For the past several years, the Big 12’s public position on potential expansion was constantly wait-and-see with lots of studies being commissioned and a general lean towards staying at 10 members. The league’s presidents and other stewards (despite public proclamations from Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby to take action on expansion one way or the other) seemed to indicate that they were simply not motivated to expand, effectively stating that the options weren’t good enough (sort of like how much of America despises both major presidential candidates at record levels). The focus from the Big 12 was more about short-term maximization of their ability to make it into the College Football Playoff (whose leaders finally figured out today that New Year’s Eve blows for watching playoff games).
In meantime, though, the Big Ten put into place the structure of a new record-breaking TV deal with Fox and ESPN (on top of existing rising revenue from BTN) and the ACC announced the formation of the ACC Network with ESPN that will provide a financial windfall for that conference. Not coincidentally, the Big 12 presidents put down their Pokémon Go* games for a few moments and changed their tune on expansion within 24 hours of the finalization of the ACC Network deal. Now, the Big 12 is looking to add at least 2 and maybe even 4 additional members.
(* The Charmander as Houston Cougar image above come from a SBNation post about all of the FBS football teams’ corresponding Pokémon characters that was written well before the Pokémon Go craze came about. Enjoy!)
What happened? Well, it appears that the Big 12 might have finally gotten off of its delusion that it could ever attract members of the ACC or any other power conference. Coaches like Bill Snyder and partisan Big 12 fans might try to suggest schools that left the Big 12 wish that they could come back, but trust me on this one: every single person that actually matters at the schools that left the Big 12 are happy to be far, far, far away from that dysfunctional mess. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC are all academically, financially and demographically superior to the Big 12… and it’s not even a contest. The ACC Network deal seems has to cemented the notion that the Big 12 can’t hold out for the misguided hope to pick off other power conference schools (albeit Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated reported some residual delusion within the Big 12 that they could poach some Pac-12 schools in the next decade, which ought to be asinine to anyone that has followed conference realignment over the years). Every reasonable Big 12 expansion target is going to come from one of the non-power Group of 5 (“G5”) conferences outside of independent BYU.
At the same time, this self-realization by the Big 12 members is coupled with the very real fear that Texas, Oklahoma and/or Kansas could be out the door when the current conference Grant of Rights agreement expires in 2025 or even upon expiration of the new Big Ten TV deal in 2023 (which gets into the time range where breaking the GOR agreement might be financially feasible). The other members of the Big 12 have already seen Texas attempt to create the Pac-16 and Oklahoma’s leadership openly talk about the school having options in the realignment sphere. Maximizing short-term money by keeping membership numbers low is only sustainable if the Big 12’s three top flight risks stay put. As a result, the Big 12 has to engage in some “CYA expansion” whether they believe that UT, OU and KU will stay or not. When the conference’s largest TV markets, top athletic recruiting territory, fastest growing area, best academic institution and most valuable national brand name are all wrapped up in the single school the University of Texas, the rest of the Big 12 needs to expand and diversify its membership for survival in the event that the Longhorns ever decide for a “Texit”.
Now, that being said, the worst house (the Big 12) in Beverly Hills (the power conferences) is still significantly more valuable than the nicest house in Compton (G5 conferences). As Thamel noted, each member of the Big 12 makes more annual TV revenue than the entire AAC (which is the highest-paid G5 conference). Indeed, AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said this week that he has been “talking to the (athletic directors) and the president of the schools that might leave, and it looks like some of them will.” The chasm between the power and non-power ranks is so stark that none of the G5 schools to pass on any opportunity to join any of the 5 power conferences (the “P5”) regardless of geography or a hope that another better “fit” within the P5 might be coming down the road in the future (e.g. an Eastern school like UConn isn’t going to pass on a Big 12 invite in the hopes of an ACC or Big Ten invite later). Every G5 school has to take any Big 12 offer that it receives immediately because this expansion process might constitute the last new additions to the power conference ranks for the next generation. The stakes couldn’t be higher for the handful of G5 schools that are in position to make the jump.
