”
What’s not as well known is that Penn State was on the side of the NCAA in that lawsuit, and the lawsuit was settled just before Penn State’s own emails were released.
Penn State chose to acquiesce in the NCAA’s penalties, because those in a position to decide, were persuaded that the alternatives were worse. Emmert’s “bluff” email hadn’t come to light yet.
I thought, at the time, that Penn State got “jobbed” by the NCAA., and was happy to see most of the sanctions reversed. It’s not that I think everyone at Penn State behaved honorably, but that I think civil suits and the criminal justice system (for those who committed crimes) are better suited to punish such behavior.
The fact that the NCAA screwed it up so royally just reinforces the view that they are not institutionally equipped to deal with this type of wrongdoing.
LikeLike
…you’re heading down the rabbit hole by engaging Mr. “keep watching…”
LikeLike
> I’m not particularly interested in re-litigating
> the Freeh report …
Oh, you already litigated the Freeh report? Sorry, didn’t know that.
Marc, have you read the Freeh report?
Keep watching, Marc! 😉
LikeLike
I’m not particularly interested in re-litigating the Freeh report
Oh, you already litigated the Freeh report? Sorry, didn’t know that.
I am not particularly interested in the report being re-litigated by anyone. I didn’t litigate it the first time, and I am not doing so now.
My lack of interest doesn’t mean that nobody is interested. To those who are, I’d say: have at it.
Marc, have you read the Freeh report?
I read parts it in parts. You really need a cast-iron stomach to read the whole thing. If you did, then all the power to you.
LikeLike
Penn State was no better then Baylor. ( I believe it was actually worse). What Sandusky and his enablers did was disgusting. There is nothing lower then a child molester. That said, I think the future of Baylor will be closer to SMU then PSU. Why? Penn State is in the Big 10 and Baylor is in a Conference that is much weaker and the day that UT and ( or) OU leave is the day the BU is in the Mountain West or AAC ( if they are lucky).
LikeLike
Baylor was already going to be in a fairly weak position, if the Big 12 blows up. Scandal aside, there is no other power conference that would want them.
But what happened to Penn State is instructive. I well remember some opposing fans who wanted them kicked out of the Big Ten. The league never even seriously considered it, and in fact, brought in two new members to restore a couple of their old football rivalries.
Kentucky basketball is one of the most-sanctioned programs in sports. They are the only P5 program, outside of SMU football, ever to receive the death penalty. And yet, their place in the SEC is totally safe.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Kentucky basketball is one of the most-sanctioned programs in sports. They are the only P5 program, outside of SMU football, ever to receive the death penalty. And yet, their place in the SEC is totally safe.”
They play in the SEC, where if you aren’t cheating you aren’t trying. If they kicked out schools who got repeatedly busted by the NCAA they wouldn’t have anyone left.
LikeLike
Kentucky is not one of the most sanctioned schools by any means. Look at Arizona St., Wichita St., Texas A&M, Auburn, SMU. I think Wisconsin is up there.
Kentucky’s have just been bad and high profile.
LikeLike
Penn St. involved an ex-coach. So the NCAA really had to stretch to say it was under their purview. Many in the NCAA still believe they were wrong to get involved.
Baylor does involve players and current coaches, so it more likely fits the NCAA’s jurisdiction.
But then Baylor’s president started an investigation when it came to his attention while Penn St.’s president, AD and chief of police all failed to follow up a claim. The chief of police almost certainly violated the law, being as he was responsible for the police department at PSU. All 3 of them may have committed perjury. And there were more victims over a longer period of time. Baylor, on the other hand, is cleaning house. So its hard to say Baylor was worse than PSU (except in terms of the legitimate NCAA jurisdiction)
From what I’ve seen so far, Montana was much worse than Baylor. FSU was worse. The Tallahassee PD was protecting the players, so they don’t have many convictions.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Kentucky is not one of the most sanctioned schools by any means.”
http://www.foxsports.com/other/story/schools-with-most-major-ncaa-infractions-092915
They are tied for 14th most sanctioned with 6 different cases.
“Look at Arizona St., Wichita St., Texas A&M, Auburn, SMU. I think Wisconsin is up there.”
Here are the schools ahead of UK:
10 – SMU
9 – ASU
8 – OU, Wichita State
7 – Auburn, FSU, TAMU, Cal, UGA, Memphis, MN, WI, WV
“Kentucky’s have just been bad and high profile.”
That’s also true. But some schools have violations spread over multiple sports while others keep having the same program get busted. UK’s MBB has been busted 4 different times IIRC.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I wonder what the NCAA will do.”
Probably nothing.
“This situation strikes me as similar to Penn State—but worse.”
Agreed. Especially because we know many of these assaults were reported to various people with a duty to respond and Baylor was also responsible for protecting and helping the victims by law.
“So if the NCAA sanctions Baylor, it’ll have to fall back on the same non-specific general principle that it used to sanction Penn State.”
They quoted specific articles of their by-laws against PSU and could probably do the same here, agreed.
“That approached backfired spectacularly, when the NCAA bypassed its own enforcement mechanism, and eventually rolled back most of the sanctions after it got sued.”
Perhaps they go through their normal process this time. I think the approach caused most of the problems last time. This is the second major scandal at Baylor this century involving serious felonies. If the timing works, Baylor could be a repeat offender and thus eligible for more harsh sanctions. So soon after the problems in MBB, it’s really bad to see this level of trouble in the AD again.
“One possibility is that the NCAA will be hesitant to step in once again, in an area that is already heavily regulated under state and federal law. Even without NCAA action, Baylor is likely to face huge consequences—civil settlements, etc.—just as Penn State did. It’s not as if, without NCAA action, Baylor won’t pay any price.”
I’m more interested to see how far the federal government is willing to go with the Clery Act and Title IX violations clearly evident here.
LikeLike
I could see the Federal government going after Baylor with the Clery Act if Hillary becomes President (remember Ken Starr against Democrats?). The biggest problem for the Bears is the shape of the Conference. You have one excellent team ( Oklahoma), two very good teams ( Oklahoma State and TCU), two good teams (Texas Tech and West Virginia), Texas should get. Better but Kansas State worse and Iowa State and Kansas are self explanatory. i just think Bevo cannot be happy right now. I really wonder if UT could actually consider Independence as an alternative to the Big XII? I have no doubt they could get quality teams to play them each year. It will be interesting.
LikeLike
Or could this put more pressure on the Big 12 to add two teams? Does the Big 12 need to add some quantity to make up for the loss of Baylor quality?
I think that there is no chance of a Baylor death penalty (even though they deserve it), but will penalties against Baylor force an expansion on the Big12?
LikeLike
I could see the Federal government going after Baylor with the Clery Act if Hillary becomes President (remember Ken Starr against Democrats?).
It’s a myth that the DOJ under Democrats only goes after Republicans, and vice versa.
LikeLike
> I am not particularly interested in the report
> being re-litigated by anyone. I didn’t litigate
> it the first time, and I am not doing so now.
Marc, in case you haven’t noticed, the Freeh report has not been litigated by anyone yet. But it’s about to be litigated in at least several lawsuits.
> Having said that…before McQueary visited
> Paterno, a lot of people in Sandusky’s circle
> were aware that he had an unusual interest
> in little boys that was, at the very least, creepy.
Yes, exactly, in Sandusky’s circle. Paterno wasn’t in that circle — but many on the 2011 PSU BoT were. And, as far as we know, Paterno never said anything like “Nothing to see here!” — but the state of Pennsylvania and the leaders of The Second Mile did.
So … you haven’t read the whole Freeh report because “[y]ou really need a cast-iron stomach to read the whole thing”, and yet you have the stomach to implicate individuals through innuendo alone. Cool beans.
Keep watching, Marc! 😉
LikeLike
Marc, in case you haven’t noticed, the Freeh report has not been litigated by anyone yet.
I used the word in its older sense, i.e., “to dispute or argue about”.
Paterno never said anything like “Nothing to see here!” — but the state of Pennsylvania and the leaders of The Second Mile did…..and yet you have the stomach to implicate individuals through innuendo alone.
If you re-read the post, you will see that I did not attribute “Nothing to see here!” to Paterno. Since we agree that people in Sandusky’s circle did this, there is no “innuendo” involved, unless we are both doing it.
LikeLike
> I used the word [litigate] in its older sense,
> i.e., “to dispute or argue about”.
Marc, I recognized the actual words you used (“I’m not particularly interested in re-litigating the Freeh report …”) as a dodge to avoid answering the question I’d asked. For the record:
You haven’t read the whole Freeh report.
> If you re-read the post, you will see that I did
> not attribute “Nothing to see here!” to Paterno.
> Since we agree that people in Sandusky’s
> circle did this, there is no “innuendo” involved,
> unless we are both doing it.
No, I was addressing what you said in your first post. If you re-read your first post, you will see the sentence:
> At Penn State, Joe Paterno did eventually
> report Sandusky up the chain.
Specifically the word “eventually”, as if there was a meaningful delay. There is no evidence (that I’m aware of) to support that. Your use of the word “eventually” in that sentence is innuendo.
If you’re saying there’s no (known) evidence to implicate Paterno, then we agree. If you believe there’s evidence to implicate Paterno, then produce it.
Just to be clear: Do you believe, as per the Freeh report, there’s any known evidence to support a conspiracy by Paterno to cover up Sandusky?
LikeLike
Do you believe, as per the Freeh report, there’s any known evidence to support a conspiracy by Paterno to cover up Sandusky?
I have not seen any believable evidence of that. Paterno himself said, “I wish I had done more.” I don’t think he ever said what “more” would’ve consisted of. But it is something of a counter-argument to the belief that he did all he should.
However, there is a BIG leap from “wish I had done more” to cover up”, and I don’t see any reason to believe that.
LikeLike
Re: Paterno being part of a conspiracy as per Freeh:
> I have not seen any believable evidence of that.
Fair enough, Marc. You know, no one on the PSU BoT believes the Freeh report either, but many of them are between a rock and a hard place legally. And some of them have a lot to lose.
> Paterno himself said, “I wish I had done more.” I don’t
> think he ever said what “more” would’ve consisted of.
Well, that’s not quite what he said. What he actually said is: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more”. With the benefit of hindsight, all of us would do all kinds of things differently — but we don’t have the benefit of hindsight.
Anyway, legally he couldn’t have done more. This is a detail that many people continue to miss.
(I think it’s likely that we’ll even discover that Curley and Schultz reported to CYS, which is exactly what they were supposed to do, although I don’t know this for a fact.)
> However, there is a BIG leap from “wish I had done
> more” to cover up”, and I don’t see any reason to
> believe that.
Agreed. Not to mention that there’s already a big leap from “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more” to “I wish I had done more”.
LikeLike
What he actually said is: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more”. With the benefit of hindsight, all of us would do all kinds of things differently — but we don’t have the benefit of hindsight.
We can’t ask Paterno what he meant by that. But to most people, the statement connotes that he is aware of at least one thing he could have done—but did not.
As I noted upthread, we now know that Sandusky, while still a PSU employee, had a fascination with little boys that was rather creepy, at a bare minimum. If you’re always bringing little boys to the workplace, your boss is going to notice.
Anyway, legally he couldn’t have done more. This is a detail that many people continue to miss.
The law sets a bar for mandatory conduct, and he met that bar. One can always do more.
LikeLike
> The law sets a bar for mandatory conduct, and
> he met that bar. One can always do more.
Wow, so you’re back to innuendo, this time under the guise of legal expert.
Okay, counselor, in your legal opinion:
1. Assuming, for a moment, that Paterno felt Sandusky’s behavior toward children was “creepy”, what would you have advised Paterno to do given his feelings?
2. Do you know of any evidence actually suggesting that Paterno thought Sandusky’s behavior toward children was “creepy”? Was any such evidence included in the Freeh report?
3. What was Paterno’s minimum legal requirement under Pennsylvania law in 2001?
4. Do you know how and why Sandusky had access to the Lasch building in 2001?
5. Given what you know of what Paterno knew in 2001 — and given what you know of Pennsylvania law in 2001 — what would you have advised Paterno to have done in 2001?
Just one more question, Marc, for the record. Have you ever had mandated reporter training in the state of Pennsylvania?
Keep watching, Marc! 😉
—
P.S. In the context of your claim that “one can always do more”:
Suppose I watch someone kill someone else in cold blood, I report it to the police, there is a trial, and a jury finds the killer not guilty.
What more could I do, legally?
LikeLike
I have never been able to get a satisfactory explanation as the why in 1998 the police heard Sandusky confess to Victim #6’s Mother and did nothing!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/penn-state-scandal-sandusky-allegedly-confessed-to-victims-mother-police-ignored-admission-61111/
LikeLike
Its pretty obvious what Paterno could have done. When he saw Sandusky still hanging around young boys he could have asked Schultz and Curley what happened with the 2001 issue and pressed that something be done.
As for 1998, Sandusky’s side of the story is that he was not confessing doing anything illegal, just things that made the boy uncomfortable. The police didn’t believe they had enough to convict him.
LikeLike
> Its pretty obvious what Paterno could have done.
Okay …
> When he saw Sandusky still hanging around
> young boys …
When was that, bullet?
> he could have asked Schultz and Curley what
> happened with the 2001 issue and pressed that
> something be done.
Why are you assuming nothing was done, bullet?
After reporting to CYS (per their testimony), how would Curley and Schultz have known what was done?
Keep watching, bullet! 😉
LikeLike
When he saw Sandusky still hanging around young boys …
When was that, bullet?
That Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented. If Paterno, who was Sandusky’s boss, didn’t notice this at all, how exactly is that a point in his favor? If he noticed this and continued to allow it, how is that a point in his favor?
LikeLike
> That Sandusky continued to bring little
> boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is
> well documented.
Good! Then that documentation should be very easy to produce, Marc!
Have at it, counselor!
LikeLike
Good! Then that documentation should be very easy to produce, Marc!
Since I assume you know how to use google, I will let you complete that exercise yourself.
Part of your problem is that you continue to try to answer moral questions with a legal argument. When we ask, “Did Joe Paterno always do the right thing?”, we do not mean, “Did Joe Paterno always do everything the law required?”
We have chosen (as a society) to erect a very high bar before we find someone guilty of violating the law, because we prefer exonerating guilty people over punishing innocent ones. But that is only a legal standard. It does not provide a moral answer.
Feel free to argue that he did the right thing. But the morally right thing does not mean, “everything the law required.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd at 8:26 am:
> That Sandusky continued to bring little
> boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is
> well documented.
Marc Shepherd at 10:05 am:
> Since I assume you know how to use
> google, I will let you complete that
> exercise yourself.
So … you haven’t read the whole Freeh report because “[y]ou really need a cast-iron stomach to read the whole thing”, and you won’t back up your own claims with facts because “[you] assume [I] know how to use google”.
And yet, you have the stomach to implicate individuals through innuendo alone. Cool beans. 🙂
You, Marc, have reached Brian territory.
Keep watching, counselor! 😉
LikeLike
When he saw Sandusky still hanging around young boys …
When was that, bullet?
That Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented. If Paterno, who was Sandusky’s boss, didn’t notice this at all, how exactly is that a point in his favor? If he noticed this and continued to allow it, how is that a point in his favor?
—————
Marc,
Jerry Sandusky retired in 1999. The incident that Mike McQueary reported happened in 2001. Joe Paterno was NOT Jerry Sandusky’s boss at this time – Jack Raykovitz of the Second Mile was! – and Jerry Sandusky was not part of the football program once he retired. Jerry Sandusky did not attend practices (let alone with little boys) and he did not travel with the team to bowl games. He was not part of the football program, he was not a university employee, Paterno was not his boss, and from all reported accounts, Paterno had no relationship with Sandusky once Sandusky retired in 1999.
If you are going to make an allegation that Joe Paterno ‘permitted’ Jerry Sandusky to “bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc.”, you might want to get your facts and timelines straight and, as Carl logically asked, provide some factual evidence to support such an allegation.
P.S. You also stated in a previous post that Penn State officials – Spanier, Curley and Schultz – were “guilty” of perjury. I assume you are not aware that perjury charges as well as the other most serious charges were recently dropped by the PA Attorney General’s office. So, can you clarify how these individuals are guilty of perjury when they are no longer even being charged with perjury by the state??
LikeLike
> Jerry Sandusky retired in 1999. The incident that Mike McQueary reported happened in 2001. Joe Paterno was NOT Jerry Sandusky’s boss at this time – Jack Raykovitz of the Second Mile was! – and Jerry Sandusky was not part of the football program once he retired.
— Yet he was still allowed access and was given his own set of keys to the PSU locker room where he was witnessed sexually assaulting a child.
> Jerry Sandusky did not attend practices (let alone with little boys)
— According to grand jury testimony he brought a child (who he was molesting) to practice as late as 2007.
LikeLike
> Yet he was still allowed access and was
> given his own set of keys to the PSU
> locker room where he was witnessed
> sexually assaulting a child.
Yes, Sandusky was still allowed access. Paterno opposed it but was overruled. (It’s in the Freeh report.)
> According to grand jury testimony he
> brought a child (who he was molesting)
> to practice as late as 2007.
Thanks, Scarlet_Lutefisk, I appreciate your citing a reference.
I was hoping to say, “Finally, some real evidence of *something*!” — but unfortunately, I’m not confident about the source. At least in Pennsylvania, a grand jury presentment does not have to be accurate. It is purely a prosecutor’s tool. The Sandusky Grand Jury (“Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury”) presentment contains many questionable claims and does not contain actual testimony referencing Penn State football practices.
From the presentment:
“Sandusky took Victim 1 to professional and college sporting events, such as Philadelphia Eagles games, or pre-season practices at Penn State”.
Victim 1 is Aaron Fisher, who has done interviews and written a book. I searched Aaron’s book and Google and didn’t find any references to his ever attending a PSU football practice. I’m not saying it didn’t happen (I don’t know), but I also don’t trust the veracity of the grand jury presentment’s claim.
My guess is that the presentment is referring to the Blue-White spring game.
LikeLike
> Part of your problem is that you continue
> to try to answer moral questions with a
> legal argument.
When have I tried to answer a moral question with a legal argument? You don’t understand what I’ve been saying about the law, do you?
Marc, you continue to make claims without producing evidence.
> Feel free to argue that [Paterno] did the
> right thing. But the morally right thing does
> not mean, “everything the law required.”
Marc, as you’ve been demonstrating to everyone who reads these comments, you don’t even know what the facts are. (You couldn’t even get a simple quote right!) How can you judge Paterno’s actions without knowing the facts?
Keep watching, Marc! 😉
LikeLike
When have I tried to answer a moral question with a legal argument?
Like, check out the following:
There’s five examples right there, where your point of reference is law, not morality or ethics.
LikeLike
Carl:
> When have I tried to answer a moral
> question with a legal argument?
Marc:
> There’s five examples right there,
> where your point of reference is law,
> not morality or ethics.
Really? What moral question was I trying to answer there, Marc?
(You don’t understand what I was saying, do you? 😉
LikeLike
What moral question was I trying to answer there, Marc?
Did Joe Paterno do the right thing?
LikeLike
[Second of two similar threads.]
Carl:
> What moral question was I trying to answer there, Marc?
Marc:
> Did Joe Paterno do the right thing?
Again, no, I wasn’t trying to answer that question. — You’ve still never asked that question, have you?
Joe may well be guilty of something — how in the world could I know without knowing all the facts?
Again, I’ve been pointing out that you don’t know the facts, and I’ve also been asking you to consider the facts that are known.
In this instance, you claimed
> The law sets a bar for mandatory conduct,
> and [Paterno] met that bar. One can always
> do more.
Here I was trying to get you to (1) consider whether this was actually true, and (2) consider what else he might have actually been able to do, given the facts that are known.
When I asked you these questions, you declined to answer. This also baffles me.
Let me ask you a third time:
How can you judge Paterno’s actions without knowing the facts?
Please answer this at least once.
LikeLike
“I wish I had done more.”
We’ll never know, but I personally took that to mean going directly to law enforcement or having someone else do so (immediately or quickly after seeing his superiors were doing nothing). If I had someone in my organization come to me with such a startling allegation…I would immediately ask the witness to call the cops and I’d quickly communicate it to key colleagues (my mgr and HR). No idea why Joe just let it sit with his superiors…with no justification given. Clearly he didn’t do enough, given the knowledge that he had. Now whether he didn’t raise the red flag was due to self-preservation or a man in his elder years…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133380/rutgers-to-host-maryland-at-yankee-stadium-in-2017
RU will host UMD in Yankee Stadium in 2017. The East only gets 4 home games in 2017, so RU will actually play 3 B10 games on campus that year plus 3 OOC games.
LikeLike
From what I read, RU fans are generally against this. I disagree with them and agree with RU Athletic Director Pat Hobbs (though there are some who believe that the prior AD (whose name shall not be mentioned actually set this up).
Everyone agrees that Yankee Stadium stinks for football. The field is lousy and the seating for football is not great. I am not sure what happens to fans with season tickets at the campus stadium.
This is obviously about branding for RU in NYC. I would not be surprised if Delany had his hands in this. It could even have been part of Delany’s long term plan for the B1G in NYC.
LikeLike
Wonder if more than 20k will show up for that epic battle. I could see Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State, but Maryland? Guaranteed BTN.
LikeLike
I would imagine that the B1G and RU will both be promoting the hell out of that game. This is at least as much a B1G flag being planted in Yankee Stadium as it is an RU thing.
I would guess maybe 30,000 to 35,000, or about 10,000 less than on campus.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15766359/ole-miss-self-imposes-double-digit-reduction-football-scholarships
Ole Miss has self-imposed some sanctions and has asked the NCAA to delay their hearing until the Tunsil stuff from draft night can be fully investigated
In a 154-page response to the NCAA, Ole Miss announced that it had self-imposed the loss of 11 total scholarships in football over a four-year period from 2015-18, including a reduction of three initial scholarships in each of its next three recruiting classes, which would allow the school to sign a maximum of 22 players in each class.
Ole Miss officials also asked the NCAA to delay the school’s hearing with the Committee of Infractions so they can have more time to investigate whether Miami Dolphins rookie Laremy Tunsil received additional improper benefits while playing for the Rebels.
The Rebels also previously self-imposed a ban on unofficial visits from Feb. 21, 2016, to March 31, 2016; a 10 percent reduction in off-campus evaluation days for coaches during the 2015 evaluation period; and a 12.5 percent reduction during the 2016 evaluation period.
According to the NCAA notice of allegations, which Ole Miss received on Jan. 22, the school was accused of 28 NCAA rules violations in football, women’s basketball and track and field, including 16 that were determined to be Level I violations, the most severe under NCAA rules.
The Ole Miss football program was accused of 13 rules violations, including eight that were determined to be Level I. Nine of the 13 allegations levied against the Rebels occurred under current coach Hugh Freeze, including four Level I violations, two Level II violations and three Level III violations.
.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/05/ohio-state-adds-tulane-complete-2018-schedule/
OSU added Tulane to fill out the 2018 schedule. That means the next few years are set:
2016 – BGSU, Tulsa, @OU
2017 – OU, Army, UNLV
2018 – OrSU, @TCU, Tulane
2019 – FAU, UC, TCU
2020 – @OR
2021 – OR
2022 – ND, @Texas
2023 – BC, Texas, @ND
2024 – @BC
LikeLike
I like it! I may see the Buckeyes twice that season.
LikeLike
Have you been to the Horseshoe before? It’s OSU’s first ever game against Tulane.
LikeLike
LSU played there in 1988. That was one of my more epic road trips during my college career.
LikeLike
I wondered if you had made that trip. Needless to say things have changed a bit since then. Capacity is up by almost 20,000 and the seats start closer to the field. All the usual bells and whistles have been added. The area around campus is completely different now, too.
LikeLike
Given up on their annual Ohio MAC game. For Army, UNLV, Tulane, OrSt., FAU.
LikeLike
For UNLV, Tulane, FAU, to be sure. OrSU is supposedly a P5 game.
IIRC, Army is too. Though I am hoping that I am just recalling incorrectly.
LikeLike
You are recalling correctly. Under current Big Ten rules, Cincinnati and Army count as “P5” opponents, in addition to the obvious ones. By that reckoning, OSU has two P5 non-con games in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022; and three of ’em in 2023. That’s impressive scheduling.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You are recalling correctly. Under current Big Ten rules, Cincinnati and Army count as “P5” opponents, in addition to the obvious ones. By that reckoning, OSU has two P5 non-con games in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022; and three of ’em in 2023. That’s impressive scheduling.”
I’ll settle for the honest counts:
1 P5 – 6
2 P5 – 2
3 P5 – 1
That’s still pretty good (almost 1.5 per year).
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“OrSU is supposedly a P5 game.”
That aren’t always that bad. They used to upset USC.
“IIRC, Army is too. Though I am hoping that I am just recalling incorrectly.”
I believe IN (or maybe RU) petitioned to get Army to also count. It’s not like OSU is counting that as our 1 P5 OOC game.
LikeLike
I believe IN (or maybe RU) petitioned to get Army to also count.
I am pretty sure all or most conferences with a P5 non-con scheduling requirement, have elected to count Army. They tend to draw well on TV and in the stadium: people like to watch Army, even though they haven’t fielded a competitive team in decades. They are also one of the few remaining independents, so they are available for mid-season dates when the rest of the country is in their conference schedule.
LikeLike
Rutgers and Army have played something like 35 of the past 50 years. It is not exactly an annual rivalry game, but pretty close. West Point is only 85 miles from RU. Other than Temple, this has been the geographically closest football game possible for RU, ever since RU gave up Princeton, Colgate, Lehigh and Lafayette about 35 years ago.
LikeLike
If that is Rutgers petitioning to count Army because of scheduling issues in managing the transition, I’m less concerned than if it’s Indiana. I’d presume they have to play Army Home and Away, and that the conference wants Rutgers to be playing seven home / five away if they can swing it. With 9 conference games coming up, multiple home away series in a season will in some year push you down to six home and six away.
Only three of the five have a P5 requirement: the ACC counts Notre Dame and BYU, the SEC count those and Army, the Big Ten those and UConn and UC & more could be applied for in the future.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Given up on their annual Ohio MAC game.”
Which I’d rather have than a G5 equivalent from another state. Keep the money in-state and let local players have a chance to play in the ‘Shoe.
“For Army, UNLV, Tulane, OrSt., FAU.”
Yes, they aren’t all murderer’s row. I do take exception to lumping in OrSU as they are a P5 program.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15765205/former-baylor-bears-coach-art-briles-quotes-foreshadowed-demise
Art Briles’s philosophy may have made a scandal at Baylor inevitable.
“I think we do a good job of nurturing and giving these guys a chance to get their feet on the ground and start over,” Briles said. “We’re very nonjudgmental.”
Embracing those players who needed a fresh start to unlock their talent was important to Briles on a philosophical level.
“I’ve always thought the best of people until they prove me wrong,” Briles said. “For somebody that hasn’t made a mistake that’s on this earth, I’d like to meet him. We’re all a work in progress and all where we’re at because somebody believed in us and gave us an opportunity. Just because somebody is wrong yesterday doesn’t mean they’re wrong today. You try to help people move on.”
In an interview last summer, while discussing the opportunity he’d provided Oakman at Baylor, Briles brought up this ideology again.
“I’ve always just judged people for the way they were when they’re around us, when they got here,” he said. “If we’re going to carry clouds around on people, then there’s going to be a lot of dark days. So we came in with an open mind, a fair beginning.”
…
He was a father figure in the lives of many of those players. He cared deeply about helping them thrive, and his faith in them was rewarded time and time again on the field. And Briles fought for them during their off-field failures.
“If they do falter or make a mistake, then we need to save them and give them a chance to get back on the right path,” Briles wrote in “Beating Goliath.”
That attitude was part of the reason Pepper Hamilton concluded:
“The choices made by football staff and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University.”
A system built on second chances crumbled under intense scrutiny. Briles will surely fight for himself in the weeks to come. In order to coach again, Briles will have to persuade someone to take a chance on him.
Will he be willing to change now? In “Beating Goliath,” Briles made it clear he doesn’t seem willing to budge. He believed in guiding players through mistakes to ensure they’d succeed. He believed he could save them.
“That’s the way I’ve always felt,” Briles declared, “and I’ll never think differently.”
LikeLike
Sounds like Jerry Tarkanian. . . .I wonder what the football team’s graduation rate was under Briles. That would help us to sniff out the bull$h1t about “giving them a chance to get back on the right path.”
LikeLike
Sounds like Tom Osborne.
Justifies taking talented people nobody else would touch because of character or academic issues.
LikeLike
There was a famous quote by Former Yankees Manager Billy Martin. ” I do not care if my starting rotation is Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin as long as they could win 20 ballgames apiece.” Tom Osborne is no different ( same for Art Briles). It’s all about winning and ( or) making money. Baylor will not get the Death Penalty anymore then Penn State, North Carolina, Miami or USC did. The NCAA does not want another SMU ( although we are seeing that you know who in Austin certainly played a role in SMU and others being left behind ( based on the Book by the Former Kansas State President)). If the NCAA would toss Baylor it would make it easy for UT ( the Big XII could add Houston as a replacement). The funny thing is as much as people dislike the Longhorn Network it is helping to hold the Conference together ( think Larry Scott and the Pac-12 would take UT, Tech, Ok State and either OU or TCU ( The Big 10 is still possible for OU so TCU would be the default if they got that option)). I still think UT going Independent or to the ACC with Tech is a real possibility. The key is keeping that Network and the $$$$. If anyone thinks Bevo cares about anyone but Bevo you are sadly mistaking ( ask Rice, Nebraska and Texas A&M about it sometime). There are reasons why starting with Arkansas Schools cannot wait to get away from UT. I suspect OU ( with Kansas) will try and do just that.
LikeLike
Bullet, give it a rest. I know him, and he is about as fine a man as you could meet. I realize you have a problem with him and the Huskers, but seriously, let it go.
LikeLike
marmutia,
I have no opinion one way or the other of Tom Osborne as a person. But your statement is meaningless.
“I know him, and he is about as fine a man as you could meet.”
Do you know how many friends and family members have made similar statements about criminals? The truth is that you never really know anybody but yourself. Otherwise we wouldn’t be convicting so many priests/coaches/relatives of multiple counts of child molestation, convicting friends/fiances/spouses of rape, etc. Plenty of people have hidden dark sides.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m a H.S. teacher in Lincoln. He started a Teammates program that helped a kid in my class to quit drugs and graduate last year. This is something he’s active in on a day-to-day basis (including my school). Do I know all the secrets in his soul? No. But to say that it’s a “meaningless” opinion when I have firsthand knowledge of what he has done might be taking it a bit far.
LikeLike
marmutia,
“Brian, I’m a H.S. teacher in Lincoln. He started a Teammates program that helped a kid in my class to quit drugs and graduate last year. This is something he’s active in on a day-to-day basis (including my school).”
Which is great, but says nothing about the non-public Tom Osborne. Jerry Sandusky ran a charity for kids after all. Lots of people would’ve sung his praises ten years ago.
“Do I know all the secrets in his soul? No. But to say that it’s a “meaningless” opinion when I have firsthand knowledge of what he has done might be taking it a bit far.”
No, that’s exactly why I said it’s meaningless. You think you know him while admitting that you really don’t know him. You know the public persona he chooses to project. And to be clear, I’m not claiming that isn’t who Tom Osborne is. But plenty of terrible people have projected wonderful public personas, too.
Ted Bundy did charity work including working at a crisis center and saved a child from drowning. He walked his female co-worker to her car at night and warned to watch out for predators and she was a former cop.
My whole point is that you don’t ever really know someone else because they can hide their really bad side.
LikeLike
Lawrence Phillips.
His campaign on getting illiterates to play college football (prop 16). He used more prop 16s on that great 95 team than any other CONFERENCE in the country. He has something like 23. Next team (either Virginia Tech or Miami) had 8.
His general whining about anything that didn’t go his way (and he usually blamed Texas for it even when the vote was 11-1).
Now outside his professional life, maybe he was a fine man.
But professionally, he was a slug.
LikeLike
He accrued NCAA penalties wherever he coached. He sued the NCAA for harassment, and they settled the suit for $2.5M.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/power-five-conferences-see-revenue-grow-by-33-percent-in-one-year/
The final tax return is in.
The Power Five combined for nearly $2.1 billion in revenue during 2014-15, up nearly $520 million from the previous year. The total, which amounted to roughly a 33 percent increase, can now be calculated after the ACC released its 2014-15 tax return on Friday.
… Last year was the first season with the College Football Playoff, the SEC Network, some revised TV money due to expansion, and new bowl agreements.
Each conference’s approximate 2014-15 payouts per school: SEC $32.7 million, Big Ten $32.4 million, ACC $27 million, Pac-12 $25.1 million, Big 12 $23.3 million.
The ACC reported $403 million in revenue, up nearly $100 million from a year earlier. That’s in part due to a $31 million exit fee Maryland paid to leave the ACC.
…
The ACC provided about another $800,000 per school for championship reimbursements not reflected in the distribution.
…
The conference spent $625,000 on Wasserman Media Group, which is exploring the possibility of an ACC Network with ESPN. Swofford told reporters this month that the ACC remains in “quality discussions” with ESPN. Swofford would not comment on a report that ESPN must pay the ACC $45 million if an ACC Network is not in place by July 1.
Note that the B12 number doesn’t include their individual tier 3 earnings.
LikeLike
It also doesn’t agree with the Big 12’s official figures, which average $25.2 per school. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12977114/big-12-schools-split-record-252-million-revenue
Note that the Big 10 averaged $29.3. That higher number is just the 11 continuing members.
Saw another article that said the ACC average was $26.2 with a range from $24 for SU to $27.6 for FSU. That didn’t count ND, who got $6.2 (which tells you that the Orange Bowl, college football playoff and football TV contract contributed $20 million of the $26.2 million average for the ACC-meaning basketball is definitely not paying the bills).
LikeLike
bullet,
“It also doesn’t agree with the Big 12’s official figures, which average $25.2 per school.”
But they used the tax forms for all the conferences so the numbers are apples to apples. I included their comment that the ACC also distributed more than the tax form indicated. My guess is that all conferences have some small deviations like that.
“Note that the Big 10 averaged $29.3. That higher number is just the 11 continuing members.”
Yes, their number is for the 11 long-term members. As it should be. You aren’t accounting for the buy-in to the BTN that the other 3 are paying. They are getting the same payout as the rest, just some of it is “in kind” rather than in cash.
It’s also the standard way the media has always reported these numbers for all conferences for as long as I can remember.
“Saw another article that said the ACC average was $26.2 with a range from $24 for SU to $27.6 for FSU.”
$26.2M + the other $800k mentioned in the article = the $27M listed in the article
“That didn’t count ND, who got $6.2”
Of course they didn’t average including a partial member that isn’t paid for football. Nor did they count JHU as a B10 member and average over 15 schools.
“(which tells you that the Orange Bowl, college football playoff and football TV contract contributed $20 million of the $26.2 million average for the ACC-meaning basketball is definitely not paying the bills).”
We’ve long known that hoops doesn’t pay the bills even for the ACC.
LikeLike
“It’s also the standard way the media has always reported these numbers for all conferences for as long as I can remember.”
Its never reported that way. Fact is that there are usually variations even when revenue sharing is “equal.” For example, the ACC has a $3.6 million difference.
Simple math says that if the 3 new schools got full shares, the rest would get less.
Having looked at last year’s ACC tax returns, the distribution figures aren’t always obvious. And when a journalist looks at financial numbers (unless its someone from a place like SBJ or WSJ), you always have doubt that they understand what they are doing.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Its never reported that way.”
Reporting what the full earners got on average and then mentioning the smaller payments to others later in the same piece? Yes, it is. Your own ESPN link did exactly that.
Besides, as I pointed out the B10 is unique in this case because the new members are getting indirect compensation in addition to their partial revenue share. Nobody else is buying into their network so they either get paid or they don’t. It also means the new additions in other conferences didn’t get paid so much less than the other members. TCU and WV got 50%, 67% and 85% of a full share in their first 3 years, for example. That’s an 11% error if a reporter presented a league average by dividing by 10 versus what the top group got in year one. That dropped to 3% for 2014-2015 (the year just reported), a pretty small error.
The 3 new B10 members are all in different places in their buy-in plans with RU receiving less than 33% of the full payout. That’s harder math than many reporters are up to and less informative due to the disparity.
“Fact is that there are usually variations even when revenue sharing is “equal.” For example, the ACC has a $3.6 million difference.”
Of course there are variations. They’ve been mentioned for several conferences this round (ACC, B10, B12, SEC).
Here’s an article explaining the details for the ACC:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-tax-1415-post.html
“Simple math says that if the 3 new schools got full shares, the rest would get less.”
Only if all that was available was money. The newbies got partial ownership in the BTN in addition to the cash.
LikeLike
And the rest got bigger distributions from the BTN and general revenues Its really a pretty simple concept. B1G fans just don’t want to admit the SEC made more last year-and for the last several years.
LikeLike
bullet,
“And the rest got bigger distributions from the BTN and general revenues Its really a pretty simple concept.”
While the newbies continued to pay for their share of the BTN, yes. You don’t get a full distribution from BTN if you aren’t a full-share owner of it.
“B1G fans just don’t want to admit the SEC made more last year”
The SEC’s number was higher in every report from this year I linked and I quoted it up above. How is that a failure to admit it?
“-and for the last several years.”
I couldn’t tell you that without going back and looking. I don’t memorize revenue numbers.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/columnist/bell/2016/05/28/art-briles-baylor-mike-singletary-coach/85098412/
A lot of people seem to think Mike Singletary is the right man to take over at Baylor. he grew up in Texas, is one of their greatest former players, has NFL coaching experience, is deeply religious (could be important post-scandal at a religious school) and is proven to be a coach of principle (how he dealt with Vernon Davis).
LikeLike
Fine, but he can’t coach. Harbaugh took his mediocre 49ers (same talent) to the NFC Championship in hist first season there!
LikeLike
I have no idea if Singletary can coach, but such a tiny sample does not really answer that question. You might have said that Bill Belichick can’t coach, after he went 36-44 in five seasons at Cleveland, finishing over .500 only once.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Fine, but he can’t coach.”
Of course he can. He may not be a great coach but he’s competent to fill the job. The whole point of the article is that cleaning up the program needs to be the top priority, not winning. If Singletary can accomplish that while winning some games, so much the better.
“Harbaugh took his mediocre 49ers (same talent) to the NFC Championship in hist first season there!”
So? That doesn’t mean Singletary can’t coach CFB. It means JH did better with one particular group of pro players (and ignores all other variables like injuries, scheduling, who was playing for a contract, any actual roster changes, etc).
LikeLike
One comment that I have heard is that Baylor depends totally on Texas high school coaching contacts and Singletary has none. Is that a problem? The article argues that the parents of the players in Texas certainly know Singletary, so therefore he would recruit very well.
LikeLike
It would all depend on the staff he hired. Most CFB recruiting is heavily dependent on relationships with HS coaches. Lovie Smith has none of that but people seem excited that IL hired him because he’s a name. How many name coaches would want to come to Baylor right now? Singletary is an alumnus who could right the ship and absorb the scandal so there is a clean slate in a few years for the next guy.
LikeLike
Of course, that is true about coaching staffs. I know nothing about any particular issues at Baylor. I was driving and listening to a college football show on SiriusXM and they had a couple of “experts”, supposedly with particular knowledge regarding Texas football and Baylor in particular. I never heard of these guys before and do not remember their names.
In any event, they thought that Baylor, in particular was dependent on Texas high school talent (and no I did not check the Baylor roster to see if they were correct). They felt that Singletary would have a real problem in that regard.
Their first choice for the new Baylor coach was to hire Gary Patterson from TCU, who would be moving from G5 to P5. Does that mean that Patterson would even look at the Baylor job? No, and they did not say that Patterson would come, only that he is the best fit out there.
I agree with you that Singletary may wind up being the only “name” person willing to go near that job and with his super clean personna might be ideal to clean things up. Since Singletary has been looking for a coaching job for a few years, I would imagine that he might well come to Baylor.
LikeLike
Check that. Obviously Gary Patterson would not be moving G5 to P5, but between two Big 12 schools. Patterson was their first choice, though again no one said that the would take the job.
LikeLike
http://sportstvratings.com/how-many-more-homes-is-espn-in-than-fs1-and-nbc-sports-network-june-2016-edition/5087/
The Nielsen cable coverage estimates for June as well as the change since February for sports channels.
Here are some relevant ones for the B10:
Network – thousands of homes, % of total homes, change in thousands since February
ESPN – 89,465, 77%, -1,523
ESPN2 – 89,326, 77%, -1,553
ESPNU – 70,776, 61%, 43
FS1 – 83,209, 71%, -957
NBCSN – 82,718, 71%, -304
TBS – 92,828, 80% (not grouped with the sports channels)
They have the June listings for all measured channels and the top one is the Food Network with 81% just to give some context.
LikeLike
Related:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/espn-loses-1-5-million-subscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816
LikeLike
I think Travis undersells the seasonal nature of this. Plenty of people probably cut back on cable after the Super Bowl and pick it up again in fall for football season. I also think people blame cable cutting a little too much. How many of these people have been driven away by ESPN’s personalities and programming choices?
LikeLike
I also think sports are a convenient whipping boy for high bills. Is ESPN by far the highest package? Yes, but is it’s $7+ cost responsible for $60 bills becoming $120-150? My $15/mo internet access is now $60 (gotta have high speed). Streaming sports, movies, etc have this hidden cost. A cover charge of sorts.
LikeLike
Remove sports and the cable bill goes down quickly. ESPN, the regional channels showing MLB, NBA and NHL, plus NFL and conference channels and the extra expense for TNT and TBS due to NCAA and NBA are the most expensive items. Easily over $20 in most markets directly to sports channels before the cable/sat company earns anything. The other channels showing reality TV, kids shows and reruns are really cheap. Even news channels are cheap compared to sports channels.
Since most viewers don’t watch sports, the $100 cable bill could turn into $75 or $80 without sports – a huge difference.
LikeLike
Mark:
The only change I’ve made to my tv/internet package in the last three years was to add the $6 sports package. My cable bill is now $160+ for what was under $100 a decade ago. That’s not sports channels (other than the added sports pack) causing the increase. Internet is a big piece of it. And the hundreds of “cheap” channels I never watch.
LikeLike
A lot of the increase is the internet and the cost of the “rental” equipment The modem charge, the charges for a whole home DVR system etc… TWC is charging me extra for sports premium/surcharge without the sports premium package. This adder didn’t reduce the bill in other areas. Bottom line is that I don’t think sports are the biggest driver in increased cable bills and the loss of subscribers. The cable companies in large part have brought it on themselves plus consumers have to include their cell phone bills which, with data, are much more expensive than they were 10 years ago.
If median wages have been stagnant as been reported than it is not a surprise that folks are looking at certain expenses to cut. At minimum people are making seasonal adjustments.
I still find cable to be a value proposition and the savings I could get by chord cutting isn’t worth it to me but I am increasingly frustrated with all the increased costs for the equipment and add-on’s etc…
LikeLike
Scarlet Lutefisk,
> Jerry Sandusky retired in 1999. The incident that Mike McQueary reported happened in 2001. Joe Paterno was NOT Jerry Sandusky’s boss at this time – Jack Raykovitz of the Second Mile was! – and Jerry Sandusky was not part of the football program once he retired.
— Yet he was still allowed access and was given his own set of keys to the PSU locker room where he was witnessed sexually assaulting a child.
Sandusky’s retirement benefits (including access to PSU facilities) were granted in 1999 by certain members of PSU’s BOTs. You know, the same people who quickly pointed the finger at Paterno and the football program as part of this whole false, distracting narrative to protect themselves. Joe Paterno had no role in Sandusky’s retirement package which granted him access to university facilities.
> Jerry Sandusky did not attend practices (let alone with little boys)
— According to grand jury testimony he brought a child (who he was molesting) to practice as late as 2007.
Please share a copy of this grand jury testimony that you are referencing as, once again, something is being claimed / alleged without the actual supporting evidence / documentation. All of the coaches on the PSU staff have said that Jerry Sandusky was NEVER at any practices – he and Joe Paterno did not get along even in the best of times – and these same coaches claimed there were never any random kids (with Sandusky) at practices. Joe Paterno was notorious for keeping practices closed and restricted (especially to the chagrin of media) so this claim that Sandusky was attending practices with kids is kind of implausible and it contradicts the testimony of the entire coaching staff.
—————
LikeLike
> Please share a copy of this grand jury testimony that you are referencing as, once again, something is being claimed / alleged without the actual supporting evidence / documentation.
—The report presented by the grand jury can be found online easily enough. Victim 1 stated under oath that he was brought to a pre-season practice in 2007. If you were as familiar with the case as you’d like to claim you would know that already.
But please continue to regale us with claims of how Paterno & Sandusky didn’t get along during the 30 years that Paterno kept him on staff.
Oh BTW regarding the claim about what ‘all’ the coaches said, could you tell us which when they made their alleged statements under oath? As far as I can remember only Booker Brooks & Dick Anderson were called as witnesses at the trial.
LikeLike
> Victim 1 stated under oath that he was
> brought to a pre-season practice in 2007.
Scarlet_Lutefisk, can you provide the quotation?
LikeLike
Once again, you have not provided the information you claim exists and you are expecting me to search and find what you are stating is out there. Just post it for us rather than telling us that it’s out there and that I show know that.
Assuming you are not distorting and/or misrepresenting the claim (big assumption on my part) I can think of million$$$ of reasons why someone who lawyered up and was looking for one of those multi-million $ settlements that PSU’s BoTs were handing out with little to no vetting would make such a claim. Was this supposed claim vetted? Was it cross-examined? Was it deemed credible? I’m sure that this was one of the most exciting and memorable experiences for this young man… did he have a photo or two from his day with Paterno and the football team to actually prove his claim?? Let me guess… wait for it… no. You’d think the young man would have used his phone and/or brought a camera for this unique experience. What a surprise… yet again, no evidence nor proof – just a verbal claim from someone (and his lawyer) who was trying to get money from the university.
As I said, it was well known that Paterno kept football practices closed off and restricted. This was how things were done for over 44 years. He was no Pete Carroll nor your hero, Urban Meyer. Coaches and the local media that covered Penn State have said in the aftermath of the scandal (not in court rooms) that Jerry Sandusky was never around at practices once he retired. You can believe what you want but the idea that Sandusky was showing up at practices with random kids doesn’t pass the smell test and there hasn’t been any proof (i.e. photos from any occasion) that would demonstrably prove that this was the case.
As for regaling you about Paterno’s notoriously contentious relationship with Sandusky, note the following:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/joe_paterno_biography_describe.html
LikeLike
But please continue to regale us with claims of how Paterno & Sandusky didn’t get along during the 30 years that Paterno kept him on staff.
—
Perhaps this will regale you as well…
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/11/15/2563170/inside-paterno-sandusky-relationship
LikeLike
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/264894-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.html
Here’s a link to the Grand Jury testimony. Victim 1 begins on page 2.
LikeLike
> http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/264894-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.html
>
> Here’s a link to the Grand Jury testimony. Victim 1 begins on page 2.
Thanks, Kyle.
In case you missed it, I already posted the relevant excerpt:
“Sandusky took Victim 1 to professional and college sporting events, such as Philadelphia Eagles games, or pre-season practices at Penn State”
Unfortunately, there is no actual testimony. A grand jury presentment in Pennsylvania is purely a prosecutor’s tool, and this presentment contains numerous factual misrepresentations.
LikeLike
A grand jury presentment in Pennsylvania is purely a prosecutor’s tool, and this presentment contains numerous factual misrepresentations.
This, again, is the attempt to answer a moral question with a legal answer.
LikeLike
Carl:
> A grand jury presentment in Pennsylvania
> is purely a prosecutor’s tool, and this
> presentment contains numerous factual
> misrepresentations.
Marc:
> This, again, is the attempt to answer a moral
> question with a legal answer.
Really? Which question is that, Marc?
LikeLike
Which question is that, Marc?
Did Joe Paterno do the right thing?
LikeLike
[First of two similar threads.]
Carl:
> Which [moral] question [was I trying to answer], Marc?
Marc:
> Did Joe Paterno do the right thing?
No, I wasn’t trying to answer that question. — You’ve never asked that question, have you? (Anyway, how could I answer that question before all the facts are known?)
What I’ve been doing is pointing out that you don’t know the facts, Marc, and I’ve also been asking you to consider the facts that are known.
Remarkably, there are enough facts in the Freeh report alone to discredit the Freeh report’s own conclusions.
In this instance, you had claimed:
> That Sandusky continued to bring little
> boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is
> well documented.
When I asked you to produce evidence to support this claim, you declined. This baffles me.
Let me ask you again:
How can you judge Paterno’s actions without knowing the facts?
Please answer this time.
LikeLike
Did Joe Paterno do the right thing?
No, I wasn’t trying to answer that question.
Of course you were. Every post you have ever made on this subject, has been to defend Paterno.
That Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented.
When I asked you to produce evidence to support this claim, you declined. This baffles me.
Kyle Peter posted a link to the Grand Jury presentment above. Not that that’s the only source, but I already told you it’s not my job to teach you how to use Google. Now, I realize that a GJ presentment is fallible, but we have a system to evaluate its reliability. That system is called a trial, and we had one.
Anyhow, for all its flaws, the presentment it is probably more reliable than an anonymous Penn State fan who posts on internet message boards with the handle “Carl”. We at least know who was responsible for the presentment. We don’t know who Carl is.
How can you judge Paterno’s actions without knowing the facts?
How do you morally defend Paterno, given the facts that are already known? I am guessing that you do not have a moral defense, because every defense you have ever offered is a legal one.
LikeLike
> That system is called a trial, and we had one.
Yes, Marc, there *was* a trial.
COMMONWEALTH VS GERALD A. SANDUSKY June 12, 2012 trial testimony
(http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_%20JT.pdf):
The relevant portion of Aaron Fisher’s testimony:
—
Page 10:
20. Q. And was it the same kind of thing,
21. activities, things like that?
22. A. Yeah, football games, swimming.
23. Q. Anything else that you remember about
24. those activities besides football games and
25. swimming? Did you play any other sports or do
Page 11:
1. any other things?
2. A. I wrestled at the time, and he would
3. come to wrestling matches and take pictures.
—
A: Football games, swimming.
Q: Anything else?
A: Wrestling.
The rest of the trial transcript makes it clear that had Fisher attended Penn State football practices, he would have been questioned about it. He wasn’t.
—
Marc Shepherd (May 29, 2016 at 8:26 am):
“That Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented.”
Marc, can you find ONE FACT that supports your claim?
—
P.S. Fisher’s testimony doesn’t mention Paterno. (To be fair, neither does the presentment.)
LikeLike
> Anyhow, for all its flaws, the presentment
> it is probably more reliable than an
> anonymous Penn State fan who posts on
> internet message boards with the handle
> “Carl”. We at least know who was
> responsible for the presentment. We
> don’t know who Carl is.
But we all know who “Mark” is! 🙂
You seem a bit more virulently anti-Paterno now that you’re “anonymous”. I always knew you had it in you, “Mark”!
With respect to reliability: in all honesty, my track record is better than the presentment’s. I guess it depends what your goal is, “Mark” …
Any luck using Google to find facts supporting your claims, “Mark”?
Anyway, welcome back, “Mark” – missed ya!
Keep watching, “Mark”! 😉
LikeLike
Baseball regionals are set.
Top 8 national seeds
1. Florida
2. Louisville
3. Miami
4. Texas A&M
5. Texas Tech
6. Miss State
7. Clemson
8. LSU
National seeds by conference
4 – SEC
3 – ACC
1 – Big XII
Other regional hosts (paired with National seeds for Super Regionals)
Florida State (paired with Gainsville)
NC State (paired with Baton Rouge)
Virginia (paired with Lubbock)
TCU (paired with College Station)
Vandy (paired with Louisville)
South Carolina (paired with Clemson)
UL-Lafayette (paired with Starkville)
Ole Miss (paired with Coral Gables)
Host sites by conference
7 – SEC
6 – ACC
2 – Big XII
1 – Sunbelt
B1G received three bids
Minnesota (#2 seed at College Station Regional)
Ohio State (#2 seed at Louisville Regional)
Nebraska (#3 seed at Clemson Regional)
Bids by Conference (3 or more)
10 – ACC
7 – SEC
4 – Pac-12 & CUSA
3 – Big XII, B1G, AAC, Big West
LikeLike
Other random thoughts on the selections.
Loki – Rice is the #2 seed in the Baton Rouge regional.
Bullet – Texas missed out again and Augie Garrito is forced out as HC.
No hosts on the west coast.
Northernmost host is in Louisville
Host sites by state:
3 – Texas, Florida
2 – Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina
1 – Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina
LikeLike
Here’s the bracket.
Click to access baseball_d1_2016.pdf
LikeLike
Garrido is an instant Hall of Famer as the winningest coach ever, but he is also 77. UT was going to have to replace him soon anyway.
LikeLike
The only other conferences with multiple bids, with two, are the Sunbelt and the Southland.
LikeLike
OSU has been on a roll the past 6 weeks or so, but it’s asking a lot to beta out the #2 national seed. I’ll be surprised if any B10 team makes the super regionals and shocked if any make the CWS.
LikeLike
SEC meetings start tomorrow. Here’s a preview.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/15935554-128/sec-spring-meeting-preview-what-to-look-for-expanded-alcohol-sales-sec-baseball-tournaments-new-hom
LikeLike
It’s official – Uncle Verne is set to retire from the SEC on CBS after the 2016 season. As expected, Brad Nessler will take over in 2017.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/15960389-128/verne-lundquist-to-step-down-as-famed-sec-on-cbs-college-football-announcer
LikeLike
Softball WCWS field is set.
Bracket #1 – #4 Auburn, #8 Florida State, #12 UCLA & #16 Georgia
Bracket #2 – #2 Michigan, #3 Oklahoma, #6 Alabama & #10 LSU
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15834890/baylor-bears-hire-jim-grobe-interim-coach
Sources say Baylor has hired Jim Grobe as their interim coach.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15834890/ian-mccaw-baylor-bears-resigns-jim-grobe-named-interim-coach
The AD is out now, too. He quit in the best interests of Baylor University.
I wonder how many more coaches get fired with a new AD and Grobe as HC.
LikeLike
Interim HC
Not sure how that works with someone not familiar with the team, and apearently not going to stay long.
LikeLike
Baylor should shut down the football team for 2-3 years and give the university time to heal. Being a religious school it should be a serious possibility – this has to be very troubling to those whose see the school as the nation’s Baptist university.
LikeLike
I’m sure it IS troubling, but football is the financial engine that fuels all of Baylor’s athletics, including it’s women’s teams. Starving those programs for cash — indeed, probably killing them off entirely — would be no one’s idea of “healing”.
A better healing idea is to get rid of the bad apples, which Baylor is doing, quite a bit more promptly than a lot of us expected.
LikeLike
The Big 12 can pay for the women’s teams. Penn State should have been given the death penalty, and Baylor should self impose it. The only way to save college football from itself is for real, serious consequences when bad behavior happens. Just firing everybody is the easy way out. In 25 years when college football’s downfall is more obvious Penn State and Baylor will be seen as the beginning of the end.
Just look upthread – PSU fans still don’t think anything bad happened and that Joe Pa was a great guy. That man was evil and the school enabled him. Surely the values and reputation of the state university of Pennsylvania are more important than winning a few games??
LikeLike
> Just look upthread – PSU fans still
> don’t think anything bad happened
> and that Joe Pa was a great guy.
> That man was evil and the school
> enabled him. Surely the values and
> reputation of the state university of
> Pennsylvania are more important
> than winning a few games??
Upthread, huh? 😉
Is this the artist formerly known as Marc Shepherd?
LikeLike
> Just look upthread – PSU fans still don’t
> think anything bad happened and that
> Joe Pa was a great guy. That man was
> evil and the school enabled him. Surely
> the values and reputation of the state
> university of Pennsylvania are more
> important than winning a few games??
Upthread, huh? 😉
Is this The Artist Formerly Known as Marc Shepherd?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Interim HC
Not sure how that works with someone not familiar with the team, and apparently not going to stay long.”
I don’t get it either. Is it their way of saying he has to keep Briles’ staff? Is this why Singletary isn’t the coach (I assume he’d demand to be a “permanent” head coach)? How do you bring in a relatively unknown coach with no ties to the state or the school in May and expect any level of success?
I get the feeling he’s their Bill Cubit. They might want to make the DC the permanent HC so they get an outsider to take the blame for this year and see if anything else turns up before hiring someone permanently.
LikeLike
Here’s another dog-day-of summer piece – building the perfect college football program from the nation’s best parts.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/building-the-perfect-college-football-program-from-the-nations-best-parts/
Coach – Urban Meyer, Ohio State
Face of Program – Christian McCaffrey, Stanford
Tradition – Notre Dame
Location – Louisiana
Stadium – Autzen, Oregon
Gameday Atmosphere & Tailgating – LSU
Pre-game entrance – VA Tech
Mascot – Mountaineer, West Virginia
Fanbase – Alabama
Uniform – UCLA
LikeLike
I think you would need to include college town in there, as simply being in a nice state guarantees nothing.
LikeLike
I obviously liked the author’s reasoning on location (recruiting stranglehold, disproportionate talent relative to population, and I live here), but if you want to drill it down further to “college town” (ie, immediate area off campus), I’d choose Athens GA with Madison WI coming in a close second.
This decision is based on my personal experience of visiting a campus/town during a football gameday.
LikeLike
I might go for Ann Arbor, the town itself.
Disclaimer: I used to work for tOSU.
LikeLike
My problem with his choice of location is the weather. LSU doesn’t experience real football weather even in winter (average high in January is 61 degrees, low of 40; in November it’s 72/49 and September is 88/67). They are forced into night games by the sheer misery of daytime weather in LA. CFB needs to be experienced on a sunny, brisk Saturday afternoon to be fully appreciated and LSU doesn’t provide that experience. Night games should be a special occasion at most, not a necessity.
For good weather plus control of good recruiting, there are fewer choices. Places like OSU, UNC, MO and TN are decent compromises. Some places out west would be nice but the fan intensity isn’t there (that’s also a concern for UNC).
LikeLike
Brian – I’ve attended afternoon games in the Columbus and Knoxville and countless night games in Baton Rouge, and I’ll take a night game in Tiger Stadium any time. It’s a matter of perspective and opinion. I’ll probably never change your mind and know you won’t change mine.
The author’s point on location was great recruiting territory that a program could own. Louisiana produces more talent per capita than any other state and, with very few exceptions, LSU gets who they want.
FYI – games in Baton Rouge from mid-October until the end of the season are typically very pleasant. While early September games are very hot, there is one great byproduct – ladies in sun dresses.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – I’ve attended afternoon games in the Columbus and Knoxville and countless night games in Baton Rouge, and I’ll take a night game in Tiger Stadium any time.”
Night games should never be the default for the fantasy CFB program (in my opinion). The only schools that play that many night games are schools stuck with miserable weather (the south and west) that need to play them. And now they are a money grab for others. I know night games are LSU’s thing so you’re conditioned to like them.
“It’s a matter of perspective and opinion.”
It’s a fantasy program, so I think that’s assumed.
“The author’s point on location was great recruiting territory that a program could own. Louisiana produces more talent per capita than any other state and, with very few exceptions, LSU gets who they want.”
I know, but since he was making a fantasy program and then Ross suggested adding a choice of college towns, I decided to add my choice of weather, too. We could put Athens in LA and give them Chapel Hill’s weather in this scenario.
“FYI – games in Baton Rouge from mid-October until the end of the season are typically very pleasant.”
Pleasant, sure, but not really football weather.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, I think a lot of people (particularly SEC fans) tend to overrate how cold it gets in the North during football season while underrating how unbearably hot and humid it is in the South for the first half of the season. January and February are certainly horrible in the Midwest, but September and October are generally fantastic weather-wise.
That being said, a pure location discussion based on the best weather for the entire year (or even just the length of the football season) begins and ends with Southern California. USC and UCLA have the biggest advantage in that department by far among the P5 schools (and San Diego State would win it all if we were to consider G5 schools). Everywhere else is going to have either cold or very hot and humid weather at different points in the season.
LikeLike
I’m not that big a fan of Knoxville. The tailgating is great, but I don’t like the stadium. Its cramped and they use piped in music constantly to make it impossible to talk even to the person next to you. And that’s not a new thing. My wife says they did that in Knoxville back when she was in school at UGA. We’ve got friends there so we’ve been several times, but we really go to visit friends.
LikeLike
Frank – Frankly, I really think its the other way around. There have been plenty of discussions on this board during bowl season about how the schools from the South couldn’t handle the cold. I’ve always stated that August camp and September games are generally hotter in the South than November games are cold in the North.
Arguably, the four greatest cold-weather NFL QBs are from the South: Bart Starr, Fran Tarkington, Terry Bradshaw & Brett Favre.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“That being said, a pure location discussion based on the best weather for the entire year (or even just the length of the football season) begins and ends with Southern California. USC and UCLA have the biggest advantage in that department by far among the P5 schools (and San Diego State would win it all if we were to consider G5 schools). Everywhere else is going to have either cold or very hot and humid weather at different points in the season.”
Best weather overall, sure. But they don’t really have football weather. LA’s coldest month has average highs of 68 and lows of 47, and that’s after football season. It’s in the 70s in November. For ideal football weather, I’m looking for that spot where you get high temps in the 50s late in the season.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m not that big a fan of Knoxville. The tailgating is great, but I don’t like the stadium.”
I was just thinking weather (and a location where once could recruit well, but I’ve moved on to pure weather).
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“There have been plenty of discussions on this board during bowl season about how the schools from the South couldn’t handle the cold.”
Some of them can’t. Miami is notorious for a “cold” weather bowl they played against WI where the players were bundled up and just huddled around heaters while WI didn’t even wear long sleeves. It was 40 degrees at kickoff. (2009 Champs Sports Bowl)
“I’ve always stated that August camp and September games are generally hotter in the South than November games are cold in the North.”
Averages in August:
Baton Rouge – 92/72
Columbus – 85/61 (-9)
Minneapolis – 81/62 (-10.5)
Averages in November:
Baton Rouge – 72/49
Columbus – 54/32 (-17.5)
Minneapolis – 41/26 (-27)
LA is miserable in August, but LSU alleviates that a little bit by playing at night. Still, northern teams deal with some heat during the summer, just not as much and not nearly as long. The difference in winter is larger and southern players have little or no exposure to it during the pre-season or season. On the other hand, you can add layers to reduce the impact. When is the last game LSU played below freezing at kickoff?
They are two different types of miserable and the one you aren’t used to probably impacts you more. But northern schools have to face temps in the 90s down to the 20s while southern schools don’t.
“Arguably, the four greatest cold-weather NFL QBs are from the South: Bart Starr, Fran Tarkington, Terry Bradshaw & Brett Favre.”
And they all played on northern teams and were thus used to that type of weather. You see NFL QBs from southern teams and indoor teams suffer late in the year when they go north for cold weather games. Obviously it has an impact.
LikeLike
Alan,
I’m with Brian here.
If anything, your argument about southern born QBs at the NFL level being “arguably the best” proves, to some degree, a point often made by northern fans, or even sensible ones, that regardless of where a player was raised and played college ball, if you don’t adapt to cold weather, esp at the NFL level, where far more cold games are played and the playoffs depend on regular season records for home field advantage, YOU WILL STRUGGLE AT THE NEXT LEVEL. Northern NFL teams, or just teams that deal with non-SEC weather come Nov thru season’s end, rule the playoffs and SB wins and appearances, historically speaking.
As for your list of QBs, I’d put Brady and Montana on there, and drop Tarkenton (I’m a Minnesota fan), esp, in a heartbeat (he never won the big one, blown out in his SB appearances), as well as Favre (Mr. Interception), for the above two. I’d even put Elway over Bradshaw, he did not have surrounding talent Bradshaw experience, esp on the defensive side.
New England & Denver are certainly colder climates at the NFL level, and SF, esp Candlestick, wasn’t exactly friendly from Oct – Dec. Moreover, Montana learned to play cold ball at ND & grew up in Pa. Well we know Brady has never had a break from cold weather – Michigan to now.
Now look at QBs, who played in the BIG, but aren’t from the North: Drew Brees (who is quietly reaching the top 5 of every major NFL QB stat line) & yes, even Russell Wilson & his year at Wisky. Or consider even qbs like Bob Griese & Len Dawson, the former playing in Miami (NFL level) – all the above had a college pedigree in the north that prepared them for the unavoidable cold games in the NFL.
It does seem like most Sun Belt born qbs who succeeded at the next level had to end up on a northern team to truly adapt to the game, or a player like Troy Aikman was in a division with plenty of colder venues as the norm (Philly, NY & DC). Moreover, Aikman ended up playing his college ball in the Pac12, which has 4 colder venues – late fall: Oregon & Washington schools. The Manning brothers also played for northern or Rocky based teams, albeit Peyton was indoors half the time at Indy, but his division, like Eli’s – mostly northern.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with most of that list, of course. my only comment would be that the UCLA uniform would be SO much better if it did away with the script UCLA on the helmet. Script writing on helmets is awful…IMHO
LikeLike
The script ‘Ucla’ has been there for about 30 years, so I’d be surprised to see them do away with it.
LikeLike
Been on their helmet since 1973.
LikeLike
Since 1973.
LikeLike
More interesting thoughts on Texas / OU and potential conference realignment…
“Could Texas and Oklahoma file for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences (i.e. Longhorn Network)? Not likely, but we’ve seen the Longhorns lose rivals like A&M, Arkansas and Nebraska, so anything’s possible. One very influential Texas source told me Monday “there is a chance (his school could give up the LHN for a Big 12 network but) my guess is it would only be to join another conference with an established network.”
http://www.hookem.com/columns/bohls-big-12-will-texas-ou-fight-flight/
LikeLike
The most important fact of all, is that A&M, Arkansas, and Nebraska, all had invitations to better homes. In college sports, unlike marriages, teams don’t divorce until they have the next engagement sewn up.
LikeLike
But one heavyweight at the school told me Texas and OU would never stop playing. He also said if the league held the Longhorns’ feet to the fire about the polarizing LHN, Texas would look elsewhere when the grant of rights for first-tier TV money expires in eight years.
…
So what do Texas and OU want? Stability, a stronger league and better positioning on the national landscape with more revenue.
And does Castiglione think both want the same things?
“I do,” he said.
…
And how does OU feel about adding members?
“We’ve never had a single conversation, not one about any of these schools,” Castiglione said. “We’ve not even got close to vetting one school over another.”
What we do know is Texas and OU are good for each other. Rivalries remain the lifeblood of sports at any level.
“As much as we are rivals and always pushing for strengthening our own programs, we want to beat the heck out of each other,” Castiglione said. “We have found ways to find common ground far, far, far more times than the narrative. More times than not, Oklahoma is good for Texas and vice versa.”
LikeLike
More Big 12 expansion speculation.
http://www.hookem.com/story/big-12-schools-expansion-whats/
LikeLike
And a totally different perspective:
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/05/31/big-12-meetings-primer-sources-say-anywhere-6-8-big-12-schools-back-expansion-one-problem-persists
LikeLike
But Bowlsby deviated from the conventional wisdom, saying he could see expansion without a TV network.
“I think it’s conceivable,” Bowlsby said.
A source familiar with the conference discussions indicated that a vote on expansion is possible this year, although the Big 12 might not decide on specific schools. The source indicated that a majority of the Big 12 schools — at least six and maybe as many as eight of 10 — back expansion, depending on the candidates.
But part of the problem is the lack of a consensus on candidates, the source said. If the Big 12 looks east, there’s Cincinnati and UConn, long mentioned as possibilities. If the Big 12 looks west for BYU, then Colorado State makes sense as well. Or the conference could take a deep dive into the Sunshine State with Central Florida and South Florida. Memphis, with the backing of FedEx, is a wild card.
…
Regardless, Bowlsby doesn’t want the Big 12 to avoid hard decisions while approaching a soft target of July.
“I’m going to encourage the group not to go past the end of the summer,” Bowlsby said, “because I think we need to make some decisions and get headed where we’re going to go.”
Putting an end to this would be nice for everyone.
LikeLike
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-football/hc-big-12-meetings-0602-20160601-story.html
Bowlsby wants to finish it by the end of summer. UT AD Perrin, not so much.
LikeLike
I’m guessing even UT would like to be done with things by the end of summer. UT just wants being done to mean deciding not to expand and not to add a network.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15848953/ole-miss-rebels-coach-hugh-freeze-accepts-responsibility-program-troubles-denies-knowingly-violating-rules
Now Hugh Freeze is down to claiming neither he nor any of his staff knowingly broke the rules.
“The first thing I would say is that I own it. That’s part of it when you’re the head coach. You take the good with the bad,” said Freeze, who’s in Sandestin for the SEC spring meetings. “But there’s a big difference between making mistakes in recruiting and going out there with the intent to cheat. I don’t have any information that anybody on my staff has been involved in any illegal payments to players or offering any inducements to players, and if I did have that information, I would fire them.”
Right. No evidence. Except for those text messages the whole world saw on draft day with one of his coaches and a player discussing getting money to the player. The text message conversation which the school has verified did occur (last I heard they were still trying to verify if the messages were accurate or changed, but I’ve seen no evidence to support them being bogus yet).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15854268/tennessee-volunteers-coach-butch-jones-says-program-done-right-things
Meanwhile, Butch Jones is proud of the culture at TN.
“All I can speak on is the University of Tennessee. I feel strongly as everybody in our organization that we’ve done the right things. I’m proud of the culture that we have built.”
…
Jones was asked Tuesday if Tennessee conducts background checks on potential recruits.
“Everything is about giving a young man an opportunity,” Jones said. “Every circumstance, every situation is different. But we’re all parents. We try to be as proactive as possible with our background checks.
“Make no mistake about it: The first thing in our recruiting profile is character.”
LikeLike
CBS releases partial schedule.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/15970126-93/lsu-alabama-football-on-collision-course-for-another-primetime-matchup-on-cbs
Sept 3, UCLA at Texas A&M, 2:30 p.m.
Sept. 10, Kentucky at Florida, 2:30 p.m.
Sept. 17, Alabama at Ole Miss, 2:30 p.m.
Oct. 29, Florida vs. Georgia, 2:30 p.m.
Nov. 5, Notre Dame vs. Navy, 10:30 a.m.; SEC Game of the Week, 2:30 p.m.; SEC Game of the Week, 7 p.m.
Nov. 26, Arkansas at Missouri, 2:30 p.m.
Dec. 3, SEC Championship Game, 3 p.m
It looks like Bama at LSU will be the primetime game on Nov. 5 for the 7th straight year.
LikeLike
It looks like Florida-Tennessee has become just another game. That used to be the prime-time kickoff to CBS’ schedule (3rd week in September).
LikeLike
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/06/01/dates-tv-plans-released-first-batch-2016-oklahoma-football-games
Speaking of which, OU/UT will be on FS1 this year.
The biggest note from the release is that Texas and Oklahoma’s Red River Showdown has been demoted from its home on ABC in past years to the deep cable doldrums of Fox Sports 1.
The Austin American-Statesman’s Kirk Bohls shared some insight on how that may have gone down.
[begin tweet]
Kirk Bohls @kbohls
Apparently ABC/ESPN had first pick of ND-Texas game. Fox had next two selections, chose Ohio State-OU 9/17 and Texas-OU 10/8.
[end tweet]
LikeLike
At its 11:00am kickoff of recent years, it was an easy enough game to miss (forget about) anyway.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15875833/kenneth-starr-resign-chancellor-baylor-continue-teach
Ken Starr was demoted to chancellor and law professor. Now he’s quitting the chancellor position and will just teach.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/01/college-football-tv-schedule-guide-fbs-2015/83928404/
Here’s the full CFB TV schedule so far.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15900437/art-briles-reacts-impending-dismissal-coach-baylor-bears
Art Briles is so full of crap.
“After 38 years of coaching, I have certainly made mistakes and, in hindsight, I would have done certain things differently,” Briles said in the statement. “I always strive to be a better coach, a better father and husband, and a better person.
“Keep in mind, the complete scope of what happened here has not been disclosed and unfortunately at this time I am contractually obligated to remain silent on the matter.”
Briles said in his first public comments since the board’s action that he has not seen the Pepper Hamilton report on which the board based its discipline. Starr had said the same thing while resigning his chancellorship on Wednesday.
“I can only assume that the report, which is not independent, supports the conclusions that the Board has already drawn,” Briles said. “I hope to share with you what I was aware of as soon as I can so Baylor Nation can begin the healing process.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/15884704/seven-baylor-bears-recruits-ask-national-letters-intent
7 Baylor signees in the 2016 class have asked to be released from the NLIs.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/06/01/baylor-university-rape-scandal-recruits-request-release
According to one of their parents, Baylor told them they did not intend to grant them releases.
LikeLike
Baylor can’t possibly refuse to release these kids. If Baylor actually tries it, I would expect the Big 12 to step in and seriously threaten Baylor. I think that litigation here would end the letter of intent system, s we know it. It is patently unfair for an 18 year old to be locked in to an LOI, while everything may change at the school.
From one of the links above, it appears that the Big 12 could expel Baylor over this. Throw them out and bring in Houston to replace them. This will not happen, but Baylor has no leverage at all.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Baylor can’t possibly refuse to release these kids.”
Sure they can. Schools do it all the time. It would just be 1 more minor thing in the bigger scandal at Baylor.
“If Baylor actually tries it, I would expect the Big 12 to step in and seriously threaten Baylor.”
I wouldn’t because they all want to retain the right to refuse it to kids too.
“I think that litigation here would end the letter of intent system, s we know it. It is patently unfair for an 18 year old to be locked in to an LOI, while everything may change at the school.”
Before it gets that far, there is a national appeals process. The kids would have to give that a try first before any lawsuit would make sense. But the letter of the contract says you’re stuck once you sign it, and it’s optional to sign it. It’s a system that needs to be revised drastically but it’ll be tough to win a lawsuit before fall camp starts.
“From one of the links above, it appears that the Big 12 could expel Baylor over this.”
They could but they won’t, just like the B10 never seriously considered dropping PSU.
LikeLike
The LOIs clearly prevent kids from withdrawing for any reason. If Baylor does not back off, I would expect a judge to find the contracts to be inequitable and unenforceable, if not completely unconscionable, under these circumstances. This is not merely a coach being fired, but arguably there are valid claims of fraud in the inducement, as well as other breaches of contract.
Are the LOIs contracts of adhesion where the recruits have no bargaining power?
I do not know, as I have never seen an LOI, but I presume that they are all the same regarding this. There is no antitrust exemption for college sports. Why should all of the conferences be able to jointly offer such terrible agreements to recruits?
If I represented the kids, I would go to totally blow up the entire system if Baylor did not relent. How would other schools react to the danger of Baylor having that fight with the worst fact pattern possible?
Normally no one kid would have any incentive or ability to challenge the LOI system. This could be the super rare situation where a bunch of players really do have that incentive.
With college practices for next season literally weeks away, any delay will cost these players the chance to transfer for this season. These kids will then be forced to attend the institution which defrauded them, or lose a year of eligibility elsewhere. In addition, a delay might make it impossible for some of these kids to get a scholarship elsewhere for the next school year.
The delay could really damage the future of some of these kids, not in football, but in terms of the loss of a scholarship and resulting inability to attend college.
The potential damages against Baylor are huge. Beyond that, does Baylor really need the additional terrible publicity that would come from holding these kids against their will?
As far as the other Big 12 schools, do they really need the ability to have a major rape scandal?
Is that why they would not pressure Baylor in this particular fiasco?
Loss of a coach is an unfair burden for recruits, but that is the system. Hiding the “rape information” from recruits is not quite the same.
While I am sure that conferences would never even think in these terms, the B1G probably “needed” PSU far more than the B1G needs Baylor. Baylor is easily replaced by Houston. (I presume. I do not know if there are reasons why Houston could not just be slipped in for Baylor, but there may be.)
I am also not saying that the Big 12 will dump Baylor over a little thing like a rape scandal. On the other hand, possibly making the conference look bad to recruits – well that is serious.
LikeLike
“These kids will then be forced to attend the institution which defrauded them, or lose a year of eligibility elsewhere.”
Someone is holding a gun to their head?
If they delay enrollment ’til next year they still will have five to play four. And there are very few scholarships available anywhere for the comming year. Delaying a year means every school has a full set of 25 to offer, not just a few who haven’t filled up, or are willing to pull someone else’s offer to create room.
“Why should all of the conferences be able to jointly offer such terrible agreements to recruits?”
Because the conferences voluntarily chose to participate in the NLOI program? Not all conferences do (Ivy) and they can recruit kids who have signed a LOI elsewhere, if they choose to, without violating any agreements.
Yeah, the agreement is so terrible, everyone wants to get the benefits offered (by the school, not the coach or staff), but not willing to give assurances in return?
I’m not arguing the kids shouldn’t be offered releases. But that is the point, in this particular case they should be released from a binding commitment in good faith. The ability to form and enforce a binding agreement is mutually beneficial and is far better than an open free for all.
LikeLike
ccrider55, you know as well as I do that once a court looks at this type of contract, there can be big problems (as there frequently are when courts get involved in sports). The kids totally control the choice of school, but (with a few exceptions), once they sign, the contracts will contain identical restrictive clauses.
Sure “mutually beneficial” contracts should be enforced. How often have contracts been deemed contrary to public policy, or unconscionable? We are talking about a fraudulent contract (or that is the allegation at least). How often are fraudulent contracts enforced?
If you wish to say the kids were not defrauded, I have no comment, since I do not know what really happened. On its face, it does look likely that Baylor seriously mislead recruits.
True, no one is holding a gun to the players heads. If you were advising the P5 and G5 schools, would you take the chance of litigating this extraordinarily bad set of facts?
We are not discussing just a coaching change, which might well be an accepted risk by the players and enforceable. This is the criminal explosion of the football program.
What if one of these kids went to play football at a “Christian” school expecting a higher level of morality within the football program (stop laughing, it is possible). Now they are going into this den of evil. Wow, talk about fraud in the inducement.
The real risk is that an overly enthusiastic judge would not just rule against Baylor under these facts, but would broaden a ruling and cause chaos in college football. It has happened before.
Of course, such a suit could not be brought in Waco, where Baylor would win. No local judge is likely to smash home team.
LikeLike
You would expect that a contract written by the schools, is chiefly designed to favor them, not the student–athlete. It may indeed be open to legal challenge, if you have enough time and money to do so. Nevertheless, any lawsuit to challenge it would likely take years. A student–athlete looking for different options, for a practice season that starts in less than 2 months, is not going to get any relief. Also, as another poster pointed out, most schools are probably at the 85 scholarship limit anyway.
As far as the other Big 12 schools, do they really need the ability to have a major rape scandal? Is that why they would not pressure Baylor in this particular fiasco?
Schools don’t want recruits to be able to say, “Let me out of my LOI, because circumstances have changed since I signed it.” Granted, this is almost the worst possible change that you could imagine. But in principle, once you open up the possibility of letting kids out of their LOIs, there will be future challenges in less drastic cases. This is a bright line that the schools never want to cross.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“The LOIs clearly prevent kids from withdrawing for any reason.”
Of course. It’s a binding contract. Otherwise it would be just as meaningful as a verbal commitment from a recruit.
“If Baylor does not back off, I would expect a judge to find the contracts to be inequitable and unenforceable, if not completely unconscionable, under these circumstances.”
There’s no way a judge would hear this before the recruits go through the appeals process first. And since the LOI is an optional contract, not a mandatory one, I’m not sure they’d get as much sympathy as you think. It would take a long, drawn out process to win it.
“This is not merely a coach being fired,”
Yes it is. That’s the only reason these recruits want out. Note that not one of them tried to get out until Briles was fired.
“but arguably there are valid claims of fraud in the inducement, as well as other breaches of contract.”
Good luck with that.
“Are the LOIs contracts of adhesion where the recruits have no bargaining power?
I do not know, as I have never seen an LOI, but I presume that they are all the same regarding this. There is no antitrust exemption for college sports. Why should all of the conferences be able to jointly offer such terrible agreements to recruits?
Click to access National-Letter-of-Intent-Example.pdf
Here’s one from a few years ago. I doubt it’s changed much if at all since then.
But the key point is that the NLI is optional and some players have chosen not to sign one.
“If I represented the kids, I would go to totally blow up the entire system if Baylor did not relent. How would other schools react to the danger of Baylor having that fight with the worst fact pattern possible?”
I don’t think the Baylor case is different (in terms of a NLI suit) from every time there is a coaching change. Rape is not a factor here.
“Normally no one kid would have any incentive or ability to challenge the LOI system.”
Every year some recruits want to change their mind and complain that they can’t just do whatever they want.
“This could be the super rare situation where a bunch of players really do have that incentive.”
Only 7 of the 24 signees are trying to get out right now. That doesn’t seem like significantly more than want to leave after most coaching changes.
“With college practices for next season literally weeks away, any delay will cost these players the chance to transfer for this season.”
I believe they were scheduled to enroll next week so they could jump into summer unofficial practices.
“These kids will then be forced to attend the institution which defrauded them,”
What fraud? Spell out your case because I don’t see any fraud for a football player signed to go to Baylor. A female student could make a case, but I don’t see it for these guys.
“The delay could really damage the future of some of these kids, not in football, but in terms of the loss of a scholarship and resulting inability to attend college.”
Many players attend prep school or a JUCO.
“Beyond that, does Baylor really need the additional terrible publicity that would come from holding these kids against their will?”
I think this would be a drop in a rather large bucket of bad PR for Baylor right now. 99.9% of Americans neither know nor care about recruits who signed a NLI and are still promised a full ride to a good school.
“As far as the other Big 12 schools, do they really need the ability to have a major rape scandal? Is that why they would not pressure Baylor in this particular fiasco? ‘
No, they want the ability to enforce NLIs. That’s vital to making the current system work. You can bring up rape all day long but it’s irrelevant here.
“Loss of a coach is an unfair burden for recruits, but that is the system. Hiding the “rape information” from recruits is not quite the same.”
What hiding? These stories were out there since last summer at least. One Baylor player was convicted of sexual assault last August. It was all over the national news (CNN, NYT, etc) including discussion of Baylor covering things up and questions about whether Briles was in trouble. If recruits didn’t know about it they were willfully ignorant.
LikeLike
I am only reacting to claims by parents and kids that they were mislead.
This was linked above:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/15884704/seven-baylor-bears-recruits-ask-national-letters-intent
“J.P. should be afforded the opportunity to go to a university that is not riddled with investigation, not labeled with sexual assault and rape,” said Julian Urquidez, whose son is an offensive tackle from Copperas Cove (Texas) High School. “He should be afforded the opportunity to go to a university that is safe.”
“Martin, Baylor’s four-star signee from Port Arthur (Texas) Memorial, said he has no interest in enrolling at Baylor and would have not picked the school had he known about the Pepper Hamilton investigation that led to Briles’ termination.
Martin has been committed to playing for the Bears since July 2014. His mother, Marion Harris, said Baylor coaches never mentioned the investigation or the school’s sexual assault issues to her during Martin’s recruitment.
“I don’t feel comfortable at all sending my son to be in that type of environment,” she said. “I didn’t raise him like that. Whether the allegations are true or not, there’s too much going on there. I’m sending him to school for an education and not for all the extra problems there at Baylor.
“I don’t think Baylor is the fit for him.” ‘
“Urquidez echoed much of what Martin said. He, too, said he would not have signed with the Bears had he known about the sexual assault allegations and thought he was walking into a “stable program and university.”
I also read in another story (to which I cannot find the link) that one mother said that the coaching staff specifically lied to her and told her that there were no more problems at Baylor and there were a couple of bad apples. If true, that is exactly the opposite of the Pepper Hamilton report.
At least three parents say that they were mislead or told lies about what was happening at Baylor. Are these kids required to do due diligence regarding rape charges and institutional malfeasance?
How could they learn about the institutional issues before the report was issued?
It seems that “all” of the so-called experts were surprised by the Pepper Hamilton conclusions. Are parents really required to anticipate this and plan accordingly.
If the report was not a “shock” why did Starr and Briles get roasted for old news?
Some view this as a simple coaching change and too bad for the recruits who signed binding contracts. Several parents seem to view it as a fraud. In that case, there are potentially major damages. Even the need to complete the administrative procedure is terribly damaging to an 18 year old kid about to enter school. I realize that does not vitiate the need for an administrative proceeding.
If a kid is going to sit out a year, he can sue Baylor and let the case work through the system.
Why should a kid who is academically qualified and who can also play at the P5 level now need to go to a JUCO or prep school? Because Baylor has no institutional control? How did that become the problem of the kid. Tell the parent of one of these kids that they should go to prep school and see how they feel about it.
To me this is a once or twice (PSU??) in a generation problem, not business as usual. (I actually do not view PSU as the same since the problems predated the incoming recruit class. Here the recruits are walking right into it.)
I do think that this is all moot, since I think that sanity will prevail at Baylor and the recruits will be released. I would not be shocked if, after a release is given, a couple of them still go to Baylor.
LikeLike
I’d really like to hear your full disclosure recruiting pitch…
No one forced them to sign.
If they hadn’t heard/read about problems we’ve all heard/read about for several years, I kinda question their qualification to be going to anything but a JC and learn to read and hear at a basic level.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I am only reacting to claims by parents and kids that they were mislead.”
Failure to do your homework is very different from fraud. All of this stuff has been available in the media since August 2015 at least.
“J.P. should be afforded the opportunity to go to a university that is not riddled with investigation, not labeled with sexual assault and rape,” said Julian Urquidez, whose son is an offensive tackle from Copperas Cove (Texas) High School. “He should be afforded the opportunity to go to a university that is safe.”
1. Over 100 universities are under Title IX investigation for things related to sexual assault. It’s public record, you just have to look the school up.
2. Data suggests somewhere close to 25% of women suffer some form of sexual assault in college. There is no such thing as a school not labelled with rape and sexual assault.
3. He’s an OL. Baylor is perfectly safe for him.
“Martin, Baylor’s four-star signee from Port Arthur (Texas) Memorial, said he has no interest in enrolling at Baylor and would have not picked the school had he known about the Pepper Hamilton investigation that led to Briles’ termination.
If you live in TX and choose not to watch the news, that’s your problem. This was a major story last year.
Martin has been committed to playing for the Bears since July 2014. His mother, Marion Harris, said Baylor coaches never mentioned the investigation or the school’s sexual assault issues to her during Martin’s recruitment.
Why would they? Have you never bought a car or a house? The seller doesn’t mention the bad things unless legally obligated to disclose them.
“I don’t feel comfortable at all sending my son to be in that type of environment,” she said. “I didn’t raise him like that. Whether the allegations are true or not, there’s too much going on there. I’m sending him to school for an education and not for all the extra problems there at Baylor.
“I don’t think Baylor is the fit for him.”
Then maybe you should have spent 5 minutes researching Baylor on your own rather than just listening to coaches.
I also read in another story (to which I cannot find the link) that one mother said that the coaching staff specifically lied to her and told her that there were no more problems at Baylor and there were a couple of bad apples. If true, that is exactly the opposite of the Pepper Hamilton report.
But it may be what the coaches honestly believed. Being wrong is different from lying, and Briles is clearly an optimist. All that’s really changed is that the bad apples got convicted and a report blamed the staff/administration for poor handling of allegations.
At least three parents say that they were mislead or told lies about what was happening at Baylor.
They were most likely told exactly what the coaches believed to be true. The coaches were wrong. It happens. That’s not lying.
Are these kids required to do due diligence regarding rape charges and institutional malfeasance?
Yes. All adults are responsible for doing research before they sign a contract. The rape allegations were very public.
How could they learn about the institutional issues before the report was issued?
It was on CNN, every sports website, etc in August 2015. Any web search since then would have found it pretty quickly.
It seems that “all” of the so-called experts were surprised by the Pepper Hamilton conclusions. Are parents really required to anticipate this and plan accordingly.
I’d be more sympathetic if these were parents of female students. They’re just mad that Briles won’t be the coach and the stench of rape is on the school. Well, that part was easily discoverable long before they signed with Baylor. All that’s changed is Briles being gone.
“If the report was not a “shock” why did Starr and Briles get roasted for old news?”
The depth of the corruption was shocking to those who hadn’t been following the story. If you paid attention, you already knew something was pretty rotten.
“Some view this as a simple coaching change and too bad for the recruits who signed binding contracts. Several parents seem to view it as a fraud.”
They view it that way because it’s most helpful to them to have it viewed that way.
“In that case, there are potentially major damages.”
There are? Their sons still have full scholarships to a P5 school to play football. There is no evidence that going to Baylor hurts them. All that’s changed is the head coach.
“Why should a kid who is academically qualified and who can also play at the P5 level now need to go to a JUCO or prep school?”
Because he chose a place to go and then changed his mind after the allowable deadline. If Baylor doesn’t let him out and the appeals committee doesn’t either, he’s out of good options.
“Because Baylor has no institutional control? How did that become the problem of the kid.”
He signed a NLI with Baylor, that’s how.
“I do think that this is all moot, since I think that sanity will prevail at Baylor and the recruits will be released.”
Most likely. It’s only 7 members of the class asking out.
LikeLike
Upon the issuance of the Pepper Hamilton, Ken Starr was shocked and blindsided. He knew nothing about such things. Powerful alumni were furious because of what was happening with the cover up for rapists. They knew nothing. Briles of course was not aware of the cover up and pressure on the raper victims.
On the other hand, the parents of football players were supposed to know. Perhaps the recruits got an advance of the Pepper Hamilton report, before Ken Starr and the Board of Governors. And the recruits should done some on-line research and they would have known more than Briles.
Brian, I have been a lawyer for 40 years and I have seen one or two contracts. And one or two frauds. I have even seen one or two successful civil fraud cases with far less than these parents claim. Maybe the parents are all lying. Maybe they knew everything. I am not prepared to call them liars based on the argument that they must have know the problems at Baylor.
And yes, I have even been involved in or or two real estate transactions.
You hold the parents of the players to a standard higher than the coaches, the president and BOG of the university.
The key is not the rapes at Baylor, but the cover up. If two football players were convicted of rapes and the story ended there, then the kids should have known and tough about Briles getting fired. If Briles were belatedly fired because of the two rapes, then so be it.
“2. Data suggests somewhere close to 25% of women suffer some form of sexual assault in college. There is no such thing as a school not labelled with rape and sexual assault.”
Other than the two rapes at Baylor, how many other college football players have been convicted of rape in the past five years. By your argument, there must have been dozens – or hundreds. Certainly is could not be uncommon.
You are really saying that a football team that protects its rapists is not unusual and not a big deal.
That 20% (or 25%) is the most bullshit statistic in the world. If sexual assault includes a guy staring or asking a girl on a date and being refused, then maybe that statistic works, but if means anything close to rape or the real legal definition of assault, I am really glad that I do not have college aged grand daughters.
How many female students attend colleges or universities in Texas at any given moment – at least 100,000? So you claim that tens of thousands of female Texas college students are raped or assaulted every year. How many stories have you seen about college students being raped? There must be thousands of co-ed being raped every week in the US.
If every year there are at least 25,000 frosh women in Texas universities, then 5,000 will be raped or assaulted at some point. Do you believe that?
Here in NJ, I would estimate at least 50,000 female college students at the given moment. There are press reports of two or three rapes or sexual assaults ever year. That therefore must mean that thousands are not publicly reported.
According to the FBI, there were less than 40 rapes per 100,000 people in the US in 2014. College campuses must be by far the most dangerous places in the US, since you cite authority for the argument that there are thousands of rapes on colleges per 100,000.
I assume you must know at least 100 females who have gone to American colleges in the last 10 years. If you do not know that many, ask around. Coworkers, your daughter, friends, etc. You must personally know dozens of young women who have been raped or sexually assaulted at college. Very sad for them.
If you do not know any or, tragically, one or two, I guess that all of the others were lucky to not have been raped.
Again if sexual assault means a guy stared at a girl, or asked her out a date, then I agree. There are probably thousands of guys rejected by girls on campuses. I happened to me nearly 50 years ago when I was in college. I asked girls out and they said no, so I guess that I assaulted them.
So. based on the fact that tens of thousands of Texas co-eds are raped or “sexually assaulted”, the situation at Baylor is not a big deal at all. Now I do not know why Briles was even fired or Starr lost his position.
You are right, the parents should have known of the results of Pepper Hamilton in advance and rape is so prevalent on college campuses it is not a big deal. I understand. I concede the argument. Baylor should not be punished at all.
LikeLike
“That 20% (or 25%) is the most bullshit statistic in the world. If sexual assault includes a guy staring or asking a girl on a date and being refused, then maybe that statistic works,…”
Really? You really… I don’t know if discussing this further is of any benefit. I’m over a thousand miles away, yet seem to have a better grasp than those imediately involved. Just curious. Baylor law grad?
LikeLike
In principle, the Baylor recruits might possibly have a fraud case. I agree with Jersey Bernie that it wasn’t all “out there,” and all you had to do was Google it.
I also agree with Brian that what is really motivating the students is probably the fear that Baylor will no longer be great at football, or that the coach who signed them is no longer there; not that — shock! who knew!! — there are sexual assaults on campus.
If the students have a fraud case at all, it’s not an open-and-shut, “file and you win,” kind of case. Unless Baylor folds immediately, the case would drag on too long to do the students any good. They need instant relief, which they are highly unlikely to get, making any lawsuit pointless. A win several years from now does them no good.
And who’s to say any school would offer a scholarship to the students who broke the National LOI system, a system that all the participating schools want to maintain as it stands?
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Upon the issuance of the Pepper Hamilton, Ken Starr was shocked and blindsided.”
Of course he was. I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
“He knew nothing about such things.”
It was in the local paper in case none of his subordinates bothered to tell him. And on CNN. And every major sports website. You’d think someone just might have asked him about it by now.
“Powerful alumni were furious because of what was happening with the cover up for rapists.”
And they should be.
“They knew nothing.”
Maybe they’re clueless, maybe not. I neither know nor care since they’re irrelevant to the situation.
“Briles of course was not aware of the cover up and pressure on the raper victims.”
Sure.
“On the other hand, the parents of football players were supposed to know.”
Easily available public facts? Yes, they are supposed to know those.
“Perhaps the recruits got an advance of the Pepper Hamilton report, before Ken Starr and the Board of Governors.”
You didn’t need the report to know about the rapes or the accusations of cover-ups. The report just verified the cover-ups. If all the rapes were really what bothered these people, they should have known about them. But we both know that isn’t what really is bothering them. They are upset because the coach is gone and they think little Johnny is less likely to make the NFL now.
“And the recruits should done some on-line research and they would have known more than Briles.”
For people that live on social media, how could they not have heard about it or found out about it?
“Brian, I have been a lawyer for 40 years and I have seen one or two contracts. And one or two frauds. I have even seen one or two successful civil fraud cases with far less than these parents claim.”
The written contract they signed had no details about Baylor and the head coach. Nobody can guarantee there won’t be a future scandal at a school. Coaches can say they (and/or the school) don’t think there will be any issues. They can say they were told there shouldn’t be any issues. Any promise beyond that is worthless and any adult should recognize it as fluff. Nobody can guarantee there won’t be a future scandal at a school. It’s not in their power to uphold such a promise.
“Maybe the parents are all lying.”
Maybe they don’t understand what actually constitutes fraud. Maybe they didn’t bother to do even a modicum of research into the school their sons were going to attend. Caveat emptor.
“You hold the parents of the players to a standard higher than the coaches, the president and BOG of the university.”
You have no idea what standards I hold the professionals at Baylor to in this scandal. Expecting adults to do some minimal homework doesn’t say anything about my view of the people at Baylor.
“The key is not the rapes at Baylor, but the cover up.”
If that was really why the recruits wanted out, sure. But it isn’t. They want out because Briles is gone and the rest is spin.
“Other than the two rapes at Baylor, how many other college football players have been convicted of rape in the past five years. By your argument, there must have been dozens – or hundreds. Certainly is could not be uncommon.”
http://pwrfwd.net/2013/12/02/updated-a-list-of-college-football-rape-cases/#2010
Vanderbilt – 1
Baylor – 2
Montana – 1
Missouri – 1
Miami – 1
Presbyterian – 2
ODU – 2
ASU – 1
FSU – 1 (reduced charge)
That’s 12, and there may be a few more that I missed. A bunch more were tried but not convicted. Several more were kicked out of school but not convicted in criminal court.
A lot more were accused and subsequent Title IX complaints filed for how schools handled the allegations.
“You are really saying that a football team that protects its rapists is not unusual and not a big deal.”
No, I’m not. Unfortunately it isn’t as unusual as we’d like it to be, but that’s neither here nor there. I said that all colleges face issues with rape so any parent claiming that is why their son shouldn’t have to stick to his contract is full of it. As I pointed out earlier, over 100 schools face Title IX investigations. Many of those deal with sexual assault allegations being mishandled.
“That 20% (or 25%) is the most bullshit statistic in the world. If sexual assault includes a guy staring or asking a girl on a date and being refused, then maybe that statistic works, but if means anything close to rape or the real legal definition of assault, I am really glad that I do not have college aged grand daughters.”
Click to access Report%20on%20the%20AAU%20Campus%20Climate%20Survey%20on%20Sexual%20Assault%20and%20Sexual%20Misconduct.pdf
The survey defined sexual assault and misconduct with two types of victimization. One type focused on nonconsensual sexual contact involving two behaviors: sexual penetration and sexual touching. Respondents were asked whether one or more of these contacts occurred as a result of four tactics: (1) physical force or threat of physical force, (2) being incapacitated because of drugs, alcohol or being unconscious, asleep or passed out, (3) coercive threats of non-physical harm or promised rewards, and (4) failure to obtain affirmative consent. The first two tactics generally meet legal definitions of rape (penetration) and sexual battery (sexual touching). The other two tactics are violations of student codes of conduct. The second type of victimization focused on sexual harassment, stalking, and intimate partner violence (IPV). The definitions of these different tactics are provided below when data are presented on their prevalence.
…
Overall, 11.7 percent of students across the 27 universities reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by force or incapacitation since enrolling at the IHE. This overall rate masks large differences by gender and enrollment status (Figure E-2).
…
[rate of female undergrads reporting nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation since entering the IHE]
Across the 27 IHEs (Figure E-3), the rates range from 13 percent to 30 percent. There are small but statistically significant differences between different types of IHEs. For undergraduates, for example, private universities had a higher rate (25.3%) when compared to public universities (22.8%).
…
According to the AAU survey, 16.5 percent of seniors experienced sexual contact involving penetration or sexual touching as a result of physical force or incapacitation. Senior females (26.1%) and those identifying as TGQN (29.5%) are, by far, the most likely to experience this type of victimization.
Read the whole report if you don’t want to sleep well for a while.
“You must personally know dozens of young women who have been raped or sexually assaulted at college. Very sad for them.’
Yes, it is. One of them got beaten by a baseball bat as part of it. Way to make light of it.
“You are right, the parents should have known of the results of Pepper Hamilton in advance and rape is so prevalent on college campuses it is not a big deal.”
Why does pointing out that it is known to be prevalent have to mean that it isn’t a big deal? They aren’t mutually exclusive.
“Baylor should not be punished at all.”
Right, because saying Baylor didn’t commit fraud is the exact same as saying they (and the people who work there) shouldn’t be punished.
LikeLike
http://gridironnow.com/college-football-ignoring-voices-victims-abuse-like-mine/
LikeLike
I prepared a lengthy response and lost it when I went to another site for a link, so I am not going to do it again. To summarize my lost post:
ccrider, you are ignoring the fact that I am saying that I believe the people who were there – the parents and kids. Baylor has zero credibility, so why not believe the victims? None of us know what happened between the recruits and Baylor. I think that it is relevant what the parents claim. You seem to either not believe the parents or blame them for not knowing more.
I think that the parents can easily argue that they could not possibly have known the level of the problems at Baylor, so why not believe them? To me this is not about a coaching change, but about institutional integrity – or so the parents say.
No I did not go to Baylor law, I graduated from a school ranked in middle of the T14 law school. (Ranked between 5 and 10 and other details are irrelevant.)
Could the parents be lying about this – absolutely, but I have no reason to assume that is the case. Is this really about coaches, maybe but the parents deny that. Why don’t you believe them?
I do not think that you guys are intentionally defending Baylor, but you are so interested in protecting the LOIs, that you are minimizing the claims of the recruits.
On its face, this is not about a coaching change, it is about an institution systematically hiding rape. (Again, the parents could be lying, but that is not the issue at the moment)
As to that 20% sexual abuse, even the authors of the original study say that it was misused. It was based on a 19% self-reporting sample from a couple of schools and was not even intended to be scientifically valid. Google it. The info is there.
That however also does not matter. 2% is too high, but there is no defense for Baylor and no basis to blame the recruits.
LikeLike
Even assuming all of the above, I am still not seeing how such a lawsuit would work, unless it is a bluff to get Baylor to fold immediately. If Baylor resists at all, the recruits would not get relief in time to do them any good. It’s also not clear that the recruits would get better scholarship offers (or any offers) at this late date. If they feel that strongly about not attending Baylor, they’d probably be better off sitting out a year.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“ccrider, you are ignoring the fact that I am saying that I believe the people who were there – the parents and kids.”
Believe them about what, exactly? Explain the fraud in detail rather than just repeating claims of fraud and why it rises to the level of fraud rather than standard salesmanship.
Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable as studies show that the brain rewrites your memory of an event every time you access it. You literally change your memory by thinking about it. By now the parents remember hearing what they want to have heard, not the exact words that were said. What is clearly fact is the NLI as it is a written contract and we can all read the terms. Or are you claiming some part of the NLI is fraudulent?
What is the basis for assuming all these people understand the legal definition if fraud? Lots of people make accusation of things like fraud, libel, slander, etc that are not legally sustainable. Not every incorrect statement constitutes fraud. Were they misled? That’s highly likely. Was it intentional? That’s hard to say because everyone at Baylor seemed to think nothing was really wrong.
“Baylor has zero credibility, so why not believe the victims?”
They’re only victims if we believe them and believe that they are suffering as a result. The only suffering I see is due to the coaching change.
“I think that the parents can easily argue that they could not possibly have known the level of the problems at Baylor, so why not believe them?”
I fully believe that. Did anyone at Baylor actually know the level of problems at Baylor, though? Those who knew about the problems may not have been aware of their potential ramifications and vice versa. But more importantly, why should I believe that this is why the kids no longer want to go to Baylor and not because the coach got fired? Only 7 of the recruits want out, and 6 of them play on offense. That could be coincidence.
“Is this really about coaches, maybe but the parents deny that. Why don’t you believe them?”
Because they have every reason to lie about it. They are less likely to get a release if it’s just about the coaching change and they know it. Even while denying it at least some of them have admitted that the coaching change is part of it.
“I do not think that you guys are intentionally defending Baylor,”
We’re not defending Baylor at all.
“that you are minimizing the claims of the recruits.”
In the sense that we don’t believe they rise to the legal level of fraud, yes. If they’re surprised that coaches are flexible with the truth in recruiting, they’re in for a rude awakening in the real world.
“On its face, this is not about a coaching change, it is about an institution systematically hiding rape.”
No, it’s about both of those things on its face.
“Again, the parents could be lying, but that is not the issue at the moment”
Only you have claimed they they were lying. I think they’re mistaken about what constitutes fraud. And I haven’t seen any of their claims of fraud, either. I don’t recall you even quoting them.
Many comments ago you said that if we said they weren’t defrauded you had no comment because you weren’t there and didn’t know exactly what happened. You seem to have shifted your position on that just a bit.
“As to that 20% sexual abuse, even the authors of the original study say that it was misused. It was based on a 19% self-reporting sample from a couple of schools and was not even intended to be scientifically valid. Google it. The info is there.”
Too bad I included that link to a full AAU sponsored report on it, huh? And they got results from a lot more than 2 schools.
LikeLike
Jersey B:
Why do I need to believe either? I believe they signed a mutual contract with the school. If they didn’t understand it that’s not the schools fault. If they didn’t know of any problems they are deaf and blind. If for them there is a gradient, an “acceptable” level of sexual, I have no sympathy.
I suggested before that by not enrolling until winter (what’s called grey shirting) they would save all their eligibility and have a better chance at a scholly for the next year at a different school, perhaps even effective second semester or quarter this year.
LikeLike
As to the issue of fraud in the inducement. I do not believe that the coaches knew nothing of the coverup at Baylor. The coaches did not know that victims were discouraged and perhaps threatened – by Baylor coaches.
Call me a cynic, but to me that makes no sense. Failure to disclose vital information can certainly be fraud. What is the duty in this situation and to whom is such duty owed? I do not know, but I would argue that in light of the justifiable uproar over Pepper Hamilton, there was a duty. This is not a minor issue at Baylor and move on. It has turned the university upside down.
If anyone feels that the coaches did not know or had no obligation to say anything if they did, that is your decision, not mine. My only further observation is that if people did not agree on such issues, there would be far less litigation.
We have heard from the recruiters, so no one has claimed that they did not no. Perhaps the recruiters will argue Sgt. Shultz, “I know nuttink”. OK, I do not believe that, If you do, fine.
As far as the 20% or 25% statistic, there are hundreds of articles debunking it. The authors of the study say that the number is wrong. Rape if it is 2% is an enormous problem and none of the article minimize it. Here a just a few links. US News and the Huffington Post are certainly not sympathetic to the “rape culture”.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/16/1-in-5-data-and-the-debate-about-campus-rape
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-earp/1-in-4-women-how-the-late_b_8191448.html
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20668/
Here is a list of nearly 1000 articles on the issue – just from 2015. Many of these debunk that statistic.
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/editorials/2015-2/
Look at some info regarding a few B1G student bodies:
Ohio State Student body 45,000 Say 22,000 female
Michigan 29,000 say 14,000
Illinois 32,000 Say 15,000 female
Ohio State has approximately 22,000 female students. 20% is roughly 4,500
At Michigan, 20% of the females is just under 3,000 and at Illinois it about is 3,000.
Does anyone believe that 3,000 of the female students at Michigan or Illinois will be raped during time on campus? How about 4,500 at Ohio State? If you believe that, then it is certainly none of my business to dissuade you.
If any of you have a college age daughter, you should be arrested for child abuse if you allow that child to go to one of these schools where a thousand female students are raped per year. It is just not safe at those campuses.
When the FBI claims (for 2011) that the national rate for rape is about under 55 per 100,000 colleges are truly cesspools of evil. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape
So in the US, according to the FBI in 2011, it is 52.7 rapes per 100,000 and on colleges it is at least 3,000 per 100,000. (I got 3,000 by assuming that each woman spends an average of 6 + years at some level of college and then divided the 20,000 per 100,000 by 6+).
If this is true a woman is nearly 60 times more likely to be raped on a campus than anywhere else in the country. (Actually there must be so many campus rapes that the national statistics are driven by rapes on colleges)
If anyone wants to believe this 20? to 25% number, fine. I do not. It makes no sense whatsoever and I am more interested in empirical evidence than I am in a statistic that has become a political tool.
(Caveat, if rape includes an unwanted kiss, a lascivious stare, an unwanted body bump on a dance floor, etc., then 20% may be a number that can be approached. Those things may be very wrong, but they are not rape and the female victims do not view them as rape. Interviewers can take these experiences and define them as rape even if the woman says nothing important happened. Again, read the literature on this subject.)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/mississippi-state-allows-5-star-commit-videotaped-hitting-a-woman-to-enroll/
MS State proves they have no standards as they allow 2016 recruit Jeffrey Simmons to enroll despite having video of him punching a woman multiple times in March. He’s a 5* DE that is 6’3″ and 277 pounds and is awaiting legal resolution of misdemeanor charges from the incident.
“Based on conversations our staff has had with school, community and church leaders in Noxubee County, this incident appears to be uncharacteristic of Jeffery,” athletic director Scott Stricklin said. “It’s a highly unique circumstance to administer discipline to a student for an incident that occurred prior to that individual joining our university. However, it’s important that Jeffery and other potential MSU students understand that these type of actions and poor decisions are not acceptable.
“We expect the structure and discipline Jeffery will be a part of in our football program to benefit him. Jeffery will be held accountable for his actions while at MSU, and there will be consequences for any future incidents.”
Simmons will be suspended for this season’s opening game against South Alabama.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/theres-a-way-to-expel-baylor-for-its-scandal-should-the-big-12-so-decide/
There are ways the B12 or the NCAA could punish Baylor.
There is language in the Big 12 bylaws that allow the conference to kick Baylor out of the league in the wake of the current sexual assault scandal.
…
While the bylaw (seen here) seems to deal mostly with NCAA infractions, there appears to be room for the Big 12 to penalize Baylor.
CBS Sports has been told there is also the potential for the NCAA to investigate Baylor. Players involved in sexual assault seemingly could have received extra benefits if they didn’t go through the university’s traditional disciplinary process.
…
There is no known movement to expel Baylor, but the subject was brought up Wednesday during a press conference to discuss expansion at the league’s spring meetings.
Commissioner Bob Bowlsby had previously told CBS Sports the conference could take no such action against Baylor per its bylaws.
However, a source told CBS Sports there is even a vote process for getting rid of Baylor should it come to that. It would take eight votes from the other nine schools to expel the school from the conference.
…
More ammunition: There was one report Wednesday that Baylor had blocked at least one 2016 recruit from getting out of his letter of intent.
“I think it’s a fair point,” said Bowlsby, who serves on the National Letter of Intent appeals committee. “There’s no doubt about that. … This is an unusual enough circumstance [but] that’s a fair question.”
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-could-earn-an-additional-1-billion-by-expanding/
The B12 is promised a pro rata increase in TV money for expansion by 2 or 4 schools.
Big 12 administrators will be presented with information this week at the league’s spring meetings that expansion could earn the conference at least an additional $1 billion over the length of its remaining TV rights contract, CBS Sports has learned.
If the league expands by four teams, provisions in its contracts with ESPN and Fox provide money for that benchmark. If the expansion is by two teams, the increase would be $500 million.
Those rightsholders are contractually bound to provide “pro rata” for any new Big 12 members. That is, any new members would be paid an equal share of the current Big 12 members — approximately $23 million per year.
While on its face that doesn’t necessarily help the 10 current members of the Big 12, opening the existing contract would allow for a negotiation beyond that $1 billion figure.
Most importantly, it would satisfy one of the conference’s key concerns: Falling behind the other Power Five conferences in revenue.
The Big 12 is approximately $9 million per school behind the SEC in annual revenue. Added expansion would close that gap “by half,” according to a source.
The Big 12 has eight years remaining on its rights deal that pays it through the 2024-25 academic year. The current media rights deal is worth $1.3 billion from ESPN and $1.2 billion from Fox, according to SportsBusiness Daily.
I don’t see ESPN and Fox reopening the deal, so the only way for the existing teams to really benefit is to pay the new members less for a while. Obviously a CCG would help, too.
If each new member is worth $25M per year but they got paid $20M (80%), that would leave $20M to spread over the 10 existing members ($1M each). WV and TCU had 3 years of reduced payouts (50%, 67% and 85%) so it wouldn’t be unprecedented to do this. 5 years at 80% is almost exactly the same as the 3 year ramp up TCU and WV had plus 2 years of full payout. That leaves just 3 more years to worry about.
A CCG would be worth at least $2.5M per school as a guess. Combined that’s a $3.5M raise for the existing members and a huge bump for the new members.
“I can’t think of any single factor” that would cause Texas to be in favor of expansion, Perrin said.
Way to be open minded, UT.
LikeLike
Well at the end of the buy-in, everybody makes less.
Perrin is quoted as saying he doesn’t think realignment is over and doesn’t want to do anything that might limit them in the future.
His mind is open to expansion. He just doesn’t think Houston, Cincinnati, et.al. are worth it.
Splitting the CFP and Sugar Bowl money two more ways costs everyone $1.3 million a year. Splitting the CCG, now that you can theoretically have one with 10, costs everyone $.4 million a year (assuming $24 million per year total). That’s why Boren thinks a network is necessary for expansion. Everyone is behind $1.7 million a year. He needs the network to offset that. UT isn’t going to make more money with a network.
Now you could argue that the conference won’t do a CCG with 10 (which OU and UT have both said they didn’t think was a good idea). But even in that case its merely 700k better and everyone gets a less attractive home schedule.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Well at the end of the buy-in, everybody makes less.”
They’d lose the extra money, but the contract remains what it was before expansion per school so they wouldn’t lose anything versus no expansion. Besides, they could tell the newbies they don’t get a full share until the next TV deal so that the remaining 10 always get a little extra
“Perrin is quoted as saying he doesn’t think realignment is over and doesn’t want to do anything that might limit them in the future.”
Which is a reasonable position if:
1. You’re sure the break up of the B12 isn’t going to be part of that future realignment.
or
2. You don’t care if the break up of the B12 is part of that future realignment.
But if you want the B12 to survive and you are worried it might not survive the GoR ending in a few years with the status quo, then expanding to solidify the B12 now might be necessary.
I’m not saying which (if any) of those 3 positions is correct or which is the stance UT holds.
But his quote doesn’t quite match up with that position. He said he can’t think of anything that would make UT favor expansion. So even if OU said it was leaving tomorrow, UT wouldn’t want to expand. If TV promised UT a $10M/year pay bump for expansion of the B12, UT wouldn’t want to expand.
“His mind is open to expansion.”
No, it isn’t. He explicitly said the opposite. He said nothing could make UT favor expansion. Maybe it was open before, but that quote says it isn’t anymore.
“Splitting the CFP and Sugar Bowl money two more ways costs everyone $1.3 million a year.”
But you’d recoup some of that by adding at least 1 more bowl deal and probably improving the other deals in the future. Also, you would increase the CFP money by making the CFP more often and expansion makes that more likely.
“Splitting the CCG, now that you can theoretically have one with 10, costs everyone $.4 million a year (assuming $24 million per year total).”
But you don’t have one at 10 despite having the right to stage one. So you don’t get to claim that an extra $2M per team (and I’ve seen higher numbers suggested generally, more like $30M+ for the CCG) is actually a loss of $400k. Until the B12 approves a CCG with 10 teams, any expansion-driven CCG would be pure bonus money.
“That’s why Boren thinks a network is necessary for expansion. Everyone is behind $1.7 million a year. He needs the network to offset that. UT isn’t going to make more money with a network.”
But UT might not make less.
“Now you could argue that the conference won’t do a CCG with 10 (which OU and UT have both said they didn’t think was a good idea).”
For now I’ll just argue that they haven’t and reiterate that this puts everyone ahead $2M plus any amount they hold back from the new members (roughly $50M+ spread over a number of years).
“But even in that case its merely 700k better and everyone gets a less attractive home schedule.”
Do they? Is BYU or UC really worse than hosting KU or ISU? The non-Texan teams wouldn’t get into TX quite as often for games on average, but that isn’t a huge impact for recruiting.
LikeLike
He said nothing could make UT favor expansion. Maybe it was open before, but that quote says it isn’t anymore.
I basically agree: He has all but closed the door to it. In another quote, he said something like “never say never,” but it’s clear there’d need to be a dramatically different set of facts than the facts we have now, before UT would agree. And without UT, they won’t get to 8 votes, which is the threshold required to approve expansion.
These words of Perrin’s ought to be pretty scary for B12 fans: “I think that we’re probably going to see another round of realignment in the future. I don’t know that, I’m new to this game, but when you look at the history of contracts most of them don’t go to full term. There are negotiations that happen. I just think it’s prudent to wait and see what’s going to happen as time progresses.”
When he talks about “another round of realignment,” he is almost certainly including the distinct possibility of Texas being in a different league. He is not saying, “Hold off on Cincinnati, because in 5–10 years we might get Nebraska back.”
…you would increase the CFP money by making the CFP more often and expansion makes that more likely.
Their own study found that the probability of making the CFP more often was only slightly better than the baseline of adding a CCG and staying at 10. If it were a political poll, you would say it was within the margin of error. It was not the sort of dramatic difference that would drive a decision about expanding, unless you strongly favored expanding for other reasons.
Until the B12 approves a CCG with 10 teams, any expansion-driven CCG would be pure bonus money.
Since the B12 now has the authority to stage a CCG without expanding, it becomes a far less persuasive reason to expand; indeed, maybe no reason at all. If they really wanted that money or a marginal improvement in their playoff chances, they could add the game immediately, and split the revenue 10 ways rather than 12 or 14.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Their own study found that the probability of making the CFP more often was only slightly better than the baseline of adding a CCG and staying at 10.”
As I recall they roughly found that your odds of making it scale with the size of your conference. Adding a CCG would also help.
Being 10/64 (15.6%) of the P5 versus 12/66 (18.2%) is significant in that calculation.
“It was not the sort of dramatic difference that would drive a decision about expanding, unless you strongly favored expanding for other reasons.”
I think your second clause is unnecessary. The increased appearances in the CFP isn’t sufficient to drive expansion. It is, however, a factor favoring expansion.
The real question is whether expansion would increase stability of the B12. The thought seems to be that only more money will increase stability. Expansion is a possible route to increased money in several ways, but not a guaranteed windfall.
“Since the B12 now has the authority to stage a CCG without expanding, it becomes a far less persuasive reason to expand; indeed, maybe no reason at all.”
Except that the B12 has shown no inclination to add a CCG with 10 teams. The money from the CCG (I’ve seen estimates of $3M for all 12 teams) could be a strong inducement to expand. But my larger point there was that you can’t say they would lose money by expanding and adding a CCG when they don’t have a CCG now. They could have one now, but they don’t. Until and unless they do add a CCG with 10 teams, all the money from a 12-team CCG is found money. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying they should expand just to chase that money.
LikeLike
Except that the B12 has shown no inclination to add a CCG with 10 teams.
They just did. Which only goes to show what I was suggesting: once you have the ability to add a CCG with 10 teams, the CCG ceases to be a benefit of expansion.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Which only goes to show what I was suggesting: once you have the ability to add a CCG with 10 teams, the CCG ceases to be a benefit of expansion.”
That’s still untrue. Once you actually add a CCG, then the CCG ceases to be a benefit of expansion. If a conference of 10 doesn’t want a CCG (and that was what several B12 members had said previously), then it is a benefit of expanding to 12.
LikeLike
Tuxedo Yoda’s saying 14 members likely, for what it’s worth. It is a UT guy though, and one adamantly anti expansion.
LikeLike
Perrin is talking about poaching the acc. He said he didn’t want to expand now if it precluded better options in the future
LikeLike
And the mothership just keeps the marionetts dancing, and costs down.
LikeLike
Texas does not care about the Big XII any more then they cared about the SWC years ago. To be honest it is not their responsibility either. Is there a price to be paid? Of course, I am sure plenty of UT fans miss Arkansas and A&M but they live without them. I am sure that if Oklahoma had to be jettisoned from the schedule, they would be as well. UT is not surrendering the Longhorn Network until it is over ( unless there is a better option available ( The Big 10 and the CIC certainly would be one)). That said, I do not see UT in the B10 having to ever surrender to those in Ann Arbor, Columbus and WORST of all, Lincoln, Nebraska. I think the Notre Dame deal in the ACC is the best option for UT, and if The ACC thinks ND might park it’s sports in the Big 10, they just might offer it For UT it gives them the independence they like and would work well for their Historically powerful baseball team ( much better then the Big 10), and they can keep the Longhorn Network..
LikeLike
Why would the ACC allow the LHN for anything but the independent FB? Everyone else is all rights in except ND football. They’d like an ACC network and the rest of UT sports would add new value.
LikeLike
Texas does not care about the Big XII any more then they cared about the SWC years ago.
You write this as if Texas were different than, say, Michigan. It isn’t. The only difference is that Texas might have better options outside of the conference it’s already in, and Michigan doesn’t. If Michigan seriously believed they might be better off outside the Big Ten, I have no doubt they’d behave more-or-less exactly as Texas does.
For that matter, Iowa State would act the same way, if they thought they might find a better home than the Big 12, which of course they wouldn’t. Texas makes noises, because it can.
I think the Notre Dame deal in the ACC is the best option for UT, and if The ACC thinks ND might park it’s sports in the Big 10, they just might offer it.
Notre Dame is contractually bound to the ACC until the late 2020s, a time frame farther out than any of us can confidently predict. What I know, is that there currently is zero indication that:
1) The ACC desires another prima donna non-football member.
2) The Irish would choose to join the Big Ten, even if they were contractually available, which they aren’t. (The Big Ten would need to accept ND as a non-football member, which they likely won’t; or the Irish would need a reason to forego football independence, and there is none.)
Does Texas even want this? Texas and ND have somewhat different situations. The Irish have a lot of reasons for wanting to play a predominantly East Coast schedule in most of their sports, despite not being an East Coast school. That is not something Texas particularly wants.
(I looked at UT’s recent baseball schedule. They played no East coast schools in their non-conference schedule. This is not a region they want to be playing in.)
Football independence is overrated. Notre Dame would make more money in the Big Ten. They choose to make less, in order to preserve their tradition of independence, which is so important to their fans and donors. Texas has no such tradition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marc:
Agree with most. But this: “If Michigan seriously believed they might be better off outside the Big Ten, I have no doubt they’d behave more-or-less exactly as Texas does.” Basically you are saying if Michigan was Texas, and was in The current B12, they’d behave like Texas. It is the belief that the strength of a group working together is greater than individuals (even when in association with others) working to their own ends that distinguishes the choices different schools make. Michigan (or OSU, etc) support the conference (sometimes grudgingly), even when it might seem in the short term to be not making decisions to Michigan’s absolute best advantage. Hence the strength of the B1G, and the several iterations of the conference(s) currently known as the B12.
Do all the problems there originate in Austin? Absolutely not, but as one of two remaining powers, and the presumptive (self asserted?) leader when the B12 was “whole” they didn’t seem to have their interest fully tied to the interest of the whole conference.
LikeLike
It is the belief that the strength of a group working together is greater than individuals (even when in association with others) working to their own ends that distinguishes the choices different schools make. Michigan (or OSU, etc) support the conference (sometimes grudgingly), even when it might seem in the short term to be not making decisions to Michigan’s absolute best advantage.
I think all schools, including Texas, understand that a conference exists to create joint benefits that they could not achieve independently; and that, at times, this requires accepting decisions that are not to their selfish advantage. It is a myth that Texas always gets precisely what it wants in the Big 12.
But schools’ willingness to do this, is almost exactly correlated with the conviction that they have found the best possible home. Michigan’s support for the Big Ten does not arise from an altruistic belief in helping other schools (less fortunate than themselves) succeed at sports. It’s because they are already so well situated that neither independence nor another conference are even remotely conceivable.
Generally, I think Michigan does get most of what it wants in the Big Ten. But if the rest of the league actually thought that Michigan had other options, the votes that go against Michigan’s stated wishes would become even rarer.
LikeLike
Marc:
“Michigan’s support for the Big Ten does not arise from an altruistic belief in helping other schools (less fortunate than themselves) succeed…”
That’s the crux of the matter. Some think helping others is altruism. Others see helping those you’ve associated with as in their own long term self interest, because the group is their interest.
LikeLike
Some think helping others is altruism. Others see helping those you’ve associated with as in their own long term self interest, because the group is their interest.
That is only because every other option would be considerably worse. If conference realignment has taught us anything, it’s that the purported interest of the group is short-lived, as soon as a better offer comes along.
In other words, I do not think Michigan has any greater belief than Texas in the importance of group interest over self interest. The only difference is that Michigan is already in the best place they could possibly be, and Texas is not so sure.
LikeLike
Sort of a chicken or egg question. Why is Michigan in a conference with no better alternative? Michigan (and the rest of the B1G) MADE the place better through cooperation.
LikeLike
Why is Michigan in a conference with no better alternative? Michigan (and the rest of the B1G) MADE the place better through cooperation.
Is there some set of believable steps Texas could have taken, such that the SWC would still exist today, and would be considered as desirable as the SEC and Big 10? That seems unlikely to me, but I remain open to persuasion.
LikeLike
I don’t see any steps that the SWC could have taken unless they could have pared down the number of schools in Central and Eastern Texas and then expanded into substantially higher value per school, and I don’t think they could have possibly swung that.
Kicking schools out is a hell of a lot harder than adding schools. And after achieving the well-nigh impossible, what schools could they have added to substantially increase value?
For instance, why leave the Big Eight for a conference that has stabbed two of its weakest members in the back to make room for you to join?
LikeLike
So, B12 is forming divisions. Are Leaders & Legends available?
LikeLike
Some time ago flugempire’s source with supposed OU contact said this:
Greg Flugaur
May 30
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
BTM:4 options for Big 12 coming 8 years.
Most likely to least.
1) Reform
2) Controlled Implosion
3) Non Controlled implosion
4) Status Quo
3 and 4 would be obvious. My question was and is, how could you distinguish between 1 and 2? Lack of B12N/LHN resolution? Wouldn’t CCG/expansion this far from GOR expiration serve both, and prepare a better place for those potentially left behind?
LikeLike
@ccrider55
What do we consider to be “implosion,” period? Assume the worst happens. If a conf called the Big 12 remains and reloads with AAC schools, is that “implosion” for our purposes?
LikeLike
Tweeter’s choice of word. How about reduction? Demotion? Destruction? Rendered redundant? Relegated?
The Big East still technically exists, but not the one that held BCS status. A similar fate may befall B12 if a couple “more desired” schools left with no preparation. It (loss of power status) might happen eventually regardless of prep, but not for lack of caring about FB
LikeLike
I think the most likely scenario is what happened to the football portion of the Big East, which is now the American.
The Big 12 would lose its most desirable schools—perhaps all at once, perhaps in stages. The remaining schools would replenish from the lower ranks, retaining a conference with the same name (which still has brand value), but not the prestige. Eventually, when the post-season contracts get re-written, there would be recognition that this is no longer a power league, and it would lose its seat at the Big Boys’ table.
There are only two Big 12 teams that the P5 really covet: Texas and Oklahoma. Under the right conditions, one or two other schools could get an invite, as part of a package deal. That would still leave between six and eight programs that no P5 league wants, but that remain valuable enough to be an upward step for mid-majors like BYU, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis, UCF, or USF.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“BTM:4 options for Big 12 coming 8 years.
Most likely to least.
1) Reform
2) Controlled Implosion
3) Non Controlled implosion
4) Status Quo
3 and 4 would be obvious. My question was and is, how could you distinguish between 1 and 2? Lack of B12N/LHN resolution? Wouldn’t CCG/expansion this far from GOR expiration serve both, and prepare a better place for those potentially left behind?”
My guess is 1 equals the current 10 members staying with a CCG and maybe expansion while 2 equals a few schools leaving and being replaced. 3 is 2009-2011 all over again and ends with the B12 gone – P12, B10, SEC and/or ACC take all the decent schools and the rest drop to G5 status.
LikeLike
Brian:
But for #2 who’s going to leave (and to where) as long as OU/UT are still there? If OU/UT leave doesn’t that set off #3, unless prior expansion sets up a safety in numbers life boat in house? That’s why I don’t think expansion is a sign of improving stability for the current full membership.
LikeLike
Intended to say “…is a definitive sign of…”
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“But for #2 who’s going to leave (and to where) as long as OU/UT are still there?”
Who says both stay? What if OU and KU left but the rest stayed? Replace them with BYU and UC (or even UConn for MBB branding) and things are stable.
LikeLike
Yes, if UT-Austin stays, the Big12 is still the Big12.
LikeLike
What if OU and KU left but the rest stayed? Replace them with BYU and UC (or even UConn for MBB branding) and things are stable.
The B12 without OU and KU strikes me as an inherently unstable construct. Most people would see it as a matter of when, not if, UT seeks greener pastures. There would be nothing UT could say, that would make people believe that it was truly happy with a league that had lost half of its original members—and gained none as good as the ones it lost.
With the loss of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, at some point the B12’s media rights payout would have to go down, relative to the market. You can’t keep getting paid the same, or see it increase, for a such a dramatically inferior product.
And would the RRR survive as an annual affair? I have to think OU would be under enormous in-state pressure to retain the Bedlam series. No P5 team has more than one annually contested non-conference rivalry, so it seems the Texas-Oklahoma game would be a casualty, depriving UT of the most visible game on its schedule.
I cannot see the B12 in that form surviving for very long.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The B12 without OU and KU strikes me as an inherently unstable construct.”
I doubt it. It gives UT everything it could want. It’s like being independent but with a lot of nearby schools that have to play you in every sport.
“Most people would see it as a matter of when, not if, UT seeks greener pastures. There would be nothing UT could say, that would make people believe that it was truly happy with a league that had lost half of its original members—and gained none as good as the ones it lost.”
What could be greener for them? They keep LHN and play local schools in all sports. They still make tons of money because the other schools agree to pay UT more than anyone else from the TV deal.
“With the loss of Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball, at some point the B12’s media rights payout would have to go down, relative to the market. You can’t keep getting paid the same, or see it increase, for a such a dramatically inferior product.”
But they also lose KU football and replace it with something decent. And they could add some new markets to boost national ratings. The total might not keep up, but UT’s payout could. The others would know that no other conference would pay them as much as a reduced share of the B12 with UT getting more to keep them happy.
“And would the RRR survive as an annual affair?”
That’s up to OU.
“I cannot see the B12 in that form surviving for very long.”
Many people have said that the B12 will exist exactly as long as UT wants it to exist. This would be the test of that theory.
LikeLike
“The B12 without OU and KU strikes me as an inherently unstable construct.”
I doubt it. It gives UT everything it could want. It’s like being independent but with a lot of nearby schools that have to play you in every sport….
Among other things, I think UT wants to be perceived as playing in a power league. The conference you’re talking about would be 5th in a five-league race, and without a single marquee game on the conference schedule.
If OU and KU leave, you have to figure it would be for dramatically more money than they are making in the B12. Currently, the B10 distributes about $9 million more per school than the B12, but UT has the LHN on top of that, which puts them at least at parity; in fact, a little better than parity.
But move ahead to the mid-2020s, the earliest that OU and KU could realistically leave. The B10’s media distribution will continue to go up. How does the B12 keep pace with that, when they are down to just one national brand in football? In the 2020s, I don’t think ESPN is going to pay above market value, just to keep the B12 together.
The LHN would need to be a runaway hit to make up the difference. Right now, the LHN is not a runaway hit. If the contract were up today, it is unlikely that ESPN would renew at the same rate. Now, I’ll grant you that 2030 is a long time from now, and by then the LHN could be raking in money, hand over fist. That’s what would need to happen, for UT to be financially whole in a one-king league.
Otherwise, someone in Austin is going to notice that Kansas is making more money than they are, and you know that won’t last long.
LikeLike
Interesting take from Orlando Sentinel.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/florida-gators/os-big-12-meetings-mike-bianchi-0605-20160605-column.html
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Among other things, I think UT wants to be perceived as playing in a power league. The conference you’re talking about would be 5th in a five-league race, and without a single marquee game on the conference schedule.”
But they’d have plenty of OOC games to get a couple of top games (OU and ND, for example). Their schedule wouldn’t be any worse than any other P5 at that point.
“But move ahead to the mid-2020s, the earliest that OU and KU could realistically leave. The B10’s media distribution will continue to go up. How does the B12 keep pace with that, when they are down to just one national brand in football? In the 2020s, I don’t think ESPN is going to pay above market value, just to keep the B12 together.”
They don’t have to keep up. UT has to keep up and the rest of the B12 needs to be ahead of the G5. You give UT a disproportionate payout and the rest will still be way ahead of the AAC and MWC.
“The LHN would need to be a runaway hit to make up the difference.”
No it wouldn’t. Not in my scheme.
LikeLike
Marc:
“…and by then the LHN could be raking in money, hand over fist.”
How? They still are a single school T3 channel. ESPN may be able to leverage it into enough ESPN bundles to make some money, but it simply isn’t a conference network. It’s a fraction of one. It’s not approaching SECN or BTN except through ESPN largess.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-approves-return-of-conference-championship-game-for-football-in-2017/
Now the B12 has made expansion much harder to justify, perhaps on purpose. By unanimous vote they B12 approved a CCG starting in 2017 (not enough time to do it this year).
The Big 12 is the first conference to take advantage of the deregulation rule, and commissioner Bob Bowlsby told reporters on Friday that the conference would “in all likelihood” split into two five-team divisions in 2017 with round-robin scheduling still an option.
“With two five-team divisions, you can still continue to play a full round robin,” said Bowlsby. “There was a lot of conversation about late season rematches. Last year, the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State game was a good example. It would’ve been played one week and then played another week, so obviously that’s not optimal, but we’ll look at our current model and the selection process that goes with it and we’ll look at other models, too.”
The obvious solution is to play all the crossover games first and then the division games. They just need to minimize the number of season-ending rivalry games they make crossovers. The RRR was always early in the year so that isn’t a problem. I think OU/OkSU and KU/KSU are the only traditional season-ending rivalries they had, so just don’t split those schools up.
Bowlsby also noted that potential expansion was still a topic of discussion within the conference, but the return of the championship game will occur whether the league has 10 teams or adds 2-4 more.
…
The television rights to the Big 12 Championship Game will be split by Fox and ESPN; Fox will broadcast the game in odd years and ESPN broadcasting the game in even years, according to CBS Sports’ Dennis Dodd.
By bringing the championship game back, the conference expects to bring in $27-28 million more in revenue on an annual basis, per Dodd.
Let the division speculation begin. I’ll guess they go geographical and keep the full round robin.
A – UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, WV
B – OU, OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-the-big-12-should-align-its-five-team-divisions-in-2017/
Tom Fornelli almost agrees with me. He swaps ISU and WV in hopes of better balance, and that’s a fair argument.
LikeLike
@Brian, re Fornelli’s alignment
The northernmost school (ISU) in the South with the Texas four feels wonky. It’s not good-wonky like Miami in an ACC North, either. The closest thing ISU has to rivals are the KS schools.
FWIW, an ISU guy on reddit, claiming to have spoken with someone in the AD, said they will indeed play 5 OOD, then end with 4 in-division, and that the divisions will be chosen to preserve set-date games. So, OU and UT on opposite ends, OU and OkSU together, yada yada.
I think you really have two options. Texas 4 + WVU in the South && Big 5 in the North. Or split the Texas schools two and two.
LikeLike
There’s a few issues with the way they are talking about.
1. You have 5 teams in a division. That means if you have all 10 teams playing in a week, you must have one crossover. This pretty much makes playing all 5 out of division games first impossible as it would require a bye week for two teams every week. At the very least, the final week and maybe the final 2 would probably have everyone playing meaning a crossover.
2. Texas is now playing a Texas school at home in the final game of the year on a rotating basis. Unless you put 3 Texas schools in their division, this cannot continue.
My personal preference is no divisions, but if they are going to go that route, I believe balance and limiting late rematches are pretty much the only factors since you have round robin (which for the record, is still a fairer schedule model than any other conference). My thought would be Texas schools and Oklahoma have the natural advantages so try to split up.
Division 1:
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
West Virginia
Kansas
Division 2:
Oklahoma
TCU
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Iowa State
This leaves 2 season ending games out of division, but they are unlikely to be CCG rematches (Iowa State-West Virginia and Kansas-Kansas State)
LikeLike
Now the B12 has made expansion much harder to justify, perhaps on purpose.
Unless, of course, they see it as I do: an independent decision having very little to do with expansion.
I realize that some B12 members previously said that they thought a CCG made no sense at 10 teams. The fact that they discarded that position so readily suggests that it was never a strong belief, but was more of a negotiating posture.
(Make it sound like you believe a CCG is only plausible at 12+ teams, even though you know perfectly well that if expansion is voted down, you’d agree to play it with 10. As long as there was money sitting on the table, I never believed the B12 would let it sit there for very long.)
Now, of course, the football gods are going to punish them by having the CCG favorite lose to an 8-4 team the first year it is played.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Unless, of course, they see it as I do: an independent decision having very little to do with expansion.”
Boren was campaigning to have all the major issues considered holistically. Deciding on the CCG separately undercuts one advantage that expansion might have brought. That makes expansion harder.
“I realize that some B12 members previously said that they thought a CCG made no sense at 10 teams. The fact that they discarded that position so readily suggests that it was never a strong belief, but was more of a negotiating posture.”
Or that their desire for money trumps their beliefs. Once the media consultant confirmed what the CCG could make for them, they couldn’t agree to it soon enough.
“As long as there was money sitting on the table, I never believed the B12 would let it sit there for very long.”
Neither did I, and I’ve said so on here multiple times.
“Now, of course, the football gods are going to punish them by having the CCG favorite lose to an 8-4 team the first year it is played.”
That is the way of things. Needlessly choosing divisions is just asking for poor match-ups and upsets. They should’ve been trailblazers for the top 2 CCG and make everyone else want to drop divisions.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/
According to ESPN’s Max Olson’s twitter, Jim Grobe says his contract with Baylor lasts through 2016 and that he will keep all of Briles’s assistants. He will also meet with all the 2016 recruits before deciding whether he will release them from their NLIs.
Max Olson ESPN Staff Writer
Jim Grobe said his agreement with Baylor as interim coach is through the end of the 2016 season. He said he didn’t care much about the terms of his contract. “They gave me a contract and I signed it.”
—
Max Olson ESPN Staff Writer
Baylor interim coach Jim Grobe told reporters at his introductory press conference that he intends to keep all of Art Briles’ assistant coaches. He felt hiring more new coaches would’ve been too drastic a change for his players.
—
Max Olson ESPN Staff Writer
In a 6-minute video Q&A the school sent out Friday, new Baylor coach Jim Grobe says his staff has not yet decided on whether to release recruits from their NLIs. At least 7 signees have told ESPN.com they want to go elsewhere. “My plan is to try to see all the kids before we make any decisions,” Grobe said. “I think a cooling-down period is probably pretty good for everybody, and to try to get in to see the kids and the parents is my goal right now.”
Well, a cooling down period is certainly good for Baylor. I don’t see how it helps the recruits at all.
LikeLike
“According to ESPN’s Max Olson’s twitter, Jim Grobe says his contract with Baylor lasts through 2016 and that he will keep all of Briles’s assistants. ”
-The summary of the report by Pepper Hamilton which has been made available specifically mentions ‘coaches’ (plural) in regards to some of the unethical behavior.
It appears that Baylor is still placing football over the need for a full house cleaning.
LikeLike
They just want to protect those poor football players. Too much change in coaching might be traumatic. You certainly wouldn’t want to expose college students to trauma, right Baylor?
LikeLike
RIP Muhammad Ali
http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/15939933/muhammad-ali-dies-74
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/02/pac-12-football-kickoff-times-comcast-breakthrough/
The P12 has solved one of their network problems. They finally got Comcast to put the P12N national feed on the basic tier instead of the regional feed. That means things like the MBB tournament will now be available to everyone with basic cable.
Comcast recently informed subscribers that it’s doing the Pac12Nets flip:
The National feed (i.e., Pac-12 Network, as opposed to, say, Pac-12 Arizona) will be moved to a basic tier, while the regional feeds will be moved to a sports tier.
If your primary focus is Olympics sports, this isn’t necessarily good news: The majority are broadcast on the relevant regional feeds, which will be on a sports tier ($$$).
But if the major sports are your preference, the flip is good news: All football and men’s basketball games televised by the Pac12Nets are on the National feed … and now the National feed is on the basic tier.
And it’s in HD.
This will impact more than a few fans. There are approximate four million Comcast subscribers in the Pac-12 footprint.
To summarize (because the Pac-12Nets are complicated): If you live in the conference footprint and you have Comcast, you’ll get all the Pac12Nets broadcasts of football and men’s basketball games on basic cable, and in HD.
The Pac12Nets haven’t experienced many victories in the past few years — and there are still plenty of issues — but this is a win.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/05/31/pac-12-hot-button-topics-upcoming-hotline-series/
Speaking of Wilner, he got a 45 minute interview with Larry Scott and will be writing a series of 4 articles the next few weeks about it.
The Pac-12 has been the source of much angst and the recipient of much criticism lately. (Not exactly stop-the-presses news, I know.)
Some of the criticism seems justified, some seems excessive, and some seems … I’m not sure what to make of some of it, frankly, for one reason: The unknown.
We don’t know everything. We don’t know all the motivations, processes and options that led to the decisions that gave us the results that invariably prompt someone to post #FireLarryScott on my Twitter timeline.
What, exactly, is the end-game with the Asia push?
Did the conference seriously consider selling equity in the Pac-12 Networks?
Are the presidents and chancellors content to live with a multi-year, many-millions-of-dollars revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten?
A few weeks ago, I asked if commissioner Larry Scott would address the topics that have riled fans, frustrated campuses and been targeted by media.
He agreed, and we sat down for a 45-minute chat last week.
The contents of the interview will be published on the Hotline in a planned four-part series over the next few weeks.
…
The motivation for the interview with Scott and resulting series isn’t to defend his moves; it’s to explain the moves as thoroughly as possible. On a few issues, I was confused, and the discussion provided some clarity.
Likewise, the goal of the series isn’t to change your mind on any particular topic. Rather, it’s to inform the public discourse so fans (and folks on the campuses) can reach the most informed conclusions possible.
LikeLike
“The motivation for the interview with Scott and resulting series isn’t to defend his moves;…”
Ha! As if anything Wilner has had to say regarding Scott the last four years could be mistaken as defending.
LikeLike
If you read the comments on some of his pieces, he does get accused of defending Scott sometimes. It’s not rational criticism, but it is there.
LikeLike
The P12 has solved one of their network problems. They finally got Comcast to put the P12N national feed on the basic tier instead of the regional feed. That means things like the MBB tournament will now be available to everyone with basic cable.
I’m no media mogul, but that always seemed to me the dumbest part of the P12N design.
LikeLike
It was never their intent for the national feed to get relegated to the sports tier while the regional feed was on basic. They just couldn’t convince certain carriers that the national feed deserved priority over the regional feed. I believe the issue was in part that the national feed had to be HD while the regional feed doesn’t. Comcast probably said it was their way or the highway initially.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/03/why-big-12-expanding-one-way-but-not-other/85379550/
I don’t recall seeing this reported elsewhere – apparently the B12 has decided not to pursue the B12N.
And although that’s debatable, this much appears clear at the end of the league’s annual meetings:
There’s growing skepticism within the Big 12 that a bigger conference is a better conference.
The Big 12 also announced Friday a 20% increase in its revenue distribution to $30.4 million per school, and that it has no plans to pursue a conference network. Given all of that, here’s the takeaway as the league’s presidents headed home after three days of discussions:
Expansion is highly unlikely.
…
And Oklahoma president David Boren, the current chairman of the league’s board of directors, dropped just enough vague phrases for fans of schools to parse and remain hopeful about the possibilities. Boren said the league’s presidents asked consulting firms Navigate Research and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV) to do more research.
…
“The data for the championship game was absolutely compelling. The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”
If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:
“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued, “but you have to weight that against reputational impacts. In other words, our fans want to see our teams play against great teams. They don’t want to see them play mediocre teams. We have to determine what that’s going to do to the longtime reputation of the brands at each of the schools and what quality of opponents we’re having.”
… Last January, Boren insisted it was imperative to add two teams, a conference network and a conference championship game.
Apparently, one out of three ain’t bad.
The current TV climate isn’t favorable for a conference network.
“The marketplace, in some ways, has decided that issue for us,” Boren said.
He’s correct, although Texas also decided that issue for them. It’s not willing to give up the Longhorn Network, which was a prerequisite for a conference media network.
… And around the Big 12, the topic has always generated mixed sentiments. As Boren suggested, some might favor expansion “in the abstract,” but the problem is in the details: Which schools?
…
A day earlier, “dilutive” had been Boren’s buzzword, too. As in: “We want to make sure (expansion candidates) are not dilutive,” he said, referring to athletics, academics, fan bases, media markets, etc.
Friday’s announcement of revenue distribution of $304 million for 2015-16 was also significant. Although adding schools would provide “marginal” gain, there’s no pressing financial reason to expand because the Big 12 has not yet fallen significantly behind its Power Five peers. Its per-team payout ranks third, behind the SEC and Big Ten but ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.
“We don’t have to be dollar for dollar or penny for penny what somebody else is making,” Boren said earlier in the week, “but we have to be in the neighborhood.”
…
The Big 12’s long-term prospects remain cloudy. If there’s one big realignment left in college sports, when all of the current TV deals expire, the Big 12 is easily the most vulnerable Power Five conference. But none of Boren’s proposed solutions would necessarily have prevented the league from being plucked apart. Maybe nothing will.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15973368/supporters-take-newspaper-ad-thanking-ken-starr
Today’s reminder that many supposedly good people are terrible:
A group of supporters who described themselves as “alumni and friends of Baylor University” took out a full-page advertisement in the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman, thanking former school president Ken Starr for a variety of things, including his “exceptional care for students and their well-being.”
…
The full-page ad appeared in Sunday morning’s newspaper and includes a link to the website, ThankKenStarr.com.
The group of supporters thanks Starr for the following:
“For your integrity, leadership, character and humble nature. For your exceptional care for students and their well-being. For your intellect and recruitment of distinguished faculty. For elevating Baylor University to new heights in academic excellence, sports, research, innovation and service. WE’RE GRATEFUL.”
Yes, he did such a wonderful job caring for the female students on campus.
LikeLike
An FSU blogger (linked on FTT’s twitter feed) obtained a copy of the ACC Grant of Rights. It contains no promises that the ACC will launch a conference network. It also states—as contracts routinely do—that it is the entire understanding of the parties, and that it supersedes any prior understanding they may have had.
It is difficult to see how FSU would have the “early out” that some fans and twitter trolls have claimed exists, should a conference network fail to materialize during the life of the agreement.
LikeLike
As the ACC recedes further and further in its figurative rear-view mirror, you can hear the laughter from College Park.
LikeLike
There are repeated references to “the ESPN Agreement” in this. It is possible there is something in that agreement that talks about an ACCN. The GoR really is just talking about what the schools owe the ACC in terms of rights.
LikeLike
I found the blog quite annoying. Dude just put up the GOR, your running commentary is nothing but a distraction. Plus its all bullshit without knowing what the ESPN agreement says.
LikeLike
Doug,
There was a link at the top of the post. It doesn’t work for me (says I lack permission to go there), but that may have been his attempt to put up the GOR. If FSU gave it to him, then a reporter will get it soon enough via a FOIA request. His running commentary is probably an accurate summary of what it says, though. It’s only 4 pages long.
If you click on the time stamp just above the poll (it says “50 minutes ago” for me right now) it’ll take you to his post on a premium forum at Warchant.com (FSU’s rivals.com site). Perhaps there is more info there. I’m not an FSU fan so I’m not going to pay to find out.
LikeLike
Brian, thanks. I don’t have permission either and am also unwilling to pay. The GOR may be airtight, but wouldn’t you agree until the details of the ESPN agreement come out we don’t know for sure. For example if it says “For said consideration ESPN agrees to form a network by no later than 12/31/16.” Wouldn’t that render the GOR null and void if the deadline isn’t met?
LikeLike
Doug,
“Brian, thanks. I don’t have permission either and am also unwilling to pay.”
Well, maybe you know a FSU fan that will (or already does).
“The GOR may be airtight, but wouldn’t you agree until the details of the ESPN agreement come out we don’t know for sure.”
Yes and no, but I did point out that “the ESPN Agreement” was referenced a lot in the GoR in my response above. I believe the GoR itself is secure in that the conference still owns all those rights until 2027 no matter what. I really doubt that the ESPN deal has a clause that would end the GoR since the GoR is a contract between the schools and the conference. Why would any action or inaction by ESPN change that? At most the ESPN deal would have a clause to end ESPN’s ability to use those games so the ACC could market them elsewhere or require ESPN to pay more for the ability to continue controlling those rights.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
LikeLike
What does ND stand to lose if they decided to back out of their ACC agreement. What rights did they actually grant? Seems they kept all of the rights for Football. All home game rights were retained by ND. Their distribution is around $6.5 million annually with much of that from bowl distributions and NCAA distributions. Not sure how much is related to college basketball.
I know Swofford talks about the fact that ND is obligated to join the ACC if they decide to join a conference but I am not sure that there were be much of a financial penalty if they decided to head to a different conference.
LikeLike
What does ND stand to lose if they decided to back out of their ACC agreement.
The ACC’s TV deal includes a number of ND football games, and 100% of ND in basketball. The ACC would obviously be damaged if it no longer had those games, and could sue to recoup their loss.
I know Swofford talks about the fact that ND is obligated to join the ACC if they decide to join a conference but I am not sure that there were be much of a financial penalty if they decided to head to a different conference.
What is the value of ND football? I would guess it is considerable. The ACC could sue for that amount. Or, the contract might have liquidated damages written into it.
LikeLike
Seems like more of a scheduling agreement and schools back out of those all the time for a small fee. In terms of lost TV value it seems that ND would need something in return. They basically got access to the Orange Bowl.
Basketball is a different story but not sure how much value the ACC loses if ND leaves.
LikeLike
Seems like more of a scheduling agreement and schools back out of those all the time for a small fee.
Notre Dame has to play five games a year against ACC opponents. Multiply what you are calling “a small fee” by the number of games they have committed over the next decade, and it becomes significant.
Beyond that, ND has committed that if they fully join any league during the life of the deal, it has to be the ACC. This is an added wrinkle not found in the typical scheduling agreement. If ND fully joins the Big Ten, then the ACC is damaged to the extent of the value of all the football games they would have had, that go the Big Ten instead. This is a sizable sum.
By the way, that “small fee” you referred to, is sometimes a seven-digit number for one game. Notre Dame is one of the most valuable properties in sports, so you’re likely talking about tens of millions to break the deal.
They basically got access to the Orange Bowl.
They also solved a mid-season scheduling problem that had given them considerable trouble in recent years, and they got a much better home for their Olympic sports than the denuded Big East.
Basketball is a different story but not sure how much value the ACC loses if ND leaves.
I agree, the big deal is football.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“What does ND stand to lose if they decided to back out of their ACC agreement.”
Which part? The ND deal has 4 main parts:
1. Playing 5 football games per year versus ACC teams at the discretion of the ACC
If they stop playing ACC teams, either the ACC would sue for a reduction in their TV deal from ESPN or ESPN would sue for ND reducing the value of what they are paying for. It would also mean losing for a long time several games they like to play.
2. Playing all their other sports in the ACC
If they stop playing in the ACC they’d have to find another home for all these teams which might be difficult after burning one conference and not living up to promises to another. The ACC would still own the rights to all their home games in every sport but football (and hockey) due to the GoR so ND would lose most (if not all) of their $6.5M from the ACC.
3. Not being able to join any other conference until the GoR expires in 2027
This would be a nasty legal battle like when UMD left the ACC. A judge might deny ND the right to break that stipulation. If it is allowed, ND would probably owe a large amount to the ACC.
4. Being part of the GoR
This would be another nasty legal battle. I think ND might just be stuck without rights to their home games in every sport but football (and hockey). That’s several million of value they can’t bring to another conference or keep for themselves.
“What rights did they actually grant?”
All media rights to home games in every sport but football.
“Their distribution is around $6.5 million annually with much of that from bowl distributions and NCAA distributions. Not sure how much is related to college basketball.”
ND gets an equal share of the non-CFB money which is about 20% of the total deal. Several million of what they get is presumably for the 2.5 road games they play versus ACC teams that the ACC controls.
“I know Swofford talks about the fact that ND is obligated to join the ACC if they decide to join a conference but I am not sure that there were be much of a financial penalty if they decided to head to a different conference.”
I’m guessing it would get ugly and end up costing ND quite a bit more than you expect, but I’m not an expert.
LikeLike
@Brian —-
Those are all valid points but ND still only receives $6.5 million from the ACC. The ACC could certainly sue but these things are settled out of court. The conference would likely withhold 1 to 2 years of distribution and the story is over. ND would likely not be in control of the monetary value of its basketball games for several years but they could either buy that back or let the ACC collect. In the grand scheme of things that is fairly minimal since a future conference would have the rights to ND’s away games.
I don’t see ND handcuffed in anyway if they were to choose to leave the ACC and join another conference.
LikeLike
” ND would likely not be in control of the monetary value of its basketball games for several years but they could either buy that back or let the ACC collect.”
In other areas, such as Hollywood, what typically happens to encumbered rights along those lines is that the content is simply not produced until the period of the granted rights has lapsed. So you want to see Notre Dame at home, you go to South Bend and watch them live.
LikeLike
I don’t see ND handcuffed in anyway if they were to choose to leave the ACC and join another conference.
You’re still not getting it. ND would be on the hook for the $6.5mm, plus the value to the ACC of the football games it would no longer play, plus the value to the ACC of ND joining full-time. Multiply your number by 10.
LikeLike
@Marc “You are not getting it”. I disagree. I work in the world in valuation. Sometimes for litigation support purposes and I have valued a number of NFL franchises. You mention the value to the ACC for the games ND would no longer play. No doubt having ND on the schedule of many ACC teams is a plus for those schools but ND is not getting paid for that arrangement. They are getting $6.5 for basketball, NCAA etc.. ND has a separate payout arrangement with the College Football Playoff plus a separate arrangement with the Orange Bowl.
ND would be on the hook for the annual ACC distribution likely for a short period of time. They are not going to be on the hook for the supposed value they create for the conference but that they do not receive in return. The ACC could certainly sue but I don’t see where the settlement amount would be significant. And significant I am talking $20-30 million plus which would be inclusive of its annual ACC distribution.
LikeLike
@Marc “You are not getting it”. I disagree. I work in the world in valuation. Sometimes for litigation support purposes and I have valued a number of NFL franchises. You mention the value to the ACC for the games ND would no longer play. No doubt having ND on the schedule of many ACC teams is a plus for those schools but ND is not getting paid for that arrangement.
You are valuing the wrong things.
1) The value in question is NOT what ND is getting paid for that arrangement. It’s the value the rest of the ACC would lose, from no longer having ND in their orbit.
2) More importantly, ND has committed that if it fully joins any conference, it will join the ACC. The damage to the ACC, would therefore be the damage of losing ND as a full member, not the damage of losing them in the partial status they have today.
I already pointed out that buyouts for single football games are not uncommonly in seven figures. ND, of course, is on the hook for far more than just one game. Maryland paid the ACC a $31.3mm exit fee, and ND is a more valuable property than Maryland. Those are the kinds of numbers you need to start from.
Of course, the value of ND to the ACC is more than media rights. Within the ACC, there was considerable resistance to the idea of a non-football member — something no other P5 league has done. Part of the argument is that ND makes the whole league more stable, something the members very much want. This is why the ACC made ND commit that they would join no other league. This is not a mere throw-away. It is a significant part of the deal, from the ACC’s perspective.
ND would be on the hook for the annual ACC distribution likely for a short period of time.
They’d be on the hook through the duration of the agreement, which lasts into the late 2020s.
They are not going to be on the hook for the supposed value they create for the conference but that they do not receive in return.
Of course they are. There is no rule that the consideration in a contract has to be reciprocal. ND is on the hook for the full value they contributed, whether they got it in return or not.
LikeLike
@Marc,
#1) Respone rebuttal: I get your agreement. I get that the ACC would lose value. There is no doubt about that but for ND to be financially liable for that loss in value they would have had to receive measureable financial benefit. I see this all the time in the business world in various joint venture arrangements.
#2) Respone: The legal commitment ND made to the ACC to join can certainly be broken. The value/damages awarded is debatable.
The cost to exit OOC games is certainly knowable as they are contractual in nature. Exiting conference games or quasi conference games is a different story. You could argue that the ACC could backfill lost games with additional conference games.
The idea that ND would be on the hook for their annual distribution through the duration of the agreement is not how these things have been settled in the past. Remember that most of the distribution is pass through payments from the NCAA. For the basketball portion it is likely the TV partners would not reduce total conference payouts thus mitigating damages to ND.
ND certainly makes the ACC more stable but again if they were to decide to leave they are not going to owe the ACC because the league is now less stable. Now if they received $20 million up front for bringing this stability then that is an entirely different story. But that is not how their arrangement was negotiated.
“They are not going to be on the hook for the supposed value they create for the conference but that they do not receive in return.”
“Of course they are. There is no rule that the consideration in a contract has to be reciprocal. ND is on the hook for the full value they contributed, whether they got it in return or not.”
I strongly disagree that ND is on the hook for the full value THEY contribute. That is not how it works in JV arrangements. If company A and company B enter into a JV and A brings all the customers, IP and financial capital and B brings a labor force and a mfg facility, at the time of dissolution B doesn’t keep the customers and IP. B will leave with their labor force and mfg facility. Over the term of the agreement they will have shared profits likely based on their initial value contribution. If the JV is terminated prematurely there are typically mitigating exit penalties but B doesn’t suddenly have financial claims beyond what they contributed.
LikeLike
By the way, I am not saying that ND will remain in the ACC, regardless of how much money the Big Ten might throw at them. For the right amount of money, any contract is breakable. After all, Maryland paid $31.4mm to leave the ACC (and accepted the potential risk of paying a lot more), so we know it can be done.
The larger obstacle in ND’s way is simply that so many of its wealthy donors see football independence as a birthright. This is the reason why ND did not join the B10 when it had a chance, many years ago, despite most of the faculty being in favor of it. That hasn’t changed.
So, we are talking about something the Irish simply aren’t going to do, for any amount of money, unless there is a rule change that makes it basically impossible to be independent. (The prospect of such a rule change is a long-standing fan fantasy that appears to have no basis in reality.)
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Those are all valid points but ND still only receives $6.5 million from the ACC.”
Per year. And there are 10+ years left on the deal.
“The ACC could certainly sue but these things are settled out of court.”
The ACC has a lot less incentive to settle here than they did with UMD. The risk of losing is much smaller and fewer skeletons are likely to be exposed since ND is a new member. The ACC’d love to punish ND by keeping them tied up in court with a restraining order preventing ND from joining another conference.
“The conference would likely withhold 1 to 2 years of distribution and the story is over.”
I highly doubt it would be that quiet.
“I don’t see ND handcuffed in anyway if they were to choose to leave the ACC and join another conference.”
Unless a judge tells them they can’t. A judge wouldn’t stop them from leaving the ACC but he might prevent them from joining someone else.
LikeLike
“The conference would likely withhold 1 to 2 years of distribution and the story is over.”
I highly doubt it would be that quiet.
Me too. Maryland wound up paying $31.4mm, or about 66% of the $52.2mm the ACC had originally sought.
And as Brian noted, the ACC has very little incentive to settle for 1–2 years of a deal that lasts more than 10, especially given ND’s unique place in the college sports landscape: they are literally irreplaceable.
LikeLike
The ACC withheld MD’s distribution. The ACC can withhold the ND distribution all they want but ND could go elsewhere to get much more if they desired. A court would have to order ND to pay the ACC but withholding a distribution isn’t a significant deterrent. Not sure the ACC wants to be in discovery through litigation. Also, with ND being a private institution they are not as susceptible to FOIA requests.
LikeLike
The ACC withheld MD’s distribution. The ACC can withhold the ND distribution all they want but ND could go elsewhere to get much more if they desired. A court would have to order ND to pay the ACC but withholding a distribution isn’t a significant deterrent.
You’ve finally reached the heart of the matter. The ACC thought that its sky-high exit fee would deter members from leaving. That didn’t work: Maryland left. So, the ACC needed an even stronger deal: a grant of media rights.
Now, maybe their lawyers screwed the pooch, and the GOR does not provide any additional security. But so far, no conference GOR has ever been broken, nor has anyone even tried. This is in contrast to exit fees, which were shown over and over again to be no serious obstacle if a team really wanted to leave.
Bear in mind, if the GOR is toothless for Notre Dame, then it’s toothless for the whole league, which would be a very significant problem for the ACC, and for every other league that has one.
On top of that, ND has an extra provision in their deal, which is unprecedented as far as I know: IF they join any league in football, it has to be the ACC. There has to be some financial consequence for breaking that; otherwise, it is an empty and unenforceable promise. I would assume the ACC’s lawyers weren’t so dumb as to write something that is without remedy. We don’t know what that would cost, since no school has ever agreed to such a thing, but it is probably an eight-digit number, on top of what we have already discussed.
LikeLike
Where things seem to stand in the world of P5 expansion:
1. Multiple B12 members may not be thrilled but with the new CCG, the continued revenue growth and the decision not to start a network, things seem settled at 10 schools. The key will be seeing what the true revenue gap is between the B10/SEC and the B12 members in the early 2020s. If it’s under $10M, then nothing is likely to change. If it’s over $20M then schools will start looking to leave. In between is a gray area where schools might accept an offer but wouldn’t be too active in their search. If a couple of AAC schools keep growing, they might eventually join the B12.
2. The ACC may be in trouble when their GoR ends in 2027. This confirmation that the lack of an ACCN is unlikely to invalidate the GoR means things are safe for now but unless the ACC starts making a lot more money in the next decade they will be well behind the B10/SEC. At that point it really depends on whether the B10 and SEC are looking to expand or not. There is a small chance of the B12 picking up a couple of ACC schools. Does ND ever care about the money enough to join a conference?
3. The P12 is falling behind in revenue and can’t do much about it. Unless Texas agrees to go west there is nobody worth adding. They are secure due to geography but will fall well behind the B10/SEC financially.
4. Nobody knows whether the B10 or SEC want to expand further. If they do, the ACC may be ripe for the plucking in 10 years. The B12 is less likely to be vulnerable although OU and KU might be willing to listen.
5. My guess is that the status quo holds for a while. The playoff will likely expand to 8 teams as everyone but the B10 and SEC are trying to play financial catch-up. Assuming they add auto-bids in the process, that locks in the P5 for quite a while.
In other words, I don’t expect any major changes in the P5 for a decade or so.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s similar to how I view the situation.
I suppose the main caveat is that expansion after Nebraska was an unlikely (“<50% in near-term" probability-wise) outcome yet it happened.
That's sort of how I'd view the next round; it might be something of a surprise because expectations will be that it's unlikely. But if it happens, we could see anything from 2 schools potentially exiting the ACC to the entire southern group (minus WF) leaving the ACC.
Either way, barring one of those scenarios where all the major schools leave/reform the current Division 1, we are much closer to the end of realignment in a general sense. The main question is whether the ACC and Big 12 hold together as they are for an extended period of time.
LikeLike
I suppose the main caveat is that expansion after Nebraska was an unlikely (“<50% in near-term" probability-wise) outcome yet it happened.
Except…the ACC was unencumbered by a grant of rights at that time. Once the ACC locked up its members, the only remaining drama was whether the B12 would expand by taking a couple (or a quartet) of mid-majors.
We’ve now reached a point where, unless GORs can be broken — for which there is no precedent — there can be no movement between the P5 before the mid-2020s. The B12 was the only conference that had any reason to even consider promoting a non-P5 program, and that door has now apparently been closed.
LikeLike
Yes, but that doesn’t change the notion that it would still be unlikely for expansion to occur in the 2022-2027 range which is the next time when expansion is a realistic possibility.
Until then, expansion is basically a 0-5% probability because nobody has shown any willingness to challenge GORs. But even when we approach the end of the Big 12 and ACC GORs, which is the next expansion possibility; I’d still rate the odds under 50% for that 5 year time-frame of 2022-2027.
LikeLike
The main reason why I say expansion is unlikely is the next expansion round isn’t obvious (i.e. Nebraska to the Big Ten or Texas A&M to the SEC).
It has to be one of these 3 schools making a move to destabilize the next major expansion round: FSU, OU, or Texas. None of those 3 are likely movers in the 2020s for a variety of reasons, but a big issue is the conference making the move (Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC) needs to want to push.
The most likely scenario is FSU/Ga Tech to the Big Ten in the mid/early 2020s, but how likely is that in reality? I’d put odds on that at around 30% and odds on OU/Kansas to the Big Ten at around 10%. Odds of Texas leaving the Big 12 are probably reliant on the OU situation more than anything; Texas doesn’t need to leave the Big 12 to maintain its leading revenue position nationally…
LikeLike
I don’t see any way of assessing the probability of further realignment in the mid-2020s. You could ask 20 experts and get 40 opinions, none clearly more accurate than the last.
I do know that a number of P5 athletic directors and presidents have said that they don’t think realignment is done. They are probably more knowledgeable than we are. UT’s vote against B12 expansion was pretty obviously looking forward to the possibility of a better deal down the road.
In the modern era(*), as far as I can see, the longest stable period without a membership change in the power conferences, was 11 years, from 1979 when GT joined the ACC, to 1990 when Penn State joined the B10.
The main reason why I say expansion is unlikely is the next expansion round isn’t obvious (i.e. Nebraska to the Big Ten or Texas A&M to the SEC).
The next round is fairly obvious: the B12 and ACC fall significantly behind in revenue, and the schools with better options start looking around. The SEC and B10, eager to expand their position in the growing arms race, will be happy to listen. The P12 could start falling behind as well, and although they’re at no risk of being poached, some of the B12 schools they said no to might look more attractive in 10 years.
Any given move might have a <50% probability. But the question is the probability that something will happen, and I suspect that is >50%. And then, remember that conference moves are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one.
By the way, very few people thought that A&M to the SEC was “obvious”. There are so many people interested in realignment, that every conceivable move has surely been “predicted” many times over by someone or other. But I think there were far more who believed that Texas politicians would never allow UT and A&M to split.
(*) I am defining the “modern era” as the period since the mid-1980s, when conferences and schools took control of the TV rights for football away from the NCAA, and won the right to negotiate separately for themselves.
LikeLike
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/florida-gators/os-big-12-meetings-mike-bianchi-0605-20160605-column.html
Writer for the Orlando Sentinel says the SEC should just stop beating around the bush and accept and go ahead and invite Florida State, Clemson, Oklahoma and Texas to the league.
LikeLike
It makes no sense for conferences to expand beyond 16 members–not sure how being in a collective where you only play other members every 8 years is even worth considering a conference, so any number bigger than 16 borders on ridiculous. That said, I still think it makes more sense for there to be a merger of sorts of the strongest of the Big 12 and ACC that preserves rivalries and political cover, and would create an undeniably attractive marketing platform…
New American Conference West:
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
OSU
Kansas
Kansas St
Clemson
Georgia Tech
New American Conference East:
Notre Dame
Duke
UNC
NC State
Virginia
Virginia Tech
FSU
Miami
LikeLike
It makes no sense for conferences to expand beyond 16 members–not sure how being in a collective where you only play other members every 8 years is even worth considering a conference, so any number bigger than 16 borders on ridiculous.
Even with 16, teams in opposite divisions would seldom play each other. The frequency can be dramatically improved if you have rotating pods, or some other system to shake up the divisions periodically. Beyond that, divisions are not necessary at all, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that requirement abolished, once the power conferences find it no longer politically useful to have them.
I still think it makes more sense for there to be a merger of sorts of the strongest of the Big 12 and ACC that preserves rivalries and political cover, and would create an undeniably attractive marketing platform.
I am not sure what they get out of that. Basically, it looks like Clemson and Georgia Tech are getting kicked out of the ACC. This is what you call “preserving rivalries”? And why would Notre Dame want to join a conference configured like that?
LikeLike
Notre Dame makes out relatively alright in that scenario – they keep some of their East Coast exposure via the VA-NC-FL markets but yes, that would probably leave some years where they might have a KSU/T-Tech/OkSU slate from the other division (thinking they’d do a 7-2-3 setup).
LikeLike
But the question is, why would ND want to be merely “relatively alright”? There’s gotta be either a carrot or a stick that makes them accept this.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“Notre Dame makes out relatively alright in that scenario – they keep some of their East Coast exposure via the VA-NC-FL markets but yes, that would probably leave some years where they might have a KSU/T-Tech/OkSU slate from the other division (thinking they’d do a 7-2-3 setup).”
But ND would have to move from 5 conference games to 9 (dropping rivalries like USC and Stanford) and give up their NBC deal and football independence for this. ND doesn’t make out well enough in this scenario to justify it.
LikeLike
Would the SEC be better off if Clemson and FSU were permanently relegated to second class rather than given membership? Is that even possible? What if both demanded a deal with the ACC similar to ND’s, UT and OU did same with BIG 12, and all decide to add BYU and form a football conference with NCAA min 6 where each school can strike their own media deals?
LikeLike
If you want to try to “merge” the Big XII and the ACC, the nicest looking result on paper is to move Texas, Texas Tech (or TCU), Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St. and West Virginia to the ACC and set up in pods of 5. The “West” – Texas, Tech/TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa St.; the “Big East 2.0” – Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Boston College; the “Tidewater” – Virginia , Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St., and Duke; and the “South” – Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, and Miami. Or you can switch some of the teams in order to to preserve rivalries that I’m not aware of. Then you have the revolving pods form new divisions each year, etc. The other advantage of this is that Notre Dame still gets to keep its 5 games per year with the ACC without being forced to join – it will rotate through each pod in a four-year stretch.And, of course, ESPN will fall all over itself to give this a conference its own huge TV network, even with Texas keeping the LHN. Everyone will live happily ever after.
If you’re really thinking out of the box, you first have the Big XII expel Baylor, then switch out Kansas for Oklahoma St., and then have Kansas go to the BIG (which will take Connecticut as no. 16). Now, you’ve placed 7 teams out of 9 from the Big XII – enough to dissolve it.
Not that I believe that any of this is going to happen – but Fantasy Conference Realignment is just so much fun!.
LikeLike
If ND gets to stay out and continue as a football independent, couldnt BYU be pegged in for one of the remaining 3 pods for a similar arrangement? If not for the fact that Texas would have a “bye/crap game” season every 4th year playing the Big East 2.0, I think they would be tempted to do the ND arrangement instead, to retain LHN benefits and also to elevate another Texas public (Tech-if not chosen, or UH) into the conference.
LikeLike
If ND gets to stay out and continue as a football independent….
I see zero inclination by the decision-makers to change the rules such that ND could no longer be independent. University presidents and conference commissioners have nothing like the animosity toward ND’s independence that casual fans do.
A few coaches have belly-ached about the fact that ND could reach the playoff without winning a conference. But it’s only a few of them, and anyhow, those coaches have no say in the matter.
I think they would be tempted to do the ND arrangement instead, to retain LHN benefits and also to elevate another Texas public (Tech-if not chosen, or UH) into the conference.
Texas would have to be damned sure that the LHN is a long-term winning proposition, which is far from clear.
LikeLike
In my opinion I don’t think ND joins a conference anytime soon but one of the triggers that the powers to be at ND have indicated could lead to them joining a conference is a change in their NBC deal. If NBC tells ND they want to pursue more or other content you could see some movement.
The financial differences don’t seem to be a mover. I think it really comes down to NCG access and their deal with NBC.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“If you want to try to “merge” the Big XII and the ACC, the nicest looking result on paper is to move Texas, Texas Tech (or TCU), Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St. and West Virginia to the ACC and set up in pods of 5. The “West” – Texas, Tech/TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa St.; the “Big East 2.0” – Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Boston College; the “Tidewater” – Virginia , Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St., and Duke; and the “South” – Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, and Miami.”
Why on earth would you drop 4 B12 schools and keep all 14 from the ACC? You keep 4 schools in NC but cut TX to 2?
Drop WF and NCSU as redundant. Consider dropping 1 from VA. Maybe give up on BC, Pitt and ISU. Are UL and SU worth it?
That would have you down to 12 or 14 and would pay a lot more per school.
“And, of course, ESPN will fall all over itself to give this a conference its own huge TV network, even with Texas keeping the LHN.”
Will it? Maybe.
“If you’re really thinking out of the box, you first have the Big XII expel Baylor,”
Won’t happen.
“then switch out Kansas for Oklahoma St.,”
Why would you want 2 schools from OK?
“and then have Kansas go to the BIG (which will take Connecticut as no. 16).”
The B10 isn’t taking KU and UConn to get to 16. They don’t improve football, UConn isn’t AAU, and neither is in a large and growing state that would help demographically. KU would need OU or UT as a partner to get in or else an ACC school like UVA or UNC. UConn is a no go.
LikeLike
Brian
I never said that any of this was remotely realistic. If you start with the premise that the Big XII is imploding (“Oklahoma wants out”, “Texas cares only about Texas”, etc.), this scenario ties up everything nice and neat, without having to remove teams from the ACC (like keeping the Big 8 intact when the SWC folded). But it’s just a FANTASY, as is 99.9% of the scenarios regarding conference realignment. I guess that my sarcasm over the whole issue didn’t come across well, so to that I apologize.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“I never said that any of this was remotely realistic.”
No, but you did say it was the “nicest looking result on paper.” That’s the part I took issue with. I’m fine with fantasy realignment scenarios.
“If you start with the premise that the Big XII is imploding …, this scenario ties up everything nice and neat, without having to remove teams from the ACC …”
I get that, but that doesn’t translate as nicest looking on paper to me.
“(like keeping the Big 8 intact when the SWC folded).”
Which lasted less than 15 years before implosion started in part because they kept Big 8 schools that didn’t bring enough to the table. Your scenario repeats that mistake.
“I guess that my sarcasm over the whole issue didn’t come across well, so to that I apologize.”
Considering how many similar plans we’ve seen seriously proposed over the past few years by various people here and on other websites, no it was not obviously sarcasm.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Which lasted less than 15 years before implosion started in part because they kept Big 8 schools that didn’t bring enough to the table.”
None of the four that left did so because of ISU, KSU, OkST, etc.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“None of the four that left did so because of ISU, KSU, OkST, etc.”
The perceived instability of the B12 as well as it’s lack of desirability as a home led to several departures.
It’s my contention that part of the underlying instability of the B12 is due to the bottom feeders. They reduce the payouts for everyone else (and some also hurt the academics) and led to feelings of superiority by some schools. It set up an environment that was not conducive to long term success.
Old conferences can have some bottom feeders because there are strong ties keeping the schools together. The B12 was a business deal that let sentimentality get in the way and they paid for it.
LikeLike
“It’s my contention that part of the underlying instability of the B12 is due to the bottom feeders. They reduce the payouts for everyone else ”
They were still most uneven distribution conference during the exodus, and now are the power conf that doesn’t work together marketing T3. I suggest the “bottom feeders” we’re the stabilizers. They didn’t leave, and for those that did money wasn’t primary.
“Old conferences can have some bottom feeders because there are strong ties keeping the schools together.”
All conferences larger than one will have someone above suggesting that below are “bottom feeders.”
“The B12 was a business deal that let sentimentality get in the way and they paid for it.”
The B8 took too much SWC. Shouldn’t have dissolved and re-formed, but just expanded the B8. UT and one friend (which might have been one too many) had a better chance, because the problem wasn’t sentimentality – it was not recognizing the shift in power.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“They were still most uneven distribution conference during the exodus,”
Because of so many bottom feeders.
“and now are the power conf that doesn’t work together marketing T3.”
Again, because of the bottom feeders.
“I suggest the “bottom feeders” we’re the stabilizers.”
In the sense that they provide enough votes for certain things to happen, maybe.
“They didn’t leave, and for those that did money wasn’t primary.”
They’d never leave because they know they could only move down. Money was important to all the schools that left even if it wasn’t primary. I don’t recall any of them moving to lose money.
“All conferences larger than one will have someone above suggesting that below are “bottom feeders.””
Not really. You can have a group of peers that all bring something to the table with a few superstars mixed in. You can always label someone the bottom feeder, but the real question is how big is the gap to the other schools in terms of value to the conference.
“The B8 took too much SWC.”
Probably, but they had to because they needed TX access. Baylor was a bad choice except that the TX governor was an alumna and forced it. TT doesn’t bring much but another school in TX. UT and TAMU were obvious choices. And if the Big 8 was expanding instead of merging, maybe they could’ve stopped at 10. But once they were merging, the politics again bit them. OkSU and KSU had to come along as well as ISU. That was too many mouths to feed without enough revenue sources.
“Shouldn’t have dissolved and re-formed, but just expanded the B8. UT and one friend (which might have been one too many) had a better chance, because the problem wasn’t sentimentality – it was not recognizing the shift in power.”
UT got power because they made so much for everyone else and they weren’t tied to the old Big 8 bottom feeders. Those schools knew they had to keep UT happy or things would go off the rails. It’s not like there were a bunch of 8-4 votes in the B12. UT won votes because UT was focused on maximizing revenue for the big boys and the little guys couldn’t afford to lose them. TAMU and NE and OU were voting the same way on most issues.
The fundamental problem was probably a lack of population in the plains. That led to some schools being bottom feeders as well as the lack of revenue available for the Big 8 and Big 12.
LikeLike
ccrider55
What created the B12 was Texas politics, specifically supporters of Tech and Baylor that did not want to be left in the wind. The B8 knew it would be turned down if it just invited TX and A&M. Both the PAC and SEC were willing to make those invites. A&M favored the SEC and Texas the PAC, so the split could have occurred in 1996 if the B8 had not been willing to take Baylor and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I agree that perhaps UT might have gone PAC, aTm to sec, but they (UT) haven’t yet. And they’re in a lesser conference than the B8 plus two, and seem to be happyish. B8 wasn’t dissolving. SWC was. UT wanted in a conference and got to run it once there. Still don’t understand 8 schools not in Texas being dictated to by Texas politics.
Brian:
“OkSU and KSU had to come along as well as ISU.”
Because it was the B8 absorbing the four, and renamed themselves and started new history. ISU, KSU, etc’s votes were needed. They weren’t going to vote themselves off the island.
LikeLike
Tyson,
“It makes no sense for conferences to expand beyond 16 members–not sure how being in a collective where you only play other members every 8 years is even worth considering a conference, so any number bigger than 16 borders on ridiculous.”
I disagree. It’s not the number so much as the scheduling model.
14 teams, 2 divisions, 8 games (current SEC plan):
8 = 6 in division + 1 locked rival + 1 rotating = 7 * 100% + 6 * 17%
18 teams, no divisions, 9 games:
9 = 3 locked + 6 rotating = 3 * 100% + 14 * 43%
You can see most teams every 2 years in an 18 team conference if you just are smart about it.
“That said, I still think it makes more sense for there to be a merger of sorts of the strongest of the Big 12 and ACC that preserves rivalries and political cover, and would create an undeniably attractive marketing platform…”
How does this merger take place? 4 B12 schools and 5 ACC schools lose their places in this. That means these 16 schools would have to leave their home conferences and form a new one. It leaves me with a lot of questions:
If they’re all leaving their home conferences, why wouldn’t any of them choose a 16-team B10 or SEC that would pay more? Would they really want to add the problems that come with the LHN? Why drop 2 of the 4 TX schools but keep 3 of 4 from NC? Why keep 2 schools from 1 state in so many states when they need conference network money to keep up with the B10 and SEC? Why is ND suddenly willing to join a conference at all? Why would GT and Clemson agree to being kicked out of the ACC and moved into the B12? Why would FSU agree to having 2 of their closest rivals moved out west?
LikeLike
It’s interesting to follow FTT’s twitter feed, as he gives a mini law school seminar on what “consideration” means in the context of a grant of rights.
LikeLike
Brings back the old saying about being able to bring a horse to water, but…
LikeLike
Frank the Tank @frankthetank111 said,
“GOR agreement has a clause that all prior statements are superseded and replaced. All oral statements are thrown out.”
The question has always been what did FSU get? Maybe the question is, what was FSU promised? Before the GOR was signed Swofford and his TV guy met with FSU President Eric Barron, the BOT and the Boosters. Afterwards everyone said they liked what they heard. So as Frank points out oral statements are useless. However if FSU was told that there will be a TV Network and these are the projected revenues. If that doesn’t come to pass, you can darn well be sure that when the GOR expires FSU is gone, history, the achieves. The feeling will be they were either misled or lied to and will want nothing more to do with the ACC.
LikeLike
It’s pretty common for salespeople to make additional “promises” that don’t wind up within the four corners of the contract. Those promises aren’t necessarily lies, either. A statement like, “We believe there’s great potential for an ACC network,” could be literally true, but does not guarantee anything.
If that doesn’t come to pass, you can darn well be sure that when the GOR expires FSU is gone, history, the achieves. The feeling will be they were either misled or lied to and will want nothing more to do with the ACC.
You presume an offer to join a better conference. FSU had no such offer the last time around, and they might not have it next time either.
LikeLike
Marc,
“It’s pretty common for salespeople to make additional “promises” that don’t wind up within the four corners of the contract. Those promises aren’t necessarily lies, either. A statement like, “We believe there’s great potential for an ACC network,” could be literally true, but does not guarantee anything.”
That’s right, just don’t come knocking on my door for the next contract, because I’ll kick your sorry ass out. You don’t have the juice, you can’t deliver. In the last couple of years of GOR, I’m putting out feelers to other conferences.
“You presume an offer to join a better conference. FSU had no such offer the last time around, and they might not have it next time either.”
That was then. The Big XII was considering UConn. UConn? You don’t seriously think they wouldn’t take a run at FSU if they made it known they were available.
LikeLike
That’s right, just don’t come knocking on my door for the next contract, because I’ll kick your sorry ass out. You don’t have the juice, you can’t deliver. In the last couple of years of GOR, I’m putting out feelers to other conferences.
That is only relevant if you have a better place to go. As of now, the Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network, either. David Boren’s comments are telling: the marketplace has changed. It is no longer as favorable towards creating new cable networks. Getting angry doesn’t change that.
The Big XII was considering UConn. UConn? You don’t seriously think they wouldn’t take a run at FSU if they made it known they were available.
During the last re-alignment craze, when some fans were agitating for the Big 12, FSU president Eric Barron issued an unusually blunt assessment of all the drawbacks of the Big 12, most of which remain true today.
UConn, like any Gang-of-Five school, would of course jump at a Big 12 invite. The same arguments don’t work when you are already in a P5 league, especially when the Big 12 itself isn’t exactly on the strongest footing. UConn would still be better off in the Big 12, even if Texas, Oklahama, and/or Kansas eventually leave. Not so for FSU.
Yes, I agree that FSU will put out feelers in the late 2020s: to the Big 10 and SEC, which weren’t interested last time.
LikeLike
Marc,
“That is only relevant if you have a better place to go. As of now, the Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network, either. David Boren’s comments are telling: the marketplace has changed. It is no longer as favorable towards creating new cable networks. Getting angry doesn’t change that.”
Excellent point! When the next round of TV negotiations begin, if neither the Big XII or ACC has a network, wouldn’t a conference of TX, OK and FSU be in a stronger bargaining position?
“During the last re-alignment craze, when some fans were agitating for the Big 12, FSU president Eric Barron issued an unusually blunt assessment of all the drawbacks of the Big 12, most of which remain true today.”
Correct. However if the $$Booster$$ want a change made does he have the power to thwart them? I don’t know?
I heard a rumor that FSU made a presentation to the BIG that they have a plan to be AAU within 7 years. Thoughts?
LikeLike
When the next round of TV negotiations begin, if neither the Big XII or ACC has a network, wouldn’t a conference of TX, OK and FSU be in a stronger bargaining position?
Stronger than what? Stronger than either the Big XII or ACC separately? Could be. Stronger than the Big Ten or SEC? Probably not.
“During the last re-alignment craze, when some fans were agitating for the Big 12, FSU president Eric Barron issued an unusually blunt assessment of all the drawbacks of the Big 12, most of which remain true today.”
Correct. However if the $$Booster$$ want a change made does he have the power to thwart them? I don’t know?
A big part of Barron’s open letter was to demonstrate that the purported benefits of Big 12 membership are simply not true. Can boosters who are thinking emotionally, not rationally, force the school to do something that does not improve its standing, and in many ways undermines it?
I heard a rumor that FSU made a presentation to the BIG that they have a plan to be AAU within 7 years. Thoughts?
I think I heard that too. I have no idea how realistic it is. The AAU adds new members only rarely. There are others trying to make the same leap, and they won’t all get there. Obviously, getting into the AAU would improve their Big Ten chances considerably.
LikeLike
Doug,
“I heard a rumor that FSU made a presentation to the BIG that they have a plan to be AAU within 7 years. Thoughts?”
Lots of schools have plans to join the AAU (OU, VT and UConn are others who have mentioned it). But the AAU isn’t looking to grow, so new members have to basically replace current members. That means they have to be so high on the list that the AAU can’t keep them out any longer, essentially.
A pdf came out when NE was getting kicked out of the AAU that showed where various schools ranked based on multiple criteria of importance to the AAU based on data from 2005-2007. The most recent AAU new members are GT (2010) and Boston U (2012). GT was #31 on the list and BU was #37. The top 2 on the list aren’t eligible for membership so GT was tied for the highest on the list that wasn’t already in the AAU (tied with Yeshiva University). Next come 2 more AAU members and that represents the 50th percentile of AAU membership. Just below that level were 2 more AAU members and then Boston U and Dartmouth were tied. So new members need to make the top 40 on that list.
In total 11 schools are above the 25th percentile of AAU members (top 58 schools) without being members, with 2 of those 11 ineligible for membership. Below #58 there are a lot more non-AAU members mixed into the list. The lowest AAU members were #87, #94, #105 and #109 NE. The guess is that #105 was Syracuse who voluntarily left rather than get voted out. That means #94 is the lowest AAU member and likely at risk of getting the boot if they don’t improve.
So where do these other schools fall on the list? #91 OU, #91 VT, #94 FSU (also #91 is NCSU)
That means these schools would have to pass 50 other top universities to make the top 40, many of which are also actively seeking AAU membership. Even the current members are always trying to improve, so climbing this list is difficult. Climbing it quickly is almost impossible. Making a 50+ place improvement in just 7 years is impossible.
LikeLike
Brian,
Lots of schools have plans to join the AAU……………….. Climbing it quickly is almost impossible. Making a 50+ place improvement in just 7 years is impossible.
Great stuff! The next question is, in light of this information would the BIG take any of this into account in the next wave of expansion?
LikeLike
The next question is, in light of this information would the BIG take any of this into account in the next wave of expansion?
I’m sure they take it into account. Do they view it favorably? I don’t know about that.
Clearly, for an extraordinary athletics program, they are willing to make an exception to the usual rule that every B1G school is in the AAU. Notre Dame was invited in the past; and Nebraska was invited, knowing that its membership was at risk. Academically, Oklahoma and FSU do not “lower the floor” of the B1G, but they do lower the average.
B1G leaders have also said that contiguity matters to them. Oklahoma is contiguous if they add just one other school (Kansas). To reach FSU, they have to add Virginia, North Carolina, and GT.
LikeLike
Doug,
Lots of schools have plans to join the AAU……………….. Climbing it quickly is almost impossible. Making a 50+ place improvement in just 7 years is impossible.
And just for completeness, let me add that UConn was #81 on the list since I forgot to add them last time.
“Great stuff! The next question is, in light of this information would the BIG take any of this into account in the next wave of expansion?”
The B10 very much takes academics into account when considering expansion. They know where all the various candidates rank and what directions they are trending, plus they have up to date information for the rankings. Being headed in the right direction is helpful, but you have to be ranked high enough for them to even care what your trend is. These are also not the only academic criteria the B10 may consider, they’re just convenient since we know the AAU cares about them to some extent.
LikeLike
Rutgers reports 32 rapes last year, or .7 per 1000 students. The 32 rapes tied UNC for 7th most, though .7 per 1000 students was not that high. UConn and Brown each reported 43 rapes
The highest reporting rate per capita in the country was Reed College in Oregon with 12.9 per 1000 students. Reed only has 1,400 students.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/06/rutgers_in_top_10_us_colleges_for_reported_rapes_r.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
LikeLike
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/06/07/these-colleges-have-the-most-reports-of-rape/
And that nj.com article was based on an article in the Washington Post.
It is also important to note that the totals in the federal data reflect only reports of rape, not the number of rape cases prosecuted through criminal courts or adjudicated through internal student disciplinary proceedings. Experts say that rape and other forms of sexual assault are generally under-reported.
The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation published in June 2015 a national poll that found one in five women who attended a residential college during a four-year span said they had been sexually assaulted.
Those findings have been reinforced by surveys at several prominent research universities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/survey-more-than-1-in-5-female-undergrads-at-top-schools-suffer-sexual-attacks/2015/09/19/c6c80be2-5e29-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
That last line included a link to the WaPo’s article on that AAU study I mentioned above which found that on average, 23% of female undergrads reported on a survey that they’d been sexually assaulted in college. The good news is that not all sexual assault (as defined in that study) is rape.
The AAU survey provides a wealth of insights about the prevalence of specific types of assault at a cross-section of public and private research universities. Among them was the stark finding that 11 percent of female undergraduates said they had experienced incidents of penetration or attempted penetration, half of them saying it happened by force. These incidents would fit the definition of rape or sodomy.
Others said they were victims of unwanted touching or kissing that could be defined as sexual battery.
…
Of students who said they were victims of physically forced penetration, or attempted penetration, about 25 percent said they told university authorities or law enforcement. Of those who said they were victims of physically forced sexual touching or kissing, 7 percent reported the incident
So “only” 11% were raped or faced an attempted rape, half by force and half by incapacitation. Of those who faced forcible rape (or attempted rape), only a quarter reported it. So that’s about 2.8% of all female undergrads that actually reported forcible rape or attempted rape.
2.8% of female undergrads = 28 out of 1000 female undergrads = 14 out of 1000 undergrads
But your article was looking at a different thing, reported rapes per the FBI definition.
Reported rapes at colleges must be reported to the federal government using the same definition the FBI uses for its Uniform Crime Report: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim,” according to the Washington Post report.
It doesn’t include attempted rapes, which would reduce the number above. It also matters where the attack happens. Schools don’t have to report off-campus attacks (many students live off-campus) but the AAU study didn’t try to differentiate by location. Also, the AAU study only surveyed undergrads while the federal stats consider all students and other studies have shown grad students have fewer issues than undergrads.
Reed College, a liberal arts college in Oregon, had the highest number of reported rapes per capita with 12.9 reported per 1,000 students.
Suddenly these numbers aren’t so far apart.
LikeLike
Reed???? EEwwwww. Lena Dunham would be a 9 on that campus.
LikeLike
Yes, it makes sense. Well here is a researcher at NC State who just did a study and concluded that more than half of college athletes (including those not on varsity teams) have committed rape, as well as nearly 40% of all other male college students.
“We found that 54.3 percent of the intercollegiate and recreational athletes and 37.9 percent of non-athletes had engaged in sexually coercive behaviors – almost all of which met the legal definition of rape,” Desmarais says.
“As high as these numbers are, they may actually under-represent the rates of sexual coercion, since the study relied on self-reported behavior,” Desmarais says
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/ncsu-sat060216.php
LikeLike
For 2014, there were a total of 84 rapes reported at all four year colleges in NJ. There are more than 165,000 undergraduate students attending four year public colleges in NJ and another 50,000 graduate students. These numbers do not include students at private colleges, such as Princeton, etc. There must be close to a total of 200,000 undergrads in NJ. 84 reported rapes.
Take from that whatever your want.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/06/these_nj_colleges_reported_the_most_rapes.html#incart_river_home_pop
LikeLike
I take from that that very few women are willing to report rape because they know it’s notoriously difficult to prove in court and they don’t want to be dragged through the mud and have to repeatedly relive the worst experience of their lives just to see the guy smile as he walks out of the courtroom totally free.
LikeLike
Brian you may be absolutely correct.
I only point out the math. 200,000 undergrads in NJ (and many thousands of grad students). 20% of 100,000 is 20,000 women who will be sexually assaulted while undergrads in college – or so the “study” says. (Assuming 50% women, which is pretty close).
This year 84 reported rapes in NJ colleges (which we all agree is 84 too many). 100,000 women (ignoring grad students), 84 reported rapes.
Another “study” was reported last week and that study seems to conclude that about 40% of their sample of male college students admit to having committed behavior which is defined as rape by the researcher.
I am just too damn old. When I went to college in the late 60’s, we did not commit rape. Now more than half of the men who participate in athletics admit to having committed rape. It is truly a brave new world.
I do not know what this all means. I just point out the numbers and let the reader reach his or her own conclusions. I must not have the educational (or real world) background to understand these numbers – which is fine with me.
(By the way, from what I have read, if the woman is asked whether a man ever touched her hand without permission, and the answer is yes, she has been sexually assaulted. It does not matter if the woman thought that it was not a big deal. She did not realize it but she was subjected to borderline rape when that guy touched her hand. Again I have no opinion of whether this is reasonable or not, it just is).
(Please do not tell me that an unwanted touching is a battery. I know that.)
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I only point out the math. 200,000 undergrads in NJ (and many thousands of grad students). 20% of 100,000 is 20,000 women who will be sexually assaulted while undergrads in college – or so the “study” says. (Assuming 50% women, which is pretty close).”
Yes, it’s a huge number. Our society has a sexual assault problem. It’s worse at college age because they drink like fish and don’t have the impulse control of a mature adult.
“This year 84 reported rapes in NJ colleges (which we all agree is 84 too many). 100,000 women (ignoring grad students), 84 reported rapes.”
And rape is the most serious and least common form of sexual assault. And we know it is vastly under-reported. So if only 25% report it, you’re looking at 336 rapes.
Supposedly half of the rapes are by force and the other half by incapacitation. If only a quarter report forcible rape, my guess is that even fewer report incapacitation rape (too drunk to consent, roofied, etc) because that is even harder to be sure it was rape. So what if those cases are reported half as often? We’re at 504 rapes, which I’ll round to 500 for easier math.
And what if only 25% of attacks occur on campus since so many students live off campus? Now we’re at 2000 rapes. Over 4 years that becomes 8000 rapes.
And these are only actual rapes. There are also attempted rapes. Let’s be conservative and say that brings the number up to only 10,000 over 4 years.
Well, the survey found rape to be about half of all the sexual assaults. That gets us to 20,000 sexual assaults over 4 years on those 100,000 women.
Obviously I’m not claiming any of these numbers are exactly correct, but people forget the power of multiplication sometimes. My point is that the seemingly low number of reported rapes you mentioned actually fits in quite well with the studies that say over 20% of female undergrads get sexually assaulted.
“I am just too damn old. When I went to college in the late 60’s, we did not commit rape.”
I’d guess there are several factors here:
1. The drinking age was 18 so college parties weren’t quite the same drunken orgies they’ve become now, especially at certain frats.
2. People really did act a little more civilized and mature at parties back then.
3. A lot fewer women reported rape back in the day. As women’s rights get stronger and there is less stigma attached to being a victim of rape, more women are willing to admit what has been done to them. The statistics for rape inside a relationship (husband/wife, etc) are scary but it just wasn’t something people talked about back in the day, much like drunk driving didn’t used to be considered a problem unless someone died.
“Now more than half of the men who participate in athletics admit to having committed rape. It is truly a brave new world.”
There is an entitlement culture out there, especially for athletes.
“(By the way, from what I have read, if the woman is asked whether a man ever touched her hand without permission, and the answer is yes, she has been sexually assaulted. It does not matter if the woman thought that it was not a big deal. She did not realize it but she was subjected to borderline rape when that guy touched her hand. Again I have no opinion of whether this is reasonable or not, it just is).”
Much more likely is the unwanted butt grabbing and breast groping that happens at dance clubs and parties. Heck, many waitresses have to deal with it at bars.
LikeLike
The baseball Super Regionals are set.
Loki – your Owls fought valiantly in Baton Rouge, but the Rally Possum was just too much to overcome.
Seven of the eight national seeds made it out of the regional round. #7 Clemson was knocked out.
The sixteen super regional participants by conference.
SEC (5): #1 Florida, #4 Texas A&M, #6 Miss State, #8 LSU & South Carolina.
ACC (4): #2 Louisville, #3 Miami, Florida State & BC.
B-XII (3): #5 Texas Tech, TCU & OK State.
P-12, AAC, Big West, Big South (1 each): Arizona, East Carolina, UC Santa Barbara & Coastal Carolina.
The super regional format is a best-of-3 series.
Bracket #1:
Gainesville – #1 Florida v. (1) Florida State
Baton Rouge – #8 LSU v. (2) Coastal Carolina
Lubbock – #5 Texas Tech v. (3) East Carolina
College Station – #4 Texas A&M v. (1) TCU
Bracket #2:
Louisville – #2 Louisville v. UC Santa Barbara
Columbia – (1) South Carolina v. (2) OK State
Starkville – #6 Miss State v. (2) Arizona
Coral Gables – #3 Miami v. (3) BC
LikeLike
The weather played havoc with several of the regional sites. Hopefully it’s better going forward.
10 #1 seeds won their regionals with 4 #2 seeds and 2 #3 seeds (BC and ECU). That’s probably about typical. It makes for some odd super regional pairings, though. I wish they shuffled things to make it more geographic while still respecting the national seeds.
I would’ve preferred this:
Bracket #1:
Gainesville – #1 Florida v. (1) Florida State
Columbia – (1) South Carolina v. (2) Coastal Carolina
Lubbock – #5 Texas Tech v. (1) TCU
College Station – #4 Texas A&M v. (2) OK State
Bracket #2:
Louisville – #2 Louisville v. (3) East Carolina
Baton Rouge – #8 LSU v. (1) UC Santa Barbara
Starkville – #6 Miss State v. (2) Arizona
Coral Gables – #3 Miami v. (3) BC
That splits the seeds better between the 2 brackets and reduces travel as much as you can while respecting the seeds.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16032840/sun-belt-add-football-championship-game-2018
The Sun Belt will become the last I-A conference to add a CCG in 2018. We will have gone from 0 in 1991 to all 10 in 2018 (27 years).
LikeLike
Conference USA has a new TV deal for football, and it’s a grim story. The payout per school has plummeted from $1.1 million to $200,000.
LikeLike
That’s still a fairly small change to their total budget, thankfully.
But the details are important here.
Fox Sports and the CBS Sports Network have been paying C-USA $9,950,000 for TV rights, according to the documents. The conference was supplementing that with $6,150,000 from exit payments made by seven schools, including Memphis and East Carolina, that left the league in recent years.
The exit payments were made in part to compensate C-USA for reduced payments from the networks that occurred after the league lost several attractive schools, such as Memphis’ basketball program. But the payments are exhausted, and C-USA’s current TV contracts expire at the end of June.
So really, their TV money was $9.95M total or $711k per school. The other $400k was exit money.
In all, documents indicate that C-USA schools will split about $20.5 million in revenue from the league, including NCAA basketball tournament money. That’s down from the projected $34.4 million to be distributed this year.
Although the money is distributed based on formulas, and not all schools receive the same amount, that works out to about $1.5 million per school. That’s down almost $1 million from the current year.
Football revenue appears relatively stable. Thanks to $16.1 million in projected revenue from the College Football Playoff, C-USA will make $2.9 million available to help schools pay the full cost-of-attendance stipends and distribute $14,257,000 – a little more than $1 million per school – in bowl and CFP revenues.
Conference USA now appears fourth in the so called Group of 5 mid-major leagues when it comes to TV money. The American Athletic ($2 million per school), the Mountain West ($1.7 million) and Mid-American ($800,000) are all estimated to be well ahead of C-USA, which had the misfortune of being the first league to renegotiate its TV contracts during the current decline in cable sports revenue.
The Sun Belt is last at about $100,000.
CUSA is losing NCAA tourney credits as some of their better MBB teams left and while CUSA retains the credits they earned, they only count for 6 years. Memphis last made the Sweet 16 in 2009, for example.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-big-12-has-a-unique-opportunity-with-its-new-championship-game/
Maybe the B12 won’t split into divisions.
“We could end up playing just like we’re playing now and select our two highest-ranked teams. It’s possible,” Bowlsby said. “It’s a regular-season rematch. You run the risk of [the teams] being closely clustered late in the season.”
LikeLike
I hope they don’t split. I wish the B1G would dispense with divisions; protect 3-5 opponents per school while playing everyone else 50-60% of the time.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/06/07/how-big-12-should-align-football-divisions/85555974/
Another writer’s take on how the B12 should split into divisions.
So here’s the idea: Beginning with the parameters set above – Texas and Oklahoma apart, end-of-season rivals together – the Big 12 should align its divisions along competitive lines, or to its best guess as to a competitive balance in the near and long-term future.
Division A: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas and West Virginia.
Division B: Baylor, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.
Rank based on past 10 years W%:
5. OU, 6. TCU, 15. OkSU, 21. UT, 24. WV, 35. TT, 40. KSU, 43. Baylor, 108. KU, 109. ISU
Snaking:
A – OU, UT, WV, Baylor, KU (5, 21, 24, 43, 108 = 201, 40.2 ave)
B – TCU, OkSU, TT, KSU, ISU (6, 15, 35, 40, 109 = 205, 41.0 ave)
Swapping to preserve late rivalries and separate OU and UT while keeping balance:
A – OU, OkSU, WV, Baylor, ISU (5, 15, 35, 43, 109 = 207, 41.4 ave)
B – TCU, UT, TT, KSU, KU (6, 21, 24, 40, 108 = 199, 39.8 ave)
That’s the same as his.
But what if we take more history into account?
Rank based on past 25 years W%:
6. OU, 11. UT, 20. TCU, 21. KSU, 29. WV, 31. TT, 48. OkSU, 83. Baylor, 91. KU, 103. ISU
Rank based on all-time W%:
4. OU, 6. UT, 25. WV, 47. TT, 58. TCU, 67. Baylor, 71. OkSU, 88. KU, 94. ISU, 96. KSU
Average of the three:
5. OU, 13. UT, 26. WV, 28. TCU, 38. TT, 45. OkSU, 52. KSU, 64. Baylor, 96. KU, 102. ISU
Snaking:
A – OU, TCU, TT, Baylor, KU (5, 28, 38, 64, 96 = 231, 46.2 ave)
B – UT, WV, OkSU, KSU, ISU (13, 26, 45, 52, 102 = 238, 47.6 ave)
Swapping to preserve late rivalries:
A – OU, TCU, OkSU, Baylor, ISU (5, 28, 45, 64, 102 = 244, 48.8 ave)
B – UT, WV, TT, KSU, KU (13, 26, 38, 52, 96 = 225, 45.0 ave)
That’s the same as his except for TCU and TT.
Personally I prefer my last version for the season-ending games:
OU/OkSU, TCU/Baylor, UT/TT, KU/KSU and ISU/WV
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2016/06/71279/ohio-state-announces-stadium-policy-changes-including-stadium-wide-beer-sales
OSU has adopted beer sales throughout Ohio Stadium starting this summer.
A variety of domestic and craft beers are set to be available for purchase by guests. Sixteen ounce Miller Lite and Coors Light cans will cost $8, while a variety of Ohio craft beers including brews from Land-Grant Brewing, Four String Brewery, and North High Brewing cost $9.
…
According to the press release, the revenue from the stadium-wide beer sales is will be used to fund a pair of new full-time positions in the Ohio State Police Department. The annual cost for those positions is about $300,000, and the new employees will be utilized year-round by campus police. They are not specifically just for game day security, Ohio State said.
The school is also set to dedicate $50,000 over the next two years to research being conducted by John Clapp, who oversees the Ohio State University Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Drug Misuse Prevention and Recovery. Clapp intends to study “how alcohol is consumed and its effects on event culture with the goal of enhancing prevention efforts.”
LikeLike
That’s unpossible! It’s illegal!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/16050118/baylor-freshman-wr-trendavian-dickson-requests-transfer
Baylor continues to leak players. An early enrollee from the 2016 class has left school and told Baylor he wants to transfer. Since he already joined the team he’ll have to sit out 2016 no matter where he goes. He’s been told he can’t go to another B12 school (a common restriction since he could give playbook knowledge to the coaches).
2 others have also left.
LikeLike
Here is what Mike Farrell of Rivals has to say about Baylor and a few other things
https://n.rivals.com/news/three-point-stance-baylor-harbaugh-vs-saban-pac-12
LikeLike
ESPN bloggers pick the best uniforms in each conference. Hint – I like the SEC pick.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/127385/college-football-roundtable-best-uniforms
LikeLike
How can anyone with sight claim Oregon has the best uniforms? Most of their combos are hideous. That’s like saying UMD has the best uniforms in the B10.
LikeLike
I have to give Oregon credit for making the rotating uniforms a part of their brand, in a way that many fans and recruits identify with. They found a way to do something very original, in a field not known for its originality. Some of the combos look hideous to me, but they seem to be working with the intended audience.
LikeLike
I agree with all of that, I just don’t see how that qualifies as “best uniforms.”
LikeLike
I agree with you. But it’s subjective. And I’ve come to realize that kids half my age (and younger) absolutely LOVE the Ducks uniforms and overall brand. Phil knows exactly what the most important apparel demographic eats up. And he saves the most special sauce for his school.
LikeLike
Everyone knows that people don’t fully develop their forebrains (where decision making occurs) until their mid-20s. This is why kids make bad decisions and have bad taste in uniforms.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/08/pac-12-scott-asia/
Jon Wilner talks with Larry Scott about the P12’s push to Asia.
Many of my questions (across various topics) were based on feedback from fans and campus officials.
But Asia … Asia confounds me, too.
…
*** Scott began the conversation about the Global Initiative in general, and Asia/Pacific Rim specifically, by explaining the ultimate mission:
“It’s about international brand building, engagement and relationship development,’’ he said. “Asia is globally significant to us.”
He went on:
“After I was hired, I spent time on every campus. On my first visit to USC, I had breakfast with (then-) president (Steve) Sample. He talked about USC as a global institution and had a vision for Los Angeles as the gateway to the Pacific Rim. I said, ‘Should we be doing more to support that vision?’”
Scott had similar conversations about brand-building in Asia with other presidents and chancellors, and from there sprouted the concept of the Global Initiatives project, which is hyper-focused on the Pacific Rim.
Clearly, China is important to the presidents – so important that Utah’s boss, David Pershing, accompanied the Pac-12 contingent to China last fall for the Washington-Texas basketball game.
…
But it got me thinking: With so much of Global Initiative designed to benefit the universities as a whole, shouldn’t the universities — the central campuses — carry the financial load?
As the infrastructure currently stands, the cost in resources and dollars is carried by athletic departments. The money spent by the conference in Asia is money they aren’t getting. The resources (i.e., people-power) sent by the conference to Asia, especially in November, are resources they aren’t getting.
I agree with the premise that athletics is the so-called front porch to the universities. But if China is that important, why wouldn’t the 12 central campuses pool their vast resources to fund a major push to accomplish all the goals?
Maybe every school kicks in $250,000 annually from the general fund. That would quadruple the conference’s current outlay.
…
In FY15, the Pac-12 spent $726,000 on Asia/Pacific Rim initiatives. That figure has undoubtedly risen in FY16 because of the resources required for Washington’s trip and the costs associated with promoting the Huskies’ basketball game against Texas. (And expected similar costs in FY17, with Stanford playing in China in November.)
But Scott said – and this was something I didn’t know – that the terms of the league’s partnership with Alibaba will defray most of the costs over and above the $726,000 figure.
Because of that, he added, the FY16 expenses would be approximately the same as in FY15.
(Note: The league has two full-time employees devoted to the Asia/Pacific Rim initiatives.)
*** I asked Scott if the cross-Pacific push is, as I’ve been told for years, largely rooted in the desire on the part of the presidents and chancellors to attract full-tuition international students.
He downplayed that angle – my guess is that he doesn’t want it to seem like a pure money play. And I don’t think it is, in fact, a pure money play.
Seems to me that Asia is some of everything … some (presidential) desire for full tuition students … some desire to brand-build and develop business/research partners … some desire to expose student-athletes to different cultures.
Whether you agree with the Asia push or not, the reality is the majority of presidents and chancellors are wholly on board.
…
“There’s a misconception that it costs a lot of money, that it’s s big distraction,” he said. “It’s really not.”
I noted the public perception — that the conference is making a big push overseas with open wounds on the domestic front.
Instead of promoting events and building relationships in China, shouldn’t he work to mend the divide with AT&T/DirecTV?
“In a role like this,’’ Scott said, “you’re capable of multi-tasking.
“Just because I’m doing one thing doesn’t mean I’m not working on something else. It’s not linear. I don’t do this, then that.”
LikeLike
Wilner throwing a hissy fit over 60k/school. Frames most things around how they immediately impact. I think he’s a frustrated SEC writer stuck in the west. Just kidding, kinda…
I’d like to have heard Scott’s tone when he responded “Just because I’m doing one thing doesn’t mean I’m not working on something else.”
Watching a Mariner game tonight and saw an airline commercial saying “Seattle – as close to Tokyo as London”. An Asia promotion push makes perfect sense to me.
LikeLike
Remember that he’s asking about the topics that his readers ask him about the most.
I’d call a little BS on Scott’s multi-tasking claim. Other than completely passive or mindless things, you can really only focus on 1 significant thing at a time. You may switch focus frequently, but it’s still one thing and then another.
That said, I’m not convinced a lack of time on Scott’s part is why any of the other P12N problems exist. More time in meetings isn’t going to convince DirecTV to add the P12N. But since anyone at Scott’s level is time-limited, it’s reasonable for fans to wonder what is suffering for the time he’s spending on Asia.
I also thought it was an interesting point Wilner made about why the conference is funding and driving this rather than the schools. I’d also question whether US schools should be deeply tied to Alibaba (basically a Chinese Amazon but known for selling counterfeit American items).
LikeLike
“I also thought it was an interesting point Wilner made about why the conference is funding and driving this rather than the schools.”
Because that’s what the CEO’s decided? Have Wilner run one of the schools, then he gets to have a say. Until the CEO’s change their mind they Scott is doing as requested by his boss’. And as I said before, this is an almost insignificant dollar amount. 60-65k/school?
Please…
I’d join you on your narrowly defined multi tasking objection, but years ago I read a study that said there is a small percentage of the populace that actually can do two things concurrently. I don’t know if he’s one so I abstain.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Because that’s what the CEO’s decided? Have Wilner run one of the schools, then he gets to have a say. Until the CEO’s change their mind they Scott is doing as requested by his boss’.”
You seem mighty upset for me just saying I thought it was interesting. You act like Wilner is making a giant deal out of everything. He interviewed someone in depth and is reporting what was said. What does that bother you so much?
“And as I said before, this is an almost insignificant dollar amount. 60-65k/school?
Please…”
Yes, it is. But that doesn’t mean P12 fans aren’t angry about the P12N and haven’t been deluging Wilner with comments about the Asia push distracting Scott. If that’s what the fans wanted Wilner to ask about, then he’s doing his job.
“I’d join you on your narrowly defined multi tasking objection, but years ago I read a study that said there is a small percentage of the populace that actually can do two things concurrently. I don’t know if he’s one so I abstain.”
I’ll just say that I highly doubt he is talking to China and DirecTV at literally the same time.
LikeLike
And I’d say, judging from Scott’s curt response that Wilner’s question was precisely suggesting that he didn’t have multiple irons in the fire.
Wilner seems to be fixated on the short term bump an immediate equity sale would bring. He mentions that the CEO’s are happy, then ignores that fact and criticizes Scott for the CEO’s unanimous vote against accepting ATT’s offer that would have gotten P12N on DTV last year. His criticism, if any deserved, should be aimed at the CEO’s (who’s thinking he seems unable to understand).
Little, if anything, in this first of a four part “in depth” interview wasn’t already known and discussed.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And I’d say, judging from Scott’s curt response that Wilner’s question was precisely suggesting that he didn’t have multiple irons in the fire.”
1. I’m trying not to read too much into the tone because without the actual audio you really can’t tell. You’d need to know exactly what Scott was asked and how it was phrased. For that matter, was the tone directed at Wilner or the people whose questions he was asking?
2. Time is the limiting element for Scott, not money. Any time he spends on X is time he can’t spend on Y. Having irons in the fire is only useful if you have the time to deal with each of them. How much time is Scott spending on Asia and is that the best use of his time are legitimate questions for fans to have. Many fans probably see no value in the Asia angle at all.
“Wilner seems to be fixated on the short term bump an immediate equity sale would bring.”
Equity wasn’t mentioned at all in this article. You’re bringing that into it when Wilner didn’t. Does Wilner talk about the current revenues of conferences frequently? Sure, but so do a lot of fans (including us). If that’s what P12 fans are interested in, that’s what he should cover. I know he’s mentioned an equity sale as the only large new revenue source available to the P12 before, but I don’t think he brings it up all that often.
“He mentions that the CEO’s are happy,”
An important note for the fans.
“then ignores that fact and criticizes Scott for the CEO’s unanimous vote against accepting ATT’s offer that would have gotten P12N on DTV last year.”
I didn’t see that as criticism of Scott at all. To me it was pointing out that the best deal Scott could get from DirecTV was a bad one but he felt duty-bound to present it to the presidents anyway. But again, you’re upset about something that isn’t even mentioned in this article. Why are you saying it now?
“His criticism, if any deserved, should be aimed at the CEO’s (who’s thinking he seems unable to understand).”
Like the several paragraphs where he wondered why the global initiative was been run through the athletics side rather than by the universities themselves? That could be construed as criticism of them.
But he also started the series by saying this wasn’t about criticising or blaming people, it was just about explaining things.
“Little, if anything, in this first of a four part “in depth” interview wasn’t already known and discussed.”
Wilner said he didn’t know the detail about the Alibaba sponsorship. Thus he also didn’t know how much the P12 was spending on the Asia push this year. If he didn’t know, neither did the P12 fans he writes for. Nor do most of them know how much the presidents may be pushing things like the Asia swing or how happy the presidents may be with Scott. Just because you may know doesn’t mean the average fan does.
LikeLike
Sorry, mixing in Wilner’s oft repeated refrains as part of context to why this articles/interview even is “wanted” by readers. Drum up discontent, then offer Scott a forum to explain himself.
Remember he suggested a couple months ago Scott might have discontented bosses, until a bit later he said that wasn’t the case at all? Criticism for answering the question why the conference voted against satellite camps?
Exact numbers weren’t mentioned, but Alibaba’s participation was widely covered during the basketball trip to China.
Could the CEO’s not be concerned about which pocket they are paying from for the Asia initiative? It’s their pocket, whichever it comes from and perhaps they don’t want to draw from academics for the benefit of athletics. And it’s not deficit spending. P12N isn’t BTN but it is generating positive revenue. This is how the owners are choosing to use some of it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Sorry, mixing in Wilner’s oft repeated refrains as part of context to why this articles/interview even is “wanted” by readers. Drum up discontent, then offer Scott a forum to explain himself.”
I know you feel that way about Wilner and you may be right. But I have seen some of these issues brought up repeatedly in various P12 forums by fans (as you saw in the comments on the article). Is that driven by the media pushing an agenda or is the media responding to fan interest? I really don’t know. Either way it’s good to see Scott have a chance to explain things in more detail in the same forum where these things have been discussed.
“Remember he suggested a couple months ago Scott might have discontented bosses, until a bit later he said that wasn’t the case at all? Criticism for answering the question why the conference voted against satellite camps?”
I remember, but I didn’t take it as quite that black and white as I recall. But that may also be Wilner’s style – raise a potential issue and then prove it or debunk it.
Anyway, a quote from Wilner a while ago:
Hotline sources outside the conference — these are sources with zero stake in the outcome — are with increasing frequency questioning Scott’s push to the Pacific Rim, noting that it costs time, energy and money but has little, if any chance of producing a tangible short-term gain.
And this is true: It’s not like the conference is on the brink of opening a massive new revenue stream in China or Australia. The end-game for the global initiative is years (and years) (and years) down the road. That’s not my view. Scott has said as much.
But the overseas effort, while perhaps high-minded and certainly backed by the CEOs, seems to ring hollow with so many issues on the domestic front, like the Pac-12 Networks and the, um, Pac-12 Networks.
So this may not be just his personal issue but something he is being pushed on by some outsiders. Maybe some powerful people that haven’t been able to persuade presidents.
“Exact numbers weren’t mentioned, but Alibaba’s participation was widely covered during the basketball trip to China.”
Yes, but the potential size of that number changes the issue, don’t you think? Getting a few thousand from a company is one thing. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands is different.
“Could the CEO’s not be concerned about which pocket they are paying from for the Asia initiative?”
I’d guess they made a very conscious decision which pocket to pay from.
“It’s their pocket, whichever it comes from and perhaps they don’t want to draw from academics for the benefit of athletics.”
But is it for the benefit of athletics or is athletics the foot in the door to benefit the academic side much more?
“And it’s not deficit spending. P12N isn’t BTN but it is generating positive revenue. This is how the owners are choosing to use some of it.”
It isn’t a deficit for the P12N but it does reduce the payouts to the schools and all of the public P12 schools subsidize their athletic departments (from over $1M to over $19M; the private schools don’t have to report their numbers). Like I said, I’m sure they have some accounting reason for doing it this way. But it still seems like a reasonable question to have. Maybe Wilner can get a president to explain it in the future.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/09/pac-12-football-rankings-2016-schedules/
Wilner ranks the full schedules for the P12 this year. What caught my eye was the last bit:
1. USC: Alabama on a neutral field; Stanford, Washington, Utah and UCLA on the road; Notre Dame and Oregon at home … it all adds up to the toughest schedule in nation. (Dare you to find a close second.) The best that can be said for the Trojans? They get two extra days before Oregon comes to town. (Yipee!) October is manageable, September and November are absolute hell. Each time I look at it, I have the same reaction: Holy #@&%!
How about Wisconsin?
LSU on a neutral field; MSU, MI, IA and NW on the road; OSU and NE at home.
Rating each game for difficulty:
LSU Stanford
MI > Utah
IA > UCLA
NW > UW
OSU ~ ND
NE < OR
Plus WI plays 6 of those games in a row with a bye week in there.
LikeLike
What planet are you on? Leaving out Alabama skews the whole thing of course, but even your direct comparisons are laughable.
AL >LSU
STAN >= MI
UCLA > IA (I could see calling this a toss-up, but last season’s Rose Bowl should have disabused one of the notion that Iowa was very good)
UW > NW by a country mile (UW may win the Pac-12 this year – would also trounce IA. So if we substitute UCLA here, I assume the Bruins would be favored?)
OSU = ND is ok
NE may be > OR (Oregon has serious issues this season).
LikeLike
I suppose it should be:
AL>LSU
STAN>MSU
MI>=UW
UCLA=IA
Utah=NW
OSU = ND
NE=OR
LikeLike
And that doesn’t strike you as even a close second?
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Leaving out Alabama skews the whole thing of course,”
I had them in there. I must have lost it in editing. I also lost the MSU comparison to Stanford.
And remember, the original statement was a dare to find a close second in difficulty. It doesn’t have to be as difficult, just close.
“but even your direct comparisons are laughable.”
Says a P12 homer. I went by last year’s results and what others have been saying about 2016. Now I’ll do it again but with more data.
3 preseason top 25s (ESPN, SI, Fox) and last year’s record
WI – NR, NR, NR; 10-3
USC – 12, 19, 21; 8-6
Tougher game gets the *
Neutral:
*AL – 1, 2, 1; 14-1
LSU – 6, 6, 4; 9-3
Road:
*MI – 3, 7, 5; 10-3
Stanford – 8, 11, 11; 12-2
*MSU – 16, 18, 15; 12-2
UW – 17, 17, 16; 7-6
*IA – 23, 14, 24; 12-2
UCLA – 22, NR, NR; 8-5
*NW – NR, NR, NR; 10-3
*Utah – NR, NR, NR; 10-3
Home:
*OSU – 10, 5, 9; 12-1
ND – 9, 9, 13; 10-3
*OR – 20, 23, 22; 9-4
NE – NR, NR, NR; 6-7
I gave USC AL and OR last time. NW/Utah are a toss up. I favor MSU over UW because MSU has been winning a lot more games than UW in the past few seasons so UW has to prove they can step up to be a 10-win type of team. OSU/ND is close but OSU was better last year and the “experts” are picking them to be better this year, too. IA/UCLA balances out NE/OR and MI/Stanford balances out AL/LSU.
Long story short, these 2 schedules are both very difficult. At the very least WI’s is a close second to USC’s which is the claim I was debating from the start.
LikeLike
Touche.
LikeLike
Silly me, I figured out the problem. I used greater than and less than signs and it was read as an attempted HTML tag. That’s why AL and MSU disappeared from my comment.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/friday-five-the-most-difficult-college-football-schedules-in-2016/
And here is a CBS writer saying WI’s schedule is tougher than USC’s.
LikeLike
Bob Bowlsby is pleased that the popularity of the Big 12 has not suffered due to the Baylor mess.
The author of the article is not pleased that Bowlsby is even thinking about the popularity of the conference under these circumstances. I agree with the author. This is just dopey.
http://www.yardbarker.com/college_football/articles/big_12_commissioner_baylor_scandal_hasnt_made_them_any_less_popular/s1_12680_21023374
LikeLike
Ouch. He clearly compartmentalized business from public relations more than a little too well there. Out of touch, insensitive, priorities out of wack, etc, etc.
LikeLike
What is the perception vs the reality of future AAU membership?
Since 1997 – almost 20 years now, here is who has gotten in and who is out
1999 OUT Clark University
2001 IN SUNY – Stony Brook
2001 IN Texas A&M, was in Big 12, now in SEC
2002 OUT Catholic University
2010 IN Georgia Tech, was in ACC when added
2011 OUT Nebraska, was in Big 12, now in B1G
2011 OUT Syracuse, was in Big East, now in ACC
2012 IN Boston University
AAU admissions by decade
1900 – 1909 = 19 schools
1910 – 1919 = 2 schools
1920 – 1929 = 5 schools
1930 – 1939 = 4 schools
1940 – 1949 = 1 school
1950 – 1959 = 7 schools
1960 – 1969 = 6 schools
1970 – 1979 = 2 schools
1980 – 1989 = 8 schools
1990 – 1999 = 4 schools – Clark University = 3 net additions
2000 – 2009 = 2 schools – Catholic University = 1 net addition
2010 – 2019 = 2 schools – Nebraska – Syracuse = 0 net additions
I keep seeing where schools like Florida State and Oklahoma will soon be AAU but what if the opposite is true and schools admitted are more likely to get booted than new schools added. 3 of the 4 no longer in the AAU were admitted between 1900 and 1909 – a period when roughly 1/3 of current AAU members joined.
The only decades with so few new additions were the decades including World War I and World War II. Not like we have any world wars going on in this recent tightness of new membership.
LikeLike
Fair point. But curious if you’d therefore accept KU (AAU) in spite of it having a smaller research budget and generally poorer overall ranking than non-AAU schools you mention?
LikeLike
PS I do think AAU matters to the B1G. And if AAU membership is a top priority in invitation (or lack of expansion altogether)…then it will have to accept what goes along with that decision. The SEC will be very, very happy.
LikeLike
I think I am saying many may be overzealous on their AAU chances when posting realignment discussions. The secondary thought is, just because you are a current member does not insure you will remain one in the future. If the AAU is adopting the Jack Welch strategy at GE would any school in the bottom 10% be safe?
LikeLike
Exactly. Which makes me wonder why the B1G would use such a transient and sometimes gray metric as AAU status as a TOP priority. I would think they would look at things holistically and make a sound decision. There are quite a few AAU schools that have weaker research (at least in terms of budget) and poorer rankings (somewhat subjective) than some non-AAU schools…and that’s seemingly discarded as irrelevant. Is it just about being in some old fraternity?
I do NOT mean to imply that the vast majority of AAU schools aren’t great, research-focused schools. They certainly are.
LikeLike
Which makes me wonder why the B1G would use such a transient and sometimes gray metric as AAU status as a TOP priority.
AAU status certainly isn’t “gray”; you’re in or you’re not. And it’s not especially “transient” either: Nebraska is the only school ever voted out of the AAU, and there are no signs that they plan to make a habit of it. Of the three schools that resigned from the AAU, two don’t even play FBS football, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.
There are quite a few AAU schools that have weaker research (at least in terms of budget) and poorer rankings (somewhat subjective) than some non-AAU schools…and that’s seemingly discarded as irrelevant. Is it just about being in some old fraternity?
I think AAU membership has a bit more relevance than that, which explains why so many want in, and nobody wants out.
But as I mentioned in another post, the B1G accepted Nebraska, which was known to be possibly on its way out, and they would have taken Notre Dame, so the lack of AAU membership is not absolutely disqualifying.
LikeLike
TOM,
“Exactly. Which makes me wonder why the B1G would use such a transient and sometimes gray metric as AAU status as a TOP priority.”
It’s not a black letter checklist. AAU status is shorthand for the type of schools that are in the B10. There are non-AAU members that are more than good enough academically to be invited to the B10. There are also AAU members who wouldn’t be a good fit for other reasons. The presidents know which schools they consider of high enough quality to be invited to the B10 and that doesn’t exactly match the AAU list. But it’s close enough for explaining to the average fan who might be considered.
“I would think they would look at things holistically and make a sound decision.”
They do. They knew NE was in trouble in the AAU since they couldn’t count the medical school and the Ag schools counts against them. They also knew that B10 schools all get punished for their large AG schools and wouldn’t hold that against NE.
“There are quite a few AAU schools that have weaker research (at least in terms of budget) and poorer rankings (somewhat subjective) than some non-AAU schools…and that’s seemingly discarded as irrelevant.”
There are a lot of factors that go into making the AAU. It’s not just research budget or other rankings. It’s a holistic view of all those things and more. Rankings just make it easy to sort out the reasonable contenders from the wannabes.
“Is it just about being in some old fraternity?”
That is part of it. Doing what it takes to actually get into the AAU says something about a school. Granted it was much easier back in the day than it is now, but the AAU schools still dominate the rankings in the areas that matter to the AAU.
LikeLike
Marc,
Just to be clear, Syracuse only left because they were about to get the boot like Nebraska. The bigger issue is nobody left in about 100 years and 4 are gone in about a decade while drastically fewer net schools have been added.
The B1G may help Nebraska get back in, but they are not in now. The main reason for raising this issue is many realignment threads think AAU is just around the corner for 5 to 10 power schools. My position is I am not so ready to put on the rose colored glasses and accept AAU status is about to happen.
Maybe it will, but I am more cautious in my thinking. I feel sure if Jim got a call from South Bend, AAU would not be an issue without AAU membership for the B1G but so many other schools have been mentioned as “almost” AAU like Oklahoma, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, and Texas Tech that I just think it is folly till it actually happens.
Back in early 2010 on this very thread several of us debated what was meant by the “tech” issue and clearly Texas Tech looks no closer to AAU membership than it did then. The bigger issue is Missouri which seems static or trending down.
LikeLike
Syracuse only left because they were about to get the boot like Nebraska. The bigger issue is nobody left in about 100 years and 4 are gone in about a decade while drastically fewer net schools have been added.
This seems to be grasping at straws. In the 1990s, the AAU revised its membership criteria. Three schools saw the handwriting on the wall, and left voluntarily. One fought mightily to stay in, and was forcibly expelled.
But since 2011, it has been stable. No additional schools have withdrawn. None are known to be under review for expulsion. (I think we would know: Nebraska’s campaign to stay in the fold was quite visible and public.) I would therefore infer that all of the current members meet the organization’s criteria.
I don’t recall anyone in the AAU saying that if a new member qualifies, the lowest-ranking current member will get the boot. The Nebraska vote was embarrassing on a number of levels, and didn’t cover the AAU in glory. I doubt that very many of the members are looking to do that again.
So many other schools have been mentioned as “almost” AAU like Oklahoma, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, and Texas Tech that I just think it is folly till it actually happens.
It depends who is doing the talking. It is very reasonable for schools to aim for AAU membership. University leaders are notoriously long-term thinkers: they realize that this could take a while. But a goal is far more likely to be reached if you plan for it. The AAU has never gone more than a decade without inviting a new member: someone is getting in.
Most sports fans, naturally, don’t understand these things, and imagine it’s easier than it really is. This is no different than fan optimism on just about every subject imaginable.
LikeLike
There were a lot of misgivings about the way the expulsion of Nebraska was handled. I haven’t heard about any more schools’ status being reconsidered. I suspect Kansas is safe. But any schools added will have to be very compelling, and that status is difficult to achieve.
I do think AAU matters to the B1G. And if AAU membership is a top priority in invitation (or lack of expansion altogether)…then it will have to accept what goes along with that decision.
I am not sure if AAU membership is a top priority, or merely among the factors considered. When they admitted Nebraska, it was already well known that the school might not be in the AAU much longer. The B1G clearly would have taken Notre Dame, which has never had and does not seek AAU membership.
On the other hand, for a school like UConn, which is already a marginal candidate in so many other ways, lack of the AAU badge is disqualifying.
LikeLike
I agree 100% on UCONN. You don’t even have to get to the AAU aspect on the decision tree before you say “no thanks”. I’m not sure why they even get mention beyond their own self-promotion. The B1G’s short list is very distinguished I’m sure.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“I keep seeing where schools like Florida State and Oklahoma will soon be AAU but what if the opposite is true and schools admitted are more likely to get booted than new schools added. 3 of the 4 no longer in the AAU were admitted between 1900 and 1909 – a period when roughly 1/3 of current AAU members joined.
The only decades with so few new additions were the decades including World War I and World War II. Not like we have any world wars going on in this recent tightness of new membership.”
The AAU has said they aren’t really interested in expanding, so look for more replacement.
From that NE pdf on AAU schools, I think 2-4 more may be vulnerable in the coming decades. The 25th percentile between was #58 and #59.
The bottom AAU members: 59, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71, 74, 74, 76, 81, 83, 87, 94, 105 (SU), 109 (NE)
With those last 2 out, #94 may be in trouble if they don’t trend upward. Maybe the ones in the 80s could be in trouble, too. Remember, #31 GT and #37 NU got added since the report was made so the percentile line has shifted. 25th percentile now is between #54 and #55.
Many have speculated that #94 is KU but I have no idea.
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks for digging deeper into what I was getting at, which who at the bottom may be at risk, and who may be the school to take their place. Was looking on another site and saw some research numbers.
~ 600 million for Texas
~ 500 million for South Florida
~ 400 million for Cincinnati
~ 300 million for Kansas and Iowa State (both 1900’s type AAU members)
~ 250 million for Connecticut and Oklahoma
~ 150 million for Texas Tech and Houston
Clearly this is a wide range and the USF number caught me off guard while the lower numbers make me more skeptical of all the schools supposedly on the cusp of AAU. I think “replacement” may be the reality where future membership goals may be between 50 – top 50 thinking – to 60 range may be the final goal.
LikeLike
A tiny bit more perspective. In 2015, Rutgers got $612,000,000 in Federal research funding. That was up from $517 million in the prior year. I did not bother trying to research the reason for a $95 million increase.
LikeLike
All university research dollars are acquired by faculty who write research proposals to funding agencies. The recent increase in Rutger’s research income merely means that the individual faculty who actually wrote and submitted the proposals had a very good year. They have good years on end because they are good at what they do. In this they are a typical B1G school and an obvious addition, like Maryland.
Apropos above, a university’s AAU membership is a reflection of how successful its faculty is at getting grant money, which in turn is a measure (often the only one) of the quality of its faculty.
It should also be noted that the B1G’s CIC does not have or acquire or distribute research dollars. It is a coordinating and lobbying agency. Its budget comes ultimately from the overhead charges against individual faculty’s research grants.
LikeLike
bob sykes, it could also have something to do with the medical school situation. Many years ago, RU had a medical school. Then some NJ politicians saw the chance for more graft with a separate med school. (And they were right. There were some pretty strange things going on with UMDNJ -Univ Med and Dentistry of NJ – such as doctors on the faculty getting in excess of $100,000 and having absolutely no job or responsibilities.)
Anyway in July 2013 or so, two medical schools merged with RU, which now has two full medical schools, one in Newark and one in New Brunswick.
Why a July 2013 merger could lead to a jump in Fed research two years later, I do not know and have not researched.
As an aside, many people blame a lot of the recent craziness with RU sports on the medical school merger. RU President Barchi was tasked with one thing and one thing only – get the merger with the two med schools to work and work smoothly. In fact, I am pretty sure that Barchi was hired anticipating that the school merger would be his primary job. The merger of two medical schools into the state university pretty much went without a hitch, so Barchi admirably completed his primary task.
Meanwhile, the basketball coach was being fired for throwing balls at players, the AD became the fall guy – even though he supposedly was reporting everything to the president. No one wanted to rock the boat with Barchi over some stupid sports when the school merger had to be completed. Total mess due to lack of leadership, but there were much higher priorities at RU.
Then an absolute joke and totally incompetent AD was hired, again with no apparent input from the university president, who really was otherwise occupied. Fortunately, she was fired along with the old football coach.
Somehow, while all of that was going on, someone did make the deal with Delany and the B1G. I expect that it was the Chairman of the RU Board of Directors, who is a sports fan. Barchi may have been involved nominally, but not much more.
LikeLike
USF has a large research budget thanks to its med school tie-in with Moffitt. Beyond that, it wouldn’t be a school that I would personally recommend for a few reasons.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/16083428/ex-baylor-football-player-says-get-fair-chance-clear-name-stay-school
Baylor won’t clean up their coaching staff, but they are combing through their players.
A Baylor spokeswoman told Outside the Lines the university is reviewing the backgrounds of all incoming athletes who have transferred to the school from other athletic programs.
At least one player is no longer part of the football team and university in part because of the review. Defensive tackle Jeremy Faulk, who played at Garden City (Kansas) Community College and at Florida Atlantic University, told Outside the Lines that he was questioned by Baylor coaches on June 1 about an incident he was involved in at Florida Atlantic. He said he was also questioned about an alleged sexual assault that may have occurred in April on the Baylor campus, when he was on the Baylor team. No charges were filed in either case; Faulk, who denies sexually assaulting anyone, said he’s never been asked by police to discuss the alleged April incident.
Faulk’s departure has angered Jeff Sims, a former assistant at Florida Atlantic and the former head coach at Garden City. Sims, who coached Faulk at both schools, says Baylor is trying to rid itself of anyone who has had an allegation made against him, true or not. And he’s disturbed by something he said new Baylor interim coach Jim Grobe told him when he called to ask why Faulk’s status on the team was in jeopardy over the alleged April incident.
“Grobe says to me, ‘Listen, if he just leaves, he can go on, and we won’t stop him from playing anywhere, and this investigation will stop.'” Flabbergasted at the notion a sexual assault investigation might disappear if an accused player were to leave the team, Sims said he pressed Grobe, but Grobe struggled to be more specific before implying that Baylor administrators had made him remove the player from the team.