When I started writing frequently about conference realignment with the formation of the Big Ten Expansion Index nearly seven(!) years ago, I’ve made some correct predictions and quite a few wrong ones. However, I will always believe in my first rule of conference realignment: “Think like a university president and NOT like a sports fan.” Too many sports fans look at recent on-the-field records (what I call the “What Have You Done For Me Lately?” Syndrome) and not the long-term off-the-field factors that drive conference realignment, such as TV revenue, markets, demographics, stability and academic prestige. No one should analyze an expansion candidate based on the best case scenario where a school goes 12-o in a football season. Instead, the proper analysis for adding a school is whether it still provides value (whether in the form of a major TV market, top recruiting territory or academic excellence) even if it has a 0-12 record. This is something that I have stressed for many years and I’ll continue to emphasize it here. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the schools that are generating the most discussion for Big 12 expansion:
POLE POSITION
CINCINNATI
I created the Big 12 Expansion Index nearly three(!) years ago that admittedly had some interesting results (such as a high ranking for San Diego State) due to my desire to create an index based on as many objective factors as possible without inserting any subjective “smell test” bias. Still, my overall conclusion at the time was that Cincinnati was the very clear #1 best fit for Big 12 expansion and I still firmly believe that to be the case today. Whether the Big 12 expands by 2 or 4 schools, it’s extremely difficult to see how Cincinnati wouldn’t be involved in any combination. At worst, the Bearcats seem to be the #2 option out of the realistic expansion candidates regardless of who might be the personal #1 favorite of any Big 12 school. They provide a solid new TV market, excellent historical performance in both football and basketball, revamped facilities, an entry point into the state of Ohio (which would become the best football recruiting territory in the Big 12 outside of the state of Texas), good academics (particularly at the graduate level) and a way to eliminate the issue of West Virginia being a geographic and cultural island within the league. Cincinnati might not be the very best option in any of those individual categories, but it is the only one that is good-to-great across-the-board for the Big 12.
PRIME CONTENDERS
HOUSTON
When some Tweets from well-connected Dave Sittler surfaced over one year ago(!) that Houston would be a prime expansion target for the Big 12, I noted the following:
Putting aside the Big 12’s obvious delusions of grandeur of reverse raiding the Big Ten for Nebraska or adding Notre Dame and/or Florida State, this actually appears to be some legitimate information from someone with contacts with people that control the situation. Follow Sittler’s Twitter timeline for some further comments. Bottom line: Houston has seriously vaulted itself into Big 12 expansion talks. Now, this makes little sense for the Big 12 when looking at the typical goals of power conference realignment, such as expanding into new TV markets and recruiting territories. However, we would be remiss to forget that Texas politics (whether we’re talking about the state itself or the university) effectively control the Big 12 (as Sittler alluded to in his Tweets). The Big 12 was initially formed with heavy demands from then-Texas Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and other Texas politicians in order to get Texas Tech and Baylor to tag along with UT and Texas A&M. It’s a bit of surprise to see such relatively strong statements about Houston’s Big 12 candidacy here, but not completely shocking when looking at the political history of the conference. Back in the midst of conference realignment mania in 2010, I recall then-UT President Bill Powers stating that it was a goal for Houston to become a “Tier 1” university, so there was an acknowledgment even back then of some broader goals to elevate the stature of that school.
Sure enough, look at the explicit Tweets from the past week from the Governor of Texas, Lt. Governor of Texas and the President of the University of Texas:
The president of Texas Tech then also issued a statement in support of adding Houston to the Big 12. It’s pretty clear that no matter what people will try to argue, there’s a whole separate political game that’s being played here where the normal metrics of conference realignment (such as obtaining a new TV market) do not apply.
Keep in mind that the Big 12 requires 75% of its members to approve a new school, which means any expansion candidate needs 8 votes. As a result, Texas and Texas Tech cannot block Big 12 expansion by themselves, but don’t be surprised if TCU and Baylor fall in line behind their state counterparts. TCU and Baylor might be private schools, but they certainly aren’t beneath the state political game, particularly with how Baylor got into the original Big 12 due to powerful alums in the Texas state government in the early-1990s and leveraged lawmakers that played a part in derailing the proposed Pac-16 deal of 2010. Meanwhile, TCU essentially owes its Big 12 membership to the efforts of UT, so it’s not a stretch to see the Longhorns call in a chit on that front.
The upshot is that it won’t take much for the Texas-based schools to effectively have veto power over any Big 12 expansion decision: if UT and Texas Tech are politically-aligned and just attract one of either Baylor or TCU, then they have as much leverage as the University of Virginia did in making its vote for ACC expansion in 2003 contingent upon inviting Virginia Tech (which also happened to be forced upon UVA by state lawmakers, including prominent moves by then-Lt. Gov. and current US. Senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine*). There are other reasons that Houston could be a solid expansion pick for the Big 12, such as its institutional support and solidifying a Houston TV market that is being encroached upon by the SEC via Texas A&M and LSU fans, but the Texas state political developments may trump everything else. That’s why no one other than Cincinnati should feel very safe in a 2-team expansion by the Big 12 and a great candidate could be left without a chair when the music stops even in a 4-team expansion.
(* Judging by the Democratic National Convention last night, I’m fairly certain that Tim Kaine loves balloons more than my 7-year old twins… and every other kid that I’ve ever met in my entire lifetime.)
BYU
If Houston could get into the Big 12 because of outside personal political relationships even if it doesn’t fit traditional conference realignment goals, BYU might end up outside of the Big 12 because its relationships (for better or worse) within the conference haven’t been as strong despite being arguably the strongest single expansion option. When looking at what “matters” to university presidents in expansion, BYU seems to fit the bill: great fan base, excellent academics, new and growing TV market, national appeal due to its direct link to the LDS church (essentially being to Mormons what Notre Dame is to Catholics) and a fantastic top-to-bottom athletic department*. If the Big 12 were to pick a school based on a blind resume of the metrics that are critical to conference realignment decisions, I’d be certain that BYU would be picked every time.