…
Sims said the university’s handling of Faulk’s departure from the team — and Grobe’s statement to him — is problematic for the alleged victim and for Faulk, and also shows Baylor still doesn’t understand what it’s done wrong in recent years.
“To me, that’s the whole reason they got in trouble — either Jeremy’s innocent, and they should go through the process, and he should get his scholarship back and play. Or he’s guilty, and this girl should get some justice,” Sims said.
Grobe could not be reached for comment. The Baylor spokeswoman emailed Outside the Lines on Thursday, saying, “Coach Grobe has a different recollection of the conversation,” and “he has made clear that his standards emphasize accountability, integrity and character — for the entire program.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/112759/third-tier-revenue-could-provide-a-big-12-safety-net
Are school-run digital networks the short term solution for tier-3 revenue in the B12?
Could the answer be supplementing potential revenue with individual, school-run digital networks until the future of television, streaming and content distribution becomes clearer?
Here’s a look where every Big 12 school stands in terms of its third-tier rights and individual digital networks.
Baylor: The school has a channel called “Baylor All-Access” and produces content — some exclusive — for its YouTube channel.
Iowa State: Launched in the fall of 2012, the Cyclones.TV digital network features live events and on-demand programming throughout the year for a monthly or yearly fee.
Kansas State: K-StateHD.TV features more than 125 live athletic events a year as well as commercial-free, on-demand viewing of every football game and home men’s and women’s basketball, volleyball and baseball games. Created in 2011, K-StateHD.TV is available for a monthly or yearly fee.
Kansas: A seven-year deal with ESPN to have a minimum of 70 live events annually on ESPN3 began in 2013-14. Kansas also has an agreement with Time Warner Cable Sports and Metro Sports.
Oklahoma: SoonerSports.TV, Oklahoma’s digital network, provides live content as well as on-demand football replays. The service, which also features a second-screen experience for Oklahoma football games, is available for a monthly or yearly fee.
Oklahoma State: The school often streams live events on YouTube and offers videos on its Oklahoma State Athletics YouTube channel. OkState.TV, the school’s digital network, features a variety of content as opposed to being a sports-centric digital platform.
Texas Tech: TexasTech.TV provides live sporting events, press conferences and other additional content on a digital platform for a monthly or yearly fee.
TCU: FrogVision provides on-demand content such as coaches shows and press conferences. TCU’s digital network provides audio, video and other content for a monthly or yearly fee.
Texas: The Longhorns have the Longhorn Network, which is operated and partially owned by ESPN. Texas earns an average of $15 million per year from the Longhorn Network.
West Virginia: The school has streaming and on-demand video available on Mountaineer TV and reportedly makes more than $6 million per year with its third-tier rights deal with IMG.
LikeLike
Did Texas buy equity in the LHN when we weren’t looking?
LikeLike
Men’s track season concluded yesterday. Here’s the top ten finishers.
1. Florida
2. Arkansas
3. Texas A&M
4. Oregon
5. LSU
6. Tennessee
7. Virginia
8. VA Tech
9. Miss State
10T. Houston
10T. Nebraska
Women’s track concludes today. Baseball has three more weeks.
LikeLike
The B10 isn’t as strong in T&F as the SEC or ACC but we had a few good teams this year:
10. NE
13. MI
15. PU
17. PSU
18. WI
LikeLike
Top ten finishers at the women’s outdoor T&F championships.
1. Arkansas
2. Oregon
3. Georgia
4. Texas
5. Texas A&M
6. LSU
7T. K-State
7T. Stanford
9T. USC
9T. Florida
LikeLike
The B10 is even weaker in Women’s T&F.
14. WI
21. MN
22. MI
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16108457/judge-release-records-claim-joe-paterno-told-jerry-sandusky-abuse-1976
A Philadelphia judge has ordered the public release of sealed documents from a lawsuit that could reveal details about a claim that a boy told Penn State football coach Joe Paterno in 1976 that Jerry Sandusky had molested him.
Judge Gary Glazer said Thursday that the records will be made public in a month, granting the request for access to the filings made by The Associated Press and other news outlets.
…
The records set for release include expert reports that evaluate the reasonableness of the settlements and analyze the insurer’s potential responsibility.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16107484/baylor-art-briles-seeking-settlement-lawsuit-filed-sexual-assault-victim-documents-say
In obvious news, Baylor and Art Briles are trying to settle the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by one of the sexual assault victims against them.
The settlement efforts were revealed in a motion filed Thursday by Baylor lawyers that asks a judge for an extra 30 days to formally respond to Hernandez’s lawsuit.
“The primary reason for this request is to provide the parties with an opportunity to explore early resolution of this matter while minimizing the cost and burden of litigation,” the motion said. “Defendant believes that the interests of justice will be served by extending the response date by 30 days.”
Baylor attorneys said Hernandez agreed to the delay. Her attorney, Alex Zalkin, and Baylor officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
But there was also this:
Also Friday, the school released a list of 105 recommendations for change from Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, including personal and institutional apologies to victims, and ensuring that reporting and investigation allegations involving student-athletes are handled the same as incidents across campus.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15994651/five-reasons-why-big-12-panicking
5 reasons the B12 isn’t panicking (each is explained in detail in the article):
Here are five reasons why there’s no panic in the Big 12.
1. The league’s leaders actually get along
2. Texas and Oklahoma both are (relatively) happy
…
But the expansion examination isn’t over, a win for OU’s Boren, the most vocal advocate to explore the possibilities. According to Boren and Bowlsby, the decision to reinstate a championship game doesn’t slow the evaluation process for expansion. The presidents will continue what Boren called “thoughtful analysis of the data,” and there’s optimism in some league circles that expansion eventually will happen.
The swift decision to reinstate the championship game also pleased Boren, accustomed to the league’s foot-dragging tendencies.
“I’ve been a frustrated member of the conference several times,” Boren said, “where some of those ships might not have sailed … if we’d moved a little more quickly. Maybe even some of the optional members of the conference might have been different if we’d acted six or eight years ago, or five years ago.
…
3. A realistic outlook on revenue
…
Big 12 officials, both publicly and privately are pragmatic about revenue. If the league can be a solid third among Power 5 leagues, and not a distant fifth, the plusses of staying together could outweigh the potential benefits of expanding or, in the cases Texas and Oklahoma, moving to deeper-pocketed conferences.
“If we’re in the same ballpark, the same neighborhood,” Boren said, “we’re going to be extremely competitive.”
…
The ACC and Pac-12 have more members, but is their long-term outlook much better than the Big 12’s?
The ACC Network still isn’t off the ground, and commissioner John Swofford’s vague comments about the negotiations last month, combined with the market changes, doesn’t inspire excitement. Remember, if the Big Ten expands again, its desired choices likely would be ACC schools, not Big 12 schools.
…
4. Leverage in potential expansion
…
The Big 12 has contract provisions with ESPN and Fox that require its TV partners to pay a pro rata — the amount equal to the current members — for any additional member added. Whether the Big 12 adds Florida State or South Florida, it gets paid.
…
The league would control the additional funds, and could structure distribution to new members in an extremely gradual way, putting more in the pockets of its existing members. Imagine the opposite of the Big Ten bailing out Maryland. Given the desperation of BYU and Group of 5 teams to jump on the final realignment train, the Big 12 essentially could dictate the terms.
…
5. Bowlsby’s leadership
LikeLike
The Big 12 has contract provisions with ESPN and Fox that require its TV partners to pay a pro rata — the amount equal to the current members — for any additional member added. Whether the Big 12 adds Florida State or South Florida, it gets paid.
There is a potential flaw in this line of reasoning. The obligation to pay pro rata for new members is only for this contract, which has less than a decade to run. Expansion is usually considered a multi-decade decision, so the B12 would need to believe that the networks’ largesse will be sustained into the next contract—which it might not be.
LikeLike
I’d bet every conference media contains an expansion clause. This isn’t unique to the B12. Dodds in past stories seemed to think this increase was a huge windfall for the B12.
Network doesn’t care how the conference divides the pie. Joining schools only need to be bringing something in the neighborhood of the value of the non kings for future contracts to not be too disrupted by the additions.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There is a potential flaw in this line of reasoning. The obligation to pay pro rata for new members is only for this contract, which has less than a decade to run. Expansion is usually considered a multi-decade decision, so the B12 would need to believe that the networks’ largesse will be sustained into the next contract—which it might not be.”
Very true. If they expand it’s with the assumption that 8 years in the B12 with more money would help the new member grow into a brand worthy of keeping the TV money flowing in the next deal. It’s what they did with TCU and WV, really. Adding BYU certainly wouldn’t hurt their next contract. UC has done pretty well with Big East/AAC money and is a decent market. UCF/USF brings a large state and home market but would need their brand to be built up.
If you can build the new member up to being a true peer, then you just need the networks to be willing to keep paying more for TV rights. If they won’t, then the newbies get a smaller cut so the older members don’t lose out.
LikeLike
The B1G/SEC and I guess the PAC expansion decisions are multi-decade. The B12 is expanding on a very short-term basis. It is year-to-year for them.
LikeLike
The B1G/SEC and I guess the PAC expansion decisions are multi-decade. The B12 is expanding on a very short-term basis. It is year-to-year for them.
I don’t think most of the league sees it that way. If the B12 falls apart, the majority of its members are likely to wind up in worse leagues than they’re in now. They want the league to still be around in 30 years.
LikeLike
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa-state/football/2016/06/09/iowa-state-president-steven-leath-big-12-realignment/85660904/
As the B12 works on how to split into divisions, ISU’s president likes the idea of reseeding the divisions every year.
“The idea of re-seeding every year is intriguing,” Leath said during a break at Thursday’s Iowa Board of Regents meeting at Iowa State. “It differentiates us as a league. It keeps the league really vibrant, exciting and fresh.
“I think if we do that, other leagues will say “Wow, that’s a really neat idea.”
They may experience the folly of chasing perfect balance, but it’s interesting to see someone in power consider an unusual idea like that. It would make it much harder to keep rivalries in division, though.
LikeLike
As the B12 works on how to split into divisions, ISU’s president likes the idea of reseeding the divisions every year….They may experience the folly of chasing perfect balance, but it’s interesting to see someone in power consider an unusual idea like that. It would make it much harder to keep rivalries in division, though.
This seems like a roundabout way of achieving what the league really wants, which is for the CCG to always be a compelling match-up. Re-seeding avoids the problem the original B12 had, where the south had a persistent advantage that never went away.
But still, re-seeding based on last year’s results is still only an approximation of next year’s contenders. You could still have two 11-1’s in one division, and an 8-4 champ of the other. In a league where the CCG is always a rematch, you might as well have the two 11-1’s face off
The only way I can see this being an improvement, is if they are willing to move traditional rivalries to mid-season. So, if OK/OKSt are in separate divisions, they no longer meet in the regular-season finale, to avoid the possibility of a re-match the following week. Is that really worthwhile?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This seems like a roundabout way of achieving what the league really wants, which is for the CCG to always be a compelling match-up.”
It is certainly an extreme approach to seeking balance. But history says geographic divisions aren’t great for CCGs. I wonder if this is just a way of telling UT and OU they aren’t getting North/South back with both of them in the South.
“Re-seeding avoids the problem the original B12 had, where the south had a persistent advantage that never went away.”
It’s strange to see the B12 chase balance while the B10 just made the opposite decision and is now about as unbalanced as the B12 used to be. The grass is always greener, I suppose.
I think an attempt at balance is smart but changing every year is confusing. Of course, having divisions with only 10 teams and a full round robin schedule is confusing enough. I’d keep the non-TX in-state rivalries together (KU/KSU, OU/OkSU) and otherwise move teams around for balance, trying to keep a pair of TX teams in each division. Balance history (brand) with recent performance in making the divisions and leave them set for several years at a time.
“But still, re-seeding based on last year’s results is still only an approximation of next year’s contenders. You could still have two 11-1’s in one division, and an 8-4 champ of the other. In a league where the CCG is always a rematch, you might as well have the two 11-1’s face off”
Yes, it’s the folly of chasing perfect balance.
“The only way I can see this being an improvement, is if they are willing to move traditional rivalries to mid-season. So, if OK/OKSt are in separate divisions, they no longer meet in the regular-season finale, to avoid the possibility of a re-match the following week. Is that really worthwhile?”
I’d just demand that they stay together to preserve the last game since balance can’t be perfect anyway.
LikeLike
It’s strange to see the B12 chase balance while the B10 just made the opposite decision and is now about as unbalanced as the B12 used to be. The grass is always greener, I suppose.
The B10 is even more unbalanced than the B12 used to be, in that its traditional kings are split 3-1, and the West’s only king is down right now; plus, Michigan State, which is not a traditional king but plays in the East, is coming off the best six years in its history.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The B10 is even more unbalanced than the B12 used to be, in that its traditional kings are split 3-1, and the West’s only king is down right now; plus, Michigan State, which is not a traditional king but plays in the East, is coming off the best six years in its history.”
By brand, I agree. It remains to be proven on the field.
As for MSU’s best 6 year run, I’ll go with 1950-1955. 47-9 (0.839) with 3 claimed national titles. The current run is 65-16 (0.802) with no titles. But I do get your point.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/common-sense-reforms-to-clean-up-and-save-college-football/
Dennis Dodd proposes “common sense” reforms for CFB.
Revise the National Letter of Intent: Recruits are reminded constantly that they are signing with a school, not a coach. (Here’s the proof.) Fair enough, even though it’s not very realistic.
…
But if we’re going to hold to this antiquated tradition, here’s a more than fair trade off: That NLI should contain language that states a recruit can get out of his letter if his coach is guilty of “serious misconduct.”
…
“I’d rather do that,” said one high-ranking source involved with the NLI, “instead of a blanket waiver if a coach leaves.”
…
Vet recruits in a more stringent manner:
…
By their previous inactions, schools have forfeited the right to vet incoming recruits. There needs to be a central authority, whether it’s the NCAA or the leagues themselves.
…
Remove coaches and athletic directors from the disciplinary process: This has long been a pet peeve. The coach and his athletic director have an inherent conflict of interest in disciplining athletes. Coaches and ADs are hired to win games. The best way to win games is to have the best players on the field. The best players aren’t always the best people.
…
Hire a female commissioner: Speculating on a college football commissioner has become low-hanging fruit this offseason. First, it’s never going to happen. Never. Do you hear me? Imagine someone telling Nick Saban he can’t recruit Jonathan Taylor. No one is going to tell Jim Delaney what to do. And don’t even try to picture a leash on Jim Harbaugh.
All that said, this is the wrong discussion. It shouldn’t be about a commissioner, it should be about a female commissioner. The sport is owed that at the moment.
I’m with him until the last recommendation. As he says, there will never be a commissioner. Why include it in a list of “common sense” reforms? Equally, requiring such imaginary commissioner to be female is problematic. You should want the best possible person for the job regardless of gender.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree with you on the last point. Why make an “affirmative action” comment, and list candidates, regarding that which you agree will never happen? Why is this about a female commissioner?
RU just had an AD who was, by absolutely all accounts, hired based on gender. (She was not even on the list of finalists after the AD search). No one even claimed that she was the best candidate. Complete disaster. The fans disliked her from day 1, since everyone questioned her qualifications and she replaced a very popular AD (who many thought was a fall guy for something that he did not do).
That is not to say that a female commissioner might not be great, but only if she is the best person (or close enough if there are two or three super candidates).
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/11/lsu-to-bar-opponents-bands-from-performing-at-halftime/85750808/
This is sad, Alan. Get on somebody at LSU to fix the problem. Barring bands from other schools from performing at halftime is anti-CFB.
LikeLike
Thank God! Somebody finally doing something about the epidemic of injuries inflicted by hoards of roaming tuba players at around half times.
LikeLike
Brian – I have no explanation. The sidelines in Tiger Stadium are very narrow, but they’ve been narrow for 100 years. From a practical standpoint though, most all teams bring their pep bands and not marching bands to Tiger Stadium so the visiting team can sell more tickets to fans that pay. So the practice for years and by choice of the visiting teams has mostly been not to have their band march at halftime.
That being said, putting what is common practice by visitors into rule by the host doesn’t look good.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“From a practical standpoint though, most all teams bring their pep bands and not marching bands to Tiger Stadium so the visiting team can sell more tickets to fans that pay. So the practice for years and by choice of the visiting teams has mostly been not to have their band march at halftime.”
At least in the B10, one of the perks of being in the band was at least 1 road trip each season (plus the bowl). Denying the other bands the chance to see a game at LSU seems uncool. I hope the other schools bar the LSU band from halftime shows in response.
“That being said, putting what is common practice by visitors into rule by the host doesn’t look good.”
Especially since nothing’s changed since bands used to be able to perform other than the rule. I’d be different if LSU had remodeled and shrunk the sidelines or something.
LikeLike
One of the pleasures of a college football game is the half time show, and the opponent’s band adds a great deal to it, including the duel of the bands.
Once upon a time, Purdue even brought their big drum to Ohio Stadium. This is probably the biggest drum fielded by any band anywhere. You feel it more than hear it. It was even better than the Golden Girl, the Silver Twins and the Girl in Black (with whip). Alas, no more.
LikeLike
Texas has the biggest. They have Chicago’s old drum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha_(drum)
LikeLike
“Texas has the biggest.”
— Allegedly
LikeLike
This year’s CWS will have some underdogs in it.
#2 regional seed UCSB beat #2 national seed UL in the super regional to advance to the CWS.
#2 regional seed AZ beat #6 national seed MS St in the super regional to advance to the CWS.
#7 national seed Clemson didn’t make the super regionals. #1 regional seed SC and #2 regional seed OkSU are playing in that super regional instead.
The other 5 national seeds are still alive:
In CWS – #3 Miami
Tied 1-1 in SR – #4 TAMU, #5 TT
Down 0-1 in SR – #1 UF, #8 LSU
LikeLike
West Coast didn’t get any regionals, but UCSB and Arizona both made CWS. Clemson, UVA and NC St. all lost in home regionals. Duke lost in a road regional, UL, FSU and Miami won in home regionals. ACC a bit overrated. West Coast underrated.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech join UCSB, Arizona and Miami. TCU-A&M decisive game today. Coastal Carolina leads LSU 1-0 and FSU leads UF 1-0 with 2nd game later today.
LikeLike
If TCU wins I’d say B12 has complete bragging fights.
LikeLike
TCU is in. ACC didn’t do well in the regionals. SEC didn’t do well in the Super Regionals. S. Carolina, A&M and LSU all lost at home. Florida is 1-1 vs FSU for last spot.
TCU
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St.
Miami
Arizona
UCSB
Coastal Carolina
FSU/Florida winner today
LikeLike
Arizona, Miami, UCSB and Oklahoma St. are in one bracket.
TCU, Texas Tech, Coastal Carolina and FSU/FL are in the other.
LikeLike
Florida won the decisive game 7-0 after winning 5-0 the day before. So Florida is #8.
LikeLike
Congrats to the selection committee. ACC/SEC = 81.25% of regionals and 87.5% of national seeds.
For those without a sarcasm detector, it’s screaming.
LikeLike
Really wanted to see BC get in to the CWS…but are they more southern imports than guys that talk like Chris Herren?
LikeLike
http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1678045-sources-bu-regents-to-reconsider-briles
Multiple sources are claiming a small minority of Baylor donors are pushing for Art Briles to only get a 1 year suspension and the Board of Regents will vote on it tonight. Most say it is unlikely to pass.
What the hell, Baylor? How can you even let something like this come to a vote? When someone gets you in trouble with Title IX and the Clery Act, you fire them. Period. That’s above and beyond the moral imperative to defend your female students from the athletes and coaches under Briles.
LikeLike
There is no written version of the Pepper Hamilton report. Impossible. No law firm would undertake a job like this without the obligatory 100 page written document. Nor should they. I guess that maybe Baylor people are saying that they do not have a hard copy yet. Very unlikely but, being very kind, not totally insane. I can’t believe that they fired and then sort of rehired Starr without a written report to review. They suspended Briles without a written report?? Really??
Yes, the real problem is that there was no Title IX coordinator. They did not know that rape is a bad thing and that the victims should not be threatened. Of course, without the proper administrator to tell them, how could anyone know that these things are bad? Sounds like a good defense to me. It is hard to believe that things at Baylor could get even crazier, but stay tuned.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“stay tuned”
Please don’t start using that phrase. It’ll get you lumped mentally with someone else.
LikeLike
> Please don’t start using that phrase. It’ll
> get you lumped mentally with someone else.
You’re one crazy guy, Brian!
Seriously.
Keep watching, Brian! 😉
LikeLike
Carl, Brian doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know with this topic so take it easy on him…
LikeLike
> There is no written version of the Pepper Hamilton
> report. Impossible. No law firm would undertake a
> job like this without the obligatory 100 page written
> document. Nor should they.
I know almost nothing about the Baylor situation, but I do know that it’s crazy to assume that anything Pepper Hamilton says is actually the truth. Even since they’ve separated from Freeh. Telling the truth is not what they’re getting paid for.
I would consider the content of the second tweet carefully:
Dr. Saturday (Verified) @YahooDrSaturday
If you’re looking for a full Pepper Hamilton Baylor report, well there apparently isn’t one: http://www.baylor.edu/president/news.php?action=story&story=170293 …
10:23 AM – 6 Jun 2016
Stewart Mandel (Verified) @slmandel
Not an accident. Nothing for a plaintiff to pull out in discovery.
10:31 AM – 6 Jun 2016
The NCAA, Penn State, and Freeh are about to be done in by discovery of the PSU Freeh report documents. At best, there’s no evidence of P/C/S/S wrongdoing; at worst, there’s evidence of conspiracy and other malfeasance.
It’s funny — Penn State’s lawyers just argued against the validity of the Freeh report in the PMA lawsuit …
LikeLike
Evil calls to evil. The troglodytes come to carry water for Baylor.
LikeLike
> Evil calls to evil. The troglodytes
> come to carry water for Baylor.
Scarlet’s trolling skills have so deteriorated. Sad!
LikeLike
You were schooled the last time you ignorantly chimed in so spare us your worthless perspective.
LikeLike
Jeremy Foley is retiring as UF’s AD. I’ll be curious to see if his replacement makes any significant changes. One of Foley’s ideas was that UF never left the state of FL for an OOC football game.
Foley started in 1992. Since then, UF has played 99 road games (85 SEC, 13 ACC – all FSU or Miami, 1 BE – Miami).
In 1988 the SEC scheduled expanded to 7 games. 1987 was the last year of the annual UF/Miami rivalry. In 1987 and earlier, UF would play FSU, Miami and at least 1 P5 school from outside the state (often outside of the region, too). They dropped Miami in 1988.
In 1992 the SEC expanded to 8 games, and UF dropped their out of state OOC game in favor of FSU and cupcakes. Their 1991 game at Syracuse is the last time they left the state for an OOC game.
UF will, of course, cite the need for 7 home games and point out that they play UGA at a neutral site. Since they either get 3 SEC games and FSU at home (+ 3 cupcakes) or 4 SEC games (+3 cupcakes), what UF is really doing is locking in 7.5 home games every year. They could easily throw in another home and home series, but they don’t need to so they don’t.
UF’s last out-of-state OOC road/neutral win was in 1989 at 2-9 Memphis State. Their last one over a team with a winning record was in 1947.
Stats for UGA road games just for comparison:
SEC – 83
ACC – 15 (GT – 12, Clemson – 3)
B12 – 2
P12 – 1
6 games in 24 years isn’t great, but it beats UF. And with 12 games to play and only 8 conference games, I don’t buy UF’s excuses.
UF will play MI in Arlington, TX in 2017 (after Foley’s retirement). Perhaps that will be something they become more willing to do in the future.
LikeLike
UGA hired Foley’s assistant a few years ago and McGarity adopted Foley’s scheduling philosophy. UGA played a tougher schedule before he was hired. He is getting pressure to back off his Florida-like schedule. Below are Florida’s non FSU, non SEC opponents the last 10 years:
New Mexico St.
E. Carolina
Florida Atlantic
E. Michigan
E. Kentucky
E. Carolina (must have gotten confused on the Rolodex and kept calling different Easterns to schedule).
Toledo
Miami (FL)
Ga. Southern
Bowling Green
UL-Lafayette
Jacksonville St.
Florida Atlantic
UAB
Furman
Miami (O)
USF
Appalachian St.
Charleston Southern
Troy
Florida International
Hawaii
Miami (FL)
Citadel
W. Kentucky
Troy
Florida Atlantic
So. Miss
UCF
W. Carolina (had to have a Western each year)
LikeLike
Lots of positive news in the media if you look carefully. Lots of coaches are saying they are all in favor of restarting some great rivalries. Both Kelly and Harbaugh have said they want ND/MI back on the schedule. Strong says UT and TAMU are working on an agreement. Here’s hoping we can get all the old rivalries back, even if they can’t be annual any more. Maybe use some of the neutral site games to make it possible to play these games more frequently.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-east-win-total-picks-can-harbaugh-michigan-meet-expectations/
A look at the Vegas Insider win totals for the B10 East and how to bet them (over/under). Maybe it’s just me but some of these lines seem screwy to me. The reasons are my summary of what the article says, not my personal opinion.
MI – 10 (under – 9-3 seems more likely than 11-1 with games @MSU and @OSU)
OSU – 9.5 (over – OSU has never lost more than 1 game under Meyer in the regular season)
MSU – 7.5 (over – MSU lost a lot, but they’ll still have a tough D and have been really good)
PSU – 6.5 (over – the schedule is too easy for them to lose 6 games)
UMD – 4.5 (over – with 3 easy OOC games, 5 wins isn’t too much to expect)
IN – 4.5 (over – with 3 easy OOC games, 5 wins isn’t too much to expect)
RU – 4.5 (under – it comes down to RU @ UMD and there is extra value for the under)
PSU seems 1 game too low to me. MSU is more like 1.5 low I think. MI and OSU seem about right. I’d probably bump UMD and IN to 5.
LikeLike
BTN has released their schedule for the first 3 weeks of the season.
Week 1
Thursday, Sept. 1 9:00 PM Oregon State at Minnesota*
Friday, Sept. 2 7:00 PM Furman at Michigan State*
Saturday, Sept. 3 Noon Bowling Green at Ohio State
Noon Howard at Maryland
3:30 PM Kent State at Penn State
3:30 PM Murray State at Illinois
8:00 PM Fresno State at Nebraska*
Week 2
Saturday, Sept. 10 Noon Cincinnati at Purdue
Noon Howard at Rutgers
3:30 PM Akron at Wisconsin
3:30 PM Ill. State at Northwestern
7:30 PM North Carolina at Illinois*
7:30 PM Iowa State at Iowa*
Week 3
Saturday, Sept. 17 Noon Temple at Penn State
Noon Georgia State at Wisconsin
3:30 PM Colorado at Michigan
8:00 PM Duke at Northwestern*
*Previous announced game
As always, it’ll look better at the link.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2016/06/71412/tulsa-ohio-state-set-for-330-pm-kickoff-on-abc
ABC also announced a time OSU/Tulsa, so 8 of OSU’s 12 games now have kickoff times. Week 5 versus IN stills lacks a time or network and so do the last 3 games technically.
SAT 09/03/16 Noon BOWLING GREEN Ohio Stadium (Columbus) BTN
SAT 09/10/16 3:30 p.m. TULSA Ohio Stadium (Columbus) ABC
SAT 09/17/16 7:30 p.m. OKLAHOMA Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK) FOX
SAT 10/01/16 Noon RUTGERS Ohio Stadium (Columbus) TBA
SAT 10/08/16 TBA INDIANA Ohio Stadium (Columbus) TBA
SAT 10/15/16 8 p.m. WISCONSIN Camp Randall Stadium (Madison, WI) ABC/ESPN/ESPN2
SAT 10/22/16 8 p.m. PENN STATE Beaver Stadium (State College, PA) ABC/ESPN/ESPN2
SAT 10/29/16 5:30 p.m. NORTHWESTERN Ohio Stadium (Columbus, OH) ESPN/ESPN2
SAT 11/05/16 8 p.m. NEBRASKA Ohio Stadium (Columbus, OH) ABC/ESPN/ESPN2
SAT 11/12/16 TBA MARYLAND Maryland Stadium (College Park, MD) TBA
SAT 11/19/16 TBA MICHIGAN STATE Spartan Stadium (East Lansing, MI) TBA
SAT 11/26/16 TBA MICHIGAN Ohio Stadium (Columbus, OH) TBA
I think we all know OSU vs MI will be at noon on ABC and OSU @ MSU will likely be on ABC at 3:30 or ESPN/ESPN2 at noon depending on how the seasons are going. OSU @ UMD sounds like a BTN game to me but might be a noon ESPN2 game. IN @ OSU feels the same way to me.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2016-06-10/ncaa-hockey-rules-committee-proposes-4-4-overtime
The NCAA is proposing to go 4 on 4 in OT in hockey rather than staying at 5 on 5 (regular season only). They also proposed an experimental rule (optional for each conference) to go to 3 on 3 if it’s still tied after 5 minutes of 4 on 4, then go to a sudden death shoot out.
If the rule gets approved, the NCAA will tweak the RPI formula to give some credit to teams that lose in OT.
LikeLike
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/06/11/beer-sales-in-shoe-a-financial-blow-to-nonprofits-staffing-concession-stands.html
Some of the unintended consequences of OSU selling beer in the stadium.
For all the fans and visitors who will be happy about cold beer being served in Ohio Stadium this fall, the season will be dismal for some of the dozens of church groups, high-school sports teams and other nonprofits that have earned money in the past by staffing the concession stands at Buckeye football games. A new age minimum for concessions volunteers will wipe out a big part of the labor force for many such groups.
Levy Restaurants, which operates concessions at the stadium, requires all volunteers to be 18 or older at any location where alcohol is served, said Levy spokeswoman Jenn Sutherland. Ohio law prohibits anyone under 19 from serving alcohol; Levy requires that concessions volunteers between 18 and 20 handle only tasks that are away from the counter.
…
Supporters of the youth ministry of New Albany First Church of the Nazarene have staffed a stand in B Deck every football season since the 1980s, but they won’t be able to keep doing it under the ban on younger teens, said Joshua Porterfield, youth pastor and manager of the concession-stand project. Running the smaller stands in B Deck requires 12 to 15 volunteers, he said.
“We normally count on about half our volunteers being teens and half adults. Sometimes, more teens than adults. To get an adult to commit to 10 hours on a Saturday is pretty tough.”
Besides the staffing problem, Porterfield wouldn’t want his church volunteers selling beer, as the church asks its members to abstain from alcohol.
…
For groups such as Porterfield’s youth ministry, it’s a major loss. The church typically cleared $9,000 or more each season, which it used to send kids to summer camps and fund other youth activities. The recent spring football game netted the youth group $2,300 — enough to send 15 teens to camp.
…
“This will mostly affect lower-income families that depended on this to send their kids to camps and retreats and things,” he said. “It’s a pretty major task to replace $10,000.”
LikeLike
“Unintended”?
LikeLike
There is a really simple solution to this totally unforeseeable problem. Find something else for the kids to do or donate $10,000 per year to the youth ministry from the proceeds of beer sales. That is about $1,500 per game, which is a rounding error. They will probably spill beer worth more than $1,500 per game.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
““Unintended”?”
You think they are intentionally depriving charities of funding?
LikeLike
It does open up a prime location for concessionaires.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“It does open up a prime location for concessionaires.”
The concessionaires already have that space. All that changes is who staffs it. Instead of a volunteer group raising money, some people will get paid minimum wage to do the same thing. I suppose the job creation is a bonus for a few people, but it’s not enough hours to live off.
LikeLike
Why can’t they just set up stand-alone beer kiosks and let the kids sell the hot dogs and nachos?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/16203078/nhl-settles-las-vegas-quebec-city-expansion
The NHL has decided to expand to Las Vegas if the team can raise the $500M expansion fee.
LikeLike
Make sure you scroll past the end of the article to see the Las Vegas style NHL logos. What a hoot! Loved the Blackhawks one.
LikeLike
One of the owners has to have a stake in a vendor down there or something. This is just madness on top of madness.
LikeLike
Here’s an update on the LSU/visiting marching band saga.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/16106570-63/lsu-revisiting-opposing-band-policy-as-marching-band-world-watches
LikeLike
It’ll be great for everyone if they can find a fix. Maybe stage the other band on the visitor’s sideline. Or cap the number of band members that can perform rather than prevent it totally.
LikeLike
Figure a way to exit seats directly to field AFTER the quarter ends?
Start the 20 min halftime break start when players/coaches have cleared the field?
Have visiting band seated front rows, end zone?
Allow only piccolo and flute players on sideline before qtr end?
There has to be a simple way to address any serious safety issue, perhaps through time management.
LikeLike
Crisis averted.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/16118021-37/lsu-reverses-policy-will-allow-visiting-bands-to-play-at-halftime
LikeLike
Good for LSU for finding a quick resolution. It sounds like only 1 or 2 teams a year try to perform at halftime anyway so I think their risk management people went a little overboard as a solution only took days to figure out.
LikeLike
Jason Kirk and Bill Connelly have an article on SBNation suggesting that the SEC should scrap divisions. They would protect 3 annual games per team, and rotate all others, so that every pair would meet at least every 2 years. (Because the SEC plays only 8 games, and every team has a locked opponent in the opposite division, some pairs do not meet for many years.)
The NCAA only just recently voted down a rule change that would’ve allowed this, so we are probably not going to see it anytime soon. I do think it could and should happen eventually.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Jason Kirk and Bill Connelly have an article on SBNation suggesting that the SEC should scrap divisions. They would protect 3 annual games per team, and rotate all others, so that every pair would meet at least every 2 years. (Because the SEC plays only 8 games, and every team has a locked opponent in the opposite division, some pairs do not meet for many years.)”
Yes, the SEC plan pairs crossovers every 6 years, so it takes 12 years to see everyone at home.
8 games = 6 in division + 1 locked crossover + 1 rotating crossover among 6 teams
“The NCAA only just recently voted down a rule change that would’ve allowed this, so we are probably not going to see it anytime soon. I do think it could and should happen eventually.”
I think they would allow it as soon as a conference wanted to do it for the “right” reasons and not just as a way to avoid expansion but still want the money from a CCG. I think if any of the P5 with 12+ members went in to request this specific rule change (ability to have no divisions but a CCG featuring the top 2 when a full RR isn’t possible) it would pass. They just didn’t want to give the B12 an extra bonus. And once they approved it for conferences of 12+ I think they would open it up to smaller conferences too. As conferences get bigger, it makes more sense than divisions.
LikeLike
Won’t happen to preserve 8 conference game schedules. Everyone else is going to more. I’d think adding a 9th game would be a requirement before even considering it. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Won’t happen to preserve 8 conference game schedules.”
It’s not really about being able to stay at 9 games.
9 games = 6 division + 1 locked + 2 rotating means 3 years between games and 6 years between stadium visits. And if someone expands beyond 16 it only gets worse.
“I’d think adding a 9th game would be a requirement before even considering it. But that’s just me.”
Just like ND will never be forced to join a conference, I don’t think conferences will be forced to play more games. The ACC and SEC have the actual reason of multiple locked rivalries outside of the conference schedule, meaning only 3 (or some years 2) games left to schedule, in addition to cupcake addiction. I think the other conferences will respect that as a viable reason not to go to 9 and not force the issue.
LikeLike
I think they would allow it as soon as a conference wanted to do it for the “right” reasons and not just as a way to avoid expansion but still want the money from a CCG. I think if any of the P5 with 12+ members went in to request this specific rule change (ability to have no divisions but a CCG featuring the top 2 when a full RR isn’t possible) it would pass. They just didn’t want to give the B12 an extra bonus.
But they gave the B12 precisely that latitude, i.e., to create a CCG without divisions, without requiring it to expand.
What was quite peculiar, was that they limited it to 10-team conferences. Once you’ve conceded that the B12 can stage a full RR and a CCG pitting the top 2 without divisions, I cannot think of a very strong reason to disallow 12+ member leagues from doing that too.
Won’t happen to preserve 8 conference game schedules. Everyone else is going to more. I’d think adding a 9th game would be a requirement before even considering it. But that’s just me.
Well, the ACC and B12 were already on record as wanting that option. If the SEC asked for it too, that’d be a minimum of 3 out of 5 power leagues, which means it would likely pass (even assuming continued B10 and P12 opposition) unless the mid-majors ganged up on them to prevent it.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the total deregulation going to pass with little opposition? Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do/have done.
LikeLike
“Once you’ve conceded that the B12 can stage a full RR and a CCG pitting the top 2 without divisions, I cannot think of a very strong reason to disallow 12+ member leagues from doing that too.”
B12 (10 team conf) is required to do a full conference 9 game RR. Perhaps 12 teams do full 11 game RR? That’s the reason they won’t. At 10 a full RR gives you as good a chance of having top two in CCG as possible. 8 games in a 14 team conf leaves much to the vagaries of scheduling.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But they gave the B12 precisely that latitude, i.e., to create a CCG without divisions, without requiring it to expand.”
You neglected the next sentence where I specified not requiring a round robin (that’s the only reason the B12 can do it) for the other conferences.
“Once you’ve conceded that the B12 can stage a full RR and a CCG pitting the top 2 without divisions, I cannot think of a very strong reason to disallow 12+ member leagues from doing that too.”
Because the B12 stages a full RR and the others won’t/can’t. But now if one of them asked to do it for a good reason (we want to play each other more) rather than a selfish one I think it would get approved for conferences of 11+. It may take longer before allowing a 10-team conference to drop the full RR.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Jason Kirk and Bill Connelly have an article on SBNation suggesting that the SEC should scrap divisions. They would protect 3 annual games per team, and rotate all others, so that every pair would meet at least every 2 years. (Because the SEC plays only 8 games, and every team has a locked opponent in the opposite division, some pairs do not meet for many years.)”
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/15/11923938/big-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries
Their co-workers Alex Kirshner and Matt Brown combined with Bill Connelly to write a similar article for the B10. 3 locked rivals per team and keeping the 9 game schedule so you play at least 3 times in 5 years (9 = 3 * 100% + 10 * 60%).
Their choices for locked rivals:
IL – NW, OSU, PU
IN – NW, PU, RU
IA – MN, NE, WI
MD – NW, PSU, RU
MI – MN, MSU, OSU
MSU – IA, MI, WI
MN – IA, MI, WI
NE – IA, MSU, WI
NW – IL, IN, MD
OSU – IL, MI, PSU
PSU – MD, MSU, OSU
PU – IL, IN, RU
RU – IN, MD, PU
WI – IA, MN, NE
Then they go on to show how it would improve the balance of SOS versus the divisions. They give the 10 year S&P+ rating average and the 10 years ranking average for each team and show that the East average rank is 42.0 versus 50.6 for the West. I’d recreate the tables but it’s much easier to read at the link. What it boils down to is that NE and WI match PSU and MSU over that 10 year period while the bottom 3 on each side also balance out, leaving MI and OSU versus IA and IL.
They argue that their plan protects all the important rivalries, but I disagree. I think the B10 would claim PSU/RU and NE/MN are somewhat important among others. They also note that their system doesn’t provide a clean plan like the SEC did (14 teams, 8 games, 3 locked). That’s because they didn’t choose to either stick with 8 games or expand to 5 locked rivals. Either of those plans provide plans to play every team twice in 4 years. Moving to 5 rivals also allows the B10 to lock at least 1 king for each team, keep big brands playing at RU and MD more frequently and continue parity-based scheduling to some extent. Even moving to 4 locked rivals lets the B10 preserve more of those things they’ve claimed to value in scheduling.
They finish by comparing their schedules for all the B10 teams using the 10 year S&P+ average and frequency of play. The hardest schedule by average rank of opponents is MN at 43.4 while the easiest is RU at 48.5. That’s less than the gap between the West and the East, but they didn’t compute the schedule difficulty for the current system. I went back and did that:
Assuming an equal rotation but PU/IN locked schedule: RU @ 42.3 – WI @ 50.7
Assuming a parity-based schedule: RU @ 43.3 – PU @ 57.1 (next easiest is WI @ 49.2)
So their plan is an improvement, but not much of one except for PU’s parity-based schedule.
LikeLike
I’m not the only one to think the specter of the SWC is becoming visible.
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/baylorbears/2016/06/14/sherrington-baylor-boosters-pushing-art-briles-return-may-come-regret-misplaced-allegiance-coach
“Are they boosters of the 1980s SMU variety, whose arrogance was summed up by Bill Clements’ response when asked if he gave the NCAA the straight dope? Surely you remember when the governor told reporters, “There wasn’t ever a Bible present.””
LikeLike
New Directors’ Cup rankings are out with only baseball still pending.
Click to access DIJune14Standings.pdf
Top 25 by Conference:
Pac-12 (6) #1 Stanford, #4 USC, #6 UCLA, #10 Oregon, #11 Cal & #13 Washington
SEC (6) #5 Florida, #12 Georgia, #15 A&M, #21 Arkansas, #22 LSU & #25 Kentucky
ACC (6) #7 UNC, #8 UVA, #16 Notre Dame, #19 Syracuse, #23 Duke & #24 Florida State
B1G (4) #2 Ohio State, #3 Michigan, #17 Penn State & #20 Minnesota
B-12 (3) #9 Texas, #14 Oklahoma & #18 OK State
LikeLike
And the B10 specifically:
2. OSU
3. MI
17. PSU
20. MN
26. WI
28. NE
39. IN
41. PU
43. NW
50. MSU
51. IL
57. UMD
62. IA
80. RU
That’s a big jump for RU from previous years (2015 – 104, 2014 – 91, 2013 – 120).
The lowest P5:
100. WSU
81. OrSU
80. RU
69. WF
68. KSU
64. KU
63. ISU
61. Vandy
The highest non-P5:
27. BYU
35. Princeton
48. Denver
52. AF
58. Penn, UConn
LikeLike
Bluevod twitter…… NBC on board for another chunk of B1G tv deal!!
LikeLike
A columnist from WV with some expansion talk.
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/sports-mitch-vingle/20160604/mitch-vingle-clemsons-clements-watches-wvu-from-afar
As for conference realignment, the Clemson president said, “I think it’s settled down, at least for now. It was interesting times there for a couple years. We had teams leaving historic rivalries, like WVU-Pitt. That’s a rivalry I loved and was sad to see it go. I think there’s stability now.”
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/sports-mitch-vingle/20160611/mitch-vingle-wvu-and-the-acc-football-odds-and-hoops
After last Sunday’s column in which I interviewed Clemson president Jim Clements, messages were sent to me suggesting (and, in many cases, hoping) WVU move to the Tigers’ Atlantic Coast Conference from the Big 12.
Of course, easier said than done. West Virginia would have to be desired by the league and invited. That’s never been the case or happened. But, yes, OK, the conference does make more sense geographically.
Also, yes, I do think WVU eventually has one shot of landing there. One.
If, that is, Notre Dame joins the ACC as a full-fledged member.
…
The Golden Domers, however, enjoy their pseudo-independence, uniqueness and exclusive deal with the NBC Sports Group. The latest extension of that NBC deal came in 2013 and will run through 2025.
But for a reported $15 million a year.
WVU fans can tell you their Mountaineers doubled that haul as a member of the Big 12 this past year. That $15 million figure, if as reported, is being dwarfed by payouts to Power 5 conference members. Which won’t fly for long in South Bend.
Also, many in the Power 5 conferences are getting less and less patient with a Notre Dame program that seemingly plays by its own rules. The Big 12 and Sun Belt have now felt pressured to play that 13th football game via a championship. What do you do with independent schools like Notre Dame and BYU?
…
When Notre Dame feels that’s not enough, or when it is squeezed by the College Football Playoff system, or when it realizes more money is within a conference, perhaps then it will join the ACC in football. If such a move were made right now (lawyers start yer engines!), that could push forward an ACC Network with rocket thrust.
It would also leave the Atlantic Coast Conference with an awkward number of 15 teams. And perhaps finally lead to an invitation to WVU.
An expanded ACC with both Notre Dame and WVU would lead to blockbuster league television money. The very high hurdles are the Fighting Irish’s NBC deal and the Mountaineers’ grant-of-rights deal with the Big 12.
I don’t think a few million dollars a year will get ND to join a conference. They’d probably lose more in donations than they’d gain from joining. I also don’t see anyone that matters getting impatient with ND. Fans, sure, but not people that make the decisions.
LikeLike
My wife graduated from St. Mary’s across the road, and she is an alumna member of the ND concert band (offered one home ticket per year). If she is any guide, the Domers will lynch any ND President and the whole board of trustees if ND ever really joins a conference.
LikeLike
I also don’t see anyone that matters getting impatient with ND. Fans, sure, but not people that make the decisions.
That’s entirely right. In fact, it’s the opposite. Decision-makers are perfectly happy to see ND remain as an independent. (A few CFB coaches have grumbled that ND could make the playoff without having to win a conference, but the coaches don’t make these decisions.)
The fact is, if ND joins a conference for football, there’ll be one winner but many losers. None of the other P5 leagues want the ACC to get stronger, especially not the SEC or B10. The Pac-12 wants to keep their two annual games vs. ND, both of which would probably go away if the Irish were in a conference.
As FTT put it on twitter yesterday: “The biggest myth in realignment is that conferences want to “push” ND out of independence. Why would B1G/SEC want ACC competitor to get ND?” and “I’ll reiterate that each league wants ND to join their league, NOT a league. ”
Now, if Jim Delany could come up with a Machiavellian move that would force ND to join the B10, of course he’d consider it. What he’s absolutely not going to do, is push ND any closer to the ACC than they already are.
LikeLike
Notwithstanding what WVU fans may think, they are in a potentially tough position. Solid football, very questionable academics (at the best). Super strong in state support, in a small poor state.
Perhaps it is very unfair, but there is also the perception of WV as being full of uneducated hillbillies. Realistically, with the devastation of the coal industry, WV has real economic problems.
The SEC has no use for the fan base in the State of WV and no need for WVU football. Even discussing the B1G is silly. During the last round of realignment, the ACC made it clear that there was no interest in WVU. I would imagine that the academic powers at ACC schools want absolutely no part of WVU,
The Big 12 and WVU needed each other, so it worked.
WVU really needs some strong football teams over the next decade to “survive” any further league consolidation.
LikeLike
Notwithstanding what WVU fans may think, they are in a potentially tough position. Solid football, very questionable academics (at the best)…During the last round of realignment, the ACC made it clear that there was no interest in WVU.
WVU’s academics are roughly in the same zip code as Louisville and Clemson.
When the ACC had to replace Maryland, WV was already gone to the B12. If WV had still been available, it’s pretty likely they would’ve gotten the nod. The ACC was clearly looking to get better at football, and WV has a much longer track record of success in that sport than Louisville. Academically, WV would have been a “push”, or better than Louisville, depending on which survey you believe.
LikeLike
Marc, i have no idea whether this is accurate, but this is the type of article floating around regarding UWV. http://www.cardiachill.com/2011/9/20/2438478/acc-expansion-sec-expansion-college-football-realignment-west-virginia-pitt-acc-syracuse
LikeLike
That article was written after the ACC expanded to 14 with Pitt and Syracuse, with no indication that they were at risk of losing Maryland. At that point, sure, the ACC would’ve turned up its nose at West Virginia. The article doesn’t say what the ACC would’ve thought of Louisville at that point, but you can easily guess.
Then they lost Maryland, and replaced it with Louisville, a school that is likely worse (in most dimensions) — and is certainly no better — than West Virginia. I am reasonably confident that if WV had still been available, it would have been seen as the better option.
Here are some rankings, in this order: WVU, Louisville:
USNews: 170, 160
Forbes: 360, 445
Washington Monthly: 120, 119
On top of that, WVU is a “Research I” university (Louisville is not) and is a state flagship (Louisville is not). WVU also has a long-standing rivalry with Pitt and has been decently strong in football for far longer than Louisville has.
LikeLike
Marc, I get it, but there were a number of really negative articles. I think that it may well have been prejudice against WVU and the entire state of WV, more than just number crunching.
Whether fair or not, the entire state was just viewed as not good enough for the ACC.
It is my recollection that the commentary from ACC country toward WVU was just very negative. I am not going to bother finding more articles, but they are out there.
LikeLike
Marc, I get it, but there were a number of really negative articles. I think that it may well have been prejudice against WVU and the entire state of WV, more than just number crunching.
Whether fair or not, the entire state was just viewed as not good enough for the ACC.
That was in comparison to schools like Syracuse and Pitt. See if you can find articles making the same disparaging comments in relation to Louisville.
LikeLike
Interesting set of tweets coming from Bluevod lately…..
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 17h17 hours ago
I think ESPN may be in a state of panic. They thought they were going to get a discount based on rep. Not〽️😇
1 retweet 10 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 10
More
Bluevod @Bluevodreal 23h23 hours ago
Good way to hedge bets on future of TV with cord cutters.〽️😇
2 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet 2
Like 1
More
Bluevod @Bluevodreal Jun 15
NBC
4 retweets 5 likes
Reply Retweet
LikeLike
If you follow the conversations, he says NBC is getting close to getting the other half of the rights. Says it would take a HUGE last minute offer to beat them out. Says it will be announced in July, he just doesn’t have an exact date yet.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/art-briles-fights-back-claims-baylor-used-him-as-a-scapegoat/
Art Briles is showing his true colors. He is claiming that Baylor is scapegoating him and accuses them of wrongful termination. He refuses to settle any lawsuit in which both he and Baylor are co-defendants which should get nice and ugly.
The motion also requests that the judge bar Baylor from using the same lawyers — those presently representing both the school and Briles in that lawsuit — from representing the school against Briles. The motion claims that in doing so, Baylor is in violation of the Texas State Bar.
“[Baylor’s lawyers] are legally, morally and ethically liable to Art Briles and responsible for damages under Texas statutory and common laws for breach of contract, fraud, libel and slander, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others,” reads a letter from Ernest H. Cannon that was filed with the motion, also obtained by KWTX News.
I think it’s safe to assume that Briles isn’t getting a 1 year suspension (if that was even an option before).
LikeLike
Interesting defense
“The conclusion is inescapable that the motive of Baylor University and the Board of Regents was to use its Head Football Coach and the Baylor Athletic Department as a camouflage to disguise and distract from its own institutional failure to comply with Title IX and other federal civil rights laws.”
So, my football players committed rape, and my coaches supposedly discouraged or even threatened witnesses and victims, but is the fault of Baylor for not stopping me. The devil made me do it and Baylor did not protect me from myself.
I do agree that it was an institutional failure by Baylor, as well as the athletic dept and football team. No one is clean and they all look like garbage.
I did not follow the Penn State fiasco nearly as closely as many on this board, but it at least seemed like the PSU Board wanted to deal with the issues. (I hope that I am not being too kind to PSU, since I would not want to do that.) I am not too sure about Baylor.
This does become curiouser and curiouser. Big time boosters want Briles back. Now he will be in litigation against Baylor. It will be interesting to see where this craziness all lands.
LikeLike
“the PSU Board wanted to deal with the issues.”
It’s possible but their decision was inescapable. The writing was on the wall and the offense was so vile that no way would a board member side with the guilty and somewhat-guilty parties (Sandusky and those who knew) involved. It was absolutely toxic.
LikeLike
Their top 3 officials were indicted or about to be. They had their head in the sand prior to that time.
Baylor’s president hired a law firm to investigate when it came to his attention. When they finished the report, everybody got fired. Baylor’s board has been far more proactive than PSU.
LikeLike
Sadly its seems in some quarters women continue to be devalued. We need look no further the Stanford situation. What happened at PSU was indeed vile but raping and covering it up merits a place on the vile scale as well. I’m sure a women that has been raped doesn’t wake up in the morning and say, “Well…..at least it didn’t happen when I was 9.
LikeLike
Bullet wrote:
“Their top 3 officials were indicted or about to be. They had their head in the sand prior to that time.”
How do you explain that that the most serious charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz were dropped? The remaining minor charges are expected to be dropped in the coming months? Why after 5 YEARS have there not been any trials against the three PSU officials if everything is / was so clear and obvious? Shouldn’t they already be convicted and in jail?? 5 YEARS and nothing and now most of the charges have been quietly dropped and the remaining minor charges will likely be dropped too!!
You can indict a ham sandwich – it doesn’t mean a thing in terms of guilt. NONE of the charges have been proven and the most serious charges have been dropped yet you (and others) keep insisting that everything was clear, obvious and beyond any doubt.
I don’t know about you but when there haven’t been any trials after 5 YEARS (with none scheduled for the forseeable future) and when most of the charges have already been dropped, I tend to have doubts about the prosecution’s version of events.
P.S. Why do you think the NCAA dropped all penalties against Penn State less than two weeks before they were scheduled to go into a courtroom and have their (and Louis Freeh’s) version of events about the alleged complicit actions of PSU officials scrutinized under oath??
LikeLike
How do you explain that that the most serious charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz were dropped? The remaining minor charges are expected to be dropped in the coming months? Why after 5 YEARS have there not been any trials against the three PSU officials if everything is / was so clear and obvious?
Much like a number of PSU fans, you are confusing two very separate questions:
1) Did they commit crimes provable beyond a reasonable doubt?
and
2) Did they do all they morally and ethically could, to stop Sandusky?
The fact that no crime is provable to the required legal standard, does not mean they conducted themselves honorably. Not all dishonorable, immoral, or unethical conduct, is a provable crime.
There very well may be an argument that they did everything they could, and that, morally, they are entirely blameless. But, “the charges were dropped!” does not make such an argument.
After all, no one yet has suggested that Ken Starr or Art Briles committed crimes, but they lost their jobs anyway, because the Board concluded they had not done all they could or should. There are many societal wrongs that the criminal justice system does not, or cannot, punish. That doesn’t make it right.
LikeLike
Exactly. What they did was morally wrong. Perhaps what the head of police did was a crime (as he was responsible for the police and he ignored a crime). They may have committed perjury. Beyond that its hard to find a “crime.” But they let Sandusky continue to use PSU facilities and, by inaction, allowed him to continue to abuse young boys.
LikeLike
As for PSU’s punishment, if you had read the board at the time, you would have seen that I was one of those who didn’t think the NCAA had any business punishing PSU. I don’t believe it was within their role. They got out of their reactionary mode and got pressure from other presidents who thought they had overstepped and they reduced the penalties.
Baylor is more directly related to the NCAA’s role as current football players and coaches are involved. PSU involved a coach who had retired. Current coaches were involved only to the extent that they reported a potential crime which Curley, Schultz and Spanier failed to followup on (assuming you don’t believe the speculation with limited support that Paterno knew about Sandusky’s issues before-but the NCAA didn’t punish based on that speculation).
LikeLike
As for PSU’s punishment, if you had read the board at the time, you would have seen that I was one of those who didn’t think the NCAA had any business punishing PSU. I don’t believe it was within their role.
Me too.
They got out of their reactionary mode and got pressure from other presidents who thought they had overstepped and they reduced the penalties.
Beyond that, it was pretty clear that the evidence that would’ve come out at trial would have been extremely embarrassing to the NCAA. They did not want that evidence heard.
Baylor is more directly related to the NCAA’s role as current football players and coaches are involved.
The other mistake they made with Penn State, was entirely bypassing their usual enforcement process. If they act in the Baylor case, I doubt they will make that mistake again.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd (May 29, 2016 at 8:26 am):
> That Sandusky continued to bring little boys to
> practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented.
Marc Shepherd (May 29, 2016 at 10:05 am):
> Since I assume you know how to use google,
> I will let you complete that exercise yourself.
Marc Shepherd (May 31, 2016 at 6:14 am):
> Kyle Peter posted a link to the Grand Jury
> presentment above. … Now, I realize that
> a GJ presentment is fallible, but we have
> a system to evaluate its reliability. That
> system is called a trial, and we had one.
Yes, Marc, once again: as revealed at trial, the grand jury presentment was wrong. (For over three years I’ve been trying to tell you that almost all the “facts” you think you know about the Sandusky scandal are wrong.)
Marc Shepherd (May 31, 2016 at 6:14 am):
> Not that that’s the only source, but I already
> told you it’s not my job to teach you how to
> use Google.
Marc, I know how to use Google. Indeed, I use Google to double-check my facts before almost every post I make; and when I make a factual assertion, I include a link (when the information is publicly available) — two practices I recommend you adopt.
Marc, can you reference ONE FACT — let alone “MULTIPLE SOURCES” (emphasis added) — to justify your assertion “[t]hat Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented”?
For someone so sanctimonious, you sure play fast and loose with the facts. To me, it seems mighty close to LYING.
LikeLike
> Exactly. What they did was morally wrong.
> Perhaps what the head of police did was a
> crime (as he was responsible for the police
> and he ignored a crime). They may have
> committed perjury. Beyond that its hard to
> find a “crime.” But they let Sandusky
> continue to use PSU facilities and, by
> inaction, allowed him to continue to abuse
> young boys.
bullet, just to be clear: do you mean “chief of police” as you stated on May 27, 2016 at 10:26 pm, or do you mean the administrative head of police, Gary Schultz?
> (as he was responsible for the police and
> he ignored a crime)
This may be true of the chief of police at the time, bullet, but I have not seen ANY evidence to support the claim that Schultz ignored a crime. Assuming he was told of a crime by someone, do you know of any actual EVIDENCE that he ignored a crime?
> They may have committed perjury.
Well, perjury is a legal matter, and as I understand the state’s case, perjury would be impossible to prove because in Pennsylvania perjury requires two witnesses. There is at most one person who claims Mike McQueary told Schultz that McQueary witnessed a crime. (The state’s whole case is like that, if you actually examine it.)
> But they let Sandusky continue to
> use PSU facilities and, by inaction,
> allowed him to continue to abuse
> young boys.
Inaction? Do you know of any FACTS to back up that assertion, bullet?
LikeLike
For someone so sanctimonious, you sure play fast and loose with the facts. To me, it seems mighty close to LYING.
For someone so sanctimonious, you sure seem awfully selective in the purported facts you choose to present. This would be perfect if you were the defense attorney, where your role is to present the arguments that make your “client” look good, and ignore the rest.
LikeLike
Cute change of subject, Marc.
Can you provide one fact to justify your assertion “[t]hat Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented”?
LikeLike
Can you provide one fact to justify your assertion “[t]hat Sandusky continued to bring little boys to practices, bowl games, etc., is well documented”?
Can I? Yes. Will I? No. You said you know how to use Google, so use it.
LikeLike
> Can I? Yes. Will I? No. You said you
> know how to use Google, so use it.
BREAKING: Food Critic Acts Like Three Year Old!
LikeLike
Link, possibly relevant here.
LikeLike
Happy Father’s Day, Marc!
LikeLike
I haven’t seen anything that has defined how involved Briles was or wasn’t once the players got accused. Baylor might be better off spelling things out in detail rather than letting people speculate.
LikeLike
Click to access 266596.pdf
Here’s the Pepper Hamilton Finding of Fact, the only document released so far. Briles is never mentioned by name. However, there is an entire section about the football program in which coaches and staff are called out for issues (but never by name).
Barriers to Implementation of Title IX within Baylor’s Football Program
Baylor failed to maintain effective oversight and supervision of the Athletics Department as it related to the effective implementation of Title IX. Leadership challenges and communications issues hindered enforcement of rules and policies, and created a cultural perception that football was above the rules. In addition to the issues related to student misconduct, the University and Athletics Department failed to take effective action in response to allegations involving misconduct by football staff. Further, despite the fact that other departments repeatedly raised concerns that the Athletics Department’s response to student or employee misconduct was inadequate, Baylor administrators took insufficient steps to address the concerns.
Baylor failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University. In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence by multiple football players.
In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of policy, which improperly discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy. In some cases, internal steps gave the illusion of responsiveness to complainants but failed to provide a meaningful institutional response under Title IX. Further, because reports were not shared outside of athletics, the University missed critical opportunities to impose appropriate disciplinary action that would have removed offenders from campus and possibly precluded future acts of sexual violence against Baylor students. In some instances, the football program dismissed players for unspecified team violations and assisted them in transferring to other schools. As a result, some football coaches and staff abdicated responsibilities under Title IX and Clery; to student welfare; to the health and safety of complainants; and to Baylor’s institutional values.
In addition to the failures related to sexual assault and dating violence, individuals within the football program actively sought to maintain internal control over discipline for other forms of misconduct. Athletics personnel failed to recognize the conflict of interest in roles and risk to campus safety by insulating athletes from student conduct processes. Football coaches and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes. In some cases, football coaches and staff had inappropriate involvement in disciplinary and criminal matters or engaged in improper conduct that reinforced an overall perception that football was above the rules, and that there was no culture of accountability for misconduct.
The football program also operates an internal system of discipline, separate from University processes, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the mindset required for effective Title IX implementation, and has resulted in a lack of parity vis-à-vis the broader student population. This informal system of discipline involves multiple coaches and administrators, relies heavily upon individual judgment in lieu of clear standards for discipline, and has resulted in conduct being ignored or players being dismissed from the team based on an informal and subjective process. The ad hoc internal system of discipline lacks protocols for consistency with University policy and is wholly undocumented. The football program’s separate system of internal discipline reinforces the perception that rules applicable to other students are not applicable to football players, improperly insulates football players from appropriate disciplinary consequences, and puts students, the program, and the institution at risk of future misconduct. It is also inconsistent with institutional reporting obligations.
The football program failed to identify and maintain controls over known risks, and unreasonably accepted known risks. Leadership in football and the athletics department did not set the tone, establish a policy or practice for reporting and documenting significant misconduct. The lack of reporting expectations resulted in a lack of accountability for player misconduct and employee misconduct. Further, no attempt was made to understand the root causes of behavior or steps necessary to prevent its recurrence. In addition, in one instance, in response to concerns about misconduct by football players that could contribute to a hostile environment, an academic program that required interaction with the football program improperly restricted educational opportunities for students, rather than take steps to eliminate a potential hostile environment.
Do we really believe that any of things were outside the knowledge of Briles? Who else could try to control discipline for the players? Who else could claim unspecified violations of team rules? Would any coach interfere in the school’s investigative or disciplinary processes without approval of the head coach? Would any coach or staff member not inform the head coach of any allegations against a payer they heard about? He knew or should have known about all of this.
LikeLike
Clearly he would try to control discipline. As for the rest, it isn’t likely he didn’t know, but its certainly possible.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Clearly he would try to control discipline. As for the rest, it isn’t likely he didn’t know, but its certainly possible.”
Only if he was willfully ignorant. Coaches have their noses so far into every facet of their programs and what their players are doing any more that nothing escapes their notice for more than a few hours unless they want it to.
LikeLike
Some CFB nuggets, all from US Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/):
* Lovie Smith has banned players from using scooters
* Baylor is facing a second Title IX lawsuit, this one filed by 3 women
* AR approved a $160M stadium expansion/renovation adding 4800 seats among other things
LikeLike
Oops, I hit send too soon:
* MSU is adding permanent lighting to their stadium.
The university currently rents lights from other stadiums, one of the few Big Ten schools to do so. [MSU’s president] Simon says all Big Ten stadiums are now required to have permanent lights.
Presumably the number of night games will keep increasing (unfortunately).
* IA just had a player de-commit for the third time. Just to be clear, that’s one player that has de-committed three separate times. At what point does IA (or any school) take “No” for an answer?
LikeLike
Brian, I had a friend/client who was married to and divorced from the same woman twice. He actually considered “dating” her again, but sanity prevailed.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-soccer-relegation-would-make-deciding-a-college-football-champ-easier-better/
A plan for using relegation to “improve” the way CFB determines a champion although the author admits this would never happen.
Since the formation of the College Football Playoff and the separation of the Power Five conferences, there’s been speculation about the Power Five conferences breaking off entirely from the NCAA and forming their own league. My plan exists in a world where this happens, and along with breaking free, the Power Five expands to include a total of 70 teams — 14 per league.
Most importantly, instead of the traditional conferences we all know and love, teams would be grouped in new conferences based on their performance.
So what I’ve done is taken all the teams from the Power Five conferences (64), along with Notre Dame, and added five new teams poached from the independent ranks or the Group of Five (Boise State, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati and Houston) to give this new league 70 teams total.
I then took those 70 teams and broke them off into five new conferences. The new conferences aren’t based on current league loyalties or geography. Instead, I took each team’s record of their last five seasons and found their combined win percentage in those years. I then ranked all 70 teams based on that win percentage and put them in new conferences based on nothing but that.
The 14 best teams are in the top conference, the next 14 in the second conference, and so on. The only change I made was the five new teams from the Group of Five must start at the bottom because that’s just how the Power Five would do things. “You can join us, and you can have access to our money, but you’re going to start at the bottom.”
Notre Dame is excluded from this because of its previous relationship with the BCS and its partial membership in the ACC. Plus, you know, it’s Notre Dame, and that alone has typically been enough to deem the school a Power Five school all along.
He then gives a table with the 70 teams broken into conferences, but we all know how well that sort of things shows up on here.
Conference 1 – AL, FSU, Clemson, OR, OSU, MSU, Stanford, OU, Baylor, LSU, UGA, UL, OkSU, ND
B10 teams:
C2 – WI, NE, MI
C3 – PSU, IA, NW, RU
C4 – MN, IL
C5 – UMD, IN , PU
Then he does a Q&A, which I’ll summarize:
* Why 14 teams per conference?
Everyone plays a full round robin with no OOC games. 11 games is too few and 15 too many, and an odd number would require too many bye weeks.
* How would the schedule work?
You alternate between 6 and 7 home games each year.
* What about the playoff and bowl games?
They’ll still exist, just in a different format.
* How will promotion/relegation work?
The top 4 C1 teams make the CFP. The bottom 3 get relegated to C2 while the top 2 in C2 move up as well as the winner of playoff of the 3rd-6th place teams. Repeat this at all levels. All these playoff games would be played in existing bowls
* But there would still be plenty of bowls without teams!
And they can choose any of the teams that don’t make a playoff. Perhaps play a rivalry game that didn’t get played that year.
* How would the money and TV work?
Each conference would have a separate TV deal but the money is all pooled and split equally.
* But what about the recruiting advantages of Conference 1?
How is that any different from now?
…
He then gives a long example of how it would work for 1 season.
LikeLike
Although there is zero chance of this happening, he makes about the best case for it that could be made.
LikeLike
Why would anyone watch these games? One of the main attractions of college football, one it shares with major league baseball, is its history and traditions. This scheme destroys that. Moreover, it replaces the current tradition and history laden sport with an very inferior (to the real pros) semi-pro league. Does anyone watch semi-pro football? Does it even exist?
LikeLike
Why would anyone watch these games? One of the main attractions of college football, one it shares with major league baseball, is its history and traditions. This scheme destroys that. Moreover, it replaces the current tradition and history laden sport with an very inferior (to the real pros) semi-pro league.
This is silly season. With close to zero actual football news, the football writers need to invent the news by creating impossible “what if” proposals. There’s another one almost every day. It’s not worth getting indignant about.
Having said that…, the traditions of college football change all the time. What you think is the “tradition”, is different from what your grandpa thought was the “tradition” (assuming he followed football), which is something different again from what your grandson will believe is the “tradition”.
If you go back and look at the news stories, there were people who thought it was horrible that Penn State joined the Big Ten, destroying its “tradition” of independence. In another couple of decades, the vast majority of football fans will be people who never knew a 10-team Big Ten. I could give dozens more examples.
LikeLike
Traditions don’t so much change as they accumulate memories and become richer and more complex. Certainly, there was no tradition at the first college game between Rutgers and Princeton, nor between Michigan and Ohio State, but there is now, and it evolves.
Carmen Ohio did not exist at the first Michigan game in 1987. The lyric was composed in 1903, and the modern music was composed in 1955. No one would think of leaving any Ohio State game until it was sung.
The sportscasters inventing this silliness are not merely bored, they have no understanding of sports at any level.
LikeLike
Traditions don’t so much change as they accumulate memories and become richer and more complex.
Traditions don’t just accumulate, become rich, and more complex; many times, they simply die out.
I remember when many fans believed it was Natural Law that a poll should decide the national championship; and were horrified that the bowls would be reconfigured to decide it on the field. In 50 years, college football fans will be astonished that anyone ever thought that a championship decided by polls made sense.
The sportscasters inventing this silliness are not merely bored, they have no understanding of sports at any level.
They aren’t as dumb as you think they are. They know this has no chance of happening. It’s just a “what if…?”
LikeLike
Brian still thinks that!
LikeLike
With a selection process we really are still in the same era, with a pseudo playoff veneer.
Bullet, any progress on Garrido’s replacement?
LikeLike
bullet,
“Brian still thinks that!”
Which part? I assume you were referring to this:
“I remember when many fans believed it was Natural Law that a poll should decide the national championship; and were horrified that the bowls would be reconfigured to decide it on the field.”
I never thought it was natural law. I do believe that theoretically polls are more valid than a single-elimination playoff in determining which is the best CFB team that season. There is zero credibility in using a sample size of 1 game to determine the best team. Every sport except football that uses a post-season tournament uses multiple games to determine a champion, 7 games in several major sports. And even if you accurately determine the better team in that series, that’s only true at that moment in time. It doesn’t mean that same team was better when considering the whole season, it means they were hot at the end. It’s why college basketball acknowledges conference champs and conference tournament champs.
http://www.bettingtalk.com/win-probability-percentage-point-spread-nfl-nba/
Basic math:
A 2.5-pt favorite wins about 55% of the time.
A 9-pt favorite wins roughly 75% of the time.
2014: Both FSU and AL were 9-pt favorites in the semis.
56% – FSU and AL win
38% – FSU or AL wins
6% – OR and OSU win
As we all know, this 6% result is what occurred. It’s what we’d expect roughly once out of 16 times playing those semis. Now this could, of course, mean that the lines were very wrong. But it might not mean that. There isn’t enough data to know for sure.
2015: AL was a 9-pt favorite and OU was a 2.5-pt favorite.
41% – AL and OU win
34% – AL and Clemson win
14% – MSU and OU win
11% – MSU and Clemson win
This time we got the 34% outcome, or 1 in 3 chance.
http://newsok.com/article/3636904
Then there is the fact that in CFB the winner the first time 2 teams play historically wins a rematch only about 50% of the time. How is a single-elimination system definitive again?
Of the 41 rematches that I found in college football history, the loser of Game 1 is 21-20 in Game 2.
Then we get into how many teams truly deserve a shot at the title versus the 4 that are forced into the system.
I’m supposed to take these outcomes as more definitive than the wisdom of the crowd after 12+ games? I’d prefer the wisdom of the computers with some human input, frankly, but I know better than to accept a single game result as truly meaningful. Having MI and NE play in a bowl in 1997 (or PSU/NE in 1994, etc) wouldn’t have been truly determinative. The loser of game 1 might easily win a best of 3 series.
I do believe it is a shame that the bowls were reconfigured to lose all their tradition for a false sense of accuracy in determining a national champion. Having traditional bowls and lots of arguments and split titles was better and more accurate.
LikeLike
I do believe that theoretically polls are more valid than a single-elimination playoff in determining which is the best CFB team that season.
Even if we assume this is theoretically true, there is very little public demand for poll-determined champions. Ultimately, sports are played to satisfy the participants and the audience, not to produced the theoretically correct result.
I do think most thoughtful fans realize that there is an element of randomness in sports. The winner of the championship game (or series) is not, with 100% accuracy, the best team. Still, most prefer the closure of an actual game (or series)—however flawed a measurement it may be—over a mathematical model or the judgment of experts.
This is why, during the multiple decades of the poll era, there was steadily increasing support to “decide it on the field,” which finally they did. Among the other sports that decided the championship in an athletic competition, none decided to replace said competition with a season-ending poll.
I think it is therefore safe to say, that if CFB were a new sport today, practically no one would suggest a season-ending poll as the mechanism to decide the national champion. And at some point, after those of us who were alive in the poll era have died out, the next generation of fans will think it very strange that such a system ever existed.
Even today, I suspect it seems very odd to most of us, that the poll system originally “crowned” a champion before the bowl games were played. I am too young to remember the switch, but I’m sure there were fans then who thought it was wrong to count the bowls, and lamented the debasing of the tradition they had grown up with.
It’s why college basketball acknowledges conference champs and conference tournament champs.
All college sports acknowledge conference champs, even though they all have a mechanism to determine a national champ on the field, as well. It works that way in pro sports too, e.g., the “pennant” for winning one’s league in MLB, or the conference champ trophies in the NFL.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Even if we assume this is theoretically true,”
Which it is. And “theoretically” is an important part of it because the Coaches poll is completely worthless and the AP also has flaws, but a better poll could be made.
“there is very little public demand for poll-determined champions.”
I never said there was. I just clarified my beliefs versus bullet’s vague statement.
“Ultimately, sports are played to satisfy the participants and the audience,”
I’d say it’s more about pleasing the owners. They please the audience only as much as they need to in order to maximize revenue. As for the participants, they are appeased more than pleased.
“not to produced the theoretically correct result.”
That doesn’t change whether a poll produces a more accurate result than a single elimination tournament.
“I do think most thoughtful fans realize that there is an element of randomness in sports.”
What percentage of fans count as thoughtful?
“The winner of the championship game (or series) is not, with 100% accuracy, the best team.”
From what most fans say about titles won and lost, 95% or more do not recognize any inaccuracy.
“Still, most prefer the closure of an actual game (or series)—however flawed a measurement it may be—over a mathematical model or the judgment of experts.”
That really depends. The most popular sport in the world generally uses just the regular season results to determine their champions. They play tournaments for other purposes (World Cup, Olympics, etc) but those always begin with group play and multiple games determining who advances before going to single elimination. Most importantly, the winner is only declared the winner of that tournament. There are no postseason tournaments to determine the league champions.
“This is why, during the multiple decades of the poll era, there was steadily increasing support to “decide it on the field,” which finally they did.”
No, they didn’t. They pretend to decide it on the field definitively with a system that can’t possibly be definitive.
“Among the other sports that decided the championship in an athletic competition, none decided to replace said competition with a season-ending poll.”
No other league has 128 teams playing only 12 games while competing for the same title.
“I think it is therefore safe to say, that if CFB were a new sport today, practically no one would suggest a season-ending poll as the mechanism to decide the national champion.”
Which is irrelevant to my point. If CFB was a new sport today then everything about it would be different.
“And at some point, after those of us who were alive in the poll era have died out, the next generation of fans will think it very strange that such a system ever existed.”
This is also irrelevant to whether or not polls are better than single elimination tournaments for determining champions.
“Even today, I suspect it seems very odd to most of us, that the poll system originally “crowned” a champion before the bowl games were played. I am too young to remember the switch, but I’m sure there were fans then who thought it was wrong to count the bowls, and lamented the debasing of the tradition they had grown up with.”
They probably thought it was wrong for a very different reason – because the bowls were so many weeks later that they were really a separate season and were intended to be exhibitions and rewards for the players. The time lag problem still exists today and its effects can still be seen every bowl season.
“All college sports acknowledge conference champs, even though they all have a mechanism to determine a national champ on the field, as well.”
I think you missed my point. MBB has conference champs and conference tournament champs, not conference champs and conference regular season champs (except the screwed up ACC which never acknowledged the regular season). That showed that they understood which accomplishment was more representative of being the best team in the conference.
LikeLike
“Still, most prefer the closure of an actual game (or series)—however flawed a measurement it may be—over a mathematical model or the judgment of experts.”
That really depends. The most popular sport in the world generally uses just the regular season results to determine their champions.
But the criteria for winning the championship are known in advance, and are decided entirely on the field of play. A team cannot win all its games, and yet finish second, because a committee of voters thought some other team was better. In that sense, it is exactly like winning your division in the NFL (with similar tie-breakers), except that the NFL goes on to play a post-season, and Association Football does not.
“This is why, during the multiple decades of the poll era, there was steadily increasing support to “decide it on the field,” which finally they did.”
No, they didn’t. They pretend to decide it on the field definitively with a system that can’t possibly be definitive.
They aren’t pretending, any more than the NFL’s Super Bowl is pretending, or the NBA Finals are pretending—or, for that matter, most team sports. Tonight, in what amounts to a one-game Super Bowl of basketball, the Cleveland Cavaliers could win the NBA title, even though, in the regular season, they were 16 games worse than the Golden State Warriors.
I am too young to remember the switch, but I’m sure there were fans then who thought it was wrong to count the bowls, and lamented the debasing of the tradition they had grown up with.
They probably thought it was wrong for a very different reason – because the bowls were so many weeks later that they were really a separate season and were intended to be exhibitions and rewards for the players. The time lag problem still exists today and its effects can still be seen every bowl season.
I entirely agree with you about the reason, but enough time has passed that comparatively few fans are aware that it ever worked that way — and when they find out, there are hardly any who think we ought to go back to that. At some point, the new system that is seen initially as an affront to tradition, becomes the only tradition that most fans have ever known.
I do believe it is a shame that the bowls were reconfigured to lose all their tradition for a false sense of accuracy in determining a national champion.
Would you prefer the pre-1975 bowl system, in which Ohio State’s season last year would have ended after the Michigan game, because only the conference champ got to attend a bowl?
LikeLike
“Bullet, any progress on Garrido’s replacement?”
Not Bullet, but here’s an update from a Louisiana perpective.
http://theadvocate.com/news/16151492-128/sources-texas-interviews-tulane-baseball-coach-david-pierce
“Tulane baseball coach David Pierce . . . interviewed with Texas interim athletic director Mike Perrin on Saturday, sources told The Advocate.”
“Texas has missed on several targets for its position, according to reports, including LSU’s Paul Mainieri, TCU’s Jim Schlossnagle, Oregon State’s Pat Casey, UCLA’s Dan Savage, Louisville’s Dan McDonnell and Florida’s Kevin O’Sullivan.”
LikeLike
Alan:
Thanks
Marc:
CFB playoff is still a selection process to get in. Unlike NFL it’s not a meet established benchmark and you’re in like NFL.
I do agree with you that a bracket will establish the bracket champion, and people generally have an easier time with most recent result being more valued.
However, I agree with Brian that we use to be crowning the #1 team for the year. Was it perfect? No. But I did/do apreciate that it was at least as definitive as the current selected bracket, and didn’t allow for an obvious upset being over rewarded. Was Vilanova or Georgetown the best team of that year when Vilanova pulled the huge upset? Not that day, but the year.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But the criteria for winning the championship are known in advance, and are decided entirely on the field of play. A team cannot win all its games, and yet finish second, because a committee of voters thought some other team was better.”
No other sports has so many teams competing for 1 title with so few games. Beating the 12 worst CFB teams shouldn’t automatically make you #1. Until CFB teams are better connected via scheduling, you can’t even pretend to settle it solely on the field.
“They aren’t pretending,”
That’s not what I said. I said they are pretending to determine the champion on the field definitively. That’s just not possible in CFB.
“I entirely agree with you about the reason, but enough time has passed that comparatively few fans are aware that it ever worked that way — and when they find out, there are hardly any who think we ought to go back to that.”
So what? Correctness isn’t based on popularity.
“Would you prefer the pre-1975 bowl system, in which Ohio State’s season last year would have ended after the Michigan game, because only the conference champ got to attend a bowl?”
I’d be fine with it. I personally thought that was a strange rule since only the B10 had it, but it wouldn’t bother me.
LikeLike
Brian:
“I personally thought that was a strange rule since only the B10 had it…”
PAC 8 and B10 were governed by the same agreement with the Rose Bowl until ’75.
Can’t swear to the accuracy, but here’s a history.
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/219877-pac-10-and-the-major-bowls-a-tangled-history
LikeLike
Can say it’s inaccurate about no PAC team in Orange bowl until BCS. Huskies/Sooners 1/1/85.
LikeLike
I was not aware that the P8 also had that rule. It doesn’t make it seem any less strange to me, though.
LikeLike
They didn’t have the same rule. USC played in the Rose Bowl in 68-69-70, Standard 71-72 & USC again in73-74-75.
LikeLike
Sorry USC also played in 67 Rose Bowl. Making it 4 straight years.
LikeLike
Agreed to in order to guarantee yearly Rose Bowl participation.
Interesting that from that article there has been far more bowl games than most think prior to what seems like dramatic growth the last 30+ years. Shows how what happens prior to personal memory can get overlooked/ignored.
LikeLike
Doug:
The Rose as the only bowl was what we were talking about. They was an agreement with the ToR commitee. The no repeat was a conference rule in the B10. I think PAC had similar but abandoned it much earlier (if they actually had it. Little grey cells getting littler and greyer…)
LikeLike
CCrider,
I’m pretty sure they didn’t. Cal played in the Rose in 49-50-51.
Washington played in the Rose 60-61. Then there wasn’t a repeat until USC’s 4 straight 67-68-69-70.
LikeLike
“I entirely agree with you about the reason, but enough time has passed that comparatively few fans are aware that it ever worked that way — and when they find out, there are hardly any who think we ought to go back to that.”
So what? Correctness isn’t based on popularity.
True, but revenue sports wouldn’t be earning revenue if they were not popular.
LikeLike
CFB playoff is still a selection process to get in. Unlike NFL it’s not a meet established benchmark and you’re in like NFL.
True enough, but all the NCAA team sports work that way. All football did, was to finally conform to the expected model that governs every other team sport in America.
I agree with Brian that we use to be crowning the #1 team for the year. Was it perfect? No. But I did/do appreciate that it was at least as definitive as the current selected bracket, and didn’t allow for an obvious upset being over rewarded.
Over rewarded, or correctly rewarded? To win that final game (or series) is what Americans want from their sports, which is why every other sport operates that way. None saw the college football model, and said, “Wow! That’s what I really want!!” It was the opposite: many saw the football model, and asked why it couldn’t pick a champion the way the other sports do.
I suppose those who want to know who had the best regular season, could look at the final AP poll before the tourney begins, or simply look to which team the committee awards the overall #1 seed. But there is just not as much interest in that.
LikeLike
“True enough, but all the NCAA team sports work that way. ”
No. Completely backwards. FB is the singular exception. All the others have predefined qualification that is completely competition/result defined. There are selections for “wild cards”, but there is always an auto qualifier.
What is being attributed to a tournament winner is part of my, and perhaps Brian’s disagreement. The lable “best” team gets attached to the winner. Sometimes the best doesn’t win. 116 win mariner team only lost one series all year – all year! Because it was in the post season few consider them among the better teams whereas I place that team as the best since 1906.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“What is being attributed to a tournament winner is part of my, and perhaps Brian’s disagreement. The lable “best” team gets attached to the winner. Sometimes the best doesn’t win.”
Exactly. I understand that playoffs are more popular amongst fans, but that will never make them more accurate at determining the best team (especially not single-elimination tournaments).
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Why would anyone watch these games?”
Because they like CFB?
It’s 91 games matching the top 14 teams from the previous year. It’s 13 games against equivalent foes for your favorite team, so everyone can realistically hope to go 0.500 or better any given year. It’s fewer massive blowouts by great teams over terrible ones. Even if you’re team is having a down year you still have a strong rooting interest (except for the bottom of Conference 5).
“One of the main attractions of college football, one it shares with major league baseball, is its history and traditions.”
That’s a main attraction for traditional fans, but we’re in the minority. Which games get the best ratings – classic rivalries or match-ups of top 10 teams? We may be excited about PSU/Pitt being played this year, but OSU/OU will slaughter it in the ratings.
“This scheme destroys that.”
Which is one reason the author admits it will never happen.
“Moreover, it replaces the current tradition and history laden sport with an very inferior (to the real pros) semi-pro league.”
Like adding a playoff instead of traditional bowls? Like paying players? Like dropping rivalries to switch conferences and then claiming the schedule is too full?
“Does anyone watch semi-pro football?”
Not many, no.
“Does it even exist?”
Yes. http://www.semiprofootball.org/
There are over one-thousand football teams in the United States that refer to themselves as semi-pro, minor league, professional development, senior amateur, or adult amateur in over sixty different leagues. These football players usually have played high-school or college ball, and they want to continue competing after their eligibility has been exhausted. The vast majority of these players do not get paid to play … they truly compete for the love of the game. This involves the players purchasing their own equipment and usually paying for their own transportation/lodging to/from games. This site is dedicated to these players whose participation and dedication allows this overlooked level of football to exist in the United States.
LikeLike
Bleacher Report did a series of yearly articles on this a few years ago. It’s not a new concept just rehashed differently.
LikeLike
Has this been boiling below national media attention? Or have I missed seeing it coming.
http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Governor-to-removed-members-of-the-U-of-L-Board-of-Trustees-383411561.html
LikeLike
This is the first I’ve heard of it, but one comment explains it a little bit more.
Besides the athletic scandals, there has been a chain of events involving embezzlement, lack of financial controls and questionable practices among U of L administrators. Finally someone has noticed and a new board will hopefully return to school to its students and faculty instead of being a place for administrators to grow rich.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/133937/the-big-tens-top-10-all-time-coaches
The top 10 B10 coaches of all time:
1. Hayes
2. Yost
3. Schembechler
4. Stagg
5. Bierman
6. Zuppke
7. Tressel
8. Paterno
9. Fry
10. Alvarez
HM: Daugherty, MN’s Henry Williams, Crisler, Carr, Meyer
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/06/17/art-briles-baylor-bears-reach-settlement–terminate-contract/86050856/
Briles and Baylor have reached a settlement pending approval by the Board of Regents.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/06/17/uab-new-stadium-facility-proposal-approved-board-trustees
UAB has gotten approval for a new $20M football facility including a covered practice field (roof but no walls).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/friday-five-the-easiest-schedules-in-major-college-football-for-2016/
The 5 easiest schedules for 2016 (P5 only):
1. BC
2. Clemson
3. Baylor
4. MN
5. UF
Will the schedule come back to haunt Clemson in the playoff race?
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/16/larry-scott-pac-12-networks-optimal-model-us/
This went so well last time, let’s try it again. Part 2 of the Wilner/Scott series is about the P12N.
Part two of the Hotline’s look at hot-button issues in the Pac-12 takes us to the hottest-button issue of them all: The Pac-12 Networks, which are, depending on your view, a success, a failure, an epic failure or a fireable offense.
Yes, there are those who consider the Pac12Nets a success, and it’s not an insignificant contingent. How many? Impossible to say, except we should keep in mind that the frustrated are always more vocal than the satisfied.
Those satisfied with the Pac12Nets are divided into two groups:
1) Fans with no distribution problems, the HD option at minimal/zero additional cost, and (in some cases) a passion for Olympic sports.
2) Enough presidents/chancellors to ensure that the Pac12Nets are not, in fact, a fireable offense for the man in charge.
#2 is the only point that matters, unfortunately for fans with distribution issues.
Before we get to the details of the conversation, here’s the key quote from Scott: “I look at my role as the steward of the value of the content for the members.”
…
*** With nothing new on the DirecTV front – “We keep working,” Scott said, “but I can’t promise something will happen” — we delved into the topics of greatest interest to me:
Has the conference seriously considered selling equity in the Pac-12 Networks? If so, what is the status of that endeavor? And if not, are Scott and the presidents/chancellors willing to accept a significant revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten for years to come?
Scott’s response: No equity sale in the near future:
…
In addition, consultants retained by the conference determined an asset value for the Pac-12 Networks “because we wanted the CEOs to understand there was significant value.”
(Scott didn’t say what that asset value is. More below.)
“We looked at the landscape, weighed the pros and cons and decided to remain independent. We concluded” — the issue never came to a vote — “that we had the best model knowing it’s a very dynamic market.
“We believe it’s the optimal model for us.”
*** How can it be the optimal model when the subscriber and revenue figures lag far behind those of the SEC and Big Ten networks? When there is no distribution on the major sports delivery system in the country (DTV)? When many fans in the footprint cannot get the Pac12Nets for free on HD and some fans in the footprint can’t see all the football and men’s basketball games?
…
So why does Scott consider the current model optimal?
Because of these seven words:
“We are taking the longer-term view.”
And because of this:
“I look at my role as the steward of the value of the content for the members.”
Scott is aware of the fan (and campus) frustrations with Pac12Nets distribution and revenue. But whether you agree or not, his priority is the long haul – and the presidents and chancellors support that approach.
…
*** What does the long haul mean?
It could mean up to eight more years. The current Tier 1 deal with ESPN and FOX expires in the summer of 2024. When that happens, the conference will take everything it owns to the market.
In Scott’s view, the confluence of rising demand for live sports (good insight here) … and changes in media landscape … and demand for Pac-12 content … will work to create a bonanza for the conference at the negotiating table with fill-in-the-blank (ESPN, FOX, Hulu, Facebook, Google, etc).
“We want to create the most long-term value,” he said. “That’s the mission.”
…
But at this point, it appears the current model will remain in place for years … that means current distribution and revenue trends will likely remain, as well … and the presidents/chancellors are fine with that, he added.
*** Why are they fine with that?
Scott told me during our discussion — and has said this periodically over the past few years — that the CEOs simply like the idea of owning a media company. (All the better that it has a rising valuation.)
…
Scott also believes, based on feedback from consultants and discussions with other media companies, that there will be new distribution options for the Pac12Nets in the next 12-to-18 months.
The optimal model leaves the P12 way behind for years with the hope that the network can be sold for a lot more in the future? That’s a big risk.
*** Those are the highlights of the conversation with Scott. But I wanted to take a quick stab at valuing the Pac-12 Networks in order to add context to the conference’s reasoning.
This is an extremely rough approximation, but several industry sources have estimated in recent years that a multiplier of 7x revenue seems reasonable for the Pac12Nets.
Based on $116 million in revenue in FY15, the entity would be worth more than $800 million.
(You can be sure the presidents and chancellors like hearing they have 100% ownership of a media asset worth high-nine figures, and perhaps more, on the open market.)
We don’t know if the conference would sell 49 or 51 percent ownership, so let’s just assume an equity sale would produce half the total valuation, or $400 million.
That’s $33 million per school.
And that’s a whopping figure, except when you compare it to the cost of staying the course.
Staying the course means a per-school deficit of at least $5 million annually, over the next eight years, when compared to the per-school distributions provided by the SEC and Big Ten networks.
Then again, we don’t know the valuation growth rate of the Pac12Nets, and the potential premium on the open market due to multiple bids.
LikeLike
http://adage.com/article/media/scripted-tv/304423/
Linked by Wilner was this article about the value of live programming.
According to a MoffettNathanson analysis of 2015-16 C3 ratings trends for TV programming throughout the day, sports now accounts for more than one-third (34%) of all deliveries of viewers in the 18-to-49 demo, making it the single most significant category by a wide margin. Another live segment, news, serves up 17% of targeted ratings points, tying drama for the No. 2 slot. When sports, news, one-off specials (“The Wiz Live!,” “Grease Live”) and live installments of reality shows like NBC’s “The Voice” are lumped together, real-time programming now accounts for a staggering 61% of all broadcast GRPs.
…
As Mr. Nathanson notes, sports are overwhelmingly consumed in real time, with 95% of all deliveries occurring as the action unfolds. The same cannot be said for scripted content; 42% of broadcast comedies are time-shifted, while more than half (52%) of drama GRPs are delayed.
LikeLike
Brian:
“… we delved into the topics of greatest interest to me:
Has the conference seriously considered selling equity in the Pac-12 Networks? If so, what is the status of that endeavor? And if not, are Scott and the presidents/chancellors willing to accept a significant revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten for years to come?”
No to re engage, but to point out a part of what I was getting at last time.
1: he is fixated on an equity sale. Any sale.
2: what is the state of that endeavor.
3: if not are presidents ready to accept failure? a longterm (is “for years” a time frame that panics the chancellors and presidents?) significant gap.
Do the CEO’s harbor Wilner’s delusion that the PAC (as currently constituted) “should” be the equal of the B1G or SEC? If the 2010 P16 had happened, perhaps.
It’s not apples to apples exactly, but as a 100% owned property it is similar to a conference “stadium”. UM didn’t sell equity in the big house when it was first built and there was plenty of criticism of its cost, and there didn’t seem to be demand for something that big and expensive. That turned out ok in the long run. Same with many other stadiums. I don’t see demand that they sell equity in them, beyond some naming rights agreements. Heck, Wilner has written positively about USC basically taking control of and renovating the Coliseum.
Perhaps an equity sale is something they would do, but haven’t reached an acceptable offer? Maybe media climate not currently conducive to such? Maybe the network’s valuation is increasing faster than returns would over time from a sale?
Anyway, this discussion is more interesting than anything that ends in “keep watching”…at least to me.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“No to re engage, but to point out a part of what I was getting at last time.
1: he is fixated on an equity sale. Any sale.
2: what is the state of that endeavor.
3: if not are presidents ready to accept failure? a longterm (is “for years” a time frame that panics the chancellors and presidents?) significant gap.”
1. Is he personally fixated or is that what fans keep asking him about (or both)? I don’t know, but neither do you. I think it’s more accurate to say he talks about the revenue gap in various ways more than you like. He and the fans seem to think that gap is fairly important but the presidents seem to disagree.
2. There were rumors about the P12 shopping around, so that seems like a very relevant question to ask.
3. Scott is probably the wrong one to ask, but the fans probably do want to know if the presidents are fine with the revenue gap versus seeing no reasonable way to close it.
“Do the CEO’s harbor Wilner’s delusion that the PAC (as currently constituted) “should” be the equal of the B1G or SEC? If the 2010 P16 had happened, perhaps.”
They talked a big financial game when they expanded to 12 and got the biggest TV deal ever. There was a lot of hype about the P12N and how it would be better than the BTN. I think that’s the source of much of the fan frustration.
“It’s not apples to apples exactly, but as a 100% owned property it is similar to a conference “stadium”.”
But if the presidents aren’t willing to ever sell, then it’s an asset with paper value only. And if they do sell, it may or may not be worth what the consultants claim.
“Perhaps an equity sale is something they would do, but haven’t reached an acceptable offer?”
Which seems like a good reason for a reporter to ask about it. I’m curious, and presumably so are a lot of P12 fans.
“Maybe media climate not currently conducive to such?”
Is the climate likely to improve?
“Maybe the network’s valuation is increasing faster than returns would over time from a sale?”
It’s entirely possible. Perhaps the presidents could spare 5 minutes of their time to say something on the subject to the P12 fans rather than leaving them in the dark.
“Anyway, this discussion is more interesting than anything that ends in “keep watching”…at least to me.”
Watching paint dry beats that thread. Trolls need to be ignored, not fed.
LikeLike
1: Wilner specified himself as the one interested in that question. It’s fair to suggest fan interest drives it to an extent, but it seems more like fanning flames again as he’s addressed the issue multiple times. With the same point of view.
2: straight forward question and reasonable answer.
3: worthless, opinion centric retort more than a question.
“But if the presidents aren’t willing to ever sell, then it’s an asset with paper value only.”
Is the Horseshoe up for sale to some for profit marketing company? Even partially?
“It’s entirely possible. Perhaps the presidents could spare 5 minutes of their time to say something on the subject to the P12 fans rather than leaving them in the dark.”
Who’s in the dark? It’s clear where things stand and pretty much why, and ongoing negotiations/projections rarely benefit from being vetted by a click hunting sports blogger. I don’t feel presidents are obligated to explain themselves, other than to their BOR.
LikeLike
The problem with Larry Scott and the Pac-12 is they refuse to admit something is wrong. Everyone mentions Direct TV but Charter and Cablevision do not carry Pac-12 Network either. Look at the viewership when compared to BTN or SEC. Look at how much money each School is making compared to those Conferences. One more point:” If you look at Oregon Direct TV despite 8 years of no Blazer Games and No Pac-12 Network still has a huge presence. The Conference needs to dump Scott ( the highest paid Conference Head), and wake up to the Economic Reality that your ” Conference of Champions” no longer is, and you are not only falling behind the B10 and SEC but the ACC as well.
LikeLike
The problem with Larry Scott and the Pac-12 is they refuse to admit something is wrong. Everyone mentions Direct TV but Charter and Cablevision do not carry Pac-12 Network either. Look at the viewership when compared to BTN or SEC. Look at how much money each School is making compared to those Conferences.
The Pac-12 has multiple structural disadvantages that no commissioner could fix in the short-term, if ever. This is not to say that Scott has executed perfectly. But if the goal is to make as much money as the B10 and the SEC, then they are probably doomed to fail with any commissioner.
To many of these questions, there is a simple answer: fans and sportswriters are notoriously short-term thinkers. University presidents are notoriously long-term thinkers. Most of the first group, therefore, have great difficulty understanding the perspective of the second.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“1: Wilner specified himself as the one interested in that question. It’s fair to suggest fan interest drives it to an extent,”
So we agree that we don’t know the true source of his interest. For that matter, as long as the fans are curious it doesn’t matter if he is also curious.
“but it seems more like fanning flames again as he’s addressed the issue multiple times. With the same point of view.”
How often has he gotten the chance to ask Scott about it? Do you not believe it is a reasonable and relevant question for an interview of Scott by a P12 reporter?
“3: worthless, opinion centric retort more than a question.”
But you wrote #3. That wasn’t what Wilner said/asked.
“Is the Horseshoe up for sale to some for profit marketing company? Even partially?”
No person at OSU has ever mentioned the asset value of Ohio Stadium as a reason to do or not do something.
“Who’s in the dark?”
All the fans who keep asking Wilner questions presumably represent a larger group that are also unclear what is going on.
“It’s clear where things stand and pretty much why,”
It is? To whom? I don’t know if the presidents were seriously shopping the P12N or just curious what the market value might be. I don’t know if the presidents are content with trailing the other conferences by several million. I don’t know how much they value owning a network with the option to sell it later versus having cash in hand.
“and ongoing negotiations/projections rarely benefit from being vetted by a click hunting sports blogger.”
You don’t have to give out all the details to keep fans reasonably informed.
“I don’t feel presidents are obligated to explain themselves, other than to their BOR.”
Most of these are still state schools, right? They do owe an explanation to the tax payers why they are choosing not to make money now when they could. It’s not difficult to give a brief statement explaining the basic thoughts of the presidents on ownership of the P12N.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“To many of these questions, there is a simple answer: fans and sportswriters are notoriously short-term thinkers. University presidents are notoriously long-term thinkers. Most of the first group, therefore, have great difficulty understanding the perspective of the second.”
I’d suggest that the biggest problem here is that the presidents haven’t bothered to explain their long-term thinking to anyone but their Regents/Trustees (maybe major donors). It wouldn’t take more than a few minutes to release a brief statement explaining their long-term outlook. The fans may disagree, but at least they’d know what the presidents were thinking.
LikeLike
Brian:
“You don’t have to give out all the details to keep fans reasonably informed.”
And yet he is unhappy with reiterated ‘we’ve looked at alternatives and have chosen to stay the course, for now” that has been known for some time.
“Who’s in the dark?”
All the fans who keep asking Wilner questions presumably…”
I’m not sure having Scott reiterate what has already been available is going to improve dissatisfied fans perception.
“Most of these are still state schools, right? They do owe an explanation to the tax payers why they are choosing not to make money now when they could.”
No, the elected politicians that approve funding may be the ones answerable to citizens, but not the schools/presidents as a direct to the fan obligation. The second part of that implies intent to not maximize value. That is exactly what Scott says the current course is intended to do (and has said in the past). Long term.
“No person at OSU has ever mentioned the asset value of Ohio Stadium as a reason to do or not do something.”
Well, since it’s the PAC we’re considering as needing additional revenue, any likely hood Sun Devil stadium, or Autzen, or Husky stadium consider an equity sale? Sounds crazy, but perhaps the PAC sees the network like that. As the only completely conference owned one there is no long term comparison, outside other than comercial for profit sports networks.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And yet he is unhappy with reiterated ‘we’ve looked at alternatives and have chosen to stay the course, for now” that has been known for some time.”
No, he was unhappy with them not saying a word about what they were doing. All they had to do was say we looked into the value of selling a partial stake in the P12N to various parties and decided we were better off long term not selling part of it now because we believe it will continue to grow in value. That’s more than they ever said to their fans.
“I’m not sure having Scott reiterate what has already been available is going to improve dissatisfied fans perception.”
You might be amazed how many people are content just to be kept informed.
“The second part of that implies intent to not maximize value.”
No it doesn’t. It implies they haven’t explained why not selling a stake now is a good thing. They could mention that consultants have told the the value keeps growing so selling now would be premature.
“Well, since it’s the PAC we’re considering as needing additional revenue, any likely hood Sun Devil stadium, or Autzen, or Husky stadium consider an equity sale? Sounds crazy, but perhaps the PAC sees the network like that. As the only completely conference owned one there is no long term comparison, outside other than comercial for profit sports networks.”
It’s apple and oranges. The network was started with promises of it being a great revenue source for the schools. So when it isn’t paying the schools very much, it’s natural to wonder if it could/should provide revenue in a different way (*via selling a stake). Stadiums don’t come with that promise, they just claim to pay for themselves over time.
LikeLike
Brian:
“The network was started with promises of it being a great revenue source…”
It had/has promise, but from the P12N introduction on Scott (the CEO’s front man) has stated revenue wasn’t its primary purpose.
From Wilner prior to announcement: “As one source said recently, the conference is looking to establish “a new paradigm.”
Again, Scott is trying to find a model that suits fans from coast to coast but also will work in 5 or 10 years, when the internet and TV have merged in the vast majority of households across the country.
It’s also important to note that he has financial flexibility:
Because of the $250 million/yr deal with Fox and ESPN, the conference doesn’t have to pick a network structure that ensures huge, immediate profitability.
It can select the best fit for the long term.”
And Wilner from actual announcement: “Clearly, Scott did not take the most profitable course — and he never intended to, based on my conversations with him over the months.”
And from Cal AD at same conference: ““Although there is potential for financial upside, the long-term financial benefit to Pac-12 institutions is unknown at this time and will be based on future distribution and advertising opportunities.
“In the near term, the conference campuses are not expected to receive any new revenue from the networks.”
LikeLike
The other half of the contract goes to ESPN…
“ESPN will buy the second half of the Big Ten’s media rights package, ending months of speculation that the two were about to sever their 50-year relationship.
ESPN will pay an average of $190 million per year over six years for essentially half the conference’s media rights package, according to several sources close to the talks. Two months ago, Fox Sports agreed to take the other half of the package for an average of $240 million per year. CBS Sports also has told the conference that it will renew its basketball-only package for $10 million per year.”
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx
LikeLike
The new media rights deal is very good money but maybe not the blockbuster that some were hoping for in terms of leaving ESPN etc.. The money is almost a 3x. I wonder if 6 years is enough time for the over the top/technologies to advance enough that the economic impact of cord cutting is more knowable and the market improves. I guess ultimately if there is significant expansion at that time the market will have to improve as it will have no choice really.
At this point it is really difficult to see another player come in down the road and be a bidder for CFB television rights. I think it is Fox and ESPN for the foreseeable future. Hard to see NBC becoming a major player anymore. They seem to like the niche programming. Heck, their NFL package is only 1 game per week. In 6 years one would guess that FS1 will have improved just due to content alone.
LikeLike
Now that we know both halves of the deal, what should we expect the B1G to pay out per school?
How can this be close to “lapping” the SEC?
LikeLike
from 2023-2027, everything comes up for bid except for the SEC Tier II. Lots could change then.
LikeLike
The SEC will basically only have their CBS deal up for bid in the next, almost, 20 years. The CBS deal will likely be renewed for exposure purposes but the money will not be that significant relative to their tier 2 ESPN deal. Maybe if the SEC was not keeping up with their payout I wonder if they would explore selling that game to ESPN or FOX.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“The new media rights deal is very good money but maybe not the blockbuster that some were hoping for in terms of leaving ESPN etc.. The money is almost a 3x.”
Not a blockbuster despite the money almost tripling?
$440M per year for 6 years + BTN + CFP + bowls + NCAA tournament money + other?
$31.4M + $9.6M (conservative average BTN estimate) = $41M in media only
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
The B10 projected the 12 full-share members would be getting $33M per year from TV only at the start of the new deal. It seems to me like they blew past that number. If you assume 5% escalation, then year 1 being $27.7M would result in an average of $31.4M over 6 years (all our numbers so far have been averages). That means BTN would only need to pay $5.3M to hit $33M total, but BTN has being a lot more than that lately (over $8M per year).
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big-ten-schools-will-see-media-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal.html
B10 payout breakdown from 2015:
TV + BTN profit shares: $21,499,346
NCAA: $4,443,096
Bowl: $4,723,939.44
Big Ten MBB Tourney: $405,580
Big Ten FB Championship Game: $335,402
Total: $32,407,363
That’s $21.5M from media and $10.9M from other sources. Call that $13M on average over the 6 years (assumes modest escalation). TV + media should then average about $54M per school over this 6 year deal. The B10 projected $44.5M per school in year 1 when talking to UMD and again they exceeded that number significantly (looks like $47M or more).
“I wonder if 6 years is enough time for the over the top/technologies to advance enough that the economic impact of cord cutting is more knowable and the market improves.”
6 years is forever in the media industry. Think back to 2010.
“In 6 years one would guess that FS1 will have improved just due to content alone.”
We can only hope.
LikeLike
If you average out the numbers, you will see an average of over 31m per School. Of course, that is going to be more since Maryland and Rutgers do not get full shares and BTN is not included. Basically Pac-12 Schools like Washington State and Oregon State are looking like UTEP and Rice financially speaking when compared to even Purdue and Indiana.
LikeLike
Big 10 may be $20 million ahead, nearly as far ahead of Pac 12 as they are ahead of CUSA, but there is a difference between earning roughly 1.8 times as much vs. the 10 times as much the Pac 12 earns vs. CUSA (whose new TV contract will pay $200k per team per year).
LikeLike
Yeah and the more interesting comparison will be determined once we know the ACC situation.
Almost everything comes down to the ACC Network situation and where the ACC is in the mid-2020s with regards to conference realignment in general.
LikeLike
That’s a good deal for both sides; obviously ESPN has much broader reach in terms of ratings generated by games on its networks vis-a-vis other properties as well as distribution generally, and the Big Ten still got ESPN close enough to Fox.
I think most of us were hoping that ESPN would pitch in at least $175 million for 50% of the contract. Getting them to $190 million with Fox paying $240 million is a clear win.
Do we know the situation on the championship game? I’d assume that’s rolled into Fox’s $240 million…
LikeLike
“Do we know the situation on the championship game?”
The difference between the two packages is that Fox Sports will carry the Big Ten football championship game every season, which is a strong draw each December. Fox also will have game selection advantages over ESPN, which almost certainly means that the coveted Michigan-Ohio State rivalry will move to Fox most years.
Before each season, the networks will pick the weeks where they get first choice of games. Fox will have the first pick every year; ESPN will have the second; Fox will have the third, and so on.
ESPN will carry Big Ten football games on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. ESPNU will see far fewer Big Ten games than it has in the past.
—
Everything about this deal is good news. Keeps half the package on ESPN, gets games off ESPNU for better visibility, the money is good enough. Almost the ideal outcome for the B1G.
LikeLike
Ah okay, and yeah the fact that Fox is getting the best games and the CCG with ESPN still only $50m less a year pretty much cements it as about as good a deal as it can be.
And next go around will be timed for when there’s a lot more money “available” (as opposed to this time when ESPN/FOX had tons of deals locked up through the 2020s and beyond).
LikeLike
greg,
The difference between the two packages is that Fox Sports will carry the Big Ten football championship game every season, which is a strong draw each December. Fox also will have game selection advantages over ESPN, which almost certainly means that the coveted Michigan-Ohio State rivalry will move to Fox most years.
That’s going to take getting used to. That games has been on ABC for a very long time.
“Everything about this deal is good news. Keeps half the package on ESPN, gets games off ESPNU for better visibility, the money is good enough. Almost the ideal outcome for the B1G.”
Agreed. The difference in the packages makes the price difference seem reasonable. Staying on ESPN is a huge bonus (as is getting off ESPNU). CBS keeping the MBB package is also important. Now the fans just need to make FS1 more popular.
LikeLike
Matt Sarzyniak has some comments regarding the deal over on his blog…
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/06/big-ten-finalizing-future-media-rights.html
Ending with…
“* Commentary: ESPN is still paying a pretty penny, but FOX looks like they got a lot of the perks. They’ll be paying more, they’ll have some priority in selection and they keep the football championship game. From the notes in SBJ (again, read it), either the Big Ten was bent on strengthening ties with FOX Sports outside of BTN or ESPN incorrectly read how much FOX was willing & able to pay to get a portion.”
LikeLike
Based on Michigan’s generosity with public budgets, extrapolating what the new contract is likely worth in year 1 and a rough estimate on BTN distributions, I put the 2017/2018 Big Ten Distribution at roughly $50 million for the 11 original schools and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Does that mean that the 12 may get slightly lower payments after 2021 when RU and UMd are fully vested? (I am not sure if UMd will still owe money to the B1G even after full vesting due to larger initial payouts. If so that may only go to the 11. I have no clue.) This seems to be what will happen, unless there are slightly higher payouts from sources other than the two TV deals.
How unhappy will schools like FSU be to see the Terrapins significantly out earning the ACC football powers?
LikeLike
The B1G has always structured the deals so that they have annual escalators for budgetary purposes. It’s likely the conference won’t fully distribute for the first year or 2 and may build a reserve. They have done that in the past when they were prepping for expansion.
LikeLike
That is one of the remaining questions in all of this. How are Maryland and particularly Rutger’s payouts handled under the new contract.
LikeLike
They remain exactly what they were contracted to be when they joined.
LikeLike
While I can’t find a release at the conference site, Testudo Times is reporting the B1G has given Maryland the following men’s basketball pairings for 2016-2017
Home and away: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers:
Home only: Indiana, Michigan State, Nebraska, Purdue
Away only: Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State, Wisconsin
If the format is the same as in past years, Maryland’s women will play a “mirror” schedule (at IU, MSU, Neb and Purdue, home to Mich, NW, PSU and Wisc, same five foes for home-and-home).
LikeLike
As Bogie said in “Casablanca,” I was misinformed. The B1G has cut its WBB schedule from 18 to 16 games (a move I frankly don’t like), and these are Maryland’s games:
Home/away: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota
Home only: Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Away only: Indiana, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Purdue
LikeLike
Frank,
Can we all assume you’ll be writing a new post ASAP to talk about this new deal?
LikeLike
@Brian – I’ll be working on a new post during a very long plane flight tomorrow morning. (It’s direct from Chicago to Honolulu, so no one needs to feel sorry for me!)
LikeLike
Frank, I think you also need to do something on the ACC Network situation. When I look at the ACC game son TV I am stunned to see 3 or games shunted off to ESPN3 nether-land. A lot of wasted content. To get games on National TV they throw games onto Thursday and Friday nights. The poor exposure as much as lower revenue has to be a major problem, even more than revenue. Some insight into that mess would be very interesting (they follow gag orders better than the Big 12 guys).
LikeLike
The Big 10 seems to be leaving some room on ESPNU for them.
LikeLike
Stuart,
“Frank, I think you also need to do something on the ACC Network situation.”
The B10 deal may have some small impact on them (more slots available on the family of networks), but otherwise I don’t think anything new has come out recently.
“When I look at the ACC game son TV I am stunned to see 3 or games shunted off to ESPN3 nether-land. A lot of wasted content. To get games on National TV they throw games onto Thursday and Friday nights. The poor exposure as much as lower revenue has to be a major problem, even more than revenue.”
Part of that reflects the national interest level in the ACC. Beyond FSU and Clemson games (and ND games), which teams do fans really want to see? That said, something has to fill the slots where B10 games used to be. Maybe Matt Sarz is right and it will be G5 games because they’re cheaper. Maybe it will be more ACC games.
LikeLike
I suspect ACC because ABC/ESPN already bought them. My hunch is ESPN will replace 1 or 2 games on secondary channels that were B1G with ACC games already being produced (money already spent) by shunted to ESPN3. I dunno about ACCN. I suspect they will do something to not pay the ACC $45m and advance their Network in digital space. BUt I am hoping Frank can work his contacts and give us a more insightful analysis than my WAGs.
LikeLike
Direct Chicago to Honolulu? I’d feel more comfortable with a quick stop being in SF or LA to top off the fuel tanks before heading out to find tiny specks in the middle of the Pacific.
What does airline wifi connect to halfway to the islands?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Direct Chicago to Honolulu? I’d feel more comfortable with a quick stop being in SF or LA to top off the fuel tanks before heading out to find tiny specks in the middle of the Pacific.”
Airplanes can fly really far nowadays. There used to be a direct Newark to Singapore flight (over 9500 miles, about 19 hours). I believe the longest one now is Auckland to Dubai (over 8800 miles and over 17 hours). Chicago to Honolulu is “only” about 4250 miles or 9 hours. The right plane could fly there and back without refueling if it had to.
What does airline wifi connect to halfway to the islands?
LikeLike
Here is an analysis of what RU will be receiving from the B1G. I presume that this is correct. It seems that the RU payout is fixed through 2020, which is not dependent on the size of league revenues. The numbers are quite conservative in light of what the league will be earning.
“What’s known is Rutgers’ distribution share will go up gradually each year between now and July 2021, according to fiscal year projections obtained by The Star-Ledger in February 2014.
The breakdown is this: $10.86 million in 2015-16, $11.2 million in 2016-17, $11.6 million in 2017-18, $14.9 million in 2018-19 and $19.3 million in 2019-20.”
So it appears that RU (and presumably UMd to some extent) will be $30 to $40 million per year behind the rest of the B1G. Tough to be competitive with a gap literally significantly exceeding $100 million over the next five years.
In the comments section, some fans want the B1G to give RU more money, for the logical reason that without RU and UMd, the payoff would have been significantly smaller. Others argue (and I agree) that a contract is a contract. RU had absolutely no leverage at the time that they joined the B1G. (I presume Delany and others expected the TV dollars, but it was not guaranteed). There is no reason for the other schools to kick in to RU or UMd to make things “fair”.
I will say that B1G fans have little right to bitch that RU sports continue to stink with a $30 M per year revenue gap. That money buys lots of coaches and facilities.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2016/01/how_much_is_rutgers_getting_from_the_big_ten_and_w.html
LikeLike
The way I think the rest of the Big Ten looks at it (and I assume the Rutgers/Maryland/Nebraska administrations) is that their “scaling up” period of 6 years is effectively an exchange of “diminished payments” for “BTN equity”…
In a way, that’s effectively what the exchange is; each school gets scaled up from what they were previously earning in their Big 12 or ACC or Big East situation and over that 6 years, their payments remain lower until they get the big bump up to equal payments and are a “fully vested/equal owner” in the Big Ten.
I don’t understand complaints though about anyone’s performance, these are long-term decisions.
I’ll judge Rutgers 5-10 years after they start receiving $50m a year from the conference, not now…; it’s incredibly premature to judge Rutgers or Maryland (financially especially) based on their current situation.
Though Maryland is a bit different since they’re taking bigger payments earlier and will receive diminished payments after becoming a full member for a period of time due to their financial turnaround.
LikeLike
Nebraska has been (full members in parentheses)
2011-12 14.0 (24.6)
2012-13 15.4 (25.9)
2013-14 16.9 (28)
2014-15 19.8 (32.4)
LikeLike
Yeah, so it looks like Nebraska will end up receiving around $70 million less over its 6 year “buy in”; that number looks quite a bit larger for Maryland and Rutgers because they’re buying in later (and Rutgers is starting from a lower point).
So around $70 million for Nebraska, $160 million for Rutgers, and around $90-100 million for Maryland.
Those are pretty reasonable “buy in” costs given those 3 are coming from different conferences and in different years (Nebraska earlier resulting in getting in before the 2017 escalation).
LikeLike
The question is still what is the “buy-in” supposed to represent? If it is merely an equity stake in BTN the figures should be similar for Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland, with possibly slightly higher buy-ins for Rutgers and Maryland due to network profitability. The fact that Rutgers is “starting from a lower position” is largely irrelevant unless you are factoring in interest, and the reported disparity well exceeds that alone.
LikeLike
They are charging what the market will bear. For example, Utah got considerably less from the Pac 12 than Colorado did. Texas A&M had virtually no buy-in to the SEC (they got $1-$2 million less the first year for something that was prior year’s revenue-tourney credits? but were at 100% the 2nd year).
Rutgers was making $2 million a year, so they could charge them more and they are still ahead of where they were.
Its simply whatever they could get away with.
LikeLike
The numbers reportedly ARE similar for Maryland and Rutgers … the money for Maryland was moved around to help them with financing their exit costs, so but the payout inclusive of the loan will be offset by payout exclusive of payback down the track.
If its equity buy in, the numbers would have to be noticeably higher for Maryland and Rutgers than for Nebraska, as they would have noticeably higher equity to buy into.
LikeLike
Bullet, actually at the time that the deal was made, RU was getting $9.5 from the Big East and then got $9.7 from the B1G. In light of the payment due to the Big East for terminating, the first year was a loss to Rutgers.
Of course, everyone saw that the Big East was about to explode in football and earnings in the AAC would have been less than $5 million total going forward. Maybe a good bit less than $5 M, but I do not have all of the numbers. For example, I think that UConn makes more than $6 million total, even though the AAC contract is closer to $2 million).
By years 2 and 3, Rutgers is well ahead of where they would have been with the AAC.
RU was on a sinking rowboat and a luxury liner invited them aboard. I guess that someone saves you from drowning, it is tough to demand first class accommodations.
I think that the vast majority of RU fans were just very happy to avoid the AAC and in the B1G. Everything else will eventually work out.
As far as the buy in equity, in light of the new deals, the buy-in for RU is well over $100,000,000. Is the B1G network (and whatever else the buy in covers) really worth $1.5 billion, plus?
LikeLike
“Is the B1G network (and whatever else the buy in covers) really worth $1.5 billion, plus?”
Easily. That may or may not include the Fox owned half.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF
That’s not necessarily true; Maryland is receiving “moved around” payments on a base that starts around $18m, whereas Rutgers received around $10m on their first year.
So their buy in totals will be different based on that.
Each school is receiving a buy in based on where they ended in their previous conference.
Like I said above, the buy in for Nebraska is around $70m, around $160m for Rutgers (will receive around $25-30 million less per year when new contract kicks in), and around $90-100 million for Maryland (since their assumed base was around $18m).
@JerseyBernie
It’s about where the schools are relatively…:
Nebraska is effectively forgoing $70 million over 6 years to join the Big Ten from the Big 12.
Rutgers is effectively forgoing $160 million over 6 years to join the Big Ten from the AAC.
Maryland is effectively forgoing $90-100 million over 6 years to join the Big Ten from the ACC.
Where the schools are coming from has a direct impact. For example, just say Texas were to join the Big Ten.
Texas may not have to forgo any money if they were to give up LHN entirely and join the Big Ten from the Big 12. At the current moment, Texas will take in a relatively similar value from its Big 12 deal + LHN to what the Big Ten currently pays out…
Knowing this, and knowing that BTN in Texas would easily be able to finance it (as well as scaled up contracts, e.g. ESPN/FOX deals would bump from $440m average to $475m average), Texas would be able to negotiate a deal to join the Big Ten where they wouldn’t forgo any revenue.
Is this fair? Well all of this is set by where the schools are previously and making sure Big Ten schools don’t lose earnings…, Texas joins from a much stronger position and can effectively negotiate for no buy in by bumping up the contracts (BTN/ESPN/FOX) enough that everyone is still whole even with Texas forgoing nothing…, Notre Dame is more tricky but I wouldn’t be too surprised if they could effectively ask for something similar…
LikeLike
Nebraska was guaranteed no less than they were making in the Big 12. With the Fox ccg contract, they ended up getting more than the minimum.
But when the Big 12 got a new contract, Nebraska ended up getting less than they would have in the Big 12 during the buy-in period in addition to their $9 million buyout. The Big 12 distribution for continuing members was $5.0 million higher than Nebraska’s in 2011-12, $6.6 in 2012-13, $6.1 in 2013-14 and $5.5 million in 2014-15. Note that the average was slightly lower as the continuing members got slightly more as TCU and WVU were buying in.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“The question is still what is the “buy-in” supposed to represent? If it is merely an equity stake in BTN the figures should be similar for Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland, with possibly slightly higher buy-ins for Rutgers and Maryland due to network profitability. The fact that Rutgers is “starting from a lower position” is largely irrelevant unless you are factoring in interest, and the reported disparity well exceeds that alone.”
Paying for a share of BTN is part of it. What’s also relevant is that RU is starting from a lower position of national perception. They are paying for the right to move up to being part of the B10 brand. NE and UMD were already P5 schools, and NE had a major national brand in CFB. Thus they end up paying a little less than UMD and they both pay a lot less than RU because they are getting less of a boost.
LikeLike
JerseyB:
Regarding your question as to BTN being worth 1.5B a coment in the CBS interview Brian linked (and I’ll re link http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ohio-state-michigan-likely-on-fox-and-7-things-to-know-about-big-tens-new-tv-deal/ ) below says it’s more:
“The Big Ten Network package, which Fox owns 51 percent of through 2031-32, is estimated to have a value of $2.8 billion over the life of the 25-year deal.”
LikeLike
ccrider, I am very much of the opinion that RU (and UMD) signed deals and they have to live with them. My response to Rutgers fans upset with the lack of funds is that contracts go two ways.
What if, to the great shock of Delany, et.al., RU did not really bring the NYC market? Would these same RU fans who now complaining about too little money, instead agree that the amount received by RU should go down, since the TV markets did not deliver? Not a chance.
As I posted earlier, RU was on a sinking rowboat, but they did have a little pouch of diamonds – TV eyeballs in NYC and NJ. They had to give up that little pouch for passage and they did so gladly.
Notwithstanding this, the $2.8 B valuation is a little bit circular, in that the value is so high partially because of the NYC, NJ. MD, and DC eyeballs added by RU and UMD. At the time of the deal with the two new schools, the network was likely not worth that much. But again, it really does not matter.
Other than the group of profs who fervently feel that RU should be playing D 3 sports (or close enough), pretty much everyone is thrilled to be in the B1G, notwithstanding the financial buy in.
LikeLike
JerseyB:
“Notwithstanding this, the $2.8 B valuation…”
I would guess your statement is correct, but the article still was not completely clear. It is speaking to what revenue the conference is making and specifies that Fox owns 51% of BTN. It then sets a value of 2.8B over the term of the contract. To me that implies estimated value to the B1G and leaves out the value received by Fox. I could easily be wrong though. My original point was simply that BTN could easily have a valuation well above the 1.5B originally asked about.
As to contract being contract, I agree but with the exception that if the new media contract brought a far greater return than expected, and that was primarily due to the new additions, then boosting their payouts earlier would seem both fair and beneficial. But it appears B1G estimates/forecasts were very close to what happened.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie
“Notwithstanding this, the $2.8 B valuation is a little bit circular, in that the value is so high partially because of the NYC, NJ. MD, and DC eyeballs added by RU and UMD”
The $2.8 billion valuation is what the Big Ten is estimated to receive over the entire life of the BTN contract. This figure predates Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland being in the conference.
LikeLike
We’ll see if that ends up being accurate or not. All 5 of those years listed on a quick glance appear to be less than what Nebraska earned in their corresponding 5 entrance years. Presumably if the intent was for the incoming schools to establish equity in the Big Ten Network while not reducing payouts for existing schools; the equity stake would be a fixed amount of money based on 1) the costs incurred for the 11 initial schools to create the network and 2) anticipated revenue for the remainder of the BTN contract. If that is the case, Rutgers could be in for a sizeable 2017/18 bump or an accelerated full membership.
Nebraska’s situation was presumably a bit different in the since that all though the contracts were re-negotiated monetarily for their addition, the end date was still fixed. We’ll see if the new tv contract impacts Rutgers and Maryland’s full membership.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“We’ll see if that ends up being accurate or not. All 5 of those years listed on a quick glance appear to be less than what Nebraska earned in their corresponding 5 entrance years. Presumably if the intent was for the incoming schools to establish equity in the Big Ten Network while not reducing payouts for existing schools; the equity stake would be a fixed amount of money based on 1) the costs incurred for the 11 initial schools to create the network and 2) anticipated revenue for the remainder of the BTN contract. If that is the case, Rutgers could be in for a sizeable 2017/18 bump or an accelerated full membership.”
I disagree. Paying for a share of BTN is part of it. But they’re also paying for joining the B10 brand and what that gives them. RU needs to sacrifice more because they weren’t P5 when they joined. Besides, the numbers will be tough to compare because UMD took more money up front but will pay it back after their 6 year phase-in period while NE and RU are doing it all in 6 years.
“Nebraska’s situation was presumably a bit different in the since that all though the contracts were re-negotiated monetarily for their addition, the end date was still fixed. We’ll see if the new tv contract impacts Rutgers and Maryland’s full membership.”
Why would it? They knew it was coming up and had reasonable accurate projections for the final numbers.
LikeLike
Plus, those numbers for the 6 year “buy in” are set in contractual agreements made when the schools joined the conference.
Each school signed a deal to join the conference based on where they were in their previous conference combined with knowledge/presumptions about where the Big Ten’s earnings would be down the road.
Maryland/Rutgers/Nebraska all knew that the Big Ten’s window would open and that the Big Ten was expecting $45+m in distributions after the new contract went into agreement in 2017. Nebraska was joining with the assumption that they would be fully vested by 2017, whereas Maryland and Rutgers knew that they would be fully vested in 2020 (after 3 years of the new contracts being in place).
Maryland even went further and negotiated for advance payments on later years with money shifted forward from 2020+ to the 2014-2020 years.
I doubt very much of the numbers will change; certainly the 6 year buy in won’t because that’s what each side agreed to and all of the financial projections are based on those 6 years going through; there’s a decent possibility that the 2017-2020 years will be a bit more lucrative for Maryland/Rutgers if their payments are calculated based on what the Big Ten is earning combined with their scaling up from their original position in 2014, but that was already in place in their agreement to join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’m somewhere in the middle of that. We’ll stick with Rutgers for right now… I agree with you that the B10 brand is significantly better than anything Rutgers has ever had. That said, the Big Ten sought them out and extended them an invitation much like Nebraska and Maryland implying that all 3 schools had and added value to the conference.
It makes complete sense that:
1) The new schools need to pay to establish equity in the Big Ten Network as the original 11 did.
2) That the new schools need to compensate the original 11 (12 for Rutgers and Maryland) for diluting their equity stake in BTN
3) That contracts permitting, additions shouldn’t dilute the projected payouts in place for the remaining schools. Obviously particularly with Nebraska contracts were renegotiated to mitigate this.
“Why would it? They knew it was coming up and had reasonable accurate projections for the final numbers.”
Because presumably if this is all about equality, there is a set dollar amount that makes the other schools “whole” and it isn’t about 6 years of penance.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“It makes complete sense that:
1) The new schools need to pay to establish equity in the Big Ten Network as the original 11 did.
2) That the new schools need to compensate the original 11 (12 for Rutgers and Maryland) for diluting their equity stake in BTN
3) That contracts permitting, additions shouldn’t dilute the projected payouts in place for the remaining schools. Obviously particularly with Nebraska contracts were renegotiated to mitigate this.”
Agreed.
“Because presumably if this is all about equality, there is a set dollar amount that makes the other schools “whole” and it isn’t about 6 years of penance.”
1. Who claimed this was all about equality? It’s a business deal. You can’t put an exact dollar amount on the value to RU of joining the B10.
2. NE knew almost exactly what they were paying because the TV deals were known in advance. Likewise, RU and UMD knew the first 3 years of their deals. The projections from the B10 for future years seem pretty accurate, too. That means they knew what they were paying to within a few million dollars (a few %).
3. All accounts I’ve seen say that the schools and B10 agreed on a payment plan that covers 6 years. They all have smart people involved in these deals, so presumably they’d put in adjustment language if they thought it was that important. My guess is that this is just the schools showing the B10 spirit of togetherness by not nickle and diming the B10. After all, UMD is getting a giant interest-free loan from the B10 and RU got to leave the G5.
4. I don’t think RU or UMD are going to quibble over a few dollars when they are getting more than was projected out of the future TV deal.
LikeLike
“Who claimed this was all about equality?”
Delany strongly hinted that was the motivation in Lincoln the day Nebraska joined the Big Ten.
“we thought about the principles, because we believe in sharing resources equally. One of the hard things about expansion is knowing exactly quite what it means in advance because contracts need to be negotiated. So we hit on really a few principles. One is that we wanted to maintain the revenue strains that our schools have. We didn’t want to have less than the larger conferences. We also wanted to make sure that if someone changed conferences that they would be made whole from where they expected to be in their other conferences. Then we wanted to get to a point where everybody was equal. That’s an important principle to us. We wouldn’t want anybody who didn’t want equality. We wouldn’t want anybody who wouldn’t feel comfortable being a member of an equally sharing group. The ramp up to that is proprietary. It’s not public information, but it’s been agreed to by our board of directors. There’ll be a point where everything is equal. In the short term, everybody will be made whole, and then we’ll all be one happy, full, equal revenue-sharing group 12.”
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=204958868
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Delany strongly hinted that was the motivation in Lincoln the day Nebraska joined the Big Ten.”
Nothing in that quote hints at the buy-ins being equal at all.
we thought about the principles, because we believe in sharing resources equally.
This obviously talks about payouts not buy-ins.
So we hit on really a few principles. One is that we wanted to maintain the revenue strains that our schools have. We didn’t want to have less than the larger conferences. We also wanted to make sure that if someone changed conferences that they would be made whole from where they expected to be in their other conferences.
That’s been true for all 3 schools. They didn’t lose money versus their prior deals and neither did the current members lose money.
Then we wanted to get to a point where everybody was equal. That’s an important principle to us. We wouldn’t want anybody who didn’t want equality. We wouldn’t want anybody who wouldn’t feel comfortable being a member of an equally sharing group.
And all 3 will end up here after 6 years (longer for UMD by their choice).
The ramp up to that is proprietary. It’s not public information, but it’s been agreed to by our board of directors. There’ll be a point where everything is equal. In the short term, everybody will be made whole, and then we’ll all be one happy, full, equal revenue-sharing group 12.
Again, this is Delany saying it will end up being equal shares for everyone.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Here is an analysis of what RU will be receiving from the B1G. I presume that this is correct. It seems that the RU payout is fixed through 2020, which is not dependent on the size of league revenues. The numbers are quite conservative in light of what the league will be earning.”
Yes, that was how NE’s deal worked, too. Plus, the B12 got a raise after NE left but their B10 payout remained as agreed when they moved.
“So it appears that RU (and presumably UMd to some extent) will be $30 to $40 million per year behind the rest of the B1G. Tough to be competitive with a gap literally significantly exceeding $100 million over the next five years.”
It’s still a lot more than RU has ever made before and they were theoretically competing at the top level while in the Big East. It will be hard for RU to compete, but I think the increase in revenue will still help them tremendously. There are diminishing returns on increased spending beyond a certain point. Besides, it should cost RU something to get a share of the BTN and become part of the B10 brand.
“In the comments section, some fans want the B1G to give RU more money, for the logical reason that without RU and UMd, the payoff would have been significantly smaller.”
Of course some people want free money, and you can make a semi-logical case for it. And while the totals would’ve been smaller without RU and UMD, it would’ve only been split 12 ways. There’s no telling what the numbers per school would’ve been without RU and UMD (or how much was UMD vs RU).
“Others argue (and I agree) that a contract is a contract.”
Of course it is. RU could’ve tried to get language controlling the difference between their payout and everyone else’s, but it might have meant even lower initial numbers.
“(I presume Delany and others expected the TV dollars, but it was not guaranteed).”
As I mentioned, the B10 was telling UMD the numbers would be $44.5M total in year 1 with $33M just from media. This deal exceeds that by a few million, but the projections were in the right ballpark.
“I will say that B1G fans have little right to bitch that RU sports continue to stink with a $30 M per year revenue gap. That money buys lots of coaches and facilities.”
This I disagree with. It’s not the gap to the rest that matters, it’s what RU is spending. As that increases, so should RU’s performance. Nobody complains that RU isn’t elite in athletics, they complain that RU’s terrible in almost every sport. The advantage RU has is there are easy improvements to make with your increased revenue. OSU adding a second waterfall to the locker room doesn’t help as much as RU spending the same amount to improve their facilities.
LikeLike
Nobody complains that RU isn’t elite in athletics, they complain that RU’s terrible in almost every sport.
That’s right, and other mid-majors—what Rutgers was, until recently—have managed to be good at something.
LikeLike
RU’s wrestling has become more than passable.
LikeLike
Yes, but unfortunately they picked the 1 sport the B10 dominates. RU ended up tied for 5th in the B10 in dual meets (also 5th in the B10 championship) despite being a top 10 team nationally.
LikeLike
RU did make a sizable jump in the Director’s Cup this year as I pointed out a few days ago (up to #80). But #13 in the B10 was #62 overall, so they have a ways to go. Hopefully they can continue to improve and eventually become a regular member of the top 50.
But what’s really scary is how poorly they’ve done in conference play. In B10 competition through the winter, RU was in the bottom 1/3 of the B10 in 10 of 14 sports, dead last in 6 (1st in 0). Last year RU was in the bottom 1/3 in 19 of 23 sports, dead last in 10 (1st in 0). This is what upsets B10 fans.
LikeLike
RU may be last in those sports, but it is 1st in media markets. That is what Delany and university presidents are looking at. By the way, the women’s soccer team made the Final Four.
LikeLike
This is a mega step up for the entire Rutgers athletic program, an ersatz Ivy as recently as the mid-1970s. It won’t leap to big-time overnight.
LikeLike
No, but many of the non-revenue sports take very little money to compete so RU should be able to reach mediocre in many of those sports fairly quickly. CFB and MBB should take the longest but people accept that.
LikeLike
Brian, mediocrity is strangely not as easy as it might seem, when you have no facilities. For some sports, I literally mean virtually none. RU should eventually be mediocre by accident in several sports, such as soccer, lacrosse, wrestling, and a few others just because there are so many top level athletes in those sports in NJ. If facilities are improved a little, some sports should be at least mid-level B1G.
LikeLike
Exactly. All I’m saying is that the lack of mediocrity is what has other people complaining. RU started spending more a few years ago and now can use the B10 brand in recruiting players and coaches so they should be able to get a bunch of sports up to mediocre quickly (a few years). That would make a sizable difference in how RU’s is viewed. RU winning a B10 team title in anything would help, too. It’s hard to be that bad in so many sports all at once. And by 2020 they’ll start getting a full share so financial excuses won’t apply.
LikeLike
Forgot to add Minnesota played in the Rose in 61 & 62. But that was the famous/infamous vote by the OSU faculty in Nov. 1961 to decline the Rose Bowl invitation.
LikeLike
Full props to that bluevod guy, who called the Big Ten media deal…not.
On his twitter feed, he’s pulling out the troll’s last resort: NBC was all set to win the other half of the deal, swear to God and hope to die, until Delany offered ESPN one last chance.
LikeLike
Ourand’s report directly contradicts that good enough.
“Conference officials experienced some angst earlier this spring that ESPN’s cost-cutting measures would keep the sports media powerhouse from submitting a competitive bid. That led the conference to engage other networks, including NBC Sports Group and Turner Sports. Both media companies expressed interest, but neither was close to a deal.”
LikeLike
Yeah that doesn’t make sense.
Sure the Big Ten was at least sending out feelers to NBC et al., but everyone knew that the Big Ten and ESPN both wanted to get a deal done if ESPN could get close enough on the dollars. The others can’t offer the same exposure/ratings for the other half of the package.
The bidding war already happened on the first part of the package when Fox offered $250m for half…; the rest was just a matter of the incumbent getting close enough and Fox getting more value…
LikeLike
He also predicted $275-300M for the 2nd half deal…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Full props to that bluevod guy, who called the Big Ten media deal…not.
On his twitter feed, he’s pulling out the troll’s last resort: NBC was all set to win the other half of the deal, swear to God and hope to die, until Delany offered ESPN one last chance.”
I was wondering how he was going to spin this. I’ll give him credit, he has at least 1 defender among his followers who claims the NBC info was true.
Even better, he’s not letting this small error stop him:
Rumors heating up on Texas and OU to BIG10.
LikeLike
Rumors heating up: I’m the next pope, after Francis retires.
LikeLike
Question: How many shares does the BIG pay out? Over on ACC rx they say it is 15 — presumably one for each school plus one for the conference. That implies (leaving aside the question of lesser payments for Neb, MD and Rutgers) an average payout of @$29.3 million per school. If the payout is divided by 14 rather than 15, the total would rise to @$31.4 million.
LikeLike
Not a realistic way to measure, especially as revenues have grown. Its simple. Look at distributions and divide by the number of schools.
LikeLike
My question was not about realism, but about math. As a practical matter, 1/14 is bigger than 1/15. Apparently in the ACC (and perhaps in other leagues as well) the league office receives an equal share of the payout, which slightly reduces the amount going to each school. I’m just curious whether or not the BIG follows the same practice. If not, it presumably has some other way of funding league operations. Does anyone know the answer?
LikeLike
Recent IRS fillings had the conference budget at around $20 million. In 2014 conference functional expenses were around $19.650 million. IRS fillings are dated but the conference hasn’t needed an even payout to operate in the past. Unsure if that changes going forward but the league has been fairly frugal.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/363/363640583/363640583_201406_990.pdf?_ga=1.86524635.2146001711.1466602834
LikeLike
You can certainly make the case that the B1G doesn’t spend enough on officiating. :>)
LikeLike
That appears to be solely an ACC rule. (to fatten Swofford’s pocketbook?).
It doesn’t cost much more to run a conference earning $7 million a school than to run one earning $50 million per school.
LikeLike
And most of the BCS conferences were in the vicinity of $7 million just 6 years ago.
LikeLike
With Miami first out and the other two national seeds playing an elimination game now, I think the CWS selection committee deserves another round of applause…
LikeLike
Remember the discussion up above about the best team not always winning a tournament? I’m not claiming the committee was right, but the hottest teams in May aren’t always the best teams all season long.
LikeLike
Thinking more of conference level selection predisposition.
I’m specifically criticizing the narrative of SEC/ACC is by far the best baseball. In spite of results. Next year expect similar. 13 of 16 regionals and 7 of 8 national seeds? 2 of 19 reach CWS. Please. B12 – 3 for 3.
Perhaps a limit of only top half of conferences are eligible for selection? That might open spots for a Coastal Carolina or UCSB like teams that didn’t get in due to perception.
LikeLike
Oops, butter thumbs…
2 of 17.
ACC-10 SEC-7, 15 plus the 2 auto qualifiers. Seems disproportionate. And results indicate same.
LikeLike
I know what you mean. It’s the same reason I talked about polls theoretically being better. Certainly the baseball selection seems biased. I wonder if this is partially a weather effect. The southeastern teams don’t go on the road for the first 6 weeks like northern teams do, so they build up better records. It doesn’t explain the lack of western teams, though. I don’t follow college baseball at all so I don’t know how deserving all those SEC and ACC teams might have been based on the regular season.
I’d be all for the NCAA limiting the number of teams from any 1 conference in all sports (MBB has the same issue). If you aren’t in the top half of your conference then you shouldn’t have a shot at the national title. That would make the bubble more fun as conference games would knock some teams out.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Certainly the baseball selection seems biased. I wonder if this is partially a weather effect.”
Perhaps partially. The conspiracy theorist in me asks who has CWS broadcast rights, and ACC, and eSECpn? I believe I saw a regional game broadcast on SECN (which is ESPN owned). I bet LHN might get games when UT returns to post season. I doubt we’d ever see any allowed on BTN or P12N. Just a bit of manipulating college sports for ESPN’s benefit? Not sure using NCAA championships to promote certain dedicated to specific conference/team nets is proper. And that’s above and beyond simply hyping teams from contract associated conferences, improving their likely inclusion.
LikeLike
Well its all Sun Belt teams left. Oklahoma St. is probably the northernmost. Its 0 for 17 in the final 6. Miami the first team out. Florida 2nd. Texas Tech is the only regional host left.
LikeLike
Since the expansion of the field to 64 and the Regional/Super Regional era (1999), top eight seeds have made the CWS field 57% of the time. I haven’t researched it, but I’d guess that’s about the same or better than the basketball selection committee’s success rate in picking the Elite Eight.
Like the basketball tounament, upsets happen. The best teams don’t always win. The team that gets hot at the right time can beat a better team. This season’s Elite Eight only included three #1 or #2 seeds.
In baseball, its hard to gauge just how good mid-majors are as they relate to the power conferences. Unlike football and basketball, its hard to even look at head-to head OOC matchups due to pitching rotations.
But the majority of top baseball talent resides in the ACC and SEC. In the recent MLB draft, 42 college kids were taken in the first two rounds (77 picks). 25 of those 42 players were ACC and SEC players.
Since 1999, a current ACC or SEC team has been the champion, runner-up, or both every year but 2003 and 2004. Eight current ACC or SEC teams have been champs since 1999 and 11 have been runners-up. If there’s a bias toward the SEC and ACC, it’s earned.
LikeLike
Alan:
Not arguing great baseball isn’t played there. Just suggesting that ten from a single conference is silly. It can’t be justified from competitive standpoint. If western conference’s beat each other up it’s a sign of weakness. The same in south and east it’s a sign of strength and balance? That’s where my tin foil hat goes on regarding espl, who they are heavily invested in, and how their own interest is served best.
If sec/ACC only had 3-5 qualifiers there might have been fewer years of reaching finals. Can’t argue with success they’ve had, but can argue it comes with a bit of a starting line advantage. By definition bias is unearned.
LikeLike
cc – here’s the final top 16 RPI that the selection committee reviewed along with seeding and success.
1. Florida (#1National Seed) (CWS)
2. Louisville (#2 N.S.) (SR)
3. Miami (#3 N.S.) (CWS)
4. Texas A&M (#4 N.S.) (SR)
5. Ole Miss (regional host) (Regional)
6. Clemson (#7 N.S.) (Regional)
7. LSU (#8 N.S.) (SR)
8. South Carolina (regional host) (SR)
9. Vandy (regional host) (Regional)
10. NC State (regional host) (Regional)
11. Miss State (#6 N.S.) (SR)
12. Coastal Carolina (#2 regional seed at Raleigh) (CWS)
13. Florida State (regional host) (SR)
14 Texas Tech (#5 N.S.) (CWS)
15. UL-Lafayette (regional host) (Regional)
16. TCU (regional host) (CWS)
Regional host Virginia was ranked #17 by the RPI.
CWS Participants not listed above.
UC Santa Barbara (RPI 23) (#2 regional seed at Nashville)
Arizona (RPI 21) (#2 regional seed at Lafayette, LA)
Oklahoma State (RPI 32) (#2 regional seedat Clemson)
Looking at the CWS participants under this context, it really speaks to the parity of college baseball more than that the selection committee blew it or that the ACC/SEC is over-rated.
LikeLike
I am going to agree with Alan. Both the ACC and SEC were very good this year. Most conferences can’t play everyone in conference play, so its very difficult to compare even within conferences who’s the better team. RPI #19 North Carolina went 13-17 in conference play (34-21 overall) and didn’t make the tournament despite sweeping Oklahoma St and home and getting two wins @ UCLA.
Big 12 was very top heavy this year. Only bubble team that didn’t make it was fourth place West Virginia which had an RPI of 61.
LikeLike
Alan:
How does UNC get left out with a 19 rpi? 10/conf is the limit?
Again, I’m not saying there isn’t very good ball, or even the top half of a power conference shouldn’t be included (but am I now advocating a power conference bias?) but there seems a disproportionate number of allocations there. It’s like conference games matter little, except for getting a national seed.
Ten from one conference…
Some/many western teams can’t raise rpi due to fewer teams close by. They need to play regionally for midweek games once conf play starts. Again, western conference parity = weakness while eastern/southern parity = strength and depth. Western hopes ride on having preseason games scheduled well in advance turn out to be with teams that are good that year. If not they’re stuck with a low allocation and a hard to alter rpi.
LikeLike
cc – the western conferences do it to themselves. The Pac-12 and the Big West don’t have conference tournaments to boost their RPI at the end of the season.
Santa Barbara and Arizona got hot at the right time, they didn’t get shafted in their seedings. Both teams came in 3rd in their respective conferences and were only 2 games over .500 in conference play. As evidence that the Big West and Pac-12 were weak this year, look at Pac-12 champ Utah that had an overall losing record as was the first team eliminated in the Oxford regional, and Big West champ went 1-2 in the Starkville regional.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge WROTE:
Since the expansion of the field to 64 and the Regional/Super Regional era (1999), top eight seeds have made the CWS field 57% of the time. I haven’t researched it, but I’d guess that’s about the same or better than the basketball selection committee’s success rate in picking the Elite Eight.
Like the basketball tounament, upsets happen. The best teams don’t always win. The team that gets hot at the right time can beat a better team. This season’s Elite Eight only included three #1 or #2 seeds.
In baseball, its hard to gauge just how good mid-majors are as they relate to the power conferences. Unlike football and basketball, its hard to even look at head-to head OOC matchups due to pitching rotations.
But the majority of top baseball talent resides in the ACC and SEC. In the recent MLB draft, 42 college kids were taken in the first two rounds (77 picks). 25 of those 42 players were ACC and SEC players.
Since 1999, a current ACC or SEC team has been the champion, runner-up, or both every year but 2003 and 2004. Eight current ACC or SEC teams have been champs since 1999 and 11 have been runners-up. If there’s a bias toward the SEC and ACC, it’s earned.
******
Your above post is too ephemeral in the grand scheme of CBaseball history & loaded with cherry picked stats.
Bottom line, your stats leave gaps that are easy to fill.
Since 1999, despite what you say:
Pac12 = 4 NCAA titles, 3 different teams (Az, UCLA & Oregon State x2)
Non Pac12 teams from Ca = 2 NCAA titles (Fresno State, Cal State Fullerton)
The state of Texas = 3 NCAA titles (Texas x2, Rice)
Miami was not in the ACC when they won their titles in 99 & 01 – that’s just reality man.
Thus:
The SEC and ACC combined, well they don’t win it all, 50% of the time. Under current membership, the SEC and ACC have 29 teams versus say the Pac12 and Big12 at 22 teams.
The ACC most often underperforms in the tourney & for sure have the least amount of NCAA titles to show for their CWS appearances, don’t even get me started on FSU alone & I’m speaking all-time history, not since 99. Begging the question: Does the ACC receive too many bids?
You cannot dismiss the prep talent in states like Ca, AZ & Tx – they have a long history of contributing to MLB. Moreover, though you didn’t say it, the SEC cannot claim Tx unless you somehow convince the Longhorns to join the conference. Don’t want to use always, but UT will likely remain king university in the state of Tx & for a long, long time. Btw, aTm is no more than the 3rd best program in the state of Tx, after UT and Rice. TCU now has as many CWS appearances as aTm.
So yeah, sure if you combine SEC and ACC, stats look great since 99 in your original calculations, though the former carries most of the weight in terms of titles. But if you compare the ACC alone with the Pac12, the latter prevails in terms of college & Major League baseball history. The Pac12 also has far more NCAA titles than the SEC. The Pac12 will alway be relevant in college baseball, as will the non-SEC Texas schools. Heck, the Pac12 includes 4 college baseball heavyweights: Az, ASU, USC, and Stanford, each have at least 2 titles and 16 CWS appearances. Therefore, I think it’s fair to award bids based on individual teams and their performance, foremost, than maybe conference. Combining two conferences, that’s odd.
I’d have more faith in your cherry picked stats if the SEC was your main argument against the rest of the NCAA. At least they’ve proven themselves more worthy of seeds and bids by winning it all. Your beloved LSU is 6 for 6 in CWS finals.
And as I reminded you on being short sighted, no ACC or SEC team will win it this year, nor place in the top 2. In fact Miami and Florida, if I’m not mistaken, were the first two teams eliminated from the CWS. The Gators were the top seed.
There’s plenty of nice stats and facts on the CWS Wiki page.
LikeLike
gfunk – I was responding to the Brian & ccrider55 discussion regarding the decisions of the baseball selection committee for this season’s tournament, the assertion that they botched it based on the results this year, the lack of success of top 8 national seeds, and the perceived bias toward the ACC & SEC. That’s why I lumped them together.
As I clearly explained, I went back to 1999 since that’s when the regional/super regional format went into effect. FWIW, I consider 1979 to be the beginning of the modern era of college baseball since that’s when ESPN started carrying the CWS and college baseball stopped being an afterthought.
I said nothing disparaging about the Texas schools or the western schools other than the western conferences (P-12 & B-West) hurt themselves in RPI by not having conference tournaments. I agree that the western schools and the Texas schools are generally very good, but that topic wasn’t part of Brian and cc’s original discussion.
Regarding Miami, I clearly stated “current” members when compliling my stats.
I din’t write anything about prep players in Texas or the West.
LikeLike
Alan: I apologize for lumping SEC in with the ACC. But you’ve got to admit 13 of 16 regionals in those two conferences, and none west of Texas is at least worthy of raising an eyebrow.
LikeLike
Alan,
I went with your quoted passage, no more no less.
I don’t think you ever said anything “disparaging” about Texas or the West. But you did say:
“But the majority of top baseball talent resides in the ACC and SEC. In the recent MLB draft, 42 college kids were taken in the first two rounds (77 picks). 25 of those 42 players were ACC and SEC players.”
That’s just too shortsighted for me, as not only this CWS indicates, but CB history as well. If anything, it’s a dismissive statement on prep baseball in Texas or the West, which combined, account for noticeably more CWS titles han the SEC-ACC combined. I don’t know MLB draft history, but my gut tells me SEC & ACC versus Tex and the West, is comparable.
Lastly, I think history proves my point that the ACC, despite many CWS appearances, gets too many bids. I think this is what ccirder is potentially implying as well.
To your defense, I do think the SEC has “earned” its “bias” but not the ACC – not even close. You could argue the ACC’s CWS appearances are in part due to near home or home field bids when more teams out West or in Tx were screwed because as stated: Tx or the West most certainly outperform the ACC in the biggest stat of all: CWS titles. And now, going back to 1999 matters, as it further proves my point.
LikeLike
http://texas.247sports.com/Article/Texas-Longhorns-football-former-All-American-Rod-Babers-feels-th-45882843
Former Longhorn player Rod Babers thinks the B12 is doomed.
At the recent Big 12 meetings in Irving the conference voted to have a championship game in 2017. There are also discussions about dividing the 10-team conference into two divisions.
Although this is a step in the right direction for the Big 12, some view it as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I wouldn’t go that far.
It’s more like performing a broadway classic while the ship is going down. At least everyone’s in a better mood, possibly distracted, and if there are drinks being served they may even be a little tipsy.
…
I’ve long been an advocate of Big 12 expansion and have stated my case several times. The argument against expansion is always the same, that there aren’t enough viable candidates. My retort is usually the Argo principle: when you’re out of good ideas, sometimes you have no choice but to go with the best bad idea available.
That’s partly why — regardless of how the current situation plays out — the Big 12 is ultimately doomed.
Sure, the conference is out of a coma and no longer on life support. But it’s still in the ICU.
…
In Irving, Perrin said there will be another phase of realignment in the future. The assumption by Big 12 officials is they will somehow be the beneficiary of this movement, something I’m failing to see.
The Big Ten and the SEC are considered impossible to take from. The Pac-12 has already poached a former Big 12 member (Colorado) and currently has a forward-thinking commissioner in Larry Scott, who has been aggressive on expansion in the past. The ACC has a membership agreement with Notre Dame through 2025 that gives them the most member schools of any Power Five conference.
Compared to those leagues, the Big 12 looks to be a dead conference walking.
The Big 12 is Dunder Mifflin from “The Office.” They’re a fledgling, mid-level paper company in an increasingly paperless world, downsizing to become even smaller while finding it tougher and tougher to compete with Office Depot, Office Max and Staples.
…
Without clear leadership the Big 12 has become a “House of Cards” episode and Texas is Frank Underwood. Big 12 commissioners have been functional but not formidable, and that’s why the Big 12 has become the least respected of the Power Five conferences not just with fans and coaches, but with student athletes and prospective recruits as well.
Although it’s reported that the Big 12 is healthy, common sense convinces me otherwise. Being the smallest Power Five conference and the only such league without a television network is doing barely enough to stay afloat.
…
The state of Texas is the heart of the Big 12, and I’ve always taken pride that Texas has a conference it identifies with, especially considering we’re the mecca of football in this country. Monetarily, culturally, statistically, emotionally and spiritually no state has invested more in the sport of football at every level than Texas. No other state better deserves a college football conference affiliation than the state of Texas, and I feel that its future is in grave danger.
The latest hit to the Big 12’s ego was the decision by FOX to place the Texas-OU game on FOX Sports 1 instead of their national network affiliate. Although FOX chose to place the game on FS1, they did prioritize it as their first selection of regular season college football games. The move can be viewed as a negative for the conference in that the league’s marquee regular season game has been placed on cable. The decision by ESPN to prioritize the Texas-Notre Dame game over Texas-OU shows the network’s lust for the Longhorn brand. Regardless, both are good signs for the Texas brand, not necessarily for the conference when it comes to marketing.
The Big 12 is that married couple we all know is getting divorced. We feel guilty because we all attended the wedding and a few of you were taking side bets on how long it would last at the reception.
For fans, the Big 12 is a loveless, sexless marriage that may be past the point of counseling.
LikeLike
We’ve gamed this out a lot, but at this point, the best solution for the Big 12 seems to be to wait and hope that OU and Texas hold together long enough for schools to get poached from the ACC (in the 2020s). If that happens, there’s an outside shot that the Big 12 could eventually become home to schools like Clemson or even Miami…, of course, the downside is OU bolts and Texas is forced to react by moving itself (via an ND-type deal to the ACC), but still, it seems like it might be easier for OU and Texas to hold together if they can convince themselves that FSU might move first (to presumably the Big Ten).
It’s a long shot, but still, reality is Big 12 just needs OU and Texas to hold strong; that’s a lot easier than the ACC situation if there’s no ACC Network.
(Of course, if the ACC Network happens and ends up financially successful, then all bets are off).
So yeah, tons of assumptions either way I guess.
LikeLike
…the downside is OU bolts and Texas is forced to react by moving itself (via an ND-type deal to the ACC)…
I have never seen a believable argument that Texas wants this.They’d need to make a ton of money from the LHN, and right now every indication is that ESPN overpaid. A deal’s a deal, but that doesn’t mean it will be renewed at the same price. If Texas is looking ahead, as I believe they are, they aren’t assuming that cash cow will keep paying forever.
And then too, even assuming the financials were a push, they’d be sending their non-revenue sports to play against a bunch of Eastern schools. This is very different from Notre Dame, which actively wants to be playing in the East.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point; I was referring generally to the scenario where OU tells Texas that they’re done with the Big 12 and want to consider something else (let’s say Big Ten tells them they’d consider taking OU and Kansas).
At that point, Texas basically has to decide whether it wants to stay alone in the Big 12 or join the Pac-12 with 1-3 others (possibly including OU if OU isn’t already gone to the Big Ten or SEC) or whether it wants to join the ACC (alone in an ND-type situation or possibly with 2-3 “hanger’s on” but Texas is a non-football member of an 18 team football ACC with 20 members bball, ND/Texas each playing 5 games against the other 18 as well as each other annually, so that’s 6 games total scheduled for each).
Still, I’ve actually come around to the notion that the Big 12 may hold together better than the ACC if the Big Ten is specifically looking for more population centers and Texas won’t make itself available in the 2020s.
LikeLike
I was referring generally to the scenario where OU tells Texas that they’re done with the Big 12 and want to consider something else (let’s say Big Ten tells them they’d consider taking OU and Kansas).
But in any scenario where the Big Ten is interested in Oklahoma + Kansas, they’d be even more interested in Texas. There’s no series of events where Oklahoma and Kansas have Big Ten invites and Texas does not, unless the Longhorns impose ridiculous conditions.
With the kind of money the Big Ten is hauling in, Texas would make more if they ditched the LHN and joined on the same terms as everyone else. This might not have been clear when the Pac-16 proposal was bouncing around—which was why they insisted on keeping the LHN to themselves—but they have more information now.
…or whether it wants to join the ACC (alone in an ND-type situation or possibly with 2-3 “hanger’s on” but Texas is a non-football member of an 18 team football ACC with 20 members bball, ND/Texas each playing 5 games against the other 18 as well as each other annually, so that’s 6 games total scheduled for each).
You’re assuming an awful lot. Would the ACC want several “hangers on” as full members — teams it would not ordinarily be interested in — to rescue Texas from a tire fire of its own making?
LikeLike
That’s true in terms of Big Ten interest in Texas, which comes down to whether they’d let go of the LHN.
I assume the Big Ten would require them to end the LHN deal in favor of the BTN, but the Pac-12 or ACC might be desperate enough to prevent that from happening so they’d offer an “LHN” style package.
The Pac-12 already has local networks in each state, it’s not that much of a stretch that they could work something out for the LHN if they get desperate over how far the Pac-12 payments may have fallen behind by the 2020s.
The ACC is sort of similar in the respect that they offered ND that favorable 5 game package to give ND a landing spot that isn’t the Big Ten.
Regardless, I think a lot more will be clear once we know the ACC Network situation; obviously, the most important future issue is whether the Big Ten would consider FSU or Oklahoma (I tend to think yes, others tend to think not because of the AAU issue) or what pairings in the 2020s would look like.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16367546/district-attorney-declines-prosecute-arrested-alabama-crimson-tide-players-cam-robinson-laurence-jones
It’s bad enough that this DA didn’t prosecute these AL players citing lack of evidence (despite the drugs and stolen gun being found in the vehicle). But then he said this:
“I want to emphasize once again that the main reason I’m doing this is that I refuse to ruin the lives of two young men who have spent their adolescence and teenage years, working and sweating, while we were all in the air conditioning,” district attorney Jerry Jones told KNOE-TV.
So being a football player is now officially a legal defense?
LikeLike
Yes, its pretty bad. Especially with the stolen gun felony charge on the one.
LikeLike
Given the Baylor situation and general notion that college football has become the “tail wagging the dog” at major universities/college towns, that statement by the DA is remarkably tone deaf.
He’s explicitly saying that he’s not pursuing the case because they’re football players at Alabama.
If you remove the “Crimson Tide football player” description, they’d probably be prosecuted.
Just goes to show though that this situation is unique to no one. We’ve seen the same situation play out in many other places where the local authorities are so in thrall with the college football machine that they look the other way on the “dirt” that can be there too.
LikeLike
A recall petition is being circulated in Ouachita Parish.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/heres-how-alabama-is-punishing-cam-robinson-and-hootie-jones-after-arrests/
Saban has suspended the players indefinitely as well as given them token punishments off the field. Since AL opens versus USC, here’s betting that their suspensions magically end before the opening kickoff because they’ve “done everything that was asked of them.”
LikeLike
It’s been a reason that some DAs haven’t prosecuted some things for a long time now. He’s just done a political calculation that saying so explicitly it the best way to play this.
I noted that the “who have spent their adolescence and teenage years, working and sweating” would not apply if that had involved helping out on the family farm, so it’s only one type of sweat that generates sympathy from some DAs.
LikeLike
Sure it’s been a reason before, but not one that was ever officially stated and it was rarely a reason to help players from another state’s school (these were AL players in LA).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/16363944/attorney-lambastes-ex-baylor-coach-art-briles-reneging-deal-apologize-rape-victim
More bad news for Art Briles.
The attorney for a sexual assault victim suing Baylor University is claiming that former head football coach Art Briles backed out of a pledge to support and apologize to the victim, who was raped by a Baylor football player in 2012.
The issue so angered the woman, Jasmin Hernandez, and her attorneys, that they released a statement detailing the interaction on Monday.
In 2012, Hernandez, a former Baylor student, was raped by former football player Tevin Elliott. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $10,000 for sexually assaulting Hernandez, and his criminal trial revealed allegations of rape by three other women and a misdemeanor charge for trying to assault another woman.
…
Monday’s news release detailing the Hernandez team’s frustration with Briles comes after a series of meetings and legal maneuvers last week.
Baylor, Briles and McCaw have been working to settle the lawsuit through Baylor, according to Hernandez’s attorneys; an all-day mediation meeting Friday in Dallas ended without a deal, however.
…
After Cannon filed the motion Thursday, he called Hernandez’s Texas attorney and said that Briles “promised” to come to Friday’s mediation session “to support Jasmin … and help her, and to apologize to her and her family,” Zalkin told Outside the Lines.
…
On Friday, Briles and Baylor reached a settlement about his firing, according to The Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald, and Cannon withdrew the legal motion, leaving Briles to be represented by Baylor’s attorneys. Neither Briles nor Cannon showed up for the mediation meeting on Friday, Zalkin said. The mediation ended without a deal, Zalkin said.
“[Briles] used the threat of helping Jasmin in her lawsuit against Baylor as leverage to negotiate his wrongful termination claim against Baylor,” Zalkin said. “He doesn’t care about victims. He never cared about victims. He’s using victims. He used them to help build up his football program, and now he’s using Jasmin to leverage more money out of Baylor.”
LikeLike
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/6/21/11997218/big-12-conference-statement-baylor-scandal
“I think it’s fair to say when we have a conference member that has had the kind of difficulties that they have had at Baylor that it reflects on all of us,” Bowlsby said, according to NBCDFW.com. “I think you’re always measured by with whom you associate. So, in that regard, we all feel a little bit of the impact of it.”
This is what I was wondering about previously. When is it SWC enough that it becomes intolerable for certain schools to stay and/or continue to prop up? UT isn’t Baylor, but they continue to associate…
LikeLike
Until it spreads to another school I don’t think UT cares. The problem in the SWC was that everyone was cheating and most of them got caught. Nobody else feels obligated to cover up rapes just because Baylor is doing it. The pressure to compete drove SWC schools to cheat more and more.
LikeLike
Texas picks up a 4 * 2016 receiver who thought that he committed to Baylor, but Baylor messed up the paperwork, so he could just move over to Texas.
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Elite-WR-Devin-Duvernay-picks-Texas-45919778
LikeLike
Sounds like Title IX isn’t the only thing Baylor is sloppy with.
Just hard to imagine they messed this up.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/16429478/nhl-officially-approves-las-vegas-31st-franchise
It’s official. Las Vegas now has an NHL franchise that will begin play in 2017. No team name yet, but they’ll play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference with no other alignment changes.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16427840/new-york-knicks-acquire-derrick-rose-chicago-bulls
The Bulls trade Derrick Rose to the Knicks in a multi-player deal. We’ll see how Bulls fans react.
LikeLike
It will rival the disappointment and pitchforks people had in June 1986 when Brad Sellers was chosen 1 spot ahead of Johnny Dawkins.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16426384/university-north-dakota-unveils-fighting-hawks-logo
U of North Dakota has finally settled on a new nickname and logo as the Fighting Hawks.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16425546/big-12-asks-baylor-hand-all-documents-related-sexual-assault-investigations
The B12 is demanding info from Baylor about these sexual assaults.
The Big 12 revealed Wednesday that it has “once again” requested Baylor provide the conference the “full information” related to investigations into sexual assaults at the school.
In a statement, the Big 12 board of directors said it is “gravely and deeply concerned” about reports of how Baylor and its athletic department have handled sexual assault allegations, reports that prompted the termination of football coach Art Briles, the resignation of athletic director Ian McCaw and the demotion of president Kenneth Starr.
“On May 24, 2016, the Big 12 Board requested a full accounting of the circumstances surrounding the sexual assaults at the University,” the statement said. “At this time the Board is only privy to information that has been made available to the public.”
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby sent a letter to Baylor interim president David Garland requesting “all documents” from the Pepper Hamilton law firm, which Baylor hired last fall to review the school’s response to sexual assault allegations. The Big 12 board is demanding that Baylor give the league “unedited” information, including “any that has been conveyed orally,” with only the names of involved students redacted. The Big 12 is also requesting that Baylor provide the conference with all of the school’s internal documents pertinent to the investigation.
“All of our member universities consider student safety and security to be paramount among institutional responsibilities,” Bowlsby said in the statement. “The Big 12 board of directors, each member of the conference and its student-athletes want to convey that our thoughts, concerns and sympathies are with the Baylor survivors and their families.”
The Big 12 added that it needs more information to “facilitate fair competition among its members and compliance to the rules of both the conference and NCAA.”
LikeLike
Not defending Baylor one iota. But if the Big 10 did not kick out Penn State for what I as a Penn State fan thinks that with the exception of Rae Carruth, was the worst sports related offense since the Black Sox scandal (Lance Armstrong, CCNY point shaving and Barry Bonds included), why should Baylor receive the SMU treatment?
LikeLike
There isn’t any talk of that, but the B12 certainly has the right to punish its own members within the limits of their by-laws. Demanding info about the scandal certainly seems reasonable since all the other schools are tied to Baylor.
LikeLike
Not defending Baylor one iota. But if the Big 10 did not kick out Penn State for what I as a Penn State fan thinks that with the exception of Rae Carruth, was the worst sports related offense since the Black Sox scandal (Lance Armstrong, CCNY point shaving and Barry Bonds included), why should Baylor receive the SMU treatment?
Baylor won’t get the SMU treatment, given what we know now. Recall that SMU hadalready been sanctioned for paying its players…and then, incredibly, kept paying them. It was the second offense that got them the Death Penalty.
Also, there is a specific NCAA rule about paying players under the table. There is no NCAA rule covering precisely what Baylor did, even though we can all agree it was horrible. The NCAA punished Penn State under a non-specific “ethics” clause, which I am pretty sure it had never used for that purpose before, and that didn’t work out so well.
There are strong arguments that the Baylor scandal is worse than the Penn State scandal. Jerry Sandusky’s crimes had very little directly to do with the football program. Baylor’s players committed one of the worst imaginable crimes (other than murder), and the coaches worked actively to sweep it under the rug.
Still, there is no actual NCAA rule for that, and as this is Baylor’s “first offense,” I think there is zero chance of the death penalty, unless there is much more to it than we have heard.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/
10 ways college athletes players can get money without violating NCAA rules:
1. FCOA
2. Pell Grant (max is $5815)
3. Being a pro in a different sport
4. Bowl gifts/postseason awards
5. Free injury insurance
6. Prize money based on performance (capped at $10,000 plus necessary expenses)
7. Money for training and international competition
8. NCAA’s Student Assistance Fund
9. Get a job
10. Self-employment
The key is that you can’t use your status as an athlete, name or likeness to make money. You can use your skills as long as you get paid the going rate for your experience and skills.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ohio-state-michigan-likely-on-fox-and-7-things-to-know-about-big-tens-new-tv-deal/
7 things to know about the new TV deal for the B10.
What does the Big Ten deal mean? Here’s some analysis thanks to SBJ’s fine reporting and interviews with two TV consultants: Chris Bevilacqua (helped the Big 12 and Pac-12 on media deals during realignment) and Greg Shaheen (former NCAA senior vice president who currently consults with schools, conferences and TV networks).
1. That’s a lot of money. Seriously. It is.
…
To put that in perspective, SEC schools each received $31.2 million from the conference following the first year of the College Football Playoff. Now, that’s only a $500,000 difference from that $31.7 million figure mentioned above, but that $444 million pie the Big Ten will be splitting on an annual basis isn’t the only revenue the conference will be getting. That’s just the money from ESPN and Fox. It doesn’t include money from the Big Ten Network. Or from the CFP. Or from the bowl games.
…
The deals with ESPN and Fox are “well deserved and show the value of the Big Ten’s content and the value they created by their partnership with Fox that created their network,” Shaheen said. “Now you’ve got something in essence promoting the 24/7 channel (the Big Ten Network) when it appears on ESPN so it allows them to command similar money or greater money when they get to negotiation on their subscription fees.”
…
2. The Big Ten will still negotiate a new television deal before the other Power Five conferences do. With these new deals lasting for only six years, the Big Ten will once again sell its media rights to the highest bidder before the rest of the Power Five conferences get to. The Big Ten’s new deals will expire in 2022, at the same time the NFL’s television deals are expiring, and while the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 are all still working under their current contracts.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany wisely did a relatively short deal given the changing ways people now watch TV. For years, cable and satellite companies have bundled together a one-size-fits-all approach to channels. Consumers wondered why they were paying so much for stations they never watch. Cable/satellite bills kept going up and new viewing platforms emerged, such as Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, Verizon go90, Sling TV and Sony PlayStation. Consumers changed their viewing habits. Some cut cable and satellite altogether or got fewer channels as part of what’s called “skinny bundles.”
“I think these next several years will be a bit choppy,” Bevilacqua said. “But the Big Ten is a good example that those that have high-quality content — live sports content — they’re still going to extract real value out of the market place. It’s smart for them to go shorter. In five years, they’ll be back out in the market and I think it will look much different given this disruption going on. I think you’ll see a different set of buyers for live sports rights in addition to the traditional buyers.”
Conference realignment will likely come back on the table before existing Power Five media rights’ deals expire between 2023-27. Enjoy the relative calm now. History tells us there are always moving parts when there’s more money to be made.”There’s always a chance realignment will happen before (the Big Ten’s new deal expires) and some conference has a vision that there’s a better way to go at it,” Shaheen said.
There’s no telling how sports and cable TV, but either way, the Big Ten has put itself in a position where it can set the pace yet again when the time comes. Also, by timing it with the expiration of the NFL’s deals, it’s possible that networks that miss out on a deal with the NFL will want to throw a little more money the Big Ten’s way to insure they don’t leave empty-handed.
3. Fox will have first choice of games over ESPN.
…
This means it’s more likely than not that the annual Ohio State-Michigan game will air on Fox rather than ABC, where it’s been broadcast for decades. Fox will also have the rights to the Big Ten Championship Game in December. That gives Fox the rights to arguably the Big Ten’s two most attractive games. But the Big Ten will still keep a strong presence on ESPN, which went all-in with the SEC by creating the SEC Network.
4. This is not a sign that the Big 12 should expand.
…
The Big Ten isn’t getting this much money because it added Rutgers and Maryland. It’s not getting this money because it added Nebraska. The Big Ten is getting these giant checks because it’s the Big Ten. It’s a conference full of schools with large enrollments, and schools that have giant alumni bases spread all across the country. That means eyeballs on television screens for Big Ten games — more so than any other conference that is not the SEC.
So even if the Big 12 added two more teams, or hell, even four, it’s just never going to be as attractive to major television networks as the Big Ten. There just aren’t as many people interested in Big 12 football as there are in the Big Ten. No school that’s available to the Big 12 can change that.
5. Television money is not going to dry up.
…
“I’ve been in this league for 40 years, been athletic director for almost 25, and I kept hearing that thing the entire time — television bump, revenue’s going to burst, this bubble’s going to burst,” Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley said at the SEC Spring Meetings last month. “We’re blessed to be in a league with some highly successful teams across the board. There’s tremendous demand to watch the SEC product. … The world is changing, but ESPN’s ability to change with it, I don’t question that for a second.”
That’s what the Big Ten deal shows. Fox and ESPN are betting on the Big Ten’s valuable football brand and evolving with how consumers watch TV. “The money doesn’t dry up,” Shaheen said. “It just gets reallocated toward assets and investments that have demonstrated value. It’s hard to believe (cord cutting) would hurt the Power Five. The only way it hurts them is it gives someone along the way a reason to think about realigning.”
Since most of the Power Five’s deals are locked up long-term, Bevilacqua said it’s too early to predict how other leagues’ content will be viewed in the future. “Nothing leads me to believe their programming will be coveted any less,” he said. “In this ecosystem, five, six seven years is a lifetime. A lot of stuff is going to happen between now and then. The pay TV system is likely to shrink, although I don’t think as much as others may suggest.”
6. Questions arise for how smaller conferences will get paid.
…
“I’m somewhat sensitive about it because I think we’re watching the business segregate,” Shaheen said. “I think the layer to watch in everything is the [Group of Five] conferences, and I don’t like anything artificially recapping them if something deemed catastrophic happened to them.”
Take, for example, C-USA, which recently signed new deals with ESPN, CBS Sports Network, American Sports Network and beIN SPORTS. Documents obtained from Old Dominion show that each C-USA school’s annual media rights payout will decrease from about $1.1 million to $200,000, according to The Virginian-Pilot.
Shaheen said the details revealed in that story were outdated and the agreements had already been recalibrated when C-USA lost Memphis and Central Florida. Television agreements typically have language allowing for increased or decreased money if the conference membership changes.
“Did [C-USA] take a bath? Yes,” Shaheen said. “They didn’t take the bath everybody is saying.”
…
7. Are the athletes going to benefit? Well, not directly.
…
Perhaps some new benefits emerge, such as the Big Ten requiring schools to provide health insurance coverage for ex-athletes who got hurt playing college sports.
Most likely, the money will go toward where it always goes: higher salaries for coaches, administrators and new staff positions; and toward shiny new facilities (some of which do indirectly help athletes).
LikeLike
Some interesting things within:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/bohls-perrins-baseball-search-lhns-cuts-look-bleak/nrkSY/
UTx president in China. (PAC fans complain about China outreach.)
LHN cost cutting.
BB coach search continues.
LikeLike
@Frank
I hope you are taking a jaunt to Maui or Kauai or both if this is your first trip there. Oahu is nice, but doesn’t match the natural beauty of those islands. We spent the first few days of our trip in Maui and were thinking we should have spent our whole trip there. We went to Kauai and liked it even better.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/23/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-addresses-the-revenue-gap-with-big-ten-sec/
Here we go again. Wilner and Scott discuss the revenue gap between the P12 and the B10/SEC.
Let’s take it as a given that ccrider55 thinks Wilner obsesses on this topic and focuses on the short term versus the long term and just see what Wilner and Scott have to say.
The performance of the Pac-12 Networks is intrinsic to the TV revenue gap that exists between the Pac-12 and its peer conferences.
But for the purposes of relaying commissioner Larry Scott’s comments to fans via the Hotline, the topics have been separated – simple and focused seemed like the best approach in this space, even if that meant some overlap.
…
First, let’s address the exact nature of the revenue gap. Since the discussion, there have been two relevant developments:
1) The Big 12 announced its latest distribution: $30.4 million per school, which was higher than anticipated. (No specifics were given, but my understanding is the increase can be traced to the terms of the Tier 1 contract.)
2) The second piece of the Big Ten’s new deal came into focus with the SportsBusiness Daily reporting that ESPN would purchase the B1G’s remaining rights for $190 million annually. Add $240 million from Fox, another $10 million from CBS, and the conference’s TV revenue is astronomical.
The double-whammy of news from the Big 12 and Big Ten will place the Pac-12 in worse shape a few years from now (relative to its peers) than it has been at any point since the start of its $3 billion Tier 1 deal with ESPN and Fox.
Here are expected distributions per-school for TV rights in 2017-18, when the Big Ten deal kicks in.
Note I: Figures do not include revenue from College Football Playoff, March Madness, etc. This is only TV rights.
Note II: Figures are estimated, largely because of uncertainty regarding the exact income amounts from conference TV networks.
Big Ten: $41 million per school
(Includes Tier 1 deal, annual Big Ten Network distributions and BTN profit sharing)
SEC: $34 million per school
(Includes Tier 1 and SEC Network revenue)
Big 12: $23 million
(Includes Tier 1 deal and rights fee for football championship game but not Tier 3 rights, which are owned by the schools and vary greatly)
Pac-12: $22.5 million
(Includes Tier 1 deal and $2.5 million per school in Pac-12 Networks distributions)
To make the B12 be apples to apples add $4M-$15M per school ($27M – $38M total). The median is probably around $31M.
He never mentions the ACC when doing these comparisons, but they should be in the ball park of the P12. Their deal averages about $20M per school ignoring ND, but it run through 2026-2027 so I assume they’re below average still. On the other hand they’re supposed to get $45M per year if they don’t get an ACCN ($3.2M per school) so I’m saying $22.5M should be close enough for our purposes.
That’s a monumental gap, especially with regard to the Big Ten. And as we’ve noted before, the Big Ten is viewed as the true peer conference by Pac-12 presidents and chancellors — partly because of the academic reputation of its schools, partly because of the long on-field relationship via the Rose Bowl.
That’s true, but that gap ($18.5M) is less scary when looked at in terms of the total revenue of the P12 ADs. The top public schools had budgets over $100M while the bottom 3 were below $70M. Nobody wants a gap that large to their competitors, but the gap between WSU and UW is bigger than the gap in TV revenue between the B10 and P12 and the P12 schools play each other all the time.
*** Although we didn’t talk specific numbers and didn’t have the new Big 12 and Big Ten data, Scott acknowledged the existence of a gap and said (DTV aside) that there is “no silver bullet” for the Pac-12 on the revenue front.
I asked if conference leadership was comfortable with the prospect of a multi-million-dollar per-school disparity until the conclusion of the Pac-12’s current Tier 1 deal in 2023-24.
“The CEOs are very supportive of the direction of the conference,” he said. “No one is satisfied with DirecTV, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the right strategy.”
A common refrain in the comments on Wilner pieces is that the P12 should do whatever it takes to get on DTV. The visibility is more important than the money at this point. The goal would be to build interest in the network so they can charge more later. That seems like it might fit the goals of the presidents but they can’t seems to find common ground with DTV. I don’t know if one side is being stubborn or there just is no agreement worth making.
*** Scott also noted that the conference is in better shape, on a relative basis, than it was before the ESPN/Fox deal.
“We’ve made enormous progress,” he said.
The progress isn’t what it was a few years ago — and won;t be in two years what it is now — because of the contract cycles.
The Pac-12 was first to the market with its TV rights … grabbed its $3 billion from ESPN and Fox … celebrated the lofty perch for a few years … and then began to lose ground as the SEC (with its network) and the Big Ten (with new Tier 1 deals) caught up and began waving bye-bye.
The Pac-12 hasn’t fallen back to where it was at the turn of the decade. Before rights for live sports soared and the new Tier 1 contract cycle began, the schools received only 35-to-40 percent as much TV revenue as their B1G counterparts.
That’s an important point and one I had been thinking of researching. Going from 35-40% to 55% (66% of SEC) is a solid improvement. The size and intensity of the fan bases (plus the time zones) dictate that the P12 will never match the B10 or SEC in TV revenue.
*** In general, and not surprisingly, Scott’s view of the revenue gap is no different than his view of the state of the Pac-12 Networks:
He takes the long view.
“The most important thing,” he said at the outset of the conversation about the revenue gap, “is to optimize the long-term value of our rights.”
What does he consider long-term (20 years? 50 years? More?)?
Is their current path the correct one to achieve that optimization? It’s certainly debatable based on the limited information out there.
LikeLike
The long term does not look good for the Pac-12 either. in the next contract about 5-6 years who do you think is going to be making more money the Big 10 or the Pac-12? I bet the ACC will surpass them as well.There is no way Larry Scott should be making more money then Jim Delaney.
LikeLike
The long term does not look good for the Pac-12 either. in the next contract about 5-6 years who do you think is going to be making more money the Big 10 or the Pac-12? I bet the ACC will surpass them as well.
On the other hand, the Pac-12 is pretty much guaranteed to exist. The ACC might very well not exist (as we know it), if any of its keystone schools decide to start talking to the Big 10 or the SEC. ACC presidents will look at what Maryland is about to get, and be sick to their stomachs.
LikeLike
There is no way Larry Scott should be making more money then Jim Delaney.
I agree that the P-12 overpaid for their commissioner.
LikeLike
And also Delany could demand more but chooses not to do so.
LikeLike
Brian:
Thank you. I think you summarized/commented very well. I’d want to know what Wilner considers short or long term as much as Scott and the CEO’s. And, why it seems to him critical to be very close to the B1G and SEC when in fact the 2011 media deal was the first time they’d ever been similar. Sure, colder is a bit better. But as you said elsewhere adding second waterfalls and more expensive carpet to players lounges has significantly deminished value beyond a certain point. Being competitive doesn’t require identical resources.
LikeLike
The Big 10 and Pac 10 shared a TV contract for a good while after the NCAA monopoly broke up. Neither was part of the CFA. It was really with that 2006 contract that the Big 10 separated themselves. In the early and mid-90s, basketball was king and the ACC and Big East were at the top for a time.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Thank you. I think you summarized/commented very well.”
I try to be fair when summarizing, and I do share some of the concerns you have.
“I’d want to know what Wilner considers short or long term as much as Scott and the CEO’s.”
Yes, plus I’d like to know what his alternative plan is if he truly disagrees with Scott/the presidents. He mentioned last time that according to experts a reasonable estimate of the value of the P12N is $800M. Assuming a sale of roughly a 50% share, that means they could raise $400M ($33M per school). They could use that to match the SEC in TV money for 3 years or the B10 for almost 2. After that they’d be right back in the same place but with only half of a network. On the other hand, if they sell a stake to someone who can leverage that into improving P12N distribution by finally getting on DTV, they might actually make more money despite the dilution of ownership. One can make a decent case for that approach based on the failure to get on DTV.
“And, why it seems to him critical to be very close to the B1G and SEC when in fact the 2011 media deal was the first time they’d ever been similar.”
I think a lot of P12 people thought Hansen and the old presidents were holding the P10 back from what they could be. With a new commissioner who was a business man with modern ideas, many expected the P12 to suddenly jump forward in status. I don’t think they accounted for how substantial the difference was between west coast fans/alumni and midwestern/southern fans/alumni and how important the time zone issue is to TV. It wasn’t just the mindset of the old fogies that had the P10 lagging the B10 and SEC.
“Sure, closer is a bit better. But as you said elsewhere adding second waterfalls and more expensive carpet to players lounges has significantly diminished value beyond a certain point. Being competitive doesn’t require identical resources.”
I think this is a by-product of the CFP. You used to only have to really worry about your own conference and region, but now fans are forced to constantly worry about how their conference is perceived in comparison to everyone else. How far behind financially can conferences get before people start wondering if they’re truly P5 anymore? Maybe it’s P2, M3 and G5?
LikeLike
Off the wall thought….. would it be possible (not probable) for the B1G to purchase 1/2 the PAC12 network?
Sometimes I wonder if the end goal is something larger than just a conference. Maybe seeking more/total control, doing away with the NCAA, etc….something along those lines. B1G, PAC, and in some of the expansion giants (Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, FSU, UNC) would be a great core if that was a possibility.
I’m sure there are numerous reasons for it not to happen. Since just pondering for fun I’m not really interested in those. Just thinking about the what if scenario.
LikeLike
Off the wall thought….. would it be possible (not probable) for the B1G to purchase 1/2 the PAC12 network?
The question is what either side gets out of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Several years ago, the PAC12 and the B1G had a tentative agreement to schedule more inter-conference games, I believe each team in each conference was to have one annual game with a team in the other conference. If that had gone through, a merger of the PAC12 network and the BTN would have made sense. Since the BTN apparently has better management, it would make the PAC12 network more valuable.
That deal still makes a lot more sense than further realignment. The two conferences have a long mutual history and are more alike than other conferences. A successful deal would create a true national entity stretching from coast to coast. It might encourage Notre Dame to join up, too, post 2027.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Delaney say that when the PAC 12 scheduling agreement fell through, that is when the BIG announced they were looking at expansion?
LikeLike
Doug you are correct. If the Pac-12 had kept the 12 game scheduling agreement, then expansion may not have occurred.
Of course, we don’t know for sure, if a school like Maryland is looking at its options (and there’s an obvious partner like Rutgers), and those offer great markets as they do…; Big Ten will always take that phone call, but yes, it wasn’t entirely a coincidence that the Big Ten looked at expansion after the Pac-12 scheduling arrangement collapsed.
LikeLike
I think several of you are vastly over-stating the impact of the P12–B10 scheduling agreement — either the impact it would’ve had if carried out, or the impact of it falling apart.
This agreement would have controlled 1/12th of each team’s annual football schedule, leaving 11/12ths untouched. This would not “create a true national entity stretching from coast to coast,” “encourage Notre Dame to join up too,” or prompt the BTN to merge with the far less desirable P12N. It also would not have prompted the B10 to say no to Maryland, when they realized the Terps were on the market.
The only difference compared to today, is that the B10 would likely still be playing an 8-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
“He never mentions the ACC when doing these comparisons, but they should be in the ball park of the P12. Their deal averages about $20M per school”
FSU received $28.3M from ACC in 2015 per tax filing. That was before the (lack of) ACCN factor comes into play…a $45M/year payout from ESPN to ACC. So that should tack on $3-4M more going forward, on top of the usual annual increases. Not too shabby for the ACC. For now anyway.
LikeLike
TOM,
“FSU received $28.3M from ACC in 2015 per tax filing.”
Read the part I bolded from his article. He was only looking at TV money. Everyone gets a larger total payout than the numbers he gave because they also get money from the CFP, bowls and the NCAA tournament among other things. The ACC TV deal is only a portion of the payout and I stand by my estimate. Feel free to make it more exact if you have a source.
“That was before the (lack of) ACCN factor comes into play…a $45M/year payout from ESPN to ACC.”
Supposedly. Nobody has confirmed that officially.
“So that should tack on $3-4M more going forward,”
$45M/14 = $3.2M
~ $20M + $3.2M = $23.2M which I consider in the same neighborhood as the P12’s $22.5M.
“on top of the usual annual increases.”
He specifically was looking at the numbers for 2017-2018 as he said just above the bolded line. Everyone will get annual bumps from there.
“Not too shabby for the ACC. For now anyway.”
No, it isn’t shabby. I wasn’t trying to claim it was. I just wanted to add the ACC to the mix for context.
LikeLike
Nobody but ACC bloggers have come up with that $45 million figure. SBJ did say they would get $2 million more annually if ESPN didn’t do a network. SBJ is a good a source as you get on that sort of stuff, but I’m still skeptical. It doesn’t make sense to pay somebody more for something you already own.
Now the $45 million might make sense if it was a ONE time payment. It could be to cover the costs of the ACC getting ready for and studying the possibility of a network. It would be a reimbursement of expenses.
LikeLike
“It doesn’t make sense to pay somebody more for something you already own.”
Agreed, but that isn’t what the payment is for. The promise of ACCN, or cash payment produced their GOR. Like paying B12 for nonexistent CCG and continuing payment as if still a twelve team league, in order to discourage further realignment. The B12’s didn’t include deciding between a conf network or cash.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Nobody but ACC bloggers have come up with that $45 million figure.”
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/colleges/audio/15254519/
Not true. It’s a quote from Wes Durham (a famous sports broadcaster in the Atlanta area). That link is the audio of him saying it during a radio interview.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-commish-vague-on-future-of-dedicated-espn-channel/15584633/
Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN’s contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.
“I mistakenly used the word ‘reported,’ when I should have used the word ‘speculated,’ when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN,” said Durham. “The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn’t have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments.”
“SBJ did say they would get $2 million more annually if ESPN didn’t do a network.”
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
They did say that 3 years ago.
But the only commitment ESPN has given the ACC is that it will discuss the benefits of launching a channel. Industry insiders say there is not a rush to put together an ACC channel, and that it likely would be 2016 or 2017 before one would launch, if then.
If, in three to four years, ESPN decides an ACC channel is not financially viable, sources say there will still be financial benefits to the ACC.
The league’s current media rights contract is valued at $260 million a year through 2027, or about $18 million per school on an average annual basis across 14 schools. Notre Dame’s cut is much smaller because the Irish have their own football deal with NBC.
ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million.
“SBJ is a good a source as you get on that sort of stuff, but I’m still skeptical.”
I am too, but SBJ wouldn’t report it without good sources.
“It doesn’t make sense to pay somebody more for something you already own.”
But they aren’t really paying more for the rights they already own. It’s paying more for the right to not form an ACCN.
Again from SBJ:
The main roadblock is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.
Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.
The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.
Those deals extend through 2027.
It’s unlikely that ESPN will try to launch a channel without those rights. ESPN brought all of those rights — TV, digital, sponsorship — together as it formed the SEC Network, which launches in August 2014.
“Now the $45 million might make sense if it was a ONE time payment. It could be to cover the costs of the ACC getting ready for and studying the possibility of a network. It would be a reimbursement of expenses.”
I’ve also considered that. Or maybe it’s both (a 1 time lump sum plus a smaller annual payment). Or maybe it’s neither. We’ll find out fairly soon since the deadline is rapidly approaching and the financial numbers can only be hidden for a limited time after that.
LikeLike
“Like paying B12 for nonexistent CCG and continuing payment as if still a twelve team league, in order to discourage further realignment. The B12’s didn’t include deciding between a conf network or cash.”
How many times do you have to be corrected on that nonsense?
ESPN and Fox had the right to adjust the rate to market after Nebraska and Colorado left. That is true. But market was HIGHER even with only 10 teams and no championship game. So they could not lower the rate under the contract. They weren’t paying any more than they were legally obligated to pay. When the Fox contract expired for Tier II, they renewed at $90 million a year, more than the entire Tier I & II contract ($80 million) that existed before.
LikeLike
I remember now it came from Durham, but a radio play by play guy isn’t much better than a blogger.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Got a link to that blue book of market values? It would make these negotiations over conference media rights just a quick formality…
Did the same blue book set the value of LHN?
You really think if ACC lost four but retained FSU and Miami, and back filled with ECU and Memphis, ESPN would continue paying conf the same because of value increase? It wouldn’t be to keep FSU/Miami in their orbit, but not in an even more expensive other conference.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I remember now it came from Durham, but a radio play by play guy isn’t much better than a blogger.”
Wes Durham isn’t just some radio play by play guy. First, his dad was the voice of the UNC Tarheels for 40 years so his family is ACC royalty (meaning he has connections everywhere in the league). He was GT’s voice for 15+ years. He does does ACC games on FSN. He’s also been the voice of the Falcons for over 10 years. On top of that he’s worked with Tony Barnhart for years, and Barnhart also has connections everywhere.
Durham knows people at all the ACC schools and at all the media companies, and not just as business acquaintances. If there’s info about the ACCN out there, Durham would know. His source(s) may be wrong, but he wouldn’t make that up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@cc
Simple. Look at the Fox contract signed a year later when the Fox deal expired. $90 million a year for Tier II on the open market. The prior contracts were $20 million for Tier II and $60 million for Tier I, less than the Tier II by itself.
And a year after that, ESPN extended their deal and the Fox deal was re-worked to pay $200 million a year. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-07/big-12-conference-signs-tv-contract-with-espn-fox-through-2025
There was a report at the time that Colorado and Nebraska leaving only reduced the value by 9%. In other words, the value per school increased when they left. And since the market for TV sports had gone up since the contracts were signed around 2006, the value per school went up significantly.
LikeLike
So we’ve arrived at values increase over time. Surprise. Hence escalators yearly. Question is why didn’t fox/ESPN hold to original contract language through the term of the contract? They got something in return – an, although diminished, still viable conference and/or extension.
LikeLike
There was a report at the time that Colorado and Nebraska leaving only reduced the value by 9%. In other words, the value per school increased when they left. And since the market for TV sports had gone up since the contracts were signed around 2006, the value per school went up significantly.
If that report was accurate, it probably was due to the increase from eight to nine conference games making up for lost inventory.
LikeLike
@cc
Sounds like you haven’t paid any attention to anything Frank has written in the last 5 years!
Sports rights have gone up dramatically in value. ESPN and Fox had the right to adjust the contract based on conference composition BUT only down to fair market. With the dramatic increase in value, fair market for 10 teams with no ccg was HIGHER than what they were paying for 12 teams and a ccg. So they couldn’t reduce what they were paying.
The Fox contract was near expiration and they paid the original contract rate through the end of the term and negotiated a new contract with a significant increase. ESPN re-worked their contract to coincide with the beginning of the new Fox contract and paid the original contract rate until that new starting date. Now Fox also paid a “signing bonus” prior to the start of the new contract, but that was officially considered part of the new contract.
LikeLike
I’ve followed close enough to know early reworking of contracts by one, and continuing to pay for a 12 team conference contract that isn’t twelve any more (and lost four significant teams/markets – replaced by two, one distant and one more in Texas) and paying for a phantom CCG isn’t something required by contract. They saved themselves the future cost of increased contracts with other conference(s) and kept inventory. That is a part of the value fox and ESPN were buying. They didn’t need to until contracts were up…unless the concern was the conference wouldn’t still be there at expiration.
Someone’s memory of just how close it was in ’10 and ’11 is a bit foggy.
LikeLike
One confusing thing is that the reported “average” payouts for the various conference contracts are all calculated from different start dates and for different contract lengths. That makes it difficult to compare them accurately. The ACC contract (after various adjustments for expansion and ND) is for 14 years (2013-27) at an average of around $22+ million per school. That average should be reached roughly at the mid-point of the contract, around 2019 or 2020. By the end of the deal in 2026/27, the payout should be @$31 million per school — not counting any network (or payment in lieu of network).
LInk: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2016/05/projecting-future-tv-revenue.html
If the new BIG contracts average $31+ million per school over six years, starting in 2017, it should also hit its average in around 2020, and go up from there. This suggests that in 2020 the gap should be @$9 million per school. Network payments would be on top of that, I don’t know what the annual distribution is per school from BTN (maybe $2-3 million and rising?). But whatever the amount, it would add substantially to the BIG’s lead — unless it were offset by the rumored in-lieu payment to the ACC of @$3 million per school.
Other factors (like the ACC’s record number of basketball tournament units these last two years) might whittle a bit off the gap, but no more than $1 million. Overall, there would appear to be little the conference can do to close the gap before 2026 — unless they succeed in getting a network up and running or do, in fact, have an in lieu guarantee. Even that, however, would only prevent the per school difference from surging past $10 million. It wouldn’t come close to erasing it.
LikeLike
Fred,
“One confusing thing is that the reported “average” payouts for the various conference contracts are all calculated from different start dates and for different contract lengths. That makes it difficult to compare them accurately.”
Yes, it certainly takes more work. And even then you never get pure apples to apples. But with the annual financial document releases and various articles, you can see how much was from TV in a given year. You also know that all these deals have escalator clauses so you can approximate the value going forward from known data points. I believe Nostradamus has a database of that sort of info.
“The ACC contract (after various adjustments for expansion and ND) is for 14 years (2013-27) at an average of around $22+ million per school. That average should be reached roughly at the mid-point of the contract, around 2019 or 2020.”
Yes, and Wilner was specifically looking at 2017-2018 and I estimated the ACC at a little below that average value.
“If the new BIG contracts average $31+ million per school over six years, starting in 2017, it should also hit its average in around 2020, and go up from there. This suggests that in 2020 the gap should be @$9 million per school. Network payments would be on top of that, I don’t know what the annual distribution is per school from BTN (maybe $2-3 million and rising?).
But whatever the amount, it would add substantially to the BIG’s lead — unless it were offset by the rumored in-lieu payment to the ACC of @$3 million per school.”
The BTN has been paying around $8M per school with it rising due to ad revenue and profit shares (call it $10M+ by then), making the total gap $16M+ by then.
“Other factors (like the ACC’s record number of basketball tournament units these last two years) might whittle a bit off the gap, but no more than $1 million.”
Yes, each unit is worth “only” about $250,000 per year for 6 years.
“Overall, there would appear to be little the conference can do to close the gap before 2026 — unless they succeed in getting a network up and running or do, in fact, have an in lieu guarantee. Even that, however, would only prevent the per school difference from surging past $10 million. It wouldn’t come close to erasing it.”
Ummm. Unfortunately for the ACC, it’s well past $10M.
LikeLike
There was an article quoting the Georgia Tech assistant AD in the AJC on 4/23/13 (lot of AJC stuff is behind a pay wall and their internal search is lousy):
Upon signing of GOR-Tech will receive $12.8 milliion in television money for the 2014 fiscal year, fees that escalate to $22.7 million by the end of the contract. Contract is average of $260 million with ND getting some, so just over $18 million per school (ND gets a smaller share).
That $260 million did not include any payment for NOT doing a network.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/16472883/sports-misery-index-cleveland-passes-crown-most-tortured-fans-san-diego-buffalo
With the Cavs winning a title, San Diego now becomes the most tortured sports city in the US.
LikeLike
The writer gives a city one point for every season one of its pro sports teams fails to win a title. The second and subsequent losers in the same city get half a point each. Chicago thus could accumulate three points per year, while Jacksonville (with only the Jaguars) could get just one.
He counted the ABA, WHA, and AFL, but not other leagues in the major sports (e.g., USFL), nor other team sports (e.g., MLS). Needless to say, he also didn’t count college sports, even though, in some places, a college title in basketball or football would be at least as big a deal as a pro title.
San Diego surpasses #2 Buffalo by a score of 83.5 to 76.5. This is based on no championships since the Chargers’ 1963 AFL title. If he hadn’t counted the AFL, then their score would be a lot worse, as San Diego has never won a title in any of the major leagues that exist today.
He back-tested his method to 1876. Cleveland’s streak from 1965–2016 is worth 100.5 points, the worst of any city in history. San Diego’s active streak is the second-worst in history.
Cleveland’s run of bad luck included a period of time when they had active teams in all four major pro sports. San Diego has just two right now, so they’ll need to keep losing for another dozen years before they could take over the all-time #1 position.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16460603/baylor-bears-release-5-2016-signees-national-letters-intent
Baylor has released 5 2016 enrollees from their NLI. Originally 7 players had asked to be released, but 1 decided to stay and another had a paperwork snafu on Baylor’s end so his NLI was never valid. Everyone is happy now, except presumably the Baylor coaches who are down 6 players.
“I wanted the opportunity to talk with our signees and their families before providing any releases,” interim Baylor coach Jim Grobe said in a statement. “This has never been about whether or not we would ultimately provide individuals with a release; we simply asked that we go through the process outlined by the NLI, take some time and have the chance to speak with the student-athletes and their parents. I’ve enjoyed those opportunities to meet with these families and wish each individual success in all that they do in life.”
LikeLike
“Everyone is happy now, except presumably the Baylor coaches who are down 6 players.”
And the UT fans hoping Waco feels put out enough to do a Brexit and leave the B12…
LikeLike
I am not surprised that Baylor relented. Although the NLI doesn’t have an out-clause for players who regret their choice, in the “court of public opinion” it is difficult to enforce in egregious cases, such as this one.
LikeLike
The CWS is down to 4 teams and none of them are national seeds (also no ACC or SEC).
OkSU (2-0) is playing AZ (2-1) right now. If AZ wins (they lead 3-0), they’ll play again tomorrow with the winner making the finals.
The other bracket has Coastal Carolina (2-1) facing TCU (2-0). TCU beat them when they met last time, and CC will have to win 2 in a row to make the finals.
LikeLike
Both AZ and CC won to force winner-take-all games today. The winners meet in a best of 3 championship.
LikeLike
And both AZ and CC advanced to the finals. I’ve got to root for CC here just because the little guys so rarely get a shot at a title outside of baseball.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arizona was 3rd in the Pac 12 with a 16-14 conference record (7 of the 11 teams were between 16-14 and 14-16). Oklahoma St. was 2nd and TCU 3rd in the Big 12. CCU was he only conference champ in the final 4.
LikeLike
SI has an interesting article this week about a new form of sports gambling. Based on a recently passed law in NV, there are now essentially sports gambling mutual funds that can operate in NV. The investors have no say on what bets are made and the fund can’t announce their bets until after a game starts. It could lead to giant hedge funds pumping money through Las Vegas.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/22/11648368/scheduling-cupcake-guarantee-games-cost
An article about the finances of cupcake games and why some will never go away while other schools are reducing them. We all know the little guys play them for the money, so I’ll focus on the bits about the big boys. They used OSU as an example, and showed the stark difference OSU’s new premium pricing based on the opponent makes.
Consider 2010, when Ohio State’s home schedule included a game against No. 12 Miami and, two weeks later, a game against Eastern Michigan, which would finish near the bottom of the MAC.
School, Payment, Total Gate, Attendance
EMU, $850,000, $5,536,634, 105,017
Miami, $500,000, $6,496,306, 105,454
According to game financial reports obtained by SB Nation through a public records request, Ohio State netted $959,672 more at the gate for the Miami game than the Eastern Michigan game. That’s a drop in the bucket for the Buckeyes, who boast that their nine-figure budget is “the biggest in the history of college sports.”
…
Ohio State’s ticket prices have shot upward in recent years. Face value went up 90 percent from 2013 to 2014, and premium game pricing was part of the equation.
Schools that charge more for tickets to watch big-time opposition have a lot more to lose by playing paycheck games against lower-tier teams. Consider Ohio State in 2014:
School, Payment, Total Gate, Attendance
Kent State, $850,000, $5,354,488, 104,404
Virginia Tech, $350,000, $9,434,863, 107,517
The Buckeyes made $4.1 million more for a 2014 home game against Virginia Tech than they did against Kent State, a fourfold increase in the difference over similar games four years prior. That difference would’ve helped ease the financial regret if OSU had missed the Playoff because of a loss to an out-of-conference opponent (the Buckeyes did lose to VT, but won the Playoff anyway).
As more schools go to premium pricing, the number of cupcakes should drop somewhat. The CFP also is pushing teams in that direction as conferences add conference games and mandate at least 1 P5 OOC game.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16491025/baylor-art-briles-acknowledge-serious-shortcomings-response-sexual-violence
Briles is officially gone and both he and Baylor admit to “serious shortcomings” in how sexual assault allegations against football players were handled at Baylor during his tenure.
“Both parties acknowledge that there were serious shortcomings in the response to reports of sexual violence by some student-athletes, including deficiencies in University processes and the delegation of disciplinary responsibilities with the football program,” the news release said. “Baylor is addressing these shortcomings and making ongoing improvements.
That should make lawsuits a little easier for the victims, shouldn’t it?
LikeLike
Another 4* Baylor commit now going to UTexas.
http://247sports.com/Article/Longhorns-football-Texas-adds-four-star-OT-former-Baylor-signee–45950669
LikeLike
Another take on the sports broadcasting market.
http://adage.com/article/media/big-ten-deal/304667/
LikeLike
A few interesting points to consider:
As was first reported by SportsBusiness Journal, ESPN and Fox Sports will divide 50 football games and another 100 conference basketball games among themselves, with Fox retaining the rights to the Big Ten championship game and getting first dibs on the most desirable matchups.
B10 conference games = 9*(14/2) + 1 = 64
B10 OOC home games ~ 2.3 * 14 = 32
Total B10 games ~ 96 per season
ESPN and Fox each get 25, leaving about 46 for BTN (biased towards September, obviously). That’s about 2 per week for ESPN and Fox on average, leaving 2 or 3 for BTN in October and November.
Odds are, Fox will move to snatch the annual Ohio State-Michigan grudge match away from ABC, which has been the broadcaster of record for the rivalry since the late 1960s.
That first time on Fox will be weird. I really don’t look forward to Gus Johnson calling that Game.
(Here’s what a big deal the Buckeyes-Wolverines showdown is: Despite a 42-13 blowout in Michigan’s Big House, last year’s game was the most-watched noon college football broadcast in 18 years, drawing 10.8 million viewers and a 6.4 household rating.)
Games like that should help develop Fox as CFB broadcasting power, though. If they put together some decent studio shows by then, FS1 could really benefit, too.
After placing a lowball bid earlier this spring, ESPN stepped up to sustain its 50-year relationship with the Big Ten when word of the Fox discussions began swirling, upping its commitment from the $150 million it will pay in each of the last two years of its current contract to $190 million for the new deal, which activates in fall 2017.
This gives us our best comparison of the deals. ESPN was paying $150M for the whole deal before (minus the CCG). Now ESPN is paying $190M on average in the future for what they were paying about $72M for before (up 2.6 times) factoring in the priority of games. It also shows that priority isn’t worth all that much to Fox (if the CCG is worth $35M, then Fox is paying only $15M more per year for 1st choice).
CBS also will remain in business with the Big Ten, re-upping its deal to broadcast the semifinals and championship game of the conference’s season-ending basketball tournament. Last year’s Purdue-Michigan State title tilt drew 3.1 million viewers in its Sunday 3 p.m.-to-5 p.m. EDT window.
Just a reminder of the difference between CFB and MBB. OSU/MI topped the B10 title game in MBB by 3.5 times in terms of audience.
While ESPN will pay approximately $40 million more for its Big Ten rights under the terms of the new contract, the network isn’t going to automatically pass the buck to its advertisers. “Usually, when networks renew and there’s an inevitable step-up in their fees, they don’t just go ahead and jack up the the cost of ads to try and balance things out,” said one national TV buyer. “The values for the sports properties are aleady well established; if anything, they start making their money back when they go in to re-negotiate their carriage deals” with pay-TV distributors.
That’s $40M more for half the content, meaning half the ads. I can’t imagine that ad prices won’t increase some. But look for ESPN to up their monthly cost yet again.
When pricing does escalate, it’s generally a function of the time-honored supply-and-demand model. “Advertisers are willing to pay a premium for sports, because they recognize that, at its core, sports not only delivers a passion-based experience and a uniquely engaged audience — and, by the way, they’re watching the ads — but it’s also, let’s face it, the last real reach vehicle,” said the buyer. “You have some of the biggest programs in college sports, which is itself this insanely tribal phenomenon, and you’re going to pay more because the demand for that audience is so high and the ratings are what they are, and I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, but most of the general entertainment stuff just isn’t working.”
We have the DVR to thank for sports TV rights growing in value so much.
LikeLike
ESPN arguably had a surplus of games, though. I guess we’ll find out how much of an audience those ACC games that are currently shunted off to neverland which will be on ESPNU and ESPN2 in the future instead will draw (the SEC, B12, and Pac get their games bumped up as well). And the days of 3/4 games on ABC/ESPN2 reverse-mirror are likely in the past. Each game will likely be shown nationally now.
LikeLike
As it happens, the Big Ten’s new rights deals will lapse before the other Power Five conferences will have to negotiate their own media packages. The Fox/ESPN Pac-12 pact isn’t set to run out until spring 2024, the Big 12 rights (ESPN/Fox) have been secured through 2024-25, ESPN’s ACC accord has another 11 years left on the warranty and the SEC’s CBS/ESPN compact will endure through 2034.
Just leaving this here for future reference. Outside of their CBS package, the SEC doesn’t get to go back to the table for a very long time.
LikeLike
You aren’t correct. The SEC’s ESPN contract has been extended to the mid-30s, but the CBS deal still expires in 2024.
I think you are right on the Pac 12, but I’ve seen a source that says 2022-2023 is the expiration date as well.
Now the Big 12 as well as Notre Dame are 2025.
LikeLike
The CBS package is relatively small $55 Million per year and I doubt you would see a significant increase in 2024. I could see the package increase to around $80-$100 million which would be a big % increase but not in terms of total dollars. Maybe an additional $3 million per school.
Now if the SEC feels they are falling way behind they could ditch CBS and sell it to ESPN for big bucks but they would risk losing a ton of that broadcast exposure.
LikeLike
Uh, not a ton. ABC is as widespread as CBS and ESPN is almost as much.
Anyway, I foresee a big percentage jump in the value of the CBS top SEC game package. $200M/year is possible. Still, that would only put the SEC roughly on par with what the B10 has now overall.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“I think you are right on the Pac 12, but I’ve seen a source that says 2022-2023 is the expiration date as well.”
They probably go to market in ’22-’23.
2010 PAC expanded, 2011 Sign the $3B deal (which in five years has gone from huge to languishing 🙄), and have a year under old contract before new 12 year deal kicks in. Just made B1G deals don’t start until ’17.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You aren’t correct.”
Mike is correct, Wilner is wrong. Mike noted the exception of the SEC’s CBS package.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/06/penn-state-schedules-2021-22-home-home-auburn/
Hat tip to Auburn for scheduling a home and home with PSU in 2021-2022. It’s rare to see a B10/SEC home and home among the top programs (not IN/UK or NW/Vandy or IL/MO).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/alcohol-coming-soon-to-your-college-football-stadium-if-its-not-there-already/
A look at the growing trend of selling beer (and more) in college stadiums. Both sides are examined.
“For Chrissakes, it’s legal to buy pot in Colorado,” said Chuck Neinas, the 84-year-old former NCAA administrator who once banned beer sales at the CWS in 1964.
…
“We do have a reaction,” Sheehey-Church told CBS Sports. “It’s part of our mission statement. We want to prevent underage drinking. MADD discourages the service of alcohol at a college game-day event.
“We absolutely know the minimum drinking age is 21 and most of the people there are going to be under 21.”
…
The NCAA announced in January the pilot programs in baseball and softball. Give the people what they want? The association might want to get its arms around the concussion issue before it opens up another possible liability issue.
Plus, it’s a bit hypocritical for any school to argue against court/field storming if alcohol is being served.
…
The other line of reasoning sounds a bit like the NCAA and schools are putting out fire with gasoline: Alcohol sales prevents binge drinking. “Theories,” the NCAA stated in its pilot program release, “suggest that making alcohol available” cuts down on the practice.
The theory goes like this: If fans know there is alcohol available in the stadium, they won’t fuel up outside of it. Inside, limits are placed on how many cups can be purchased per visit to the concession stand.
…
“It’s extra revenue, and I don’t feel like it’s caused any extra problems,” said Andy Binder, a CWS volunteer handing out wristbands to of-age adults.
Well, except for the drunk guy last week who tried to hand Binder his debit card instead of his ID.
“He was loaded,” Binder said. “He said, ‘What’s the problem?’ ‘Well, that’s your debit card.’ He gave us his pin number.”
Another 19-year-old boldly stepped up and offered his drivers license. When reminded he was underage, the kid said, “It was worth a try,” according to Binder.
…
“At the end of the day, their ethics and standard and morals go out the window and they see the cash,” Dosh said.
…
A cynic might suggest it’s easy to see where all this is headed.
It’s long been known the NCAA is leaving multi-millions on the table by not accepting alcohol advertising.
How much would it be worth, say, to be the “official beer of the NCAA Tournament?”
…
It may argued the inherent problems of selling alcohol at college events have been thought out. Frequently, there are alcohol-free zones at stadiums for families. The vendors at the venues usually have experience checking IDs because of their pro partnerships. It’s in their best interest. One slip-up could cost those vendors their liquor license.
…
Former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said alcohol sales were discontinued at the football championship game years ago because of objects being thrown at a Texas-Colorado title game.
Now?
“There’s generally been a pattern in our country of acceptability of wine and beer consumption,” Weiberg said. “Ten, 15 years ago, the trend of having wine with dinner are not where they are today. I’m guessing that’s part of what’s in play.”
Meanwhile, Sheehey-Church stands firm. Her argument has nothing to do with revenue or social mores. For starters, her son was killed 12 years ago in a drunk-driving incident.
LikeLike
Let’s make sure to include the POV from the lunatic MADD spokesperson.
Oh joy.
LikeLike
If your mother had lost a child in a drunk driving accident, she might be the same kind of lunatic.
LikeLike
Oh I’m very familiar with the mindset although my mother was more apt to go the Cindy Sheehan route. I’ve lost a child, it’s not an excuse to give up the ability for critical thinking.
Even more importantly it’s madness to base decisions that affect a large group on the personal issues of a tiny percentage.
I’m no more interested in the opinion of MADD about alcohol sales at stadiums than I am that of PETA on hot dog sales.
LikeLike
I certainly think that the views of single-issue groups need to be tempered, but that doesn’t mean they are lunatics.
LikeLike
Well Colorado is now in the Pac 12. They were notorious for throwing things at opposing fans. Beer bottles, batteries…..
LikeLike
So I know we talk about the gap between the Big Ten and the ACC/Big 12 as a possible lure for certain schools, but I am wondering what that gap looks like after certain schools opt for the Big Ten.
What I mean to say is – how much money is FSU leaving on the table not just being in the ACC, but also by not capitalizing on the high profile match-ups available in the SEC/B1G. I have to think the B1G leverages more of FSU’s value than the ACC teams do (or any potential major target like UT, OU, ND, etc.). Do we have projections for what a conference with UT/OU or GT/FSU might pay out?
If the B1G can project an increase of 5-10M more with the addition of FSU (due to BTN penetration of Florida and increased T1 value), how much more tempting is a transition?
LikeLike
What I mean to say is – how much money is FSU leaving on the table not just being in the ACC, but also by not capitalizing on the high profile match-ups available in the SEC/B1G.
You write as if FSU had a standing offer to join another conference, and haven’t acted, i.e., have “left money on the table.” This is not the case. They have no offer to join the B1G or SEC. I think there is very little doubt that they would have accepted such an offer, were it forthcoming.
I have to think the B1G leverages more of FSU’s value than the ACC teams do (or any potential major target like UT, OU, ND, etc.).
OU and FSU would certainly make more in the B1G, but the B1G has to offer them a seat at the table, which it hasn’t done. Notre Dame could’ve joined the B1G at almost any time (before it got hitched to the ACC). The Irish actively choose to make less money, because so many of its wealthy alumni value football independence as a birthright. UT is a more complicated situation, due to the LHN and other factors.
But it’s not all upside for FSU. It’s pretty unlikely that they could keep playing annual games vs. Miami and Florida, and those are FSU’s two most valuable games, with Clemson perhaps a close third. People are no doubt salivating over regular FSU match-ups vs. Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc., but those games wouldn’t be contested annually. FSU fans would also need to get used to visits from the likes of Purdue, Indiana, and Rutgers, and November road trips to cold-weather games.
LikeLike
The FSU -Florida game is almost certainly a permanent fixture. I am pretty sure that the Florida Legislature will; not let that game die. FSU-Miami, not so much. There may be some recruiting battles with Miami and they are in the same league. Beyond that, there is no comparison to the rivalry between FSU and UF.
LikeLike
I agree with you that if FSU joined another league, the Florida game would be the one that survives as an annual affair. But without a doubt, the Miami game is still a pretty big deal in Tallahassee, probably the game of the season in odd-numbered years, when UF and Clemson are road games.
LikeLike
Yes Miami is still the big home game in odd #’d years for FSU…in spite of it not being what it once was (THE national game of the year in much of the 80’s and 90’s). But there’s not as much upside as with Uf and Clemson. Miami is a small school and much of its support is as bandwagon as it can get. So they don’t exactly put many butts in seats and they’re just not positioned well for the long haul (aside from sitting in an elite recruiting spot…but that seems to mean less and less these days).
LikeLike
I doubt the B1G will add any Southern schools, because the cultural differences are too big. However, state schools operate more or less independently of their state legislatures, and the often mentioned legislative interventions in conference realignment are largely bogeymen. They certainly didn’t stop the divorce between TA&M and UTx. They won’t stop any divorce between KU/KSU or OU/OSU, nor between FSU and UF. In fact, in the latter case, they plainly didn’t.
LikeLike
I’ve always sensed that Jim Delany has his eyes fixed southward. I think it’s very telling that he has already purchased his dream retirement property. South of Chapel Hill, NC. I have zero doubt that he bleeds Carolina Blue. It’s only natural that he will want to oversee the marriage of the B1G and UNC. And it’s not like it can’t be easily justified. My dollar says he makes a move that includes his alma mater before he hangs it up (if he hasn’t already). It would be his crowning achievement and would leave the B1G well positioned in the coming decades. in the meantime…there is a big long-term vulnerability (its geography). Jim is pushing 70…so we’ll know soon.
LikeLike
…state schools operate more or less independently of their state legislatures, and the often mentioned legislative interventions in conference realignment are largely bogeymen. They certainly didn’t stop the divorce between TA&M and UTx. They won’t stop any divorce between KU/KSU or OU/OSU, nor between FSU and UF. In fact, in the latter case, they plainly didn’t.
There are very few precedents either way. We know that state legislators stepped in to “save” Baylor when the SWC was falling apart. The A&M/UT divorce was highly beneficial to A&M, and the Texas governor at the time was an A&M alum.
FSU and UF were never in the same league at all, so I am not sure what you mean there. Maybe you are referring to Bobby Bowden’s decision not to join the SEC, but that’s not a divorce; it’s a decision not to get married. The two schools still play every year, and FSU arguably was better off being in a league it could dominate.
The KU/KSU and OU/OSU situations are different, assuming KU/OU would go to the B10, leaving their sister schools in a de facto zombie conference. We haven’t seen a case like that yet.
I’ve always sensed that Jim Delany has his eyes fixed southward.
That conclusion requires no great speculation. Delany has said, straight out, that the population centers are shifting south, and the Big Ten needs to follow them, or it risks losing relevance.
My dollar says he makes a move that includes his alma mater before he hangs it up (if he hasn’t already).
If your parenthetical means that he may already have an under-the-table agreement with UNC, I seriously doubt it. Would he love to cap his career by adding his beloved Tar Heels to the Big Ten? Yes, I’m sure he would, but the Tar Heels would need to cooperate. And given the timing of the ACC grant of rights, he’d need to remain in his job until he is pushing 80 years old.
LikeLike
My comments were in response to “I doubt the B1G will add any southern schools”. I’m glad to hear than Delany has publicly stated (according to you) that the B1G is in danger of irrelevance down the road. The B1G will eventually become a secondary conference if its borders don’t significantly change. It’s easy to get caught up in the $ in the very short-term contract or Ohio State’s ’14 national title…but the long-term forecast would not be pleasant.
LikeLike
“The A&M/UT divorce was highly beneficial to A&M, and the Texas governor at the time was an A&M alum.”
And you could argue the P16 didn’t happen partially due to aTm’s resistance together with the “need” to stay together (followed by the LHN). If aTm had agreed it was a done deal.
Tom, the risk described was prior to expansion. Further additions night be beneficial but Maryland and RU made a big dent in the referenced future demographic “handy cap.”
LikeLike
“state schools operate more or less independently of their state legislatures, and the often mentioned legislative interventions in conference realignment are largely bogeymen. They certainly didn’t stop the divorce between TA&M and UTx. They won’t stop any divorce between KU/KSU or OU/OSU, nor between FSU and UF. In fact, in the latter case, they plainly didn’t.”
Political influence is not cut and dried. It most likely doesn’t have an impact, but specific circumstances to each case can bring in political forces.
The schools are more or less independent, but they are generally overseen by a Board of Regents, which has members appointed by a state Governor. Not political positions in themselves, but not outside political influence.
The birth of the B12 was clearly impacted by political forces, but it was a unique set of circumstances, given who was in which office, and that the Texas legislature was in session. Virginia Tech is probably in the ACC due to political forces, but it took a very specific set of circumstances: Tech being “passed over” by the conference that U of Virginia was in, while a very fortunately-timed vote where U of Virginia could be the swing vote.
I would say it is unlikely that politics will prevent a divorce between KU/KSU or OU/OSU, but it is definitely possible.
LikeLike
I actually think the demographics are overstated. The world is heating up, and there is no doubt about that. The south, in time, will become almost unbearable. My understanding is that LSU already plays at night all of the time due in part to the heat during the day (I could be wrong here, if someone wants to correct me). We’re talking about longterm trends here again and again, but longterm trends also show the south becoming incredibly hot. I would expect trends will reverse themselves, especially given that much of the U.S. will eventually face water issues and the Midwest/Northeast are well situated in that regard. The only question is when.
LikeLike
Maybe so or maybe not. In the meantime folks up north scream all “winter” (and beyond) about it getting worse and worse and wanting out. Global Cooling in the cold months! I’ve lived in both and know the good and bad. Air conditioning has been the big game changer. Desalination is everywhere in the Caribbean. Water costs aren’t going to change where the Average Joe retires in our lifetimes.
LikeLike
TOM,
“Maybe so or maybe not. In the meantime folks up north scream all “winter” (and beyond) about it getting worse and worse and wanting out.”
Yes, because global warming make more storms in the winter, too.
“Air conditioning has been the big game changer.”
That works for a while. When everyone has it. When the temperatures don’t rise to the point that it becomes ineffective.
“Desalination is everywhere in the Caribbean.”
And it’s very expensive. You can’t run major metropolises off of it cost effectively (yet). Water recycling is more likely to happen but it’s also expensive plus it’s hard to convince people to accept it.
“Water costs aren’t going to change where the Average Joe retires in our lifetimes.”
Atlanta water bills have more than tripled since 2001 so that Atlanta is now the most expensive city in the nation for water and sewer. GA, AL and FL have been fighting legal battles over water from the the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) watersheds for decades. In the drought of 2007-2008 Atlanta was down to about 35 days worth of water left in reservoirs. If the current growth continues, Atlanta will reach a tipping point in terms of water that will demand even more projects to build more reservoirs or find other sources of water.
LikeLike
Atlanta’s water costs have nothing to do with scarcity. It has to do with the fact that they ignored EPA rules and kept dumping sewage into their rivers and creeks for decades after everyone else had cleaned up. So now they are paying for improving their sewage and stormwater systems. And the city of Atlanta, which has the astronomical rates, has plenty of water. Its some of the suburbs like Gwinnett County, which rely on Lake Lanier, that have had issues with the 2007-8 drought and the water wars.
LikeLike
Lack of water won’t be a problem. The fact it may be salt water in the future could be…
just kidding, sorta…
LikeLike
bullet,
“Atlanta’s water costs have nothing to do with scarcity.”
Not true. Scarcity is one of the issues.
“It has to do with the fact that they ignored EPA rules and kept dumping sewage into their rivers and creeks for decades after everyone else had cleaned up.”
That’s another issue, yes. We should note that this isn’t intentional dumping so much as neglected facilities that get overwhelmed when it rains because improvements weren’t made over the past 40 years.
And also, a lot of those improvements are paid for by taxes. There’s a 1% sales tax directed to the water and sewer projects (raises about $750M over 4 years then needs to be renewed – it’s been going since 2004).
“So now they are paying for improving their sewage and stormwater systems.”
And for a $300M new reservoir. And tens of millions in legal fees for the ongoing legal battles with FL and AL over river water rights (lawsuits started in 1990 roughly).
“And the city of Atlanta, which has the astronomical rates, has plenty of water. Its some of the suburbs like Gwinnett County, which rely on Lake Lanier, that have had issues with the 2007-8 drought and the water wars.”
I was referring to the metro area when I said Atlanta. And as a metro area Atlanta has high rates, not just in town. Also, Lake Lanier connects into the Chattahoochee so the problems are linked. Lanier is basically a reservoir that serves a large part of Atlanta (so is Lake Allatoona).
Atlanta had issues during the drought as well. They had to force people to cut back and raised water rates to encourage conservation. Restaurants stopped serving water unless you requested it. Watering was banned. The reserves were down to just over a month.
LikeLike
I think that’s a pretty fair summary. As noted in the reply below…IF FSU somehow was invited and joined the B1G…it would be willing to sacrifice 1 or 2 of its big 3 rivalries (Uf, Miami, Clemson). Another sad casualty in the expansion/realignment game. Which one(s) get the axe would likely depend on who their B1G schedule partners would turn out to be. FSU-UF would be the most likely “keeper”…unless FSU saw a strategic benefit to doing away with it. Whatever happens…FSU will always want at least 3 southern teams on the schedule. So no guarantee any of the big 3 rivalries need to get axed…barring it just being too tough a schedule (imagine playing Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Clemson, Miami, and whoever else annually!).
All hypothetical…and I’m not expecting to see FSU in the B1G despite the rumors.
LikeLike
*the apply above, that is (by Jersey)
LikeLike
FSU will always want at least 3 southern teams on the schedule. So no guarantee any of the big 3 rivalries need to get axed…barring it just being too tough a schedule (imagine playing Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Clemson, Miami, and whoever else annually!).
No P5 school has more than one annually-contested non-conference game. Besides the difficulty of the schedule, they all want 7 home games every year, or almost every year, which you can’t have if 11 out of 12 games are alternating home & away.
All hypothetical…and I’m not expecting to see FSU in the B1G despite the rumors.
I am not expecting it either.
LikeLike
My expectation is that the southern games wouldn’t be non-conference IF FSU somehow joined. It would be along with schools like GT, UNC, UVA, etc. Otherwise it just doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
I agree that keeping all 3 is probably very unlikely…and just one would be the most likely scenario. With that all being said…I’d expect the SEC to immediately step in with a counter-offer if the B1G ever went after FSU. If the B1G is kept out of the south…the future is with the SEC.
LikeLike
Because of this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmC_CLaVEAEdSC0.jpg:large
LikeLike
I am not just referring to FSU here. I am referring to any of the ACC/Big 12 schools that are consistently brought up in regards to future B1G expansion.
I am not sure FSU would have jumped on at a B1G offer before, given some of what is discussed below, as well as the fact that they would have zero travel partners (unless GT were to join with them). This is probably a moot point, as I do think they would join now, but of course none of us really know what FSU would decide.
My point was just to raise the view that the raw number comparison between conference revenue underestimates the discrepancy (and this is something a school like FSU, UNC, or UT would be aware of) – not just due to the direct value a school such as FSU adds, but also the synergy of competing against B1G schools with large fanbases throughout the country (as well as the increase in BTN subscriptions/value – something the ACC lacks). I just wonder what a new deal with a UNC/UVA, FSU/GT, or UT/OU pair actually looks like, as that is what these schools are actually considering.
LikeLike
I am not just referring to FSU here. I am referring to any of the ACC/Big 12 schools that are consistently brought up in regards to future B1G expansion.
You asked if these schools, specifically naming FSU, were “leaving money on the table,” in the probably unjustified assumption that they had all had offers to turn down. A couple of them probably knew that they could raise their hand, and get into the Big Ten or SEC at any time, but certainly not FSU or OU.
I am not sure FSU would have jumped on at a B1G offer before, given some of what is discussed below, as well as the fact that they would have zero travel partners (unless GT were to join with them). This is probably a moot point, as I do think they would join now, but of course none of us really know what FSU would decide.
While granting that none of us knows anything for sure about contingent events, the notion that FSU would turn down a B1G offer flies in the face of every readable tea leaf.
The issue of “travel partners” is a red herring. It’s hard to come up with a believable scenario where FSU leaves the ACC, and others don’t leave with them. Anyhow, switching leagues with a so-called “travel partner” makes the difference of, at most, one game per sport per year; in football, it’s one game every other year. That issue wouldn’t control the decision.
LikeLike
I also started by discussing the entire Big 12/ACC and then specifically mentioned UT and ND, in addition to OU and FSU. I don’t see why asking what the perceived value of a new conference including those schools would look like means I think they have a standing offer.
You are totally derailing my question which was simply to ask what kind of value are these schools actually looking at beyond the conference distributions as they currently stand, just for the sake of saying FSU doesn’t have an offer. Further, what tea leaves are you even reading? What evidence has ever been brought to light that indicates FSU definitely would jump on a B1G offer?
LikeLike
“It’s hard to come up with a believable scenario where FSU leaves the ACC, and others don’t leave with them.”
I agree with this. If FSU was somehow given an offer by the B1G…it will be with other members or it’s a no-go (both ways). FSU won’t want to get stuck on an island (albeit in a much better situation than WVU/B12) and the B1G won’t invite them unless it’s a package deal. Now Delany may have considered using FSU to tip the other dominoes he wants (UNC, UVA, GT)…but I doubt FSU would go it alone. Or Delany would actually do it. So that’s probably where things sit. The ACC holds tight for the near future.
LikeLike
Jim Delany is 7 moves ahead of everyone else. We don’t know what Non Disclosure Agreements have been signed or what’s going on behind the scenes. With the BIG TV deal expiring in 2023-24, they will be the first at the table. I believe at that time Delany will already have in place expansion candidates that will figure in the negotiations. The GOR expires for the Big 12 in 2024-25 & ACC 2026-27. There would be no penalty for FSU & GT for example announcing in 2024 that effective in 2028 the will be joining the BIG or UT, OU or Kansas announcing the same thing only effective 2026. This would in effect ace out the ACC & Big 12 in their negotiations has any defections will most likely devalue their rights. IMO this is Delany’s long game.
LikeLike
That’s been my feeling all along. I don’t know which direction Jim wants to go (down the Atlantic seaboard or toward Texas)..but I’d bet he’s got his preference at this point. No way were RU and UMd the end-game for him. Primarily for cable markets that might only be a short/medium term benefit? I highly doubt it. It was to grease the skids with dollars and justification for the real play. Even if he leaves that move in an envelope in his B1G desk drawer for the next commissioner.
LikeLike
You are totally derailing my question which was simply to ask what kind of value are these schools actually looking at beyond the conference distributions as they currently stand, just for the sake of saying FSU doesn’t have an offer.
Obviously, I made the crucial mistake of reading what you wrote, which was: What I mean to say is – how much money is FSU leaving on the table not just being in the ACC, but also by not capitalizing on the high profile match-ups available in the SEC/B1G.
For them to “leave money on the table,” it has to be ON the table…which it isn’t.
LikeLike
Jim Delany is 7 moves ahead of everyone else.
That, at least, is what he’d like the rest of the world to believe.
We don’t know what Non Disclosure Agreements have been signed or what’s going on behind the scenes.
Including the possibility that nothing has been signed, and that nothing is going on behind the scenes.
LikeLike
Marc,
All very true. But let me ask you, if you were Delany and 14 wasn’t your end game, wouldn’t you be talking to various schools now as opposed to later to gauge interest? If for example you really wanted North Carolina, wouldn’t you spend this time wooing them?
LikeLike
No, they are where they want to be right now. He is spending time changing the circumstances/situation so that those desired will have a changed perspective as to where they want to be. Hard to see NC deciding to give up its Tobacco Road dominant position in the near, or even mid term(10-20 yrs). Takes time for real change to be absorbed.
LikeLike
All very true. But let me ask you, if you were Delany and 14 wasn’t your end game, wouldn’t you be talking to various schools now as opposed to later to gauge interest? If for example you really wanted North Carolina, wouldn’t you spend this time wooing them?
I am sure that the usual “cocktail party conversations” happen, as they do in every other line of business. But that’s not 7 steps ahead; it’s zero steps, since everyone else is doing that too.
I suspect the peak was reached a few years ago, before all of the attainable targets got tied up in GORs. Non-disclosure agreements offer some protection, but they are dangerous. They involve disclosing confidential information to someone who could be a competitor, and anything you put in writing could slip out in a FOIA request.
As a practical matter, even assuming that UNC is open to blowing up the ACC, there is nothing they can do about that for a long time, i.e., until the GORs are down to a few years remaining.
LikeLike
Marc
I’ll respectfully disagree. I think we view Delany differently. I think the Big 10 Network was brilliant. Visionaries like him just don’t go stupid overnight. He’s already thinking and planning for the next contract in 6 years. Plus he talking with media guys as to future platforms and delivery systems.
GOR lasting 10 years is insignificant in the long view. Standing around the “punch bowl” talking the SEC & BIG are the only ones with proven success and plenty to offer. What do Bowsby & Swofford have to offer? “Well we may or may not have a network” not very inspiring, eh?
Right now the big 2 have the “juice” and that’s only going to get bigger.
NC may want to not give up their power but let’s say FSU & GT go to the BIG and NC St. & VT go to the SEC. Then what? I certainly have no crystal ball or inside info but it’s hard not to see it play out if not this way then something very similar.
LikeLike
Its just not realistic that the Big 10 is in a hurry to expand with GORs sitting out there. Its certainly possible they were thinking about GORs when they only signed a 6 year contract.
LikeLike
TOM,
“That’s been my feeling all along. I don’t know which direction Jim wants to go (down the Atlantic seaboard or toward Texas)..but I’d bet he’s got his preference at this point.”
I don’t know either, but I can guess. When the B12 was struggling, the B10 took NE but not MO despite some virtual begging on their part. The next expansion the B10 went east to give PSU partners and get large markets and improved demographics. UT offers everything the B10 could possibly want (markets, demographics, academics, athletic brand, large state flagship, …) but the schools in between are less desirable. Unless the B10 wants to become a megaconference (20+), I don’t think it can go both east and south. Forced to choose, I have to believe the ACC schools are the B10’s preference. But if UT becomes available, I’d expect the B10 to go all in for them.
“No way were RU and UMd the end-game for him.”
It’s not his long range goals that matter, it’s what the presidents want. Do they see value in going to 16+? Do the ADs? Does Delany? Nobody really knows for sure.
“Primarily for cable markets that might only be a short/medium term benefit?”
In terms of cable TV money, that may be accurate. But there are many other ways to provide value. NJ and MD will provide athletes and out of state students for the rest of the B10 for decades. Building fans bases in those markets will mean major value for B10 games and thus large TV contracts. They also benefit the academic side by bulking up the CIC.
“It was to grease the skids with dollars and justification for the real play.”
If so, then shouldn’t it be obvious he wants to head east?
LikeLike
I think we view Delany differently. I think the Big 10 Network was brilliant. Visionaries like him just don’t go stupid overnight.
Actually, there is very little difference in how we view Delany. There is very-near universal agreement that the B10N was “brilliant”. But everything else in your post is more-or-less obvious: the stuff everyone on this board has been talking about for a very long time.
Unless he has something very non-obvious, he is not going to be signing NDAs and negotiating with people who can’t make a move until 2025.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Obviously, I made the crucial mistake of reading what you wrote, which was: What I mean to say is – how much money is FSU leaving on the table not just being in the ACC, but also by not capitalizing on the high profile match-ups available in the SEC/B1G.
For them to “leave money on the table,” it has to be ON the table…which it isn’t.”
I agree that his original statement was incorrectly phrased, but I think he’s made it perfectly clear since then what he actually meant. He’s simply posing the hypothetical situation of FSU or UT joining the B10 with friends and asking how that would change the money. Having made your point about his initial wording, perhaps it’s time to stop excoriating him over it and either deal with his hypothetical or move on.
His stated scenarios were:
1. The B10 adds FSU + GT
2. The B10 adds UT + OU
His questions seem to be:
A. What would the B10’s TV payouts jump to (from $41M)?
B. What would the ACC’s TV deal (call it roughly $22.5M now) or B12’s TV deal (call it $31M on average now) drop to?
My quick answers:
1A. That adds the #3 and #8 states in population. FL already has lots of B10 fans and alumni living there and Atlanta has a decent number. BTN would make a lot in FL but less in GA due to penetration issues. It would still add huge markets for Fox/ABC and ESPN, though. FSU’s brand would add a lot to the B10 in CFB, too. Of course their first $82M in value would go to just breaking even, so we don’t want to go crazy. I’d say they add $3M-$10M.
2A. Adds the same number of people and plenty of B10 alumni. 2 huge brands meaning easy penetration in each state for BTN plus a boon for national ratings. They probably add $7M-$15M.