(* I’ve seen some suggestions that BYU might end up being a football-only candidate for the Big 12 in order to avoid Sunday play issues, but that doesn’t seem like the right move for the conference considering how strong BYU is in basketball and non-revenue sports. BYU’s entire athletic department can provide a ton of value, whereas there are some other schools that we’ll discuss later that would make more sense as football-only membership considerations.)
Yet, for whatever reason, the expansion prospects for BYU seem to run hot and cold. There are certainly plenty of observers out there that believe that BYU is near the top of the list, but then there are very well-respected reporters that have been correct more often than not on realignment news (such as Brett McMurphy of ESPN.com) that have been much more skeptical of BYU’s chances. One argument that is out there is that the Big 12 is focused on expanding to the east. The prohibition of athletic teams playing on Sunday is another possible negative factor, although it wouldn’t be applicable to football. A more pernicious suggestion brought up by Chadd Scott is that there could be an anti-Mormon sentiment among university administrators.
Despite the cold bucket of ice water above for BYU fans, I’ve been on the record many times that if I were running the Big 12, the top two picks for expansion based on what the conference claims to be looking for ought to be Cincinnati and BYU. If the Big 12 is looking to maximize revenue (which is goal #1 in conference realignment), then it’s difficult to see them passing on BYU regardless of any other perceived problems.
UCONN
UConn is right next to BYU in terms of being an extremely valuable school by G5 standards that would fare well in a blind resume test. It is the only school mentioned here that’s a true unambiguous state flagship university, which P5 members inherently like since most of them are flagships themselves. At the same time, Connecticut has great academics, a location that gives them access to the massive New York City and Boston TV markets on top of its affluent home state and elite of the elite programs in basketball (both men and women). Indeed, UConn’s stock has been justifiably rising in Big 12 expansion reports compared to very few mentions over the past couple of years. UConn just feels like it should be a P5 school and it has the athletic department revenue to back it up. The two main concerns for UConn’s Big 12 candidacy are (a) geographic fit and (b) football fit (which rules conference realignment). The geographic fit issue is based on the fact that it extends the already far-flung Big 12 all the way to the Northeastern corner of the United States. Personally, I think that issue can be overcome by UConn since it could argue that it wouldn’t be any more of a geographic outlier than BYU (who doesn’t seem to get docked points as much on geography) and its access to the NYC and Boston markets would justify the move.
Now, the football fit isn’t as easily explained away. It’s not so much the on-the-field performance of UConn, but rather that the other football-based metrics, such as the lack of a recruiting territory (where New England and the neighboring State of New York constitute arguably the worst per capita FBS recruiting region in the country). UConn also simply has a young FBS football program – it only moved up to then-Division I-A in 2002 in a world where P5 conferences (whether right or wrong) put a premium on having generations of tradition.
So, the institutional profile, TV markets and overall athletic department strength point to UConn being a very strong candidate for the Big 12 even if there’s only a 2-team expansion, yet the geographic and football fit issues make it vulnerable enough that its fans are unfortunately going to sweat whether it’s a 2 or 4-team expansion. To be clear, if I were running the Big 12, I’d certainly add UConn in a 4-team expansion since I believe that it’s clearly a P5-level institution, but it’s a school whose prospects are hard to read in the real world. UConn is essentially in the same “hot or cold” boat as BYU where there are respected people that believe that they’re near the top of the Big 12 expansion list while others that are in the know aren’t as optimistic.
MEMPHIS
If Houston has political backers in Big 12 expansion, Memphis is engaging in some Chicago/FIFA/IOC-style “patronage” with FedEx chairman Fred Smith essentially offering to pay for the Tigers to get into the league. Memphis also brought out its biggest PR gun to date this week:
The next time that someone tells you that you’re the dorky college football equivalent of a baseball sabermetrician for being obsessed with conference realignment, you can retort that Justin Timberlake (who is in contention for The Song of the Summer yet again*) is ALL-IN on the action.
(* My personal definition of “The Song of the Summer” is (a) it needs to be played within the first 15 minutes after the dance floor opens at any wedding that summer and (b) Grandma needs to be dancing to that song without irony or needing to participate in a gimmicky line dance. On those metrics, Timberlake’s “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” is probably taking the cake since it’s a bit peppier than the entries from Drake and Panda while also being completely inoffensive. I think Sia is coming on strong here as we get towards the end of the summer, though. Unfortunately, my favorite performance from JT isn’t getting much airplay at weddings.)
In all seriousness, Memphis has a number of attractive attributes for the Big 12: improving football program, solid TV market, excellent basketball fan base (which may or may not translate to football), location in a top notch football recruiting territory and geographically sensible for the conference overall. The negatives are based on academic reputation and its direct competition from the SEC from multiple directions. If Cincinnati is a likely pick and Houston has the political leverage to get into the Big 12, it feels like this is going to be a competition between BYU, UConn and Memphis for the last two spots in a 4-team expansion. In particular, outside of the fact that both UConn and Memphis are known more as being basketball schools, UConn seems have strengths where Memphis is weaker and vice versa. It will be interesting to see what the Big 12 prioritizes here.
ALL OR NOTHING
UCF AND USF
I put Central Florida and South Florida together in the analysis since my feeling is that the Big 12 is either going to add both of the schools or neither of them at all. The main arguments in favor of UCF and USF are location, location and location. The Big 12 obviously has a great hold on the state of Texas but suffers from very poor demographics outside of it, so the thought of adding the state of Florida to that mix for TV market and recruiting purposes can seem intoxicating. At the same time, both UCF and USF have massive enrollments (particularly UCF), which helps when the perception is that bigger is better.
However, the flip side of being in the state of Florida is that UCF and USF face the strongest in-state competition by far of any the Big 12 expansion candidates with the exception of Houston (which has political factors in its favor within the Big 12), so the on-paper market size may not translate into legitimate market share. I’ve spent more time in the I-4 Corridor between Orlando and Tampa than any other place besides my hometown of Chicago. The fact of the matter is that Florida and Florida State have as strong of a hold as any pair of schools has on their home state in the entire country (including the Texas and Texas A&M combo in the state of Texas). Plus, the Miami Hurricanes will still get significant mindshare in the Southern half of Florida whenever they end up being competitive. (Don’t let the current relative down period for the Canes lull you into thinking otherwise.) Other Big 12 expansion candidates might be in markets that are within the territories of P5 conferences, such as Cincinnati being within the Big Ten footprint (covered by Ohio State) or Memphis being within the SEC footprint (with Tennessee as an in-state competitor and Ole Miss being nearby across state lines), but the P5 fan penetration in those markets are on the weaker end. In contrast, the Orlando and Tampa markets are among the strongest ones out there for both the SEC and ACC. There are a lot of college football fans on paper in those markets, but they’re also largely accounted for by the Gators, Noles and (to a lesser extent) Canes. It would be like an upstart baseball league deciding that it was going to take the Yankees and Mets head-on in the New York market based on the theory that there are a lot of baseball fans living there (which would be financial suicide).
Therefore, a conference can’t expect to extract any value out of the Florida market with only one school unless they’re UF, FSU or maybe Miami. If the Big 12 really believes that getting into the Florida market is truly what is best for their long-term interests, then it ought to add both of UCF and USF. Otherwise, adding only one of those schools is simply going to provide a Florida outpost on paper without really gaining any legitimate market share. The league simply can’t compete in the state of Florida in a half-assed manner with such dominant pre-existing competition from the SEC and ACC. Once again, market share means much more than market size in this particular analysis. This is an all-or-nothing proposition for the Big 12.
ON THE UPSWING
COLORADO STATE
The fact that Colorado State has been wedging itself into the Big 12 expansion discussion shouldn’t be a surprise if you have been applying my first rule of conference realignment of thinking like a university president instead of a sports fan. CSU has solid academics in a fast-growing market that has only one direct P5 competitor (former Big 12 member Colorado). The state of Colorado is sort of the opposite of the description of the Florida market above: there isn’t very much competition considering the size of the population base, but a lot of people aren’t committed to being fans of CU or college sports overall. The risk of adding Colorado State is that the Big 12 would be adding a school where its home market sports fans aren’t known for having a propensity to support college sports. On the other hand, the Denver market in particular is growing so fast with such fantastic demographics in terms of income and education levels that it’s an area where the Big 12 presidents would love to get back into ASAP. The addition of Colorado State to the Big 12 would seem to make the most sense if they’re paired up with BYU as part of a 4-team expansion (with the other 2 schools from the east).
THE PRESIDENTS’ SOFT SPOT
TULANE
Pushing further on the first rule of conference realignment of thinking like a university president, I’ve said for several years that Big 12 expansion observers ought to keep an eye on Tulane. This is the only school in the Big 12 mix that is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) that is a marker of being a part of the educational elite. (Rice is also an AAU member, but they don’t seem to be garnering any real consideration.) At the same time, Tulane is in the New Orleans market with access to top notch recruiting in the state of Louisiana and only one in-state competitor (albeit a monster in the form of LSU). I’m not saying that Tulane is likely to be added to be the Big 12, but they’re going to get a lot more consideration than the average fan would expect because they’re the type of school that university presidents love. Indeed, Jake Trotter of ESPN.com brought up the prospect of Tulane being a Big 12 expansion candidate earlier this week.