1B. The ACC would take a huge hit. They’d lose a huge market and their top CFB brand. It would probably cost them $2M-$3M per year at least. That would make the gap $24M-$30M to the B10.
2B. The B12 would lose P5 status if both UT and OU left. The remaining group could merge with some others to form a new league a little above the ACC/MWC level. Call their new deal maybe $12M. That would make the gap to the B10 $36M-$44M.
LikeLike
“It was to grease the skids with dollars and justification for the real play.”
“If so, then shouldn’t it be obvious he wants to head east?”
Yes. For a few reasons, I think (as you apparently do too) that the ACC move trumps the B12 move. You listed Texas’s pros…but there quite a few cons that go with it. Especially on the athletic side of the decision. I sincerely question whether folks at Michigan and Ohio State (and perhaps a few other school) want that wolf in the hen house. I’d bet on Texas winning the more conference crowns than the Wolverines or Buckeyes in the coming years and decades. “Why’d we let them in!?” But, as you mention, perhaps presidents and accountants call the shots.
LikeLike
You listed Texas’s pros…but there quite a few cons that go with it. Especially on the athletic side of the decision. I sincerely question whether folks at Michigan and Ohio State (and perhaps a few other school) want that wolf in the hen house. I’d bet on Texas winning the more conference crowns than the Wolverines or Buckeyes in the coming years and decades.
Except…it was the Ohio State president whose email to the Texas president became public in a FOIA request: the Buckeyes were clearly trying to woo the Longhorns to the Big Ten, if the “Tech problem” could be solved. Neither university has the same president anymore, but at the time, it certainly appeared that Ohio State wasn’t the least bit afraid of Texas.
In the last 10 years since winning the national title in 2006, the Longhorns have two BCS (or equivalent) bowl appearances. In the same period, the Buckeyes have eight, and that includes a year they weren’t eligible. During those 10 years, only 3 times did the Longhorns win or tie for first in their division or league. During the same span, Ohio State did it 9 times.
I would say they aren’t worried.
LikeLike
TOM,
“For a few reasons, I think (as you apparently do too) that the ACC move trumps the B12 move.”
I don’t know that it trumps it, but I think adding UMD makes it more likely the B10 is leaning towards the east for future expansion. Part of that may be their opinion of the likelihood of available schools in the future.
Personally, I think they’d take UT any day of the week though. It’s too big of a prize to turn down. I just don’t think the B10 feels it’s likely to ever get a chance to add UT.
“You listed Texas’s pros…but there quite a few cons that go with it.”
Of course there are. There are cons for the ACC, too.
“Especially on the athletic side of the decision. I sincerely question whether folks at Michigan and Ohio State (and perhaps a few other school) want that wolf in the hen house.”
Schools like OSU and MI have zero fear of any other school joining the B10. They’re all alphas at that level, plus they know they have long term relationships with everyone else in the conference while the newbie wouldn’t.
“I’d bet on Texas winning the more conference crowns than the Wolverines or Buckeyes in the coming years and decades.”
I wouldn’t. UT claims 1 national title since 1970. OSU has 2 and MI 1 (shared).
Post WWII (just to eliminate the really early years where MI dominated), OSU and MI both have more total AP poll points and slightly higher W% than UT.
UT won 3 B12 titles (vs 9 for OU) in 20 years. OSU won 9 (4 outright, 1 tied at 8-0 but won national title, 4 others shared) and MI 5 (2 outright, 3 shared) in the same time period and MI was at it’s lowest point in a long while (RichRod, Hoke).
I’d fully expect UT to be just as competitive as OSU and MI but I wouldn’t assume they’d be better. That would go in cycles. Remember, people thought PSU would dominate the B10 and then that NE would. Neither was true.
“But, as you mention, perhaps presidents and accountants call the shots.”
There’s no perhaps about it. The presidents call the shots. If the choice was OU and UT versus UVA and UNC, I think it’d be a tough choice. The geographical gap to GT and FSU would probably be a major factor in UT and OU trumping FSU and GT. The OU/NE rivalry would also be important. And frankly, the larger alumni bases of UT and OU would be important.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-10-best-non-traditional-out-of-conference-college-football-games-in-2016/
Top 10 non-traditional OOC games this season:
10. TN vs VT at Bristol, 9/10
9. WSU at Boise, 9/10
8. Clemson at Auburn, 9/3
7. LSU vs WI at Green Bay, 9/3
6. ND at UT, 9/4
5. UGA vs UNC at Atlanta, 9/3
4. AL vs USC at Dallas, 9/3
3. OU vs UH at Houston, 9/3
2. Ole Miss vs FSU in Orlando, 9/5
1. OSU at OU, 9/17
That’s a heck of a Labor Day weekend of games.
They noted that Miami vs ND didn’t make the list because it’s a quasi-conference game.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty good indication of what Tom Herman has achieved at UH that their game with OK is 3rd; and they’re one of only two non-P5 teams on the list.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/06/28/football-feasibility-study-for-wichita-state-released/86475530/
Wichita State released their CFB feasibility study.
Wichita State University has released a feasibility study for reviving the school’s football program, detailing startup costs of more than 40 million and annual football budgets that start around $6 million.
The school originally dropped its football program in 1986.
LikeLike
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-nine-revisit-post.html
Will the ACC move to a 9 game schedule in order to get their ACCN? They’re also considering moving to 20 MBB games.
As the ACC and ESPN envision the technology, finances and scope of their future partnership, one word or concept is central:
Inventory.
The ACC needs more revenue from its media rightsholder, and in exchange, ESPN surely is requesting more inventory.
Specifically, games. More specifically, football games. Conference football games.
Remember the parameters of the nine-game league schedule ACC schools adopted in 2012, only to shelve eight months later? Time to unearth that file.
Indeed, nine games are quite possible if, as expected, the ACC and ESPN agree by year’s end to broaden the league’s exposure through traditional (cable) and progressive (online streaming) means.
…
But if ACC schools want a channel, in whatever form that may be, and coinciding revenue bump, this is a change they would be wise to make.
(Not as pressing, but related: Some ACC basketball coaches, led by Notre Dame’s Mike Brey, advocate expanding the league schedule from 18 to 20 games. They believe this would enhance teams’ NCAA tournament credentials, with the added benefit of creating more content for ESPN.)
The conference last addressed the eight/nine football question at its 2014 spring meetings, and it was a most lively debate, with the status-quo eight prevailing 8-6.
…
By sheer coincidence, Atlantic Division schools Clemson, Florida State and Louisville are on the same rotation with their SEC rivals, home in even-numbered years, road in odd-numbered. Meanwhile, the Coastal Division’s Georgia Tech is on the opposite rotation, facing Georgia at home in odd years and on the road in even.
So in crafting a nine-game conference schedule, the ACC could have Coastal teams play five road and four home league contests in odd years, the Atlantic five road and four home in even. That way, no ACC school would play at its SEC rival in the same season it had five road conference games.
LikeLike
Texas hires Tulane’s David Pierce as its new baseball head coach.
http://www.d1baseball.com/analysis/texas-makes-pick-hires-tulanes-pierce/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=dundee_share
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16617021/ncaa-division-council-no-5-7-teams-bowls-6-6-teams-picked
The bowl selection process when we run out of 6-6 teams has been clarified.
All bowl-eligible teams with 6-6 records must be chosen for a bowl game before any teams with a 5-7 record can be considered, a rule the NCAA’s Division I Council implemented on Wednesday for the 2016-17 season.
…
Now, only after all bowl-eligible teams are selected can teams with 5-7 records be considered, and their eligibility will again be determined by the highest, most-recent multiyear APR scores. Those teams will then select the bowl in which they will participate.
…
If two or more 5-7 teams have a tie in the multiyear APR, then the highest APR for the most recent single year will break the tie. This process will continue until all the bowl slots are filled.
LikeLike
The CIC is now the BTAA, the Big Ten Academic Alliance.
http://www.btaa.org/splash
Apologies if this has been posted before.
LikeLike
Surprised I found this on Land Thieves and not here.
CIC is dead, gone, kaput. You can’t brag about it anymore.
Of course its just rebranded. Big Ten Academic Alliance.
LikeLike
http://www.btaa.org/news-and-publications/news/2016/06/30/the-committee-on-institutional-cooperation-is-now-the-big-ten-academic-alliance
LikeLike
Of course its just rebranded.
Except: follow the link to an FAQ buried on the website: “the University of Chicago will no longer be a formal member”, although it will continue in some kind of “partnership” that has not yet been defined.
It is hard to say whether the other 15 no longer wanted Chicago, or the other way around.
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/06/30/big-tens-academic-division-changes-name
A spokesman for Chicago said via email that while the university “will not be a formal member going forward, we plan to continue our academic collaborations with the organization and its member institutions. We are currently working with the consortium to continue our participation in the programs related to library services, IT, language instruction and other areas that benefit our campus as well as the broader academic community.”
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-06-30/cic-drops-name-raise-visibility.html
Allen said they’re still trying to figure out what to call the University of Chicago, since it is not a member of the athletic conference, but the change won’t impact their role in the alliance.
“They’ll continue to be a partner institution, and we’re working on what we’ll call that,” Allen said. “The relationship will continue to be very strong, they’ll just have a different name.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16648156/byu-ready-join-power-5-conference-play-sundays
This isn’t really news, but BYU’s AD reiterated that they want to join a P5 conference. They will always refuse to play on Sundays, though.
“I really would love to see our football play at that level, be playing in a P5 conference,” Holmoe said. “I want our players … in all of our sports to be able to play at the highest level. I don’t know [if the policy is a deal-breaker]. That’s up to the P5 conferences. But I do know that it’s something that we hold very sacred. We have never played on a Sunday and we’re not going to play on a Sunday.”
Holmoe added the policy was not a major issue when the university was previously in different conferences.
The P12 doesn’t want them, and apparently neither does the B12 for now. Those are their only P5 options. Maybe the MWC is looking better?
LikeLike
As far as football goes, they’ve done a good job of scheduling Power 5 teams for the next couple of years (roughly an average of 5 a year including Utah and heavy on Pac-12 schools in 2018-2020). Whether that will get more difficult to achieve as the major conferences move more towards 9 games (Big Ten and possibly ACC if ACCN requires it) bears watching, but at the moment their scheduling means that MWC isn’t really that much of improvement on what they have going.
They already play Utah State annually (so that’d be 7 other games in MWC and 4 non-conference presumably 1 to Utah and 3 other Power 5 teams).
Then, they focus on Boise State and the California schools in the MWC; that basically gives them the best of both worlds.
They can have an MWC-lite schedule with the choices they want in the MWC (Utah State, Boise State, and the Cali schools) along with 5 Power 5 schools and 2-3 schools in the Eastern part of the country.
Doesn’t really seem like the MWC is a step up since money isn’t really an improvement, and they can play bigger matchups as an independent. If that changes of course all bets are off…
LikeLike
It would be all about ease of scheduling. The MWC is a step back in every other sense.
LikeLike
True, it seems like they’ll be fine as long as the Power 5 conferences treat them as a Power 5 opponent for scheduling purposes (which I assume is the case for most).
As long as the door is open, they can reasonably expect to lock in 5 Power 5 opponents a year (though might have to agree to some 2 for 1’s I’d assume).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/118058/best-sec-recruiting-grounds-by-position-offense
A breakdown of where the SEC recruits players for each offensive position from (by state, for 2006-2016). I’m just listing the top 3 for each.
QB:
Texas 42
Florida 29
Georgia 19
RB:
Florida 52
Georgia 50
Texas 32
WR:
Florida 82
Georgia 67
Texas 56
TE:
Georgia 32
Florida 23
Tennessee 18
OL:
Georgia 87
Florida 78
Texas 70
To make this more informative, though, you should really normalize by the number of recruits per state.
From last year:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/102510/where-do-sec-football-players-come-from-look-to-georgia-and-specifically-atlanta
SEC recruits by home state from 2006-2015:
Georgia 582
Florida 520
Texas 419
Alabama 318
Mississippi 275
Louisiana 255
Tennessee 198
South Carolina 135
Arkansas 98
Missouri 91
So doing the work to normalize:
School – total, fraction of total SEC recruits from that state
QB:
Texas – 42, 0.100
Missouri – 8, 0.088
Arkansas – 8, 0.082
RB:
Arkansas – 13, 0.133
Missouri – 11, 0.121
Tennessee – 20, 0.101
WR:
Arkansas – 18, 0.184
South Carolina – 24, 0.178
Louisiana – 44, 0.173
TE:
Arkansas – 15, 0.153
Tennessee – 18, 0.091
Missouri – 7, 0.077
OL:
Missouri – 20, 0.220
Tennessee – 41, 0.207
Mississippi – 52, 0.189
The more interesting numbers to me are what states produce few of something:
TN is bad at WR (0.086)
TX, MS and SC are bad at TE (below 0.040)
LA is the worst at OL (0.133)
GA is in the bottom 3 in QB, WR and OL
AL and TX are in the bottom 3 in RB
LikeLike
Nothing new really but an Iowa paper has an article about the payouts to the newest members…
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/newest-big-ten-additions-earn-different-paychecks-20160628
“According to the Big Ten’s 2015 fiscal year tax statement, Nebraska picked up nearly $19.83 million, while Rutgers received $10.449 million. Those numbers represent projected earnings from their previous conferences at the time they joined the Big Ten.
However, those numbers are significantly less than what Maryland received. The Terrapins took in $24.125 million in Big Ten revenue in 2015, about $4.3 million more than Nebraska and about $14.68 million more than Rutgers. Maryland’s number is based off its likely proceeds as an Atlantic Coast Conference member.”
LikeLike
Some other useful nuggets:
“We sat down with them in the negotiations of their final integration into the conference,” said Big Ten deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia. “The Big Ten guaranteed that for a six-year period we would pay them the amounts at which their prior conference was projecting they would send to their member institutions over those six years.
“In Nebraska’s case, for the 2012 through ‘17 fiscal years, those numbers represent what the Big 12 at the time of negotiation was projected to send to their schools. Maryland had a different number. They had the ACC number, and Rutgers had the former Big East or the American conference projections at those times of the negotiations.”
That’s your BTN buy-in. Nothing about equality except that they were all treated equally.
Nebraska, which joined July 1, 2011, will be a fully integrated Big Ten member on July 1, 2017.
And they will go from $19.83M in 2014-2015 to more than double that in 2017-2018.
The league’s remaining 11 members all cleared between $32.41 million and $32.54 million from the Big Ten in fiscal year 2015. Iowa earned $32.433 million.
I think we can call that $32.4M on average.
Maryland actually received more Big Ten money in 2015 than the rest of the league schools with $35.17 million. … In 2015, Maryland borrowed $11.608 million from the Big Ten, which it will repay as a fully vested member.
“That was a one unique portion of our agreement with Maryland is they asked for, and with our board approval, we granted them the ability to advance future revenues in years one through six of their integration into the Big Ten, which will be repaid in years seven through 12,” Traviolia said.
So it will take a long time before we know how much UMD actually paid to get in. But extrapolating from $24.1M in 2015:
Assume 7% growth (to be generous):
24.1 – 25.8 – 27.6 – 29.5 – 31.6 – 33.8
B10 (guess the start value with the new deal as $47M):
32.4 – 34.7 – 37.1 – 47 – 50.3 – 53.8
Difference = 8.3 + 8.9 + 9.5 + 17.5 + 18.7 + 20.0 = $82.9M
NE will end up paying around $70M. RU will pay around $150M+. Those seem like reasonable difference considering where the schools were before joining the B10. RU got the biggest benefit from joining while NE and UMD were already P5 but NE was a bigger brand.
Maryland’s payment [$11.608M mentioned above] came from Big Ten Network Holding, LLC, a shell corporation the league established when it formed BTN. In 2015, the Big Ten received a $22.608 million profit share as a BTN equity owner. The other $11 million went to the league’s 11 fully financial integrated institutions in $1 million increments.
This means another small jump in revenue when UMD is paying back its loan rather than taking extra from everyone else.
LikeLike
RU got the biggest benefit from joining while NE and UMD were already P5 but NE was a bigger brand.
RU is, without question, the biggest lottery winner of conference realignment.
LikeLike
No doubt about it. RU was certainly a good short-term add for the B1G (cable market)…but I do wonder if it will be a long-term drag (if big games and elite brands ultimately rule the TV contract$). But I obviously defer to Jim on these kinds of things…
LikeLike
We have to view the RU addition in conjunction with Maryland, since: 1) They weren’t going to add Maryland alone; and 2) No one has suggested a clearly better 14th school than Rutgers, that was realistically available at the time.
If they’d passed over Missouri to take Rutgers, it would be a very different debate. But when Missouri was available, Maryland wasn’t; when Maryland was available, Missouri wasn’t.
I do wonder if it will be a long-term drag (if big games and elite brands ultimately rule the TV contract$).
Even Jim Delany isn’t clever enough to create new elite brands, or make games bigger than they are. As it is, three of his four “kings” have played like princes lately; only Ohio State has played up to its reputation.
Outside of the SEC, no league has as impressive a lineup on paper as Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska—if only the big names would perform as they are “supposed to”. Michigan State is on its way, perhaps, to national stature (Spartan fans would say they’re there now), but Jim Delany didn’t create that. Mark Dantonio did.
Frank the Tank thinks that if the Big Ten expands again, it needs another king. That is why Frank is much higher on Oklahoma and Florida State than the Big Ten executives and presidents appear to be. Virginia and North Carolina would add academic prestige and TV sets in the South, but they add very little on the football field.
LikeLike
Tom, Keep in mind that RU is the only P5 school in a state with 9 million people, the only P5 or G5 schools within 140 miles of NYC(other than Temple and Army, which is a special case). As bad as RU was, it was still the most popular college team in NYC. Throw in perhaps hundreds of thousands of B1G alums or fans in NYC and NJ. I do not think that Delany is too worried about the long term with TV markets of well in excess of 20,000,000 people.
LikeLike
Oh I know the reason and stated that (location and not the brand). Doesn’t the B1G already have enough fans there…was little RU really needed (and will it be in the future) to secure TV deals? It’s another team that will consume $35…$40…$50M? per year in the coming years and decades (every year). Again, Delany’s smarter than me on these issues. I just struggle with the idea that the B1G will be happy about the add in 10-20-30 years unless it was a critical play to make a big move southward.
LikeLike
Tom, yes, the Big Ten didn’t have better carriage in New York and D.C. until after Rutgers and Maryland were added.
Rutgers alone has more alumni in New Jersey than the rest of the Big Ten combined a few times over. That’s just the nature of a large public university in its home state.
Here’s the real number for Cablevision due to the Rutgers addition:
“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”
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/
LikeLike
And Cablevision is not the big player in the market. I am almost sure that Comcast is the biggest. Time Warner is also a major player and Verizon is sizable.
LikeLike
Tom, to be blunt, you are talking like a fan who wants to maintain the purity of the B1G on field play, with no regard to the long term future of the league. Little RU has about 470,000 alumni, most of whom are in the number 1 TV market by far. Add in Little UMd, since they were a package and the B1G controls the market from MD to NYC and suburbs.
LikeLike
Bernie, Tom is a fan of an ACC school.
Doubt he cares about the purity of the B10.
Speaking as a B10 fan, I’m fine with adding RU and UMD for strategic reasons and because they are solidly B10-standard in academics/research.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Tom, to be blunt, you are talking like a fan who wants to maintain the purity of the B1G on field play, with no regard to the long term future of the league. Little RU has about 470,000 alumni, most of whom are in the number 1 TV market by far. Add in Little UMd, since they were a package and the B1G controls the market from MD to NYC and suburbs.”
IIRC, TOM is an FSU fan who is presumably disappointed that FSU is stuck in an underpaying ACC while lesser CFB programs got added to the B10 and SEC and are getting huge paydays. He sees all the upsides of his school (CFB brand, state of FL, decent academics, etc) and can’t help but compare FSU to some of these other schools. He’s not wrong about the many benefits FSU could bring, either. I think he undersells the future value of RU, but many question the old wisdom as the media world changes so he’s not alone there.
LikeLike
Thanks for letting me know that Tom is a big FSU fan. That also explains his comment that the B1G teams (OSU, MI) afraid of the Longhorns. Now I understand.
I am also a big FSU fan. Two of my sons are Seminoles and one is Badger. In fact I wore a Wisconsin Football t-shirt today and intended to wear FSU gear tomorrow. With that in mind, sadly, FSU has a problem. They largely have to carry the ACC, but do not control it. The power is still in NC. FSU shares a very large (FL) market with UF, Miami, and a little bit with other FL schools. I still think that sadly the SEC does not need FSU, so they may be stuck.
Little RU dominates a huge market. Yes, RU sucks in sports. FSU is a football king. So??
LikeLike
TOM: ” I just struggle with the idea that the B1G will be happy about the add in 10-20-30 years unless it was a critical play to make a big move southward.”
If the Big Ten gets a dominant share of New Jersey FB recruiting and a stronger share of BBall recruiting, that’ll be making a number of Big Ten schools that Rutgers was added over the coming decade or two, even if Rutgers does not substantially improve in FB over that time. As far as 40 years time, that’s beyond the horizon where I’d be able to project or willing to hazard a guess.
LikeLike
FSU has a problem. They largely have to carry the ACC, but do not control it. The power is still in NC.
FSU controls the ACC indirectly. The NC schools know that football dominates the TV money, and without FSU they’re toast. The more pertinent problem is that FSU has no other options that are attractive. (I am assuming that a B12 invite would be theirs for the asking in 2025, but that is hardly an improvement, and might be a step backward.)
FSU shares a very large (FL) market with UF, Miami, and a little bit with other FL schools. I still think that sadly the SEC does not need FSU, so they may be stuck.
Little RU dominates a huge market. Yes, RU sucks in sports. FSU is a football king. So??
Florida has more than double the population of New Jersey. Rutgers doesn’t even dominate New Brunswick, much less the whole state. Having a market to yourself is meaningless, unless you’re selling a product people are passionate about.
Compare Rutgers’ live attendance to FSU’s, and you get an idea of fan support. Bear in mind, practically anyone in the entire state of NJ, plus parts of PA and NY, could easily get to a Rutgers game and home on the same day. With all of that population to draw on, they seldom fill a 50,000-seat stadium. A bit of trivial: of all the CFB stadiums that seat >75,000, FSU has the lowest in-state population within 100 miles: about 850,000. For Rutgers, that number would be about 8 million.
Look at how often Rutgers is chosen for the primary network feed, and you get an idea of fan support. . And when a Rutgers game is featured, infrequent as that is, it’s usually because of the other team.
LikeLike
All,
Thanks for personalizing it. And getting some key points dead-wrong. I was born and raised in Michigan. My dear dad was a Michigan Man and the Wolverines were the team of my childhood. If FSU and Michigan play for the NC this year (or anytime soon)…I will root for MIchigan. Maybe not a next time. The B1G is my favorite conference. I love Michigan, FSU and the B1G.
LikeLike
PS Sorry that my last response was a bit hyper-sensitive. Just wanted to set the facts straight on my background…and interest in the B1G.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd – I really am an FSU fan and FSU does have serious problems, despite its tremendous success. (I have a 10 year old grandson who lives in Tallahassee and lives and breathes FSU. For Tom, he lives close to Lake Ella)
I have never lived in Florida though I have spent countless weeks in one part of the state or another. I have driven through and stayed in every part of FL (other than the Keys). It is my observation that FSU has tremendous strength in the FL Panhandle and some reach into extreme southern Georgia, where they share a bit with the Bulldogs. (The FSU campus is only about 25 – 30 miles from the GA border). Once one gets to Central FL, or even Jacksonville, it really is not FSU territory. In the Jacksonville area, it seems that there are more Gator fans than Seminole fans.
Yes, FSU gets great crowds, but I am not sure whether they control more than northwestern FL as their market. If someone has stats showing that I am wrong, I will certainly concede the point, since these are just my observations. (Yes they draw football players from all over, but that is not the point).
How many of the multiple TV markets in FL are really FSU primary markets? Miami? Tampa? Orlando? I doubt it. Again, if someone has stats, please correct me. (Jacksonville should be a shared FSU, UF market)
The problem is that if the SEC decides that it does not need FSU, and B1G does not take the unlikely step of grabbing FSU, then they are probably stuck making at the least $10 and maybe $20 million per year less than UF for many many years. That is a major issue.
Comparing RU’s home attendance to FSU it totally irrelevant. RU’s big game was Princeton until about 30 years ago. Lehigh and Lafayette were also major rivals. It is only about 10 to 15 years that football has meant anything, but that is all irrelevant. RU did not even fill a 35,000 seat stadium. Despite this RU has delivered millions and millions of TV sets to the B1G.
Again, back to FSU, obviously FSU is hugely better known than RU. Not even a conversation about that. If all were equal, FSU would be a much better choice for a conference than RU, but all is not equal.
RU as such brings zero to the athletic table. It is simply the large land grant university in what is arguably the best best media location in the country, and home to lots of B1G alums, as well as hundreds of thousands of RU alums. RU delivers more eyeballs to the B1G than FSU would, even if RU deserves absolutely no credit, expect that Queens College was founded in Central Jersey (just down the road from Princeton U) in 1766.
Absolutely, a regular OSU v. FSU, or Mich v. FSU game would draw huge ratings, but what cable systems would add the B1G network because of those games? Sure FSN or ESPN might pay an extra few million per year to the league with FSU in it, but does that compare to adding millions of TV sets to the network?
RU is a natural rival of PSU (if RU can ever be competitive). With UMd, PSU, and RU, the B1G controls the mid-Atlantic.
If RU had the football success of FSU, they would fill a 100,000 seat stadium every week.
By the way, your comment about RU being within 8,000,000 people in a 100 mile radius in not even warm. It is probably closer to 25,000,0000 or more within 100 miles, since that includes Philly, eastern PA, all of NJ (9 M), all of NYC (8.5 M) and all NYC (non NJ) suburbs (4 – 5 M ?), except for the eastern part of Suffolk county on Long Island. The NYC TV market alone has more than 20,000,000, most within 100 miles of RU. South Jersey is in the Phila market.
That 25,000,000 or so number makes the football attendance look even worse, but is sure makes the media markets look good.
LikeLike
TOM,
“Thanks for personalizing it. And getting some key points dead-wrong. I was born and raised in Michigan. My dear dad was a Michigan Man and the Wolverines were the team of my childhood. If FSU and Michigan play for the NC this year (or anytime soon)…I will root for MIchigan. Maybe not a next time. The B1G is my favorite conference. I love Michigan, FSU and the B1G.”
So we weren’t wrong to say you’re an FSU fan, we were wrong to not know/remember that you’re also a MI fan. The comments of yours that most come to mind for me have been about (and in favor of) FSU. Still, that’s why I threw an IIRC in there.
Sorry for incorrectly stating your affiliation.
LikeLike
How many of the multiple TV markets in FL are really FSU primary markets?
You can look up the ratings of FSU games, and get a pretty good idea that their fan base is coming from more than just the panhandle.
RU has delivered millions and millions of TV sets to the B1G.
No, they haven’t. Brian posted the TV ratings of some Rutgers games upthread. Hardly anyone is tuning in to watch Rutgers qua Rutgers. When they play Ohio State, it’s mainly the OSU fans that are watching. When they play Penn State, it’s mainly the PSU fans that are watching. And so on.
If RU had the football success of FSU, they would fill a 100,000 seat stadium every week.
So would Indiana. But that’s simply not what Indiana football is, and it’s not what Rutgers football is either.
By the way, your comment about RU being within 8,000,000 people in a 100 mile radius in not even warm…. That 25,000,000 or so number makes the football attendance look even worse, but is sure makes the media markets look good.
Yes, I was deliberately undercutting it, but you’ve made my point: they’ve got 25m people within 100 miles, and can’t even fill a 50,000-seat stadium. That gives you a pretty good idea of how much fan passion there is for Rutgers football.
You think the people who won’t bother to come to a game, are going to tune in to watch Rutgers play Howard or New Mexico on TV?
LikeLike
Marc, are you deliberately misconstruing what I am saying, or am I massively failing to communicate? I suggest that it is the former.
You know very well that FSU tv ratings do not necessarily mean that FSU in the B1G would put the B1G network on an expensive tier in Miami, or Orlando, or Tampa. It might, I do not know, but I am quite sure that you do not know either. The large amounts of money come from subscribers, not ratings for one team. If you have statistics showing that I am wrong, fine provide them.
The large population of Florida is only relevant if a school can deliver that population, I think that we all know that even when the Hurricanes are really good, they can deliver the Miami market, but perhaps not much more. It pains me greatly to think that the Gators might be able to deliver all FL markets and the Seminoles probably cannot.
It is also already known that RU delivered millions of cable subscribers to a more expensive tier on cable networks. It does not matter what the RU ratings are if millions of new subs in the NY and Philly markets are now paying premium prices to the B1G network.
Isn’t it pretty clear that the financial determinative is connections to TV sets for the B1G network? Why is that complicated. The 25,000,000 is highly relevant to show subscriber market paying for the B1G network every month.
I sort of think that the B1G can supply enough quality sports programming even without any on field contribution of significance from RU. If the fate of the B1G depends on RU sports prowess, then the B1G is in serious trouble.
I am not sure what you hoped to prove by having an estimate of 8,000,000 people within 100 miles of RU. I took it as a very poor knowledge of geography. If I was wrong and you were intentionally understating, then I apologize (and feel better for you).
Attendance in a stadium is irrelevant to market value, and you know it.
If RU brings the B1G network multiple millions of additional premium subscribers, but RU only averages 40,000 in attendance, do you think that Delany et al will feel that they made a mistake?
Of course, all of this is still about FSU, not RU. I did not make this a comparison of the two, since such comparison is totally irrelevant on many levels.
No matter what you have to say about RU and its attendance, FSU is in a very difficult financial situation. It is a football king, but can not get into the SEC or B1G. That is a problem and eventually may become a big problem.
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie – Aloha everyone! There is ZERO doubt in my mind that FSU would get automatic BTN carriage throughout the entire state of Florida. If the BTN could leverage Rutgers and Maryland in their respective home states, it’s not even a debate for FSU. Heck, the Canes would get carriage in the Miami, Orlando and Tampa areas. College football interest penetration in all of the state of Florida destroys anything in the Northeast, so even the #2 and #3 brands in the state provide massive leverage in cable negotiations. FSU is a bigger slam dunk for BTN (or potential ACC Network) carriage in the state of Florida than Texas A&M was for SEC Network carriage in the state of Texas and a much, much, much bigger slam dunk than Rutgers was for BTN carriage in the NYC market. There might be other reasons why FSU won’t ever end up in the Big Ten, but worrying about BTN carriage certainly isn’t one of them. Indeed, the TV angle (both nationally and in terms of local cable carriage) is actually what would drive the Big Ten to look past any other real or perceived faults of FSU. There’s no single bigger potential financial windfall for the Big Ten outside of adding Texas or the Florida Gators themselves.
LikeLike
Brian,
My initial hyper-sensitive reply wasn’t directed at you in particular. In any case..it was fair game to point out that I AM absolutely a FSU fan. But that “part of me” really didn’t have anything to do with my RU comment. While not to the same degree as my love for FSU or Meeechigian…the B1G is my all-time favorite conference in any sport. And I despise the SEC. So that’s my angle regarding B1G’s expansion strategy. When I see the B1G making long-term moves that I think *might* put it in the continued rear-view mirror of the SEC…it gets me fired up. I hope a lot of folks here are correct that Delany truly has a crystal ball.
Beyond that…obviously I’d LOVE to see FSU in the B1G but ONLY if it was because the ACC was no longer viable and it joined with a block of southern ACC schools (GT/UNC/UVA). That’s something I do not expect to happen. I do absolutely agree with those who point out that FSU could be in jeopardy…as could the B1G (long-term) if they get left our or make the wrong decisions.
Go Noles, Go Blue, Go B1G!
LikeLike
Bernie,
You really need to get down to Tally for a a big (no pun intended) game with your sons someday! Hit Destin while you’re in the general area. My favorite general part of FLA by far…and I’ve lived in 5 different parts of this too-damn-hot state.
As far a TV ratings…FSU is in elite company for all but it’s worst games. As far as butts in seats…FSU drew more fans to its spring game in Orlando (renovations at Doak) than Miami averaged at home during the regular season. I don’t see FSU as a natural fit in the B1G either…but lack of eyeballs on TV’s or fan support is absolutely not the reason why. I can’t even imagine the gameday environment with some of the top B1G schools visiting Tallahassee. It would be surreal.
LikeLike
Frank. I will be more than happy to accept your opinion regarding the ability of FSU to drive cable systems throughout FL.
The problem is still that the Noles may be $20 million per year behind the Gators with no good solution. The SEC does not need them. Football and money wise the best fit is the B1G, but there is no point in listing why that is not terribly likely any time soon.
If the ACC could get a network, FSU would be the biggest driver of that network. With no network, yuch.
No it is not fair, but it is there.
Tom, I have been to several games at Doak Cambell. I must say that I do not find the Tomahawk Chop to be all that exciting. We have also been to games at Camp Randall, which rocked.
I think that the college game experience in Madison is way better than in Tallahassee. (Both are 20 times better than the experience at RU football games)
LikeLike
Sorry to hear that Bernie. If it was during the final few years of Bobby Bowden’s stint…things may been a little gloomier than usual there. The place is amazing for big games.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Marc, are you deliberately misconstruing what I am saying, or am I massively failing to communicate? I suggest that it is the former.”
I think it’s a little of both.
“You know very well that FSU tv ratings do not necessarily mean that FSU in the B1G would put the B1G network on an expensive tier in Miami, or Orlando, or Tampa. It might, I do not know, but I am quite sure that you do not know either. The large amounts of money come from subscribers, not ratings for one team. If you have statistics showing that I am wrong, fine provide them.”
No, but ratings are a strong indication of fan interest. If a lot of fans are very interested, then you have leverage with cable companies. I’m pretty sure FSU has sufficient fans to get the BTN on basic cable everywhere in FL.
“It is also already known that RU delivered millions of cable subscribers to a more expensive tier on cable networks.”
The Cablevision data posted previously shows that the payout went from $13.9M to $31.7M for 2.64M subscribers. That’s an increase of 2.28 times, but you also have to spread that larger fee over more schools, so the per school payout basically doubled to $2.26M. Doing the math, the payout numbers mean the average cost was $0.44 per month before and $1 per month afterwards. Well, older stories have claimed that the out of footprint rate was $0.30 per month. That means that about 20% were already paying $1 for the BTN, so about 2.1M subscribers got upgraded.
“It does not matter what the RU ratings are if millions of new subs in the NY and Philly markets are now paying premium prices to the B1G network.”
For BTN purposes, sure. It does matter for the tier 1 deal, though.
“The 25,000,000 is highly relevant to show subscriber market paying for the B1G network every month.”
Supposedly the NYC media market has about 7.4M total TV households which means more like 6.6M cable households, so about 5.3M households upgraded from $0.30 to $1 per month (extrapolating the Cablevision data).
But that large number in the region also shows how weak the fan interest in RU is and we don’t know that the BTN model of forcing people to pay for BTN will last.
Just for comparison, FL has over 5M cable households. So it’s very similar to NYC but with much higher interest in CFB and more B10 alumni/fans. Add in FSU’s much stronger fan base than RU’s, and FSU could command a higher monthly rate than RU.
“Attendance in a stadium is irrelevant to market value, and you know it.”
It really isn’t. It’s only irrelevant to BTN value.
LikeLike
First, I am not really sure why this thread is about RU. My comments re FSU and their financial disadvantages are sadly true.
Brian, South Jersey is in the Philly TV market and that is another 3 million TV households. Did PSU already have all of South Jersey on premium B1G network pricing? I do not know. If the Jersey part of the Philly was not part of premium already, then that is another million TV households or so added from South Jersey. My guess is that South Jersey was already premium due to PSU, but I do not know.
All of my comments related to the BTN. Some year RU may even be competitive, but we will need to see it to believe it. IF, and it is a big IF, that happens, then the value of RU to the B1G will be even greater. I will say that Chris Ashe, the new head coach at RU, and former def coord at OSU, does seem to be doing a good job in early recruiting.
This is not a prime year for NJ high school football, so it might hurt RU recruiting rankings. Eg, I think that this year Maryland has a much stronger crop of HS players than NJ. That is not typically the case.
Of course, we all know that schools like Mich State and UW-Madison don’t necessarily consistently have top ranked recruiting classes and they “coach up” the players. (Though MSU has recruited much better as their performance on the field has been so good)
Tom, I neglected to say that we have been to Destin. (Years ago almost bought a condo in Destin). Beautiful, but Destin has gotten way too commercialized (perhaps because it is so beautiful).
Tom, did you know that Destin is considered to be the best fishing location in FL, because the depth of the water of 600 feet (100 fathoms) is closer to the shore at Destin than at any other location in FL? I have no idea if this is true, but supposedly the 600 feet depth is the fishing sweet spot. (At least this is the pitch of the Destin Chamber of Commerce)
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“First, I am not really sure why this thread is about RU. My comments re FSU and their financial disadvantages are sadly true.”
Because we dispute some of what you said about RU (or how you said it, at least) and don’t disagree about FSU as much.
“Brian, South Jersey is in the Philly TV market and that is another 3 million TV households.”
And parts of the NYC media market probably aren’t covered by RU. I wasn’t trying to provide an exact comparison of RU to FSU but showing NYC and FL were similar.
“Did PSU already have all of South Jersey on premium B1G network pricing?”
No idea.
“All of my comments related to the BTN.”
And I’m just pointing out that there is more than BTN to consider.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/game/baseball/d1/2016/06/30/coastal-caro-arizona
Coastal Carolina pulled off the win over AZ for their first ever national championship in any sport.
Coastal Carolina capitalized on two errors on the same play for four unearned runs in the sixth inning, and the Chanticleers won their first national championship in any sport with a 4-3 victory over Arizona in Game 3 of the College World Series finals on Thursday.
Coastal Carolina (55-18) became the first team since Minnesota in 1956 to win the title in its first CWS appearance.
…
The championship also was the first in a team sport in the 33-year history of the Big South Conference. The Big South could savor the accomplishment for only about eight hours. The Chanticleers become members of the Sun Belt Conference on Friday.
LikeLike
Jon Solomon, a sportswriter for CBS, thinks “it’s a shame that a Coastal Carolina story can’t happen in college football.”
Posting the above does not mean I agree with it.
CFB offers a very narrow window for a Cinderella champion, but a lot of dominoes would have to fall their way. Houston plays Oklahoma and Louisville—and gets them both in the city of Houston—but the rest of their schedule is dragged down by being in the American. Their remaining non-conference games are Lamar and Texas State, hardly a murderer’s row.
Most P5 teams that we think of as playoff contenders play a much tougher schedule than the Cougars. A P5 champ with one loss would most likely be more highly valued by the Committee than an undefeated Houston team.
The Cougars would need to run the table, and hope that at least two P5 conferences crown a “weak” champion (a team with 2+ losses). They’d also need other teams on their schedule, particularly Oklahoma and Louisville, to have great overall seasons, so that beating those teams would mean something. (Oklahoma had a good season last year, but Louisville was just mediocre, by P5 standards.)
Even all of that, offers no assurance of reaching the top four.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
I’m going to add in some other excerpts as well as use parts of your excerpts. Much of my reply is in response to Solomon, not you.
“Jon Solomon, a sportswriter for CBS, thinks “it’s a shame that a Coastal Carolina story can’t happen in college football.””
And we all probably agree in theory, but I’d love to hear a practical solution based on a 12 game season and at most 3 more games.
In many ways, Coastal Carolina is not a Cinderella. It established itself as one of the premier mid-major baseball programs in the country long ago.
This changes a lot, because now we’re talking about a BYU, Boise, UH, … sort of situation and not EMU.
“We’re not the most talented team in America, but we’re the national champion,” Coastal Carolina baseball coach Gary Gilmore told reporters Thursday.
And that’s the issue. A hot team can win a tournament without being the best team that season. The NCAA holds tournaments to determine national champions in all but I-A football. I-A football theoretically tries to crown the best team that season, but has fallen into the postseason tournament folly of all the other sports. However, it is by far the toughest tournament to get into so it does the best job a single-elimination tournament can in finding the best team.
In every prominent NCAA sport except football, there’s a chance for schools from smaller conferences to win it all. It may be unlikely to happen, but the only thing competitors want is a chance.
That’s equally true in I-A football. There is a chance for any team to make it. A G5 member needs to be undefeated with multiple wins over P5 teams and needs some help from the P5 champs, but it is possible.
The new playoff system has made it harder for a team from the so-called Group of Five conferences to join the Power Five in the playoff.
Harder than what? The BCS? No. Only 2 teams made the playoff then. The old bowl system? I doubt it. At most 2 bowls mattered back then and the major bowls mostly had conference tie-ins.
Maybe you could argue BYU in 1984 proves otherwise, but I’d say that was a perfect storm. #1 BYU faced unranked and 6-5 MI in the Holiday Bowl (best bowl BYU could get as WAC champ). #2 OU lost to #4 UW in the Orange. #3 UF was in NCAA trouble (the SEC later stripped their title) and didn’t go to a bowl. BYU was 13-0. UW finished 11-1. All the other major champs had 2+ losses. BYU’s only win over a then-ranked team was the opener at Pitt, but Pitt ended up being terrible (3-7-1). Their other P5 win was over 5-6 Baylor. Back then the voters didn’t want to jump #4 over an undefeated #1 but in more modern times I don’t believe BYU ever makes it to #1 with that schedule. Certainly UW would’ve passed BYU for the title. This shows the fatal flaw of the poll system where a team had to lose to move down.
But it’s an interesting question to ask: What would the playoff committee do if the Cougars go 13-0 with nonconference wins over Oklahoma and Louisville and if the American Athletic Conference produces quality opponents again?
They’d be ahead of all 2 loss teams and probably any 1-loss non-champs (except ND). Any undefeated P5 champs would be ahead of them. The gray area is 1-loss P5 champs and ND. There it would really depend on the individual schedules with the edge going to the P5 champs mostly.
“I don’t know because nobody’s told me,” Houston coach Tom Herman said. “I think that’s what the problem is with the system. Nobody knows what the criteria is for acceptance. One week it’s strength of schedule, the next week it’s game control. It changes week to week, year to year.
“I wish somebody could tell me, ‘Hey, it’s strength of schedule that matters most.’ Fine, we’ll schedule Oklahoma and Louisville every year. If they tell me it’s going undefeated, great, I won’t schedule Oklahoma and Louisville every year. We’ll schedule wins — the Baylor model. Until they define what the criteria is, I would probably say no, a non-Power Five school won’t make the playoff.”
This is such a load of crap. The criteria is clear – be one of the 4 best teams. There isn’t just one factor that goes into that determination. When the committee points out something, that’s what happened to separate the top teams that week. Sometimes it’s SOS. Sometimes it’s dominance because SOS is pretty similar. Early on it may be record because we don’t know how good teams are yet.
“Most P5 teams that we think of as playoff contenders play a much tougher schedule than the Cougars.”
Very true.
“A P5 champ with one loss would most likely be more highly valued by the Committee than an undefeated Houston team.”
That’s my guess as well, but it’s hard to tell how much weight they’d give perfection. If OSU lost to OU but otherwise went 12-1, should they beat out a 13-0 UH team that did beat OU? The same question applies to FSU or Clemson if they lose to UL but go 12-1.
LikeLike
I’d love to hear a practical solution based on a 12 game season and at most 3 more games.
Simply enlarging the playoff to 8 teams—which I believe will happen eventually—will produce more Cinderellas, as it has done in every sport that expands its post-season.
They might even guarantee a spot to the best G5 team. But even without that crutch, an undefeated G5 with at least one legit. P5 scalp will often make the top eight on the merits; whereas, to make the top four, such a team generally needs multiple P5 leagues to kill off their best teams late in the season.
Bear in mind, that an 8-team playoff would not just enable Cinderellas from the G5. It would also give a chance to 8-4 division champs who pull off a CCG upset.
LikeLike
Here is how often each league crowned the correct champion:
1. NCAA football: 86.7%
2. NBA: 66.7%
3. NFL: 61.5%
4. NCAA basketball: 58.3%
5. MLB 29.3%
Don’t have NCAA Baseball but I would think it would be in the MLB neighborhood. This would confirm Coastal’s coach saying we might not be the best team, but we’re the champions. The figures seem to bear out how hard it would be for a Cinderella in Football.
Here’s the link:: http://shawsports.net/how-often-do-the-best-football-and-basketball-teams-win-the-title/
They use Sagarin’s ratings. I’m not buying or selling, just presenting a discussion point. Please direct your anger, outrage at Jeff Sagarin or ShawSports.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Simply enlarging the playoff to 8 teams—which I believe will happen eventually—will produce more Cinderellas, as it has done in every sport that expands its post-season.”
1. That doesn’t fit my 12+3 criterion unless you drop CCGs. It doesn’t invalidate the solution, it just means it doesn’t fit my statement that you quoted.
2. Does #8 really count as a Cinderella like Solomon is talking about? If people consider you the 8th best team in the country, you’re an elite team.
“They might even guarantee a spot to the best G5 team.”
I think they’d have to.
“But even without that crutch, an undefeated G5 with at least one legit. P5 scalp will often make the top eight on the merits;”
It’s uncommon to have an undefeated G5 champ, and one from the MAC or Sunbelt would struggle to make the top 8 but the MWC and AAC would do it. The new CUSA is in the middle so I’ll guess they’d also struggle depending on their OOC schedule.
Some recent examples:
1999 – Marshall made #9 (2 0-loss, 2 1-loss, 5 2-loss, 1 3-loss)
2004 – Utah made #5 (3 P5 undefeateds)
2008 – Utah made #7 (6 P5 with 1 loss), Boise made #9
2010 – TCU made #3 (2 P5 undefeateds)
“Bear in mind, that an 8-team playoff would not just enable Cinderellas from the G5. It would also give a chance to 8-4 division champs who pull off a CCG upset.”
Obviously a 9-4 champ would only get in with an autobid. The at-larges would help many P5 non-champs, though.
LikeLike
Doug,
“Here is how often each league crowned the correct champion:
1. NCAA football: 86.7%”
It should be noted he only looked at the BCS era. The CFP is 2 for 2 so far. My guess is that having 2 playoff games means the CFP champ will always top Sagarin’s ratings due to the weight that extra win will carry.
I wonder how the bowl system would have done by this sort of measure. My guess is that many years it did fine because there was an obvious #1 after the bowls. The split title years would be trickier and the years that awarded pre-bowl titles would obviously have more issues.
LikeLike
Brian,
Wilson’s Performance Ratings rates teams going back to 1869. It’s interesting to look at the year when Polls decided the Champion.
Couple of examples:
1960 Minnesota NC
Wilson Ratings:
1. Iowa
2. Washington
3. Missouri
4. Minnesota & Ohio State (tied)
1969 Texas NC
Wilson Ratings:
1. Penn State
2. Texas & USC (tied)
3. Missouri
If your interested in that sort of thing here’s the link:
http://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/perform/index.shtml
Again for discussion purposes. I make no claim as to the merits of his system.
LikeLike
“Simply enlarging the playoff to 8 teams—which I believe will happen eventually—will produce more Cinderellas, as it has done in every sport that expands its post-season.”
1. That doesn’t fit my 12+3 criterion unless you drop CCGs. It doesn’t invalidate the solution, it just means it doesn’t fit my statement that you quoted.
My mistake…in my head, I thought you were referring to an 8-team playoff grafted onto the current structure, which is not what you wrote.
2. Does #8 really count as a Cinderella like Solomon is talking about? If people consider you the 8th best team in the country, you’re an elite team.
If they offer autobids to the P5 champs, and an autobid to the best of the G5, there will quite frequently be at least one playoff team that is worse than #8. At times, you could even have playoff teams that are outside of the top 25. I agree, a Coastal Carolina type of Cinderella wouldn’t be possible. They’d need way more teams in the playoff, and I don’t see that happening.
LikeLike
Really doesn’t look like too great a system based on those two years.
Minnesota won the title in 1960 before the polls and lost their bowl game. They beat Iowa head to head and Iowa beat Ohio St. who had 2 conference losses.
Pretty much every other system in 1969 picks Texas. USC had a tie to Notre Dame who lost to Texas in the Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Illinois back in business, at least to December.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N19M2IZ
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/06/which-conference-plays-most-power-five-opponents-2016/
How many P5 games does each conference play this year?
On average:
1. P12 – 10.25 (WSU with 9, OR, Stanford, UCLA & USC with 11)
2. B12 – 10.00 (BU & KU with 9, UT & WV with 11)
3. B10 – 9.93 (PU & UMD with 9, MSU with 11)
4. ACC – 9.43 (7 schools with 10, BC with only 8)
5. SEC – 9.07 (only UGA with 10)
6. ND – 9
7. BYU – 6
7 P5 teams play 11 P5 schools – MSU, UT, WV, OR, Stanford, UCLA & USC
Only BC plays 8 P5 schools.
LikeLike
Brian says:
June 30, 2016 at 7:38 pm
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/06/which-conference-plays-most-power-five-opponents-2016/
Playing P5’s is not exactly similar unless the schools are playing the same teams. Perhaps the better data is the old “smell” test to see if the data fits, or fits a incorrect narrative. We went round and round on this several years ago on here as to the B12 scheduling week then racking up all kinds of non conference wins.
Just fleshing this out as some are considered P5’s that are not P5’s
(by true definition, a P5 must be in the B1G, ACC, B12, PAC, or SEC)
Long term rival games in BOLD
B1G = 3 non conference games per team
(0) Michigan State || they do play Notre Dame and BYU
(1) Ohio State = Oklahoma (B12)
(1) Wisconsin = LSU (SEC)
(1) Nebraska = Oregon (PAC)
(1) Penn State = Pittsburgh (ACC) – glad this is back on the schedule
(1) Rutgers = Washington (PAC)
(1) Illinois = North Carolina (ACC)
(1) Iowa = Iowa State B12
(1) Michigan = Colorado (PAC)
(1) Indiana = Wake Forest (ACC)
(1) Minnesota = Oregon State (PAC)
(1) Northwestern = Duke (ACC)
(0) Maryland = NONE
(0) Purdue = NONE
Michigan State plays no P5’s, but plays 2 IND’s with parity status. Congrats to Sparty for leading the B1G non conference scheduling. Michigan playing a hapless Colorado team may be the worst from the B1G football schools in terms of non conference scheduling.
.
…
.
ACC = 4 non conference games per team
(2) Clemson = South Carolina (SEC) and Auburn (SEC)
(2) Florida State = Florida (SEC) and Mississippi (SEC)
(2) Pittsburgh = Penn State B1G and Oklahoma State (B12)
(1) Virginia Tech = Tennessee (SEC) || Notre Dame by ACC contract
(2) North Carolina = Georgia (SEC) and Illinois (B1G)
(2) Georgia Tech = Georgia SEC and Vanderbilt (SEC)
(1) Virginia = Oregon (PAC)
(1) Duke = Northwestern (B1G) || Notre Dame by ACC deal
(0) Miami || Notre Dame by ACC contract
(0) North Carolina State || Notre Dame by ACC contract
(0) Syracuse || Notre Dame by ACC deal
(1) Louisville = Kentucky SEC
(1) Wake Forest = Indiana (B1G)
(0) Boston College = NONE
Props to Clemson, Florida State, Pittsburgh, and Virginia Tech for some of the toughest non conference schedules in the P5’s. ACC also may have the best mix of the P5’s for playing evenly across the other P5’s.
.
…
.
B12 = 3 non conference games per team
(1) Texas = California (PAC) || Notre Dame
(1) West Virginia = Missouri (SEC) || BYU
(1) Oklahoma = Ohio State (B1G)
(1) Texas Christian = Arkansas (SEC)
(1) Kansas State = Stanford (PAC)
(1) Oklahoma State = Pittsburgh (ACC)
(1) Texas Tech = Arizona State (PAC)
(1) Iowa State = Iowa (B1G)
(0) Kansas = NONE
(0) Baylor = NONE
B12 has gotten better about non conference scheduling since the 2010 break up but Baylor and Kansas continue to scrape bottom. At least I can understand Kansas as getting any win is no assured thing but Baylor can’t be taken seriously with their historic non conference scheduling. While the B12 may boast about 9 conference games, having Kansas means they really are looking at 8 and scrimmage game with the Jayhawks.
.
…
.
PAC = 3 non conference games per team
(1) Southern California = Alabama (SEC) || Notre Dame
(1) Stanford = Kansas State (B12) || Notre Dame
(2) Oregon = Nebraska (B1G) and Virginia (ACC)
(1) UCLA = Texas A&M (SEC) || BYU
(1) California = Texas (B12)
(1) Colorado = Michigan (B1G)
(1) Arizona State = Texas Tech (B12)
(1) Oregon State = Minnesota (B1G)
(1) Washington = Rutgers (B1G)
(0) Arizona = NONE || BYU
(0) Utah = NONE || BYU
(0) Washington State = NONE
Clearly the California schools seem to schedule competitively while the bottom half of the conference have schedules with lots of ho hum. While the PAC schedules BYU, it is not like BYU has been in a title game in a generation. Unlike Notre Dame who has lots of history to bridge the drought years, the Cougars just do not have the same cache.
.
…
.
ACC = 4 non conference games per team
(1) Alabama = Southern California (PAC)
(1) Florida = Florida State (ACC)
(1) South Carolina = Clemson (ACC)
(1) Auburn = Clemson (ACC)
(1) Mississippi = Florida State (ACC)
(2) Georgia = Georgia Tech ACC and North Carolina (ACC)
(1) LSU = Wisconsin (B1G)
(1) Arkansas = Texas Christian (B12)
(1) Missouri = West Virginia (B12)
(1) Tennessee = Virginia Tech (ACC)
(1) Kentucky = Louisville (ACC)
(1) Texas A&M = UCLA (PAC)
(1) Vanderbilt = Georgia Tech (ACC)
(0) Mississippi State = NONE || BYU
Not sure I agree about the SEC scheduling terribly outside of conference. Sure they schedule an FCS school on average per team but looking at their P5 non conference foes, every SEC school is playing a college football team on the top half of their respective conferences. Only Mississippi State does not play a “technical” P5, they at least play BYU which is respectable. I just do not see a Kansas or Wake Forest type team on any SEC schedule which is actually pretty impressive.
LikeLike
Michigan playing a hapless Colorado team may be the worst from the B1G football schools in terms of non conference scheduling.
Remember, Michigan was supposed to have Notre Dame on the schedule this year. The peculiar agreement between the two schools allowed either side to cancel the series without penalty on three years’ notice.
Most of CFB’s headline non-conference match-ups are scheduled at least five years out; a decade or more is not uncommon. As soon as the Irish backed out, you just knew that Michigan’s non-conference schedules were going to be fallow for a few seasons.
Having said that, Colorado is historically a legitimate “upper half” P5 opponent. When they scheduled this game, Michigan couldn’t have known that the Buffaloes in 2016 would be quite as bad as they are. (I think there’s a difference between scheduling a perennial doormat, and scheduling a legitimate team that just happens to be in a down period by the time the game is played.)
(by true definition, a P5 must be in the B1G, ACC, B12, PAC, or SEC)…. While the PAC schedules BYU, it is not like BYU has been in a title game in a generation. Unlike Notre Dame who has lots of history to bridge the drought years, the Cougars just do not have the same cache.
I think Notre Dame can fairly be called “P5”; every one of those leagues considers the Irish an equal, and always has. BYU is a closer call; but although they don’t have the cachet of a Notre Dame, they are, and have always been, a much tougher opponent than quite a few teams in the lower half to lower third of the P5.
Not sure I agree about the SEC scheduling terribly outside of conference. Sure they schedule an FCS school on average per team but looking at their P5 non conference foes, every SEC school is playing a college football team on the top half of their respective conferences.
Yes, but taking together their decision to only play 8 conference games and the widespread scheduling of FCS opponents, they are not bellying up to the bar as much as the other leagues do.
LikeLike
Except for the miracle 5th down game and a year or so around that year, was Colorado ever good? Sure they probably racked up lots of wins in the old Big Eight against lots of teams in the midwest but were they ever really contenders? I may not think of them in a Washington State or South Carolina low, but I do not think of them as #21 where winsipedia has them between UCLA and Michigan State. B1G and B12 teams below Colorado on winsipedia.
#22 Michigan State
#25 Wisconsin
#29 Iowa
#30 Minnesota
#34 TCU
#35 West Virginia
#38 Purdue
#42 Illinois
#44 Oklahoma State
#46 Maryland
#47 Baylor
#54 Texas Tech
#58 Rutgers
#66 Kansas
#76 Northwestern
#77 Kansas State
#78 Rice (for Loki)
#92 Indiana *sigh*
#98 Iowa State
I could easily see Colorado 20 to 40 spots lower
ps, apologies for forgetting the Colorado game was a Notre Dame fill in game.
LikeLike
Colorado was very good from around 1989 to around 2005. In addition to 1990, in 1994 they were looking like an MNC team until they ran into one of the greatest cf teams of all time at Nebraska. They ended up 11-1. They were also 11-1 in 1989, losing their only game to Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl. They really should have been in the title game against Miami in 2001 instead of Nebraska who they had just beaten by 40 points. They also had a #3 season in 1971 losing only to #1 OU and #2 Nebraska.
Since Barnett left in 2005, they have fallen off a cliff and haven’t had a winning season since.
LikeLike
To the extent you can measure such things, Colorado would seem to be right in the middle of the P5. It just seems worse now, because they’ve been in a long funk. Programs have their ups and downs, but a decade is usually long enough to return to your historical norm, and that hasn’t worked for the Buffaloes.
LikeLike
Here is why I believe Colorado is placed too high.
#1 Their lone MNC was provided by the “5th down” win that should have been a loss
a) Tied 9-2-2 Tennessee in season opener at neutral site
b) Lost to 8-4-0 Illinois @ Illinois
c) Due to error by officials, won the Missouri game which should have been a loss
d) Beat 9-3-0 Notre Dame by 1 point in their bowl game
#2 They have limited conference championship and co championship history
a) Big 8 outright champions in 1961, 1989, and 1990
b) Big 8 co championships in 1976 and 1991
c) Big 12 outright championships in 2001
d) Big 12 North champions in 2002, 2004, and 2005 (all with 5+ loss seasons)
#3 They racked up lots of “questionable wins against non threatening CFB programs
64 from Colorado State
49 from Iowa State
43 from Kansas
45 from Kansas State (Snyder did not arrive till the 1990’s)
36 from Colorado School of Mines
32 from Colorado College
26 from Denver
24 from Wyoming
50+ from what appear to be high schools in Colorado
#4 In 1967 they had a stadium seating 50,516 and it has stayed fairly constant right up till today where their current seating sits at 50,183. They had a record attendance of 54,972 which would put them near the very bottom of the current B1G. Not like this is an end all and be all, but most historic top football teams expanded their stadiums from the 1960’s to the present by leaps and bounds.
In short, the decade or so of competitive football at Colorado is more the exception than the rule. They were not great before the 1990’s and have gone back to their norms in the past decade.
LikeLike
All of this is consistent with Colorado being a mid-level P5 team, which is all I said they are. They had five Big 8 titles, which puts them fourth out of the eight that were in the league at its end. If you count only outright titles (and I’m not sure why you would), they are still fourth.
This mid-level of success continued into the Big 12. Only six of the original 12 won a conference title, and Colorado was one of them. Only five of the original 12 won four or more division titles, and Colorado was one of them.
I could easily see Colorado 20 to 40 spots lower.
At 40 spots lower, they’d be sandwiched between Kentucky and Miami of Ohio. At 20 spots lower, they’d be comparable to Utah, which wasn’t even in the P5 until a few years ago.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Except for the miracle 5th down game and a year or so around that year, was Colorado ever good?”
Yes. They are #25 in total AP poll points all-time, just behind AR and ahead of WI. CO was very good from the late 80s through mid-90s. But they also had their moments in the 50s, 60s and 70s. CO was #3 in 1971 with losses to #1 NE and #2 OU. Almost all of their head coaches have winning records with 14 of 25 above 0.600.
“Sure they probably racked up lots of wins in the old Big Eight against lots of teams in the midwest but were they ever really contenders?”
You just described essentially every non-king team in CFB. Is MI only allowed OOC games off of that list?
“I may not think of them in a Washington State or South Carolina low, but I do not think of them as #21 where winsipedia has them between UCLA and Michigan State.”
So perhaps your perception is wrong since the facts disagree with you?
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Here is why I believe Colorado is placed too high.”
Placed too high by whom or what? Winsipedia provided a list of schools by total wins and CO is where it is on that list. Nobody has made any subjective claims of greatness for CO here.
“#1 Their lone MNC was provided by the “5th down” win that should have been a loss”
The fact that they have a MNC puts them above most programs.
“#2 They have limited conference championship and co championship history”
They were in a small conference with 2 kings. How many titles should they have won? All that shows is that they aren’t at the level of NE and OU, but nobody claimed they were.
“#3 They racked up lots of “questionable wins against non threatening CFB programs”
As did every team in CFB with lots of wins. OSU has large numbers of wins against IN, NW, WI, etc form decades where those were terrible teams.
“36 from Colorado School of Mines
32 from Colorado College
26 from Denver
24 from Wyoming
50+ from what appear to be high schools in Colorado”
CO was in lesser conferences before WWII as I recall.
“#4 In 1967 they had a stadium seating 50,516 and it has stayed fairly constant right up till today where their current seating sits at 50,183.”
What on earth does this possibly have to do with how good their team is or isn’t? Some bad programs have strong attendance and vice versa.
“In short, the decade or so of competitive football at Colorado is more the exception than the rule. They were not great before the 1990’s and have gone back to their norms in the past decade.”
Who is this not true for in that group of programs? The ones that are good all the time are the kings. The next group tend to be decent with small spans of great as well as periods of bad. There are many programs that would love to have that much success, like IN.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Playing P5’s is not exactly similar unless the schools are playing the same teams.”
I disagree. The article was looking at the conference level, so you could average all those OOC games if you felt the need to compare them. For the purposes the article was intended to serve, P5 status was sufficient.
“Perhaps the better data is the old “smell” test to see if the data fits, or fits a incorrect narrative.”
If you want to look at the individual school level, sure. But the article was more about how the difference scheduling models and total P5 games.
Getting into SOS is a much trickier thing since you need an objective way to evaluate all the teams and then you need a model that most will accept as a valid way to determine SOS (straight average vs weighted, how to factor in location, bye weeks and game order, relative to the team vs overall, etc).
“We went round and round on this several years ago on here as to the B12 scheduling week then racking up all kinds of non conference wins.”
Yes, because you gave more weight to others playing a 9th P5 game in the CCG (leaving them an extra OOC game to play with) than you would to the B12 for playing that 9th game in conference. But by default they had already played the equivalent of the CCG because they played a full round robin. I didn’t defend Baylor’s OOC scheduling, but I did point out that the SEC played plenty of OOC cupcakes so those games essentially were meaningless to SOS.
“Just fleshing this out as some are considered P5’s that are not P5’s
(by true definition, a P5 must be in the B1G, ACC, B12, PAC, or SEC)”
True, but ND receives equal consideration to the P5 in the CFP organization so it only makes sense to include them. BYU is included because several of the P5 conferences have made rules declaring them P5-equivalent and we all know that factually they are on par with at least the middle to bottom of every P5 conference. If Kansas counts, so should BYU.
If you don’t count BYU, then you disproportionately hurt the P12 due to proximity. If you don’t count ND then you hurt the ACC due to their scheduling deal.
“B12 has gotten better about non conference scheduling since the 2010 break up but Baylor and Kansas continue to scrape bottom. At least I can understand Kansas as getting any win is no assured thing but Baylor can’t be taken seriously with their historic non conference scheduling.”
I think Baylor has bigger concerns at the moment.
“While the B12 may boast about 9 conference games, having Kansas means they really are looking at 8 and scrimmage game with the Jayhawks.”
As opposed to playing OrSU, CO, RU, PU, BC, WF, UK or Vandy? Nobody has a conference full of only good teams.
“While the PAC schedules BYU, it is not like BYU has been in a title game in a generation.”
Teams that have played in a title game (BCS or CFP, so since 1998 = 18 years):
FSU, OU, AL, LSU, OSU, FL, Auburn, Miami, UT, USC, Clemson, TN, NE, ND, OR, VT
That’s 16 teams.
So let’s go back to the bowl era and add teams:
1997 – MI
1996 – ASU
1994 – PSU
1991 – UW
1990 – CO, GT
1988 – WV
1984 – BYU
That gets us to 24. It is more than a generation ago, but still only 23 other teams reached a title game besides BYU since then.
“Unlike Notre Dame who has lots of history to bridge the drought years, the Cougars just do not have the same cache.”
Since 1984:
* Both are top 25 in W%:
BYU is 277-130-2 (0.680)
ND is 258-132-2 (0.661) (yes ND played harder schedules)
* BYU is #33 in total AP poll points (about 100,000), ND is #12 (about 300,000)
* Each has 1 Heisman winner (1990, 1987)
* Each has 1 national title (1984, 1988)
Sure ND has played more prestigious bowls and regular season games. Nobody disputes that. But most of their glorious history was before I-AA was even formed. BYU doesn’t have the same cache as ND but they have a lot of cache.
“Not sure I agree about the SEC scheduling terribly outside of conference.”
Nobody claimed that they did (not me, not the article). The article only pointed out that they play the fewest P5 opponents.
LikeLike
But they only play 8 conference games, so 1 respectable OOC game just doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
I think the bigger issue is the dividing lines on what constitutes non conference scheduling
Camp A = ACC + SEC
Play so many inter conference games between them historically it is like that ACC vs SEC game #9 data point is valid
Camp B = B1G + B12 + PAC
Play 9 conference game as no real long term P5 cross conference rival games. I think between all 3 conferences only the Iowa vs Iowa State game pops up on the radar
As to the non P5’s being counted as P5’s (viewed as success in a P5)
Notre Dame = elite level
BYU = mid level
Army = cellar dweller
Navy = cellar dweller
Air Force = cellar dweller
UCF = mid to cellar dweller (still behind 3 in FL)
USF = mid to cellar dweller (still behind 3 in FL)
Cincinnati = potential solid mid level with more money and exposure
ECU = contender? In NC they may be the best football school
Houston = solid mid level (still behind too many TX teams)
Memphis = cellar dweller without Fed Ex booster
SMU = solid mid level (still behind too many TX teams)
Temple = who knows, but probably a cellar dweller
Tulane = cellar dweller
Tulsa = cellar dweller
MWC = mid level to cellar dwellers
LikeLike
I do think that BYU deserves to be considered a “P5-ish” opponents. They have consistently played like a mid-level P5 for decades: they’re not a flash in the pan.
Most leagues have decided to count the service academies as “P5” opponents, because they draw well on TV, not because anyone has illusions that they’re playing the same level of football.
Cincinnati and UConn (counted only by the Big Ten) have had some good years in the last decade, but have not proven they can play that well consistently over the long haul. I don’t think any conference counts the others you’ve named.
LikeLike
I view BYU is a step or two below Notre Dame, hence my positioning them where I did. My list was to try and view all major non P5’s as if they were in an actual P5 conference. BYU might go 10-2 as a Go5 conference member or as an IND but might get en extra 2 losses in the B12 or PAC (not probable to ever join the B1G, ACC, or SEC). The problem for BYU as an IND will be scheduling, as any games with the B1G, B12, or PAC will have to be played early in the season prior to conference play starting. That leaves the ACC (who now has Notre Dame to fit into ACC schedules) and SEC (who schedules many ACC games as early games or end of the season games) which may have no slots.
BYU is not a flash in the pan by any means, just that their MNC came in the pre BCS era in the Holiday Bowl to a 6-6 Michigan team that finished 6th in the B1G. As the final score was 24-17 it is not like the Cougars blew the lads from Ann Arbor out of the water. Imagine a MNC being awarded today to beating a 6-6 P5 team in the championship game.
I agree on the service academies which is why my list had them a cellar dwellers if they were playing in any current P5.
Cincinnati and Connecticut just became the casualties of the Big East folding where they had BCS access. While I think both would hold their own in B1G basketball, neither is AAU and neither has a football program on the level of the current Big 4 in the B1G – Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska.
LikeLike
“…and neither has a football program on the level of the current Big 4 in the B1G – Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska.”
Huh? Other than a FB King (USC, UTx, LSU, etc) who does? Are you measuring mid level with a king size ruler?
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Camp A = ACC + SEC
Play so many inter conference games between them historically it is like that ACC vs SEC game #9 data point is valid”
There are only 3 long-term rivalries between them: UF/FSU, UGA/GT, SC/Clemson. UK/UL is young and only became SEC/ACC very recently.
P5 is P5 so I don’t really understand your point here. Nobody disputes that the 9th game is valid. It’s that so many other P5s are also playing a 10th P5 with some playing 11.
“Camp B = B1G + B12 + PAC
Play 9 conference game as no real long term P5 cross conference rival games. I think between all 3 conferences only the Iowa vs Iowa State game pops up on the radar”
Yes, they tend to have their rivals in conference because historically most major conferences didn’t share states. The P12 is geographically isolated and you don’t count ND which is a rival for at least 4 schools in those conferences. The B10 and B12 only overlap in IA. The other OOC rivalries for the B10 are with schools now in the SEC (UK/IN, MO/IL) and are no longer active. Is it somehow better to play a rival OOC than in conference?
LikeLike
Brian says:
July 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Duffman
There are only 3 long-term rivalries between them: UF/FSU, UGA/GT, SC/Clemson. UK/UL is young and only became SEC/ACC very recently.
I will disagree most strongly with your statement
That is the common misconception because they are the ones most often discussed. Several years ago when I put up a multiple post on who were the least successful football schools based on resources I spent a few days looking at all the P5 school histories. Back then I noted how intertwined the ACC and SEC were which is why I make the point now.
Granted Louisville has displaced Indiana as the primary rival for Kentucky but it just goes to show how much Louisville has gained fans in western Kentucky and southern Indiana. That being said, here are some ACC schools with long histories with SEC football
Clemson
Auburn is sitting close to 50 and a big rival game you did not include
Georgia is over 60 and still quite important
South Carolina is over 110 and 1 of the 3 you noted
Tennessee is about 20
Duke
Tennessee is about 30
Georgia Tech is about 35
(keeping that in perspective, that is about how many times Duke has played Maryland who was a charter member in the ACC and Georgia Tech left the SEC in the mid 60’s which is what I was looking at, and not the 80+ times they have actually played)
Florida State (limited football history)
Florida is around 60 and 1 of the 3 you noted
(played Auburn more that they have played charter ACC members Duke, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia)
Georgia Tech
Alabama with over 50 and 6 since they left the SEC
Auburn with over 90 and and over 20 since leaving the SEC
Florida is approaching 40 with almost half dozen post SEC
Georgia is over 100 and 1 of the 3 you noted
Tennessee is over 40 with almost half post SEC
Vanderbilt is close to 40 but most were in SEC but 3 games between 2002 and 2009
Louisville while not charter member has about 30 games with Kentucky
Miami while not a charter member has over 50 games with Florida
North Carolina
Georgia is around 30 games
South Carolina is almost 60 with games in 2007, 2013, and 2015
Tennessee is at least 30 games
North Carolina State
South Carolina is approaching 60 games with last series in 2008 and 2009
Wake Forest and Virginia seem to have Vanderbilt on their scheduling radar. UVA played VU early and WF has played VU about a dozen times since 1990
.
…
.
The overall point being that pretty much every ACC school has SEC game history with almost every team. Few conferences have such an inbred relationship with another conference and to suggest the ACC vs SEC is limited to basically just 3 games is most incorrect.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“That is the common misconception because they are the ones most often discussed.”
I assumed you were referencing the annual ones. Those 4 games make up the bulk of the scheduled ACC vs SEC games. I’m well aware of many other old rivalries but most of them are rarely played anymore.
2016:
The 4 annual rivalries plus Clemson/AU (48 total games before this), FSU/MS (1), GT/Vandy (36), UNC/UGA (23), VT/TN (5)
2015:
4 + LSU/SU (2), AU/UL (1), SC/UNC (56)
2014:
4 + UGA/Clemson (58)
“Back then I noted how intertwined the ACC and SEC were which is why I make the point now.”
Many of those schools used to be in the Southern Conference together before splitting into the SEC and ACC. And due to proximity, of course they played each other somewhat regularly. That doesn’t make them all rivalries.
“Clemson
Auburn is sitting close to 50 and a big rival game you did not include”
They’ve played 5 times since 1971 including 2 bowls.
“Georgia is over 60 and still quite important”
They’ve played 4 times since 1995.
“Tennessee is about 20”
That’s not a rivalry at all, just a convenient OOC game. They’ve played once since 1976 and 3 times since WWII.
…
“The overall point being that pretty much every ACC school has SEC game history with almost every team.”
No, they really don’t. The SEC East schools (minus MO) plus Auburn have history with the ACC schools from Clemson southward (and not all of those potential pairings have history). Partly due to being in the Southern Conference together, but largely due to sheer proximity.
“Few conferences have such an inbred relationship with another conference”
Of course not. No other conferences overlap in 4 states and basically split from one progenitor conference.
LikeLike
Brian, granted wik is not perfect but it lists these rivals for Clemson
South Carolina : 113 games from 1896 – 2015, 119 years (almost every years)
Georgia : 64 games from 1897 – 2014, 117 years (play on average every 2 years)
Auburn : 49 games from 1899 – 2012, 113 years (play on average every 2 years)
Clemson and Auburn only played 3 games between 1970 and 2006, but have played 4 times since 2007 so it appears they will play 2 more in the next 2 years. Clemson seems to be setting up for a continued fixed game with South Carolina and a rotating game with a SEC school unless the Notre Dame contract game is scheduled.
2016 @ Auburn
2017 vs Auburn
2018 @ Texas A&M
2019 vs Texas A&M
2020 @ Notre Dame
2021 ????
2022 @ Notre Dame
2023 vs Notre Dame
2024 ????
2025 ????
While Clemson may not play each every year I can see them playing home and home games every 6 to 12 years with both Georgia and Auburn. If you accept the long history games Notre Dame has with the B1G schools, why is is hard to accept Clemson has the same with the SEC?
As to your point about Tennessee, I am willing to accept this is not a rivalry but it is an indication to schedule them. To put this in better perspective, Ohio State has played Tennessee 1 time in their entire history and that was in a bowl game. The drive time between Columbus and Knoxville is what, 350 miles or so?
Like it or not, the ACC and SEC have a long history of playing each other and if the ACC gets a network, it is not hard to think ESPN will control it. If ESPN already owns the SEC, is it hard to comprehend them pushing a ACC vs SEC cross conference game content? While it may just involve the SEC east teams, it is not hard to think of ESPN adding some SEC west teams to the scheduling mix.
LikeLike
Brian says:
July 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Duffman,
“Camp A = ACC + SEC
Play so many inter conference games between them historically it is like that ACC vs SEC game #9 data point is valid”
P5 is P5 so I don’t really understand your point here. Nobody disputes that the 9th game is valid. It’s that so many other P5s are also playing a 10th P5 with some playing 11.
My point was outlined in the post above, while some schools may be scheduling more P5’s they are doing so by scheduling the lesser ones. Even when I was knocking the B12 for weak scheduling I always gave credit to Oklahoma for bucking that trend. I believe you have good and bad schedulers in each conference but say Oregon played their 3 non conference games against Kansas, Kentucky, and Indiana. Would you really defend this saying it was a top schedule because they had nothing but P5’s for their 12 games?
LikeLike
While Clemson may not play each every year I can see them playing home and home games every 6 to 12 years with both Georgia and Auburn.
I am not a fortune teller, but they have zero future games scheduled with either program — and their non-con schedule is at least partially complete out to 2023.
Auburn has major home & homes with P5 opponents out to 2024, and Georgia out to 2026. Granted, there are gaps in there, but if this was what the schools were inclined to do, at some point you’d expect to see actual games scheduled, rather than just message board speculation.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Brian, granted wik is not perfect but it lists these rivals for Clemson
South Carolina : 113 games from 1896 – 2015, 119 years (almost every years)
Georgia : 64 games from 1897 – 2014, 117 years (play on average every 2 years)
Auburn : 49 games from 1899 – 2012, 113 years (play on average every 2 years)”
Nobody disputes SC. Older UGA fans were excited to play Clemson for rivalry reasons but the younger ones only cared because Clemson is good again. As I noted, they may average playing every other year but they’ve only played 4 times in the past 20 seasons. It was a real rivalry before then, but that means people born since 1985 (30 year-olds) or so have no memory of it being a rivalry at all and many people don’t become fans until later so they’d be 40 year-olds or older. Auburn is worse since they have only played 3 regular season games since 1971. That means 55 year-olds (maybe 65 year-olds) don’t remember it being a rivalry.
“Clemson and Auburn only played 3 games between 1970 and 2006, but have played 4 times since 2007 so it appears they will play 2 more in the next 2 years.”
1 was a bowl game and 1 was a kickoff game both sides were paid for. They agreed to a home and home for 2016-2017 but that doesn’t make it a rivalry. Clemson also has series with TAMU and ND, neither of which are rivals.
“If you accept the long history games Notre Dame has with the B1G schools, why is is hard to accept Clemson has the same with the SEC?”
1. ND isn’t in a conference.
2. PU is ND’s 3rd most frequent opponent (83). MSU is #4 (71). MI is #8 (36) but was essentially annual since 1978.
Clemson has UGA at #6 (59) and AU at #10 (48) but UGA stopped being nearly annual 20 years ago and Auburn 45 years ago.
So it’s hard to accept because it’s factually different. Better matches might be ND/Army and ND/NW. Both have been played about 50 times but mostly stopped in the mid-90s or before. I don’t consider those active rivalries either.
“To put this in better perspective, Ohio State has played Tennessee 1 time in their entire history and that was in a bowl game. The drive time between Columbus and Knoxville is what, 350 miles or so?”
Yes, but there is that whole North/South Civil War barrier thing that is bigger than geographical distance. OSU has only played UK, LSU and Vandy twice each as far as SEC regular season foes. We were supposed to play series against TN and against UGA but expansion blew that up.
“Like it or not, the ACC and SEC have a long history of playing each other”
I like it, but it’s not as extensive as you portray it except as ancient history in football years.
“and if the ACC gets a network, it is not hard to think ESPN will control it. If ESPN already owns the SEC, is it hard to comprehend them pushing a ACC vs SEC cross conference game content?”
ESPN will do whatever maximizes their revenue. But the schools schedule the games and only make changes for high paying neutral site games generally.
“While it may just involve the SEC east teams, it is not hard to think of ESPN adding some SEC west teams to the scheduling mix.”
ESPN could do anything. They also own parts of the B10, B12 and P12 so they could make money with any P5 series.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Camp A = ACC + SEC
Play so many inter conference games between them historically it is like that ACC vs SEC game #9 data point is valid”
P5 is P5 so I don’t really understand your point here. Nobody disputes that the 9th game is valid. It’s that so many other P5s are also playing a 10th P5 with some playing 11.
“My point was outlined in the post above, while some schools may be scheduling more P5’s they are doing so by scheduling the lesser ones.”
But that’s still more legitimate chances to lose than the SEC teams face. A P5 team a tier below you is still capable of beating you at least 30% of the time. That means that 2 games against them makes for only 50% odds of being 2-0 (or worse). And we all know that every competitive game takes a toll in injuries and lack of experience for backups.
“I believe you have good and bad schedulers in each conference but say Oregon played their 3 non conference games against Kansas, Kentucky, and Indiana. Would you really defend this saying it was a top schedule because they had nothing but P5’s for their 12 games?”
A top schedule? No. But I’d also assume they’d lose one of those 3 about 25% of the time and would get zero credit with the CFP committee for their inflated record.
LikeLike
Brian says:
July 6, 2016 at 4:31 pm
Duffman,
“My point was outlined in the post above, while some schools may be scheduling more P5’s they are doing so by scheduling the lesser ones.”
But that’s still more legitimate chances to lose than the SEC teams face. A P5 team a tier below you is still capable of beating you at least 30% of the time. That means that 2 games against them makes for only 50% odds of being 2-0 (or worse). And we all know that every competitive game takes a toll in injuries and lack of experience for backups.
You do remember…
North Dakota State beat Kansas
Richmond beat Top 10 Virginia Tech
Georgia Something beat Florida
Appalachian State beat Michigan at the Big House
I would rather watch some high level FCS schools over some bottom feeding P5’s.
Lets say you schedule
Top 10 Florida + Top 25 Miami + high end FCS school
or
Kansas + Washington State + Kentucky
I will take the first one as being tougher every time. Heck you could drop Miami and add a G5 school to go with FSU and the FCS school and it would still be tougher than the 2nd option. To think otherwise and I would tend to question your football reality.
LikeLike
ccrider55 says:
July 4, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Huh? Other than a FB King (USC, UTx, LSU, etc) who does? Are you measuring mid level with a king size ruler?
I view it the same way I view grades and a standard bell curve
10% = A’s = elite football schools (Top 10 historical type programs)
10% = B’s = above average football schools (Top 25 historical type programs)
10% = C’s = average football schools
10% = D’s = below average football schools
60% = F’s = schools failing at football
While this is harsher than many may view it, I am also from the “no participation ribbons” school of thought. In the early days you had a handful of bowls to reward the elite football schools that year. In the 60’s and 70’s we started rewarding the B football schools. By the time the 80s’ rolled through we were rewarding the C programs. Now we reward the D and F programs in the name of money. It devalues the success of the best, way to dumb it all down America.
As we no longer have ties in football you have a binary zero sum system
Winner and Loser are the only possible outcomes. Viewed that way you pass or you fail and accumulated over time you are a winning program or a losing one. Take away the “rent a win” games and the wins against conference bottom feeders and more programs with “average” numbers would quickly drop.
In a perfect world bowl game invitations would only be extended to football programs getting A’s or B’s by seasons end and maybe a few C’s to fill the slots as needed. If you really had an honest system, any bowl game grading C or lower would be considered “exhibition” and not count in the final records.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“You do remember…
North Dakota State beat Kansas
Richmond beat Top 10 Virginia Tech
Georgia Something beat Florida
Appalachian State beat Michigan at the Big House”
Yes, upsets happen. You do know that bottom tier P5 schools also beat top P5 teams sometimes, right?
2011 ISU over OkSU
2009 PU over OSU
2008 OrSU over USC
2007 Stanford over USC
etc
“Lets say you schedule
Top 10 Florida + Top 25 Miami + high end FCS school
or
Kansas + Washington State + Kentucky
I will take the first one as being tougher every time. Heck you could drop Miami and add a G5 school to go with FSU and the FCS school and it would still be tougher than the 2nd option.”
You cherrypicked 3 of the worst P5 teams to make a ridiculous example. No good team is playing that slate OOC. The SEC’s OOC P5 games aren’t significantly harder than any other conference is playing. From your long comment above, almost every P5 team is playing an appropriate P5 OOC game. The only good teams that aren’t are MI (CO), who is ahead of schedule in getting good again and Baylor (nobody), who may not be good after all and has always been mocked for their OOC scheduling (like WI used to be). So add in the 9th conference game and the leaves the B10, B12 and P12 ahead. No amount of extra history behind ACC/SEC games changes that.
LikeLike
Duffman:
“In the early days you had a handful of bowls to reward the elite football schools that year.”
This is a narrative that I have believed for decades. However, in a previous discussion (I believe somewhere above) about why only champ to rose bowl rule existed for B10. It was both B10 and P8 predecessor, and an exclusive arrangement designed to keep the granddaddy top in importance compared to the 30-40 competing bowls in the ’50s (?).
My point was you seemed to be saying UConn and/or Cincinnati need to be a king (and AAU) to be considered. There are only two FB Kings that could possibly ever be available and acceptable (UT, ND).
Every team that regularly schedules is giving themselves a participation ribbon in the form of high likely win and home stadium income.
LikeLike
“Every team that regularly schedules FCS cupcakes…”
Edit function would be nice.
LikeLike
ccrider55 says:
July 7, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Duffman:
This is a narrative that I have believed for decades. However, in a previous discussion (I believe somewhere above) about why only champ to rose bowl rule existed for B10. It was both B10 and P8 predecessor, and an exclusive arrangement designed to keep the granddaddy top in importance compared to the 30-40 competing bowls in the ’50s (?).
(5) Pre WW II bowls* = Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, and Sun
(2) 40’s added Gator and Citrus after the war
(1) 50’s added Liberty
(1) 60’s added Peach
(3) 70’s added Fiesta, Independence, and Holiday
12 bowls total, probably a good place to stop
(2) 80’s added HoF (Outback) and Copper (Cactus)
(6) 90’s added Russell, Las Vegas, Alamo, Humanitarian, Music City, and Mobile
(11) 00’s added a buch of participation ribbon bowls
(9) 10’s added more crappy bowls
Clearly the post 80’s world has created the crappy bowls
* = Bacardi Bowl played in Cuba from horn of century till WWII
.
…
.
My point was you seemed to be saying UConn and/or Cincinnati need to be a king (and AAU) to be considered. There are only two FB Kings that could possibly ever be available and acceptable (UT, ND).
Nope, in a given year anybody has a shot. My point was the probability in said year
A teams are in the hunt every year unless they slump
B teams are in the hunt maybe every decade or so
C teams are in the hunt maybe every 25 years
D teams are in the hunt maybe 1 tine in a lifetime
F teams are never in the hunt or have a fluke year, not to be repeated
Connecticut and Cincinnati as average teams might make a run at a MNC once every 25 years or so but are probably never going to be in the hunt year after year like Ohio State and Alabama.
If we are taking about Connecticut or Cincinnati to join the B1G, neither have AAU status but Connecticut is positioned to be an elite basketball program and Cincinnati is a basketball team with above average basketball status. Unlike many on these realignment threads, I view basketball as value trapped in the NCAA. If college basketball went the way of college football in the 1970’s, clearly these values would be unlocked and elite basketball schools would carry values of average or above average football values.
The issue with Cincinnati is they are to the B1G what Houston is to the B12, a school who has greatest value to a conference that already covers that market. I seriously doubt Houston will be invited to the B12 and the chances of Cincinnati to the B1G is slim to none. The one window I see is if falling cable subscriptions moves the model from adding states and going back to local competition. If that model becomes the future, adding more schools in a single state will happen.
.
…
.
Every team that regularly schedules is giving themselves a participation ribbon in the form of high likely win and home stadium income.
I think they income and expense part is the bigger issue. When schools like Boise State and other G5’s started asking for a million or two to play a game with no return, the FCS options looked a whole lot more reasonable. Michigan could have scheduled a MAC school instead of Appalachian State but I bet that check would have been a whole lot more.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“If we are taking about Connecticut or Cincinnati to join the B1G, neither have AAU status but Connecticut is positioned to be an elite basketball program and Cincinnati is a basketball team with above average basketball status. Unlike many on these realignment threads, I view basketball as value trapped in the NCAA. If college basketball went the way of college football in the 1970’s, clearly these values would be unlocked and elite basketball schools would carry values of average or above average football values.”
The way of CFB in the 70s? What did CFB do in the 70s that was different from the 60s or earlier? TV rights grew out of the Supreme Court decision in 1984, and that decision also applied to MBB. MBB just doesn’t have nearly the fan interest during the regular season. That stems from several things:
1. The loss of elite players to the NBA so early.
2. All the transfers. Between these two things, only diehard fans know who’s playing for their team next season.
3. March Madness has overwhelmed the regular season. The growth of the the field (1939 – 8 teams, 1951 – 16, 1975 – 32, 1985 – 64) has made making it in much easier for P5 teams so the regular season lost luster. If winning your conference doesn’t really matter for the P5 any more, why should fans make an effort to watch?
4. The game environment has declined with new arenas with no personality and music piped in way too loud and constant attempts to increase revenue. They try to copy the NBA vibe which just irritates many people that might buy tickets. Look at OSU with Value City Arena versus St. John Arena. The students get worse seating and many OOC games are played when students aren’t around.
5. The game itself is worse. The rules and the officials haven’t really kept up with the growth of players and their athletic abilities. And all of the TOs, especially long media TOs, disrupt the flow of the game. It’s bad enough in CFB, but that game is meant to start and stop.
MBB will be lucky to maintain its current value if it doesn’t start fixing these things, let alone grow exponentially. How do you see MBB magically unlocking this hidden value you claim is there?
As for team value, the elite MBB programs already are worth as much as average CFB programs.
This is old, but the results basically still hold today.
Most profitable teams in college sports:
#21 UL MBB (just above WI CFB)
#29 Duke MBB (just above IL CFB)
#31 UNC MBB (just above CO CFB)
#33 AZ MBB
#34 OSU MBB (just above MO CFB)
#41 Syracuse MBB (just below AZ CFB)
#42 WI MBB
#43 IL MBB
#46 IN MBB
#47 AR MBB (just above USC CFB)
#49 MN MBB
#50 MSU MBB
The rest of the top 50 are CFB teams, obviously. And I’ll guess that UK and KU MBB would make this list except for how they choose to do accounting at those schools.
Not only is Louisville basketball the most profitable basketball program in the country, it’s more profitable than the football program at any Big East school. It’s also more profitable than any football program in the ACC or Pac-10! Keep in mind, these numbers were for the season before Louisville basketball began play in a new arena.
The top ten consists of 2 Big 12 football teams, 2 Big Ten football teams and 6 SEC football teams. The ACC doesn’t have a team until Virginia Tech football at #26. The Pac-10 follows closely with Washington football at #27.
Twelve of the top fifty are basketball programs. I was actually surprised to see the number so high.
If you prefer gross revenue:
MBB programs in the top 100:
22. UL – more than $42M (due to YUM Center suites and minimum donations for tickets)
43. SU – almost $26M
45. Duke
51. UNC
60. UK
63. AZ – over $20M
66. MSU – under $20M
68. UT
70. IN
71. OSU – over $18M
“The issue with Cincinnati is they are to the B1G what Houston is to the B12, a school who has greatest value to a conference that already covers that market.”
I think that’s exactly backwards. They have the greatest value to a neighboring conference, not the one that already covers that market. UC would help the ACC or B12 much more than the B10, for example. UH is less helpful to others based on location, but the ACC or B10 would get more benefit than the B12 or SEC from adding them.
LikeLike
Duffman:
I couldn’t find the article that suggested the high (30+) number, and the need to maintain prestige for competitive reasons creating the exclusive B10/PCC association. Here’s a different one that names a number:
http://www.history.com/news/a-brief-history-of-college-bowl-games
“The commercialization—and proliferation of—bowl games, however, had only just begun. After World War II, short-lived bowl games with strange names, and in some cases stranger wintertime locations, began to sprout, including the Great Lakes Bowl in Cleveland, the Raisin Bowl in Fresno, the Salad Bowl in Phoenix, the Cigar Bowl in Tampa and the Camellia Bowl in Lafayette, Louisiana..”
LikeLike
Brian,
Going back to this post
https://frankthetank.me/2016/04/21/b1g-tv-deal-coming-out-like-a-fox/#comment-271854
Clearly you can see where folks are scheduling competitive and non competitive games even if they are playing more P5’s.
I noticed Iowa is playing North Dakota State (FCS) and I bet that will be much more competitive than if they had scheduled nearby neighbor Kansas.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Clearly you can see where folks are scheduling competitive and non competitive games even if they are playing more P5’s.”
I see no big difference between the SEC and anyone else which is what you claimed. I don’t see a bunch of horrible mismatches on paper besides the previously mentioned exceptions of MI and maybe Baylor.
“I noticed Iowa is playing North Dakota State (FCS) and I bet that will be much more competitive than if they had scheduled nearby neighbor Kansas.”
Yes the reigning 5 time I-AA national champs are better than the worst I-A team and finished at #36 in Sagarin’s rankings. But the next I-AA team in his rankings is #76. That’s below IL. Of course there will always be a few I-AAs and G5s better than the dregs of I-A. But you don’t know which is which until after the season. Other than the elite P5s, who shouldn’t be playing the dregs OOC, I just don’t see the issue here.
LikeLike
Disney spending on sports after new Big Ten agreement:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/disney-said-to-buy-stake-in-mlb-s-video-arm-in-3-5-billion-deal
33% of MLB’s video streaming/web (MLBAM) at a valuation of $3.5 billion with a further option to buy another 33% later. Of course, we all know that streaming/OTT is the future of entertainment and that will impact sports.
The reason I post this is because we all know about the talk of the ACC Network, and that might end up partially OTT like MLBAM. That’s why I figured this was interesting to post.
LikeLike
I should add here that it’s not just MLB’s streaming rights there; NHL also merged their digital rights into that.
ACC would be interesting to roll into something like that as well… to give it a college sports addition to MLB and NHL video streaming. Just a thought.
LikeLike
And add further that its not MLB’s streaming rights we are talking about here, it is the streaming platform they developed. It makes a lot of sense for Disney to buy into that platform, since it’s the platform that WatchESPN uses. Letting someone else own that technology outright would not be prudent as ESPN delivered over the internet completes its shift from a value added bonus to subscribers to a core business operation.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16668618/brandon-bowen-granted-release-baylor-bears
Baylor just lost their 11th player from the 2016 class of 22 signees.
LikeLike
Click to access D1StandJune30.pdf
The Director’s Cup is done for the year.
1. Stanford
2. OSU
3. MI
4. USC
5. UF
6. UCLA
7. UNC
8. UVA
9. Texas
10. OR
18. MN
20. PSU
27. NE
27. WI
41. IN
45. PU
50. NW
53. MSU
54. IL
59. UMD
62. IA
83. RU
LikeLike
Freakin’ Rutgers. SMH
LikeLike
Well, this is a much better finish than last year at 104 or a few years ago at 120 (2013 I think).
Still, given nature of these things, it won’t be until 2020s that we really see whether they can use Big Ten money to make a sustained push towards a top 60-70 ranking annually, which is I think what we’d like to see from every Big Ten school.
That’s especially given resources available; given largess of Power 5 schools, they really should all be top 70-75 consistently.
LikeLike
Stop bemoaning, berating Rutgers. Look at the upside:
1. The first athletic conference in the US (world?) got one of the teams to play in the first American football game. (Toronto claims precedence.)
2. The B1G got a first class research university, to add to its collection.
3. Rutgers is a land grant school, a state flagship school and has tons of alumni, which drives TV ratings.
4. It gives the B1G an excuse for having Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin play in the NYC metropolitan area.
5. And most importantly, it gives Purdue (my alma mater) a decent chance of winning a football game, at least at home.
Its accession to the B1G almost certainly ends B1G expansion, unless Texas and/or ND become available. So enjoy your trips to New Brunswick. NYC is a short drive to the northeast. I hear there is stuff to do there and great pizza.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Stop bemoaning, berating Rutgers.”
I’m pretty sure Scarlet_Lutefisk was kidding.
“Look at the upside:
1. The first athletic conference in the US (world?) got one of the teams to play in the first American football game. (Toronto claims precedence.)”
It was nothing resembling football back then. It was rugby in Canada and mob soccer in the US. The rugby rules got blended into CFB in 1876. In 1880 Walter Camp started to introduce the rules that started to separate CFB as a different game – teams of 11 (it was 25 for the RU/Princeton games) and the line of scrimmage with a snap from the C to QB. In 1882 he added the important one – you had 3 downs to gain 5 yards. That’s the first time rugby and football really separated.
“2. The B1G got a first class research university, to add to its collection.”
Did we need another one? This might be a better argument if JHU ever joins the BTAA (aka CIC) since RU was needed to have enough lacrosse teams to entice JHU to join. RU fits in with the B10 in research but I don’t know that it improved anything overall.
“3. Rutgers is a land grant school, a state flagship school and has tons of alumni,”
I’m with you so far, but again this just says RU fits in the B10 on paper.
“which drives TV ratings.”
No, fans and quality athletic teams drive ratings. RU lacks both.
2015 audiences:
OSU/RU – 5.29M
WSU/RU – 0.461M
Norfolk St/RU – 0.097M
WSU/UW – 1.54M
WSU/CO – 0.489M
WSU/UCLA – 1.92M
“4. It gives the B1G an excuse for having Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin play in the NYC metropolitan area.”
Why is that an upside for the vast majority of their fans (those who don’t live in NYC)?
“Its accession to the B1G almost certainly ends B1G expansion, unless Texas and/or ND become available.”
1. Why is that automatically an upside?
2. Many people disagree about expansion being all but done, seeing UNC as another school worth it.
“So enjoy your trips to New Brunswick.”
No thanks.
“NYC is a short drive to the northeast.”
Drive? Are you crazy? Cab or train ride more likely.
“I hear there is stuff to do there and great pizza.”
Chicago-style is better.
LikeLike
Mostly kidding, but let’s be entirely honest….the Rutgers athletic department is a dumpster fire.
There are two real tangible long term benefits to adding the school.
1. Greater access to NYC media.
2. Acquisition of a populous state that is a fertile recruiting ground for both athletes & students (yay out of state tuition!).
For me personally there is a third benefit, the entertainment value of watching Rutgers fans alternately whine (“We brought NY, we should get more money now!”) & crow (“We are a sleeping giant, suck it UConn!”).
If you want some real fun find the article on Off Tackle Empire casting aspirations on the first football claim.
LikeLike
You guys are just jealous since RU played Princeton in football when both schools were more than 100 years old and most B1G schools were just being created.
LikeLike
Soccer, it’s called soccer in America.
LikeLike
Well, Purdue still gets to beat them, and that’s an upside for me.
PS. I thought Scarlet-Lutefisk (loving it) was kidding, too. You are way too serious about this stuff.
LikeLike
If you want really good pizza from a B1G newcomer, go to Ledo in College Park. It’s been a Maryland/D.C. tradition since 1955.
LikeLike
How could you “look at the upside” and neglect to mention that New Jersey is a decent football recruiting ground?
While it’s true that what Rutgers played against Princeton wasn’t soccer as such, as it wouldn’t have been Football Association rules, it would have been closer to soccer than to the rugby that American football evolved from.
LikeLike
They kicked a round ball into goals and touching the ball with hands was not allowed. It’s safe to say that wasn’t CFB.
LikeLike
I was agreeing that it wasn’t CFB or it’s ancestor (Rugby) … I was just pointing out that it wasn’t actually soccer, which was originally a 19th century English shorthand for Football Association rules as opposed to “rugger” for Rugby Union rules. The first game of what led to CFB would be Harvard against McGill in Rugby, which led to Harvard against Yale in Rugby, and then some of the adjustments to some of the egregious flaws in Rugby Union as a game started the process of developing American CFB.
LikeLike
This is an actual non-sarcastic question: why exactly is the Rutgers vs. Princeton game generally considered the first college football game, when it actually had almost no recognizable relation to football?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This is an actual non-sarcastic question: why exactly is the Rutgers vs. Princeton game generally considered the first college football game, when it actually had almost no recognizable relation to football?”
1. It was the first intercollegiate game in a sport that called itself “football.” It was basically soccer, though.
2. As far as I can tell, it was the first intercollegiate competition in anything in the football/soccer/rugby realm.
3. Soccer didn’t catch on as a major sport in the US while CFB did, so they follow the lineage from real football back to that game. College soccer fans also track back to that game and point out that it was more soccer than anything we’d recognize as football.
LikeLike
I wish the Director’s Cup would also give an average or normed score based on how many sports a school offers. Pretty sure Stanford and OSU offer the most sports, which is a huge factor in their high score.
I’d really like to see a weighted score, where the most popular sports are given a higher value. I don’t know if you’d use TV ratings or attendance or what, but it’d be fascinating to see. Ohio State would likely still be at the very top, as would Flordia, but I suspect the Pac-12 schools would take a serious hit.
LikeLike
singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,
“I wish the Director’s Cup would also give an average or normed score based on how many sports a school offers.”
Right now they cap the number of sports you can count (10 M and 10 W). That limits the advantage of having more sports somewhat while still rewarding diverse ADs. You shouldn’t keep that cap and then penalize the bigger ADs by normalization.
“Pretty sure Stanford and OSU offer the most sports, which is a huge factor in their high score.”
Most varsity teams:
42 – Harvard
39 – OSU
38 – Brown
36 – Cornell, Stanford
35 – Yale
34 – Dartmouth
31 – Princeton, Columbia
30 – Cal
“I’d really like to see a weighted score, where the most popular sports are given a higher value.”
That’s sounds like ESPN’s Director’s Cup ripoff (Cap 1 Cup).
http://www.capitalonecup.com/
Men’s:
1. Stanford
2. UNC
3. OSU
Women’s:
1. USC
2. Stanford
3. PSU
Combined:
1. Stanford
2. UNC
3. Syracuse
…
6. OSU
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/best-in-college-sports-oklahoma-beats-out-north-carolina-notre-dame-in-2015-16/
CBS has a version, too.
1. OU
2. UNC
3. ND
4. Stanford
5. OSU
LikeLike
I think FtT has taken to surfing and spam, tossed his computer, and become a fan of the Warriors. Aloha.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree cc, Frank is obviously having way too much fun.
LikeLike
He’ll know its time to leave when they start serving poi.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
Approaching 2,000 posts on this thread.
Need a new one just to speed up loading
Thanks
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16796265/lettermen-petition-penn-state-nittany-lions-return-joe-paterno-statue
Here’s a shock. PSU’s lettermen are again campaigning to get the JoePa statue (and other things) back. They also want PSU to apologize to Joe’s widow.
“Joe Paterno has been cast in a negative light,” the letter writer, former tight end/punter Brian Masella, told ESPN, “and we’re trying to correct that narrative. The university has ignored us over and over again.”
Here’s hoping they ignore them again, especially with that latest round of allegations coming out a few weeks/months ago.
Masella said the lettermen are not looking to compromise and would not be satisfied if the statue appeared elsewhere on campus, such as the All-Sports Museum inside the football stadium.
LikeLike
> Here’s hoping they ignore them again,
> especially with that latest round of
> allegations coming out a few
> weeks/months ago.
You still haven’t done your homework as I suggested, have you Brian? 🙂
Ganim’s source changed his story when thinking people realized that according to McCue’s version of events the kid was at most a 17-year-old minor when McCue (~35 at the time) and the kid were “good friend[s]”. 🙂
(For more context, see this post, noting the date:
http://www.scout.com/college/penn-state/forums/1395-audibles-board/13926002-psu-board-of-trustees-scandal-banter-12?page=21
This kind of story is not new.)
The Ganim story has many other holes, which I’ll be happy to point out if you’d like — you should have been able to spot them yourself, they’re right in the story — but doing a bit of your own homework would demonstrate at least a little integrity on your part, Brian.
BTW, do you know what the other (alleged) 1970’s victim’s lawyer said in May?
(You can’t make this stuff up, and the whole scandal saga is this way.)
> Here’s a shock. PSU’s lettermen are
> again campaigning to get the JoePa
> statue (and other things) back. They
> also want PSU to apologize to Joe’s
> widow.
Perhaps PSU’s lettermen are conversant with the known facts of the case and you aren’t? (There’s a shock.)
Keep watching, Brian! 😉
P.S. Have you been able to figure out yet “how the insurance company found these earlier allegations while others didn’t”? 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The university’s response is vague, and allows for all possibilities: “The University’s leadership has clearly indicated that there will be a time and place to acknowledge Coach Joe Paterno’s many contributions.”
I would not mind seeing the statue restored eventually, but I don’t see much chance of that until after every last case, both criminal and civil, is in the rear-view mirror.
LikeLike
It is sad that a school would want to honor a guy so egotistical that he refused to retire even after he was way, way, way past his prime – which manifested itself in on-field performance, among other things.
I have a friend, who is an alum of PSU, who still believes that JoePa could do no wrong, and any wrong that ever occurred in relation to the football program must have been done without his knowledge. I mean, really. Such deification of a football coach is disgusting. That Paterno (and his wife) reveled in it opened the door to the shame his family must now endure.
Carl, you can say whatever you want, but the fact remains that (at the very least) if Paterno had retired at an appropriate age, Sandusky’s escapades would almost certainly have not persisted at PSU for as long as they did.
LikeLike
> Carl, you can say whatever you want,
> but the fact remains that (at the very
> least) if Paterno had retired at an
> appropriate age, Sandusky’s
> escapades would almost certainly
> have not persisted at PSU for as
> long as they did.
Redwood86, as I’ve said many times, I believe Paterno should have retired earlier, despite the fact that from 2005 – 2011 his record was just behind Ohio State’s in the Big Ten.
But what do you mean when you say that Paterno’s not retiring helped Sandusky’s escapades to persist at PSU? (How long do you believe Sandusky’s escapades persisted at PSU?)
LikeLike
Bluevod just tweeted “expansion is on” about 30 mins ago…. Won’t go beyond that or even identify the Conference.
LikeLike
Bluevod was asked: “B1G10 or Big12?” and answered “could be both but Big10 striking first.” Then was asked “when and what schools?” and replied “all the same as before minus ND. Looks like they could go 2 to 4 instead of full 6.” He previously mentioned the desirable ACC teams, ND, and Texas as the six or so teams the B1G wanted and would be adding. Too fantastical, he’s basically the new PurpleBookCat.
The Dude actually may be on to something. A few days ago on his Facebook page he mentioned that the Big12 was fixing to settle the expansion issue, and hinted that it would be BYU at #11, with #12 to follow thereafter. Then today, Bowlsby comments that the Big12 will finally decide the expansion issue one way or another in the next two weeks.
LikeLike
When Bluevod is talking about expansion…he might be talking about his Twitter following. If it’s the B1G it’s a 60% chance of a half dozen schools (somewhere between 2-6) joining sometime in the next month to 10 years. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
I would venture to guess it is the B12 because they have called for the vote in about 2 weeks. I think they are extrapolating the B12 would not call the vote unless the outcome were already fairly well decided.
I still remain skeptical of any discussion that has Georgia Tech or Florida State to the B1G type discussions. While the Georgia rivalry is well known, Georgia Tech has strong scheduling histories across the SEC and between ticket sales and sports donors I do not see that changing. I was surprised how often Georgia Tech plays Auburn and Tennessee. It makes sense from a close distance perspective but gets lost in the rivalry with Georgia. With Florida State having to play 9 B1G games they will have to drop value games in Clemson, Florida, and Miami along with often played ACC and SEC teams. This seems improbable.
LikeLike
I still remain skeptical of any discussion that has Georgia Tech or Florida State to the B1G type discussions.
The only way I see it happening, is that UNC/UVA make the first move to detonate the ACC, due to the growing revenue gap. At that point, the remaining schools would make the best deal they could, which for GT and FSU would unquestionably be the Big Ten. But I can’t see that happening until the GOR is much closer to expiration.
Your post focused on the disadvantages to the schools. Beyond that, I don’t think the Big Ten wants a non-contiguous footprint. They’d be wary of FSU’s academic weaknesses, worried about the cultural fit. To the extent it would happen at all, it seems more likely as part of a UNC/UVA move, which preserves contiguity, and FSU would be coming with three solid AAU programs.
While the Georgia rivalry is well known, Georgia Tech has strong scheduling histories across the SEC and between ticket sales and sports donors I do not see that changing. I was surprised how often Georgia Tech plays Auburn and Tennessee.
Those games were years ago. GT hasn’t played Tennessee since 1987, nor Auburn since 2005. GT has a neutral-site game against the Vols next year, but no meetings after that. They have no future games scheduled with Auburn. Aside from their annual tilt with Georgia, the only SEC team on their long-term schedule is a H&H with Ole Miss in 2022–23. This is not due to any great rivalry with the Rebels, against whom they’ve played five regular-season games all-time.
It makes sense from a close distance perspective but gets lost in the rivalry with Georgia. With Florida State having to play 9 B1G games they will have to drop value games in Clemson, Florida, and Miami along with often played ACC and SEC teams. This seems improbable.
I have to think that any deal bringing GT/FSU to the Big Ten would include a provision that they would retain the annual game against their in-state rivals. FSU would lose Clemson and Miami as annual games, but that is no worse than plenty of other teams have suffered in the name of conference realignment.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“I still remain skeptical of any discussion that has Georgia Tech or Florida State to the B1G type discussions.”
So do I, but for very different reasons.
“While the Georgia rivalry is well known, Georgia Tech has strong scheduling histories across the SEC and between ticket sales and sports donors I do not see that changing. I was surprised how often Georgia Tech plays Auburn and Tennessee.”
GT was in the SEC and the Southern Conference before that, plus they are in the heart of SEC territory. Of course they played AU and TN a lot in the old days. But they also played Tulane a lot back in the old days and nobody would claim that’s a rivalry (played them more than TN).
GT regular season games vs SEC since 1992 (SEC expanded to 8 SEC games):
UGA – 24
Vandy – 3
AU, MS St – 2
GT regular season games vs SEC since 1983 (GT joined ACC):
UGA – 33
AU – 7
TN – 5
For comparison, they also played ND, WCU and Furman 5 times and Navy and BYU 4 each.
As for donors, GT’s AD is struggling financially right now. They have a 9.42% subsidy in their $75M budget. A few years ago they were considering cutting scholarships in some sports below the NCAA maximum to help make ends meet. If joining the B10 meant an extra $20M per year, they’d have to listen. Also, being an AAU school the BTAA would hold some appeal for them.
“With Florida State having to play 9 B1G games they will have to drop value games in Clemson, Florida, and Miami along with often played ACC and SEC teams. This seems improbable.”
FSU cares about Clemson because they’re good. They’d be just fine playing OSU or MI instead. Presumably they’d keep 1 rivalry (UF) and miss the other game (Miami). Maybe they’d trade those 2 series off.
They’d miss southern games in general, but presumably they’d come with at least 1 other southern ACC school.
LikeLike
I am still waiting for Bluevod to be right about anything expansion-related. As far as I know, the next time will be the first time.
It makes entertaining reading, but so does Harry Potter, and they have one thing in common: fantasy.
LikeLike
I’m waiting for him to pivot from talking about expansion to recruiting his growing Twitter following to the latest pyramid scheme.
LikeLike
“I’m waiting for him to pivot from talking about expansion to recruiting his growing Twitter following to the latest pyramid scheme.”
—Brilliant!
LikeLike
After reading his tweets about Michigan, I’m surprised the BIG just doesn’t cancel football for 2016 and award Michigan the title and be done with it. Giddy up. LOL
LikeLike
The one thing that Bluevod has been pretty specific about (perhaps unintentionally) is his source for the B1G expansion talk. Eric Barron – current PSU president, former FSU president and alumnus. A bold, but completely unverified connection. I don’t buy into it because the story absolutely would have leaked by now. This rumor has been on repeat for months now with not a peep expect for his twitter echo chamber. There are even folks there saying Texas Tech is now in the mix! Yes, you heard be right. Shark jumped.
LikeLike
The one thing that Bluevod has been pretty specific about (perhaps unintentionally) is his source for the B1G expansion talk. Eric Barron – current PSU president, former FSU president and alumnus. A bold, but completely unverified connection. I don’t buy into it because the story absolutely would have leaked by now.
Exactly. What are the odds that Eric Barron chooses Bluevod — and only Bluevod — as his conduit to leak expansion news?
Bear in mind, what Eric Barron knows about B1G expansion, many other senior leaders know. Either the league wants these rumors out there, in which case they’d be leaking to an actual journalist with a better platform than Bluevod’s twitter feed.
Or, they don’t want these rumors out there, in which case Eric Barron would quickly figure out which of his friends is squealing, and would stop sharing any new information.
LikeLike
Yep. And on the FSU side of things it’s absolute crickets. No way in hell that kind of chatter stays locked down in the deep south. FSU folks talk to much for that to ever happen.
LikeLike
More from the Dude:
– New deal with ESPN/Fox close. Expansion to 12 likely if it’s done.
– Deal would add $ to B12, extend TV deal & GoR. Do away with pro rata clause for 14.
– Ends up saving ESPN/Fox money in regards to B12 expansion to 14 with G5 schools.
– ESPN & Fox could add as much as $500M to the Big 12 contract. That would save $500M if pro rata clause for expansion eliminated.
– In return the pro rata clause is deleted from the contract, years are added & the GoR is extended. Secures Big 12 future as a power 5.
– current B12 contract has a clause that maintains payout no matter who is added. Expansion to 14 required ESPN/Fox to add $1 billion.
– ESPN/Fox didn’t want to add $1B for 4 G5 schools.
– My best guess is that BYU is #11. Col State, UC, UCF, UCONN & Memphis in running for #12. I don’t think UH is in the hunt.
– Looking at Bowlsby’s comments I think BYU may be basketball/football only addition.
– BYU has an automatic out with ESPN if invited to join the Big 12. Not an issue.
– Let me add that while I’m confident that BYU will be added that’s just my opinion. Nobody knows who/if an actual vote will occur 7/19.
– I haven’t had a single source confirm BYU. But BYU is the obvious choice. Logic says BYU. Metrics say BYU.
– What my sources do say is that a deal with ESPN/Fox is close that will open the door to expansion to 12 & shut the door on expansion to 14.
– I’m rooting for UH. ESPN/Fox could insist on UH. Best football program right now. Hopefully that happens.
– But I hear UH has failed with Abbott’s office & UT, TCU, Baylor & TT don’t want to elevate UH. Obviously scared.
– the question to ask is who will both Texas and Oklahoma agree to add? Dark horse is Colorado State.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. Certainly a lot more info to chew on there than anything else that’s been reported or tweeted. If true…it will likely end UT/OU to the B1G talk for the near future. That’s at least a start when sifting through all the expansion BS.
LikeLike
@TOM
He just posted that from 2 to 4 and ND not included. The guy sure knows how to swell his Twitter followers!
LikeLike
Correct. It’s because he got wind (via twitter) that the B12 might be adding two more schools to get to 12 and hearing the OU/UT aren’t going anywhere. So now he’s down to UVA/UNC/FSU and whoever. Next week he’ll have a new vague prediction.
LikeLike
I’m rooting for UH. ESPN/Fox could insist on UH. Best football program right now. Hopefully that happens.
(I couldn’t tell if this is you speaking or the Dude.)
There’s a real danger of following the latest big thing. Expansion is a 50-year decision, something you don’t do just because Tom Herman just had a 13-1 season.
LikeLike
I’d be shocked if UH gets in. They’re already overloaded with schools from the Lone Star State. No new market, no new recruiting turf, and another elevated threat right in their backyard.
LikeLike
All the bullet points in my Dude post were from the Dude’s twitter feed.
LikeLike
Yes I understood that. My response was to the Dude (obviously he didn’t hear it)!
LikeLike
Looking at Bowlsby’s comments I think BYU may be basketball/football only addition.
An easy way to tell he has no idea what he’s talking about is that basketball only affiliation is against NCAA rules.
LikeLike
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa-state/football/2016/07/05/big-12-conference-expansion-bob-bowlsby/86717604/
Everyone already knows Bowlsby talked about having a B12 vote on expansion 7/19.
He also talked divisions:
The Big 12 will have a championship football game in 2017, and presumably it will be between champions of two five-team divisions.
“That’s probably a better possibility than any other available option,” Bowlsby said during the 25-minute interview. “The good thing about that, is that we can do it with 10 teams, we can do it with 12 teams and we can do it with 14.”
There are many divisional concepts making the rounds, but Bowlsby talked primarily about one that makes the divisions as competitively equal as possible.
“We’ve actually looked at one equity model that would have the divisions configured on an every two-year basis,” Bowlsby said. “You have balance based upon place finish.”
That format would be based on Big 12 Conference standings over a two-season period. The team with the best conference record during that period would be placed in one division, and the team with the next-best two-year record placed in another.
Essentially, it would be first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth places on one side, and second, fourth, sixth, eighth and 10th in another.
The same divisions would be used two seasons – to preserve home-and-home scheduling. Cross-over games would be played as early during the season as possible.
“It is intriguing and it is unusual,” Bowlsby said. “It’s actually developed in concept by (ISU athletics director) Jamie Pollard.
“We just need to model it enough times so we can ensure that it’s going to do what we want it to do.
“We’re looking at other traditional models as well.”
If you wanted balance, wouldn’t you use a snake model (1, 4, 5, 8, 9 vs 2, 3, 6, 7, 10) rather than evens versus odds?
Snake average rank per division: 5.4 / 5.6
Odds vs Evens average ranks: 5.0 / 6.0
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oklahoma-ad-says-big-12-expansion-is-dead-for-the-time-being/
Meanwhile, OU’s AD says expansion is dead for now.
Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione told CBS Sports the concept of the league growing beyond 10 teams has ended “for the time being.”
“There aren’t any signs that we’ll talk anymore about expansion for a little while,” Castiglione added. “We don’t have a timeline on it.”
…
Castiglione is one of two high-placed sources to tell CBS Sports Big 12 expansion is over. The other source, who preferred to remain anonymous, said expansion was dead regarding “those teams.”
LikeLike
Meanwhile, OU’s AD says expansion is dead for now.
I guess he doesn’t believe the Dude of WV’s latest tweet storm.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/16809872/university-tennessee-reaches-financial-settlement-lawsuit-regarding-school-handling-sexual-assault-cases
TN has settled their Title IX lawsuit with 8 women for $2.48M.