THE FANS’ SOFT SPOT
BOISE STATE
Bob Bowlsby mentioned the possibility of adding football-only members to the Big 12, which for many observers brought to mind two schools: BYU and Boise State. As I noted earlier, it doesn’t make much sense to me to add BYU as a football-only member because it has such a strong top-to-bottom athletic program than the Big 12 ought to want as an all-sports member. In contrast, Boise State seems to fit as a potential football-only option since its non-football sports aren’t bringing as much value and they’re even more geographically isolated from the rest of the Big 12 than BYU or UConn (which isn’t a big deal for football but can cause logistical challenges for all other sports). The problem is that Boise State is the classic “Thinking Like a Sports Fan” choice, where fans love watching Boise State on-the-field (at least compared to virtually all other G5 options), but they don’t fit any of the academic, TV market or demographic metrics that university presidents are looking for in expansion decisions. The on-the-field performance of Boise State over the past decade has been stunning, yet the problem for the Broncos (whether right or wrong) is that conference realignment is more about off-the-field attributes. The main off-the-field factor that Boise State can hang its hat on is that it has become the most valuable national TV property in the G5 to the point that the current Mountain West Conference media contract has a provision that was effectively written to provide the Broncos with a financial bonus for national appearances, so that would be the attribute that the school is going to emphasize in any Big 12 discussions.
THE SERVICE ACADEMIES
AIR FORCE, ARMY AND NAVY
At least for me, the schools that immediately came to mind when the Big 12 said it was contemplating football-only members were the service academies. Indeed, Air Force, Army and Navy are strong national brands with stellar academics and the Department of Defense recently opened the door for their athletes to have their 24-month service commitment waived if they go directly to the pros after graduation (which could help with recruiting). Do I think any of these schools are likely to end up in the Big 12? Not really. However, that would likely be more because Air Force, Army and Navy would take themselves out of consideration themselves as opposed to the Big 12 not wanting them. Air Force was reportedly approached several years ago by the Big 12, but preemptively nixed the discussions because the Cadets were concerned about competitiveness. This stance might change if the academies start getting more top-level athletes due to the more open policy of allowing grads to go straight to the pros. Regardless, the service academies have unique value that isn’t replicated anywhere else at the G5 level, so they ought to considered if football-only options are on the table for the Big 12.
CONCLUSION
The Big 12 has kicking the proverbial can down the road on expansion for years and years. Frankly, they should have expanded to at least 12 back when they lost Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC and the league was teetering on collapse. There’s still a decent chance that the Big 12 could come back and state that they won’t expand any further, but this time seems different. It was one thing for the Big 12 to be behind the Big Ten and SEC in terms of financial stability since that has been the normal state of college athletics for the past few decades, anyway. However, it’s an entirely different matter to find the Big 12 cemented on a lower pecking order than the ACC. I believe the Big 12 has finally realized that size does matter in terms of college sports power even if they never end up with their own conference network. In fact, Dennis Dodd is reporting that the Big 12 is looking to make an expansion decision prior to the beginning of this season, which means that the college sports world could have some finality on this issue within the next few weeks. For the G5 schools that are pushing for an invite to the Big 12, August 2016 will be the most important month in the histories of their respective athletic departments. Once the door closes on Big 12 expansion, the power conferences will be set in place for the next generation.
Follow @frankthetank111(Image from SBNation)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawks #1 in the CFP.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
The ‘anti-mormon bias’ isn’t necessarily pernicious. There’s serious issues of academic freedom at play at that school.
LikeLike
That’s where Frank isn’t thinking like a university president. You could also less charitably describe the anti-BYU feeling as political correctness relative to a conservative school.
And the current controversy involving treatment of rape victims in light of the Baylor situation can’t be ignored. The issue was that consensual pre-marital sex was a violation of the honor code and in the investigation of a possible rape, they explored whether the victim had also engaged in consensual sex, which could get the victim kicked out of school.
LikeLike
@bullet – The P.C. argument against BYU is certainly valid when looking at Pac-12 expansion and the focus of its members. However, the Big 12 has tolerated the socially conservative Baptist views of Baylor for many years (where they didn’t allow *dancing* on campus until the mid-1990s and only stopped a policy of banning students and staff for engaging in homosexual activity from campus last year). That’s why it’s “pernicious” from my viewpoint – the Pac-12 objections of BYU aren’t because they’re Mormon specifically, but rather that the school has policies that are clearly not consistent with the rest of the Pac-12 (and could actually be in direct contravention of anti-discrimination laws in the West Coast states) and they’d apply the same standard to schools like Baylor, Liberty or even Yeshiva. Whether people agree with it or not, the Pac-12 essentially mandates secular schools (although I’m sure if Notre Dame wants to join, then the Pac-12 would welcome them with open arms since all of the power conferences go out of their way to placate ND).
In contrast, the Big 12 has already shown that it would accept a socially conservative religious school in Baylor, so then it starts sounding more like it’s an objection against the Mormon affiliation itself as opposed to a general secular stance against discriminatory policies. IMHO, that’s a pernicious stance in a way that the Pac-12 stance against BYU isn’t here.
Of course, it’s interesting that you point out the sex scandals at both Baylor and BYU seeing that they’re both taking place at arguably the two most socially conservative schools that play FBS football.
LikeLike
Well as you point out, those standards would not be applied to Notre Dame. Standards are relevant only when the $ are close. Then they get thrown out the window.
I’ve never seen any sense of anti-Mormon views from the Big 12 (only BYU perceptions of anti-Mormon views). The negative reactions you get to BYU are that they are a pain to deal with and that the no Sunday play is also a pain. But the university presidents are from the same graduate schools as the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents, so they think pretty similarly.
LikeLike
I enjoyed your comments on conference expansion.
I belong to a group that is making sure others realize that BYU had anti LGBTQ stances and therefore shouldn’t have their profile raised with admittance to the Big 12.
I can promise that the Big 12 is taking BYU’s anti LGBTQ stances into consideration. I have been personally contacted by the lead counsel to the Big 12.
With what happened in Charlotte last week and the removal of the All Star Game the Big 12 is taking LGBTQ rights seriously.
This is not an anti religion cause, as many members of my group belong to BYU’s affiliated church.
An openly gay person is not allowed to perform or coach at BYU, even if legally married, unless they practice abstinence. This isn’t right.
The discrimination is on BYU’s end.
LikeLike
@Jeremy – This is very good insight. If this is the case with the Big 12, then I’ll give them credit because I didn’t necessarily believe that they’d go to bat on LGBTQ issues in the same manner as the Big Ten and Pac-12 would (if only because of the presence of Baylor). It has definitely become a major issue and, as you’ve said, we’ve seen it manifest itself recently with the NBA All-Star Game being moved from North Carolina.
LikeLike
It will give the presidents heartburn. It would be a non-starter if BYU was not essentially an extension of the church. A private school with those rules would not be admitted.
LikeLike
No offence intended here mate, but I doubt those social justice issues will dissuade the Big12 from adding BYU if the conference thought it would bring them a lot of money. It would be like saying they wouldn’t accommodate Notre Dame because the Catholic Church doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood. The difference between the two is 69.5 million Roman Catholics in the USA (22%) compared to 6.1million Mormons in the USA (>2%). With those numbers ND will always get a pass. Having said that, would the Big12 like to potentially add 6.1million sets of eyeballs to its conference with the addition of 1 school? Is it worth it to put up with no-play Sundays? Is it worth it to put up with a conservative school? I think the $ will dictate that it is worth it to them to add BYU.
Again, no offence intended toward your cause, just playing devil’s advocate
LikeLike
Red,
“No offence intended here mate, but I doubt those social justice issues will dissuade the Big12 from adding BYU if the conference thought it would bring them a lot of money.”
No, but it might be enough reason to make them football-only members to reduce the level of affiliation.
“It would be like saying they wouldn’t accommodate Notre Dame because the Catholic Church doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood.”
1. ND isn’t nearly as extreme in their restrictions as BYU
2. ND is a lot more valuable than BYU
“The difference between the two is 69.5 million Roman Catholics in the USA (22%) compared to 6.1million Mormons in the USA (>2%). With those numbers ND will always get a pass.”
It’s about the number of fans of ND, not the number of Catholics. Nobody is making special allowances for any of the small Catholic schools out there.
“Having said that, would the Big12 like to potentially add 6.1million sets of eyeballs to its conference with the addition of 1 school?”
Sure, but many schools can make claims like that. Not all LDS members are CFB fans, just like not everyone in Houston is a UH fan and not everyone in TN is a Memphis fan, etc. BYU has a large fan base outside of the LDS church, too, but I doubt anyone has an accurate size for their fan base.
“Is it worth it to put up with no-play Sundays?”
Maybe, maybe not. Rescheduling a bunch of things is hard on everyone else, plus BYU is a long trip for all the non-revenue sports.
“Is it worth it to put up with a conservative school?”
Conservative is one thing, BYU is another.
“I think the $ will dictate that it is worth it to them to add BYU.”
They seem like a top option but people keep saying how hard they are to deal with. UT and OU aren’t going to put up with that from anyone else but them.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
“They seem like a top option but people keep saying how hard they are to deal with. UT and OU aren’t going to put up with that from anyone else but them.”
Truer words have never been spoken… or written.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You actually contacted the lead counsel of the Big 12? Good grief, man, get a job. LOL.
That said, BYU was named the safest campus in America by businessinsider. Amazing that liberals try to brush that aside and focus on their myopic agendas at the expense of every other important issue.
“Safety? Meh, we don’t care about that.” We are only concerned with the hiring practices of private employers, right?! LOL. smh. Pathetic.
LikeLike
Lookie who we have here showing up on this blog. It’s Jeremy. The guy named Jeremy Haley who has been ripping BYU and tweeting at everyone he knows online about BYU and its supposed “anti LGBQ” stance. If anyone wants to know who this guy is just go to his twitter account @Runhard55. You will see lots of vitriol and anti-BYU rhetoric.