According to a UT release, the settlement agreement specifically provides that the university is not admitting guilt, negligence or unlawful acts. UT officials said they have already spent $220,000 litigating the case and estimated that it would cost another $5.5 million if the case ended in trial.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/16827096/syracuse-orange-hire-espn-executive-john-wildhack-next-athletic-director
Syracuse has hired a longtime ESPN executive to be their new AD. He’s an alumnus and obviously has lots of media experience but has no history in athletics administration.
Most recently at ESPN, Wildhack oversaw all production efforts at the network, in addition to programming acquisitions and scheduling. He managed all league and conference relationships and negotiated all live television rights, including the NBA, SEC, College Football Playoff, ACC and many more.
That experience would seem more helpful if he worked for the conference rather than a school.
LikeLike
That experience would seem more helpful if he worked for the conference rather than a school.
In addition, their conference is locked in to their current media deal for anther ten years.
LikeLike
There is a thread on the csnbbs realignment board about it that made me laugh. A Syracuse fan crowing a bit because now the ACC has someone who knows TV better than Delaney. lol
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/06/29/larry-scott-pac-12-non-expansion-night-football-games-staff-salaries/
Part 4 of the Wilner/Scott interview series – miscellaneous other topics.
*** Expansion.
…
Although there has been no indication the Pac-12 is considering a membership change – nor are there any good available options, as we’ve discussed previously — I broached the topic. (Can’t hurt to get Scott on the record, right?)
“We have no desire to expand,’’ he said.
…
Does he envision another wave of Power Five consolidation when several Tier 1 deals wind down early in the middle of the next decade?
“I don’t think there has to be more conference consolidation,’’ he said. “I like the current construct. We’ll see what the landscape is like when we approach the deals.’’
*** On the media rights landscape.
“I’m very bullish on the value of college sports rights,’’ he said. “They keep going up even though the bundle is shrinking. Big events are more coveted. That’s why we put such a value on all the Pac-12 content.”
*** Conference expenses.
The salaries of senior Pac-12 conference and network employees received some attention when the 990s were released last month.
As noted here, nine Pac-12 employees (excluding Scott) earned more than the second-highest paid employee at the SEC, which is generating approximately $100 million more in annual revenue.
…
“We’re the only conference that has a network staff,” he said. “No one sees the compensation of other network executives (i.e., Big Ten and SEC networks), but we do.
“We conduct surveys for the highest level employees and use compensation consultants to make sure our (salaries) are within the industry norm. I’m completely satisfied that everything is reasonably within the norms.’’
*** Night games.
The conference announced last month a reduction in the number of night football games in 2016:
As many as four Pac-12 Networks telecasts that would have been slotted for 7 p.m. (or later) will instead start at either 2:30 or 6 p.m.
…
It shows the conference is listening to the frustrated fans and campuses, and it requires the Pac12Nets to broadcast during the ESPN/Fox exclusive national windows (4 and 5 p.m.).
The change — the give-in on the exclusive windows — was not initiated with a snap of the fingers.
“That was an 18-month negotiation (with ESPN and Fox) for four live broadcasts,’’ Scott said. “ESPN and Fox weren’t willing to have fewer night games, but they’re allowing us to encroach on their exclusive windows in exchange for some non-financial considerations in other areas.
“We know it’s important to fans and schools. Within the parameters of the TV agreement, we’ve done all that’s possible to mitigate some of the friction.”
It took 18 months to trade non-financial considerations for getting 4 overlapping game windows?
LikeLike
From The Dude’s Facebook blog:
Take this for what it’s worth. I was told this morning that Boren has quietly reeled in Joe C.’s expansion comments. A decision on expansion will be made – and it won’t be to table the discussion – it’s not as simple as a yes or no vote to expand. It’s a question of intent given the negotiations with ESPN/Fox. Assuming that deal is close to being done and expansion to 12 is revenue neutral given the new deal than 12 is a certainty.
The consensus is that if expansion is viable then a vote on BYU is likely.
They will not vote or nominate anyone for #12. They plan to keep the vote on BYU as secret as possible – if it occurs.
Why? To see how interested FSU actually is after the new deal is announced or if any other P5 school shows interest.
Texas and the block that votes with Texas will not vote for UC, Memphis or UH. That’s confirmed via multiple sources.
I still believe, when it’s all said and done, it’s BYU and Colorado State.
One more thing. My contact at the Big 12, whose boss is Bowlsby directly, says that all 10 presidents and chancellors are not going to hoof it to the Big 12 media days to kick the expansion can down the road. A decision will be made based on what ESPN/Fox are offering.
LikeLike
I still dont see FSU interested, unless they and a +1 like Clemson would be, which would force a decision as to the veracity of the offer to BYU (not unlike a professional team threatening to move to a different city to get a stadium deal in their existing market or waiting for an even better deal in a more lucrative market).
Would a lesser P5 like Georgia Tech (also a +1 with FSU), or even a remorseful Mizzou consider being #12 along with BYU and would that be a suitable get for the B12 to even bother? I just think CSU wont cut it outside of being a contiguous state and a natural rival to BYU and perhaps TT/KSU due to geography.
LikeLike
I still dont see FSU interested, unless they and a +1 like Clemson would be, which would force a decision as to the veracity of the offer to BYU (not unlike a professional team threatening to move to a different city to get a stadium deal in their existing market or waiting for an even better deal in a more lucrative market).
The only way I can see FSU being interested, is if the ACC collapses, and no B1G offer is forthcoming.
Would a lesser P5 like Georgia Tech (also a +1 with FSU), or even a remorseful Mizzou consider being #12 along with BYU and would that be a suitable get for the B12 to even bother?
What does Mizzou have to be remorseful about? Nobody is leaving the SEC to join the B12.
To GT, the B12 would be the buyer of last resort, if all other options were foreclosed. Otherwise, it isn’t happening.
I just think CSU wont cut it outside of being a contiguous state and a natural rival to BYU and perhaps TT/KSU due to geography.
That, I think, is a pretty good summary of the argument that is going on in the B12. Do you expand with the best two schools available now, or do you wait for better schools to possibly be available in the 2020s? And if you do expand now, which schools exactly are the best two?
From what I have read, it seems a majority of the B12 favor expansion now, in some form, but not the super-majority that would be required to approve it. One of the arguments against, is that there really aren’t two obviously compelling candidates.
LikeLike
As a Texas fan, my hope is that the blue bloods of the Big12 and ACC realize that the only way they will ever compete with the SEC and B1G is if they wait until the GOR’s run out in the mid 2020’s and then take the best of each conference and form a new conference.
A Big 16 with a west division composed of the eight best Big 12 teams with kings Texas and OU, and a an east division composed of the eight best SEC teams with king FSU and princes Clemson and Miami would seem to be close in strength (as far as markets, footprint, large fan bases, historical performance, etc.) to the SEC and B1G.
LikeLike
Christian in Wylie,
“As a Texas fan, my hope is that the blue bloods of the Big12 and ACC realize that the only way they will ever compete with the SEC and B1G is if they wait until the GOR’s run out in the mid 2020’s and then take the best of each conference and form a new conference.”
This seems highly unlikely to me. I just have a hard time picturing all these presidents agreeing to stab their long time colleagues in the back all at once and leave so many old rivals behind. Who are theses schools willing to leave behind?
“A Big 16 with a west division composed of the eight best Big 12 teams with kings Texas and OU, and a an east division composed of the eight best SEC teams with king FSU and princes Clemson and Miami would seem to be close in strength (as far as markets, footprint, large fan bases, historical performance, etc.) to the SEC and B1G.”
16 seems too big for this.
Yes:
ACC – FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, Duke (for MBB)
B12 – UT, OU, KU (for MBB)
Maybe:
ACC – GT (for Atlanta), UL (solid in both sports), NCSU (UNC’s demand)
B12 – TT (UT’s demand), WV (solid in both sports), TCU (in TX, good in CFB lately)
No:
ACC – BC, Pitt, SU, UVA, WF
B12 – ISU, KSU, OkSU, Baylor
Top 14:
E – FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, Duke, NCSU, GT
W – UT, OU, KU, TT, WV, UL, TCU?
That assumes KSU and OkSU can be left behind. If you go to 16 then UVA probably makes it as well as OkSU or Baylor.
LikeLike
Baylor? I think they’ve passed ISU for first left out.
LikeLike
Brian, a more realistic scenario than mine, and the speculation/fantasy circulating in Texas circles is that it goes down like this:
– The SEC and B1G first take what they want, which takes UNC and UVA off the board, and probably also Duke or GT or VaTech. Let’s say UNC/Duke to SEC, and UVA/GT to B1G.
– It would be most helpful if a Big12 member would voluntarily leave (Tech or TCU to Pac12, or maybe Baylor gets booted if the PH findings ever come to light; none of these are very likely). However, if that doesn’t happen, then WVU and TCU go to the Big16 east. Makes sense for WVU to be with the ACC teams, and TCU gets moved because they were the last in. Plus, ACC teams probably would like a Texas team in their division.
– So, you have the eight remaining members of the original Big 12 in the West: Texas, OU, Tech, Baylor, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU.
– You have an East division of: FSU, Miami, Clemson, VaTech, Pitt, WVU, TCU, and one more.
– You first ask Notre Dame if they want to be the final team in the East division. When they say no, you figure out which of Louisville and NCSU you want to invite.
– Syracuse, BC, Wake, and either Louisville or NCSU are out in the cold. The old ACC members probably don’t feel too sorry for old Big East members Cuse, BC, and UL. And although they feel sorry for WF, they all agree they don’t really belong in big-time conference athletics, anyway. I think kicking these four to the curb is more politically realistic than any of the current Big 12 teams being left out. OU/OSU/KU will stick up for old Big 8 buddies ISU and KSU, and don’t even think about leaving out a Texas team, Texas legislature won’t let that happen.
– Clemson probably feels weird being in a conference without any of their old-time ACC buddies.
– Play round robin in division, play two in other division and rotate so you see each team every four years. Builds some conference camaraderie, but unlikely to have conference championship rematch.
LikeLike
Christian – My fantasy scenario as the CFB czar goes like this:
Texas, TX Tech, Oklahoma & OK State to the Pac-12, now P-16. Div A – UW, WSU, Ore, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, USC & UCLA; Div B – ArSU, Ariz, Utah, Col, Texas, TX Tech, Okla & OK State.
North Carolina and Duke (or NC State) to the SEC East, with Mizzou moving to the SEC West
Virginia and VA Tech to the B1G East, with Indiana moving to the B1G West.
That leaves the remaining 6 B-12 and 10 ACC schools left to form the Big Atlantic Conference (BAC), with Notre Dame as a non-football member that plays 6 games (3 in each division) each season.
You have four 16-school conferences (Power 4).
All play 9 game conference schedules with round robin in division and two OOD games.
Require all teams to play at least one more Power 4 OOC game.
The B1G and the SEC share no territory. As I’ve stated for years, I really don’t the PTB in the B1G really want to share a southern state with the SEC. Even though it may be better for the BTN and the SECN to share states, it’s better for the the conferences, as a whole, to own states, especially for the B1G if it moves south.
Most states are only in one conference with the exception of Texas (SEC, P-16 & BAC), Florida (SEC & BAC), North Carolina (SEC & BAC), South Carolina (SEC & BAC), Georgia (SEC & BAC), Kentucky (SEC & BAC), Iowa (B1G & BAC), and Pennsylvania (B1G & BAC).
LikeLike
Christian in Wylie,
“– The SEC and B1G first take what they want, which takes UNC and UVA off the board, and probably also Duke or GT or VaTech. Let’s say UNC/Duke to SEC, and UVA/GT to B1G.”
I doubt the SEC would double up in NC Unless they had to. If they did, I’m not convinced the B10 would jump to GT (but they might). UNC might demand NCSU rather than Duke, too.
“– It would be most helpful if a Big12 member would voluntarily leave (Tech or TCU to Pac12, or maybe Baylor gets booted if the PH findings ever come to light; none of these are very likely).”
The P12 doesn’t want anyone without UT coming along too and Baylor won’t get booted. They could get left behind, but not booted.
“However, if that doesn’t happen, then WVU and TCU go to the Big16 east. Makes sense for WVU to be with the ACC teams, and TCU gets moved because they were the last in.”
I’m not convinced TCU would accept that. That’s 3-4 games in the east every season in CFB and a ton of games for all the other sports. That’s a lot of money to spend and get very few games nearby.
“Plus, ACC teams probably would like a Texas team in their division.”
Only if it’s the Longhorns. Nobody in the east cares about TT, TCU or Baylor and the ACC doesn’t need TX for recruiting.
“– So, you have the eight remaining members of the original Big 12 in the West: Texas, OU, Tech, Baylor, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU.”
Why would you possibly keep ISU? Or both TT and Baylor? And why would ACC teams agree to merge into this seeing what UT did to the old Big 8 schools?
“– You first ask Notre Dame if they want to be the final team in the East division. When they say no, you figure out which of Louisville and NCSU you want to invite.”
NCSU if they’re available since NC is much bigger than KY.
“– Syracuse, BC, Wake, and either Louisville or NCSU are out in the cold. … I think kicking these four to the curb is more politically realistic than any of the current Big 12 teams being left out.”
To a UT fan, sure. To the ACC schools? I doubt they are willing to see the B12 keep everyone and only take 5 of 14 ACC schools with 1 of those 5 being brand new. They see themselves as peers of the B12 and would expect a 50-50 split at worst, perhaps 7-5 based on the sizes of the conferences.
“OU/OSU/KU will stick up for old Big 8 buddies ISU and KSU, and don’t even think about leaving out a Texas team, Texas legislature won’t let that happen.”
Are they in session? Why would they protect Baylor or TCU (TT has many more alumni and is a state school)? And why would all those schools volunteer to lose money by keeping the States (ISU, OkSU, KSU) rather than splitting more money among fewer schools?
“– Clemson probably feels weird being in a conference without any of their old-time ACC buddies.”
Meh. GT is probably the one they’d miss the most, and that’s proximity more than anything else.
LikeLike
Brian
I just have a hard time picturing all these presidents agreeing to stab their long time colleagues in the back all at once and leave so many old rivals behind. Who are theses schools willing to leave behind?
I don’t think the plan is all that likely, but loyalty seems pretty low on the reasons why. We have seen enough cases in recent years to know that schools have no problems stabbing long time partners and rivals in the back. UNL, A&M, Mizzou, Maryland and West Virginia all were willing to relegate long time rivals to midmajor purgatory with A&M, Missouri and WVu all doing so after having already pledged to stick with their old conferences. Hell, Pitt successfully lobbied the Big East to turn down ESPN’s contract offer while they were actively in secret discussions to join the ACC.
Also, Oklahoma is far more likely to insist on bringing along OSU than UT is TTU.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Christian – My fantasy scenario as the CFB czar goes like this:
Texas, TX Tech, Oklahoma & OK State to the Pac-12, now P-16. Div A – UW, WSU, Ore, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, USC & UCLA; Div B – ArSU, Ariz, Utah, Col, Texas, TX Tech, Okla & OK State.
North Carolina and Duke (or NC State) to the SEC East, with Mizzou moving to the SEC West
Virginia and VA Tech to the B1G East, with Indiana moving to the B1G West.
That leaves the remaining 6 B-12 and 10 ACC schools left to form the Big Atlantic Conference (BAC), with Notre Dame as a non-football member that plays 6 games (3 in each division) each season.
You have four 16-school conferences (Power 4).
All play 9 game conference schedules with round robin in division and two OOD games.
Require all teams to play at least one more Power 4 OOC game.”
It’s a neat and tidy solution, which of course means it’ll never happen.
Nitpicks:
1. Your B10 suggestion makes geographical sense but worsens the balance problem:
WI, NE, IA vs OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, VT
I think they’d need to consider moving MSU to the West and locking MSU/MI (normally an October game).
2. I’m not sure the P12 wants that group of 4. I think it’d make sense, but the academics of OkSU and TT may scare them off.
“The B1G and the SEC share no territory. As I’ve stated for years, I really don’t the PTB in the B1G really want to share a southern state with the SEC. Even though it may be better for the BTN and the SECN to share states, it’s better for the the conferences, as a whole, to own states, especially for the B1G if it moves south.”
I agree that VA/NC could be a natural boundary as the DC/NoVA influence continues to grow in VA since that’s where the population growth is.
“Most states are only in one conference with the exception of Texas (SEC, P-16 & BAC), Florida (SEC & BAC), North Carolina (SEC & BAC), South Carolina (SEC & BAC), Georgia (SEC & BAC), Kentucky (SEC & BAC), Iowa (B1G & BAC), and Pennsylvania (B1G & BAC).”
Basically what we have now except for NC being split and TX being split 3 ways.
LikeLike
frug,
“We have seen enough cases in recent years to know that schools have no problems stabbing long time partners and rivals in the back.”
I disagree. The only scenario that really matches this one at all was the Big 8 expanding into the B12. The Big 8 left nobody behind and that meant there were only 4 spots left for SWC schools. UT and TAMU were obvious choices, leaving TT, TCU, Baylor, UH, Rice and SMU to fill 2 spots. SMU was a mess. UH and Rice were in the same market as TAMU and thus redundant. TT was large and farther away from UT and TAMU and had the political clout of a large state school. Baylor was bigger than TCU and had the political clout to force their way in. I odn’t know if any other group of 4 from the SWWC would have been accepted by the Big 8.
“UNL, A&M, Mizzou, Maryland and West Virginia all were willing to relegate long time rivals to midmajor purgatory with A&M, Missouri and WVu all doing so after having already pledged to stick with their old conferences.”
NE and MO saw a conference in crisis and looked for the best lifeboat. CO left because they’d long wanted to be with the P10. TAMU likewise had long wanted to be in the SEC (they were forced to join the B12 instead of going straight to the SEC in the 90s), plus they were only leaving 3 old foes behind and had already lost 5 others.
That’s not stabbing someone in the back to me. Dissolving your conference so you can reform without them is.
“Hell, Pitt successfully lobbied the Big East to turn down ESPN’s contract offer while they were actively in secret discussions to join the ACC.”
It takes a lot of votes to turn down a TV deal. Apparently many in the BE thought they could do better. It’s not like Pitt was a linchpin school or some sort of blue blood.
“Also, Oklahoma is far more likely to insist on bringing along OSU than UT is TTU.”
But UT is far more likely to get their way since they bring TX and OU brings OK. If UT is willing to go without OU, OU loses all leverage.
LikeLike
Alan, I mostly like your scenario, but I can say that the majority of Texas fans would rank the Pac12 as their least favorable option. Give me an improved Big 12, B1G West, and SEC, in that order.
Brian, since my scenario begins with the SEC and B1G raiding the ACC, I then suppose that the Big12 has more leverage than FSU and company.
I personally consider ISU more valuable than BC and WF; they at least have a larger fan base than those two, and have decent academics. And Texas would prefer to keep Baylor and TCU. The States may not be great, but they will be protected to a point by Texas, OU, and KU. Who’s going to stick their neck out for Syracuse and BC?
LikeLike
Thinking the B1G and SEC cherry pick the best schools is wishful thinking when the dust settles. Instead I will return to what I proposed early on in this blog. Realignment in the 1990 and again in 2010 was really about who could land Texas and Notre Dame. Back then I suggested neither would ever join a conference where they were not the lead dog and I still feel that way today. I might throw in Oklahoma and North Carolina right behind them and Florida State and Virginia probably are the top 6 on every poster out their on their wish list.
I think in 2010 or 2011 I suggested instead the TD conference with Texas anchoring 1 half and Notre Dame occupying the other. As I was also the one saying back then it would not surprise me to see Notre Dame in the ACC before they ever would find a home in the B1G. Not to say I was brilliant back then, just studied each team from their point of view instead of what was best for the B1G. If Texas went to the B1G or SEC they would always be the new kid to established programs like Ohio State + Michigan and Alabama + Tennessee. Same for the Notre Dame except I just can not see them in the SEC. As least I give Texas a single digit percentage to move to join their former in state rival.
Look at these 6 schools and I really think they all have issues
Texas – everybody wants them but they will always want a lead dog spot
Notre Dame – B1G wants them but they would lose all identity being locked in the B1G
Oklahoma – solid program becomes another secondary school in B1G or SEC
North Carolina – too used to running the show for so long to give that up now
Virginia – where the Tars Heels go, the Hoos will be their partner
Florida State – needs what they have in the ACC to survive. In the B1G they would lose fans who are not excited by B1G football and in the SEC they will lose their edge to compete with Florida. All these scenarios moving Florida State to the B1G and SEC just seem like wishful thinking by B1G and SEC fans
Now lets say Texas and Notre Dame form the TD conference
Notre Dame Division
Notre Dame
North Carolina
Florida State
Texas Division
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Keep filling the conference till you get to 12, 14, or 16 members. After that, the B1G, PAC, and SEC backfill with some of the secondaries until they reach 12 to 16 teams.
If Texas and Notre Dame did not join an established conference in 1990 or 2010, I will lay odds they will not do it now just because fans of other schools want them to.
LikeLike
Brian:
“2. I’m not sure the P12 wants that group of 4. I think it’d make sense, but the academics of OkSU and TT may scare them off.”
Not saying things might not have changed, but those teams were included in the 2010 P16 proposal.
I too like Alan’s setup, but share the concern that what makes most sense rarely happens.
LikeLike
Duffman:
“Keep filling the conference till you get to 12, 14, or 16 members. After that, the B1G, PAC, and SEC backfill with some of the secondaries until they reach 12 to 16 teams.”
Exactly why would B1G, PAC, or SEC backfill? They’re all at 12+ now and the PAC supposedly turned down a OU/OkSU combination in ’11.
LikeLike
Christian in Wylie,
“Brian, since my scenario begins with the SEC and B1G raiding the ACC, I then suppose that the Big12 has more leverage than FSU and company.”
I understand. But even with those 4 gone (UVA, UNC, Duke/NCSU, GT), I don’t think the B12 has more leverage necessarily. The ACC would still have FSU, Clemson, NCSU/Duke and VT plus the northern schools. The B12 is stronger at the top (UT and OU), but drops off quickly in terms of power (ISU, KSU, OkSU, TCU, Baylor and TT have no power that UT/OU/KU don’t give them). I think the ACC schools would demand to be treated as equals. The sticking point would probably be WV because the B12 schools would want it to take an eastern spot from an ACC school (and the ACC has never wanted WV). That would only work if they stayed small so that WV was a fitting member.
W – UT, OU, KU, TT, OkSU, TCU/Baylor (whichever UT prefers)
E – FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU/Duke (whichever is left), WV, UL/Pitt
“I personally consider ISU more valuable than BC and WF; they at least have a larger fan base than those two, and have decent academics.”
They all have essentially zero value, frankly. Whichever is winning slightly more at that moment probably has the most value.
“And Texas would prefer to keep Baylor and TCU.”
UT can’t always get everything it wants. All the other new members would have equal votes and none of the eastern schools are beholden to UT.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Not saying things might not have changed, but those teams were included in the 2010 P16 proposal.”
They were, and it was rejected by the schools. Supposedly OU/OkSU was rejected by the P12. I know UT sweetens the deal, but the P12 is full of academics snobs and they don’t seem overly concerned about where they are in revenue. I’m not sure they’d approve the P16 offer now, especially after being rejected once.
LikeLike
Brian:
“They were, and it was rejected by the schools.”
UT rejected. The others were packing their bags.
“I know UT sweetens the deal,”
UT was/is the deal.
“but the P12 is full of academics snobs and they don’t seem overly concerned about where they are in revenue.”
Short term, apparently.
“I’m not sure they’d approve the P16 offer now, especially after being rejected once.”
That’s the question. Certainly not without satisfying the original offer’s terms.
LikeLike
The challenge with such scenarios, is that it’s hard to predict how even one domino will fall. Therefore, predicting the third or fourth domino — when each is contingent on the previous one falling a certain way — is almost impossible.
In my view, every scenario involves the B12, ACC, or both, falling so far behind financially, that their more valuable schools decide to take the best deal available. Every believable deal involves some combination of:
1) UNC/UVA moving to the Big Ten
2) UNC/UVA moving to the SEC
3) Texas/Oklahoma moving to the Pac
4) Texas/Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten
5) Texas/Oklahoma moving to the SEC
I’m reasonably sure that the Big Ten or SEC would take UNC/UVA tomorrow, if they were available. So that’s a trigger that the two ACC keystone schools can pull, basically, whenever they want.
We also know that the Pac was willing to take four B12 schools, but UT would’ve had to give up the LHN, which at the time UT didn’t want to do. By the 2020s, it will be clear to UT whether the LHN is valuable enough to be worth saving. UT would surely have to give up the LHN to join the Big Ten or SEC.
What happens next, depends on whether the B10 or SEC stops at two schools, or keeps feasting on the carcass of whichever conference they’ve poached, until all the edible morsels have been gobbled up.
I absolutely could envision a scenario where UNC/UVA decamp to the SEC or B10, and those leagues don’t want Florida State. In that case, a merger of the “best of the rest,” as Christian in Wylie has described, could very well happen. That new entity would probably call itself either the ACC or B12, depending on which surviving league had the more desirable brand name.
I do not see Notre Dame giving up its football independence, unless it loses its media deal, or there is a rules change that limits their playoff access. I don’t see either of those things happening.
“We have seen enough cases in recent years to know that schools have no problems stabbing long time partners and rivals in the back.”
I disagree. The only scenario that really matches this one at all was the Big 8 expanding into the B12. The Big 8 left nobody behind and that meant there were only 4 spots left for SWC schools.
The formation of the B12 was a unique situation. But the Big East, a BCS league at the time, kicked out Temple. And eventually, the Big East lost top-tier status because its best members kept jumping ship. You could say that the Big East lost fell out of the P5, not by a single stab to the heart, but from multiple smaller stab wounds.
And although the Big 12 survives for now as a power league, there’s no question it’s weaker without Missouri, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Colorado. It could be on its way to the same fate as befell the Big East; we just don’t know yet.
Having said that, I don’t consider it “stabbing your partner in the back,” to end one business arrangement and begin another that is more lucrative. It’s not as if Texas has made a commitment in perpetuity to keep Iowa State in its company. No one should expect such an arrangement to be permanent, if a far better one come along.
LikeLike
Marc:
Agree completely, with but one slight difference. It’s the value ESPN sees in the LHN as a realignment impediment (as long as UT continues to feel it is prestigious to have) that matters. Single school channel simply doesn’t have near enough inventory, which was known before launch. Barring a fundamental change in philosophy in Austin the LHN decision will be ESPN’s.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“UT rejected. The others were packing their bags.”
All that matters is that the P12 was rejected by the schools.
“UT was/is the deal.”
Yes, but the cost to get UT (TT, OkSU) may be too high.
“Short term, apparently.”
Wouldn’t this move still be considered fairly short term? And how much of a bump would this move bring per school once you dilute the value of UT and OU with TT and OkSU and spread the gain over 16 schools? Would it even be $5M per school per year? How large does it need to be to make it worth the travel and dealing with UT?
LikeLike
ccrider55 says:
July 8, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Duffman:
Exactly why would B1G, PAC, or SEC backfill? They’re all at 12+ now and the PAC supposedly turned down a OU/OkSU combination in ’11.
Look at realignment in 1990, yet nobody got Texas or Notre Dame
Look at realignment in 2010, yet nobody got Texas or Notre Dame
Now maybe I am way off base, but I think it has as much to do with each schools identity / ego as anything else. Why would Texas or Notre Dame want to be be second citizen to Ohio State + Michigan or Alabama + Tennessee or Southern California + UCLA? Sure, folks from these conferences post how they will win them over but I think they are not looking at it from the acquired school view.
Look at the last additions to the B1G, PAC, and SEC
B1G got Rutgers and Maryland
PAC got Colorado and Utah
SEC got Texas A&M and Missouri
Nebraska got the B1G to a CCG, so they are a bit different, but long term the Cornhuskers will play 2nd fiddle to Ohio State and Michigan. While I am personally damn happy to see Nebraska in the B1G they have moved from King in the Big Eight to Prince in the B1G. Still a demotion in football for the gains in academics. A trade Nebraska made and would probably make agin today so no regrets.
.
…
.
Now back to Texas and Notre Dame – probably North Carolina and Oklahoma too – and them ever becoming a Prince in a kingdom no longer their own. Also, while Larry Scott did not swing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in 2011, the dismal performance of the PTN may make that denial yesterdays news. PAC needs passionate sport fans and they get that with the OK schools. The issue with the PAC is geography, but that sword cuts both ways. They are insulated from poaching from the east but, have very limited choices of schools to add in the west. OU + OSU looks pretty good if your next choice is Nevada, Las Vegas and Nevada, Reno.
Basically any King or high level Prince not currently in the B1G, PAC, or SEC can do better by creating a kingdom they control that can compete head on with these 3 conferences than to join them. If this happens these schools can have real voices in a new conference.
Kings = #2 Texas + NR Notre Dame + #8 Oklahoma + #23 North Carolina
Kings = #13 Florida State + #28 Kansas + #42 Georgia Tech + #29 Virginia
8 different states, 4 CFB elite, 2 CBB elite, 5 AAU, and 2 for ATL and VA markets
.
…
.
Pretty sure out of the gate that would exceed the current deals for the ACC, B12, and PAC as a single conference market. You can cherry pick the next 8 from the best of the schools not in the B1G, PAC, and SEC as they will have more voice from the start than being another cog in said kingdoms.
Using the USA Today spots revenue article here are the choices for the next 8
#22 Louisville, 104 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#26 Oklahoma State, 96 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe PAC
#31 West Virginia, 91 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#39 Clemson, 84 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe SEC
#40 Virginia Tech, 80 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe SEC
#41 Texas Tech, 80 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe PAC
#43 NC State, 77 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe SEC
#46 Kansas State, 75 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#47 Iowa State, 75 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe PAC
#48 Connecticut, 72 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#54 Cincinnati, 53 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#62 Houston, 45 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
All of these are in the Top 64 (making for four 16 team conferences)
In addition you have other options
Priority I private schools in BYU, Duke, Miami and Pittsburgh
Priority II private schools in Boston College, Syracuse, Baylor, and TCU
Priority III private schools in Rice, Tulane, and Wake Forest
Service academies package (national coverage) in Army, Navy, and Air Force
G5’s in Top 64 in #55 UCF, #57 SDSU, #58 ECU, #59 USF, #60 UNLV
(OUT #61 JMU, #63 ODU, #64 Boise State, #65 Memphis, #66 NM, and #67 HI)
The new conference can cherry pick the best 8 and there are still some solid additions the Big 3 can make to get to 16
B1G could add Cincinnati and Pittsburgh for second schools in B1G states
SEC could add NC State and Virginia Tech
PAC could add Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Houston
(the bigger point being, none of the Big 3 get any of the core 8, and make do)
All kinds of combinations if a 4th power conference emerges and those teams are no longer in play. The B1G and SEC are the oldest and most stable conferences and the PAC has geography on their side. The ACC, B12, and everybody else has much less history so less barriers to moving and forming this new King and Price conference if they feel they would have more power for their school in said conference. Especially if this conference let the individual schools have more autonomy and keep their bottom end media deals like the LHN, SSTV, and KUTV. Florida State can keep their FSS deal and Irish can keep their NBC deal.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Wouldn’t this move still be considered fairly short term?”
That would depend on when it might happen? I don’t see anything until nearing GOR expiration, and more importantly nothing involving UT until ’31 when LHN deal expires. Unless there actually is an early out, and that ESPN would choose to exercise it.
LikeLike
Duffman:
I agree with a fair amount of your analysis but see no reason for B1G, PAC, or SEC to add teams that they could get at the drop of a hat (post GOR). It’s not backfilling if you aren’t replacing something you lost, and no one’s leaving those conferences. The TD conference would just create a bunch of left outs.
LikeLike
ccrider55 says:
July 9, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Duffman:
I agree with a fair amount of your analysis but see no reason for B1G, PAC, or SEC to add teams that they could get at the drop of a hat (post GOR). It’s not backfilling if you aren’t replacing something you lost, and no one’s leaving those conferences. The TD conference would just create a bunch of left outs.
Lets go conference by conference and review.
.
…
.
SEC is easiest so I will do them first
TD locks out UNC, UVA, and Duke (they all join the TD) and when the dust settles NC State and Virginia Tech are still available. Do you think the SEC walks away from getting a foothold in NC and VA even if they have to take the little brother to do it? They already did it with South Carolina and it worked out well so I can see them doing it again. in addition you add the crossover games to the current ESPN inventory of such games
Georgia Tech vs Georgia becomes TD vs SEC, no change
Clemson vs South Carolina becomes TD vs SEC, no change
Florida State vs Florida becomes TD vs SEC, no change
Louisville vs Kentucky becomes TD vs SEC, no change
Clemson vs NC State (Textile Bowl) becomes TD vs SEC
UNC vs NC State becomes TD vs SEC
UVA vs Virginia Tech becomes TD vs SEC
If the TD becomes the final P4, pretty sure with Texas (LHN) + ACC + SEC being ESPN friendly you would see the TD being ESPN centric and the Sugar Bowl becoming their primary shared bowl. While Hokies and Wolfpack may never make it there, the TV’s in those states will become a footprint state for the SEC and you will see lots of TV games scheduled to make ESPN happy between the 2 conferences.
.
…
.
B1G is a bit harder but has just a few possibilities
Pittsburgh is the most B1G like school not in the B1G. If the primary ACC schools + ND + Texas are off the block then Pittsburgh at #15 seems most sensible. Granted it is another school in PA, but PA is a big state and helps cement the Maryland and Rutgers addition.
Iowa State is Pittsburgh lite in the west. They have a big fan following, AAU status, and fit the existing footprint. Offsetting this is being #2 in Iowa which is not a high population growing state.
Cincinnati is a long shot with no AAU status but they are a big state school with lots or research and a billion dollar investment in their school in the past decade. It would also assure the B1G and SEC border was firmly defined by the Ohio River.
While none of these are a home run, they probably do add something to consolidation and protecting fan travel to games. All 3 are better than MAC scheduled teams and are easy drives for the current B1G to travel to on a yearly basis.
Connecticut (not AAU) and Syracuse (former AAU) are also out there but less clear on the B1G radar if they are getting to 16 teams and PODS.
In short, the B1G adding 2 gets you to PODS and a lockdown of the borders
Using Pittsburgh + Cincinnati
A = Penn State (FB) + Pittsburgh + Maryland (BB) + Rutgers
B = Ohio State (FB) + Cincinnati + Indiana (BB) + Purdue
C = Michigan (FB) + Michigan State (BB) + Illinois + Northwestern
D = Nebraska (FB) + Iowa + Wisconsin (BB) + Minnesota
You have put 1 of the FB brands in the B1G in each of the 4 PODS. Adding Iowa State or Syracuse makes this a bit harder if Pittsburgh is #15 but can probably be done.
.
…
.
PAC is basically the decision to stay at 12, or add markets to grow the PTN footprint
Texas Tech + Houston seems the easy add to 14 if both are available
Kansas State + Iowa State could take you to 16 if both are available
Texas Tech + UNLV + New Mexico + Kansas State if it is just adding states
BYU (pairs with Utah) + Colorado State (pairs with Colorado) + TT + UH (TX pair)
TCU may be an option but Baylor may not be, neither seem probable
Texas Tech + Houston + Air Force + Rice to get TX and a service academy
LikeLike
B1G is a bit harder but has just a few possibilities….
You write as if “16 + pods” is a goal in itself. It is not. Your candidate schools add nothing, beyond what the league already has, because the league has by far the best schools in its region. There is no reason to have Iowa State when you have Iowa; nor Cincinnati when you have Ohio State; nor Pitt when you have Penn State.
Pre-GOR, they could’ve had Iowa State, Pitt, or Syracuse anytime they wanted; they could take Cincinnati or UConn today. And yet, they didn’t and don’t. Why? Because none of those schools are better than the default option, which is to do nothing.
As Jim Delany once said, “I’m the guy who stood pat at 11 schools for 21 years.” If the right expansion candidate isn’t there, you sit back and wait. Even assuming that TD happens, there is no assurance that a merger of such divergent cultures will work, to say nothing of the finances.
If you’re Delany (or his successor), you don’t take schools that add nothing to your footprint. You sit back and find out if that marriage of discordant schools is still strong 10–15 years in the future. Odds are, it won’t be.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Look at realignment in 1990, yet nobody got Texas or Notre Dame
Look at realignment in 2010, yet nobody got Texas or Notre Dame
Now maybe I am way off base, but I think it has as much to do with each schools identity / ego as anything else. Why would Texas or Notre Dame want to be be second citizen to Ohio State + Michigan or Alabama + Tennessee or Southern California + UCLA? Sure, folks from these conferences post how they will win them over but I think they are not looking at it from the acquired school view.”
We get why you don’t think UT or ND will go elsewhere, and many of us don’t necessarily disagree. But it’s irrelevant to ccrider55’s question (which you quoted) of why the others would backfill after the TD Conference forms.
“Look at the last additions to the B1G, PAC, and SEC
B1G got Rutgers and Maryland
PAC got Colorado and Utah
SEC got Texas A&M and Missouri”
B10 got into NJ and MD (media markets and future students)
P12 got a CCG and into CO (media market)
SEC got into TX and MO (media markets and recruiting)
“Nebraska got the B1G to a CCG, so they are a bit different,”
They are just like CO and Utah.
“but long term the Cornhuskers will play 2nd fiddle to Ohio State and Michigan.”
They were already playing 2nd fiddle to UT and OU, so no change there.
“While I am personally damn happy to see Nebraska in the B1G they have moved from King in the Big Eight to Prince in the B1G.”
I’d say king in Big 8 to king in B12 to prince in B12 to prince in B10.
“Still a demotion in football for the gains in academics.”
I think they were already demoted after losing 4+ games per year for 7 years. Before that stretch, they only lost 4+ twice from 1969 – 2003.
“Basically any King or high level Prince not currently in the B1G, PAC, or SEC can do better by creating a kingdom they control that can compete head on with these 3 conferences than to join them. If this happens these schools can have real voices in a new conference.”
Again, you’re not answering the question. Why would the others backfill after the TD Conference forms?
Now lets say Texas and Notre Dame form the TD conference
Notre Dame Division
Notre Dame
North Carolina
Florida State
Texas Division
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Keep filling the conference till you get to 12, 14, or 16 members. After that, the B1G, PAC, and SEC backfill with some of the secondaries until they reach 12 to 16 teams.
That last paragraph is what ccrider55 asked about.
“Pretty sure out of the gate that would exceed the current deals for the ACC, B12, and PAC as a single conference market. You can cherry pick the next 8 from the best of the schools not in the B1G, PAC, and SEC as they will have more voice from the start than being another cog in said kingdoms.”
Using the USA Today spots revenue article here are the choices for the next 8
#47 Iowa State, 75 million (mostly unwanted by the Big 3) – maybe PAC
#48 Connecticut, 72 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#54 Cincinnati, 53 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
#62 Houston, 45 million (unwanted by the Big 3)
So this is your TD Conference using your list and making some guesses:
Notre Dame Division
ND, UNC, FSU + 5
ND, UNC, FSU + NCSU (UNC demand), Duke (MBB king), Miami (FSU demand), Clemson (CFB brand), VT (CFB brand)
Note: Might be UVA instead of VT if academics matter more than CFB, or might be GT for Atlanta and proximity to the southern schools
Texas Division
UT, OU, KU + 5
UT, OU, KU + TT (UT demand), OkSU (OU demand), KSU (KU request), TCU, Baylor
Note: Might take some others instead of TCU and/or Baylor but I erred on the side of TX schools and not promoting G5 schools
Teams left out:
ACC – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, UVA, WF, GT
B12 – ISU, WV
Others of note available:
BYU, UH, UC, UConn
“The new conference can cherry pick the best 8 and there are still some solid additions the Big 3 can make to get to 16”
So who would the others backfill with?
UVA – B10, SEC
GT – maybe B10
Who else would the SEC want? WV?
Who would the P12 want?
If they stop at 14, Baylor and VT might be left out. To stop at 12 it would be TCU and NCSU/Duke.
Duke – B10, SEC
VT – SEC, maybe B10
NCSU – maybe SEC
I still don’t see anyone the P12 would want.
“B1G could add Cincinnati and Pittsburgh for second schools in B1G states”
That makes zero sense. It’s a financial dilution, it doesn’t change the demographics, UC’s academics are subpar, plus OSU and PSU completely deliver those states. What value is there in adding these two?
“SEC could add NC State and Virginia Tech”
Maybe, but I really don’t see the SEC chasing the little brother in NC. Power conferences want the alpha dog in the state. I think VT is actually better for them than UVA, but clearly UNC would be their first choice in NC and Duke might be second.
“PAC could add Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Houston”
They could, but it would be over the dead bodies of their presidents. Not one of those schools has any chance of making the P12.
“(the bigger point being, none of the Big 3 get any of the core 8, and make do)”
No, the point is that it may not make any sense to add anyone if these are the only choices. Certainly the P12 wouldn’t. The B10 and/or SEC might take schools from VA and either NC or GA. It’s the assumption of backfilling that we have a problem with.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Lets go conference by conference and review.
.
…
.
SEC is easiest so I will do them first
“TD locks out UNC, UVA, and Duke (they all join the TD) and when the dust settles NC State and Virginia Tech are still available.”
Are you sure? I think they might favor VT’s bigger CFB brand instead of UVA. This is a money grab, after all.
“Do you think the SEC walks away from getting a foothold in NC and VA even if they have to take the little brother to do it?”
Yes. They don’t want to dilute their brand.
“They already did it with South Carolina and it worked out well so I can see them doing it again.”
SC is still the state flagship. It’s sort of like choosing between UVA and VT.
“in addition you add the crossover games to the current ESPN inventory of such games”
So what? The SEC isn’t expanding to help ESPN get inventory.
.
…
.
“B1G is a bit harder but has just a few possibilities”
You eliminated 3 of the 5 realistic options by putting them in the TD. That leaves UVA/VT and GT.
“Pittsburgh”
Has no chance whatsoever.
“Iowa State”
See above.
“Cincinnati”
See above.
“Connecticut (not AAU) and Syracuse (former AAU)”
See above.
“In short, the B1G adding 2 gets you to PODS and a lockdown of the borders”
Who says the B10 wants pods?
.
…
.
“PAC is basically the decision to stay at 12, or add markets to grow the PTN footprint”
The only markets they care about are Austin, TX and maybe Norman, OK. Since UT and OU are not available, there are literally no candidates the P12 would even discuss.
LikeLike
Brian,
MO was not in crisis then they left; the other schools had all agreed to a GOR. For that matter, the south schools had said they were willing to stick around if Nebraska did.
I have less of a problem with what UNL, but Missouri and A&M both flat out lied. It was a complete backstab.
On subject of the Big East. The initial vote was 12-4 in favor of accepting ESPN’s offer. Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Georgetown being the holdouts. Those four successfully persuaded the other schools to go against their better judgement and turn down ESPN’s offer something they most certainly would not have done if Pitt had revealed the fact they were in active discussions with the ACC.
ON TTU vs. OSU. Texas doesn’t care about TTU. They view the Red Raiders as a burden. Oklahoma, on the other hand, actually does prefer to be in a conference with the Cowboys. It isn’t a guarantee they would insist on the Cowboys (though both their statements and actions during the realignment circus indicates they are either unwilling, unable or both to dump OSU) but they are certainly more likely to press for Okie State’s inclusion than UT is for Tech’s.
If UT is willing to go without OU, OU loses all leverage.
I completely disagree. OU is still plenty valuable on their own and not getting the Sooners would definitely make the new conference much weaker. More significantly, the PAC would almost certainly be willing to take Oklahoma and Okie St. given that the struggles faced by the PAC 12 Network which ensures OU would still have another option.
LikeLike
Duffman:
Too much like fan centered incentive/motivated moves for schools/conferences.
The SEC scenario is the only move I see as possible with a TD conference.
B1G won’t dilute/diminish simply to get to 16. How many years at eleven even with the benefit of a CCG waiting a single addition? Why foreclose on possible disfunction in a conference led by the egos at ND and UT?
The PAC supposedly declined OU/OkSU in ’11. Now they take TT, KSU, UNLV, (they suddenly don’t worry about academics) or whoever just to get to 16? Would any one of those significantly help P12N?
My personal choice for a non king to the PAC might be Rice. Probably more than acceptable to the academic blue bloods, although private (like USC and Stanford). There is no chance of BYU (is B1G ever going to invite Liberty even if they played great FB?). The rest need coat tails, which is why my bet is Allan’s proposal, if anything happens at all, is the direction things go. It protects the most schools and importantly, two closely tied to two kings. RRR remains a conf game along with bedlam and whatever UT/TT is called, keeping OOC games available. And it lays the national outline without B1G having to deal with all the “extras” involved with dealing with Texas.
LikeLike
frug,
“MO was not in crisis then they left;”
The B12 was in crisis when MO started publicly looking to leave (which is what I actually claimed). Their lifeboat of choice didn’t want them then, so they waited for the next chance. Once you know someone wants out, you can’t be shocked when they later leave. One could argue that the B12 has never really gotten out of crisis mode with recent talk of psychological disadvantages and schools being lost or added.
“the other schools had all agreed to a GOR.”
Did they sign a document? No? Then they hadn’t really agreed to anything.
“For that matter, the south schools had said they were willing to stick around if Nebraska did.”
A very convenient way of passing the blame to someone else to CYA.
“I have less of a problem with what UNL, but Missouri and A&M both flat out lied. It was a complete backstab.”
What did TAMU lie about? They were unhappy and said so. They had to be forced into the B12 in the first place when they wanted to join the SEC. If you already know someone wants to leave, how can you be backstabbed by them leaving?
“On subject of the Big East. The initial vote was 12-4 in favor of accepting ESPN’s offer. Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Georgetown being the holdouts. Those four successfully persuaded the other schools to go against their better judgement and turn down ESPN’s offer something they most certainly would not have done if Pitt had revealed the fact they were in active discussions with the ACC.”
Unless Georgetown is working a really long con, then that shows that reasonable people could disagree with signing the deal. It didn’t have to be an underhanded decision. RU had no idea they would be leaving soon either.
“ON TTU vs. OSU. Texas doesn’t care about TTU. They view the Red Raiders as a burden.”
I’ve always heard they (or the legislature) would demand to take a fellow TX school with them in any expansion move, but okay. They may not care about TT per se, but it’s the best of a weak set of choices. If TT wasn’t needed, why did UT have a “Tech problem”? Why didn’t the P12 offer the P14 with just UT and OU, or P16 with UT, OU, KU and OkSU?
“I completely disagree. OU is still plenty valuable on their own and not getting the Sooners would definitely make the new conference much weaker.”
If they can get UT by itself, then OU will follow whether OkSU can or not. OU knows the B12 dies if UT leaves and that rivalry is too valuable to them to lose.
“More significantly, the PAC would almost certainly be willing to take Oklahoma and Okie St. given that the struggles faced by the PAC 12 Network which ensures OU would still have another option.”
They said no once allegedly. What’s changed?
LikeLike
“I absolutely could envision a scenario where UNC/UVA decamp to the SEC or B10”
I absolutely cannot envision any scenario in which UNC/UVA decamp (as “lonely” pair) to the B1G. The reasons are numerous. Or (for different reasons) to the SEC. Though the SEC possibility is ever so slightly less unfathomable.
LikeLike
I absolutely cannot envision any scenario in which UNC/UVA decamp (as “lonely” pair) to the B1G. The reasons are numerous. Or (for different reasons) to the SEC. Though the SEC possibility is ever so slightly less unfathomable.
Realignment moves are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one. Therefore, UNC/UVA aren’t going as a “lonely pair” anywhere. Their move would go along with many others.
The ACC is already at a significant financial disadvantage to the Big Ten and the SEC, and it is growing. I haven’t seen any explanation as to how it could be closed. The question you’ve gotta ask yourself, is whether UNC/UVA would be content for that gap to be permanent. If not, what do you think they’d do?
LikeLike
I think the issue is that the ACC schools keep hearing (going back a good 5 years) that they’re going to be $10-20M per year behind the big boys. For example, FSU pulled in $28.3M from ACC least year. Next year it should be $31-32M (with the ESPN no ACCN payment and not counting any other increases). So there just hasn’t been enough motivation to move until it appears real and stable. And no one seems to feel confident about what the future holds beyond the current contracts. Will big brands drive the market or cable markets? Is this the golden era for B1G tv $$$…and by the time UVA/UNC join…the stock is sinking? How big of a hit would UVA/UNV have to take before being fully vested in their new home? How much is it worth it to them to leave behind EVERYTHING they know (save UMd)? It will be a huge change for those 2 schools. So the long-term payout differential will have to be even bigger. A few million bucks a year…or even $10M is a drop in the bucket to the overall operating budgets of those 2 schools. I do agree…it’s it’s $15…$20M…long term….they’ll pay attention.
LikeLike
TOM,
“I think the issue is that the ACC schools keep hearing (going back a good 5 years) that they’re going to be $10-20M per year behind the big boys. For example, FSU pulled in $28.3M from ACC least year. Next year it should be $31-32M (with the ESPN no ACCN payment and not counting any other increases).”
1. That $28.3M did lag the big boys by several million, so the gap is real. All that’s debatable is the magnitude of the gap.
2. In 2017-2018 the B10 should be paying out nearly $50M per school. Are you claiming the ACC won’t be about $15M behind that (or more)?
3. We keep hearing about this $45M payment from ESPN, but has there been any official confirmation of it? Will we not know for sure until the 2016-2017 numbers come out?
“So there just hasn’t been enough motivation to move until it appears real and stable.”
The other part of the motivation can come from the AD’s financial situation. That’s what drove UMD to move. UVA has had some financial issues in their AD as well, and I know GT has problems.
“And no one seems to feel confident about what the future holds beyond the current contracts.”
It’s always a guess, but most experts seem to feel sports will only grow in value.
“Will big brands drive the market or cable markets?”
Brands always have value because they bring viewers no matter the delivery mechanism. Markets are only as valuable as the penetration. Expanding the footprint had more value for the B10 because the B10 wanted demographic improvements for future students. The locked in cable subscriber model may go away, but it will be replaced by a model at least as lucrative (maybe just charging everyone else more). But the people growing up in NJ and MD will consider B10 schools more strongly due to B10 expansion and that’s what the presidents really care about. That’s why expanding into VA and NC make sense for the B10 regardless of the financial model.
“Is this the golden era for B1G tv $$$…and by the time UVA/UNC join…the stock is sinking?”
I highly doubt it. It may switch to being streaming money but people will always want to watch sports. As the cost of tickets keeps rising, that makes paying for the BTN seem pretty cheap.
“How big of a hit would UVA/UNV have to take before being fully vested in their new home? How much is it worth it to them to leave behind EVERYTHING they know (save UMd)? It will be a huge change for those 2 schools. So the long-term payout differential will have to be even bigger. A few million bucks a year…or even $10M is a drop in the bucket to the overall operating budgets of those 2 schools. I do agree…it’s it’s $15…$20M…long term….they’ll pay attention.”
Any conference change is a big deal but lots of schools have done it. The question, as you point out, is how large does the gap need to be to make it worthwhile to them to move. The gap is about to become $15M or more for at least 6 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the issue is that the ACC schools keep hearing (going back a good 5 years) that they’re going to be $10-20M per year behind the big boys. . . . A few million bucks a year…or even $10M is a drop in the bucket to the overall operating budgets of those 2 schools. I do agree…it’s it’s $15…$20M…long term….they’ll pay attention.
Well, that’s exactly what I meant, when I said I “absolutely could envision a scenario where UNC/UVA decamp to the SEC or B10.” It would require there to be an enduring substantial revenue gap, but there clearly are scenarios where that’s exactly what’ll happen.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd says:
July 10, 2016 at 7:18 am
The ACC is already at a significant financial disadvantage to the Big Ten and the SEC, and it is growing. I haven’t seen any explanation as to how it could be closed. The question you’ve gotta ask yourself, is whether UNC/UVA would be content for that gap to be permanent. If not, what do you think they’d do?
I have said often neither the anchors of the ACC (North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke) nor the anchors of the B12 (Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas) + Notre Dame will ever be able to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Look for schools with 70,000 or more in their stadiums and you have the heart of where the fan demand is. If this is the case, only a merger of these schools will allow the lesser schools to be discarded like the PCC did when they reformed as the PAC. Once you cut off the bottom feeders (call it the Jack Welch strategy) you can ask more per average school.
The TD conference is the only way this happens and seem a last resort to schools like Texas and North Carolina but it may be what they are forced to do. As for the comment about Virginia in one of the above posts, while they may not have a football driver they still have one of the Top 30 sports revenue schools according to USA Today (they are sitting at #29). The TD would allow the top and mid level sports schools to drop the bottom 1/3 of their respective conferences just as Montana and Idaho were cut from the PCC (and the only ones who were not cheating if memory serves).
I really do not see any current king in the ACC or B12 ever joining the B1G or SEC as a “merger” of sorts makes more sense on every level when considering individual schools. While Brian seemed the B1G or SEC adding “lesser” schools, I am not as convinced if a real 4th conference emerges and the schools they covet like Texas, Notre Dame, and North Carolina are no longer possible. In the last round of realignment, only Nebraska had any real brand value and the other were just filler.
While I am not saying Pittsburgh to the B1G is an absolute, it is foolish to think it can not happen. If cable is dying then perhaps the new model will return to the old model of regional interest games. If that happens schools in the same, or neighboring states will be easier to sell than once a decade games against the opposite side of the conference which may be a plane ride away instead of driving your car for a few hours. Attendance is falling across the country and ay least part of that may be the end of long term local and regional games to blah games with teams you don’t really follow.
If the ACC fails, and the TD conference fails to fill the void, I think the SEC could easily add Florid State and Clemson even tho it does not grow the footprint because of the histories already in the past brought back to create the steady demand on a year to year basis. I know this is uncommon thinking on current realignment boards, but to say it can never happens means folks are playing checkers when they should be playing chess.
While Brian posted about the B1G sitting at 11 so long he failed to note that was waiting for Notre Dame who never came. If in 1989 when Penn State was announced to the B1G the Irish were never coming, B1G should have added Nebraska then but they did not. If the TD forms, the lead dogs are off the table and less stellar additions may happen wether you believe it or not. I think 14 is a more cumbersome model than 16 and we have already passed the 12 member barrier. At this point you have 3 options…
#1 Sit at 14 which seems to be a scheduling hardship
#2 Have two of the bottom feeders drop to get you back to 12
#3 Go to 16 by adding schools who overlap but create fan intensity
Look at the B12
Texas beats Kansas in football, Kansas beats Texas in basketball
Since I can not see West Virginia in the B1G, they next best rivalry would be Penn State vs Pittsburgh, lest you forget UNC and Duke are in the same state and their rivalry creates the biggest demand for their conference. In the 1 school in 1 state model they would never happen in modern realignment which is why I think the pendulum will swing back when the cord cutters have had their way.
Some of the most valuable college sports franchises are same state games
Alabama vs Auburn
UNC vs Duke
Texas vs Texas A&M till the SEC move
Florida State vs Florida
Louisville vs Kentucky
Southern California vs UCLA
Clemson vs South Carolina
While football may drive the bus, schools with value games carious all sports can not be dismissed as having little or no value.
LikeLike
While I am not saying Pittsburgh to the B1G is an absolute, it is foolish to think it can not happen. If cable is dying then perhaps the new model will return to the old model of regional interest games. If that happens schools in the same, or neighboring states will be easier to sell than once a decade games against the opposite side of the conference which may be a plane ride away instead of driving your car for a few hours. Attendance is falling across the country and ay least part of that may be the end of long term local and regional games to blah games with teams you don’t really follow.
Although cable may be (slowly) dying and live attendance dropping off from its peak, the fan interest in live sports is very much alive. All that is changing is the mechanism by which it is delivered. That, in itself, won’t drive leagues to be interested in teams they shunned before. A local game is played, at most, once a year.
Very few Ohio State fans are hoping to see the Buckeyes’ play their traditional Big Ten foes less often, so that they can lock in an annual game with Cincinnati. Iowa is a low-population state, and there is close to zero interest in the Cy–Hawk trophy outside of the state. It is also a fairly newly-minded rivalry: the two did not play from 1935–1976. There is no reason for the B1G to add the Cyclones, to preserve a game the two teams already play annually anyway.
The Pitt/PSU game did have a modest national following when it was played annually. On the other hand, the Nittany Lions didn’t seem to mind cancelling it. Anyhow, they can play out of conference — as they are, in fact, doing over the next four seasons. No other Big Ten team is eager to play its long-standing rivals less often, so that they can rotate Pitt through their schedule.
If the ACC fails, and the TD conference fails to fill the void, I think the SEC could easily add Florid State and Clemson even tho it does not grow the footprint because of the histories already in the past brought back to create the steady demand on a year to year basis. I know this is uncommon thinking on current realignment boards, but to say it can never happens means folks are playing checkers when they should be playing chess.
On the other hand, maybe they’re relying on analysis and facts. FSU and Clemson are, at least, football powerhouses, something you cannot say about Iowa State, Cincinnati, and Pitt. But the SEC already has FSU/Florida and Clemson/SC on its media deal every other year. Is it worth adding them for the alternating year? You have to demonstrate that adding FSU & Clemson is better than waiting. It is not sufficient to say, “the top dogs are gone, so we will gobble up the best of what’s left.” Realignment never ends; there will always be another opportunity.
I think 14 is a more cumbersome model than 16 and we have already passed the 12 member barrier.
The last time we saw a 16-team league, the WAC, it broke up. I’m not saying no league will ever grow to 16, but the benefits of this are not inevitable.
Since I can not see West Virginia in the B1G, they next best rivalry would be Penn State vs Pittsburgh, lest you forget UNC and Duke are in the same state and their rivalry creates the biggest demand for their conference. In the 1 school in 1 state model they would never happen in modern realignment which is why I think the pendulum will swing back when the cord cutters have had their way.
A change in the content delivery mechanism doesn’t alter what fans want to view. Media can’t create rivalries that don’t exist, e.g., Ohio State vs. Cincinnati; or create intense interest where almost no one cares, e.g., Iowa vs. Iowa State.
PSU/Pitt is at least an actual (albeit long-dormant) rivalry. But if you putt Pitt, PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland in a pod, it means Penn State/Michigan and Penn State/Ohio State play less often than they do now, and the rest of the Big Ten gets a lot less access to the east coast, exactly the opposite of what they want.
LikeLike
“In 2017-2018 the B10 should be paying out nearly $50M per school”
Marc,
I understand and agree with most of your points, generally speaking. But I do question the gap. And it still doesn’t seem to be as far off currently…as the ballpark figures I heard 5 years ago. The ACC payouts seem to be higher than what I expected…and the SEC/B1G payouts are nearly as far ahead as I’d been told (yet!).
But is this $50M number per school real? That would mean that the B1G has $700M (after all of it’s costs/administration/JD) to spread out 14-ways next year. If true…it’s incredible and the gap is real and scary. Is it real?
LikeLike
Duffman,
“If this is the case, only a merger of these schools will allow the lesser schools to be discarded like the PCC did when they reformed as the PAC.”
The PCC dissolved over athletic scandals (pay for play at multiple schools) and academic differences. Idaho had long stopped being competitive, so when the Pac-8 formed they weren’t offered a spot but neither did they seek one. That’s very different from what you are proposing.
“Once you cut off the bottom feeders (call it the Jack Welch strategy) you can ask more per average school.”
You can. The question is how much more you can get and how many people you alienate along the way.
“The TD conference is the only way this happens and seem a last resort to schools like Texas and North Carolina but it may be what they are forced to do.”
How can you say they’re forced to do it when they could always join an existing conference instead?
“As for the comment about Virginia in one of the above posts, while they may not have a football driver they still have one of the Top 30 sports revenue schools according to USA Today (they are sitting at #29).”
1. Remember that the list doesn’t include private schools. I’m pretty sure several of the privates would top UVA (ND, USC, etc).
2. UVA is behind 10 SEC schools, 9 B10 schools, 4 B12 schools, 3 P12 schools and 2 ACC schools. They are ahead of 3 SEC, 4 B10, 4 B12, 7 P12 schools and 5 ACC schools. In other words, this list is largely in order of the TV payouts each conference gets.
3. UVA needs a $13.6M subsidy to be that high on the list. UMD is the only school close to that number (over $14M) that is above #29, and UMD has it’s conference moving issues to deal with. Without that subsidy, UVA would be #39 on the list near the bottom P5 programs like PU and MS State.
4. These lists are subject to accounting differences. UVA claims more revenue than Clemson but Clemson should be raking in a lot more CFB revenue from ticket sales. $10M can move a school up or down that list quite a few places.
“The TD would allow the top and mid level sports schools to drop the bottom 1/3 of their respective conferences just as Montana and Idaho were cut from the PCC (and the only ones who were not cheating if memory serves).”
Montana left the PCC before the scandals broke. Idaho is the only one that wasn’t invited to join the AAWU (which became the Pac-8) and they didn’t ask to join.
“In the last round of realignment, only Nebraska had any real brand value and the other were just filler.”
TAMU was just filler? CO was just filler? If you want to claim MO and Utah as filler because those conferences needed an even number, that’s one thing. But the B10 added 2 schools for a reason. Athletic brand wasn’t what they were looking for in this case unless that brand also brought demographics and media markets.
“While I am not saying Pittsburgh to the B1G is an absolute,”
That’s good.
“it is foolish to think it can not happen.”
Not really. What value would Pitt bring that justifies splitting the money with another school?
“If cable is dying then perhaps the new model will return to the old model of regional interest games.”
Where Pitt still has no value unless they return to their brief stint of glory.
“If the ACC fails, and the TD conference fails to fill the void, I think the SEC could easily add Florid State and Clemson even tho it does not grow the footprint because of the histories already in the past brought back to create the steady demand on a year to year basis. I know this is uncommon thinking on current realignment boards, but to say it can never happens means folks are playing checkers when they should be playing chess.”
Why assume everyone else is playing checkers and you are playing chess rather than the other way around? At least FSU and Clemson bring athletic power. That makes more sense than Pitt.
“While Brian posted about the B1G sitting at 11 so long”
No, I believe that was Marc.
“If in 1989 when Penn State was announced to the B1G the Irish were never coming, B1G should have added Nebraska then but they did not.”
They could’ve had UT in the early 90s but said no because they had a moratorium on expansion until PSU was absorbed. Why would NE be treated better?
“At this point you have 3 options…
#1 Sit at 14 which seems to be a scheduling hardship
#2 Have two of the bottom feeders drop to get you back to 12
#3 Go to 16 by adding schools who overlap but create fan intensity”
1. Where’s the hardship? It works fine with 9 games. You see everyone at least once every 3 years.
2. Never going to happen unless they violate rules.
3. How does that fan intensity pay for 2 extra mouths? It’s a small change in a broadcast audience and they already pay cable bills.
LikeLike
TOM,
“In 2017-2018 the B10 should be paying out nearly $50M per school”
Marc,
Actually, I said that (I don’t want him getting blamed for what I say).
“And it still doesn’t seem to be as far off currently…as the ballpark figures I heard 5 years ago.”
Well, that was probably before adding ND (worth several million per school I believe) or they were talking about after the B10’s new deal started. Otherwise, they just couldn’t do math very well.
“But is this $50M number per school real?”
We won’t know for sure until it happens, but there is some evidence to put it in that neighborhood.
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
The B10 projected the 12 full-share members would be getting $33M per year from TV only at the start of the new deal. If you assume 5% escalation, then year 1 being $27.7M would result in an average of $31.4M over 6 years. That means BTN would only need to pay $5.3M to hit $33M total, but BTN has been paying a lot more than that lately (over $8M per year). Let’s be conservative and call it $9.3M in 2017-2018.
Total TV money = 27.7 + 9.3 = $37M
The B10 also projected $44.5M total in the first year, or $11.5M from other sources.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big-ten-schools-will-see-media-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal.html
B10 payout breakdown from 2015:
TV + BTN profit shares: $21,499,346
NCAA: $4,443,096
Bowl: $4,723,939.44
Big Ten MBB Tourney: $405,580
Big Ten FB Championship Game: $335,402
Total: $32,407,363
That’s $21.5M from media and $10.9M from other sources in 2015. 5% escalation makes that $12.6M for 2017-2018.
$37M + $12.6M = $49.6M total
That tops the B10’s projection, but we already know that the TV deals have topped what they expected.
In summary:
B10 projection for 2017-2018 from when UMD was joining = $44.5M
My rough estimate based on the known numbers = $49.6M
Now an issue I haven’t touched is that the B10 projections are for the 12 full members. UMD and RU would be getting less as part of their buy-in plans. I split the new TV deal money equally between all 14 schools. That won’t actually be the case until 2020-2021, so the numbers could skew higher for the 12 full members in those first few years, or maybe the B10 has another use in mind for that money like keeping it until all 14 schools are full members so nobody sees a pay cut when 2 more mouths get fed.
“That would mean that the B1G has $700M (after all of it’s costs/administration/JD) to spread out 14-ways next year.”
The B10 only spends about $20M on itself, just to give you an idea. The old idea of an equal share for the conference office no longer applies.
“If true…it’s incredible and the gap is real and scary.
Yes it is. Which is what people have been saying.
“Is it real?”
We’ll find out.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd says:
July 11, 2016 at 6:35 am
Very few Ohio State fans are hoping to see the Buckeyes’ play their traditional Big Ten foes less often, so that they can lock in an annual game with Cincinnati.
From the football standing you may be right, but we just do not have enough history to really know. They have played 16 times and can be divided into 2 time periods.
1893 – 1931 | 11 games played | 6 in Columbus and 5 in Cincinnati
Buckeyes won 9 and Bearcats won 2 but many were close games and the 32-0 Buckeye win in 1893 was offset by the 24-0 Bearcat win in 1897
1999 – 2013 | 5 games played | 4 in Columbus (80%) and 1 (20%) in Cincinnati
While the games played in Columbus were dominated by the Buckeyes, the lone game played in Cincinnati was only a 4 point win for Ohio State.
Who knows what could happen if they played more often and played a more even home and home schedule. Better than seeing the Buckeyes beat some MACrifice team. Buckeyes have a history of thumping the following B1G members (70% win ratio or better)
100% vs Maryland 2-0-0
100% vs Rutgers 2-0-0
86% vs Minnesota 44-7-0 (Buckeyes have 16 game longest win streak)
84% vs Indiana 71-12-2 (Buckeyes have multiple 20+ game win streaks)
81% vs Northwestern 60-14-1 (Buckeyes have 24 game longest win streak)
75% vs Iowa 46-14-3 (Buckeyes have 16 game longest win streak)
75% vs Nebraska 3-1-0
74% vs Wisconsin 57-18-5
73% vs Purdue 39-14-2 (Buckeyes have 7 game longest win streak)
The bigger issue may be the basketball. With Indiana vs Kentucky gone the B1G has lost the top basketball matchup to the ACC with UNC vs Duke. I think the 2 schools have played 2 times in the past 50 years, two more were played in the early 60’s and the other 6 games were played in the 1900’s to 1920’s. Viewed another way, Louisville never played Kentucky until the 1980’s and now it is one of the top basketball games each season. It is not hard to see demand growing for such a game between to schools just a few hours apart.
As secondary issue would be a developed rival across all sports for two large state schools so close together. Even if Cincinnati never was a B1G addition they should at least play the Buckeyes more often than they do.
Iowa is a low-population state, and there is close to zero interest in the Cy–Hawk trophy outside of the state. It is also a fairly newly-minded rivalry: the two did not play from 1935–1976. There is no reason for the B1G to add the Cyclones, to preserve a game the two teams already play annually anyway.
This is the least favorite of the 3 but they are already AAU and the series is at least competitive, with about 1 Iowa State win for every 2 Iowa wins. The bigger issue is again viewing it across all sports in terms of BTN content and would be filler if no more Kings joined the B1G
The Pitt/PSU game did have a modest national following when it was played annually. On the other hand, the Nittany Lions didn’t seem to mind cancelling it. Anyhow, they can play out of conference — as they are, in fact, doing over the next four seasons. No other Big Ten team is eager to play its long-standing rivals less often, so that they can rotate Pitt through their schedule.
Granted in the past few decades (since Penn State joined the B1G) the spotlight has been on Penn State but the series is old (first played in 1893) and has a long history (with the current scheduled games this should hit 100 games played). More important, the series is fairly well split with Penn State winning 50, Pittsburgh winning 42, and 4 ties. I would say it more than a modest national following from the early days with Pop Warner and Jock Sutherland until the Johnny Majors and Jackie Sherrill era. Since then Pittsburgh has been down but it is not to say they had no history and no ability to draw national media attention.
A change in the content delivery mechanism doesn’t alter what fans want to view. Media can’t create rivalries that don’t exist, e.g., Ohio State vs. Cincinnati; or create intense interest where almost no one cares, e.g., Iowa vs. Iowa State.
I do think they both should play every year in the non conference to at least see what kind of demand is out there. Pretty sure you could fill Paul Brown for the Buckeyes trip to Cincinnati and that would have more atmosphere that the Buckeyes traveling to say Northwestern. At least they should play in basketball every year to see what the interest is.
PSU/Pitt is at least an actual (albeit long-dormant) rivalry. But if you putt Pitt, PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland in a pod, it means Penn State/Michigan and Penn State/Ohio State play less often than they do now, and the rest of the Big Ten gets a lot less access to the east coast, exactly the opposite of what they want.
If the east coast is the move, then Pitt makes sense for most sports as their past in the Big East makes them more friendly to a B1G basketball tournament in Madison Square Garden. Not sure how you see less exposure to the east coast with another team on that side of the B1G. The schools in the western half of the B1G would have 1 more opponent in the east to travel too and Pittsburgh has lots of alumni in the east coat corridor.
Again, this is predicated on the TD conference forming and taking the top schools out of play and no longer available to the B1G or SEC. As for what you get in scheduling
Penn State
West Virginia (Backyard Brawl)
Notre Dame (becomes a B1G game)
Syracuse (football and basketball)
Cincinnati (River City game)
Connecticut (basketball)
These seem like content and footprint not really covered by other B1G schools
LikeLike
Very few Ohio State fans are hoping to see the Buckeyes’ play their traditional Big Ten foes less often, so that they can lock in an annual game with Cincinnati.
From the football standing you may be right, but we just do not have enough history to really know. They have played 16 times and can be divided into 2 time periods.
1893 – 1931 | 11 games played | 6 in Columbus and 5 in Cincinnati
Buckeyes won 9 and Bearcats won 2 but many were close games and the 32-0 Buckeye win in 1893 was offset by the 24-0 Bearcat win in 1897
1999 – 2013 | 5 games played | 4 in Columbus (80%) and 1 (20%) in Cincinnati
While the games played in Columbus were dominated by the Buckeyes, the lone game played in Cincinnati was only a 4 point win for Ohio State.
Who knows what could happen if they played more often and played a more even home and home schedule. Better than seeing the Buckeyes beat some MACrifice team.
Lots of rivalries from dates like 1893–1931 are no longer competitive: Michigan is 4-4 all-time vs. Harvard. No one suggests the Crimson would have a 50/50 shot vs. the Wolverines today. The MACrifice games you referred to are practically always in Columbus. Ohio State does not want to be playing a road game every other year at Nippert Stadium (capacity: 40,000).
And certainly, no other B1G program wishes to do so. Remember, if Cincinnati joins the B1G, they don’t just play an annual game vs. OSU. They bulk up to 9 games vs. other B1G teams that have no other desire to play them. That is why no league expands so that they can schedule just one game.
And beyond that, no league expands in the hope that a non-existent rivalry will become one. Of course, expansion does create rivalries organically, but that possibility has never driven the bus. Ohio State has immense structural advantages. No other Ohio school could ever rationally hope to be regularly competitive with the Buckeyes, or even close.
Buckeyes have a history of thumping the following B1G members (70% win ratio or better)….
In all leagues, it is quite common that the kings have gaudy winning percentages against the lower half their conference mates. For instance, Alabama has 70% or better all-time winning percentages vs. Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, and South Carolina. Oklahoma has 70% or better vs. Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech, and West Virginia.
The bigger issue may be the basketball.
Basketball revenues are minuscule compared to football. It would take changes far more dramatic than anyone here has forecast, for basketball to become a “bigger issue” than football.
As secondary issue would be a developed rival across all sports for two large state schools so close together. Even if Cincinnati never was a B1G addition they should at least play the Buckeyes more often than they do.
OSU management does not seem to think so, with only one future game scheduled, and it’s of course in Columbus.
Iowa is a low-population state, and there is close to zero interest in the Cy–Hawk trophy outside of the state. It is also a fairly newly-minded rivalry: the two did not play from 1935–1976. There is no reason for the B1G to add the Cyclones, to preserve a game the two teams already play annually anyway.
This is the least favorite of the 3 but they are already AAU and the series is at least competitive, with about 1 Iowa State win for every 2 Iowa wins. The bigger issue is again viewing it across all sports in terms of BTN content and would be filler if no more Kings joined the B1G.
Football and MBB are the only sports that have 100% television coverage, either on a traditional network or BTN. Among the other sports, there is already more content than BTN can possibly show (e.g., they don’t show every lacrosse game or wrestling meet). They don’t need the Cyclones so that they can show, for example, an intrastate swim meet in Iowa.
PSU/Pitt is at least an actual (albeit long-dormant) rivalry. But if you putt Pitt, PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland in a pod, it means Penn State/Michigan and Penn State/Ohio State play less often than they do now, and the rest of the Big Ten gets a lot less access to the east coast, exactly the opposite of what they want.
If the east coast is the move, then Pitt makes sense for most sports as their past in the Big East makes them more friendly to a B1G basketball tournament in Madison Square Garden.
Pitt basketball does not have a substantially greater following in NYC than the B1G brand in general. And basketball does not drive expansion decisions anyway.
Not sure how you see less exposure to the east coast with another team on that side of the B1G. The schools in the western half of the B1G would have 1 more opponent in the east to travel to and Pittsburgh has lots of alumni in the east coat corridor.
Pitt is not (culturally) an East Coast school, in the way that Rutgers and Maryland are. If PSU, Rutgers and Maryland are in a pod with Pitt, then that’s one annual football game that each of them is not available to play with Michigan, Ohio State, Northwestern, etc.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“From the football standing you may be right, but we just do not have enough history to really know.”
You could just ask the OSU fans. UC is viewed as a better choice than a MACrifice game and that’s about it. Ther eis very little interest in playing them in CFB regularly.
“Who knows what could happen if they played more often and played a more even home and home schedule.”
OSU would win most of them time but lose on occasion.
“Buckeyes have a history of thumping the following B1G members (70% win ratio or better)
100% vs Maryland 2-0-0
100% vs Rutgers 2-0-0
86% vs Minnesota 44-7-0 (Buckeyes have 16 game longest win streak)
84% vs Indiana 71-12-2 (Buckeyes have multiple 20+ game win streaks)
81% vs Northwestern 60-14-1 (Buckeyes have 24 game longest win streak)
75% vs Iowa 46-14-3 (Buckeyes have 16 game longest win streak)
75% vs Nebraska 3-1-0
74% vs Wisconsin 57-18-5
73% vs Purdue 39-14-2 (Buckeyes have 7 game longest win streak)”
OSU has a total W% of over 70%. They’re a king program. What’s your point, that UC is as good as the worst B10 teams? Sure. But OSU fans would rather play IN and NW and MN than UC any day.
“The bigger issue may be the basketball.”
MBB is never the bigger issue. Besides, there is bad blood between the MBB programs so OSU
intentionally does not schedule UC much if at all. That’s not changing any time soon.
“Even if Cincinnati never was a B1G addition they should at least play the Buckeyes more often than they do.”
There’s no upside for OSU in playing UC. If OSU wins, they’re supposed to beat a G5 school. If we lose, the sky is falling.
“I do think they both should play every year in the non conference to at least see what kind of demand is out there. Pretty sure you could fill Paul Brown for the Buckeyes trip to Cincinnati and that would have more atmosphere that the Buckeyes traveling to say Northwestern.”
It’s not going to happen. OSU isn’t going to waste an OOC every year on UC. The OSU fans don’t want it. Considering OSU drew 37,000 for a spring game at Paul Brown Stadium, I’m sure any actual game could sell it out. That says nothing about demand for OSU vs UC because the opponent wouldn’t matter as OSU fans could sell it out themselves.
“At least they should play in basketball every year to see what the interest is.”
The coaches don’t want it (no benefit for recruiting just downside) and neither does the AD. It’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
Today, Michigan and Notre Dame announced that they’re renewing their series with a home & home in 2018-19, and are working towards adding future dates. Both sides had indicated recently that they were trying hard to make this happen, so the announcement wasn’t a surprise.
What WAS a surprise, was the number of hoops Michigan jumped through, to make this happen.
1) They cancelled a 2018-19 home & home with Arkansas. They’ll pay a $2 million buy-out fee, but Jeff Long, the Razorbacks’ AD, nevertheless called it disappointing. Arkansas didn’t want $2 million; they wanted to play the games. On such short notice, they will struggle to fill those dates, and will surely not find as prestigious an opponent.
2) They agreed to play at South Bend in 2018, which will give the Irish their second consecutive home game in the series, as the final game of the previous series was also in South Bend.
3) In 2019, Rutgers’ game at Michigan was moved to September, so that Notre Dame could play in Ann Arbor in late October. It is not common for a Big Ten team to play a substantial non-conference game in the heart of the conference season. I certainly don’t remember the last time Michigan did so.
4) In 2018, Michigan will play at Ohio State, at Michigan State, and at Notre Dame: a killer schedule by any reckoning. In 2019, Michigan’s home fans will hit the jackpot, with all three of the big rivalry games being played in Ann Arbor.
From what I have been able to infer from the various press releases, it was not Notre Dame that demanded this arrangement; Michigan did, so that they could have 7 home games every year. Apparently, that need was sufficiently important to accept such a huge home/road imbalance in 2018/19.
It’s fairly obvious that Michigan went to considerable trouble to make this happen, which says a lot about the value of this game. But you have to lament the increasing frequency of schools backing out of previously contracted games — which is what Notre Dame did to Michigan, when it cancelled the original series.
Although Michigan will pay a cancellation penalty, it doesn’t really compensate Arkansas for their loss. It’s not as if they can spend $2 million, and buy another opponent as good for their schedule as Michigan. It’s like rescinding an offer to take a girl to the prom, when a prettier girl comes along.
From 2020-2027, Michigan has home & homes scheduled with Washington, Virginia Tech, UCLA, Oklahoma, and Texas. I wonder if some of these games will be bought out, as well?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What WAS a surprise, was the number of hoops Michigan jumped through, to make this happen.”
Agreed. I’m glad to see the series back on occasion, but MI paid a high price. I don’t see any sacrifices on ND’s part really.
“1) They cancelled a 2018-19 home & home with Arkansas. They’ll pay a $2 million buy-out fee, but Jeff Long, the Razorbacks’ AD, nevertheless called it disappointing. Arkansas didn’t want $2 million; they wanted to play the games. On such short notice, they will struggle to fill those dates, and will surely not find as prestigious an opponent.”
You always hate to see a B10/SEC series go away. That $2M buyout is pretty steep, too. I’d be disappointed if I was AR because they rarely get an OOC series like MI and will certainly get a much weaker replacement.
“2) They agreed to play at South Bend in 2018, which will give the Irish their second consecutive home game in the series, as the final game of the previous series was also in South Bend.”
That was the old schedule, though, wasn’t it? At ND in even years, at MI in odd years. Besides, that balances MI’s schedule with 5 B10 home games in even years and 4 + ND in odd years and let’s ND play at USC or at MI.
“3) In 2019, Rutgers’ game at Michigan was moved to September, so that Notre Dame could play in Ann Arbor in late October. It is not common for a Big Ten team to play a substantial non-conference game in the heart of the conference season. I certainly don’t remember the last time Michigan did so.”
I kind of wish RU had demanded a (neutral site?) game against ND for this. I don’t remember OSU doing this either.
“4) In 2018, Michigan will play at Ohio State, at Michigan State, and at Notre Dame: a killer schedule by any reckoning. In 2019, Michigan’s home fans will hit the jackpot, with all three of the big rivalry games being played in Ann Arbor.”
Get your 2019 season tickets now before the prices quadruple. Maybe MI bundles 2018 and 2019 season tickets?
“From what I have been able to infer from the various press releases, it was not Notre Dame that demanded this arrangement; Michigan did, so that they could have 7 home games every year. Apparently, that need was sufficiently important to accept such a huge home/road imbalance in 2018/19.”
It makes some sense. MI was kind of screwed by the B10 schedulers when they put MSU and OSU on the same rotation and then both as road games in the even years on top of that.
“It’s fairly obvious that Michigan went to considerable trouble to make this happen, which says a lot about the value of this game.”
I’m guessing only OSU makes more money for MI, and maybe not even that.
“But you have to lament the increasing frequency of schools backing out of previously contracted games …
Although Michigan will pay a cancellation penalty, it doesn’t really compensate Arkansas for their loss. It’s not as if they can spend $2 million, and buy another opponent as good for their schedule as Michigan.”
No, but at least AR got a decent buyout. They can buy 2 decent home games if they want. That’s good for their schedule in other ways. They also could agree to a neutral site kickoff game now that they have a hole to fill, and that would be a pretty good replacement.
“From 2020-2027, Michigan has home & homes scheduled with Washington, Virginia Tech, UCLA, Oklahoma, and Texas. I wonder if some of these games will be bought out, as well?”
The UW series is set for the same rotation as this one (at UW in 2020, at MI in 2021) while all the others are the opposite (just like the AR series). I’d think MI wants to keep the king games, at least, but maybe switching the order to balance their home schedules is more important.
LikeLike
“2) They agreed to play at South Bend in 2018, which will give the Irish their second consecutive home game in the series, as the final game of the previous series was also in South Bend.”
That was the old schedule, though, wasn’t it? At ND in even years, at MI in odd years. Besides, that balances MI’s schedule with 5 B10 home games in even years and 4 + ND in odd years and let’s ND play at USC or at MI.
In 1978, Notre Dame wanted Michigan at home the years they traveled to USC, and vice versa. The Stanford rivalry didn’t exist then, so USC and Michigan were the two biggest annual games on their schedule.
But for Michigan, that meant Ohio State and Notre Dame were always both at home, or both away, in the same year. Before Mark Dantonio came to East Lansing, the MSU game, although of course important for in-state pride, was nowhere near as competitive as OSU or ND. So, most Michigan fans thought that ND got the better end of that deal.
Notre Dame’s schedule has evolved since then, and I don’t think they’d care anymore whether they get Michigan at home in even years or odd years. In 2018, they get Michigan, Florida State, and Stanford at home; USC and Virginia Tech away. In 2019, they get VT and USC at home; Michigan, Stanford, Louisville, Georgia, and Georgia Tech away. It is hard for me to imagine they’d have objected if Michigan had wanted the order swapped.
Michigan obviously decided that the benefit of 7 home games every year, offset balancing the difficulty of the road schedule in even and odd years. Of course, Michigan would prefer to see the Michigan State game order swapped to its old position — exactly how and why that was done remains unexplained — but I see very little chance of that happening unless realignment forces B1G future football schedules to be torn up again.
* * * *
For what it’s worth, the 1978–2014 Michigan/ND series both started and ended in South Bend. In John U. Bacon’s book on the Brandon/Hoke era, he says that Brandon’s advisers warned that the provision allowing either side to cancel without penalty on 3 years’ notice, could give Notre Dame a 2-for-1 on home games. Brandon allegedly said, not to worry, the Irish would never do that — which, of course, is exactly what they did.
Now, I don’t believe the Irish deviously plotted to join the ACC, so that they could get an extra home game with Michigan. The realignment dominoes simply fell when they did, and Michigan was their most easy-to-cancel deal, thanks to the 3-year, no-penalty, out clause that David Brandon had (perhaps unwisely, and against advice) agreed to.
As I have told disconsolate Michigan fans on numerous occasions: if you let someone cancel for free on 3 years’ notice, you have no right to be mad that they cancelled on 3 years’ notice. Nevertheless, the more irrational end of the fan base still thinks that Notre Dame “owes” Michigan an extra home game, which is of course ridiculous, but animates some of the stranger comments you see coming from the fan base.
When the two teams play again, the Irish will have had 3 of the last 4 games in South Bend. I don’t really count ’em that way, but I know some fans do.
LikeLike
As a Michigan fan, the lengths that Michigan went to in order to get ND back on the schedule was pathetic and embarrassing. This is strike 2 in Warde Manuel’s brief tenure as AD. I see why they wanted ND on the schedule but I fail to see why it was worth $2M and what the rush was. I was in the minority of Michigan fans, who never wanted to play ND again, but even those who wanted ND back on the schedule thought this was way too steep a price to pay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a Michigan fan, the lengths that Michigan went to in order to get ND back on the schedule was pathetic and embarrassing….I was in the minority of Michigan fans, who never wanted to play ND again, but even those who wanted ND back on the schedule thought this was way too steep a price to pay.
Fans who don’t want Michigan to play ND, tend to invent their own facts. It comes with the territory.
It’s easy to find tons of Michigan fans who thought it was worth $2m to get ND back on the schedule. Just read a sampling of Michigan blogs and message boards. I can’t prove they’re right, but it’s factually wrong to say that all—or even most—Michigan fans who wanted ND on the schedule, thought they overpaid to do so.
Indeed, if you think Michigan and Notre Dame should be playing, you probably have a better understanding of the value of the series, and why it’s worth as much as they paid.
I see why they wanted ND on the schedule but I fail to see why it was worth $2M and what the rush was.
If you think the ideal date to play ND is never, I suppose you wouldn’t see why 2018–19 made sense.
This is strike 2 in Warde Manuel’s brief tenure as AD.
What was the first?
Anyhow, it’s obvious that Jim Harbaugh very much wanted this, so if you impugn Manuel, you’re impugning Harbaugh too. Now, I’m not in the “Harbaugh can do no wrong” camp (because I am not that far in the tank for anyone), but at this point I think he has earned the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
I suggest you check out the various threads on mgoblog. The vast majority of comments indicate it was way too steep a price to pay.
Manuel’s first strike was refusing to play any night games this season. His rationale? Because he likes noon games. Seriously, that was his rationale. There is no valid reason in today’s college football to not play at least one night game per season. And that was the reason he gave.
As far as the value of the ND game, has any school ever paid $2M to play ND? The answer is no. I also think beating an SEC team, with the exception of Vanderbilt or Kentucky, carries far more weight than beating ND. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been following college football for the past 10 years.
For recruiting purposes, home and home series with Texas, Georgia, Florida State, Miami, etc. will also serve Michigan better than home and home series with ND. I’m now very worried that Michigan’s future series with Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA, Washington, and Virginia Tech are going to get cancelled in favor of ND. The fact that the Arkansas series was cancelled instead of just adding ND alongside Arkansas tells me that Michigan won’t be playing more than one marquee non-conference game every year. And for that one game to be ND is going to be extremely disappointing.
Yes, you are correct about Harbaugh having a hand in scheduling ND, but Manuel is the AD. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable the amount of leeway Harbaugh gets and this is another case of it.
LikeLike
I suggest you check out the various threads on mgoblog. The vast majority of comments indicate it was way too steep a price to pay.
Any single source can be an echo chamber, although Brian Cook, who runs mgoblog, is definitely in the pro-ND camp.
Manuel’s first strike was refusing to play any night games this season. His rationale? Because he likes noon games. Seriously, that was his rationale. There is no valid reason in today’s college football to not play at least one night game per season. And that was the reason he gave.
Deciding not to play at night isn’t a strike, in the sense of an obvious mistake: a lot of people were happy with that decision.
As far as the value of the ND game, has any school ever paid $2M to play ND? The answer is no.
Backing out of game contracts — for various reasons — is becoming a lot more common. I haven’t looked at whether $2M is some kind of record…have you?
Beyond that, it’s pretty clear that Manuel didn’t do this just to play ND. He also wanted to have 7 home games both years.
I also think beating an SEC team, with the exception of Vanderbilt or Kentucky, carries far more weight than beating ND. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been following college football for the past 10 years.
Oh, really? If it had been last season, Michigan would have received more credit for beating Notre Dame (a top-10 team) than Arkansas (unranked after they lost to Toledo in week 2).
For recruiting purposes, home and home series with Texas, Georgia, Florida State, Miami, etc. will also serve Michigan better than home and home series with ND.
Just try to schedule those schools: many others want to schedule them, and they don’t come to the midwest very often. Michigan’s last regular-season meeting vs. those teams was in 1965 (GA), 1991 (FSU), 1988 (Miami), and never (Texas) respectively. Texas has a H&H with Michigan in the 2020s, but it’s a one-off. You probably won’t see them again in a generation (other than a bowl), as everyone wants to schedule the Longhorns.
Anyhow, the purported recruiting benefits of playing an isolated game in a state are frequently claimed, with almost zero evidence to back it up. Michigan/ND is always one of the highest-rated games of the year, even in years when one or both are not very good.
The fact that the Arkansas series was cancelled instead of just adding ND alongside Arkansas tells me that Michigan won’t be playing more than one marquee non-conference game every year. And for that one game to be ND is going to be extremely disappointing.
Both Swarbrick and Manuel said that they don’t expect it to be annual anymore. I would be very surprised to see Michigan cancel the Texas and Oklahoma series: those really are marquee games, on a very different level than Arkansas.
Yes, you are correct about Harbaugh having a hand in scheduling ND, but Manuel is the AD. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable the amount of leeway Harbaugh gets and this is another case of it.
Manuel is not the product. His job is, and should be, to get done what Harbaugh wants done, unless there are extremely compelling reasons not to. It’s not as if Harbaugh asked for something wacky: a lot of people wanted it.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Manuel’s first strike was refusing to play any night games this season. His rationale? Because he likes noon games. Seriously, that was his rationale. There is no valid reason in today’s college football to not play at least one night game per season. And that was the reason he gave.”
I like noon games, too. Maybe he likes them for logistical reasons. Night games require more police and for more hours and result in more alcohol-related incidents. Maybe he likes them because rich donors tell him they like them. Maybe he likes them because Jim Harbaugh likes them. All of those are valid reasons to not play at night.
“As far as the value of the ND game, has any school ever paid $2M to play ND?”
It’s not an option for most schools, mostly because ND would not play a home and home with them. That said, I think a decent number of schools would consider paying $2M for the chance to play ND home and home.
But that isn’t really what MI did. They paid $2M to drop their series with AR and gain scheduling flexibility. That’s a higher buyout than normal, but it’s the contract they signed. You might as well say MI paid $2M to move their 2019 game against RU from October to September.
“I also think beating an SEC team, with the exception of Vanderbilt or Kentucky, carries far more weight than beating ND. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been following college football for the past 10 years.”
ND is better than AR and a much bigger brand. ND is 55-23 under Kelly with a NCG appearance while AR is 18-20 under Bielema. The value of beating ND is much higher than for beating AR.
“For recruiting purposes, home and home series with Texas, Georgia, Florida State, Miami, etc. will also serve Michigan better than home and home series with ND.”
And your proof is what, exactly? 1 game in their home state is going to make a huge difference? Playing ND guarantees you the NBC game of the week for the road game as well as the best ABC/Fox slot for the home game. AR doesn’t guarantee either one. MI already recruits nationally so I doubt that 1 game will make any noticeable difference.
“I’m now very worried that Michigan’s future series with Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA, Washington, and Virginia Tech are going to get cancelled in favor of ND.”
A valid concern, but AR isn’t on the same level as UT and OU.
“The fact that the Arkansas series was cancelled instead of just adding ND alongside Arkansas tells me that Michigan won’t be playing more than one marquee non-conference game every year. And for that one game to be ND is going to be extremely disappointing.”
Also AR was a home game in 2018 when MI has 5 B10 home games and a road game in 2019 when MI has only 4 B10 home games. Getting that to 5 and 5 was a major part of the scheduling decision. The UW series is on that schedule, so it’s likely to stay. All the others give MI a home game in the even years. I could easily see MI trying to shuffle those games to balance things out.
“Yes, you are correct about Harbaugh having a hand in scheduling ND, but Manuel is the AD. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable the amount of leeway Harbaugh gets and this is another case of it.”
You know better how MI should schedule than the HC and the AD? Really?
LikeLike
Doesn’t UMich have some sort of flexible ticket pricing now? If so, it is almost certain that UMich will make more money with a HaH against ND than a HaH vs. Arkansas even while starting down $2M with the ND HaH. The tickets would just have to be, on average, $20 higher. I’m pretty certain that the ticket premium for the ND game will be far more than that.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/16861881/power-5-commissioners-propose-more-athletes
Athletes will be getting a little more time off.
Commissioners from the Power 5 conferences want to change NCAA rules to give athletes more time away from team activities, including no longer counting travel as an off day, a mandatory seven-day break after the season and an additional 14 off days from athletic activity during the academic year.
The agreement in concept was announced Thursday by the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference. The leagues said they believed they had found the “right balance” to help tens of thousands of athletes.
The conferences could vote to turn the proposals into NCAA bylaws in January.
It’s a start at least.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/16869688/qb-jarrett-stidham-transfer-baylor-bears
Baylor just lost another player, although this transfer is less likely to be a result of the scandal.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/watch-4-star-rb-commits-to-florida-state-with-insane-custom-lamborghini/
Nothing to see here, just a recruit showing up to an event across the country from his home in a customized Lamborghini.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/this-may-only-be-the-beginning-of-baylors-self-inflicted-death-penalty/
The scandal at Baylor is almost acting like self-inflicted NCAA sanctions. They are down to 70 scholarship players and 1 whole recruit in their 2017 class so far. With an interim coach, it’ll be hard to recruit. How many years will it take for Baylor to recover?
LikeLike
> Some Big 12 presidents are concerned
> Baylor’s governance problems may go
> all the way up to a minority number of
> its board members …
Well, who did Pepper Hamilton work for? (In all likelihood these guys are well aware of what happened with Freeh/Penn State at this point. Big 12 presidents are not getting their information from Sara Ganim, that’s for sure.)
> The timing of how quickly Baylor settled
> Briles’ contract after his legal threat
> against the school also concerned some
> Big 12 presidents, sources said.
As well it should. These reports are commissioned to control a narrative, not to expose the truth.
LikeLike
The scandal at Baylor is almost acting like self-inflicted NCAA sanctions.
As the article notes, king programs generally recover from sanctions, but there is no such guarantee for Baylor, historically a middling program at best. It is entirely possible it will go the SMU route, and just never be great again, for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
The article mentions that some parents will not want their kids attending Baylor. Very true. Our daughter-in-law’s niece (her sister’s daughter) was offered a full athletic scholarship to Baylor. She almost went and then they decided that the full boat from Oregon was a much better idea. (I would have picked Oregon over Baylor in any event, but no one asked my opinion).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-the-big-12-is-pressing-baylor-for-info-from-its-sexual-assault-investigation/
Why the B12 is pushing Baylor for more info about the scandal.
What transpired at Baylor, both before and after the university released some findings from an investigation, caused serious concern among some Big 12 presidents about potential NCAA violations and how deep the scandal goes, according to three conference sources who requested anonymity to speak on the matter.
The Big 12 told Baylor it needs to satisfy the conference’s presidents that the school has made the necessary structural changes to avoid another major scandal. Some Big 12 presidents are concerned Baylor’s governance problems may go all the way up to a minority number of its board members, but they believe interim president David Garland wants to clean up the university and is receptive to the Big 12’s help, according to sources.
…
Concerns deepened within the Big 12 on June 14 when reports surfaced that Baylor’s board planned to vote on possibly bringing Briles back as coach in 2017 after a one-year suspension. Garland told Dallas TV station WFAA that he was “really caught off guard by all this” and that a meeting was scheduled for a different issue.
On June 16, Briles’ attorney filed a court motion accusing Baylor’s attorneys of acting disingenuously on his behalf in a Title IX lawsuit. A woman says Briles and other Baylor officials ignored her claims that she was raped by former football player Tevin Elliot, who was later convicted and sent to prison. In the June 16 court filing, Briles suggested he could soon sue Baylor for a number of claims, including wrongful termination, fraud, libel and slander, and negligence.
One day later, Baylor and Briles reached a settlement over the coach’s contract that the two sides confirmed publicly on June 25. The timing of how quickly Baylor settled Briles’ contract after his legal threat against the school also concerned some Big 12 presidents, sources said.
In an interview this week, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said he has had a couple conversations with Baylor about the Big 12’s efforts to obtain information and the university has “responded appropriately given the circumstance.” Bowlsby cautioned that the Big 12 is “very early” in a process that will likely take a while.
“They have indicated they’ll be as forthcoming as they possibly can, realizing there are pending legal issues for them,” Bowlsby said. “I’m sure that will mitigate some of what they can disclose.”
…
Baylor’s history of scandals has many Big 12 schools wondering what, if any, NCAA violations the university committed by covering up sexual assaults, sources said.
Since 2000, Baylor has had three major NCAA infraction cases, including academic fraud and a former men’s basketball coach covering up extra benefits by portraying a murdered player as a drug dealer. Those violations resulted in Baylor men’s basketball receiving a postseason ban and playing a shortened regular season. Most recently, Baylor was cited by the NCAA in 2012 for failure to monitor the men’s and women’s basketball programs due to impermissible benefits and other recruiting violations.
There are questions within the Big 12 about whether its schools have been disadvantaged in the past, and perhaps still to this day, if Baylor violated NCAA rules. Baylor said it voluntarily contacted the NCAA.
…
Bowlsby said examples of violations in a case such as Baylor’s could include players receiving legal assistance for free, impermissible transportation to meet legal obligations, and a university not complying with its own disciplinary policies. “But it’s far too early in the process to draw any conclusion on those things,” Bowlsby said.
The Big 12 is trying to walk a fine line over what information it can receive from Baylor, a private university that has said there is no written report from Pepper Hamilton to produce. That answer has been met with skepticism by some Big 12 schools, who believe no written report exists only if a university requests that no written report exists, sources said.
…
When asked if the Big 12 believes it can compel Baylor to provide the information, Bowlsby replied, “We certainly don’t have any legal standing, but our bylaws are clear that our institutions are expected to conduct their athletic program within institutional control in compliance with Title IX, among other things. There are parts of this that we have no province at all, and parts of it we have direct interest and we need to satisfy ourselves on the latter. There’s a legal process that’s going on with these sexual assaults and we don’t have any legal standing.”
The Big 12’s bylaws allow for a member to be sanctioned by a supermajority vote from the conference’s board of directors. Among the reasons the Big 12 could penalize a school is if it violates any conference rules or “engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole.” The bylaws list examples of penalties, such as restrictions on postseason events, TV appearances, revenue distributions, and scholarships.
LikeLike
I’m just starting a new thread to make replying easier:
Let’s look at Alan from Baton Rouge’s plan:
“Texas, TX Tech, Oklahoma & OK State to the Pac-12, now P-16. Div A – UW, WSU, Ore, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, USC & UCLA; Div B – ArSU, Ariz, Utah, Col, Texas, TX Tech, Okla & OK State.”
Reasonable. It almost happened once.
“North Carolina and Duke (or NC State) to the SEC East, with Mizzou moving to the SEC West”
Would the SEC double up in NC? I could see taking Duke for the MBB, a rival for UNC and not expanding the footprint too far but getting into VA has to be tempting for the SECN. NCSU would be a tougher choice to explain.
Mostly reasonable.
“Virginia and VA Tech to the B1G East, with Indiana moving to the B1G West.”
Would the B10 double up in VA to match the SEC at the border? There would be a third NC school to consider (especially if it’s Duke) plus other schools in the east (UConn, SU) that have similar academics to VT and would add to the footprint. I’d prefer VT for the CFB but adding to NYC appeal might be valuable (you’d have to run the numbers). There’s also the chance to get KU if academics mean more or GT if markets and demographics are the key.
Plausible – too many options to be more precise.
“That leaves the remaining 6 B-12 and 10 ACC schools left to form the Big Atlantic Conference (BAC), with Notre Dame as a non-football member that plays 6 games (3 in each division) each season.”
B12 – ISU, KU, KSU, WV, TCU, Baylor
ACC – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the ACC to steal WV and add UConn and stop at 12? I can see the temptation of KU MBB (especially after losing UNC and Duke), but their CFB is horrible and the travel in every sport adds up. The others have no value at all.
The B12 remainders should merge with the top of the MWC/AAC and BYU.
ISU, KU, KSU, TCU, Baylor + BYU, Boise, AF, CSU, UH, SMU, Tulsa
12 schools, 4 in TX and 1 in OK to try to keep old markets, 2 in CO to try to reclaim that state and bridge to the 2 best CFB programs left in the west.
It wouldn’t be a power conference quite, but it would be better than any G5.
LikeLike
Would VT not be a candidate to go SEC, or are they bound to UVA? If UVA and a NC school was B1G invited wouldn’t an SEC invite enable the separation?
LikeLike
As described by a fellow from Virginia at CSNBBS, supporters of VTech built up their political clout to get the ability to pressure UVA into voting them into the ACC, and haven’t given that political clout up. I have no idea how accurate that characterization is, but if it’s accurate, it’s rather a matter of VTech has to be taken good care of if UVA wishes to move, than of UVA and VTech being tied at the hip.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“As described by a fellow from Virginia at CSNBBS, supporters of VTech built up their political clout to get the ability to pressure UVA into voting them into the ACC, and haven’t given that political clout up.”
That situation required the special circumstance of UVA having the swing vote for expansion. Without that leverage, I doubt VT gets in.
“I have no idea how accurate that characterization is, but if it’s accurate, it’s rather a matter of VTech has to be taken good care of if UVA wishes to move, than of UVA and VTech being tied at the hip.”
It’s one thing to have the clout to force UVA to vote for VT, it’s another to prevent UVA from doing something good for UVA unless VT breaks even or also benefits.
LikeLike
That was back when both VT (stuck in the Big East) AND UVA’s conference needed help. It was an easy sell. IF UVA wants to go to the B1G…it will go to the B1G.
LikeLike
“It’s one thing to have the clout to force UVA to vote for VT, it’s another to prevent UVA from doing something good for UVA unless VT breaks even or also benefits.”
That sounds plausible, though I don’t know enough about State of VA politics to get into an argument on those grounds. Indeed, I was in the middle of final exam and end of semester research essay grading, so I didn’t feel interested in pursuing a discussion where I don’t see any likely movement until the middle of next decade.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Would VT not be a candidate to go SEC, or are they bound to UVA?”
I’d think VT might actually be the SEC’s preferred choice for CFB reasons over UVA. I don’t think they are bound as long as both have a decent home.
“If UVA and a NC school was B1G invited wouldn’t an SEC invite enable the separation?”
I think so. Alan thinks the SEC might prefer to firm up their border rather than split VA and NC with the B10 and he might be right. UNC might demand NCSU or Duke as their partner, too.
So you’re thinking step 2 is the SEC taking UNC and either UVA or VT?
How does the B10 counter? They don’t want NCSU and I’m not sure Duke is sufficient being a small private school with weak CFB. If UVA is in the SEC, is VT an option for the B10?
LikeLike
Brian:
“So you’re thinking step 2 is the SEC taking UNC and either UVA or VT?”
Assuming P16 first? No, I think there’s going to be a significant lag (at least ’24 and probably ’31). Enough that demographic changes could possibly make a B1G invite more acceptable to fans/alumni of UNC. I just don’t see them (and UVA or Duke) ending the ACC in simply a preemptive move to the SEC. But I also don’t think UT wants to be seen making first move to start the cascade, so I’m not sure what starts it. Perhaps a B1G public announcement of actively researching expansion like in ’09 would provide cover?
If UNC and UVA did go SEC, I’m not sure if there is a move by B1G. Perhaps two of VT, GT, or Kansas? (Can’t see FSU.) But that seems purely reactionary. My personal opinion is reaching 16 is not a goal. Getting UVA and UNC is, and coincidentally they would make 16. I’m leaving the white whale out intentionally. They would need to interject themselves into any expansion discussion.
LikeLike
I think the issues in step down form
#1 ACC must be unstable enough to have the lead dogs like UNC and UVA go
Personally, short of nuclear winter I do not think this will happen. Aside from the ego hit from a school like UNC being demoted from a King in the ACC to a Prince in the B1G or SEC I do not see ESPN letting go of a crown jewel to FOX and the BTN. Since realignment in 2010, perhaps the ACC has made the most with their additions in moving out of the prey category and moving into the predator one. They got an elite basketball school with 100 million sports revenue, They got a school in New York, they got a solid school in Pennsylvania, and they get a deal with Notre Dame the Big East never got.
#2 The chess match is in full force
While assuming UVA + UNC to the B1G while their little brothers find a new home in the confines of the SEC probably never flies in the presidents office because of the potential to cripple the big brother school and elevating the little brother school in the process. If the respective boards of UVA and UNC know VT and NCST have no chance at B1G membership, then the smart play is to deny them the SEC and take those spots first. The smart move is for both to go to the SEC which keeps control over the little brothers.
#3 Like it or not, fans (ticket sales) and alumni (donations) get better effect with SEC
While I personally think it would be cool to have California in the B1G such a move never flies with actual ticket buyers and alumni of Cal. They have a history in the PCC and PAC and have little cultural fit in a midwest conference. When UNC rumored a B1G move they got 250 response to move to the SEC for every 1 response to move to the B1G. It may be one thing for a president to move if they have 50/50 or 60/40 splits but when the vast majority support a single move then you are basically left with sitting pat or moving where the majority falls.
TAMU is a classic example of the fans altering the decision of the president and board in their move to the SEC. While the PAC was desired by the administration, a forceful grass roots move ended that decision. Seems the TAMU president was quoted later at being caught off guard on just how strong the desire was to go to a different conference. More interesting was how in the span of a year or two the very pro B1G Missouri went full on for SEC membership. so it is never simple to say one thing when the base of fans and alumni to not support it.
.
…
.
In short
ACC does not get picked off as easily as most posters think
UNC and UVA will go SEC and deny NCST and VT those spots
Ignoring fans and alumni means making incorrect final destinations
LikeLike
A take on effect of Facebook live on TV.
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-live-and-the-death-of-tv-2016-7
LikeLike
https://ncstate.n.rivals.com/news/nc-state-athletics-director-debbie-yow-q-a-part-iii
Debbie Yow (NCSU AD) asked about the ACCN in a late June interview with the school paper. Since this is only a small part of a very long interview, I’ll excerpt her entire answer.
Any new updates on the ACC Network?
“I’ve always been bullish on the ACC Network, even though I don’t know anything specifically about when it could happen. Nothing about that has changed.
“I do believe it is going to happen. I know there is a lot of publicity with the Big Ten and SEC networks. Ours is coming.
“You need two things: more visibility for everybody, especially the Olympic sports, and more money. With the kind of money that the SEC schools and Big Ten schools are making, it would bode well for us to have an operational, linear network and begin to see what kind of distribution and money we can get for that.
“I will tell you this, there is another construction project and it’s a broadcast studio for the ACC Network. That would tell you I am very bullish on the ACC Network.
“This will be housed inside of the Murphy Center because we actually have space in there. When Chuck Amato was our coach and the Murphy Center was built, they built a racquetball court, which is now used to store stuff.
“We can reconfigure that area into an amazing studio and stay inside the envelope of the current building. We have to do that and buy the HD cameras.
“We bought the HD cameras and equipment we needed for Reynolds, which will have a control room right away. Whenever the ACC Network becomes a reality, we’ll need more HD cameras and other equipment over in the Murphy Center. That project is $6 million, and athletics is carrying that.
“I’m not asking the Wolfpack Club staff to fund raise for that. We haven’t started any construction yet, so we have time to figure it out.”
Are there ever any concerns about the impact of cable-cord cutters?
“Not really. They have two sources of revenue: subscription rates and advertising. ESPN has experience in this. I think when you partner with them you should feel secure in the future.
“They will figure it out. They know how to make money.”
LikeLike
Perhaps ACCN shows up here?
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/report-espn-to-sell-an-over-the-top-streaming-service-to-consumers.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
Nothing says priority like repurposing abandoned racquetball court/storage space…
LikeLike
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unbundling-espn-possibly-preparing-standalone-service/15837851/
A little ACCN talk.
Every time the subject of the ACC’s long-gestating ESPN channel comes up, conference commissioner John Swofford’s talking points are essentially the same – the ACC and ESPN will continue to evaluate the industry landscape. But make no mistake, ol’ Ninja Swoff is scheming something with the Worldwide Leader.
That something might might be a web-based, stand-alone initiative in lieu of a tradition linear channel.
According to Business Insider, ESPN is planning a direct-to-consumer package of live programming. ESPN’s plan wouldn’t offer a full programming lineup, excluding games from the NFL and NBA, but would focus on “niche leagues and possibly some types of college sports” instead.
If it turns out Disney, ESPN’s parent company, has finally warmed up to the idea of untethering certain live sports properties from the mothership, it’s entirely possible the ACC is part of those plans. Swofford hinted as much during the conference’s annual spring meetings in May.
…
Despite industry movement towards more streaming, a handful of ACC athletic directors continue to pine for a linear channel. In a recent interview with the Wolfpacker, NC State AD Debbie Yow said she was “bullish” about a network similar to the SEC and Big Ten.
“You need two things: more visibility for everybody, especially the Olympic sports, and more money,” Yow said. “With the kind of money that the SEC schools and Big 10 schools are making, it would bode well for us to have an operational, linear network and begin to see what kind of distribution and money we can get for that.”
Unfortunately for the ACC, the window for an ESPN network similar to SEC’s might have closed as the television industry goes in the direction of skinny bundles.
There’s also the matter of demand. SEC markets, where college sports are essentially treated as professional, are thirsty enough for a product that broadcasts third-tier matchups. The ACC loves to discuss their footprint, but it covers too many markets where college sports rank below their professional counterparts.
…
In order for a traditional cable channel to work, ESPN would have to risk putting high-value matchups, such as a Duke vs. North Carolina basketball game, as exclusives to drum up demand. That’s a highly unlikely proposition for obvious reasons. However, the ACC and ESPN could cater to motivated niche fans who would pay to watch sports like baseball and lacrosse through an on-demand service. Growing from there, the ACC could begin offering more basketball and lower tier football.
Bottom line – the landscape appears ripe for the ACC and ESPN to explore a different model.
Consider recent Nielsen research data indicating streaming video subscriptions and digital video players are just as popular as DVRs. High speed broadband access continues to come down in price, leading more consumers to at least consider the option of all-stream household. And take a look at how tech companies, like Twitter, have placed value on streaming sports for their platforms.
The future is here, so the ACC might as well start acting like it.
And ESPN is going to pay the ACC $45M per year until their current deal ends for operating the network of the future? That seems kind of expensive to me.
LikeLike
http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/
This FSU fan has some questions.
This is an interesting topic and rarely addressed (because there are so few “ACC media” and the few there are just shill for Swofford). The ACC is pumping out regular PR that basically is a funny sales job. Thankfully for Swofford the ACC is made up of fan bases just happy to be in the Power 5.
Real issues that are always ignored by the ACC:
…
*Is the revenue with 80% of the SEC channel?
*If the “future” methodology is so great, why are ACC ADs still wanting a “linear channel”?
*If ACC schools were added for their great markets like Penn, New York, etc…..how does that benefit the ACC when we aren’t tapping into those markets with cable bundling anymore? Will those TINY fan bases actually be buying an ACC channel?
*How does the ACC make up for such tiny fan bases to make a pay for a web site channel game plan work?
*If it is so great, larger fan bases conferences are just going to follow suit and blow the ACC away with revenue.
*Why does the ACC media keep ignoring REAL revenue questions with weak statements like “ACC will never make as much as the SEC” when that is a strawman argument? Nobody is claiming it will. What the issue is…..is what % of revenue will the ACC make? If it is 80%…fine….if it is 30%……FAIL.
LikeLike
The real problem in all of this is that you need a linear network to get you to the so called “future OTT streaming world”… because nobody is going to generate enough $ from a pure OTT network off the bat.
And that of course is why the ACC media keeps mentioning the linear network because that’s the only way to get a quick boost in payments.
Getting to $100 million in annual OTT revenue attributed to ACC content (even as part of a larger OTT offering) seems like a massive stretch in any kind of short-term (and that’s before you split it up between ESPN and the ACC).
LikeLike
But the question is, how does the ACC get any quick boost in payments from aggregating rights that it has already sold? It would seem like they are already getting payments for those rights, and any benefit from a linear channel will be modest and, given the challenges they would face in getting carriage, likely to be delayed.
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2016/7/10/12119340/b1gass-cup-2016
A comparison of all the B10 schools based on all the B10 sports they participate in and using just conference results. Also with last year’s results for comparison.
LikeLike
> The more I ‘stay tuned’ the worse this gets.
It sure looks worse, doesn’t it?
Many people confuse allegations with fact, and optics with truth.
I think you are doing both. You might also be confusing the media narrative with the real story.
—
First of all, did you notice that the story you posted makes no mention of the 1971 allegation? Why not?
Because it’s bullshit.
But it was a big story by a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist just two months ago! A Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist!!!
Of course, the contradictions in the story were transparent. And just a tiny bit of background research also proved the story to be BS.
Are all these stories just too good to verify?
When the credibility of accusations is not being verified and one of the three possible conditions PSU requires for a big payday is that the abuse is tied to Joe Paterno, guess what happens? Magically, unbelievably, abuse claims get tied to Paterno.
Here’s what one of the lawyers for the 1976 victim said in May:
“‘The headlines of these stories is Paterno knew of Sandusky’s molestation in the ’70s — ’76 or ’77. I’m unaware of direct, irrefutable evidence that that’s the case,’ Boni said. ‘Believe me, I’m the last person to defend the guy, but I am the first person to believe in our justice system. And I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence.'”
This from the *victim’s* lawyer.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2016-05-07/passion-pain-reignited-over-new-penn-state-abuse-claims)
Here’s part of the real story that’s getting lost in the hype:
Expert: Penn State Payouts in Abuse Case Surprisingly High
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/records-reveal-claim-boy-told-paterno-abuse-40507174
“Lawyer Eric Anderson, who reviewed the cases during a dispute between Penn State and its insurer, also said the school ‘made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals.'”
In 2003, the Boston Archdiocese paid $85 million to 552 victims of child sexual abuse. Penn State has paid $92 million to 32 claimants, few of them verified.
Why such huge payouts with so little vetting? (Perhaps for the same reason that Baylor caved so quickly to Art Briles? 😉
As I’ve been saying here for over three years, there is a lot more to this story …
(Just to be clear: I believe real victims of child sexual abuse should get as much money and justice as they are able. — And there were real victims here. — CSA is a horrific crime with horrific aftereffects.)
Trials, during which there will be real vetting, are coming.
I’ve done my homework, Mike. Keep watching! 😉
P.S. You might want to check out the background of the individual in line to be the next chair of the PSU BoT.
LikeLike
When the credibility of accusations is not being verified and one of the three possible conditions PSU requires for a big payday is that the abuse is tied to Joe Paterno, guess what happens? Magically, unbelievably, abuse claims get tied to Paterno.
But as you admit, “Sandusky obviously did not become a serial predator in 1998 at age 50.” It is fairly likely, that of the pre-1998 accusations coming out, some are true. The fact that someone could benefit from talking about them, does not mean they are all liars.
Now, it is possible that Sandusky molested them, but, conveniently, they are fabricating (under oath) the part about Paterno or other PSU officials knowing about it. But isn’t it hard to believe that Sandusky was committing all of these monstrous acts for years and years, literally under their noses, and no one else noticed anything odd?
LikeLike
> But as you admit, “Sandusky
> obviously did not become a
> serial predator in 1998 at age 50.”
As I admit???
I’ve been screaming this obvious fact here since 2012 or 2013, and the only responses I’ve ever received (until now) are that I am a JoeBot, a conspiracy theorist, and that Freeh has it all wrapped up! 🙂
BTW, why didn’t the state investigators find the victims in today’s news stories credible? Why didn’t the Freeh investigators find them credible? (Why did Penn State hire Freeh, anyway?)
> It is fairly likely, that of the pre-1998
> accusations coming out, some are
> true. The fact that someone could
> benefit from talking about them,
> does not mean they are all liars.
[Why didn’t the state investigators find the victims in today’s news stories credible? Why didn’t the Freeh investigators find them credible? (Why did Penn State hire Freeh, anyway?)]
No, it certainly doesn’t mean that they are all liars. — But “fairly likely”?
Have you heard of the McMartin Preschool abuse scandal? Apparently almost all of the multitudinous accusations in that case were completely false, and none of the rest could be proven. The whole thing was based on hysteria. In the Penn State case, large sums of free money were added to the mix. (This was on purpose.)
As we’ve all seen, child sexual abuse is a very difficult topic for human beings to discuss and assess rationally.
All that said, I believe Sandusky was a pedophile (he has himself admitted enough to be convicted of child abuse, maybe of child sexual abuse), and I don’t doubt that some (many, most?) of the payees were actual victims. Indeed, any child who hung out with Sandusky — every single one an at-risk child from The Second Mile — was a potential victim of Jerry Sandusky. He probably had at least 50-100 victims, over 40 years.