And funny thing is this guy likes and follows the University of Utah and University of Utah athletics. Surprise, surprise. LOL Someone has to be mentally ill to take that kind of concerted effort forward. You almost have to feel bad for him. Almost. Until you realize his hatred of BYU stems from the University of Utah.
Nothing to see here, folks.
LikeLike
Conservatism is the only thing that could possibly save the U.S…With these horrible liberal policies and no morality what-so-ever (also the liberal media) is EXACTLY what has destroyed the U.S and is completely destroying the west and thus the rise of the right wing all across the West. One can only hope it continues and gets rid of “progressivism” because they are progressing towards a one world government and right off a cliff.
LikeLike
BULL CRAP!!!! Academic Freedom is NOT free; That is often used to mask the bigotry that drives people to proclaim issues that are complicated and not easily discussed within a public forum. Having attended BYU and Cal Poly Pomona, the bigotry is almost always directed by those who wish to push their views on others in forums that are not condusive to public discussion.
LikeLike
I’d vote for Rice over Tulane in the President’s Soft Spot category simply to because of the MOB. Too bad the Big XII is overflowing with TX schools, which means it would never happen.
LikeLike
Everybody has a soft spot for Rice. But UH has the political muscle behind it. Not going to be 2 Houston schools.
LikeLike
Rice would probably be more appealing to the other P5 conferences than Tulane. But geography trumps the rest in this case when we’re discussing the B12.
Of course, we have no shot at any of them in this round. My question these days is, do I ant the MWC or the AAC to pick us up?
LikeLike
I do not see Connecticut as a good option. They ( like Syracuse) try and position themselves as “New York’s College Team.” Of course, St John’s ( hoops) and Rutgers really are. Looking at it from a strictly economy standpoint. One reason why Delaney sold the University Presidents on Rutgers, was that the favorite College teams of New Jersey and New York would include: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and of course, Rutgers (only Notre Dame is missing). People from those States care nothing about Oklahoma or Texas ( unlike the Wolverines , Buckeyes and Nittany Lions). For that reason ( and many more), The Huskies are not going to the Big 10
LikeLike
Agreed. UConn has no shot at the B1G. The next round of expansion for the B1G will be on the western side of the conference. The B1G already has New York City via Rutgers and Rutgers has more upside for football and the recruiting in New Jersey is big time.
Memphis will be getting into the B12 over UConn.
LikeLike
I think Frank hits on some of the reasons not to do UConn in his analysis of the Florida twins. You need a critical mass. With Rutgers, the B1G had a mass of B1G fans already there. There is no such synergy with the Big 12 and UConn. And there is lots of pro competition as well as competition from other colleges for football fans, mainly Notre Dame and Penn St.
Its worth noting that it is closer from Austin to Los Angeles than from Austin to Storrs. And that Storrs is 400 miles further on average from the Big 12 schools than Provo is.
Also, football drives revenue. The KSU AD made a comment recently that it was 85% of revenue (I’m guessing that was a general figure rather than scientific, but its a big % whatever the number is). UConn is a weak football school with less than 15 years in the top division. I’m guessing a lot of casual fans don’t even know they play football, figuring they are like St. John’s and Providence.
UConn might make sense for the ACC or B1G. They are likely the best G5 addition those conferences could choose. But they don’t make sense for the Big 12.
LikeLike
uconn, the OG thug school will never get into the ACC, they sued the BC and other ACC presidents personally when the ACC gobbled up the best of the BIG EAST. uconn will correctly be left hanging out in the wind.
LikeLike
mr greg,
“uconn, the OG thug school will never get into the ACC, they sued the BC and other ACC presidents personally when the ACC gobbled up the best of the BIG EAST. uconn will correctly be left hanging out in the wind.”
UConn will be added as soon as they become the most valuable option for the expanding conference. The presidents won’t hold petty things like lawsuits against them if it means leaving significant money on the table. Fans can hold grudges but presidents can’t afford to.
LikeLike
I have to more or less agree with Mr. Greg regarding UConn and the ACC. There was enormous bitterness from BC and the ACC toward UConn after the suits filed by then AG Richard Blumenthal (now US Senator from CT). By the way, at the time, I fully understood the anger since there was outright lying coming from the ACC. It was totally legal, though really immoral. Yes, welcome to the real world.
There have been rumors that BC has absolute veto power over admitting UConn to the ACC.
There is obviously no way for anyone without super secret inside info to know if that is true. Certainly, BC would view UConn as a direct competitor in New England, so I cannot imagine BC agreeing to UConn. Particularly with the addition of Cuse and Pitt, BC does not need other northeastern schools.
UConn would need to really be vital to the ACC before beign invited. That could, of course, happen if the ACC lost schools. With the long GOR that does not seem likely in the next decade or more.
If UConn football is stuck in G5 purgatory for another decade or more and the Big East has open arms for all sports (other than football), what does UConn do? Do they “give up” on football, so that basketball can flourish?