This doesn’t mean that any particular story that any claimant told for the explicit purpose of receiving large sums of money is credible. (The state investigators didn’t believe them, and Freeh’s investigators didn’t, either.)
We don’t have any corroboration for *any* of the new claims, including the presence of witnesses. (That’s why we use trials to assess actual facts, not the Internet or even depositions.)
Also, it needs to be said, anyone who saw Sandusky with a child — even in a questionable situation — did not therefore understand that Sandusky was actually a pedophile. That’s not how compliant victimization looks or works. (Victimizing children in “public” — in situations where he was likely to be seen — was not Sandusky’s MO. He was very careful about his behavior.) It is also important to remember that Sandusky was cleared by state child abuse experts. The state was approving his adoption of children, for crying out loud!
For context, Jerry Sandusky was a nationally renowned children’s charity *hero* at the time. The Second Mile was even one of George H.W. Bush’s “thousand points of light” — not because of football, and not because of Paterno (who had almost nothing to do with TSM and disliked Sandusky), but because of the politicians, political donors, and other national celebrities who touted Sandusky’s “good work” with children! (Always follow the money.)
Who commissioned the Freeh report again?
> Now, it is possible that Sandusky
> molested them, but, conveniently, they
> are fabricating (under oath) the part
> about Paterno or other PSU officials
> knowing about it.
[Why didn’t the state investigators find the victims in today’s news stories credible? Why didn’t the Freeh investigators find them credible? (Why did Penn State hire Freeh, anyway?)]
Conveniently, indeed.
When were they under oath? During their negotiations with Penn State? Even if they had been under oath then, the reports I’ve seen say that Penn State barely vetted them, if at all. There were not going to be any trials — that was the explicit purpose of the settlements.
Once they had made their accusations and received their money — and were therefore locked into their stories — and then PMA unexpectedly deposed them, the payees still had no reasonable expectation that they would see a courtroom and be cross-examined about their stories. But, anyway, by then it was too late.
Of all the victims who have actually been vetted, none has claimed that Paterno knew anything. As I’ve said in a previous post, the state investigators have said there were no credible victim accusations of Paterno.
So … (1) no victims who have been vetted claim that Paterno knew of or witnessed abuse; and (2) all the victims who have claimed Paterno knew of or witnessed abuse were disbelieved by state investigators, disbelieved by Freeh investigators — and then paid by Penn State. (Why did Penn State hire Freeh?)
What is the most likely explanation for this fact pattern?
> But isn’t it hard to believe that
> Sandusky was committing all of these
> monstrous acts for years and years,
> literally under their noses, and no one
> else noticed anything odd?
[Why didn’t the state investigators find the victims in today’s news stories credible? Why didn’t the Freeh investigators find them credible? (Why did Penn State hire Freeh, anyway?)]
First of all, it wasn’t “literally under their noses”. We’ve discussed related misconceptions already.
Second, yes, it is extremely difficult for laypeople to understand and believe that a pedophile isn’t immediately recognizable. Nonetheless, it’s true.
If you don’t know about it already, look up “grooming”, not just of children but of adults. Have you ever seen estimates of child abuse incidence in this country? Do you know how many incidents get reported? get prosecuted? Is it because we’re all “enablers”?
Or is it because child sexual abusers don’t look or act the way our preconceptions say they should, and it is often much more ambiguous and just plain hidden than one might imagine?
This is one of the biggest tragedies of the Sandusky scandal. We could all be learning about what child sexual abuse actually looks like (and doesn’t look like) — to better protect children — but instead we’re coming from a position of pure ignorance to accuse people on flimsy evidence. Unfortunately, child sexual abuse happens everywhere, all the time, and is usually not recognized.
This is a very difficult topic to discuss reasonably, as evidenced in this blog’s comments over the past few years.
Cf. The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial: A Commentary
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartinaccount.html
“The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and 15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions. More seriously, the McMartin case left in its wake hundreds of emotionally damaged children, as well as ruined careers for members of the McMartin staff.”
Almost all the “facts” you’ve been fed in this case are very wrong in one way or another. It will become clearer soon — I believe within the year (before next July).
Think like a fact-finder who has studied and understands child sexual abuse, not like a college football fan.
(And don’t forget The Second Mile.)
LikeLike
Think like a fact-finder who has studied and understands child sexual abuse, not like a college football fan.
Have you done that, either? As far as I can tell, your motivation is to defend Paterno’s reputation against all comers. That’s thinking like a college football fan.
The McMartin case does not stand for the proposition you think it does. The principal defendant (Ray Buckley) was tried twice. The first trial led to a partial acquittal and a hung jury on 13 charges. Eight of those charges were tried a second time, also with a hung jury. The state elected not to try him a third time.
In our society, we have chosen to make convictions extremely difficult to get, which means that guilty people are sometimes not charged; and when charged, are sometimes not convicted. This is as it should be; but it does not mean that Ray Buckley was innocent; indeed, at both of his trials, at least some jurors were convinced he was guilty of at least some charges. I would hate to think this man lost his reputation and years of his life, if he was innocent. But I don’t know if he was, and neither do you.
LikeLike
Summation of the McMartin case.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_2_7.htm
LikeLike
> Have you done that, either? As
> far as I can tell, your motivation
> is to defend Paterno’s reputation
> against all comers. That’s
> thinking like a college football fan.
Marc, I notice that you rarely acknowledge what others say, often even answering your own questions to them and/or ignoring their questions to you. Sometimes you make up “facts” that you imagine will “win”, sometimes you refuse to give references — and at times you even choose to act like a three-year-old.
You even refuse to recognize alternative points of view when the facts don’t support your own, all the while displaying that trademark sanctimony.
When you’re ready to have a fact-based, grown-up conversation, get back to me.
Until then, keep watching, Marc! 😉
P.S. The answer to your question is yes.
LikeLike
> Summation of the McMartin case.
>
> http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_2_7.htm
Yeah, some of that kind of stuff happened in the Sandusky trial, too. For example (as you probably know), *during* *trial* two Pennsylvania State Troopers were caught committing perjury about how they had obtained accusations from children. (Funny that it happened in open court and they’ve never been charged.)
In the McMartin case, seven people were charged with 208 counts. Only Ray Buckey was retried (and not convicted). That means six others were tried but not convicted in the first trial.
The following isn’t what I was trying to say when I originally referenced the McMartin case (I was trying to say that the mere fact of many allegations in a child sexual abuse case means little without evidence — the McMartin case not being the only example, BTW), but it does have parallels to the Penn State case so far. Sandusky’s guilty and in jail (as he should be), but what about the other three? It’s been almost 5 years with nary a trial in sight, although many charges have been dropped along the way … (Why is that?)
P.S. Have you gotten a good answer yet to your question about why the state of Pennsylvania let Sandusky off in 1998 even though they had a confession?
LikeLike
Carl,
P.S. Have you gotten a good answer yet to your question about why the state of Pennsylvania let Sandusky off in 1998 even though they had a confession?
Nope.
I linked the McMartin article because I believe Marc (and I could be wrong) felt that Buckley may not have been innocent.
I believe that McMartin has more in common with Duke Lacrosse than Sandusky.
Highly charged atmosphere, rush to judgment, conviction in the press and public opinion
And overzealous DA that was not going to let facts stand in the way of getting a conviction.
In Sandusky case he was found guilty and as far as I know no one thinks he was railroaded.
As far as the other information on PSU, I plead total ignorance. I wasn’t there and haven’t read any transcripts. So I can’t render a cogent opinion.
My only involvement was the reference to Buckley’s innocence and what really happened.
If I drew the wrong impression, that Buckley may not have been innocence. Then I apologize..
LikeLike
> If I drew the wrong impression,
> that Buckley may not have been
> innocence. Then I apologize..
No need to apologize, the article you posted pretty clearly takes the position that Buckey was innocent. (And I wasn’t trying to compare Buckey with Sandusky, in case it seemed that way.)
LikeLike
Marc, I notice that you rarely acknowledge what others say, often even answering your own questions to them and/or ignoring their questions to you. Sometimes you make up “facts” that you imagine will “win”, sometimes you refuse to give references — and at times you even choose to act like a three-year-old.
This is all hilarious, bearing in mind that I am probably the most pro-Paterno person here who did not go to Penn State. If you were paying attention, you will have noticed that, among other things, I said the statue could and should be restored eventually, a position that I suspect has me in the minority among football fans who are not PSU fans. I have also said repeatedly that the university got jobbed by the NCAA. I am probably the most pro-PSU Michigan fan that there is.
Apparently, in your mind, no one above the age of three would suggest that it remains an open question whether Paterno did all he could or should to stop Sandusky. I guess the college football world is populated mainly with three-year-olds, as this is pretty much the prevailing view among non-PSU partisans — except for those who have an even harsher view.
I don’t answer every question you pose, because this is a hobbyist message board, not a deposition. I have other things to do, and anyhow, you don’t care what anyone else says. You seem to believe your role here is to teach us what we poor innocent folk don’t know.
LikeLike
Carl:
“Think like a fact-finder who has studied and understands child sexual abuse, not like a college football fan.”
Marc:
> … I am probably the most pro-Paterno person here who did not go to Penn State.
> I am probably the most pro-PSU Michigan fan that there is.
> … the prevailing view among non-PSU partisans …
🙂
LikeLike
Think like a fact-finder who has studied and understands child sexual abuse, not like a college football fan.
Apparently, it comes as a surprise to you that a website about college sports has sports enthusiasts in its midst. Coming soon: Carl astonished to find that water is wet.
I have no expertise in child abuse, and I am not so arrogant as to believe I would acquire it on a sports website.
LikeLike
The more I ‘stay tuned’ the worse this gets.
http://deadspin.com/unsealed-court-documents-sandusky-abuse-allegation-was-1783508016
The documents were unsealed by a judge this morning, and PennLive.com and other local outlets are poring over them as we speak. One of the more important documents appears to be a report prepared by Williams, the risk-management expert hired by the insurance provider to determine when top university officials should have known about the raft of allegations against Sandusky, who was found guilty on 45 charges and will die in prison.
In compiling his report, Williams was given access to information about Penn State’s settlements. This is confidential information, and in addition to citing two more widely known incidents (including that witnessed by Mike McQueary), the report appears to have unearthed four new cases that were not publicly known:
A 1976 incident where one alleged victim made a report to Joe Paterno.
A 1987 instance of improper sexual contact between Sandusky and a minor that was witnessed by then-assistant coach Joe Sarra.
A 1988 instance of improper sexual contact between Sandusky and a child that was witnessed by then-assistant coach Kevin O’Dea.
A 1988 incident, the report of which was referred to then-athletic director Jim Tarman.
LikeLike
The university’s response is that these new charges are not proven, which is true. On the other hand, the odds are low that four separate allegations from separate accusers are entirely false, bearing in mind that they are totally consistent with Sandusky’s known patterns of behavior.
LikeLike
I still find it amazing how the NCAA so quickly backed off PSU (following its original tough stance). It’s only a matter of time before they give all of his wins back and PSU puts the statue back up. It’s a disgusting story and a blight on college football. And I used to enjoy Penn State football from afar and often root for that program to some extent.
LikeLike
> I still find it amazing how the NCAA
> so quickly backed off PSU (following
> its original tough stance).
It’s not remotely amazing when you understand that the NCAA knows the truth about the Freeh report. (They helped write it.)
> It’s only a matter of time before they
> give all of his wins back …
That happened at the beginning of 2015.
> It’s a disgusting story and a blight
> on college football. And I used to
> enjoy Penn State football from afar …
Believe me, the real story is much more disgusting than the media narrative.
I used to love watching PSU football — but not so much any more.
It was never all about football for me …
LikeLike
I didn’t realize or remember that they gave all of the wins back. Not remotely surprised though.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize or remember that they gave all of the wins back.
It was part of the settlement of a lawsuit. Anyhow, of all the sanctions, it was the most toothless. There is a real-world consequence to a bowl ban or scholarship reduction. But you can’t make people forget that he won those games. Although the NCAA database removed those wins, plenty of other CFB databases kept them. No one adds a footnote in old newspaper stories, to indicate that the purported win did not actually happen. No one removes all of the highlights on YouTube.
LikeLike
I still find it amazing how the NCAA so quickly backed off PSU (following its original tough stance).
The NCAA totally bypassed its own enforcement mechanism. The internal emails that surfaced, concerning the ad hoc process they followed to arrive at PSU’s penalties, made the NCAA look awfully bad. I suspect the NCAA, which is not known for caving in easily, figured out that the lawsuit against them was going to be embarrassing, and they were likely to lose.
The NCAA has enough trouble prosecuting the cases that are uniquely within its jurisdiction. The Penn State case is better suited to the criminal and civil justice systems. It’s not as if, without NCAA action, legions of child molesters would go unpunished. By the time this is over, PSU will likely have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. The NCAA sanctions (later rescinded) were just “piling on”, had only a tenuous connection to the real wrongdoing, and seemed mostly designed politically to allow the NCAA to make the sanctimonious claim that it had “done something about Penn State”.
As far as I know, the rule/bylaw they used to punish PSU had never been used for that purpose, or anything remotely similar to that purpose, before. Even if PSU is not exactly a sympathetic actor in this story, the NCAA’s handling of the case didn’t cover them in glory — even if you believe that they had any business being involved in it at all.
It’s only a matter of time before they give all of his wins back and PSU puts the statue back up.
They already DID give the wins back, and I think there is a pretty good chance the statue will go back up eventually.
It’s a disgusting story and a blight on college football.
You should worry more about pay-for-play and academic scandals (e.g., Mississippi State): cases like that are pervasive. Of course, child rape is far worse, but as far as we know, it’s not a systemic problem. Sandusky was a monster who happened to be a coach, but there seem (so far, and fortunately) to be no others like him.
LikeLike
Some more details.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17015181/testimony-unsealed-documents-alleges-joe-paterno-knew-jerry-sandusky-abuse-1976
Joe Paterno was aware of sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky as far back as 1976 and some assistant coaches knew in subsequent decades, according to alleged victims’ depositions that were unsealed Tuesday.
John Doe 150 said in a 2014 deposition that he informed Paterno the day after a 1976 incident that Sandusky stuck his finger in the then-14-year-old boy’s rectum while he showered. The man said in 2014 that other boys in a shower heard him yell that Sandusky had just touched him sexually.
He said he told several adults about it, then sought out Paterno.
“Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, ‘I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?'” a lawyer for Penn State’s insurance carrier asked the man. “Specifically, yes,” the man replied.
“I was shocked, disappointed, offended, I was insulted,” John Doe 150 testified. “I said, is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?”
He said Paterno then “just walked away.”
…
According to the documents, current UCLA defensive coordinator Tom Bradley and Ohio State defensive coordinator Greg Schiano were among those coaches who were also aware of the abuse. Mike McQueary, a former assistant who reported to Paterno the 2001 incident in a team shower and who testified against Sandusky at trial, said in a 2015 deposition that former defensive coordinator Bradley was “not shocked” when told of it.
Bradley, who briefly took over as head coach after Paterno’s firing, “said he knew of some things” about Sandusky dating to the 1980s, McQueary testified.
A lawyer for Bradley told The Associated Press that they are reviewing the court documents.
McQueary said Bradley told him that he’d been approached by someone in the ’80s who saw Sandusky “doing something to a boy” and that in the ’90s, former assistant coach Schiano saw Sandusky in the shower with a boy.
“Greg had come into his office white as a ghost and said he just saw Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower,” McQueary testified.
Schiano told ESPN: “I never saw any abuse, nor had reason to suspect any abuse, during my time at Penn State.”
LikeLike
> A lawyer for Bradley told The
> Associated Press that they are
> reviewing the court documents.
An update from Tom Bradley via the Deadspin:
Update (3:08 p.m.): A representative of Tom Bradley sends along the following statement:
“At no time did Tom Bradley ever witness any inappropriate behavior. Nor did he have any knowledge of alleged incidents in the 80’s and 90’s. He has consistently testified as such. Any assertions to the contrary are false. When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier.”
(http://deadspin.com/mike-mcqueary-claims-greg-schiano-and-tom-bradley-knew-1783514641)
LikeLike
It has been reported that Greg Schiano, now an assistant at OSU, was also a witness to a Sandusky “incident”. From the small article it appears that Schiano immediately reported the incident to his supervisor, Tom Bradley. Based on that Schiano seems to be clean and did what he was supposed to do.
Sandusky really was a very sick serial predator. I will not get involved in this PSU thread further, but it just seems hard to believe that every single coach in the program did not at the least hear whispers about Sandusky. That does not mean that they are all guilty of anything, only that they probably knew something.
I have no facts to support my prior assumption, but rely on “smoke therefore fire”. Please do not bother telling me that I know nothing about the PSU mess. I admit that is the situation.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/7/12/12160088/report-greg-schiano-knew-about-jerry-sandusky-at-penn-state-mike-mcqueary-joe-paterno
LikeLike
Exactly. What’s amazing to me is not that some awful human being like Sandusky exists…or that his boss(es) let him effectively get away with it for years. What boggles my mind is how many grown men were apparently aware of it all (in some cases FIRST-HAND) and apparently thought “i reported it to my boss…my responsibility in this matter is done”. Wow.
LikeLike
> I have no facts to support my prior
> assumption, but rely on “smoke
> therefore fire”.
Oh, there sure was fire. As I’ve pointed out before, Sandusky obviously did not become a serial predator in 1998 at age 50. A good question to explore would be: why were charges continually dropped?
P.S. I appreciate your honesty, Jersey Bernie, with respect to the facts.
LikeLike
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-espn-close-tv-post.html
ACC/ESPN deal is expected to be announced soon. Hopefully this shuts down a lot of the bogus conference realignment chatter.
LikeLike
As with any long running topic of speculation, it’ll be nice to finally get resolution on the ACCN. Once the facts are out there, at least it will be more informed speculation above realignment.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/12/air-force-army-navy-academy-athletes-professional-sports-policy
A new policy will allow service academy players to go pro in sports immediately after graduating
The academies made the change in its policy in May. Previously, athletes who graduated from the schools were required to serve 24 months of active duty before being placed on reserve status to participate in professional sports.
Though graduates can now apply for reserve duty immediately after graduation, Air Force athletic director Jim Knowlton told the Gazette decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis. The shift in policy was partially inspired by Navy quarterback Keenan Reynolds, who was drafted in the fifth round of the 2016 NFL draft.
LikeLike
Although this is a good deal for top players does anyone else feel it cheapens the academies? Perhaps some may, rather than to serve their country, enroll in order to get a big jump on a commercial flying career (or another area). Shouldn’t they be allowed to jump at an extremely good opportunity straight out of school, too?
LikeLike
I suppose it benefits the academies too, due to the favorable publicity they get, and I doubt the exception will be used very often.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Although this is a good deal for top players does anyone else feel it cheapens the academies?”
No. I’ve heard military people say nothing is better advertising for the academies than star athletes playing in the pros. It’s better than putting them in uniform in a recruitment office somewhere.
“Perhaps some may, rather than to serve their country, enroll in order to get a big jump on a commercial flying career (or another area). Shouldn’t they be allowed to jump at an extremely good opportunity straight out of school, too?”
The difference is that no other career is as time sensitive as professional athletics. Two years is a large portion of the athlete’s peak physical years and going without training can make it very hard to return to the athlete that you were before. It’s easier in basketball than football, for example. You can serve your time and become a commercial pilot with no detriment to your career.
Besides, we’re realistically talking about fewer than 10 players per decade.
LikeLike
“I’ve heard military people say nothing is better advertising for the academies than star athletes playing in the pros. It’s better than putting them in uniform in a recruitment office somewhere.”
I understand that. But are the academies producing highly trained officers, or are they now just very expensive recruiting offices? Kinda the opposite of Tillman’s sense of duty, which I’d always assumed was ingrained (even required/demanded) of those seeking admission to one of the academies.
LikeLike
But are the academies producing highly trained officers, or are they now just very expensive recruiting offices?
They can be more than one thing at a time. I mean, why do the academies play Division I sports at all? It’s not because linebackers make better fighter pilots. It’s because the academies are the military’s “front porch,” and a popular sports team is a terrific yard sign.
For that matter, why do publicly funded state universities admit players who everyone knows have no intention whatsoever of obtaining a degree, and in fact, couldn’t care less about said degree?
If 10 service academy players per decade go directly to pro sports, I wouldn’t feel like the their primary function had been fatally compromised. It’s a few drops in the bucket.
LikeLike
Marc:
“For that matter, why do publicly funded state universities admit players who everyone knows have no intention whatsoever of obtaining a degree…”
Because they qualify for admission, and they are recruited and required to maintain eligibility? None of them have future service as a commissioned officer as a condition of their expensive fed funded education. I know there is tuition forgiveness at some schools if a veterinarian, for example, practices for a specified time in that state. But that isn’t the same. They are in fact applying the education the state subsidized.
LikeLike
“For that matter, why do publicly funded state universities admit players who everyone knows have no intention whatsoever of obtaining a degree…”
Because they qualify for admission, and they are recruited and required to maintain eligibility? None of them have future service as a commissioned officer as a condition of their expensive fed funded education.
I am aware that the analogy breaks down in that respect: scholarship athletes at other schools have no post-attendance commitment. But it is similar, in the sense that in both cases the athletes are receiving a benefit having nothing to do with the schools’ purported pedagogical mission.
Schools accept kids who’d never otherwise be there; knowing full well that, to them, the education is of secondary importance (or no importance at all); and knowing full well that those kids have no intention of the fulfilling the usual purpose of attending a university, which is to obtain a degree.
This cannot be justified on educational grounds. We permit it because the schools find value in maintaining a high-profile sports program, which (they feel) requires them to recruit athletes who would not normally have been at the school.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I understand that. But are the academies producing highly trained officers, or are they now just very expensive recruiting offices? Kinda the opposite of Tillman’s sense of duty, which I’d always assumed was ingrained (even required/demanded) of those seeking admission to one of the academies.”
1. They still have to fulfill their commitment to the Reserves.
2. It’s not the players coming to them trying to weasel out of service. This is the military itself deciding that these players can fulfill their duty to America better by playing sports than by serving active duty. I’ve recruitment has only gotten tougher over the years. Perhaps the military sees the ability to access a new demographic as more than fulfilling their duty to the US.
3. I’d be fine if they deferred the active duty commitment rather than just waived it. There’s no reason a 30 year-old former pro athlete can’t serve his 2 years barring injury issues.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2016/07/11/top-100-colleges-money-list-acc-big-ten-ivy-league
Money Magazine put out their list of the best college values. They rate schools on 24 different criteria that cover quality of education, cost and student outcomes.
By the way, the SI article is wrong about the number of schools in the top 100 for the P5 conferences. They had the B10 at 8 and the ACC at 9 (I think they got UMD switched).
Top 100 by conference:
NESCAC, B10 – 9
Ivy – 8
ACC – 7* (8 if you count ND)
P12 – 5
SEC – 4
B12 – 1
Who are the NECSAS? You’ll probably recognize the school names even if you didn’t know the conference. Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut College, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan and Williams make up the New England Small College Athletic Conference. Only Trinity didn’t make the top 100 and they were #104.
101-300 by conference:
P12 – 5 (Utah, USC, ASU, AZ, OrSU)
ACC, B10, B12 – 4 (NCSU, BC, Pitt, SU; RU, OSU, IA, PSU; ISU, TT, OU, OkSU)
SEC – 3 (206. AU, 274. MsSU, 287. TN)
301-705 by conference:
SEC – 7 (316. SC, 349. LSU, 416. UK, 426. MO, 469. AR, 529. MS, 642. AL)
B12 – 5 (330. KSU, 334. KU, 443. WV, 500. TCU, 565. Baylor)
ACC, P12 – 2 (491. Miami, 535. UL; 325. CO, 504. OR)
B10 – 1 (364. NE)
Top 10:
1. Princeton
2. MI
3. Harvard
4. Rice
5t. BYU
5t. Cal
7. Amherst
8. Cooper Union
9. UVA
10. Stanford
Other P5 in the top 25:
13. TAMU
15. UF
18. VT
19. UMD
20. UCLA
21. Clemson
22t. IL
Rest of B10:
51. PU
54t. MSU
58. MN
63. WI
70. NW
77. IN
105. RU
130. OSU
198. IA
220. PSU
364. NE
Others of note:
37. WSU – surprised they’re so high
38. UConn
39. Duke
45. UNC
50. UT
64. Cornell – lowest Ivy League member
81. JHU
83. Chicago
246. OU
610. UC
642. AL – dead last among P5 schools
LikeLike
Maybe i missed it in your breakdown…but I don’t see FSU (#197). For whatever this is worth.
LikeLike
Also, Notre Dame was # 31 I believe. For those that’d care about the Domers.
LikeLike
TOM,
“Maybe i missed it in your breakdown…but I don’t see FSU (#197). For whatever this is worth.”
Sorry about that. Unintentional oversight. And to Kyle Peter’s point, I also failed to mention ND at #31.
Adding FSU bumps the ACC up to 5 schools in the 101-300 range with the P12.
1-100:
B10 – 9
ACC – 7* (8 if you count ND)
P12 – 5
SEC – 4
B12 – 1
101-300:
ACC, P12 – 5
B10, B12 – 4
SEC – 3
1-300:
B10 – 13 (0.929)
ACC – 12 (0.857)
P12 – 10 (0.833)
SEC – 7 (0.500)
B12 – 5 (0.500)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/dan-mullen-tries-to-distance-himself-from-controversial-jeffery-simmons-decision/
Listen to everyone at MS State pass the buck over admitting the 5* DL despite the video of him repeatedly punching a woman in the face while she was on the ground after he broke up an altercation involving his sister.
The head coach:
But when pressed about what responsibility he has if a recruited player with a violent past harms a student on campus, Mullen acknowledged responsibility.
“We’re all responsible if that happens, all of us. To be honest with you, I’m responsible for all of the actions for every one of my players,” he said.
Last month, Mississippi State announced Simmons had enrolled at the school and would be suspended for the first game against South Alabama.
“I wasn’t involved as much,” Mullen said at SEC Media Days. “It was a university decision, but I was just thrilled we’re having Jeffery as part of our family coming in.”
The AD:
At the SEC Spring Meetings last month, Mississippi State athletic director Scott Stricklin said Mullen wasn’t heavily involved in the decision and that Stricklin spoke with the president’s office, the dean of students and Title IX coordinator.
“Athletics had nothing to do with the enrollment process,” only in whether Simmons would participate with the football team, Stricklin said.
The president:
Mississippi State president Mark Keenum later placed the decision squarely on the shoulders of Stricklin and repeatedly said he trusted his athletic director.
The excuses:
President:
“I have a surface understanding [of Simmons’ past], and I don’t think Jeffery will have any issues,” Stricklin said in June. “But I want someone who’s a professional and trained in this area to tell me that also.”
AD:
Stricklin acknowledged the thought crossed his mind that if Mississippi State didn’t enroll Simmons, another school would have given his talent.
Coach:
Mullen said Mississippi State did a “very, very thorough investigation into everything that happened within the situation there and came up with the conclusion that, you know, we felt that Jeffery deserved the opportunity to be part of our family. And now we move forward in helping educate and develop a young man to become successful in his life.”
LikeLike
I saw the coach’s comments. That was ridiculous. The university president didn’t do the recruiting and doesn’t force the coach to take players.
LikeLike
If this is even close to true, UVa does not need to think too much about a $15 million or $20 million gap in athletic department income. A former UVa “rector” claims that the school has a $2.3 billion “slush fund” for pet projects.
http://collegeinsurrection.com/2016/07/university-of-virginia-accused-of-keeping-massive-slush-fund/
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“If this is even close to true, UVa does not need to think too much about a $15 million or $20 million gap in athletic department income. A former UVa “rector” claims that the school has a $2.3 billion “slush fund” for pet projects.”
She claims the money should’ve been used to reduce tuition. If so, and if they get forced to use it for that in the future, that doesn’t help athletics at all. There’s zero reason to think athletics are among the pet projects the fund was paying for.
UVA also has a $7.5B endowment. Money has never been the issue. Money for athletics is the issue.
UVA charges a $657 athletics fee and the total subsidy for the AD is $13.56M according to USA Today. That’s by far the highest student fee in the P5.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-college-sports-and-how-some-are-fighting-back/2015/11/30/7ca47476-8d3e-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
The top student athletic fees at public schools as of 2014 ranked by the total revenue (student fee * number of students) but I’m listing the student fee:
1. UVA – $657
2. UMD – $406 (they moved due to financial issues)
3. RU – $326 (they moved due to financial issues)
4. FSU – $237
5. VT – $288
6. UNC – $279
7. NCSU – $328
8. Utah – $ 171 (recently moved up to P5)
9. GT – $254
10. Auburn – $192
From the article:
Clemson is the only state school in the ACC not to charge an athletics fee. They tried a couple of years ago to get a $350 fee and the students said no (polls showed 85% opposed so the AD backed down on trying). That was with the fee only applying to future students, not current ones. Clemson also doesn’t charge for student tickets, but then they have 18,000 undergrads in a town of 10,000 people and a stadium that seats 80,000 so it would be hard to justify.
That’s 7 ACC schools out of the top 10 (UMD was still in the ACC). 3 of the schools have already changed conferences this decade, at least in part for financial reasons. Some of the schools don’t need the fee (FSU had a larger profit than the total of their fee), but most of the do.
Here’s the source article for your comment:
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_734247bc-4951-58fe-a73d-7232932bfd5e.html
“Privately referred to as ‘unfound money’ (that is, unfound by legislators, the press, and — as a result — the general public), this astounding sum could run the entire University Academic Division for a year and a half. It would pay the four-year tuition bills for 44,000 Virginia students,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration is “hoarding” the funds for other uses, she said, citing as an example a recent proposal for “a $50 million program for self-care training to include journaling, meditation and yoga for nursing students.” She also was critical of salary increases for faculty and administrators.
In his statement, de Bruyn said that the funds that support the Cornerstone Plan “enable strategic investments in our faculty, academic programs, clinical enterprise, research infrastructure and physical space needs that will continue to benefit future generations of students while also minimizing tuition increases.”
…
But Dragas said that since 2009, the university has raised in-state tuition by 74 percent.
By email, she said her percentage comparison is based on tuition alone, excluding mandatory fees, of $7,496 for the 2009-10 academic year and $13,060 for first-time students entering in fall 2016.
Under U.Va.’s new tuition model, entering classes pay higher tuition rates than returning students — for this fall, the rate increase is 10 percent.
Here is her WaPo column about it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/06/former-rector-helen-dragas-what-u-va-needs-is-less-privatization-more-public-accountability/
Its founding DNA imprints U-Va. as a very public institution with what should be a very public responsibility.
Yet since 2009, the university has raised in-state tuition by 74 percent, cut grant aid to the poorest Virginians, formed an administrative committee to explore secession from the state, hired a private university governance consultant for $200,000, spent more than $100 million on financial aid to out-of-state students, raised the net price for some Virginia families to subsidize others, and proposed gagging board members from talking to legislators, the press and the public. Thousands of Virginia students who seek admission are denied a coveted spot every year. The University of Virginia is slowly being privatized.
…
At our June meeting, administrators revealed their coffers include a $2.3 billion pot of reserves, surpluses and earnings that for years has been hidden in plain sight, loosely labeled as necessary to support operations. Now, through financial maneuvering, this treasury has been liberated expressly to support strategic initiatives that will enhance the university’s reputation. As administrators requested a series of board actions to facilitate that change, members were not apprised of the large sum at stake. Only later did we learn that these moves had created a $2.3 billion slush fund.
Privately referred to as “unfound money” (that is, unfound by legislators, the press, and — as a result — the general public), this astounding sum could run the entire University Academic Division for a year and a half. It would pay the four-year tuition bills for 44,000 Virginia students. It is 20 percent more than the market value of all of U-Va.’s 200-year buildup of educational and general program buildings and facilities. A conservative estimate of its annual earnings potential — $100 million — could be used to cut the tuition of all in-state undergraduates by 70 percent.
Long story short, UVA is rich but UVA’s AD isn’t. And that’s with them getting a huge amount of donations ($27.7M last year, was over $30M for 2010-2013) compared to their total budget.
LikeLike
Did the article mention that UVa gets something like 2-3% of its budget from VA? If a state starves its flagship of funds, why shouldn’t the college act like a private? Maybe UVa should just turn private.
LikeLike
Virginia isn’t alone. At Michigan, the state contributes 16.4% of the General Fund, which is 27.1% of revenues, for a total of 4.4%. Moreover, it is steadily declining, with almost every year worse than the last.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Did the article mention that UVa gets something like 2-3% of its budget from VA?”
http://www.virginia.edu/finance101/budgeted.html
There are two basic ways to view the University’s finances. One is to look at all University divisions, including the Medical Center’s hospitals and clinics and the University’s College at Wise. The other is to focus only on the Academic Division, which encompasses all schools and operations, but excludes the Medical Center and U.Va.’s College at Wise. For most people, the Academic Division represents the University as they know it.
According to UVA’s website, the state was providing 10.2% of the funding for the academic division (aka the school itself) as of 2012-2013. It’s 5.8% if you consider all the divisions.
LikeLike
Brian, I was being somewhat facetious. My only point was that most of the talk about UVa changing conferences is for financial reasons.
Yes, a wealthy school does not mean a wealthy athletic dept. Still, a $2.3 BILLION fund floating around was sort of interesting, even if not directly related to the AD.
LikeLike
The state of Virginia also passed a law restricting the amount of subsidies (with an appropriate phase in time). They have higher %s for the less established colleges. Still James Madison and Old Dominion had a way to go to meet the requirements.
LikeLike
http://pilotonline.com/sports/mcauliffe-signs-bill-that-limits-athletic-student-fees/article_337e7bec-d46e-5e15-bba6-6fc8de3a5f01.html
The bill, sponsored by Del. Kirk Cox, R-Colonial Heights, sets limits on the percentage of athletic budgets that can be funded through student fees.
…
The limits on fees vary depending on which level athletic programs compete, and they don’t go into effect until July 1, 2016. Universities have five years from that date to meet their goals.
Division III schools without football can fund 92 percent of their athletic programs with student fees. Power conference schools Virginia and Virginia Tech are limited to 20 percent, although both already are under that threshold.
Although ODU recently joined U.Va. and Tech in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the school will be allowed to fund 55 percent of its budget with fees because it belongs to Conference USA, a league with far less-lucrative television contracts.
ODU essentially has 10 years to meet the 55 percent limit, which President John Broderick said is reasonable. According to a USA Today data base of athletic budgets, ODU funded about 73 percent of its athletic budget through student fees in 2012-2013.
Football Championship Subdivision schools such as Norfolk State and James Madison can fund a maximum of 70 percent of their budgets with student fees, and both NSU and JMU may have to restructure their budgets to meet that standard. According to USA Today, Norfolk State funded 80 percent of its athletic budget and JMU 79 percent through student fees.
…
Division I schools that don’t offer football can fund 78 percent of their budgets through student fees. Virginia Commonwealth (68 percent) is well under that limit, but George Mason (84 percent), Radford (88 percent) and Longwood (87 percent) may have to adjust.
UVA is a just below 15% even with such a huge fee. They could charge $875 and still squeak under the limit, and that number will rise as the TV deals keep increasing.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer is working with his coaching colleagues to try to create a scouting combine for underclassmen. He is trying to create a forum where juniors could get evaluated by NFL scouts without forfeiting their remaining eligibility.
Last year, two OSU juniors declared for the NFL draft, but were not drafted. As Meyer sees it, a combine for juniors would give prospects a more realistic assessment of whether they are ready to turn pro:
The upside is that perhaps fewer players who are unready would give up their senior seasons — a decision that is irrevocable in the current system. Of course, if juniors could work out for NFL scouts without giving up their eligibility, it’s likely that far more would choose to do so, and it could be a distraction.
(I am not expressing a view, pro or con, as I don’t feel I know enough. Just passing it along.)
LikeLike
Missorui AD Mack Rhoades is leaving after just 14 months to take the same job at Baylor.
What does it say about the Missouri job, when a guy who seems to have been doing a good job, and wasn’t in any kind of trouble, leaves it to take on the tire fire that is Baylor?
LikeLike
He worked at UTEP and UH before MO (as well as Akron) so maybe he wanted to get back to TX for family reasons.
MO also has been going through a lot of stuff with the president resigning, the CFB coach resigning, the MBB getting in NCAA trouble and the softball coach being accused of abuse Maybe the Baylor job isn’t that much worse.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/you-know-missouris-in-bad-shape-when-the-ad-leaves-the-sec-for-baylor/
Dennis Dodd goes into more depth about the problems at MO and how the move to Baylor actually makes sense.
Others aside from Barry Odom were blindsided as the first-year Tigers coach made the media days rounds here.
“It was a gut punch,” one conference official said.
Athletic directors move all the time, but they usually move up. Rhoades took a lesser job at a smaller school in a lesser league at a university embroiled in an epic moral scandal.
And in some weird way, it made sense. Rhoades’ move said more about the job he left behind than the one he took.
There’s a better future at Baylor for an upwardly mobile administrator known for his fundraising prowess. That’s a borderline outrageous statement considering the recent moral failings in Waco, Texas.
Baylor has problems, but they are more clearly defined. Rhoades is the beginning of a renovation following a house-cleaning during the sexual assault scandal. The Bears can’t hire a permanent coach without a permanent AD.
…
Since Rhoades took the Mizzou job in April 2015, the coach he inherited (Gary Pinkel) retired due to a cancer diagnosis. A student protest evolving from perceived racial injustice became a national story.
The protest took at least some inspiration from the Ferguson, Missouri “Black Lives Matter” unrest in 2014. A student went on a hunger strike. Some members of the football team said they would not play until president Tim Wolfe left his job or was fired. Wolfe eventually resigned, and the Tigers played.
There remains a gaping hole at the university. The basketball program is under NCAA investigation. Coach Kim Anderson’s job security became more of an issue after the worst four-year stretch in the program’s history since World War II. Rhoades was reportedly considering terminating the softball coach, too. He leaves with both an interim president and interim chancellor as his bosses.
“Do we even have any leadership at this school?” Missouri linebacker Michael Scherer said with a smile. “We have interim guys.”
Donations at Mizzou have declined by 25 percent, according to one report. Enrollment is down. When he took the job, Rhoades said he needed to build a new football facility costing $50 million-$75 million. Those plans have not left the drawing board.
At Houston (his former job), Rhoades had at least 10 donors that gave $1 million annually. At Mizzou, he had two. Baylor, with half the enrollment of Missouri, has a larger athletic budget, $100 million compared to $91 million.
You can see how Baylor might look more attractive. One administrator told me that exact thing on Wednesday: Incredibly, that person would trade Baylor’s set of problems for those facing Missouri.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd goes into more depth about the problems at MO and how the move to Baylor actually makes sense.
But you’d have to agree, to prefer Baylor over a public land-grant AAU school in the SEC, matters at the latter school must be pretty royally screwed up.
LikeLike
Oh yes. MO is now about where IL was a few months ago. Interim administrators on multiple levels, coaches under pressure for player abuse, etc.
LikeLike
Brian, I do not really know where IL was a few months ago, but were applications down dramatically? Was the incoming frosh class dramatically smaller than expected? Were people contacting the school and telling the school that they were canceling season tickets and refusing to donate to the school? Were grandparents writing to IL and telling them that if their grandchildren wished to attend IL, then the grandparents would refuse to help with school costs? All of those things, and a lot more, have happened at MO, and I do not believe that it is close to over.
I know that there were serious scandals at IL. Players sued the school. The Chancellor resigned.
Yes very ugly, but not really up there with the Missouri mess. It is a lot easier for IL to turn that corner than it will be for MO.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“Brian, I do not really know where IL was a few months ago, but were applications down dramatically? Was the incoming frosh class dramatically smaller than expected? Were people contacting the school and telling the school that they were canceling season tickets and refusing to donate to the school? Were grandparents writing to IL and telling them that if their grandchildren wished to attend IL, then the grandparents would refuse to help with school costs? All of those things, and a lot more, have happened at MO, and I do not believe that it is close to over.”
IL had an interim chancellor, provost, AD and football coach all at the same time. They fired a coach for player abuse versus MO investigating one now. The state had no budget so UI was on the verge of being vastly underfunded and facing major layoffs. Basically, it was a disaster that nobody would want to join and that’s really all I was talking about.
“Yes very ugly, but not really up there with the Missouri mess.”
That’s in the eye of the beholder, in my opinion.
“It is a lot easier for IL to turn that corner than it will be for MO.”
The IL state government is a large part of UI’s problems and they have no control over the government. At least MO can work on their racial issues.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17052650/college-football-playoff-mulling-moving-semis-new-year-eve
The CFP are considering move the semifinals off of NYE starting with the 2018 season. Also a couple of minor tidbits.
“We’re exploring if there’s a better [date] for the semifinals,” Hancock said. “We’re thinking about if New Year’s Eve is the way to go.”
…
After the just-completed Year 2, Hancock said the CFP stood by its decision to keep the semifinals on New Year’s Eve to “start a new tradition” in viewing habits. That stance, however, has softened with Hancock admitting “the bigger priority is finding a date to get the most people to watch.”
…
The CFP has a 12-year contract with ESPN to televise the four-team playoffs. Hancock said there has been “no talk from university presidents or commissioners” about expanding the playoff field. Hancock added that after six years of the playoff — after the 2019 regular season — the CFP can look in and potentially change three of the six bowls — the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach.
LikeLike
Bill Hancock, the CFB Playoff’s Executive Director, says they are now considering moving the semi-finals away from New Year’s Eve, in the years they’re not already scheduled to be played on New Year’s Day.
This couldn’t happen until the 2018 season. The dates for this coming season are already locked in, and it’s too late to change them. After the 2017 season, the Rose/Sugar bowls will be semi-final hosts, and those games were always planned for New Year’s Day.
ESPN lobbied hard to move the dates for last season’s semi-finals, fearing that ratings would be lower on an evening many people associate with parties, not football. Because NYE was on a Thursday, the games could have been quite easily moved to Saturday, January 2, without any conflicts vs. the NFL or the Rose/Sugar bowls. Playoff officials refused, saying they wanted to create a new football tradition on New Year’s Eve.
Not surprisingly, last year’s playoff semi-finals saw a very substantial ratings drop from the year before. There were probably a number of factors contributing to this, but perhaps Hancock has at last figured out that new viewing habits can’t be created so easily. These are the same folks who, during the BCS era, tried and failed to create a great new tradition of college football on weeknights during the first week of January.
The article doesn’t suggest what the solution would be. They obviously don’t want the games on a non-holiday weekday (or weeknight), but they don’t want to stomp on the Rose/Sugar bowls either. But Hancock probably wouldn’t be saying this, unless there is already a pretty strong groundswell to make it happen somehow.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The article doesn’t suggest what the solution would be. They obviously don’t want the games on a non-holiday weekday (or weeknight), but they don’t want to stomp on the Rose/Sugar bowls either.”
1. It is traditional for the NYD bowls to move to 1/2 if 1/1 is a Sunday, so Monday nights are not necessarily out of the question but that’s only 1 game.
2. Let’s look at the calendars for NYE:
2014 – NYE = Wednesday but semis on NYD
2015 – NYE = Thursday
2016 – NYE = Saturday
2017 – NYE = Sunday but semis on NYD
2018 – NYE = Monday
2019 – NYE = Tuesday
2020 – NYE = Thursday but semis on NYD
2021 – NYE = Friday
2022 – NYE = Saturday
2023 – NYE = Sunday but semis on NYD
2024 – NYE = Tuesday
2025 – NYE = Wednesday
No problem (semis on NYD) – 2017, 2020, 2023
Less of a problem (NYE on Saturday) – 2016, 2022
Problems – 2018 (M), 2019 (T), 2021 (F), 2024 (T), 2025
3. Possible solutions for the semis
a. Get the Rose or Sugar to move off of NYD and always have 2 semis on NYD
This is the obvious solution to any outsider not concerned with history and tradition. The problem is obviously getting either or both to agree to that. Especially with the Rose Parade, I don’t think it’s possible to get the Rose to agree to move. Would the Sugar move and how would it (and/or the conferences) be compensated?
b. Move one semifinal to 1/1 at 1pm and play the other at 8pm 12/31. It at least saves 1 game and maybe the late NYE game can build a following over time. Last year was a blow out but it still drew better ratings than the earlier game. Maybe a good game would only be down 15% from a NYD game instead of 38-45%.
c. Move the semis to the nearest Saturday
2018 – play on Saturday 12/29
2019, 2024 – play on Saturday 12/28
2021 – play on Saturday 1/8
2025 – play on Saturday 1/3/26
That works pretty well for all but 2021.
4. If you move the semis around, when do the other NY6 bowls play?
You don’t want to just swap NY6 games onto 12/31 I don’t think. Does it become 3 games on NYD and 3 on the closest Saturday?
LikeLike
Fox Sports’ Stewart Mandel has another suggestion:
In Mandel’s system, the semis would be on NYD six of the next nine years; in the other three, they’d be played on a Saturday, never earlier than 12/31 or later than 1/3. Brian’s option c is less disruptive to current expectations, and it produces an acceptable outcome every year except 2021.
Mandel begins his plan after the 2017 season, which is a year too soon. The Rose and Sugar Bowls are already scheduled to be semi-final hosts, and I would be very surprised if they altered that. The playoff was a big ratings hit the first time those bowls hosted. If you’ve got a problem, you don’t change the one thing that actually worked.
LikeLike
I really like his idea of splitting the Rose and Sugar as semifinal hosts so that you can have both semifinals on NYD 2 out of 3 years versus 1 out of 3 now. That’s a smart and easy change to make and doesn’t hurt either bowl. I wish I had considered that.
Mandel’s plan:
● 2017-18: Cotton and Sugar on Monday, Jan. 1
● 2018-19: Orange and Rose on Tuesday, Jan. 1
● 2019-20: Fiesta and Sugar on Wednesday, Jan. 1
● 2020-21: Cotton and Peach on Saturday, Jan. 2
● 2021-22: Orange and Rose on Saturday, Jan. 1
● 2022-23: Fiesta and Peach on Saturday, Dec. 31
● 2023-24: Cotton and Sugar on Monday, Jan 1
● 2024-25: Orange and Rose on Wednesday, Jan. 1
● 2025-26: Fiesta and Peach on Saturday, Jan. 3.
But what if we go 1 step farther with that and stop having an even rotation of semis through all 6 bowls? Always have both semis on NYD by always having the Rose or Sugar as one host and let the Orange, Cotton and Fiesta take turns as the third host. The Peach would never host a semi, but it’s never been at the same level as these other 5 games anyway.
If the Rose doesn’t want to host 50% of the time it could choose not to and let the Sugar have more semis. If neither wants to host more semis, then that plan won’t work but you could try try this alternative:
The semis are always played on the closest Saturday to NYD and the Rose and Sugar keep their NYD slots. The other 4 bowls rotate through being the early NYD game and the 2 Semifinal Saturday games. The Rose and Sugar would only have to host when NYD was a Saturday. If they want to host more, they can agree to join the rotation (perhaps in a limited way). If they’d rather keep their historical match-up, they can stay on NYD. Essentially, it would make the Rose and Sugar choose what’s more important to them (tradition or prominence) rather than letting them have their cake and eat it too like they do now.
LikeLike
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_30124168/nick-saban-gets-into-heated-debate-tv-host
This is why coaches shouldn’t handle punishment of players.
Paul Finebaum queried Saban on why he had not suspended players Cam Robinson or Hootie Jones following a May 17 arrest in Louisiana on drug and weapons charges, a topic that didn’t come up during Saban’s regular question-and-answer session with the media. The players were not charged and Saban has indicated punishment would be handled behind closed doors.
The Crimson Tide open the season Sept. 3 against USC at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, and Finebaum asked Saban for his response to those criticizing how he’s handling it.
“Well, I don’t really care to answer the critics because I’m going to do what’s right for the players,” Saban said. “And if the players really did anything that wrong, they would’ve got charged with something.”
That initiated a brief and somewhat heated debate between Finebaum, a radio show host and regular on the SEC Network, and Saban, who added, “Do we condone the behavior? No. But you’re innocent until you’re proven guilty in this country regardless if you get convicted in the media or not, which is what you’re doing.”
Legally not guilty and truly innocent are two very different things. Nobody’s asking Saban to convict them, but he’s not fooling anybody with his innocent until proven guilty schtick.
LikeLike
This is why coaches shouldn’t handle punishment of players.
With the dismissal of Bri’onte Dunn, Urban Meyer is one coach who seems to have got it right.
LikeLike
Violence with women is one of a very few clear lines Meyer draws. You violate those and you’re gone. But I believe that across the board someone without a conflict of interest should be making these decisions. Starters should be punished just as harshly as walk-ons and penalties shouldn’t vary from team to team. Just like the AD has NCAA compliance people, they should have legal compliance people that do not report to the coach but to the AD or higher up. Even better, it could be done at a conference level with schools allowed to be harsher. In a dream world, it would be the same across the NCAA.
LikeLike
P12N following NFL into the twitter sphere?
http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/pac-12-networks-twitter-sign-streaming-pact/406326
LikeLike
http://pac-12.com/article/2016/07/13/pac-12-networks-reaches-landmark-distribution-deals-twitter-cox-frontier
The P12 will have over 150 Olympic sports events broadcast live on Twitter this year.
Also, the national P12N will now be carried by Cox in AZ and CA on the basic tier where only the regional P12N was carried before.
LikeLike
The latest World University Rankings are out. List top 1000. Seems to be more foreign universities higher ranked than before. But top 3 are Harvard, Stanford, MIT.
http://cwur.org/2016.php
LikeLike
http://georgiabasketballblog.com/cbs-sell-sec-football-rights-get-acc-network/
Interesting article about why CBS should sell SEC rights. Lots of data, but I’ll let others decide if the conclusions are legitimate.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with him. I think he makes several huge unjustified assumptions. It sounds like an SEC fan who wants CBS to go away and is trying to justify it.
CBS holds expiring television rights that are fading in value with every year, month, week, day or minute that passes.
1. All rights are expiring, technically. The CBS deal runs through 2023.
2. How on earth are these rights losing value? Rights keep getting more and more expensive and the SEC game of the week is the most valuable CFB package out there.
With the Southeastern Conference’s strong relationship with ESPN and the Worldwide Leader in Sports’ desire to empty their coffers at Sports Television Rights, it is extremely likely that CBS Sports’ future with the SEC will end.
Almost every major entity splits their rights over multiple networks any more. ESPN may want those rights but so does CBS and they have plenty of money to pay for them. Does ESPN have the slots on ABC to carry that package and still fulfill all their other deals?
CBS needs to take action and not be a sucker, the way they accomplish this is by not letting this contract go all the way to expiration.
The contract is generally most profitable at the end for the network. Why would they get rid of that part?
CBS currently pays $55 Million per year to the Southeastern Conference per year for live television rights to the biggest SEC Football Game of the Week and the SEC Championship Game.
No, that is the average value per year for the contract. Like all such contracts, it has an escalator clause the increases the payment every year.
This is a significant bargaining chip and it is significantly under-priced considering that the network has been paying this price since 2008.
Having an under-priced contract is not a reason to get rid of it but a reason to keep it as long as possible.
The actual value of these rights is much higher than the entirety of the SEC Network’s programming, but the value will decrease as this contract is a depreciating asset.
How is this asset depreciating?
What if CBS sits on the live television rights until expiration?
It’s a major gamble for them. A gamble that is not in the DNA of the network. It leaves open a very high likelihood of being shut out of College Football season…
This is why CBS would bid high and pay what is needed to keep the rights.
Then he gets into why the ACC would be a good fit for CBS. He never explains why ESPN would drop the ACC.
CBS is the network that best understands the ACC footprint and would be the perfect fit for a conference that really wants to be in New York.
He says this is because CBS is based in NYC, but that makes no sense to me. How does that help CBS understand the entire Atlantic coast? SC is not NYC. ESPN is not far away plus they have a Charlotte studio.
He tries to argue for CBS starting an ACCN but if it was such a clearly lucrative idea, ESPN would have already started it. He compares the SEC and ACC footprints without noting that CBS is carrying the SEC nationally while the ACCN would be regional only. Why would CBS want to lose access to most of the country?
CBS Sports can be stubborn and believe that the SEC will stick around with CBS, which they will not OR they can sell now and use this revenue to offset the costs of the ACC Network and exclusive ACC television rights.
How does he know where the SEC will sign in 2023?
His summary:
In short…
CBS has to accept that their television rights are going to change and these rights are depreciating in value. CBS has to eventually replace lucrative programming in the Fall and not doing anything to address this will leave them out in the cold. Selling or exchanging their SEC Football television rights to get the exclusive rights to ACC programming secures the network a strong future in the College Sports Media landscape. CBS is the best equipped media company to serve the ACC in terms of geography, programming portfolio and tradition. CBS can recognize there are greater, more targeted advertising opportunities that make the ACC audience distinct.
Where are the facts to back up any of this? Why can’t CBS retain the rights? Why are these rights depreciating and how much? Why would ESPN trade the ACC for paying triple for the SEC? How would ESPN accommodate all these rights? How is CBS better suited to the ACC than the network that’s been carrying them for a long time?
LikeLike
http://chat.virginiatech.sportswar.com/message_board/vtrealignment/
found the link on a Virginia Tech realignment message board. Did raise a question about why the original article would be on a Georgia Basketball blog while praising, “Ninja Swofford’ if he would be able to pull it off to get a network.
Me. I could care less, but like to share things that I find entertaining/interesting.
LikeLike
Brian, I pretty much agree with what you have said, except one major point. To me this does not sound like an SEC fan trying to dump CBS, but an ACC fan explaining why everyone in broadcasting is too dumb to understand that an ACC network would be wonderful.
Would Philly be viewed as an ACC market because of Pitt? I do not know. Certainly it has been a B1G market because of PSU (now with some help from RU).
Does UVa bring in the DC market?
He also includes NYC as an ACC market. I can only assume that this is because of Syracuse, which is nearly 250 miles from NY (the same distance as Boston and Washington DC).
Cuse has essentially zero impact on the NYC market.
In other words, the argument regarding the wonderful markets of the ACC may be a bit optimistic.
LikeLike
Shame on me. How did Chicago, Indianapolis and Baltimore become ACC markets? I ignored them in my last post.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“To me this does not sound like an SEC fan trying to dump CBS, but an ACC fan explaining why everyone in broadcasting is too dumb to understand that an ACC network would be wonderful.”
I may have been swayed by him posting on a UGA hoops blog. But also, I’ve heard a lot of SEC fans complain about the SEC TV deal being way undervalued and assuming there’s no way the SEC would re-sign with CBS. I have never believed the SEC was actually angry with CBS, but the fans certainly are. His post fit the mindset perfectly. I took the rest as a desperate attempt to justify it making business sense for CBS to drop the SEC early.
“Would Philly be viewed as an ACC market because of Pitt? I do not know.”
Not really. He just took the entire actual footprint plus in between states on the coast and counted every city in that area.
“Does UVa bring in the DC market?”
Not really, but partially.
“He also includes NYC as an ACC market. I can only assume that this is because of Syracuse, which is nearly 250 miles from NY (the same distance as Boston and Washington DC).
Cuse has essentially zero impact on the NYC market.”
Yes, it’s because of SU (and a touch of ND, maybe).
“In other words, the argument regarding the wonderful markets of the ACC may be a bit optimistic.”
Very much so.
“Shame on me. How did Chicago, Indianapolis and Baltimore become ACC markets? I ignored them in my last post.”
Chicago and Indy are because of Notre Dame. Chicago is very close and Indy is in state. I assume Baltimore is because he just considered the entire coast as ACC territory, especially since UMD used to be in it.
LikeLike
My goodness, but that just might be the dumbest sports article I have read in a long time, and that’s saying something. He did a considerable amount of research, but I agree, he seems to have decided the conclusion first, and then cherry-picked the facts that allegedly support it.
Not that those facts really support the proposition he wants them to, e.g., that CBS has the best understanding of the ACC footprint, because they are based in New York. But he did real work, in order to justify an idiotic idea.
CBS holds expiring television rights that are fading in value with every year, month, week, day or minute that passes.
2. How on earth are these rights losing value? Rights keep getting more and more expensive and the SEC game of the week is the most valuable CFB package out there.
This is based entirely on the premise that CBS should, and could, put those rights up for sale. If you accept that, then yes, he is right: with less time remaining until expiration, the sale price goes down.
But the idea that CBS should sell, is based entirely on the premise that they are likely to lose those rights after 2023. To the contrary, since the SEC is their flagship college football property, they are more likely than anyone to be in a position to pay the market rate to keep it. And much like the Big Ten, the SEC probably wants to be on more than one network.
Beyond that, I would be very surprised if any sports media deal gives the network the right to sell on the open market without the rights-holder’s permission. As far as I know, that has never happened. As Brian pointed out, the other major networks don’t have the time slots to for CBS’s SEC games, without kicking other content to the curb that they have already committed (and paid) to broadcast.
He also includes NYC as an ACC market. I can only assume that this is because of Syracuse, which is nearly 250 miles from NY (the same distance as Boston and Washington DC).
Cuse has essentially zero impact on the NYC market.
It has about the same impact as Rutgers. (rimshot)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This is based entirely on the premise that CBS should, and could, put those rights up for sale. If you accept that, then yes, he is right: with less time remaining until expiration, the sale price goes down.’
The price is dropping, but that’s because you’re selling a smaller asset. CBS converts the rights into cash when they broadcast a game and get the ad revenue. He’s talking like the rights are losing value even in the off season.
LikeLike
In the weird world where you accept his idiotic premise that CBS ought to sell the rights, I’m willing to accept his “every year, month, week, day or minute” as normal sportswriter hyperbole. There is obviously a sense in which that’s true: it gets harder to sell a broadcast, as the date gets closer.
But this assumes you can sell it at all, and I’m pretty sure you can’t. I’d be stunned if the SEC’s deal with CBS allows CBS to sell those rights to others, even if it wanted to.
LikeLike
I wonder if he still thinks that CBS should be going hard after the ACC Network?
LikeLike
http://sports.dailyorange.com/2016/07/what-john-wildhacks-hiring-could-mean-for-syracuse-6-experts-weigh-in/
6 experts discuss what the hiring of the new AD at SU from ESPN means for SU and the ACC. read thee whole thing, it isn’t all that long. I’ll just quote a few of the answers:
The Daily Orange: Any first reactions to the Wildhack hire?
…
John Vrooman (Vanderbilt): On the surface, the hiring of Orange blood ESPN producer as AD at Syracuse seems to be a nostalgic dream job for a sports media savvy alum, but a somewhat risky outside the box move with a potentially high pay-out for all of the ACC.
This hiring could benefit the Orange bottom line. More important, as the result of the virtual vertical integration of ESPN and the ACC, the ultimate prize will probably soon be a standalone ACC Network (not Raycom Media affiliated) that allows ACC schools to share in the media prize money and keep pace with the SEC and Big Ten networks.
…
The D.O.: Can his experience in contract negotiations help him negotiate deals for the ACC? How?
Joe Mahan (Temple): I don’t know if it helps him get deals. Just because he was on the other side does not guarantee the ACC anything. I would not be surprised if the conference looks to him early in his tenure. Certainly I would think when contracts are up they would pick up the phone and call him.
…
The D.O.: What’s the impact on other ACC schools and is there a possible free-rider effect here?
…
Kunkel: There may be a benefit for other schools in his expertise. I don’t think it’s related to the one conference. Most conferences, most TV deals have been negotiated a long time in advance, so I see a more localized media influence for Syracuse. I don’t foresee too many free-rider effects but he can only help.
The D.O.: Localized, in what sense?
Kunkel: University specific. Fostering those relationships and taking them to a new level. Leveraging other direct revenue sources. Maybe even cutting out those external media sources and making that connection in house. He could help SU develop its own channels and streams, develop its own media outlets and its own content, rather than a conference wide network.
Bigger universities would gain benefit from breaking away from conference specific media deals where smaller ones benefit more from conference and league rights media deals. I don’t think Syracuse would jeopardize its relationship with the ACC. I could see maybe not an impact on TV deals but potentially on some of the content outside of major games. We’re talking about insights from training camp, behind the scenes access, Snapchat, social media. Taking media outlets and bringing them together in a more strategic manner. That’s what drives fan engagement.
The D.O.: Do you have an example of that?
Kunkel: The European soccer giants Manchester City FC and FC Bayern Munich do a phenomenal job in providing fans with access through their own TV channels. They’re getting big financial benefits out of it by having people subscribe to their channels and selling sponsorships.
LikeLike
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/Pitt/2016/07/13/Syracuse-AD-hire-could-be-a-boon-for-Pitt-ACC-schools/stories/201607120193
Another article by the same author on the same topic.
By one measure, this is a step down for Wildhack, who leaves one of the most powerful positions in sports. And that, experts say, is what makes it a risky hire for Syracuse with a potentially high payout to other ACC members. Vanderbilt sports economist John Vrooman predicts the move could bring the ACC closer to the more profitable Power 5 conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference and Big Ten.
If the ACC were to get a standalone television network, its schools would be able to share in the “media prize money and keep up with the SEC and Big Ten networks,” Vrooman said. The ACC Network differs from that of the SEC and Big Ten in that it’s not full scale. Currently, the ACC Network is a syndicated network, where games can air on a variety of TV stations, unlike the SEC Network, which is a standalone network.
…
But experts see the hire as an enormous benefit to the ACC. An ESPN-owned ACC Network could provide enormous additional revenue to conference schools. The joint venture between the ACC and ESPN would mean more hours of programming across most sports, notably football. That could increase ACC football exposure and in turn generate more revenue for the conference.
Vrooman estimates the ACC generated $303 million in 2014-15, or about $20 million per school. Yet that was roughly 50 percent less than SEC schools. After a few years at Syracuse’s helm, though, Wildhack could help the ACC increase those revenues.
I don’t really see how his hire can have a significant impact on the ACCN in the short term The numbers either make sense or they don’t for ESPN.
LikeLike
FSU got $28.3M from ACC in 2015, per tax returns.
LikeLike
http://chat.virginiatech.sportswar.com/mid/7773316/board/vtrealignment/
Rivals had an interview with Jack Swarbrick (ND’s AD) and someone made a blog comment about it (actual article is behind a paywall).
The title of part 2 of the interview: Football independence and no playoff expansion are ND’s goals
On playoff expansion:
However, Swarbrick sees no groundswell of support in the collegiate ranks to expand to eight teams — and he would oppose it even if there was.
“There is zero momentum in that regard, and I am not in favor of it,” Swarbrick replied about an eight-team format. “I think the four works, and in many ways it has exceeded our expectations. I think it has preserved interest in the other bowls, which we were worried about. It’s made for a compelling, compact playoff.
“And when you talk about this, as we do, the Committee talks to the schools that have been through the process. The prospect of playing a third game in the playoff window — we’ve yet to find a coach who thought that was a good idea after they played two. It’s just tough.”
The four-team Playoff is ideal to Swarbrick for two other main reasons.
One, it doesn’t dilute the importance and every-week-is-a-playoff excitement of the regular season. No sport, college or pro, has a more gripping regular season than FBS football, and the leaders want to keep it that way.
Second, the bowl tradition is maintained and remains significant to many teams throughout college football.
So 4 it is.
On independence:
What if Notre Dame is blessed to have a few 11-1 regular seasons now through 2025, and still gets left out of the four-team Playoff?
Swarbrick is not swayed by this hypothetical. One of the foremost mandates through his first eight years on the job has been to preserve Notre Dame’s football independence however possible and as long as possible.
“We have accepted from day one that there will be years where our independence will work against us in getting into the College Football Playoff,” he said. “I don’t know what year that will occur, but we’re very comfortable with that trade-off, that the benefits of independence are worth the inevitability that there will be a year where our independence hurts us. We’re fine with that trade-off.”
Sounds like everybody should give up on adding ND for the next 20+ years. Sorry ACC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
However, Swarbrick sees no groundswell of support in the collegiate ranks to expand to eight teams — and he would oppose it even if there was.
“There is zero momentum in that regard, and I am not in favor of it,” Swarbrick replied about an eight-team format.
So 4 it is.
It wasn’t all that long ago, that people like Swarbrick were dead-set against any sort of playoff whatsoever. So, when the same people now say they’re dead-set against eight, I don’t take it very seriously.
Not that I think they’ll expand anytime soon, but the history of CFB has seen steady growth in the number of games played. I wouldn’t be willing to bet that we have reached the upper limit.
Among Swarbrick’s reasons, he mentions: 1) preserving the “every-week-is-a-playoff excitement of the regular season”; and 2) maintaining the bowl tradition. But those reasons were much cited in opposition of the 4-team playoff too. The argument about the bowl tradition dates back to the pre-BCS days.
He’s also exaggerating, when he says that there is “zero momentum” for eight. A number of FBS coaches have said that they would prefer eight, and even John Swofford said that “eight would be ideal.” I don’t think they have anywhere near the votes to expand yet, but I wouldn’t say there is zero momentum, either. (Of course, it’s a very old trick, when you oppose something, to pretend that the other side has less support than it actually has.)
Ultimately, I think it’s about money. If they think they can make more with an 8-team playoff, it is hard for me to imagine them leaving that money on the table forever.
LikeLike
I question whether an 8 team playoff will make the leagues more money on a net basis. They would certainly dilute the conference championships and likely other “New Year’s Day” type bowls. Going to 8 would be viewed as a money grab as the drum beat for paying the players would grow increasingly louder. Keep in mind the 4 team playoff creation had less to do about money (although a factor) as it did about fans/schools genuine unhappiness about the fairness of the BCS system.
With the 4 team playoff I think we likely have a 90%+ probability of crowning the true National Champion. An 8-team playoff may increase that to 95%+. Not sure that’s worth the price of admission.
LikeLike
I question whether an 8 team playoff will make the leagues more money on a net basis. They would certainly dilute the conference championships and likely other “New Year’s Day” type bowls.
It is far from “certain” that an 8-team playoff would dilute the CCGs or the other “New Years-type” bowls: good arguments can be made on both sides.
Going to 8 would be viewed as a money grab….
College sports has been finding new ways to make money, for as long as people in charge knew there was money to be made. There is no sign that they plan to stop. The term “money grab” is typically used by opponents for that subset of money-making opportunities they happen to disagree with.
Keep in mind the 4 team playoff creation had less to do about money (although a factor) as it did about fans/schools genuine unhappiness about the fairness of the BCS system.
Even assuming this is true, the identical argument can be made about the expansion to eight. As FTT has pointed out, eight is the minimum number that gives every P5 team a route to the championship that is not dependent on a committee vote.
With the 4 team playoff I think we likely have a 90%+ probability of crowning the true National Champion. An 8-team playoff may increase that to 95%+. Not sure that’s worth the price of admission.
Actually, it’s probably the opposite, assuming you define “true champion” the way college football has historically: the team that had the best overall season, not merely the team that had a good (not great) season and then got hot at the end. With an 8-team playoff, you will eventually have a national champion that won a weak division, pulled off a CCG upset, and then got a playoff auto-bid with an 8-5 record. That can’t happen with 4.
But every sport in America, except for college football, allows for such improbable champions. In fact, men’s basketball just had one: Villanova was the overall #7 team, in the Committee’s seeding, but won the title over the #2 team. (Kansas, the purported #1, didn’t even reach the Final Four.)
Obviously, there are people who would like to preserve college football’s unique championship structure, and I get that. But it’s important to understand just HOW unique it is: no other sport has chosen to operate this way. And similar arguments were marshaled unsuccessfully, against both the BCS and the four-team playoff we have now.
LikeLike
Schools lose money on all but 3 or 4 non NY6 bowls.
TCU and Baylor would say it was worth the price of admission. Two times in 6 years TCU may well have had the best team in the country and didn’t get to play for it.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I question whether an 8 team playoff will make the leagues more money on a net basis.”
I don’t doubt that it would make a little more money, but it would come with many negative consequences. The question is if it earns enough extra money to justify accepting the downsides.
“They would certainly dilute the conference championships”
Some yes, some no. Two top 5 teams meeting would be pointless since both will make the playoff, but many fans will watch a game like that depending on the competition on other channels. Lesser games will at least have an autobid on the line.
“and likely other “New Year’s Day” type bowls.”
Unless they are part of the playoff, yes.
“With the 4 team playoff I think we likely have a 90%+ probability of crowning the true National Champion. An 8-team playoff may increase that to 95%+. Not sure that’s worth the price of admission.”
I think you’re way off in terms of percentages. Now if you mean the odds that the best team is in that group, then you might be right.
Hypothetical:
#1 is a 7 point favorite over #4
#2 is a 7 point favorite over #3
Final game:
1 vs 2 – 49%
1 vs 3 – 21%
2 vs 4 – 21%
3 vs 4 – 9%
A 7 point favorite wins roughly 70% of the time.
NCG:
Assume the higher seed is a 3 pt favorite (wins roughly 60% of the time).
#1 – 42%
#2 – 42%
#3 – 18%
#4 – 18%
Historically the semis have had even bigger spreads (more like 9 pts for 3 of the 4 semis and 3.5 for the other). The point is, there is no way the best team wins 90% of the time. Football is too unpredictable for that.
Is the “best” team in that group of 4 90% of the time. I think so.
Assume – 10 pt spread for top 2 quarters (75% chance to win), 7 pts for other 2 quarters and semis (70%) and 3 pts for the NCG (60%)
1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5
Odds to make the semis:
1 – 75%
8 – 25%
4 – 70%
5 – 30%
2 – 75%
7 – 25%
3 – 70%
6 – 30%
Odds to make the finals:
1 – 53%
4 – 28%
5 – 12%
8 – 8%
2 – 53%
3 – 28%
6 – 12%
7 – 8%
Odds to win the NCG:
1 – 32%
2 – 30%
3 – 14%
4 – 12%
5 – 5%
6 – 5%
7 – 3%
8 – 3%
The extra 4 teams have very little chance of winning. I don’t think they’d make much difference in terms of finding the best team.
LikeLike
Swarbuck is 1,000% correct, we have to preserve the bowls tradition. Whenever I think Bowl tradition Beef O’Brady’s is at the top of that list! Doah!
LikeLike
Doug, I know that was a heavy dose of sarcasm but I am really not a fan of the half measure of trying to pander to the old bowls within the framework of the current playoffs.
If you are going to do a playoff, go all in. Real neutral site locations spread regionally rather than de facto home games for certain schools/conferences in perpetuity.
LikeLike
I am really not a fan of the half measure of trying to pander to the old bowls within the framework of the current playoffs.
The major bowls are in warm-weather locations where fans want to go in the wintertime. It might not be so easy to attract 70,000 to a December quarter-final at Lincoln Financial Field, unless Penn State happens to be one of the two teams.
The bowls have long been offered as a “reward” for the players and their fans. That is why the top-tier games are in such nice places. No one with the authority to decide, wants to replace them with rotating regionals in places like Detroit, St. Louis, Denver, etc..
LikeLike
I meant to add: I am pretty sure the Big Ten and Pac-12 are equity partners in the Rose Bowl Game, so when they “pander” to it, they are pandering to themselves. I don’t think you’d find any school in either league that has any interest whatsoever in diminishing the Rose Bowl. The SEC and Big 12 appear to have similar feelings about the Sugar Bowl.
This not only means that the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are going to continue to exist; but that the conferences will take no action that reduces these games’ importance. The Rose Bowl, for instance, is either a semi-final or a traditional B10vP12 match-up. Every. Year. Hell will freeze over before they give that up.
LikeLike
Tomorrow may be the big day in realignment news or it may signal the end of realignment news till the GoR’s are closer to expiring.
If the Big 12 votes to expand it will allow some juggling. If they vote super majority to not expand it may end expectations for the next 4 to 6 years.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Go west, Big Ten? (Kansas, Texas, maybe Oklahoma.)
LikeLike
Looks like only the Big 12 has question marks at this point, but as long as Oklahoma holds in position, I don’t think we see any expansion for a while…
Texas has no urgency given its Big 12+LHN payouts are comparable (and it has the largest AD ignoring TV money anyways), while the rest have no choice in the matter.
It’s Oklahoma to force a Pac-16 or Big Ten-16 or SEC-16 or bust it would seem until 2030s.
LikeLike
LHN “GOR” runs ’til summer of ’31.
LikeLike
Go west, Big Ten? (Kansas, Texas, maybe Oklahoma.)
This is a 10-year extension for the ACC, which is forever to us, but a blip to university presidents accustomed to thinking decades ahead. The Big Ten will look to add KU, UT, and OU, only if it actually wants those schools, not because the ACC is (purportedly) off limits. Remember, the Big Ten stayed at 11 schools for over 20 years. If they actually think the ACC schools are their best strategy, they could wait a considerable time before expanding again.
Texas has no urgency given its Big 12+LHN payouts are comparable (and it has the largest AD ignoring TV money anyways), while the rest have no choice in the matter.
It depends how you define “urgency”. UT’s LHN deal lasts another 15 years, but long before that, it’ll be apparent whether it has succeeded, and whether the school has any shot at getting another deal like that. By the mid-2020s, I would expect the Longhorns to be looking hard at their options, even if there is no visible movement.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article90393122.html
LikeLike
Be interesting to see what it will look like. Will it be a full cable channel?
And what does that say if ESPN and Fox had no interest in a Big 12 cable channel?
LikeLike
They have the LHN Boulder to overcome…
And the others won’t agree to doing a partial conference channel.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Be interesting to see what it will look like. Will it be a full cable channel?”
Yes, plus innovative OTT stuff.
“And what does that say if ESPN and Fox had no interest in a Big 12 cable channel?”
That UT wasn’t interested and all the B12 TV households are in TX?
LikeLike
Its going to get very interesting the closer we get to the Big 12’s GOR expiration. The PAC 12 will probably be at a revenue disadvantage that expansion can help close. Its almost certain they’ll be in contact with at least Texas. The SEC, B1G, and ACC will have no reason to let the cream of the Big 12 depart west with out at least making an offer. We’ll find out just how committed to the Big 12 Texas, OU, and KU are. Especially if there is a large revenue gap between the Big 12 and the SEC/B1G that a future Big 12 media contract doesn’t close.
LikeLike
LHN doesn’t expire until ’31.
LikeLike
LHN doesn’t expire until ’31.
Does anyone know if the terms of the LHN state that UT has to be in the Big 12? Since it’s a UT
specific network could they theoretically be in any conference?
LikeLike
The other (power) conferences would require T3 rights for their conference networks. LHN a no go.
LikeLike
@cc –
Its not too difficult to imagine a scenario where any conference will compromise with Texas to accommodate the LHN. Ten year problems shouldn’t keep people from making “100 year decisions.”
FWIW, I’ve long thought Texas will go independent and take a ND style deal with the ACC.
LikeLike
Its not too difficult to imagine a scenario where any conference will compromise with Texas to accommodate the LHN. Ten year problems shouldn’t keep people from making “100 year decisions.”
I could more easily see the Pac-12 making such a compromise, because they are in a weaker position and have fewer expansion alternatives. It is a lot harder to imagine the Big Ten and SEC making such a compromise, though I suppose nothing is impossible.
I’ve long thought Texas will go independent and take a ND style deal with the ACC.
I’ve long thought that they would never consider doing that. Take a look at the Longhorns’ baseball schedule, as an example, and count up the number of ACC teams they play. They have zero desire to be playing most of their Olympic sports on the Eastern seaboard. This is very unlike ND, which actually does want to be playing in that region.
LikeLike
Take a look at the Longhorns’ baseball schedule, as an example, and count up the number of ACC teams they play.
I love college baseball and I can tell you baseball will be not be considered in realignment.
They have zero desire to be playing most of their Olympic sports on the Eastern seaboard.
We really don’t know that. The Big 12 is horrible for travel. Someone once said that Mars was easier to get to than Lubbock*. After Waco (90 mins) the closest team (TCU) is three hours away. Norman (OK) is a six hour drive. Lawrence (KS) is about an hour drive from KCI. Manhattan (KS), Stillwater (OK), Ames (IA), and Morgantown (WV) are not exactly easy to get to. With flights, travel time in the ACC may be a wash.
*its actually a six hour drive from Austin.
LikeLike
Take a look at the Longhorns’ baseball schedule, as an example, and count up the number of ACC teams they play.
I love college baseball and I can tell you baseball will be not be considered in realignment.
Baseball is a revenue sport for Texas. They are one of the few schools that actually care about baseball in realignment. It wasn’t a coincidence that I picked it.
But if you don’t like that example, look at any sport you want. The Longhorns practically never play regular-season games on the Eastern Seaboard, other than the games they have to play vs. WV. They have given no indication that this is where they want to be.
They have zero desire to be playing most of their Olympic sports on the Eastern seaboard.
We really don’t know that.
You can look at UT’s non-conference scheduling, and see where they elect to play, when the choice of opponents is entirely under their control.
But anyhow, I am not the one suggesting that they would be interested in a ND-style agreement with the ACC. The burden of demonstrating they want that, is on the person proposing it, not me. UT’s voluntary scheduling gives no indication of a desire to be playing more in the ACC region. I am not aware of any evidence that points in that direction, and you’ve given none.
The Big 12 is horrible for travel. Someone once said that Mars was easier to get to than Lubbock*. After Waco (90 mins) the closest team (TCU) is three hours away.
Nevertheless, UT has been visiting these places for decades.
Norman (OK) is a six hour drive. Lawrence (KS) is about an hour drive from KCI. Manhattan (KS), Stillwater (OK), Ames (IA), and Morgantown (WV) are not exactly easy to get to. With flights, travel time in the ACC may be a wash.
I agree with this part, but the reasons for choosing whom to associate with are not driven purely by travel times, although that is one piece of the puzzle.
LikeLike
i don’t see any way that UTx considers SEC. They consider it beneath them in some ways (fair or not) and the SEC doesn’t have enough incentive to roll out the red carpet for the Horns as they already have A&M. They have numerous other options (ACC, PAC, B1G) if they ever need Plan B. In meantime…they’re rolling in $$$ (if not championships).
LikeLike
Lubbock is pretty easy to get to from Austin. Take a look at where Southwest Airlines flies. Same for most of the Big 12.
LikeLike
@Marc – Lets look at this from a different angle. In a scenario where the Big 12 isn’t tenable (OU or KU is leaving) which direction do you think Texas will go?
1. ACC with a ND type deal
2. ACC full member
3. SEC full member
4. B1G full member
5. PAC full member (there already was reservations in 2010 about going west)
LikeLike
In a scenario where the Big 12 isn’t tenable (OU or KU is leaving) which direction do you think Texas will go?
I find it somewhat unlikely that OU and/or KU would leave the league, unless Texas had already left or signaled its intention to do so. Neither OU nor KU is going to move alone, and no other league would find the pairing of OU/KU attractive, if they weren’t getting Texas too.
But assuming your hypothetical, it would depend on where exactly OU/KU went, and it would also depend on LHN’s long-term viability. If LHN continues to do poorly, then Texas will have less reason to insist on its preservation.
For now, I am simply making an empirical statement that they have shown no indication of desiring to be independent in football, nor any desire to play a lot of sports on the East Coast. So I’m not saying the ND-type deal with the ACC couldn’t happen, but there’s a distinct lack of evidence that they are seeking, or would prefer, to operate that way.
LikeLike
That wont stop any conference from signing Texas. They will simply sign an agreement letting LHN own home games for the 7 years that remain, in exchange for covering their road games on the conference Network. They will probably swap the content so Texas home games would get seen on the conference network, while their road games would become available on the LHN in return. Texas would be outside the conference media distribution since they already have the revenue coming from ESPN. This is how the B1G deals with associates ND and JHU work.
Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma will have a choice of destinations (SEC, B1G, Pac). Texas Tech will piggy back one of those (advantage of being in Texas and being a Carnegie R1 school). West Virginia really only has the ACC option, if they can talk their way in. The other five are not in the driver seat and need to find a partner from the above list if they are to stay in the P4.
LikeLike
“…in exchange for covering their road games on the conference Network.”
Which UT wouldn’t own whether in or out of conf. How is that becoming an equal partner, or is acquiescing to UT demands is inevitable? Are you saying all four other conferences would abandon their principles? This isn’t single sport affiliate membership.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“LHN doesn’t expire until ’31.”
So you let them keep LHN until 2031 but require BTN/P12N to be bundled with it. You don’t turn down a shot at UT for 7 or 8 years of LHN. Or if you’re the P12, you let the LHN serve as their regional P12N. You can work out the details of rights.
LikeLike
So you let them keep LHN until 2031 but require BTN/P12N to be bundled with it. You don’t turn down a shot at UT for 7 or 8 years of LHN. Or if you’re the P12, you let the LHN serve as their regional P12N. You can work out the details of rights.
Two things have changed since the P16 very nearly came into being:
1) The P12N has turned out to be a weaker product than its leaders hoped.
2) The LHN has turned out to be a weaker product than its leaders hoped.
How does that change the parties’ negotiating posture, compared to where they were before?
The Big Ten is different, because it’s in a position of strength. Still, I agree with Brian: if UT agreed to fold LHN in 2031, they’d probably accept that on a transitional basis.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Still, I agree with Brian: if UT agreed to fold LHN in 2031, they’d probably accept that on a transitional basis.”
By then you’d think OTT would replace such a niche channel anyway, wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
All of these reports about the ACC Network and GOR thru ’36 simply cannot be correct. This would contradict nearly all of BLUEVOD’s primary predictions. It must be a mistake. I’ll keep a close eye on twitter for the real news!
LikeLiked by 1 person
He and the Dude of WV will launch their own augmented reality Pokémon game, where schools are the targets. Try to catch ’em all!
LikeLike
Fresh from Bluevod:
“Told Brian Davis from Austin news source says Texas to the BIG10.〽️😇 If so expect Okl as well. Fluid and fun. Texas is the crown jewel 4 JD.”
then later:
“nobody ever said done deal on anything in expansion just advanced talks. Sounds like that led to ACC to panic and get a deal done.”
and
“@BigBlueHank Me too I need to see the money. FSU staying will be a complete 180 from where they were 10 days ago if they indeed sign.”
LikeLike
“Told Brian Davis from Austin news source says Texas to the BIG10.〽️😇 If so expect Okl as well. Fluid and fun. Texas is the crown jewel 4 JD.”
I especially like this one. So shameless and self-promotional in spite of his credibility getting completely destroyed today. And yet his remaining twitter-sheep gobble it up without question. Hey kids…it’s FLUID and FUN!!!
LikeLike
Alabama is joining the Pac-12, but hey, it’s fluid and might change.
LikeLike
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-channel-reveal-post.html
Appears to be the most fair article on projections for the ACC Network courtesy of Teel.
LikeLike
Looks like Frank has another potential topic for a new column.
Here’s McMurphy’s article on it: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17102933/acc-espn-agree-20-year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network
Sounds like all the ACC contracts will be extended to 2036.
LikeLike
I assumed that was going to be the case with the GOR tweet from McMurphy earlier in the evening. You don’t extend the GOR without a contract in place.
LikeLike
z33k,
“http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-channel-reveal-post.html
Appears to be the most fair article on projections for the ACC Network courtesy of Teel.”
Some interesting numbers from his article:
Conference – SUB, FEES, DIST
SEC – 69M, $576M, $8M
B1G – 62M, $370M, $10M
Pac12 – 12M, $56M, $1.4M
LikeLike
I don’t profess to be an expert at any of this. So would someone please explain to me why ACC schools would sign a GOR for 20 years?
I understand why conferences have a GOR.
PAC 12 projected $5M but only get $1.4M. What if the ACCN falls short of expectations and the gap between the ACC and the SEC/BIG widens. Then aren’t you stuck in a bad deal?
When the TV contract comes up for renewal in 6 years what if the new deal isn’t any better? I can’t believe the GOR would dissolve, so essentially you’re stuck.
So what am I missing?
LikeLike
I don’t profess to be an expert at any of this. So would someone please explain to me why ACC schools would sign a GOR for 20 years?
What if the ACCN falls short of expectations and the gap between the ACC and the SEC/BIG widens. Then aren’t you stuck in a bad deal?
You are only “stuck in a bad deal” if a better deal is out there. Very few ACC schools — perhaps as few as two or three — can be truly certain that a B1G or SEC offer would be forthcoming.
If you’re Florida State, you’d love to play it both ways. But ESPN is not going to make the substantial up-front investment in a linear network, if said network might be worthless in a few years. If the Seminoles refuse to sign the GOR, and others follow suit, then there is no network, and the revenue gap widens.
Now suppose the Big Ten decides it doesn’t want to expand into Florida, and the SEC decides that one Florida school is enough for them. In that case, FSU is stuck in a denuded ACC, with nowhere to go. The B12 would probably take them, but that’s a lateral move.
In other words, it’s not so easy to play it both ways. Anyhow, the majority of ACC schools have no real decision, as they stand close to zero chance of securing a B1G or SEC offer. The few who could, would probably still prefer to make the ACC a success.
Refuse to sign the GOR, and you might as well hang a “going out of business” sign on the ACC’s front porch.
LikeLike
Because ESPN is investing money in a network and they want to make sure the members are still around for it to pay off for them.
Plus, ESPN is giving them more money in their existing regular contract to extend it out.
LikeLike
Doug,
“I don’t profess to be an expert at any of this.”
None of us are.
“So would someone please explain to me why ACC schools would sign a GOR for 20 years?
I understand why conferences have a GOR.
PAC 12 projected $5M but only get $1.4M. What if the ACCN falls short of expectations and the gap between the ACC and the SEC/BIG widens. Then aren’t you stuck in a bad deal?
When the TV contract comes up for renewal in 6 years what if the new deal isn’t any better? I can’t believe the GOR would dissolve, so essentially you’re stuck.
So what am I missing?”
Why less desirable schools like WF would sign:
The GOR forces the most desirable schools to stay and has no cost to the less desirable schools because they have no better options anyway.
Why desirable schools like UVA and UNC would sign:
The GOR forces the football powers to stay and keeps the ACC together which is what they really want. Trailing in money isn’t a huge concern for them.
Why football powers like FSU would sign:
It was the only way to get the ACCN and they don’t currently have any better options. Better the devil you know than the one that you don’t.
Other possible reasons:
1. The longer the GOR, the more likely ND eventually joins and that would lead to a huge revenue bump.
2. The revenue model may change over the next 20 years so you don’t know if it’s a bad deal for sure.
3. The presidents like the other schools they are affiliated with and don’t want that to change, especially not to end up in the B12 or SEC (lots of elite schools in the ACC).
4. Refusing to sign means no new ESPN deal, no ACCN, no short term revenue boost and then guaranteed chaos in a few years. There’s no guarantee they end up better off after chaos.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/18/houston-cougars-pac-12-larry-scott-conference-realignment-meeting
Houston AD Hunter Yurachek met with Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott
SI.com
Houston athletic director Hunter Yuracheck recently met with Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, the conference confirmed Monday.
The Cougars, currently a member of the American Athletic Conference, have been rumored to be looking to join a new league. The Houston Chronicle reports one of the topics Yurachek and Scott discussed was conference expansion.
Houston has also been linked to potentially joining the Big 12. In June, Scott said the Pac-12 had “no desire to expand.”
The Cougars went 13–1 last season, winning their first conference championship. If Houston was to join the Pac-12, it would become the conference’s only school in Texas.
LikeLike
The Cougars went 13–1 last season, winning their first conference championship. If Houston was to join the Pac-12, it would become the conference’s only school in Texas.
One 13-1 season does not a top program make. In the 20 years since they left the Southwest Conference, they have won just three conference championships in C-USA and The American.
When Houston joined the Southwest Conference in 1976, they were coming off the best decade in their history. They promptly won or tied for the conference championship in three of their first four seasons. But then they reverted to the mean, as football programs tend to do, and won it only one more time before the league disbanded.
If you are a P5 league evaluating the Cougars, that is the product you are getting.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2016/07/19/ESPN-ACC.aspx
From SBD:
ESPN will launch an ACC digital network next month called ACC Network Plus and a 24-hour linear channel in August ’19 dubbed ACC Network, according to sources. Modeled on the SEC’s digital offering that ESPN launched two years ago, ACC Network Plus will be fully owned by ESPN and available to authenticated subscribers through WatchESPN and the ESPN app. ACC games that appear on ESPN3 will move to the digital ACC Network Plus.
At launch, the digital channel will carry at least 600 Olympic-style events per year, with individual schools producing an undetermined number of the events. When the linear channel launches in ’19, it will carry at least 400 events, including 40 football and 150 men’s and women’s basketball games each year.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17106514/baylor-bears-coach-jim-grobe-says-school-culture-bad-behavior
Jim Grobe doesn’t quite get it.
“The problems that we’re dealing with at Baylor and have dealt with at Baylor, to this point, are problems that are probably at every university in the country,” Grobe said Tuesday, echoing comments made Monday by Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby. “I wouldn’t say every one, but I would guess that most universities are having some of the same issues that we’ve had at Baylor.
“You can make a call as to whether you think Baylor was too strong in the way they dealt with it. Unbelievably, I’ve had people tell me they don’t think they dealt with it strongly enough.”
Baylor suspended Briles on May 26 and reached an agreement in June to terminate his contract. Briles’ entire staff, including his son, offensive coordinator Kendal Briles, and son-in-law, passing game coordinator Jeff Lebby, were retained by Grobe.
…
Grobe said he had no concerns about the conduct of the Baylor assistants who recruited and coached the players at the center of the scandal.
“If our assistant coaches’ conduct had been bad,” Grobe said, “if anybody told me that, if anybody can come to me to point out that the coaches have not behaved properly, then I would have no problems making changes.”
You mean like the mentions in the PH report about what coaches knew and did about it?
“In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not report the misconduct.”
“In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of policy, which improperly
discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy.”
“Football coaches and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes. In some cases, football coaches and staff had inappropriate involvement in disciplinary and criminal matters or engaged in improper conduct that reinforced an overall perception that football was above the rules, and that there was no culture of accountability for misconduct.”
Stuff like that, coach?
LikeLike
So Frank has a 3rd potential topic-Big 10 monster contract, ACC network, Big 12 voting to seriously consider expanding by 2 or 4 per Thamel’s tweet.
LikeLike
By Boren saying they’ll take full advantage of the pro rata in the contract may mean the GOR expiration date doesn’t change…?
LikeLike
Or a hardball negotiating tactic with ESPN/Fox. Pay more for two, or four it is.
LikeLike
My guess is that the GOR won’t change right now because the B12 wants to keep the current deal and they’ll try to keep the GOR and TV deals aligned. ESPN and Fox would offer less per team for the 12 or 14 the B12 might have if they came to the table right away. The B12’s goal is to give those teams a few years to build their programs from G5 level to P5 level before having to sit down with the networks and do a new deal. The hope is that the new schools look like they belong at the P5 level so nobody takes a cut. Going deeper into the deal helps make that happen as deals always end up undervalued by the end.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/19/lou-holtz-immigrants-quotes-comments-rnc
In other news, an old man said some questionable things:
Former college football coach Lou Holtz made some inflammatory remarks about immigrants during an Eagle Forum lunch Tuesday in Cleveland, where the Republican National Convention is being held.
“I don’t want to celebrate your holidays, I sure as hell don’t want to cheer for your soccer team,” Holtz said, according to The Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff.
LikeLike
I hate the Irish as much as anyone, but damn Lou is really biting the hand that feeds there.
LikeLike
I bet he celebrated St. Patty’s day when he was at Notre Dame!
LikeLike
I am about as interested in Lou Holtz’s views on politics, as I am interested in Donald Trump’s views on coaching football.
LikeLike
[b]test[/b]
LikeLike
You need to use less than and greater than signs (instead of square brackets) to surround the b and /b to get bold text.
LikeLike
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/what-s-the-acc-network-worth-071916
What’s the ACC Network Worth?
by Clay Travis
According to ESPN the ACC Network is coming, now the big question is this: will it launch successfully and what’s it worth?
So let’s dive into the numbers and find out what the market might look like in 2019.
Right now the ACC has teams in nine states — New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Florida, and Georgia. In those nine states there are roughly 29 million cable and satellite subscribers.
Of these nine ACC states, North Carolina has four teams and Florida and Virginia have two teams each. So over half the conference is locked into three states. The other six states have the remaining six teams.
With that in mind, let’s look at the five biggest questions looming to determine what the ACC Network’s value is.
And we begin with the most important question:
1) Will there be enough demand to force cable and satellite companies in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina to carry the network on their main tier of channels?
I’m going to assume there are probably enough people who will demand the ACC Network in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida — the three ACC states with multiple teams — to get the channel carried in those states on a prime broadcasting tier — that is, the main cable and satellite packages that most people buy.
But what about beyond those three states with eight teams in them? How will the six states with six teams break down?
Potentially the channel is carried in three Southern states Georgia, Kentucky and Clemson with three schools, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Clemson, which are clearly the second most popular teams in their states. Put these states squarely in the maybe camp.
Especially if SEC fans in these states decide to fight against the channel’s inclusion.
But what about the remaining three states, where nearly half of the ACC residents live? Will cable and satellite companies in New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts really lose that many subscribers if they don’t carry Syracuse, Pittsburgh or Boston College basketball and football games? Heck, where do each of these respective teams even rank in their states when it comes to overall popularity?
Remember, Time Warner fought the NFL in New York City forever. Do you really think that many Syracuse fans are truly changing cable or satellite subscribers over the ACC Network? How about Pitt fans in Philly or anyone in Massachusetts over Boston College?
I find it hard to believe that the ACC Network will ever be standard on cable and satellites in these three northern states.
That’s the ACC’s highest population and weakest link.
2) Will the ACC Network launch have more in common with the successful launch of the SEC Network or the tortured launches of the Pac-12 and the Longhorn Networks?
There’s evidence to support both sides of the debate. Sure, ESPN is powerful and was able to pull off an extraordinarily successful launch of the SEC Network, but that was partly a function of how much cable and satellite companies feared the wrath of SEC fans. There is no area of the country more passionate for college sports than the 11 SEC states. And the SEC teams were the unquestioned dominant college sports teams in all of their states except Texas, where A&M is number two behind Texas. (In Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, 7 of the 11 state in the SEC, the single most popular team in the states, college or pro, is an SEC team. Is that true in any ACC states other than North Carolina and, maybe, Virginia?)
Second, the SEC Network launched at the perfect time, just before the cable and satellite bundle began to substantially fray.
Third, are there enough ACC fans to scare cable and satellite companies with changing their providers over this carriage issue? Clearly most companies called the Pac-12’s bluff and haven’t seen a loss in revenue. The same was true of the Longhorn Network even with ESPN’s steadfast attempts to get it picked up.
So does the ACC have more in common with the SEC or the Pac-12 and the Longhorn Network?
That won’t matter in North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, where I predict cable and satellite companies buckle, but it will matter a great deal in the other six states.
3) Okay, what’s the ACC Network worth?
There are roughly 29 million cable and satellite subscribers in the nine ACC states.
Let’s say, in a miracle that won’t come to pass, that you could get $1 a month from those 29 million subscribers. That would lead to revenue of $350 million a year. You’d have to knock out roughly a hundred million for the costs of the network and then you’d split the remaining revenue between ESPN and the ACC. That would come out to $125 million or $8.9 million a school in the ACC footprint. (I’m not giving Notre Dame any revenue here even though, plainly, they would be entitled to some as well.)
But that number won’t happen because, as I said above, there’s no way that the ACC Network is carried standard in, at a minimum, the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.
So you’re probably looking more likely at half those subscribers, or around 15 million, paying a dollar a month. (You’d also get another $3 a year from roughly 30 million out of state subscribers — your national rate, or around $0.25 a month, is much lower than your in-state rates. So you can toss in another $90 million in out-of-footprint revenue.)
That gives you $180 million in revenue, minus $100 million a year to run the network, plus the $90 million in the out-of-state-footprint revenue.
That knocks down the distribution to around $6 million per school.
(Advertising would be nominal because it’s a regional network. The SEC Network has not, for example, done substantial ad revenue thus far. Nor has the Big Ten Network. You’ll know what I mean if you watch the advertisements on those networks.)
As if that weren’t challenging enough, here’s the additional problem: how many cable and satellite subscribers will there be in 2019? Right now ESPN is losing around 3.5 million subscribers a year, will that continue, could it even accelerate? What’s more, will there be an appetite for a new sports channel in a rapidly debundling cable era? In other words, have the best days of national and regional sports networks already passed us by?
We don’t know.
Which brings me to two final questions.
4) What’s the best move the ACC could make?
Adding Notre Dame and Texas.
A 16-team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas as full members could be a gamechanger for the ACC Network because it would add the state of Texas — and its eight million cable and satellite subscribers — along with the national cachet of Notre Dame.
The challenge here? Notre Dame and Texas already have lucrative television deals with NBC and the ESPN/Longhorn Network, respectively. Also, as an added difficulty, Texas would have to extricate itself from the Big 12 and leave behind the other Texas schools in a vastly weakened conference. That seems very difficult.
What’s more, it’s downright impossible to get Texas by 2019 given the rights deals the Longhorns have already signed. Given that NBC already gets all of Notre Dame’s home games, how many Notre Dame football games could actually air on the ACC Network even if the Fighting Irish joined the ACC as full members? One or two at most, probably.
But if you’re thinking of best case scenarios for the ACC, that’s it.
5) Okay, so what’s the best case scenario that could happen for the ACC Network in 2019?
Given prevailing market conditions and the continued assault upon the cable bundle, I don’t think there’s any way ESPN tries to launch a brand new network in 2019.
Instead, I think they’ll decide to turn ESPNU into the ACC Network. (Given that the SEC Network now carries most SEC events along with ESPN and ESPN2 and that many Big Ten games will be heading to FOX, there isn’t that much content on ESPNU from the SEC and the Big Ten. Plus, the Pac-12 and the Big 12 would prefer that their games air on ESPN and ESPN2 since they’re available in more homes. So ESPNU could make sense for the ACC.)
Right now ESPNU is in roughly 70 million households and brings in $0.22 a month in subscriber revenue. That’s $184.8 million a year in revenue. I believe ESPN will try and take the ESPNU rates up to around $1 a month in the nine state ACC footprint and keep the rate outside the footprint pretty much the same, potentially going up a dime or so.
If ESPN could bump up the revenue of the ACC Network to the point where 19 million cable and satellite subscribers are paying $1 a month — that would be the subscribers in the six states of North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina — then you’d make $228 million more in revenue for ESPNU even if you’re fighting carriage battles in Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts. Combine the revenue from the ACC’s Southern states with the $110 million more in revenue from the 37 million subscribers in other parts of the country outside the ACC footprint, then subtract the $100 million in channel operating costs, and you’re talking about $8 million per ACC school off the ACC Network.
That’s the best case scenario I can see for the ACC Network.
But that’s if everything goes well.
Will it?
We’ll find out in a couple of years.
The ACC is about to become the canary in the cable bundle coal mine.
LikeLike
How about Pitt fans in Philly or anyone in Massachusetts over Boston College?
As a PA guy PSU pretty much owns the Commonwealth. I could see the ACC on cable in WPA, but in EPA not so much.
I guess the BIG could rebrand the LHN as the BTN2.
LikeLike
Clay Travis is a total clown. Clemson is arguably the most popular school in South Carolina.
LikeLike
Native New Yorker right here: Syracuse in New York is an afterthought. In Hoops St Johns and Seton Hall are bigger (heck even U-Conn gets more coverage). In football its Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan (even Army bigger). I know Notre Dame Football is huge (Subway Alumni) but ND is not appearing on the ACC Network in Football.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/discussions-about-eliminating-kickoffs-in-college-football-have-begun/
Both the AFCA and NCAA are looking into potentially eliminating the kickoff for player safety reasons.
Both entities are reviewing injury data to gauge the impact of kickoffs. Preliminary indications are that injuries occur at a higher rate on kickoffs, according to sources.
Any rules change probably won’t come until after the 2017 season. Eliminating kickoffs has not yet been a discussion for the NCAA rules committee, according to its secretary-rules editor Rogers Redding.
…
Pop Warner youth football, in May, eliminated kickoffs for all youth division teams age 10 and under. It became the first national football organization to eliminate kickoffs.
I say just spot the ball at the 25 (adjusted for penalties) and let’s go.
LikeLike
I agree. Next time someone gets paralyzed in a major game, they will feel compelled to end them. Just go ahead and end them before someone else gets paralyzed. The players are so much bigger and faster than they used to be. Football is a 40 yard game and a kickoff is giving someone a full 50 yards to build up a head of steam without getting blocked (unlike punting).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree something needs to change but I’m not sure some rule changes wouldn’t be preferable to eliminating it (and the possibilities like on sides attempts, run backs, throw backs etc.). It is the only play where movement toward the line of scrimmage by anyone, let alone everyone, is allowed. End that. Eliminate the kicking tee (or even require it snapped and punted). Possibly allow defense, like punt or kick block teams? Remove/change incentive for full out reckless abandon downfield momentum. Create incentive to maintain controlled/engaged positions at line. Unless we are ready to give up punting I don’t think we need to lose this one part of the kicking game.
Perhaps a partial elimination. No kickoffs after field goals. Misses and makes both result in other team with ball under current miss rules?
LikeLike
Punts are different. The players get blocked and mostly engaged all the way down the field.
You could still allow the option of an onside kickoff. It would eliminate the surprise, but it usually isn’t a surprise anyway. That isn’t the play where the risk is.
LikeLike
You could still allow the option of an onside kickoff. It would eliminate the surprise, but it usually isn’t a surprise anyway. That isn’t the play where the risk is.
How would that work? What looks like an onside kick is sometimes a bluff.
LikeLike
Bullet:
That’s my point. Make KO’s more like FG’s (or punts). Freeze the offense until ball is in play, and bring D to the line.
Marc:
I seem to recall a surprise second half on sides attempt fairly recently, too.
LikeLike
If you score late in the game, just like now, you could choose to do an onside kick instead of giving it to them at the 25 or 30.
You could penalize the team if they kick it long just like with a kickoff out of bounds.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I agree something needs to change but I’m not sure some rule changes wouldn’t be preferable to eliminating it (and the possibilities like on sides attempts, run backs, throw backs etc.). It is the only play where movement toward the line of scrimmage by anyone, let alone everyone, is allowed. End that. Eliminate the kicking tee (or even require it snapped and punted). Possibly allow defense, like punt or kick block teams? Remove/change incentive for full out reckless abandon downfield momentum. Create incentive to maintain controlled/engaged positions at line. Unless we are ready to give up punting I don’t think we need to lose this one part of the kicking game.
Perhaps a partial elimination. No kickoffs after field goals. Misses and makes both result in other team with ball under current miss rules?”
If you read the article I linked, it has a proposal from Greg Schiano from 5 years ago.
His plan gave a team 2 options:
1. The other team gets the ball at the 30.
2. You can attempt a 4th and 15 play (as a replacement for the onside kick).
Another possibilities to consider:
An XP is normally tried from the 3 yard line. Let teams back it up in 5 yard increments to the 18 yard line. If they make it, the other team gets the ball that many yards back from the 25 (so it can only go to the 10). If you miss, the other team gets it that many yards past the 25 (up to the 40).
LikeLike
I played HS ball (a completely different animal than NCAA or NFL obviously) and agree that kickoffs were consistently the most violent part of the game. Head-on collisions at top speed after two athletes run a 20 yard dash directly at each other. BOOM! I probably made 4 or 5 tackles on kickoffs Got up with “my bell rung” on at least one of them.. I loved it at the time. The crowd went wild.
LikeLike
The Ivy League will move kickoffs to the 40 yard line this season. The change will apply only to games within the conference.
LikeLike
According to ESPN’s Brett McMurphy, a poll of B12 football coaches found Houston and BYU as favorites, with five votes apiece. Cincinnati and Memphis tied for third (four votes), with Colorado State and UCF bringing up the rear (one vote each). Two other schools the B12 is said to be considering, USF and UConn, received no votes.
It appears that each coach got to vote for two, although the league could add up to four teams. I have to say, the appeal of Memphis utterly eludes me. Expansion is mainly about football, and the Tigers have very little tradition in the sport. All the others make sense.
It’s worth having another look at FTT’s Big 12 Expansion Index. His rank order (with points out of 100) was:
Cincinnati: 90
BYU: 75
San Diego State: 67
UCF: 65
USF: 63
Tulane: 58
UConn: 57
Temple: 53
Boise State: 52
Memphis: 49
Houston: 48
New Mexico: 45
SMU: 43
Colorado State: 43
UNLV: 37
Rice: 35
This was three years ago. To my knowledge, no one is suggesting SDSU, Tulane, Temple, New Mexico, SMU, UNLV, or Rice, as serious candidates.
Although Memphis football isn’t quite as terrible today as it was in 2013, I still think Frank’s analysis was basically correct. Houston has improved its lot, mainly by hiring Tom Herman. Or maybe the non-Texas schools simply want another game in Texas every other year.
UConn’s star has definitely faded since 2013, as they’ve won barely a third of their football games in the post-Randy Edsall era. Even if the Big 12 expands by 4, I would be surprised if UConn gets a bid.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“According to ESPN’s Brett McMurphy, a poll of B12 football coaches found Houston and BYU as favorites, with five votes apiece. Cincinnati and Memphis tied for third (four votes), with Colorado State and UCF bringing up the rear (one vote each). Two other schools the B12 is said to be considering, USF and UConn, received no votes.”
The coaches think so short term. UH is the hot team of the moment and is near by so they get a ton of support. UC has been better for longer and is a nice companion to WV (good travel partner for the non-FB teams).
“It appears that each coach got to vote for two, although the league could add up to four teams. I have to say, the appeal of Memphis utterly eludes me. Expansion is mainly about football, and the Tigers have very little tradition in the sport. All the others make sense.”
Memphis is close by and offers good recruiting.
“It’s worth having another look at FTT’s Big 12 Expansion Index. His rank order (with points out of 100) was:
Cincinnati: 90
BYU: 75
San Diego State: 67
UCF: 65
USF: 63
Tulane: 58
UConn: 57
Temple: 53
Boise State: 52
Memphis: 49
Houston: 48
New Mexico: 45
SMU: 43
Colorado State: 43
UNLV: 37
Rice: 35
This was three years ago. To my knowledge, no one is suggesting SDSU, Tulane, Temple, New Mexico, SMU, UNLV, or Rice, as serious candidates.
Although Memphis football isn’t quite as terrible today as it was in 2013, I still think Frank’s analysis was basically correct. Houston has improved its lot, mainly by hiring Tom Herman. Or maybe the non-Texas schools simply want another game in Texas every other year.
UConn’s star has definitely faded since 2013, as they’ve won barely a third of their football games in the post-Randy Edsall era. Even if the Big 12 expands by 4, I would be surprised if UConn gets a bid.”
From that ESPN article:
With the exception of independent BYU and the Mountain West’s Colorado State, all of the expansion candidates are members of the American Athletic Conference.
To exit the AAC, members must provide 27 months’ notice and pay a $10 million exit fee.
The Mountain West’s exit requirement is only to provide one year’s notice. If that is not provided, a university must pay the conference $5 million or double the school’s final year’s conference revenue, which ever amount is greatest.
…
The Big 12 won’t give full shares to new members upon arrival. It’s common practice for incoming schools to get partial revenue shares for a few years. TCU and West Virginia just finished their fourth seasons in the Big 12 and for the first time received full shares. That means for several years, the current 10 members get to share the new money. And which schools are willing to accept less money for the longest period of time could help determine whether an institution gets an invite from the Big 12.
Money could be a big factor here. Who is willing to take the slowest ramp up in cash? Who can best afford to pay their exit fee from the AAC?
Bowlsby said the league would consider adding two or four teams. He also added the league would consider several factors, including strength of athletic program, fan base, media market, reputation and academic standing. The league would most likely add the new schools by the 2018 academic year.
I think it could be worth doing that expansion analysis again based on the given criteria and the current status of schools and programs. The B12 has stated a preference for full members rather than football-only members, too.
LikeLike
“The coaches think so short term.”
— The coaches?!
Has ANYONE associated with the conference shown any glimmer that they are long term planners?
How long have we watched this re-arranging of deck chairs?
LikeLike
UT seems to have…
Most people think about conf realignment strictly as sports (FB) and sports media money. By allowing UH in UT may be greasing the wheels on system expansion. A far higher dollar amount than mere media rights will come of this, and a permanent presence in Houston – how much is that worth?
“The show of political collaboration comes at a delicate time in the academic relationship between Texas and Houston. UT System Chancellor Bill McRaven angered University of Houston officials with a surprising purchase of 332 acres south of the Texas Medical Center in Houston last year. So far, UT has yet to outline its long-term plans.
An official close to the deliberations told the American-Statesman that Houston officials have signaled they would drop opposition to the construction of a UT satellite campus on that land in exchange for help in getting into the Big 12.”
http://www.hookem.com/story/texas-lawmakers-line-support-houstons-bid-join-big-12/
LikeLike
Memphis has the obvious drawbacks-historically bad football, relatively small market, SEC territory, commuter school, relatively non-affluent metro, low academic rating.
But Memphis, IMO, has the most upside. Memphis loves college sports. They have great basketball fan support despite the Grizzlies. They draw 40k in football when they are mediocre (hasn’t been that often). They are hundreds of miles from Knoxville in a state that is almost like 3 separate states. And there is no pro football.
Before Schnellenberger, Louisville, Cincinnati and Memphis were basically the same. I think Memphis can do better than Louisville.
They are a risk. But I think they can regularly fill the Liberty Bowl with a decent team. They strongly supported the old WFL and USFL. They will support a decent Memphis Tiger team. That’s the only question-will they be decent?
Now realistically, I don’t see the Big 12 taking a risk on a school with their academic reputation. They would be the only P5 school not in USNWR top 200 and 1 of 9 schools not Carnegie I. Maybe they take a chance for a Tulane (who BTW has been mentioned as a long shot along with Colorado St.), but not Memphis. But Memphis would be my #12 after BYU.
LikeLike
It is Chadd (2ds) Scott, but someone is giving Frank a shout-out:
http://gridironnow.com/7-things-i-know-about-big-12-expansion/
:5. No issue surrounding college football in the 20-plus years I’ve covered the sport has been more widely misunderstood by the media covering it. Absurd commentary is made daily by media members completely ignorant to the factors that influence realignment decisions.
I’m not talking about Schroeder, who does a bang-up job, nor am I going to name names when it comes to the clueless. What I will do is share names of those who have a firm handle on the intricate mosaic that dictates expansion moves: Andy Staples from Sports Illustrated, Dan Wolken from USA Today and @FranktheTank111 on Twitter. (Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but I’ve followed the guy for five years and he knows his stuff.):
LikeLike
He didn’t mention Brett McMurphy, who seems to be the most informed to me.
LikeLike
One thing that has hurt reporters in figuring out what is happening in the Big 12 is that the ADs and presidents aren’t on the same page. The ADs are pretty much all against expansion, even OU’s. So if they are getting info from ADs, they aren’t talking to the decision makers. At a time a few months ago when speculation was that the conference was split evenly between yes, no and on the fence, Chuck Neinas said NO AD favored expansion. And Neinas (former commissioner and headhunter) knows what ADs are thinking.
LikeLike
http://www.expressnews.com/sports/columnists/mike_finger/article/UT-s-decision-Is-it-time-to-bend-again-8399440.php?t=1ce70885a7a2c336e3&cmpid=twitter-premium
Big 12 expansion, not so fast my friend.
Now, with the rest of its Big 12 brethren overcome with expansion fever, UT faces a similar question about whether or not budging is worth it. To be clear, no one officially voted to add teams to the conference this week. Instead, the unanimous vote by the league’s board of directors — comprised of presidents and chancellors — was to authorize commissioner Bob Bowlsby to contact potential candidates.
This might sound like semantics, but the difference between agreeing to explore expansion and agreeing to actually expand is huge. Texas president Greg Fenves, chancellor Bill McRaven and athletic director Mike Perrin have agreed to the former. But they’ll still need some additional persuading to go all the way.
UT officials have said all along they’re not opposed to expansion, but will consider it only if they can be convinced a worthy candidate can be added. Wednesday, Fenves repeated that sentiment in a statement to the Express-News.
“I’m open to expansion if the proposal is a strong one,” Fenves said. “The conference is actively evaluating the possibilities.”
UT sources indicated Wednesday that while administrators didn’t undergo a change of heart about expansion this week, they went from “open and skeptical” to “open and less skeptical.” For those pushing for expansion, that might be enough.
But one thing that isn’t on the table so far is extending the grant-of-rights clause — the one Dodds relented on in 2012 — past its current end date of 2025. UT values the flexibility to consider other options at that time, and there is no clear reason for the school to pledge its revenue to the Big 12 beyond the current time frame.
On this, sources said, the Longhorns probably won’t budge.
LikeLike
There are a number of Schools who are unhappy to hear that news: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU and West Virginia. There is one who is happy. Hint that School is located in Lawrence, Kansas. UT will be able to go anywhere in the Country, so will OU. Tech & OK State will try and follow the big boys. KU will try for (and I suspect get into) the B10.
LikeLike
There are a number of Schools who are unhappy to hear that news: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU and West Virginia. There is one who is happy. Hint that School is located in Lawrence, Kansas. UT will be able to go anywhere in the Country, so will OU. Tech & OK State will try and follow the big boys. KU will try for (and I suspect get into) the B10.
Just how happy is KU is with that? Sure, they’d love to punch their ticket to the B10, but there’s no assurance the B10 will oblige.
If TT and OKSt “follow the big boys,” the only possible destination is the Pac-12: there’s no way the B10 or SEC will sniff those two schools. If the Pac-16 happens, KU is out of luck, because I cannot see them getting a B10 invite if neither UT nor OU comes along.
UT and OU will always be at the Big Boys’ table, but they’re the only two who can be sure of that. Tech, OKSt, and KU are all on the bubble: their hopes depend on what UT and OU do, which can’t be confidently predicted.
The others, I agree, would sign a grant of rights for as long as they can get it: none of them has a real shot at a better home than they’re in now.
LikeLike
I think the B12 needs to think a little outside of the box here. They don’t seem excited about football-only members but they would actually make a ton of sense for them. Perhaps they could consider football-only members with a chance to become a full a member if the AD grows and improves.
A composite plan:
1. Football-only members:
BYU and Boise. It removes the logistical issues for the non-revenue sports. BYU is in the WCC for everything else already and Boise could potentially join the WAC for all other sports. Now travel only applies for football and the brands of these programs justify it. The lesser affiliation also removes any concerns about Boise’s academics or BYU’s religious ties.
They could stop here with a solid 12 football teams and stay at 10 for other sports. It still leaves WV on an island, though.
2. Full member:
UC is an obvious choice. The have everything the B12 needs except a huge football stadium. It leaves us 1 schools short, though.
3. Now let’s look at divisions for some inspiration:
A – OU, OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU, UC, WV (old Big 8 teams plus other northern schools)
B – UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, BYU, Boise, ? (southern or western schools)
So the final member should fit with the TX and western schools. That eliminates UCF/USF and UConn. Do they want another TX school? If so, they either take Rice (for academic cover) or UH (for athletics). If not, that leaves the likes of Memphis, Tulane and CSU. None of those really scream full member or CFB brand to me. Would they consider SDSU football-only to get into SoCal?
As an alternative they could make BYU a full member as well. That makes a nice 12 full members with 2 football-only members potentially.
LikeLike
I am inclined to think that if they expand at all, they might as well go to 14, which will give them more inventory and a softer cushion to fall back on, if Texas leaves.
The four best schools appear to be BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF. The first two topped Frank’s Big 12 Expansion Index three years ago, and I haven’t seen any changes that would justify revising that view.
In suggesting Houston, I am putting some stock in the recent B12 football coaches’ vote, which put Houston at the top, along with BYU. I assume the coaches aren’t voting that way because Tom Herman had one good season. More likely, the non-Texas schools realize that any expansion will give them less access to the Lone Star State. Adding one more Texas school redresses the balance, to some extent; and of the Texas candidates, Houston is by far the best.
UCF was fourth in Frank’s expansion index; third was San Diego State, but I’ve seen no media reports suggesting that the Big 12 is looking in their direction. UCF does not have a great football tradition (very few of these candidates do), but the potential is there, Florida is an attractive destination, and the recruiting appeal is hard to resist.
I am down on Boise, because their proffer rests entirely on their ability to continue their relatively recent on-the-field success. Aside from that, they bring very little in demographics, academics, recruiting, or Olympic sports. There aren’t any A+ candidates, but every other reasonable option brings more to the table than just one thing.
I have to think they can work around BYU’s Sunday play issue. BYU has always been in one conference or another, and somehow they always make it work.
Divisions:
A – OU, OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU, UC, WV (old Big 8 + northern schools)
B – UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, BYU, UCF (old SWC + southern/western newbies)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I am inclined to think that if they expand at all, they might as well go to 14, which will give them more inventory and a softer cushion to fall back on, if Texas leaves.”
They sound pretty serious about it. As for size, I’m guessing they’ll the number UT prefers. If UT agrees to 14 great, if they prefer 12 then they may have the power to stop it there (8 of 10 have to vote yes).
“The four best schools appear to be BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF. The first two topped Frank’s Big 12 Expansion Index three years ago, and I haven’t seen any changes that would justify revising that view.”
I agree on BYU and UC. UH depends entirely on whether they want more TX schools or not. As of today it appears that UT does want UH in, so pencil them in. As for UCF, the problem is that you put another school on an island geographically. WV could survive that due to their fanatical fans but will UCF fans tolerate the road trips and isolation? I think UCF and USF need to come as a pair or not at all, but that’s just my opinion.
“In suggesting Houston, I am putting some stock in the recent B12 football coaches’ vote, which put Houston at the top, along with BYU.”
And after you wrote this, the president of UT and the governor of TX both came out in support of adding U.
“I assume the coaches aren’t voting that way because Tom Herman had one good season.”
Remember, UH only got 5 votes. I’d guess those were from the 4 TX schools and 1 of the OK schools.
“More likely, the non-Texas schools realize that any expansion will give them less access to the Lone Star State. Adding one more Texas school redresses the balance, to some extent; and of the Texas candidates, Houston is by far the best.”
It’s a decent argument at least. Clearly UH is the best choice in TX unless they need the academic cover of Rice for some reason.
“UCF was fourth in Frank’s expansion index; third was San Diego State, but I’ve seen no media reports suggesting that the Big 12 is looking in their direction. UCF does not have a great football tradition (very few of these candidates do), but the potential is there, Florida is an attractive destination, and the recruiting appeal is hard to resist.”
SDSU provides the same thing but in a less cluttered area. The downside is the time zone problem.
“I am down on Boise, because their proffer rests entirely on their ability to continue their relatively recent on-the-field success. Aside from that, they bring very little in demographics, academics, recruiting, or Olympic sports. There aren’t any A+ candidates, but every other reasonable option brings more to the table than just one thing.”
Which is why I had them as football-only. They don’t make sense as a full member.
“I have to think they can work around BYU’s Sunday play issue. BYU has always been in one conference or another, and somehow they always make it work.”
But BYU was a power in all of their previous conferences. They’d be in the middle of the B12 at best. It’s really not if they can work around the Sunday issue but if they want to work around it. There’s also the open question of whether the presidents would just prefer more secular schools.
LikeLike
I am down on Boise, because their proffer rests entirely on their ability to continue their relatively recent on-the-field success. Aside from that, they bring very little in demographics, academics, recruiting, or Olympic sports. There aren’t any A+ candidates, but every other reasonable option brings more to the table than just one thing.
Which is why I had them as football-only. They don’t make sense as a full member.
But even in football, they bring almost nothing if they turn into a perennial 6-6 team — as they easily could, because their tradition of excellence doesn’t go back all that far. A number of other candidates have advantages that are more durable, and don’t entirely depend on the team being a winner (although, of course, they’d like that too).
LikeLike
Marc:
Don’t mistake this as advocacy but BSU’s FB excellence extends through most of their history. That’s the up side. The down side is they were a JC originally, and have been climbing the ladder through levels (with success). They don’t have a long history of D1 success because they haven’t been D1 long. They have very little in the way of crappy years, but that may also be for a lack of extended opportunity.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But even in football, they bring almost nothing if they turn into a perennial 6-6 team”
If they become a 0.500 team they’d still be better than 17 P5 teams (including 2 B12 members) were over the past 10 seasons. They’d also be better than Memphis, CSU, UConn and Tulane among others while on par with SDSU.
“as they easily could, because their tradition of excellence doesn’t go back all that far.”
Not a single Boise coach that coached for more than 1 season has a losing record since 1968 (when they became a 4-year school). Boise has only had 5 losing seasons since 1968. Boise joined I-A 20 years ago. They had 2 losing seasons to get started and have never had another one. They’ve won 8+ games 17 straight years.
History:
I-AA until 1996 (joined Big West)
Won 10 games in year 4 in Big West
Moved to WAC
Won 12 games in year 2 in WAC
Moved to MWC
Won 12 games in year 1 in MWC
They’ve had 6 coaches since 1996 but 4 since they started winning a lot in 1999.
The point is, Boise has always been successful at their level and that covers nearly 50 years.
LikeLike
Brian – did Melania Trump assist you with this post? I’ve been alone in the wilderness advocating for the football-only addition for the Big XII of BYU & Boise St. on this board for the last 4 years with very little positive comment from other posters. Seriously though, I’m glad you’re coming around to my way of thinking.
According to my plan, the B-12 gives BYU & Boise $5-6mm for football-only membership on an annual basis and their membership is good only through the expiration of the B-12’s GOR. That way, the B-12 isn’t stuck with Boise if they suck in a few years and could plug in the new hot mid-major in the future. The other reason for not guaranteeing membership in perpetuity for BYU & Boise is to allow the B-12 to have some spots in case some other P-5 conference blows up, although it’s not as likely anymore with the ACCN coming online.
LikeLike
Horrible idea. A lot of this expansion is about perception. Adding football only members makes you look 2nd rate, like the Big East. Boise is a horrible idea. They have small stadium and limited resources. What happens to their recruiting if they start going 6-6? That could rapidly turn them into homecoming fodder for Kansas and Iowa St.
BYU is a far better all sports member than Cincinnati. Its the Sunday play that makes them complicated.
Football only does nothing for the Big 12.
LikeLike
Football only does nothing for the Big 12.
Expansion is almost entirely about football. None of this discussion is about having more basketball teams.
LikeLike
Marc:
Yes, football is the deciding factor. But the factor in what? I’m with Bullet in that it decides which school and athletic depts should (or shouldn’t) be invited to associate with the current memberships athletic depts.
There are situations where associate inclusion is beneficial (conf a doesn’t sponsor sport x while conf b does, or wants to, but would lacks teams). These are supplemental, not conf determinative.
Even ND not being a full ACC member, while beneficial, can be perceived as a weakness that another conf didn’t feel the need to have exploited.
LikeLike
Not that I am advocating one or the other, but I am trying to understand what @bullet means by, “Football only does nothing for the Big 12.” This discussion is only taking place at all, due to a perceived football problem.
Even ND not being a full ACC member, while beneficial, can be perceived as a weakness that another conf didn’t feel the need to have exploited.
I think we all agree that the ACC had a weakness the SEC and B10 didn’t have, which led it to offer ND a deal no one else would have considered — except, of course, the Big 12!
I do think full membership is a “cleaner” solution. For BYU, they just have to get around the Sunday play issue. BYU has been in other conferences, and they always managed it somehow. It doesn’t seem that hard.
I’m with @bullet about Boise State, but not because I think partial members are bad. I just think that they bring very little to the table. UCF could go 0-12, and there’d still be value. Boise is a straight-up bet that they’ll continue to be big winners on the field.
LikeLike
Big 12 expansion is primarily because of a perception problem. Adding a football only member makes that perception problem worse.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Big 12 expansion is primarily because of a perception problem. Adding a football only member makes that perception problem worse.”
Not if they’re good at football and excited to be in the B12.
LikeLike
No, you don’t look like a power league with partial members (except for niche sports like lacrosse ow women’s rowing).
LikeLike
bullet,
“No, you don’t look like a power league with partial members (except for niche sports like lacrosse ow women’s rowing).”
So the ACC looks worse than the B12 right now because they have ND partially in? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
ACC looks weak for making a special deal for Notre Dame. Would the Big 10 or SEC do that?
LikeLike
ACC looks weak for making a special deal for Notre Dame. Would the Big 10 or SEC do that?
I think even the ACC would admit (under truth serum) that they added Notre Dame to rectify a weakness.
But you’re asking the wrong question. It’s true neither the B10 nor SEC would do that. But those leagues aren’t playing the ACC’s hand, and the ACC can’t play their hand.
Did the ACC strengthen its position by adding ND, even as a partial member? Yes, definitely. Did the ACC have a better move they could have made? No, definitely not.
The bottom line is that anything the B12 does at this point is just rearranging deck chairs.
If you’re on a sinking ship, you at least try to keep it afloat as long as you can. Maybe the Carpathia will arrive in time.
LikeLike
bullet,
“ACC looks weak for making a special deal for Notre Dame.”
Weaker than the B12? Because that’s all that matters at this point.
“Would the Big 10 or SEC do that?”
They wouldn’t, but it’s already known that they’re the two alpha dogs. The ACC and B12 were already weaker than them and no reasonable addition is/was going to change that.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Horrible idea. A lot of this expansion is about perception. Adding football only members makes you look 2nd rate, like the Big East.”
I disagree. With the options that are available to the B12, adding football-only members is better than adding full members outside of UC and BYU.
“Boise is a horrible idea. They have small stadium and limited resources.”
1. Boise seats 37,000.
For comparison:
TCU – 45k
Baylor – 45k
KU – 50k
KSU – 50k
UC – 40k
UH – 40k
UCF – 45k
And if Boise got in they could justify expansion. UC can’t even expand.
If you want a big stadium, add SDSU (Qualcomm – 70k).
2. They have limited resources because they are in the MWC. Give them B12 CFB money and they could spend more. Their budget is about the same as UH’s right now and ahead of Memphis and CSU.
“What happens to their recruiting if they start going 6-6? That could rapidly turn them into homecoming fodder for Kansas and Iowa St.”
You vote them out?
“BYU is a far better all sports member than Cincinnati. Its the Sunday play that makes them complicated.”
I think you undervalue UC, but I’d agree if it wasn’t for the LDS/Sunday play issue.
“Football only does nothing for the Big 12.”
Couldn’t disagree more. It adds teams where you need it without adding unnecessary travel and expenses for non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that anything the B12 does at this point is just rearranging deck chairs.
The SWC didn’t implode because of a perception problem. The Big 8 didn’t see a need to expand because of a perception problem. The Big 12 didn’t lose 4 core members because of a perception problem.
Backfilling with mid majors isn’t going to fix a perception problem, it’s going to exacerbate it.
Step away from the B12 apologetics for a minute and really think about the fact that you’re talking up the merits of the #3 team in Tennessee.
LikeLike
Middle Tennessee is not #2.
LikeLike
Middle Tennessee is not #2.
Correct. Vanderbilt is.
LikeLike
I knew what you were implying. I just thought it was funny.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – did Melania Trump assist you with this post? I’ve been alone in the wilderness advocating for the football-only addition for the Big XII of BYU & Boise St. on this board for the last 4 years with very little positive comment from other posters. Seriously though, I’m glad you’re coming around to my way of thinking.”
I don’t think I’ve ever mocked the concept. I could go either way on BYU, but Boise only makes sense as a football-only member.
“According to my plan, the B-12 gives BYU & Boise $5-6mm for football-only membership on an annual basis and their membership is good only through the expiration of the B-12’s GOR. That way, the B-12 isn’t stuck with Boise if they suck in a few years and could plug in the new hot mid-major in the future. The other reason for not guaranteeing membership in perpetuity for BYU & Boise is to allow the B-12 to have some spots in case some other P-5 conference blows up, although it’s not as likely anymore with the ACCN coming online.”
I think the money will start low and build every year. I don’t think you can do short term membership. Either a school is a member or they aren’t.
LikeLike
In the present situation, would the big12 offer a spot to WV if they
weren’t currently a member? If the answer is no, why bolster membership to the
east? Instead, try to ease them out the door.
If you could add BYU and Colorado, it would be a home run.
Maybe at GOR expiration you try to exchange WV for Memphis.
Be the dominant brand in the mountain west, plains, and Texas.
Generate interest in the area of the SEC West.
LikeLike
In the present situation, would the big12 offer a spot to WV if they weren’t currently a member?
I’d say yes. All the schools they’re considering now, are schools they could’ve had when WV was invited. WV’s fortunes haven’t fallen, nor the others risen, to the point where the decision would be different today.
If you could add BYU and Colorado, it would be a home run.
I get BYU, but why Colorado? (I assume you mean State.)
Maybe at GOR expiration you try to exchange WV for Memphis.
If they felt that way, they could’ve had Memphis in the first place (when they chose WV instead). I have never heard of anyone that thought Memphis was the more desirable of the two.
LikeLike
If you could add BYU and Colorado, it would be a home run.
I get BYU, but why Colorado? (I assume you mean State.)
>>>I meant Colorado (if they’re one of the 2 schools that want back in per Snyder).
>>>Colorado is pretty isolated geographically in the pac12.
If WV football is mediocre for another 5 years, is anyone outside of West Virginia going
to care about a WV vs “core” big12 football game?
At least OU vs Memphis has regional interest and potential rivalry.
(football and other sports)
All these conferences (B12, B1G, P12, SEC, ACC) need to concentrate more
on retaining regional rivalries, as their sizes increase.
LikeLike
I meant Colorado (if they’re one of the 2 schools that want back in per Snyder).
I am pretty sure the Pac-12 has a grant of rights, which puts the Buffaloes out of reach, at least for now, even assuming they are remorseful about leaving. (I haven’t heard that from any other source.)
If WV football is mediocre for another 5 years, is anyone outside of West Virginia going
to care about a WV vs “core” big12 football game? At least OU vs Memphis has regional interest and potential rivalry.
College teams have a remarkable tendency to return to their historical norms. WV has a long history of football success — not like Oklahoma, but not like the last four years either. Memphis has no such history. If you had to bet on one, you’d bet on the Mountaineers.
There is, at least, historical evidence that WV can be good. There is no evidence that OU vs. Memphis could ever be a competitive rivalry.
LikeLike
dtwphx,
“>>>I meant Colorado (if they’re one of the 2 schools that want back in per Snyder).
>>>Colorado is pretty isolated geographically in the pac12.”
CO had wanted into the P10 back in the 90s. Many of their alumni are in CA. They have zero interest in rejoining the B12.
“If WV football is mediocre for another 5 years, is anyone outside of West Virginia going
to care about a WV vs “core” big12 football game?”
WV has the same record as Texas over the last 5 seasons. They’re miles ahead of CO.
Does anyone care about “core” B12 games involving any non-top 25 teams outside of OU and UT?
“At least OU vs Memphis has regional interest and potential rivalry.”
No, it doesn’t. Nobody cares about Memphis out side of the city area. OU is so far above them it’s laughable.
“All these conferences (B12, B1G, P12, SEC, ACC) need to concentrate more
on retaining regional rivalries, as their sizes increase.”
And yet they are intentionally trying to expand into multiple regions instead because that makes them more money.
LikeLike
But generally they are moving into adjacent regions.
Texas A&M has more value to the SEC than to the Big 12. FSU has more value to the ACC than they would to the SEC. On the other hand, UConn would have more value to the ACC or Big 10 than it would to the SEC or Big 12.
LikeLike
bullet,
“But generally they are moving into adjacent regions.”
Ideally, sure. But WV has more value to the B12 than Memphis despite the proximity of Memphis. They aren’t going to trade away a better school just to get one that’s closer. And the B12 could choose to build a bridge to WV so it isn’t so far from everyone.
“Texas A&M has more value to the SEC than to the Big 12.”
Because of UT, yes. But TAMU would have more value to the B12 than many non-Texas schools would. There is a certain intrinsic level of value that location can’t change.
LikeLike
dtwphx,
“In the present situation, would the big12 offer a spot to WV if they
weren’t currently a member?”
Yes, because they’d be the best available option just like they were before.
“If the answer is no, why bolster membership to the
east? Instead, try to ease them out the door.”
WV isn’t leaving unless the ACC or SEC invite them in. There is no easing them out.
“If you could add BYU and Colorado, it would be a home run.”
There are no home runs available. CO wanted to leave the B12 and has zero interest in coming back. BYU has always been available and the B12 hasn’t wanted them. The best the B12 can do is a double. They just hope they don’t strike out.
“Maybe at GOR expiration you try to exchange WV for Memphis.”
Why make such a terrible downgrade?
“Be the dominant brand in the mountain west, plains, and Texas.”
The already dominate TX and the plains. Adding BYU doesn’t put them ahead of the P12 with Utah and CO in the mountain west.
“Generate interest in the area of the SEC West.”
Nobody cares about Memphis in the SEC West area. It’s a city to recruit, not a school of interest.
LikeLike
The Big 12 right now reminds me of the last few years of the Big East when it was a BCS conference. We’ll see if they can make it another ten years.
LikeLike
Except, the Big East never had any football blue-bloods. The closest it ever had was nouveau riche Miami, which was gone before the league’s painful, final decade. Almost everyone knew, by then, that if the league survived at all, it was no longer going to have BCS status (or the equivalent of that) in the next round of post-season contracts.
The Big 12, in contrast, will always be a power league, as long as it has Oklahoma and Texas, two of the bluest blue bloods you can get. Obviously, it is the most threatened of the P5 leagues, but it has a more solid base than the Big East ever did.
LikeLike
Seriously, no love for Big Red in that post?
LikeLike
Since the Big XII have reopened the silly season here’s another example of expansion speculation from Jake Trotter at ESPN.com (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17118220/the-contenders-hopefuls-wild-card-teams-join-big-12):
UCLA: Former UCLA football coach Rick Neuheisel caused a stir Wednesday when he said on Sirius XM College Sports that he wouldn’t be surprised if the Bruins gave a move to the Big 12 serious thought. Before you ask why UCLA would consider leaving the comforts of the Pac-12 for the Big 12, remember this: Kansas State generated three times more Tier 3 revenue through K-StateHD.TV than UCLA received from the struggling Pac-12 Network. The Pac-12 grant of rights is up before the Big 12’s, and as one industry insider put it, if Pac-12 commish Larry Scott can flirt with Texas and Oklahoma, what’s stopping Bob Bowlsby from doing the same with the Bruins? Who knows — UCLA could be tempted to make a brand-defining break from USC in the same vein of Texas A&M’s SEC move away from Texas.
LikeLike
UCLA to the B12 may be the stupidest and most unlikely realignment speculation that I have heard.
LikeLike
They still hold a grudge from Stanford voting against them in the PCC breakup?
LikeLike
LSU is available now: no grant of rights in the SEC.
LikeLike
Thats would be killa! Honestly its a bit ludicrous to think of UCLA as a B12 candidate, but I could see a case for Univ. of Arizona and Colorado-Boulder (which may actually be the remorseful former member mentioned in some reports, not Mizzou).
LikeLike
Please…
It’s embarrassing that any regular on this board would think anyone is leaving (or would think about it) a current P5 other than the B12 (the ACC having presumably just left that list).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/134718/bill-snyder-misses-ksu-nebraska-rivalry-questions-huskers-big-ten-happiness
Snyder was talking about Nebraska and presumably Colorado.
“When push comes to shove,” Snyder said of Nebraska, “I don’t want to speak for anybody, but I’m not so sure they’re pleased with the decision they made.”
The Huskers have won 25 of 40 Big Ten games in five seasons, but just six of 15 games against league heavyweights Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Wisconsin. Old rivalries are gone and new ones have been slow to ignite.
This year, Nebraska’s home league schedule includes Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota and Maryland. Not the most attractive slate.
But is Snyder right?
It’s highly doubtful.
By nearly all accounts out of Lincoln, Nebraska enjoys the prestige, athletically and academically, and stability that the Big Ten affords — not to mention the financial benefits and a decent cultural fit. The Huskers can likely handle an uninspiring schedule if its conference assures a position of power on the future college football landscape.
Would a schedule with ISU, KU, OkSU and TT really be that much more exciting for NE fans? NE, like MI, has a large disparity between even and odd years in terms of quality home games.
2015 – WI, IA, NW, MSU
2016 – PU, MN, IL, UMD
2017 – WI, IA, NW, OSU, RU
2018 – PU, MN, IL, MSU
2019 – WI, IA, NW, OSU, IN
LikeLike
By the way, its Houston or bust for the Big 12:
Greg Abbott
✔ @GregAbbott_TX
Big 12 expansion is a non-starter unless it includes University of Houston.
Governor Abbott is a UT alum.
LikeLike
I could see Abbott’s posturing not as a sincere endorsement of UH’s bid, but as a way of threatening UT-Austin into making other changes/cuts by effectively diluting their revenue by adding another in-state mouth to feed.
LikeLike
Abbot is a UT alum, BBA and law school. He began his career in Houston.
He is not threatening UT. He wants to help the city of Houston and UH.
LikeLike
He’s an embarrassment to the state, is what he is…
LikeLike
If you are simply talking about intervening in conference expansion, he’s just trying to help the state. They want Houston to eventually be an AAU caliber school and they want that college football money in Texas instead of Connecticut.
LikeLike
Seems pretty clear Texas still really is not in favor of expansion, only willing to continue to listen. But apparently 8 or 9 other members wanted to move forward.
LikeLike
Greg Fenves @gregfenves · 11m11 minutes ago
As we look at opportunities for Big 12 expansion, I support considering @UHouston for the conference. UH is a huge asset for Texas
This is the most positive thing Texas has said about expansion since WVU was admitted. Now its not an unequivocal vote for UH, its a lot better than Trump got out of Cruz or even Rubio last night.
LikeLike
Ha!
LikeLike
I happened to hear a bit of Phil Steele on Paul Finebaum’s radio show as I was driving around today. Steele was talking about B12 expansion and said they were some decent candidates and that the B12 had to fortify itself because he saw 4 superconferences of 16 teams coming in the next 5 years or so.
How does he get those 2 statements to work together? The ACC has a GOR until the mid 30s. The B10 and SEC aren’t getting raided. The P12 is isolated and seems secure (plus they have a GOR). If the B12 also expands and becomes stable, how does this devolve into 4 groups of 16 in a few years?
LikeLike
The “4 superconferences of 16 teams” idea has always struck me as loony. The power conferences are independent actors, in competition with each other, and with different challenges. They aren’t going to simultaneously agree to go to the same number of teams. There has never been a time in history, when all of the “power conferences” (however defined) were equally sized.
Let’s say UT/TT/OU/OKSU go to the Pac-12, making 16. The B10 is not going to take Kansas and Iowa State, in the name of numerical equality. They’ll wait till 2036, if they have to, and see if the ACC is still unified.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/it-may-be-time-for-the-big-ten-sec-to-poach-the-big-12-again/
Tom Fornelli suggests that now might be the time for the other P5 conferences to raid the B12 and finish it off.
Which is why I believe that while the Big 12 goes over possible expansion candidates, the rest of the Power Five conferences should be asking themselves if it’s time to expand again — just not with BYU or Memphis.
No, they should be asking those threatened schools of the Big 12 if they’d like some long-term security.
If you’re Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, or the SEC’s Greg Sankey, aren’t you wondering if now is the time to become that 16-school superconference we all envisioned being the future five years ago?
Don’t you at least pick up the phone and ask?
Get them now but with an agreement not to move until the GOR ends (or is near ending, to reduce the fee). That gives everyone some time to find a new home and enjoy the B12 cash while it lasts.
LikeLike
“Don’t you at least pick up the phone and ask?”
No doubt that this is already happening, as it has in the past. The problem for the b12 is that most of its members just arent coveted by the P4. UT, OU, maybe KU. The others are not big brands, are a long way from other conferences (except WVU), and don’t sit in large markets. So it’s slim pickens.
LikeLike
PS Obviously BU and TCU sit in a major market…but I don’t see the P4 (P5-b12) gunning for them due to not being big brands or being nearby natural rivals for their membership.
WVU to ACC someday? Maybe. While not market move…they certainly are a good brand, have a strong following, put some eyes on TV’s and would be a natural rival for Pitt, VT, UVA and UL.
LikeLike
Get them now but with an agreement not to move until the GOR ends (or is near ending, to reduce the fee). That gives everyone some time to find a new home and enjoy the B12 cash while it lasts.
He doesn’t mention the GOR at all. Locking them up now is certainly an option, but there’s no precedent for a “dead league walking” that lasts 5+ years, as this one would. (The GOR has 7 years to run, but schools might be willing to skip out on the last two.)
No doubt that this is already happening, as it has in the past.
I can’t prove it either way, but I certainly have some doubts that this is “already happening”.
The problem for the b12 is that most of its members just aren’t coveted by the P4. UT, OU, maybe KU.
Most conferences are like that. The P12 isn’t in any danger, but if it were, how many of its schools would the other power leagues covet? The B12 has 3 out of 10 desirable schools — 30% — which isn’t actually that bad.
WVU to ACC someday? Maybe. While not market move…they certainly are a good brand, have a strong following, put some eyes on TV’s and would be a natural rival for Pitt, VT, UVA and UL.
I can’t see the ACC expanding with WVU, unless they lose some schools, which it appears cannot happen before 2036. If the B12 gets poached, I imagine the leftover schools, BYU, and the best of the G5, would merge to create a new 12–14 team league, retaining the B12 name.
Now, the challenge is whether the SEC would continue to view them as an equal (e.g., the Sugar Bowl deal), or they’d eventually be viewed as a bunch of aspiring mid-majors, much as The American is today.
LikeLike
“Most conferences are like that.” Yes but they’re not in danger of imploding. For example, when the ACC appeared threatened…you could see potential homes for many of them…and the remainders could more readily and naturally backfill with “local” teams waiting in the wings (UConn, WVU, UCF, etc). What happens to the poor Cyclones, Wildcats, Mountaineers, etc…if UT/OU bolt? Or any scenerio where the cream of the b12 leaves. It appears exponentially worse. And now the b12 truly does appear to be the conference in the greatest danger of collapse in the coming years.
LikeLike
For example, when the ACC appeared threatened…you could see potential homes for many of them…
There were “maximal expansion” fan fantasies for the ACC’s destruction, e.g., the B10 takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Notre Dame; the SEC takes NCState and VT. But those were fantasies. It is conceivable, but not likely, that the parties involved would actually have done this.
More likely, more than half of the ACC would have been left in a conference denuded of its best members—exactly the problem the B12 remainders could be facing in a few years.
…and naturally backfill with “local” teams waiting in the wings (UConn, WVU, UCF, etc).
The ACC’s problem, in that case, would be exactly the same as the B12’s problem now: you can backfill with those teams, but your product in the end is considerably weaker—exactly what happened to the Big East, and is now likely to happen to The American.
In the scenario you are talking about, WVU wouldn’t have been available. There’s no way a WVU was going to leave an intact B12 to join an ACC that has lost all of its most desirable schools. So you’d have wound up with a league retaining the ACC name, but consisting only of its weakest members and a bunch of former mid-majors with minimal football tradition.
What happens to the poor Cyclones, Wildcats, Mountaineers, etc…if UT/OU bolt? Or any scenerio where the cream of the b12 leaves. It appears exponentially worse.
To the contrary, it seems to me essentially the same, only with one difference. Besides Texas, the B12 occupies a bunch of physically large, low-population states, so they’d wind up with a geographically far less compact league. That is a bit worse, but not exponentially so.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“He doesn’t mention the GOR at all.”
I know. That was purely my speculation because I don’t see how you could just take them now. It would be a huge legal risk to assume you could break the GOR for a reasonable fee, plus you’d have hundreds of hours of legal fees even if you win.
“Locking them up now is certainly an option, but there’s no precedent for a “dead league walking” that lasts 5+ years, as this one would. (The GOR has 7 years to run, but schools might be willing to skip out on the last two.)”
It would be unprecedented. The league could agree to disband early, but that assumes that the undesirables could be compensated in some way. Would the B10/SEC/P12 make enough that they could pay the schools left behind what they lose in their TV deal as they get demoted to a G5 conference? Maybe it would be worth it to them to get UT/OU/KU that much earlier.
“I can’t prove it either way, but I certainly have some doubts that this is “already happening”.”
He’s probably right that there are back channel discussion going on at a low level. That probably never really stops.
“Most conferences are like that. The P12 isn’t in any danger, but if it were, how many of its schools would the other power leagues covet? The B12 has 3 out of 10 desirable schools — 30% — which isn’t actually that bad.”
Agreed, but I think the B12 is an extreme.
P12:
Wanted – USC, UCLA, UW, OR, Stanford
Maybe – Cal (SF market), ASU (Phoenix), CO (Denver, plus old B12 rival), Utah (partner for BYU)
Unwanted – WSU, OrSU
SEC:
Wanted – AL, LSU, TAMU, UF, UGA, UK
Maybe – AU (prince), TN (prince, flagship), MO (AAU, location), Vandy (AAU, location)
Unwanted – MS, MsSU, AR, SC
B10:
Wanted – OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI
Maybe – MSU, IA, MN, NW, UMD, IN (prince/king, flagships, location, AAU)
Unwanted – PU, RU, IL
ACC:
Wanted – UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU, Clemson, ND
Maybe – Miami, GT, NCSU, VT
Unwanted – WF, BC, Pitt, UL
B12:
Wanted – UT, OU, KU
Maybe – TCU, WV
Unwanted – Baylor, TT, OkSU, KSU, ISU
You can quibble with some of my placements, but the B12 still has a lower percentage of desirables.
“I can’t see the ACC expanding with WVU, unless they lose some schools, which it appears cannot happen before 2036. If the B12 gets poached, I imagine the leftover schools, BYU, and the best of the G5, would merge to create a new 12–14 team league, retaining the B12 name.”
That seems most likely.
“Now, the challenge is whether the SEC would continue to view them as an equal (e.g., the Sugar Bowl deal), or they’d eventually be viewed as a bunch of aspiring mid-majors, much as The American is today.”
The latter. Without UT and OU, the SEC wouldn’t continue the Sugar Bowl deal with the B12.
LikeLike
I’ve read that there is a prorata clause in the Big XII TV contract that insures no diminution in value for adding 2 or 4 teams. I’ve also read that Texas and Oklahoma won’t agree to an extension of the GOR for the present expansion candidates. If expansion is merely (1) to milk the TV contracts for more money until the GOR expires, and (2) to leave behind the remaining best teams at the end of the GOR when Texas and Oklahoma (and maybe Kansas) leave, then wouldn’t it make sense for the Big XII to take the remaining best mid-majors (BYU, Houston, Cinci and UConn) so that when the Texas and Oklahoma (and maybe Kansas) leave in 4-6 years, you at least have a better AAC 2.0 still remaining? Put BYU, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas and Kansas St in one division so they only end up playing the smaller “mid-major” teams 3 times a year (with a 9-game schedule). Or you can skip BYU, keep Iowa St. in the Western Division and add a directional Florida team, so that the “old” Big XII schools (minus Baylor, which is a disaster anyway right now) can continue to play together in the short term, with only minimal contact with the newbies, and get more money. That seems to be the most beneficial outcome for the league members right now.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“I’ve read that there is a prorata clause in the Big XII TV contract that insures no diminution in value for adding 2 or 4 teams.”
Correct, but that only applies to the current TV deal. It doesn’t promise anything for the next TV deal.
“I’ve also read that Texas and Oklahoma won’t agree to an extension of the GOR for the present expansion candidates.”
People have said many things and then done something else. What UT or OU will do is probably dependent on what the networks happen to offer.
“If expansion is merely (1) to milk the TV contracts for more money until the GOR expires, and (2) to leave behind the remaining best teams at the end of the GOR when Texas and Oklahoma (and maybe Kansas) leave, then wouldn’t it make sense for the Big XII to take the remaining best mid-majors (BYU, Houston, Cinci and UConn) so that when the Texas and Oklahoma (and maybe Kansas) leave in 4-6 years, you at least have a better AAC 2.0 still remaining?”
Yes (although I’d dispute whether UConn fits due to geography), but I’d argue that those aren’t the only reasons for expansion. I think the B12 members actively hope to become stable via this expansion. Even if I’m right, you still want the 4 best additions. But there’s a difference between planning for a future without UT/OU (more likely to add TX schools to keep the market, know you won’t be a P5 conference so money will become tight) and planning for a future with UT/OU (will be a P5 so money is no issue). WV made sense for a B12 with 2 kings but might be unaffordable for a G5 B12.
“Put BYU, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas and Kansas St in one division so they only end up playing the smaller “mid-major” teams 3 times a year (with a 9-game schedule). Or you can skip BYU, keep Iowa St. in the Western Division and add a directional Florida team, so that the “old” Big XII schools (minus Baylor, which is a disaster anyway right now) can continue to play together in the short term, with only minimal contact with the newbies, and get more money. That seems to be the most beneficial outcome for the league members right now.”
That sort of plan is asking for the conference to fragment. You want to integrate the new members as quickly as possible, not ghettoize them.
LikeLike
Actual realignment news I’m pretty sure none pf you have heard yet…
“On another note, the Rice Rugby Board is pleased to announce that Rice Rugby will be joining the National Small College Rugby Organization (http://www.nscro.org/) for the upcoming season. The Rice Rugby board, coaching staff, and student leadership were unanimous in recommending a move to NSCRO based on conference stability, availability of an all-star program, and opportunity for postseason success.
Rice will join seven other small college teams including St. Edwards, Stephen F. Austin, and Angelo State in the Lone Star Conference. Friendlies against traditional rivals such as University of Houston and University of Texas are still being planned.”
LikeLike
So will the MOB go to the games?
LikeLike
I bet they’ve been saving up a lot of good material on St Edwards.
LikeLike
Have they signed a grant of rights? Otherwise, watch out!
LikeLike
http://www.scout.com/college/football/story/1686706-big-ten-student-ticket-prices-who-pays-most
How much student tickets cost in the B10. Note that PU’s price includes MBB tickets too.
The article has links for the other 4 power conferences.
Most expensive (includes everyone at $200+ and a couple of others of note):
OR – $367 ***
TAMU – $290 (includes MBB)
OSU – $252
OkSU – $250 (includes MBB)
FSU – $240
PSU – $214
UL – $210 (includes MBB)
MI – $200
BC – $199 (includes MBB)
OU, MSU – $180
IA – $175 (tops in B10 West)
*** Oregon students who do not purchase the season package are entered into a lottery, in which the ticket cost is included in students’ tuition.
Cheapest:
UMD, NW, 7 ACC schools, 4 B12 schools, 3 P12 schools, 2 SEC schools – $0
LikeLike
A few years ago, Michigan’s student ticket prices were the highest in the Big Ten. Dave Brandon, the former athletic director, thought he could charge championship prices for a championship team he did not have.
There were a lot of empty seats during Brady Hoke’s final season, a combination of lousy football, over-priced tickets, and a failed marketing scheme. Michigan’s 100,000 attendance streak, which dates to the 1970s, was probably broken that year, although they continued to claim at least that many at every game. (There is essentially no control over counting noses in the stadium: teams can report whatever they want.)
I don’t think Michigan’s student prices will stay that low forever, but they’ve got to put a better product on the field before they think about raising them again.
LikeLike
“UMD, NW, 7 ACC schools, 4 B12 schools, 3 P12 schools, 2 SEC schools – $0”
— Kudos to Northwestern, Maryland & the other schools.
LikeLike
“UMD, NW, 7 ACC schools, 4 B12 schools, 3 P12 schools, 2 SEC schools – $0”
— Kudos to Northwestern, Maryland & the other schools.
How long would that last, if they started winning at the rate of Alabama or Ohio State?
LikeLike
Also most state schools can’t charge the same tuition and fees total as NW. As Greg points out, some of these schools just charge an athletics fee instead of charging specifically for tickets.
LikeLike
Maryland FT students pay $264 a year in required athletics fees. NW $51. Iowa students do not pay fees to support the athletics department. MSU does not appear to have an athletics fee. Same with OSU.
LikeLike
Thirty dollars or so per game is not unreasonable nowadays. Total cost per year at tOSU is about $24,000 for in-state students and $40,000 for out-of-state students. Textbooks, even in the humanities always in engineering, often cost in excess of $200. A can of Bud in your local grocery store is close to $1.
The tickets that include MBB are a real bargain, since you get an additional 15 games.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/07/amarillo_and_blue_more_on_mich.html
If you remember, when MI went from Nike to Adidas they had to drop Maize as a color and got Sun instead. Now that MI is back to Nike, the yellow has changed again (it’s darker) and will be called Amarillo.
And because they are completely outfitted by the Jordan Brand, all uniforms in every sport will have the Jumpman logo on it instead of the swoosh.
How do MI fans feel about not getting their maize back? How about the football team wearing the Jordan logo?
LikeLike
There is no intellectual property protection for a color, only the name attached to it. Adidas could have used the identical hue that Nike did; they just couldn’t have called it “Maize” in any of their branded material. Everyone other than Adidas still called Michigan the “Maize and Blue.”
The exact colors have changed many times over the years, while always being some shade of dark bluish and bright yellowish. Most fans thought that Adidas’s “Sun” was too bright. Adidas also supplied a number of much-disliked one-off uniforms for special events, including one bowl game where the jersey numbers were practically unreadable, and another where the players resembled bumblebees. No one was sad to see them go.
According to the linked article, the new “Amarillo” color is similar to the shade of Maize that Charles Woodson and Desmond Howard wore. My guess is that most fans will be perfectly happy with that.
How about the football team wearing the Jordan logo?
I have seen some mild complaints about that: change anything, and some fans will complain. I don’t care, one way or another. But then, I have never understood why the choice of an apparel manufacturer had so much influence over recruiting, but evidently it does.
LikeLike
I’m excited about the Jumpman logo.
I preferred the lighter/brighter shade of maize that Michigan wore when they were outfitted by Nike (mid 90s to mid 2000s) and most recently with Adidas. Last year, Adidas darkened the maize and I thought it looked bad. Just my opinion.
My guess is that older fans prefer the darker maize and will not be into the Jumpman logo while younger fans will feel opposite.
LikeLike
My guess is that older fans prefer the darker maize and will not be into the Jumpman logo while younger fans will feel opposite.
If that’s true, it’s a win. The older fans aren’t going to stop loving the team because of a logo. Michigan’s challenge (not that they are alone in this) is to create the next generation of fans who have the same lifelong passion that the older ones do.
LikeLike
I must be getting old. I never liked the “fluorescent yellow marker” version of Maize. My preference is the darker shade from the Bo era. Not so much for aesthetic reasons…but nostalgia.
LikeLike
So perusing mgoblog today, I came across this interesting piece regarding Texas and Big 12 expansion:
http://texas.247sports.com/Board/21/Contents/Wednesday-46331665
Unfortunately, it’s paywalled, but the gist is that Texas is not very keen on extending the Big 12’s GOR past the current expiration date (2025) because it is considering exiting the Big 12 at that point. The source (Bobby Burton of Texas’ 247 Sports site) quotes an unnamed Texas official saying that they will “fight extending the GOR tooth and nail” and that “the president and chancellor prefer the B1G over the Pac 12 and SEC.”
Additionally, he claims that Texas wants to be guaranteed an annual football trip to Chicago and either DC (Maryland) or New York (Rutgers). Who knows if any of this is true, but I’m not sure the B1G could meet Texas’s demands for an annual East Coast trip unless they scrapped divisions.
LikeLike
It would be an interesting twist if the MD/RU addition allowed the B1G to snag the Longhorns.
I guess that is would be way weird to give Delany credit for super long range planning with this in mind. No, Delany may be good, but that is ridiculous.
LikeLike
There are so many competing media reports about what the purported preferences of the B12 members, that I scarcely know what to believe. Having said that, this report does have the ring of truth, at least in some respects.
There is no good reason for Texas to lock up its future beyond 2025. Leaving all options open has no downside. I can also see why they’d prefer the B1G over the P12 and SEC. The P12 has fewer major brands than the other two leagues, and the Longhorns would inevitably be playing a lot of games without sex appeal at night in the Pacific time zone. The SEC is a less prestigious cohort academically, and fans would hate the idea of following A&M’s lead.
Additionally, he claims that Texas wants to be guaranteed an annual football trip to Chicago and either DC (Maryland) or New York (Rutgers). Who knows if any of this is true, but I’m not sure the B1G could meet Texas’s demands for an annual East Coast trip unless they scrapped divisions.
I assume they mean a semi-annual Chicago trip. This is easy to accommodate within the existing division structure, since Northwestern is in the west, and would remain that way. I can’t find a way to give them an annual East Coast trip with divisions or pods, without “breaking” something else.
(I am assuming the league would want to accommodate the Longhorns, but not to the point of adopting a division structure that looks idiotic (Leaders/Legends), or that forces other teams to abandon “must have” rivalries.)
The CCG-deregulation vote the ACC lost could be reversed, if the B10 suddenly discovered a use for division-less play. Without static divisions or pods, you could easily accommodate ad hoc rules like the ones Texas allegedly wants, without having to give up any other must-haves.
I guess that is would be way weird to give Delany credit for super long range planning with this in mind. No, Delany may be good, but that is ridiculous.
I agree, not even Delany could have planned that many chess moves ahead, but you could give him credit for understanding the value of MD/RU, even if he didn’t know precisely how that value would be realized.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I assume they mean a semi-annual Chicago trip. This is easy to accommodate within the existing division structure, since Northwestern is in the west, and would remain that way. I can’t find a way to give them an annual East Coast trip with divisions or pods, without “breaking” something else.
(I am assuming the league would want to accommodate the Longhorns, but not to the point of adopting a division structure that looks idiotic (Leaders/Legends), or that forces other teams to abandon “must have” rivalries.)”
You mean you don’t think UT belongs in the East? We could move IN to the West and not have any locked rivalries.
If UT really wanted to play in Chicago I’m pretty sure they could set up a neutral site game at Soldier Field (or DC or NYC).
LikeLike
You mean you don’t think UT belongs in the East? We could move IN to the West and not have any locked rivalries.
You’ve got me there. That’s an alignment I hadn’t thought of. Since UT isn’t moving alone, it would be something like this:
“East”: OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, RU, MD, UT, Kansas or Oklahoma
“West”: NE, IA, WI, MN, IL, NW, PU, IU
LikeLike
Believe McMurphy. To paraphrase, If anybody says they know–they are wrong because the presidents don’t even know what they will do.
LikeLike
“…but the gist is that Texas is not very keen on extending the Big 12’s GOR past the current expiration date (2025) because it is considering exiting the Big 12 at that point. ”
Two things. LHN and the Tech problem. LHN doesn’t expire until ’31 so I could see concessions being requested for a GOR extension that reaches until then. TT isn’t disappearing, and it seems Texas politics can possibly force inclusion of UH in B12 expansion. How much more reaction if UT is bailing alone?
LikeLike
Two things. LHN and the Tech problem. LHN doesn’t expire until ’31 so I could see concessions being requested for a GOR extension that reaches until then. TT isn’t disappearing, and it seems Texas politics can possibly force inclusion of UH in B12 expansion. How much more reaction if UT is bailing alone?
I have no idea just how big an obstacle the “Tech problem” is. I think the LHN obstacle is easily circumvented, now that it’s clearly not the big hit UT and ESPN hoped it’d be. UT just makes a transitional agreement with its new conference, on the understanding that the LHN ceases its independent existence in 2033.
Of course, if four schools bolt for the P12, maybe the LHN isn’t such an obstacle anymore, bearing in mind that the P12N isn’t such a big hit either.
LikeLike
…now that it’s clearly not the big hit UT and ESPN hoped it’d be.”
ESPN may have wanted a hit, but got realignment deterrent (which seems to have paid off so far).
UT would have liked a hit, but got a single school channel which is what bullet says they were willing to take a loss to have. Plus they got bushels of money guaranteed anyway. Who’s going to break the deal? ESPN want to pay for not broadcasting? UT going to forgoe the singular exposure and money because it not a financial windfall for ESPN?
The Tech problem would be more easily overcome if there wasn’t an alternative, a power conference that has in the past extended a contingent invite to TT (and OkSU) that well would keep The RRR an in conference, in division game.
My dime is on B12 slogging on ’til ’32, and maybe beyond if P16 isn’t acceptable. That dime is all I’m willing to wager, though…
LikeLike
Maybe getting UH into the B12 is the price UT would have to pay the state to get out.
LikeLike
So elevate UH into P5, to soon after relegate them to the G6? Such a deal…
LikeLike
http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/2016/07/22/sec-and-big-ten-super-conferences-another-level/86823100/
Writer feels regards of what other conferences do it always going to be SEC, BIG and everyone else.
LikeLike
Does anyone really think otherwise for the near future at least? CFB drives the financial bus and the largest and most devout CFB fan bases are in the south and midwest.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17127391/byu-notifies-big-12-interest-joining-conference-open-discussing-football-only-option
BYU has told the B12 they are willing to be a football-only member. Their goal would be to become a full member, but they’d settle for the lesser status.
LikeLike
The Dude of WV is going crazy on twitter, claiming that NE and CO secretly want back in the B12.
Less crazy is his argument that UT and OU have no real reason to leave the B12. They might make a little more money but would lose control over their conference and miss old rivals. He ignores things like academics and how much higher the B10 payout might be with UT and OU included, but he is correct that they have several good reasons for staying in the B12.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Bluevod has multiple sources telling him UT wants into the B10. Soon (like 2017 soon).
LikeLike
All this because Snyder said he “thinks” a couple exiteers miss thei old mates (While his school prez just left to take over at WSU).
I have fond remembrances of crazy friends, lost weekends, wrecked cars, etc. I don’t want to start reliving that.
LikeLike
KSU coach Bill Snyder said two schools had told him they want back in Big 12. We know one of them is NOT A&M. I doubt that it is Colorado either. I also doubt that Snyder is talking to people who actually make those decisions (ie not presidents).
LikeLike
KSU coach Bill Snyder said two schools had told him they want back in Big 12. We know one of them is NOT A&M. I doubt that it is Colorado either.
Well, it’s not Missouri. There’s no GOR in the SEC, so the Tigers could rejoin the B12 tomorrow, if that’s what they wanted.
I am pretty sure some Nebraska fans aren’t enamored of the B10. Perhaps some in the athletic department, too. Those are the people who’d likely be Bill Snyder’s sources. I would be surprised if upper management shares that view.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/134718/bill-snyder-misses-ksu-nebraska-rivalry-questions-huskers-big-ten-happiness
Snyder came out and said one of the 2 schools was Nebraska. But he didn’t say they had told him that, just that he thought they regretted it since they’ve struggled against the B10 powers and miss having rivalries.
“When push comes to shove,” Snyder said of Nebraska, “I don’t want to speak for anybody, but I’m not so sure they’re pleased with the decision they made.”
The Huskers have won 25 of 40 Big Ten games in five seasons, but just six of 15 games against league heavyweights Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Wisconsin. Old rivalries are gone and new ones have been slow to ignite.
NE vs OU, UT, TT, OkSU and MO from 2006-2010: 5-13 (0.278)
That’s a similar list of teams by overall W% over that period and NE did even worse than they have in the B10.
Perhaps he forgets it isn’t the 1990s anymore. NE hasn’t won a conference title since 1999. They went 0-3 in the B12 CCG after that (11 seasons) and are 0-1 in the B10 CCG in 5 seasons.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that Snyder’s friends at Nebraska miss the Big 12, but I’m also sure that those folks have no say in what happens. If you grew up in the Big 8 and then Big 12, it would be logical to miss the old days especially since the program isn’t doing well compared to the past.
LikeLike
Just like everyone else here, I believe that there is no chance that Nebraska would leave the money, power, and prestige of the B1G, to be back to the Big 12 dumpster fire.
My question is how the B1G would react if Nebraska really did want to go back to the Big 12 (other than calling for psychiatric help for those who made that decision).
Sure there is a GOR, but would the B1G insist on enforcing it? Perhaps no one here can answer that question because we do not know the impact on the new TV contracts.
Anyway, any thoughts?
LikeLike
Go ask the dude. He lives in that world.
LikeLike
Sure there is a GOR, but would the B1G insist on enforcing it?
This is all looney-tunes, but yeah, of course they would. Nebraska hasn’t played like a King lately, but they’re still one of the biggest names in college football. Any program available to replace the Cornhuskers would be worth far, far less.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“My question is how the B1G would react if Nebraska really did want to go back to the Big 12 (other than calling for psychiatric help for those who made that decision).
Sure there is a GOR, but would the B1G insist on enforcing it?”
Yes. There’s no point in signing a GOR if you don’t enforce it. The B10 certainly wouldn’t want to set the precedent that a school can get out of it whenever they want. My guess is the B10 would negotiate the exit of NE after finding the best possible replacement and figuring the difference in value between the two. The problem for NE is that there aren’t any good replacements unless the B12 loses one of their big 2 so it would be a huge exit fee plus NE would lose their share of the BTN.
Who would the B10 actually find to fill the spot? I don’t know. My guess at their wish list:
1. UT
2. UVA
3. KU
4. OU
5. UConn
LikeLike
Who would the B10 actually find to fill the spot? I don’t know. My guess at their wish list:
1. UT
2. UVA
3. KU
4. OU
5. UConn
As unlikely as it is that NE wants back into the B12, it’s even more unlikely if UT, OU, or KU is replacing them in the Big Ten. UVA is locked up in a GOR till 2036, which leaves us with UConn, which isn’t a fair trade by any stretch of the imagination. The Huskers would pay a very dear price to get out.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As unlikely as it is that NE wants back into the B12, it’s even more unlikely if UT, OU, or KU is replacing them in the Big Ten.”
Agreed. But those have to be some of the top targets to replace them. The SEC is inviolate (or maybe in this universe MO and Vandy are options). The ACC’s GOR lasts much longer than the B12’s, making them a tougher target and getting ND off the board.
KU would have to be tempted to seek the security of the B10 if NE rejects it (UT and OU seem less likely, especially by themselves). And the B10 and B12 could negotiate a swap of rights with some financial penalty for NE.
“UVA is locked up in a GOR till 2036,”
They are, but the B10, B12 and ACC could work some deal because fewer years of NE’s rights have to have similar value to more years of UVA’s right. Perhaps the B12/NE owes the ACC money as part of a 3 way deal.
“which leaves us with UConn, which isn’t a fair trade by any stretch of the imagination.”
Of course they aren’t, but they’d be the best G5 option for the B10 I think. They would bring a little more leverage in NYC, especially if the state would agree to let them move some home games to NYC as part of them joining the B10.
Other options have huge flaws, too.
“The Huskers would pay a very dear price to get out.”
As they should.
LikeLike
You can always find someone who regrets something in any large organization. I’m sure there are some UGA Bulldog fans out there who ask “we should look at joining the ACC in order to finally turn things around”. But they’re certainly not the decision-makers or remotely in the majority.
Nebraska was already trending downward nationally during its final ~15 years in the b12. The B1G wasn’t the cause of the decline. Save ’01…they haven’t contended for a NC this century (and that wasn’t exactly a great Husker squad). The glory era of the ’70s-’90s was long gone before they joined the B1G.
LikeLike
No. There are not and have never been any Bulldawg fans who thought they should have joined the ACC.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/shatel-huskers-at-home-in-big-ten-ignoring-call-from/article_e06de404-c348-5a83-ad5e-5ec498f9acce.html
LikeLike
Less crazy is his argument that UT and OU have no real reason to leave the B12.
Of the nine other current members of the B12, UT has:
No substantial long-term history with ISU, KU, KSU, OKSt, or WV
Long-term history with OK, but they could play them OOC (as they did for decades), or the Sooners could move to whichever league the Longhorns join.
Long-term history with Baylor, but they would have happily ditched the Bears when the B12 was created, but for the intervention of then-Gov. Ann Richards
Long-term history with TCU, but they did ditch them when the B12 was created.
That leaves TT, the infamous “Tech problem,” but before A&M left the league, the Red Raiders were seldom any better than the third most-important game on the Longhorns’ schedule. Assuming that problem can be solved, it really is all about money, because UT has so little sentimental attachment to most of these teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Of the nine other current members of the B12, UT has:
No substantial long-term history with ISU, KU, KSU, OKSt, or WV
Long-term history with OK, but they could play them OOC (as they did for decades), or the Sooners could move to whichever league the Longhorns join.
Long-term history with Baylor, but they would have happily ditched the Bears when the B12 was created, but for the intervention of then-Gov. Ann Richards
Long-term history with TCU, but they did ditch them when the B12 was created.”
All very true, but those are just non-reasons to stay. They aren’t reasons to leave (they’d even less history against their new conference mates). Also, the RRR would be tougher to keep OOC since both of their most likely options (B10 and P12) play 9 conference games. If UT locks in the RRR annually OOC, they only get 2 cupcakes per season for variety. No more ND or other powers.
“Assuming that problem can be solved, it really is all about money, because UT has so little sentimental attachment to most of these teams.”
It’s not just money with UT. It’s the exposure LHN gives them and the power they wield in the B12 as well. The P12 might let them have the LHN or something very similar since they have a regional P12N model, but UT would lose power. The B10 offers more money but less LHN-type exposure and a big loss of power.
Is being the big fish in a small pond to UT what football independence is to ND? I don’t know.
LikeLike
“If UT locks in the RRR annually OOC, they only get 2 cupcakes per season for variety. No more ND or other powers.”
Agree with most of your post, except the above. USC and plays 9 plus ND every year. They’re also playing Alabama this year, UT the next two. I’m not sure UT wouldn’t likewise step up. But having RRR in conf does make it far easier.
LikeLike
USC can’t guarantee a sellout if they play a cupcake, UT can. They might play some neutral site games, but the odds of another major home and home on top of 9 games plus the RRR is slim.
LikeLike
Sell outs aren’t a huge concern at U$C. The quality of opponent is. But USC is remodeling the Coliseum anyway, and sell outs will be easier to achieve.
I’d be disappointed if a program of UT’s stature would find two cupcakes a requirement.
LikeLike
The requirement would be 7 home games on average. Conference play would bring 4.5. The RRR counts as 0.5. That leaves 2 games to get 2 home games. That’s why they’ll buy 2 cupcakes. USC can’t make as much from cupcake games so they play tougher games.
RRR (1) = 0.5
Conf (9) = 4 or 5
OOC (2) = 2.5 or 1.5
LikeLike
It’s not just money with UT. It’s the exposure LHN gives them and the power they wield in the B12 as well… The B10 offers more money but less LHN-type exposure and a big loss of power.
I am relying on the much-reported claim that LHN has not been the rip-roaring success UT or ESPN imagined. No one watches LHN outside the state of Texas, and even in the state, carriage is far from universal. Anyhow, much like any alpha-dog program, they don’t really need their own network to be the most desired school in the state.
This is why Bluevod’s latest claim at least sounds like what Texas would likely want from the B10. They’d lose the LHN as a dedicated platform (which isn’t doing all that well). In return, they’d be on a far more successful T3 network (BTN), and they’d get regular exposure in Chicago and NY/DC.
Is being the big fish in a small pond to UT what football independence is to ND? I don’t know.
That’s the unknown for me, too.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd: Actually, I believe LHN coverage in Texas is pretty much universal. All the major cable and satellite TV providers carry LHN. Also, LHN is in more homes in the US than the Pac 12 network (although it only gets a couple cents per subscriber per month outside of Texas).
LikeLike
“…they don’t really need their own network…”
But the want it. And they are use to getting what they want.
LikeLike
http://texas.thefootballbrainiacs.com/2016/07/big-12-expansion-and-texit/
B12 expansion and Texit.
As far as the about-face and my ‘invitations as well as departures’ comments go, I think Ian Boyd of Inside Texas put it best, “If the Big 12 is expanding to 14 teams, they’re basically just recruiting teams to replace OU and Texas.” This makes sense and may be THE signal that indicates the departures of the two anchor programs that remain in the faltering conference. So, what might this mean for the conference, Texas, and Oklahoma?
…
Where do Texas and Oklahoma go from here? They could choose to split their ‘partnership’ or stick together when looking to leverage their brands. I happen to think the latter is the better option, though I’m certain there’ll be detractors. If they choose to go their separate ways, the prospective conferences would need to consider inviting another, on top of a Texas or Oklahoma. That could get messy, as that would likely mean more departures for the Big 12. Also, a separate move may jeopardize the Red River Whatever it’s called now going forward, doubt either institution wants that, but I could be wrong.
…
I’m going ahead and simply eliminating the ACC and SEC, the former already comprised of 16 teams and the latter for reason it already sits at the top with regard to revenue and competitive advantage. That leaves the Big 10 and the PAC 12. Of these two, the PAC 12 is the more ‘desperate’ of the two, as they sit at 12 teams, don’t more than 1 to 2 anchor programs, and have an underperforming network. The PAC 12 is the most likely to roll the red carpet out and throw the most money at the respective programs, but that doesn’t make it the best choice. The way I look at it, Texas and Oklahoma have THE option to help themselves and other programs consolidate power and establish another of the seemingly inevitable ‘super conferences’. For this reason, the highest upside for each is the Big 10.
LikeLike
Oklahoma writer on why not Houston?
http://newsok.com/why-houston-in-the-big-12-isnt-such-a-bad-idea-even-if-texas-has-ulterior-motives/article/5510910?articleBar=1
“….Houston would be a good addition to the Big 12.
It starts with football.
(Doesn’t everything?)
The Cougars had a serious program once upon a time, but the success of the 1970s and 1980s dissolved into the struggles of the 1990s and 2000s. Only the past decade have the Cougars turned things around. Now, Tom Herman is the hottest coach in the country, and Houston is riding high after winning 13 games last season and kicking the dog out of Florida State in the Peach Bowl.
But more than that, Houston plays a style of football that people want to watch. They score a lot of points. They throw it around a bunch. Sounds like some other teams we know, huh?
And being in the fourth-largest city in America with the 10th-largest media market, the Cougars are drawing eyeballs. Last season, Houston had seven games that drew at least a 2.0 TV rating in the market. That’s a significant number.
Even though Texas had nine games that drew at least a 2.0 in Houston, the Cougars had just as many as Baylor and Oklahoma but more than TCU (six), Texas A&M (four) and Texas Tech (four).
So, Houston gets high marks in football, market size and TV ratings.
The grades are good, too, in academics.
That might come as a surprise. Houston was long seen as a commuter school, even earning the nickname “Cougar High”. But evidence shows the university has changed.
Its endowment is $684.5 million, according to U.S. News & World Report. That is below the average endowment among current Big 12 schools of $1.1 billion, which is an estimate because private schools like Baylor and TCU have reporting rules that are different than public institutions.
Still, Houston’s endowment is significantly bigger than most of the other schools widely believed to be in the running for Big 12 inclusion. South Florida’s is $387.9 million, Connecticut’s $367 million and Central Florida’s $152.8 million, to name a few.
What’s more, Houston has already earned Carnegie I status, a designation that comes to only high research universities and ranks at the top of most recognized indicators of academic prowess. The Big 12 currently has seven Carnegie I universities — Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and West Virginia — but until earlier this year when K-State, Tech and West Virginia were reclassified to the top tier, the league didn’t even have a majority with the designation.
It was the only Power Five league without a majority.
That sort of thing might not matter much to you and I, but it rankles the heck out of university presidents and chancellors.
And in case you weren’t aware, those are the folks who will determine what schools will be added to the Big 12. They have the final vote. They have the ultimate power. So, academics matter mightily…..”
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, FSU effectively lost its starting QB (and only one with any significant snaps) in the 1st Qtr of that game with a fractured ankle that ultimately required surgery. He actually continued to play hobbled (shouldn’t have). Houston went on to win by 14. I’d like FSU’s chances otherwise. Anyway…I wouldn’t bet on the Cougars becoming a consistent elite team. ’15 was simply a very unusual year for that program…and I’d be surprised if Herman is there beyond next season (his first HC gig).
LikeLike
This is recency effect. Tom Herman has had one great season at Houston. If he keeps that up for any length of time, he’s likely to be poached by another program higher on the football food chain. I’d then expect the Cougars to revert to their historical norm, as CFB programs generally do.
The Cougars did have a run of success in the 1970s and ’80s. Unmentioned by the writer, is that they were cheating practically the whole time. Their history when they don’t cheat is that of a middling program. Not that any of the other available expansion candidates are any better, except perhaps BYU.
LikeLike
Frank, you are just flat out wrong about the Pac 12 vs Big 12 financially. The San Jose sportswriter has written extensively about their issues. Here are the avg. distributions for the last 4 years-and note that the Big 12 figures do NOT include any of the Tier III TV revenues, which would raise their numbers even higher:
2011-12 Big 12 19.0 Pac 12 11.1
2012-13 Big 12 19.8 Pac 12 17.6 (approximately)
2013-14 Big 12 21.2 Pac 12 under 20
2014-15 Big 12 25.2 Pac 12 25.1
LikeLike
bullet,
“Frank, you are just flat out wrong about the Pac 12 vs Big 12 financially.”
He may be. Are you agreeing with him on the other 5 factors (all 3 for the B10, demographics and academics for P12)?
“The San Jose sportswriter has written extensively about their issues.”
Jon Wilner has.
“Here are the avg. distributions for the last 4 years-and note that the Big 12 figures do NOT include any of the Tier III TV revenues, which would raise their numbers even higher:”
Well, the P12 also has full ownership of their own network which partially counterbalances the B12 not being credited with their Tier 3 money. The estimated value of them selling a 50% stake would be $33M per school which would cover several years of B12 tier 3 money (4-5 years on average).
“2014-15 Big 12 25.2 Pac 12 25.1”
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/05/19/pac-12-finances-comparing-fy15-sec-big-ten-thoughts-big-picture/
Since you cited him, I feel the need to point out that Wilner has the number as $23.3M for the B12. His numbers come from the Form 990s for each conference while you’re giving the number reported to the media that includes a few extra things. I believe he uses the IRS numbers for consistency since every conference does some things differently outside of that. On the other hand, he’s also not averaging in the lower payouts for TCU and WV when he could.
Anyway, he has the P12 ahead by $1.8M for 2014-2015.
LikeLike
That IS where Wilner got his numbers. Having looked at the ACC’s 990 and knowing how difficult it is to identify the relevant numbers, I trust the Big 12’s press release as to what they have distributed over a journalist looking at a tax form. I read lots of sports journalists. With a few exceptions, they are financial illiterates.
Now there are differences in all these things. For example, the ACC pays officials salaries and considers that a “distribution.” The Big 12 requires the schools to pay the conference for this and so it doesn’t show up as a “distribution.” I’m sure there are other differences, such as how the bowl payouts and allowances for bowl expenses are treated. These sorts of things may not show up in a tax form.
LikeLike
“That IS where Wilner got his numbers. Having looked at the ACC’s 990 and knowing how difficult it is to identify the relevant numbers, I trust the Big 12’s press release as to what they have distributed over a journalist looking at a tax form. I read lots of sports journalists. With a few exceptions, they are financial illiterates.”
If we are just talking about what the conference is distributing to schools on the 990 Schedule A Part I, Line 11h has that information in detail and it isn’t “difficult to identify the relevant numbers” there.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“If we are just talking about what the conference is distributing to schools on the 990 Schedule A Part I, Line 11h has that information in detail and it isn’t “difficult to identify the relevant numbers” there.”
It’s Line 11g (and it’s expanded data table) for the one I’m looking at, but exactly right otherwise. That table lists each school, its EIN and the amount provided from the conference to each school. They sum to the total also shown on Form 990 Line 13 under Expenses (Grants and similar amounts paid) which is on page 1 of the form ($227M in this case).
Other fun things on a 990 include the sources of revenue.
For the B12 in 2014-2015:
TV – $147,570,386
Bowls – $74,470,426
NCAA – $37,423,597
Tickets – $6,283,326
That’s most of their $267M.
LikeLike
bullet,
“That IS where Wilner got his numbers. Having looked at the ACC’s 990 and knowing how difficult it is to identify the relevant numbers, I trust the Big 12’s press release as to what they have distributed over a journalist looking at a tax form. I read lots of sports journalists. With a few exceptions, they are financial illiterates.
Now there are differences in all these things. For example, the ACC pays officials salaries and considers that a “distribution.” The Big 12 requires the schools to pay the conference for this and so it doesn’t show up as a “distribution.” I’m sure there are other differences, such as how the bowl payouts and allowances for bowl expenses are treated. These sorts of things may not show up in a tax form.”
I think they are apples and oranges. Wilner’s not pretending that the 990 represents the actual total dollars paid out to the penny, but he may believe that the 990s present a more uniform number to compare from conference to conference because of those accounting differences you mention. The IRS rules about how to report certain things might force there to be fewer games played. Also, he can verify his facts with the 990s while the other is just a quoted number.
For the numbers he is reporting, they are actually very easy to find. There are a lot of other numbers that might confuse people, but these numbers are clear and obvious.
LikeLike
I haven’t looked at the Big 12 form. The ACC has these figures in several places. It also ignores that they might have paid the final distribution on July 1st or July 15th and so the fiscal year’s distributions were made in a different tax year.
LikeLike
Academically, the Pac 12 has the best schools at the top and the Big 10 and ACC overall are well ahead of the Big 12 and SEC, who are comparable. Demographics depends on your definition. If you are talking about population, the Big 10 is clearly a distant 5th. If you are talking about the population’s age and growth, the Big 12 does pretty well.
LikeLike
Thinking in expansion terms! Correction, the 10 member Big 12 is clearly a distant 5th in population, not the similarly mathematically challenged Big 10 + 4.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/07/21/big-12-pursues-expansion-preview-next-big-realignment-wave/
Jon Wilner looks at B12 expansion and what it could mean elsewhere.
Reaction from this corner of the college sports galaxy:
*** I’m betting heavily (and figuratively) on the conference growing to 14 members from the current 10.
…
If you want quantity, then add quantity.
It’s always better, and far easier — and less disruptive — to do it one swoop than in stages.
Brigham Young seems likely, at least on a football-only basis. (From an all-sports standpoint, the Cougars are extremely difficult to assimilate.)
Maybe the Big 12 adds two schools in all sports and two in a football-only capacity.
Other conferences has always managed to work around the Sunday issue, but BYU has been a big fish in a small pond. I doubt UT is excited about screwing up their schedule to accommodate BYU in a bunch of sports.
Wilner’s certainly right that it’s easier to get a group at once than doing it in pieces.
*** Unlike the sweeping realignment at the turn of the decade, this version will be contained to the Big 12, at least among the Power 5 conferences.
The ACC, SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12 are not in the expansion business right now, and nothing the Big 12 does in the next few months will change that.
He’s probably right but a little too definite.
*** My sense is that Big 12’s decision to pursue expansion is not all about the money.
It’s mostly about money, of course. The terms in the Fox and ESPN deals allow new members to receive the same media rights payouts as existing members. With four new schools at approximately $25 million per, that’s $100 million to the conference annually.
But it also feels like Big 12 leadership is simply spooked.
The other P5s have more schools and their own TV networks, and the Big 12 feels like it must do something. Because a TV network isn’t feasible, that something is to get bigger.
I think we all get that sense to some extent.
*** Bottom line: This could all be a preview of the massive Power 5 realignment wave looming in six or eight years, as the P5s position themselves for new Tier 1 deals.
Will we see a repeat of the frenzy that struck in 2010-11? It all depends on two words: market forces.
Back then, the small number of content distributors — ESPN and Fox as the leads, with a dash of Comcast and CBS — forced the conference to get bigger in order to maximize value. (Shrinking supply = increased demand.)
That could be the route to riches again, but there’s no guarantee — technology and consumer behavior may well alter the dynamic before the 2023-24 negotiating windows.
What impact will cord cutting have on the pool of cash ESPN and Fox have for rights fees?
Will streaming take hold as a lucrative option?
Will Hulu and/or Apple and/or Google and/or Facebook and/or Company Unknown enter the live-sports distribution game?
A decade from now, we could have four superconferences.
We could have alliances, based on football scheduling, that provide the necessary inventory for bigger media rights paychecks.
Or we could have the status quo.
Perhaps even in the Big 12.
All things are possible.
LikeLike
I can really see the Big 12 going to 12 and then doing a strategic alliance with the Pac 12 to combine TV contracts and conference offices when their deals expire a year apart in the 20s.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I can really see the Big 12 going to 12 and then doing a strategic alliance with the Pac 12 to combine TV contracts and conference offices when their deals expire a year apart in the 20s.”
Can you expound on this? How deep of an alliance are you talking? Wouldn’t their ties to the B10 and SEC respectively prevent the P12 and B12 from getting too deep in bed together?
Why combine offices? They don’t need 24 teams in any sport and I doubt they want to lose their independence. Can you really do an alliance without playing each other much?
Would combining their TV deals really help them much? I think college sports are too regional for western fans to care about plains teams much and vice versa. Since Fox and ESPN already split the deals for both conferences, I’m not sure much would change.
LikeLike
Combining conference offices mean you save millions in overhead. You only have one commissioner. One accounting staff. One marketing staff.
You merge into one conference legally, but two conferences for NCAA purposes.
You use your leverage from controlling the western half of the US to get a better deal when your TV contract renews. Scott has talked about consolidation and how the conference system minimizes leverage and is pretty dysfunctional for the conferences. This would be consolidation on a smaller scale. You also use it to increase leverage with advertisers. The Pac 12 is already starting a consortium of the willing on non-TV Tier III deals.
You might also use it to expand the reach of the Pac 12 network which has had severe distribution problems.
LikeLike
“The Pac 12 is already starting a consortium of the willing on non-TV Tier III deals.”
Can you elaborate?
LikeLike
“You merge into one conference legally, but two conferences for NCAA purposes.”
Is LHN going away, all rights in? If not, there won’t be a combined bargaining position acceptable to the PAC.
LikeLike
Combining conference offices mean you save millions in overhead. You only have one commissioner. One accounting staff. One marketing staff.
The overhead isn’t a big enough number to drive the decision to yoke yourself to a possibly sinking ship. Imagine you’re a Pac-12 president, and you agree to do this. Then Texas and Oklahoma leave, and what are you left with?
By the way, most mergers fail.
You use your leverage from controlling the western half of the US to get a better deal when your TV contract renews.
You could also get that with Scott’s original idea: absorbing UT, TT, OK, and OKSU into the Pac-16. The rest of the Big 12’s territory consists of low-population states and tertiary Texas schools.
You might also use it to expand the reach of the Pac 12 network which has had severe distribution problems.
You’re talking about places that have even less interest in P12 content than the places where they’ve struggled to get distribution.
LikeLike
I can really see the Big 12 going to 12 and then doing a strategic alliance with the Pac 12 to combine TV contracts and conference offices when their deals expire a year apart in the 20s.
I have trouble seeing this. The Pac-12 isn’t easily able to grow, but it’s also safe from poaching, as none of its members would see the Big 12 as an improvement, and the other leagues are a long distance away. So, why would the Pac-12 yoke itself to a league that is probably the least stable of the P5?
For the Big 12, which of its significant problems is solved by playing more games in the Pacific time zone?
LikeLike
It seemed pretty clear the Big 12 presidents were split into 3 groups:
3-5 expansion now was important-WVU, OU, Baylor and maybe a couple of others
3-5 just not sure
2-4 expansion with other than P5 was not worthwhile-UT, TT and maybe 1-2 others.
Many believed the 2020s would lead to major realignment, probably with the B1G moving. When the ACC signed the GOR into the 2030s, I think that ended that line of thinking and pushed the fence sitters and some believing FSU was possible 10 years down the road into the pro expansion camp.
With the ACC secure and the Big 10 with a huge new TV contract renewing a year before the Big 12’s, I think that all played into the thinking. They need to go ahead and get bigger and do what they can to generate new revenue.
LikeLike
Nebraska senior punter Sam Foltz and former Michigan State punter Mike Sadler were both killed in a car accident in Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Frank,
Not to be picky (it’s not like we’re paying you to do this) but …
“Frank the Tank says:
June 20, 2016 at 9:40 pm
@Brian – I’ll be working on a new post during a very long plane flight tomorrow morning. (It’s direct from Chicago to Honolulu, so no one needs to feel sorry for me!)”
I understand not getting it done during vacation but it has been 5 weeks, at least 3 post-worthy stories/events have happened and we’re at 2400 comments here so the page is loading really slowly. Any chance of a new post soon?
LikeLike
A suggestion. Once comments reach around 1,000 copy/paste current post as new post – same name with “xyz 2.0” or (page 2) added. New posts are greatly appreciated (and looked forward to), but are they necessary for creating a fresh response page?
LikeLike
For that matter he could just put up a new post with no real content when he doesn’t have time to write. But I know certain users basically give up once the comments hit a certain number because the page gets problematic for their device.
LikeLike
Only reason I’m still able to read and post is a “tragic accident” involving my phone required my purchase of a new one. Old one (5s) had issues over 1000 responses, and beyond 1500 it was hit or miss if it would load correctly, or even complete loading at all. I’m seeing some signs new phone has problems at 2k and up.
LikeLike
ccrider. my condolences to your old phone.
LikeLike
A discussion on the Rice board is ongoing about the possibilityof BYU going to the B12 for football-only. Some think we should be pushing behind the scenes to get Rice in for non-football in that combination. We could compete effectively right away in everything but basketball. And basketball is on the rise at Rice (albeit from a very low starting spot).
Thoughts?
LikeLike
I think there’s an NCAA rule that you must play all your sports in your “home conference”, if the conference plays that sport. (You can also be an independent, clearly not an option Rice would entertain.)
BYU could join the B12 for football, because its home conference, the West Coast Conference, does not play football. But since Conference USA plays football, Rice either needs to move all its sports to the B12, or keep all of them in C-USA.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think there’s an NCAA rule that you must play all your sports in your “home conference”, if the conference plays that sport. (You can also be an independent, clearly not an option Rice would entertain.)
BYU could join the B12 for football, because its home conference, the West Coast Conference, does not play football. But since Conference USA plays football, Rice either needs to move all its sports to the B12, or keep all of them in C-USA.”
I believe Rice would have a couple of options. Independence is the well known one. The other is to drop football down to I-AA and join a separate conference just for football. Idaho is doing that now in the other direction (CFB in I-A Sun Belt, the rest in I-AA Big Sky).
LikeLike
Yes, football independence would be the preferred route for most. With everything else parked in the B12 I think we could at least have as good a schedule as UMass, better than NMSU.
LikeLike
Yes, football independence would be the preferred route for most. With everything else parked in the B12 I think we could at least have as good a schedule as UMass, better than NMSU.
I don’t think UMass or NMSU actually wants to be independent. They are stuck with it until a better deal comes along.
LikeLike
http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansion-candidates-byu-uconn-1943319231.html
Andy Staples looks at B12 expansion. The list of candidates is nothing new, but he starts by considering scenarios:
Evaluating the merits of potential candidates requires at least some idea of the ultimate goal, and there are a few possibilities …
• Possibility No. 1: All the Big 12 members, including Texas and Oklahoma, are being completely honest when they express a desire to stay together.
…
This is the least nefarious possibility. It also probably is the most likely possibility. Texas gets to keep the Longhorn Network. Oklahoma gets the bigger league for which president David Boren advocated. Both get to be in charge. Big 12 schools still make more from their league than Pac-12 schools make from theirs, which could be interesting when the Pac-12’s media rights deals expire.
…
• Possibility No. 2: The other eight members fear Texas and Oklahoma will split once the current media rights deals expire at the end of the 2024–25 school year and have agreed to take whatever schools will make the Longhorns and Sooners happy so they’ll stick around. If it works, those schools get to keep enjoying power conference membership. If it doesn’t, they did everything they could.
• Possibility No. 3: The other eight members suspect that Texas and Oklahoma are already gone and plan to use the pro rata provision in the contract for one last payday before they face the possibility of fending for themselves in the Group of Five hinterlands. (Some would wind up in power conferences anyway. Oklahoma State, for example, would be a prudent choice to come along with Oklahoma if the Sooners joined the SEC.)
…
Since Possibility No. 1 is the least far-fetched, let’s rank* the candidates assuming the parameters outlined above. It’s still unclear whether the league would add two schools or four, but we should assume that adding four will tick off the executives at Fox and ESPN, who aren’t exactly excited about paying for two more schools.
*I may continue to rank the candidates every week until the Big 12 presidents decide what they want to do. Fair warning: Changes to the rankings likely would be completely arbitrary. No one knows what the plan is here.
His rank:
1. UC
2. UH
3. BYU
4. UConn
5. UCF
(he goes through 11)
LikeLike
“Possibility No. 1: All the Big 12 members, including Texas and Oklahoma, are being completely honest when they express a desire to stay together.”
In spite of four having left, and other having explored and almost left, too?
Since Possibility No. 1 is the least far-fetched,…”
Both history, and my response above suggest that if it is the least far-fetched it’s least by a very small margin.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article91504627.html
The detailed story of how the ACC and ESPN agreed to launch the ACCN.
Excerpts:
It’s impossible to say how much revenue the ACC Network might generate. That answer will come in time, yet Jordan said with confidence recently that if the network “performs even moderately, it’ll put the ACC in a situation where they’ll be very, very competitive financially” with the SEC and Big Ten.
…
It had been a grind, really, for the past three years and perhaps even longer, ever since Swofford approached Jordan in August 2009 with a simple question: Is an ACC channel feasible?
Jordan didn’t hide his uncertainty then. He said he responded with a “maybe.”
“I said I’m not being wishy-washy,” Jordan said. “But I think it might need a couple more things. And (there) wasn’t really anything you could do about it at the time.”
For a long while after that first discussion, Swofford and Jordan didn’t speak about a network. The thought was there, in the background, yet both men knew the ACC and ESPN weren’t yet ready to build a TV channel from scratch. It wasn’t the time. They believe now is.
…
“We’re where we should be,” Swofford said. “And it feels good to be there. And the last 10 to 15 years in college athletics, there’s been a lot of instability, a lot of rumors, a lot of people who were saying things without any basis about who might be where, and why this would happen. … But I think what this does is totally take the ACC out of any kind of conversation of that nature.”
…
It was a day that had been seven years in the making, and one that became reality, especially, because of what happened during the previous 1,186 days, beginning with the league’s grant of rights announcement on April 22, 2013. If the ACC Network has a date of conception, that’s it.
By then, the spring of 2013, the Big Ten Network was in its sixth year. The Pac-12 Network was in its first. The SEC Network had been announced, scheduled for an August 2014 launch. And then there was the ACC, solidified but lagging behind other conferences in television revenue and, thus, overall revenue.
Between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 – that hectic year that included the Notre Dame, Maryland and Louisville news, as well as the grant of rights – the ACC generated $146.6 million in TV revenue. That ranked behind the Pac-12 ($252.7 million), SEC ($204.2 million) and Big Ten, which doesn’t itemize its TV revenue on the federal tax form it files as part of its non-profit, tax-exempt status.
…
kipper, after the announcement Thursday, answered question after question about the long-term viability of a cable network, given the propensity for cord-cutting and the rise of streaming. Time after time he defended the traditional model. He came armed with data.
“Live sports is ascending,” he said. “In the last year, 93 of the top 100 television programs in the country relative to ratings were sports. Five years ago that number was 14.
…
By then the deal was essentially done. To provide more inventory for ESPN, the ACC agreed to expand the league’s men’s basketball conference schedule. It will go from 18 games to 20 for the 2019-20 season, in time for the debut of the ACC Network.
ESPN also reacquired the long-term rights to lower-tier football and basketball games that had been awarded to Raycom Sports. That was part of the delay, too, in announcing the network.
When it launches the ACC Network will include 40 regular-season football games and more than 150 men’s and women’s basketball games. Outside of live game coverage, the ACC Network’s other programming is unclear.
…
When Swofford and others left Amelia Island in May, the deal between ESPN and the ACC was in place. A little more than a month later, Jordan went to the beach with his family, seeking an escape after a long, hectic work schedule.
…
They have homes on the island less than one mile apart. Between June 20 and June 24, Swofford and Jordan finished the deal during a series of daily meetings at Swofford’s beachfront house, where they worked the phones to finalize everything.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/notre-dame-fighting-irish-acc-network-john-swofford-072516
ND is key to the ACCN’s success.
But here we are, days after the conference officially announced an honest-to-goodness linear network coming in 2019. Clearly, ESPN — which will fully own the network — believes it can be successful. And after talking to several sources with knowledge of the venture, my skepticism is waning.
Part of that is due to some wonkish cable details. ESPN strategically delayed the channel’s launch to coincide with several of parent company Disney’s expiring carriage deals with major providers. When it comes time to renegotiate, it can include the ACC Network as part of larger bundles with ESPN, ESPN2, etc.
This speaks to the unique appeal of ACC basketball, what with heavyweight brands like Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse and Louisville. ESPN networks carried 21 UNC regular-season games last year. Come 2019 it could shift a large number of those to ACCN. Folks in the state of North Carolina aren’t going to storm their cable company over a UNC-Georgia Tech football game, but Tar Heels hoops? That’s a different story.
Most important, the ACC holds one particular trump card that could eventually prove to be extremely lucrative: Notre Dame.
…
ACC schools will be getting a sizeable bump from forthcoming network revenue, and Notre Dame will receive a full share, commissioner John Swofford told the Daily Press.
…
But as the years go by in college football’s rapidly changing structure — one where a four-team playoff and a selection committee have supplanted polls and bowls in importance — Notre Dame may eventually conclude that independence is no longer a viable route. Especially given one of the committee’s primary points of emphasis is … winning your conference.
And if and when that day comes, one conference essentially holds exclusive rights to the Irish.
…
In the interim, ESPN figures to use Notre Dame to its advantage. Under the school’s current agreement, the Irish play five ACC opponents a year. NBC gets the home games, but don’t be surprised if ESPN starts shifting the road games to the ACC Network — starting perhaps Sept. 2, 2019, when the Irish visit Louisville.
…
As for distribution, don’t underestimate the school’s relationship with the nation’s largest cable provider, Comcast — NBC’s parent company. Its No. 1 market is Notre Dame alumni hub Chicago, and its coverage areas include ACC states Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
I think he’s wrong to hint that ND will join the ACC since ND just said independence is their top priority and they’re willing to accept missing the playoffs to preserve it. He’s certainly right abuot the leverage MBB will give them in NC and the power of moving ND games to the ACCN will have in certain markets. That said, I think a lot of ND fans aren’t that fervent and won’t be looking to pay for the ACCN when they can just go to a bar to catch the ND football games. The use of Disney’s negotiating windows will certainly help drive carriage, though.
It’s interesting that ND gets a full share despite playing half of a football schedule. I think Mandel’s up to $8M per year estimate is a little optimistic, especially for the first few years. The P12N is nowhere near that and it took BTN years to get there. The ACC isn’t the SEC.
LikeLike
I think he’s wrong to hint that ND will join the ACC since ND just said independence is their top priority and they’re willing to accept missing the playoffs to preserve it.
This is the strongest indication yet, that there is close to zero chance that ND will join the ACC in football.
Some fans and even a few CFB coaches have agitated for a rule change that would require all playoff teams to be conference champions—which would force ND’s hand. But such a rule would never pass, because none of the other leagues want to push ND football into the ACC.
LikeLike
Aa..HA!
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/7/25/12277566/texas-big-12-expansion-longhorn-conference-conspiracy
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/07/25/Media/ESPN-ACC-Network.aspx
John Ourand from SBD thinks that ESPN will have a tough time getting carriage for the ACCN. There was talk of the delay until 2019 being to time things up with expiring Disney deals with the carriers but the facts don’t really support that.
Several distribution executives responded with pessimism to last week’s news that ESPN plans to launch an ACC Network in three years, suggesting that ESPN is going to have a hard time convincing cable and satellite operators to take the planned channel. Speaking on background because they have yet to even start negotiations, the executives said the launch of a new sports service flies in the face of the industry’s trend of providing lower-cost tiers of programming.
Sources say ESPN plans to counter that argument by focusing on the popularity of ACC sports, which is home to some of the best teams in college football (like Clemson and Florida State) and basketball (like North Carolina and Duke).
ACC Network’s first test comes next summer when ESPN starts negotiating a new affiliate deal with Altice, a negotiation that promises to be a tough sell since the cable operator has systems near New York City, which is a long way from ACC member Syracuse and not really part of the conference’s footprint. One of the few cable operators that does not carry SEC Network, Altice has been public about its desire to cut costs.
ESPN could cut individual ACC Network deals, but most programmers and distributors like to wait until their big affiliate deals expire — and ESPN’s biggest ones aren’t up until several years after ACC Network’s planned 2019 launch. ESPN’s affiliate deals with Comcast and Charter expire in 2021; ESPN’s Dish Network deal runs until 2022.
Sources expect ESPN to price the ACC Network similar to SEC Network, which at launch was around $1.30 per subscriber per month in-market and around 25 cents per subscriber per month out-of-market.
But the sports media market has changed dramatically since SEC Network launched in August 2014. ESPN has lost more than 6 million subscribers since that time, according to Nielsen estimates. Plus, cable operators have become more emboldened in carriage fights with sports networks, such as Comcast, which allowed YES Network to go dark on its Connecticut systems, and DirecTV, which has yet to cut a deal for either Pac-12 Networks or SportsNet LA.
The same cost as the SECN? That’s ballsy, especially in states like MA, NY, PA and GA. I don’t think they have the leverage unless they’re willing to force a bundle with ESPN. Will they also try to get the footprint price in neighboring states like MD?
LikeLike
Several distribution executives responded with pessimism to last week’s news that ESPN plans to launch an ACC
Its in their interest to downplay the importance of ACC-span to keep the price low. It will be a fight, but I think it will be successful.
LikeLike
I know real life happens, can we have an overflow thread?
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/26/jim-delany-big-ten-conference-football
Jim Delany probably will retire before the new B10 TV deals expire. Also, the Rose Bowl isn’t moving to help the CFP.
Start placing bets on the new Big Ten commissioner, landing in 2021 or 2022?
…
“I have a lot of energy and a lot of interest in what’s going on in the college space today,” Delany said in his Big Ten media days appearance here. “I will be around for a bit. Whether I’m around here for six years is probably a little bit beyond how I see it.”
…
“I don’t foresee change in how the Rose Bowl is sequenced into the college football playoff,” Delany said. “I realize the challenge, there may be changes in the offing, but I wouldn’t expect those changes to affect the Rose Bowl.”
Other notes from media days:
BTN tweeted out this brief video of Delany talking about the new TV deals. It’s worth watching.
It’s been noted by Matt Sarzyniak (among others) that Delany talked about cross-promotion in the new deals (FOX mentioning ESPN/BTN games, ESPN mentioning FOX/BTN games, etc).
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2016/07/26/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-retirement-2020/87581184/
USA Today is reporting that Delany will retire in 2020.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-commish-one-of-college-footballs-most-powerful-figures-planning-exit/
The commissioner also said the Big Ten had no immediate plans to install a transfer rule banning those guilty of serious misconduct. The SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 all have such conference policies.
The Big 12 is working on a conference rule that would ban incoming freshman recruits guilty of serious misconduct.
“This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is about getting it right …,” he said. “To think you can pass a four-or-five sentence or four-or-five paragraph conference rule to accommodate all that, I think is putting a lot of faith in conference policies.”
I think something is better than nothing in this case. No rule is perfect, but relying on schools to maintain a certain standard voluntarily leads to a slippery slope in a competitive environment.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-coaches-skeptical-about-potentially-banning-kickoffs/
Coaches don’t want to ban kickoffs. Shocking, I know.
“They always come out and say it would help with concussions but nobody shows you the statistics,” Louisville coach Bobby Petrino said. “Does it really help? One year we didn’t like that the ball was being kicked out of the end zone so we moved it back so we’d get more returns. It’s kind of who’s the special interest on it. It’s always been a big part of the football game, but if it is causing injuries and it’s something that we need to take away to improve that, we could get away with it. But is it really? Where’s the stats? That’s the frustrating thing for us as coaches is they don’t show us any statistics.”
As part of its ongoing concussion research, the Ivy League found that over the past three years kickoff returns accounted for 23.4 percent of concussions during games despite representing only 5.8 percent of overall plays. This year, the Ivy League will kick off from the 40-yard line instead of the 35; its touchbacks will be placed at the 20-yard line instead of the 25. The NCAA is allowing this as an experimental rule.
“To actually eliminate a part of the game like the kickoff I think would be more challenging and our data don’t necessarily indicate we need to do that right now,” Ivy League executive director Robin Harris said. “Even though 23.4 percent of our concussions occur during kickoffs, it’s still not a huge number, so I’m not prepared right now to say kickoffs are inherently dangerous. It’s something we have concerns about, and we’ll continue to monitor and see if we can get that number down.”
Those sure look like stats to me, Bobby.
5.8% of plays lead to 23.4% of all concussions, so it’s more than 4 times riskier than other plays. That isn’t bad enough to be “inherently dangerous”? If 23.4% of all concussions isn’t a large enough number to worry about, doesn’t that mean there is no concussion problem at all and targeting should be legal again?
LikeLike
And they aren’t even talking about the players who get paralyzed on kickoffs.
I don’t know why the 40 yard line is so hard. It used to be there. Then they decided to increase the number of kickoffs by moving it to the 35.
LikeLike
Coaches already teach the kicker to drop it in just short of the goal line to force a return on the theory that the coverage team can stop them short of the 25 more often than not. I know OSU does this and presumably other schools do too.
The problem with moving the kick up is that it will be even easier for kickers to do that and returners will be under more pressure even sooner as more coverage guys can get there in time.
LikeLike
Those sure look like stats to me, Bobby.
5.8% of plays lead to 23.4% of all concussions, so it’s more than 4 times riskier than other plays.
It is amazing that in a profession where they talk about “playing the percentages,” a coach has so much trouble understanding percentages.
And they aren’t even talking about the players who get paralyzed on kickoffs.
The only stats I have seen are concussions. Are there stats for paralysis? Offhand, I cannot recall that happening with any meaningful frequency. Not that I would minimize it, but if you’re going to make a such a scary statement, I’m curious as to where it is coming from.
LikeLike
You periodically hear about HS players getting paralyzed on kickoffs. A Southern University player got paralyzed on a kickoff vs. Georgia last year. There was a TCU player a number of years back who got paralyzed vs. OU. It happening on regular plays is extraordinarily rare. I seem to vaguely remember hearing about it one time on a regular play tackle. But on kickoffs, its fairly regular (even if not frequent). If there was a certain type of play where once in 10 years a player got killed and they never died on other plays, you would almost certainly get rid of it. Paralysis is not death, but its pretty significant.
LikeLike
Well, that’s the existential question that football has never answered. It is, by far, the most injury-prone team sport that is commonly played. Many rules and equipment changes have been introduced, and continue to be introduced, to make it safer. But since life threatening injuries can and have occurred on any play, the logical conclusion of your argument is to eliminate the sport.
If you include all sports, boxing is even worse: by design, each combatant hopes to beat the other to a pulp, and yet it still exists.
LikeLike
To avoid heat stroke, you drink more water or sports drinks or practice in the morning or do easier practices on really hot days. You don’t keep doing things the same way you have been doing them.
So the conclusion you reach is the one that is illogical.
LikeLike
To avoid heat stroke, you drink more water or sports drinks or practice in the morning or do easier practices on really hot days. You don’t keep doing things the same way you have been doing them.
But you don’t change what gets practiced; just when or how. Runners would surely be less likely to get heat stroke if they merely walked, but we don’t stop the sport of running.
LikeLike
LikeLike
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/11/25/457374128/deaths-persist-in-youth-and-student-football-despite-safety-efforts
Researchers at UNC have been tracking football-related deaths since the 1960s. Director Kristen Kucera describes two main tallies: deaths caused directly by football, like a broken spine or brain trauma, and those that are indirect like heat stroke or sudden cardiac arrest that occurred during a game or practice.
The good news is that there are fewer fatalities than there used to be. Back in the 1960s, around 30 or 40 players died each year. Then came a steep decline thanks to new safety measures: a standardized helmet that must be certified for use in a game; a rule banning headfirst tackling; and improvements in athletic medical care.
But instead of dropping to nil, the number of football-related fatalities leveled off in the 1990s. Since then, a persistent average of about four or five football players have died each year as a direct result of playing their sport, along with an average of 10 or so indirect fatalities.
Click to access FBAnnual2012.pdf
Table I (p. 17):
Total cervical cord injuries from 1977-2012
HS only – 266 (7.4/year)
All levels – 327 (9.08/yr)
High school has the most because over 1,000,000 boys play every year. Still, the most in a year in HS was 13 in 1978.
Table II (p. 18-19)
But if you normalize into incidents per 100,000 participants, then HS is much safer than CFB.
HS average = 0.52
CFB average = 1.41 (2.7 times larger)
I did the averaging. They provided the numbers for each year.
Table III (p. 20-21)
Totals across all levels:
Offense – 55
Defense – 228
Unknown – 44
Total – 327
Table IV (p.22)
Breakdown by activity:
Tackling – 134 (41.0% of total)
Tackling head down – 62 (19.0%)
Unknown – 38 (11.6%)
Tackled – 30 (9.2%)
All aspects of kick-offs – 27 (8.3%)
Collision – 11 (3.4%)
Everything else was 6 or fewer.
Remember kickoffs were 5.8% of plays in the Ivy League study, so they also disproportionately cause paralysis in players. Clearly the bigger issue for tackling is form, though. Moving to rugby tackling will help that significantly since you don’t plant your head in their chest and risk paralysis if you screw up.
Table V (p.23)
By position:
DB – 113 (34.6%)
Either side for kickoff – 43 (13.1%)
LB – 31
RB – 19
DL – 11
QB – 10
Unknown – 69
All other were single digits. There is probably some overlap of DBs and LBs with kickoff coverage. Also DBs get asked to come up and stop the run a lot which causes them top lead with their heads too often against bigger people. Again, kickoffs prove to be disproportionately dangerous to the spine.
Later figures show that deaths due to brain injury have dropped each decade from 128 in the 60s to 32 in the 00s while brain disability injuries have risen from 0 in the 60s to 66 in the 00s.
LikeLike
Nice find.
LikeLike
And while kickoffs CAN be exciting, they are generally one of the most boring plays. There is a lot of dead time lining up and switching teams. And nothing happens if it gets kicked into the end zone. So eliminating them can speed up a game that has really gotten too long with all the TV timeouts and the clock stoppage from all the passing plays. You get a TD. Then you switch teams to line up and kick a nearly automatic extra point. Then you switch teams. You line up on opposite sides of the field and do a kickoff. Then you switch teams and line up again. It really does cause the game to drag.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/listen-up-baylor-penn-states-james-franklin-explains-the-adversity-still-to-come/
James Franklin explains the pain yet to come for Baylor based on his experiences at PSU post-scandal.
“The Baylor that they have known for the last 50 years or even the Baylor they have known for the last 10 years, that Baylor is going to be different and is never going to be the same again,” Franklin said. “There’s going to be policies, there are going to be procedures. There’s going to be people in place for everything.”
…
But Franklin is still digging out. New issues arose this summer when court documents seemed to indicate Paterno knew about Sandusky’s acts going back to at least the mid-1970s.
Franklin said he has tired of “answering questions about things that happened 40 years ago when I was four years old.”
There continue to be roster and depth issues at Penn State, which is still under the NCAA’s 85-scholarship maximum. Franklin continues to complain about in negative recruiting.
Franklin is coming off consecutive 7-6 seasons since replacing Bill O’Brien. He is still trying to restore one of the greatest programs in the sport’s history.
…
“You need to understand, I’m not saying you can’t achieve the same type of success on and off the field, but it’s going to be different,” Franklin said of Baylor. “You can compare as much as you possibly can, you’re never really going to understand that. [The scrutiny is] going to be unique, and it’s going to be as sophisticated as any program in the country.
“[Recruits] are only really aware of the last five years anyway. Baylor has kind of been in front of them, been successful for a brief time here. I think everybody knows Penn State is a storied program with great history and tradition.”
All we know for sure at this point about Baylor is that two recruiting classes have been impacted. Half of the 2016 class is gone essentially because of the scandal. Baylor has only two commitments thus far for 2017.
Acting Bears coach Jim Grobe said last week he will lean heavily on the approximately 30 walk-ons in the program at the moment.
“The biggest challenge is how you handle adversity,” Franklin added. “You can take lessons from other situations but not like it’s a blueprint of what you have to do and how and why. These are situations that are unique.”
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-12-expansion-candidates-most-likely-byu-cincinnati-houston-smu-facilities-upgrade-072616
SMU is buying a $150M ticket for the B12 lottery.
LikeLike
The Big East/Southwest Conference rises again.
LikeLike
BTN will be starting their version of GameDay this year with a 90 minute traveling pregame show called BTN Tailgate. It will go to campuses during conference play weeks only, though. Of course, going forward there will be a conference game almost every week even in September.
2016 – no games in weeks 1-4 (until 10/1) but BTN tailgate starts on 9/24
2017 – no games in weeks 2 and 3
2018 – no games in week 3
2019 – no games in week 1
In the largest programming initiative in network history, BTN will take its college football pregame coverage on the road in 2016 with the debut of BTN Tailgate. BTN Tailgate will begin at 10:30 a.m. ET and is a live, 90-minute show originating from a different Big Ten campus each week during conference play.
BTN Tailgate will be Big Ten football fans’ home this fall with previews, highlights, special guests and analysis from host Dave Revsine and BTN’s football experts Gerry DiNardo and former Chicago Bears defensive tackle Anthony Adams. Dairy Queen, GEICO, Navistar, Slim Jim, TIAA and U.S. Cellular have all signed on as sponsors of the show, as well as the surrounding fan experience.
I’m guessing they won’t go the same campus as GameDay or whatever pregame show Fox may have.
LikeLike
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/big-ten-east-non-conference-schedule-grades.html
B10 East OOC schedule grades game by game and overall for each team.
Overall:
A – MSU, OSU, PSU
B+ – IN, RU
C – MI
C- – UMD
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/big-ten-west-non-conference-schedule-grades.html
And the B10 West.
Overall:
A – NE
A- – NW, WI
B+ – IL, MN, PU
C – IA
The articles include links for the B12 and P12 too. The ACC and SEC haven’t been done yet.
LikeLike
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espn-big-12-regret-creation-longhorn-network.html
A roundtable discussion on whether or not ESPN and the B12 regret the creation of the LHN. There are a couple of interesting viewpoints.
Here’s one:
Allen Kenney: No, it was not a misstep for ESPN at all. Giving Texas its own cable network killed the prospects of a Pac-16 in 2010, which would have posed a significant threat to ESPN’s dominance of the college sports television market on the west coast. Even if the Longhorn Network never returns a dime to the Worldwide Leader, it enabled ESPN to retain a significant share of market power that is worth more in the long term than its investment in the LHN.
His answer includes a link to an article discussing that while the P16 offer was out there, ESPN realized the P16N would be wholly owned by the schools so they’d have no share of it and didn’t want to lose the entire western US like they did the Great Lakes region. They offered the LHN to UT to prevent the P16 from forming. That article is worth reading, too.
Some say ESPN now regrets it but there was no way to know how successful it would be until they tried it, so only hindsight makes them regret it.
LikeLike
The problem is that its NOT true. This is one of the most frequently recited falsehoods about realignment. The Longhorn Network deal was signed in December 2010. Texas decided not to go to the Pac 16 in June 2010. As late as October 2010, it was still expected that Fox would get the Longhorn Network and that it would only pay about $3 million a year. It was late October ESPN did their big bid to take the lead in doing the deal.
LikeLike
Agreed. They confuse what they know now with what was known then. For the purpose being discussed, it was known that UT’s desire to do their own channel (with parties undecided, and income unknown) was what nixed the move to the PAC.
Was a rumor that an attempt to have cake and eat it too was leaked to Scott. Announce move prior to signing, then claim miscommunication and keep T3, thinking invite to P16 couldn’t be backed out of then.
Whatever. Point is, it was known UT wasn’t going to go all in, and infact keeping T3 became the requirement to equal T1 sharing.
LikeLike
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2010/10/25/espn-fox-compete-for-longhorns-network.html
“….The Fox and ESPN bids include a financial investment to start the network and resources to make its content appealing, from sports shows to entertainment programming from the school’s Austin, Texas, home.
Two weeks ago, Fox Sports appeared to be the clear front-runner, but ESPN announced its interest in a big way last week when Skipper took on a greater role in the talks…..”
“….Dodds has said that Texas can expect about $3 million in annual revenue from the new network once it’s launched, and the revenue would increase based on the network’s success. The Longhorns are not expected to carry any risk if the network were to fail.”
LikeLike
And while that PSU stuff in the insurance suit was really bad, sportswriters hold a talk about something with a totally wrong memory just 6 years later. 40 years? There has to be some skepticism about the memories of who told who what.
LikeLike
Interesting read centering on cord cutting.
Sources: Securities Class-Action Firm Exploring Lawsuit Against ESPN Parent Company
http://deadspin.com/sources-securities-class-action-firm-exploring-lawsuit-1784279687?utm_source=deadspin_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016-07-27
LikeLike
Seeking Clarity: The key questions in the Big 12 expansion movement
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/28/big-12-expansion-questions-revenue-television-markets-media-rights?xid=si_social
LikeLike
What does the league actually want? A cash grab? Better football? Better markets? Long-term stability? It’s impossible to determine who the Big 12 will add until the league prioritizes what it wants to do with expansion. “I’m still curious, what is the criteria?” Boise State coach Bryan Harsin asked. “I don’t know.”
For now, no one is quite sure if the Big 12 knows either. Is expansion such a naked money grab—up to $800 million—that it threatens the conference’s relationships with FOX and ESPN after their television contract expires in 2024–25? “In my opinion,” said a television industry source, “you are basically saying eight years from now this is over, and we might as well take the money.”
…
The motivator of this round of Big 12 expansion is just like every other round of expansion. Money. It’s a straight financial play. One wise veteran of realignment said that making an average of about $100 million extra per year, as the Big 12 is slated to do, is like getting TV network money without adding a TV network. The Big 12 would get that money, essentially, if it added four intramural programs.
The Big 12 has no chance of starting a linear network, one of the recent motivators for adding schools. Nor is the league’s television contract up soon, which is the other historic trigger for realignment. This is a straight cash play to make sure the league doesn’t get left behind financially, as it’s the only major conference without a television network.
…
Within the television industry, there’s an open question whether ESPN and FOX are irked that the Big 12 would be using the pro rata clause essentially as a loophole. The clause states that any schools joining the league make an average of approximately $25 million in television money annually. The clause was originally put in during a time of tumult in realignment, when things were so fluid that leagues and networks didn’t want to arbitrate, for example, if TCU was worth the same as Colorado. Or if Rutgers was worth as much as Maryland. Essentially, it was put into place for convenience so schools coming and going could be attributed equal value. The Big 12’s potential additions don’t appear to have close to equal value to the league’s television partners. That’s why multiple sources opined that this latest Big 12 play has a short-term feel to it, as irking ESPN and FOX and diluting their inventory can’t be good for long-term business.
…
Do the other Big 12 schools listen to Texas and Oklahoma regarding their opinion of current expansion candidates, even though there’s a chance they may bail? (Texas, along with Texas Tech, has lobbied publicly for Houston.) Or do the other eight presidents do what they think is best in the long term, even if that may alienate Oklahoma and Texas? No easy answers there.
…
The argument for adding four schools is simple. Four schools would mean approximately $800 million over the life of the Big 12’s television deal. Two teams would mean about $400 million. When faced with the option of taking more money or less, college presidents almost always take more.
There’s a key caveat here that hasn’t been discussed publicly, however. League officials may lean toward adding two schools as a way to leave their options open to poach Pac-12 schools. There’s a feeling around the Big 12 that the Pac-12 could be vulnerable when its television contract expires in 2024. (Much in the same way there’s feeling around college sports that the Big 12 will be vulnerable the following year.)
The Pac-12 network isn’t working as currently configured, and there’s lingering animosity on some campuses regarding the network’s failure to produce similar revenue to the Big Ten Network and SEC Network.
…
Two weeks ago at Pac-12 media days, commissioner Larry Scott gave some fascinating insight into the future of broadcast rights. He listed seven companies the Pac-12 is actively building relationships with that could become bidders on the league’s rights when its current Tier 1 rights expire in 2024: Amazon, Google/YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Snapchat. He added: “I think there’s a good chance you and I are sitting here five years from now, even before our TV rights come up, and are talking about some of the [seven] that I just mentioned in the same breath as Direct TV and Comcast and in the same breath as ESPN and Fox.”
That said, markets and viewers are still important. But perhaps viewed through a different paradigm. BYU has the strongest national following of any candidate because of its religious affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU’s television market is ranked No. 37, but its following would resonate if the next round of television contracts features subscription-based models. How real is Netflix bidding with ESPN for the Big 12? We’ll find out soon. Is this perhaps why the conference is leveraging ESPN and FOX for so much money now? Will they need them later? Again, we revert back to the league’s propensity for not thinking that far ahead.
Our first clue on the next wave of broadcast rights will come in a few years. The prevailing industry thought is that the Big Ten’s recently announced six-year deal—through 2022–23—was done for a short period of time by commissioner Jim Delany in order to exploit the new wave of bidders.
…
Different scenarios obviously favor different schools. If traditional television markets mattered, Houston and UConn would receive heavy consideration. If having the best football mattered, Boise State’s success over the past decade would be critical. If giving West Virginia an eastern neighbor mattered, Cincinnati would be attractive. If expanding into new markets mattered, UCF and South Florida would get long looks. If academics mattered, Tulane could emerge as a darkhorse. If potential subscribers matter, BYU would be considered. If financial support mattered, the deep pockets of Federal Express would be an ally for Memphis.
LikeLike
I just see no way that ASU and UA are going to leave the P12 for the B12 in the future. Besides, if they do become available the B12 could just expand to 16 then. I haven’t heard anything that supports there being animosity about the P12N. Disappointment maybe, but not animosity. How would leaving for the networkless B12 really help their plight anyway? The P12N’s problem is a lack of demand from the locals. Having to market your own rights separately seems even less appealing than a conference-wide network.
LikeLike
CFP playoff moves some NYE dates around.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17163763/college-football-playoff-moves-some-new-year-eve-dates
LikeLike
Click to access Playoff-Semifinals-Release.pdf
As expected, the CFP is giving up on weeknight NYE semifinals. All semis will be on Saturdays or holidays after this season.
Hancock pointed out that the semifinals do remain on one weekday New Year’s Eve—Friday, December 31, 2021—which will be the federally observed New Year’s holiday. Here are the dates of the future semifinals (asterisks indicate years when the schedule has been changed):
2016-17 Saturday, December 31 – Fiesta and Peach
2017-18 Monday,January 1 – Rose and Sugar*
2018-19 Saturday, December 29 – Cotton and Orange*
2019-20 Saturday, December 28 – Fiesta and Peach
2020-21 Friday, January 1 – Rose and Sugar
2021-22 Friday, December 31 – Orange and bowl TBD
2022-23 Saturday, December 31 – Bowls TBD
2023-24 Monday, January 1 – Rose and Sugar*
2024-25 Saturday, December 28 – Orange and bowl TBD*
2025-26 Saturday, December 27 – Bowls TBD
As noted above, the semifinals will be played in the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls at least through 2025-26. The CFP expects to determine the other semifinals sites for the 2021-22 season and thereafter some time in 2018.
It was just a matter of time before they made changes. I think this is the right option. I basically proposed it above (https://frankthetank.me/2016/04/21/b1g-tv-deal-coming-out-like-a-fox/#comment-272317) as option c.
“c. Move the semis to the nearest Saturday
2018 – play on Saturday 12/29
2019, 2024 – play on Saturday 12/28
2021 – play on Saturday 1/8
2025 – play on Saturday 1/3/26
That works pretty well for all but 2021.”
I didn’t realize that in 12/31/2021 would be the official national holiday for NYD or I would’ve kept the games on NYE. The only other difference was that I moved the games up in 2025-26 while they chose to move them back. Their Saturday is closer to 1/1 which is good, I just thought they wouldn’t want to push past NYD.
It is good to be reminded that the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach aren’t actually guaranteed to stay as semifinal hosts in the second half of the contract. The Cotton and Fiesta seem like locks to keep their spots. Can any other bowl/site challenge the Peach for the 6th spot? It needs to be in the southeast or north to keep the geographic diversity.
Options:
Status quo
Peach – Atlanta, moving to retractable roof, new in 2017, capacity = 71-75k
Replacements in FL
Citrus – Orlando, open air, renovated in 2014, cap = 65k
Outback – Tampa, open air, built in 1998, cap = 66-75k
Gator – Jacksonville, open air, renovated in 2014, cap = 67-82k
Northern sites
Detroit – domed, new in 2002, 65-70k
Indianapolis – retractable roof, new in 2008, 62-70k
Minneapolis – domed, new in 2016, 66-73k
The most likely choice is to stay with the Peach. Atlanta isn’t a great destination in January but the roof makes it an attractive game site. Orlando has nice enough weather and is a great destination so I could see the Citrus pushing for it. I’d like to see the north make an effort to get a game in the rotation but I don’t think people will be excited about visiting any of those cities in January and the CFP has worked hard at preserving bowls. On the other hand, fans will attend a semifinal anywhere and many of the seats will be sold to locals anyway. Besides, TV is where the money is at and TV doesn’t care about location. One of those cities better at least get a NCG game though.
LikeLike
Sorry, reverse my comment about 2025-26. I moved back into January to stay closer to 1/1 while they chose to push up to 12/27 and not go past NYD.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17163116/former-baylor-bears-staffer-seeks-release-pepper-hamilton-report
This could get interesting. One of the fired Baylor football staff members has asked a Texas court to force Baylor to release information about his firing to him, including the Pepper Hamilton report, as well as allow him to interview some BoR members. He claims his firing was never explained to him and Texas law allows for this sort of thing.
The petition states that Hill wants to investigate why he was fired and that he does not yet anticipate a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Allowing this type of demand for interviews and documents prior to the filing of a lawsuit is a procedure somewhat unique to Texas, Dunn said. It has to be filed in the county of residence for the subjects of the deposition interviews — in this case board of regents chairman Ron Murff and board members Mark Lovvorn and David Harper.
LikeLike
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/week-3-will-determine-the-big-tens-reputation-this-season.html
Week 3 will determine the B10’s national reputation this year.
P5 games:
MI vs CO
NW vs Duke
NE vs OR
MSU @ ND
OSU @ OU
G5/I-AA games (losses could hurt):
IN vs Ball St
UMD @ UCF
PSU vs Temple
RU vs UNM
IL vs WMU
WI vs GA St
IA vs NDSU
Other P5 OOC games for the B10:
Week 1:
WI vs LSU
RU @ UW
MN vs OrSU
Week 2:
PSU @ Pitt
IL vs UNC
IA vs ISU
PU vs UC
Week 4:
IN vs WF
Week 6:
MSU vs BYU
LikeLike
http://www.byutobig12.com/?
The case for BYU to the B12. It’s also full of data for other B12 candidates.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17167405/ncaa-recommends-1-live-contact-practice-per-week-division-football-programs
The NCAA football oversight committee recommended Division I football programs hold only one “live-contact” practice per week.
The current guidelines, which are not enforceable rules, allow two live practices per week. The new guidelines announced Wednesday will take effect this season.
Live practices are defined as those that involve tackling to the ground and full-speed blocking, and can occur in full or half pads. Live contact does not include thudding, in which players are not taken to the ground.
The Ivy League announced earlier this season that it would eliminate live tackling in practice, and even at the FBS level, teams rarely have live tackling in practice.
The new guidelines would allow an additional contact practice for players who do not play in a game.
I think schools are wise to keep reducing contact in practice to protect players as well as reducing time demands since they aren’t paid players. However, this will lead to less skill development by the players. As these rule changes keep coming, perhaps the NFL will feel forced to add a minor league. They could teach pro-style offenses and defenses as well as other fundamentals.
Let kids come straight from HS as well as people coming from college or other sports. I’d actually have 2 levels. The lower level would be the instructional league which is limited to players under 21 so they can physically develop while learning pro skills. It would be a semi-pro league so the players would also need a part-time job, perhaps with the sponsor of the team (Home Depot, etc). The other league would be the equivalent of AAA and the best players would be here regardless of age. They’d continue to learn skills and get paid more because the games would be higher quality and on TV.
I’d do both leagues all year round but with games in the spring and summer (but maybe every other week for each team to reduce the impact) when there is no other football. That would have people ready to jump to an NFL team if they got called up. Be more low key in the fall and winter and just work on skills (catching drills, etc) and strength/flexibility.
Have a January combine/tryout period so HS players know if they have to go to college or can join the pros. Likewise former college players can give it a shot. College players that don’t get drafted by the NFL can go into a May draft for the AAA league or go to the fall/winter skills sessions and then the next January tryout.
LikeLike
As these rule changes keep coming, perhaps the NFL will feel forced to add a minor league. They could teach pro-style offenses and defenses as well as other fundamentals.
Let kids come straight from HS as well as people coming from college or other sports. I’d actually have 2 levels. The lower level would be the instructional league which is limited to players under 21 so they can physically develop while learning pro skills. It would be a semi-pro league so the players would also need a part-time job, perhaps with the sponsor of the team (Home Depot, etc).
How many kids under 21 with serious NFL potential would choose to join this low-pay instructional league? At the upper end of FBS (where most NFL prospects come from), the athletes get a free ride, play on the biggest stage, train in world-class facilities, receive the best medical care, and are on TV every week.
Given the choice of playing for Alabama or an instructional league no one follows, who’s going to choose the latter? Only those that can’t get into Alabama, and most of those are never going to make NFL rosters anyway. There surely aren’t anywhere near enough of them to fill out a whole league.
The other league would be the equivalent of AAA and the best players would be here regardless of age. They’d continue to learn skills and get paid more because the games would be higher quality and on TV.
How many AAA games are televised? It is tough to create a watchable football league out of thin air: just ask the USFL. And the USFL, attracted at least some players good enough for the NFL. This league would consist entirely of players the NFL considers surplus.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“How many kids under 21 with serious NFL potential would choose to join this low-pay instructional league?”
The ones that can’t even sniff academic eligibility, have past legal or medical issues that scare off colleges issues and/or need the money. If the league does well it could pay more but I’d start it with the assumption of low pay.
“At the upper end of FBS (where most NFL prospects come from), the athletes get a free ride, play on the biggest stage, train in world-class facilities, receive the best medical care, and are on TV every week.”
The NFL could afford to provide facilities, coaching, training and medical care. Being on TV is nice, but they really need the NFL to see their film and that would happen for an NFL-run instructional league. The scouts always say practices show them more than game tape anyway.
“Given the choice of playing for Alabama or an instructional league no one follows, who’s going to choose the latter? Only those that can’t get into Alabama, and most of those are never going to make NFL rosters anyway. There surely aren’t anywhere near enough of them to fill out a whole league.”
I think you’d be surprised. How many kids that go the CC route might try the pro league? How many kids that I-A overlooks for legal or medical reasons? How many are just that hard up for cash? And frankly, how many don’t see the value in education and would prefer the year-round training without classes?
“How many AAA games are televised?”
It’s baseball. It’s hard enough for MLB to find viewers. But the ESPN family showed over 900 college baseball games last season (around 200 on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU).
How many CFB games are televised? The NFL network could easily show AAA football and it would be on par with CFB.
Besides, in a world moving to OTT is the number of games televised even the right question anymore?
But according to the web, minor league baseball had a deal with CBSSN as well as some games simulcast on MLBN. Also many teams have local TV deals.
“It is tough to create a watchable football league out of thin air: just ask the USFL.”
They tried to compete with the NFL. Nobody can do that successfully now. It takes time to develop fan bases, but if the teams are tied to NFL teams (just like the minor leagues in baseball), then you have built in fans. Add in cheap tickets so families can attend and you’ll do okay. You don’t need to chase big profits because you have the NFL’s pockets to back this up.
“And the USFL, attracted at least some players good enough for the NFL. This league would consist entirely of players the NFL considers surplus.”
Yep. So does CFB.
Or it could be a league full of players 1 year out of college getting skills training before moving up to the NFL. The NFL draft could slowly shift to mostly taking these guys with a few studs coming straight from CFB.
The NFL already complains about CFB is training players with gimmicky offenses and defenses. As CFB cuts back on the time allowed for players to train, the players will be less and less ready to maintain the NFL standard. At some point the NFL will have to decide if the current free development model work well enough for them or not. If the leagues run in the NFL’s off season, then it should be easy to manage and could provide year-round live content for the NFL to sell.
LikeLike
I’d like to see this. The college game would be better served if the illiterates, rapists and criminals went straight to the pros instead of compromising the principles of the schools.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-prefers-to-decide-on-expansion-teams-before-start-of-2016-season/
The B12 hopes to make their final decision on expansion before the season starts.
The Big 12 would prefer to wrap up the expansion process before the start of the 2016 football season, three persons with knowledge of the ongoing process told CBS Sports on Thursday.
While it’s not clear whether a final decision on timing has been made, all three sources said the Big 12 doesn’t want expansion to overshadow the league’s football season with a drawn-out process that would extend into the 2016 campaign.
The Big 12’s season kicks off Sept. 2 when Baylor hosts Northwestern State and Kansas State travels to Stanford.
…
If the expansion teams are indeed announced before the season, that conceivably would give the new schools a chance to begin playing in the conference in 2017. For now, the league is in the process of contemplating how it will decide participants for its championship game that has been reinstated for 2017.
Bowlsby has said the most likely scenario has two division winners meeting for the league title.
It’s not clear if Bowlsby or other conference officials will make official site visits to expansion candidates. Some presidents on the conference’s composition committee had previously visited campuses.
The next key event to watch is the American Athletic Conference Media Days set for next Monday and Tuesday in Newport, Rhode Island. Ten of the league’s 12 schools have been at least casually mentioned in some form or another as Big 12 expansion candidates.
LikeLike