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I have to more or less agree with Mr. Greg regarding UConn and the ACC.”
I’ll explain why I disagree.
“There was enormous bitterness from BC and the ACC toward UConn after the suits filed by then AG Richard Blumenthal (now US Senator from CT).”
Was being the key word. 11 of the ACC presidents/chancellors weren’t around when the BC expansion happened. Another retires next year and BC’s has been there for 20 years so he must be near the end. The point is, this isn’t personal to them so they’ll be more objective when voting. BC will probably try to keep them out, but if UConn is obviously the best choice then they’ll get in. Remember, Pitt was part of the lawsuit as was VT initially. Also, there are a lot of former Big East schools that might view UConn as a familiar face for their fans.
“By the way, at the time, I fully understood the anger since there was outright lying coming from the ACC. It was totally legal, though really immoral. Yes, welcome to the real world.”
I understood it from both sides. I thought the lawsuits were ill-advised because they’d cost more than they’d ever recover but I think AG felt obligated to the people of the state to show they fought for UConn.
“There have been rumors that BC has absolute veto power over admitting UConn to the ACC.”
I highly doubt the written voting rules include veto power for anyone. We know it took 3 votes to block SU the first time around.
“There is obviously no way for anyone without super secret inside info to know if that is true.”
It would’ve come out before if anyone had actual veto power. Much more likely is that schools have unofficial veto power over schools in their area (like UVA on VT, UNC on ECU, etc). The presidents are colleagues and would tend to support each other. That said, the rest of the ACC isn’t going to agree to lose millions by adding a clearly inferior school if BC is the only upset school.
“UConn would need to really be vital to the ACC before beign invited.”
That’s a given for this scenario because they’re already at 15 and nobody needs to be at 16. But what if ND football joins, or the ACC loses multiple schools?
“That could, of course, happen if the ACC lost schools. With the long GOR that does not seem likely in the next decade or more.”
No, and by then the feelings would be even less.
“If UConn football is stuck in G5 purgatory for another decade or more and the Big East has open arms for all sports (other than football), what does UConn do? Do they “give up” on football, so that basketball can flourish”
No, power brokers in the state are committed to football. At least for now.
LikeLike
I do not see Connecticut as a good option…The Huskies are not going to the Big 10.
(I am assuming you meant “Big 12”, since that’s the subject of the post.)
There is no great option. All of the candidates have flaws. Otherwise, the B12 would have done this long ago.
Let’s assume Houston is a shoo-in, for political reasons; BYU gets in, because they are the best available brand name not in a P5 conference already; and Cincinnati for the many reasons Frank describes. So, who’s #4?
Frank makes a pretty good case that UConn is the best “fourth school” available. There’s enough doubt that any of the schools names could be #4, but UConn definitely has strong points in its favor.
LikeLike
I am by no means a UConn fan, but the Big Ten would be able to monetize UConn very well, certainly better than any Big 12 school except for Texas. Connecticut is very wealthy and would give Mich, OSU, MSU, PSU another game near NYC. Plus UConn is the highest level elite in basketball with all the national titles – they would drive strong BTN bball ratings and could charge Connecticut TV subs a fortune.
LikeLike
UConn is not even a blip in the NYC TV market. Storrs is 140 miles from NYC. How does 140 miles give anyone a game near NY? Philadelphia is only 90 miles from NYC.
The population of Connecticut is about 3.5 million. That is the maximum TV market for UConn.
The people State of Connecticut may be wealthy but the state itself is going through major financial problems.
Wonderful basketball, but we all know that bball does not drive the bus.
To the extent that the B12 wants to do something for WV, UConn also does not do anything there either.
The basic argument for UConn to the B12 is that there is no one better and the B12 has to take someone. Good academics, great basketball. End of case.
That is the hope for UConn. Their “natural home” should be the ACC, but that did not work out.
LikeLike
Oops cannot edit message, so here is a follow up.
UConn is not AAU. If the B1G wants to go down the road of taking a non-AAU school, there are other possibilities (Oklahoma?)
How does the B1G monetize a medium sized (to small) state with no football of consequence?
As others have said, all of New England probably produces two or three four star football players in a good year and another handful of three stars. If the entire region generates 10 P5 quality football players per year, that is a lot. (And BC is sitting there in Boston, only 85 miles from Storrs)
A game at UConn brings no recruiting value, unlike playing at Maryland or Rutgers.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I am by no means a UConn fan, but the Big Ten would be able to monetize UConn very well, certainly better than any Big 12 school except for Texas. Connecticut is very wealthy and would give Mich, OSU, MSU, PSU another game near NYC.”
Speaking as an OSU fan, we don’t want yet another east coast game. You can’t just keep adding schools in the East and keep geographic divisions unless you want to aggravate some of your most valuable members. It would make 3 of 9 games on our schedule be brand new B10 members we have no connection with. Let MI play them and leave us alone.
LikeLike
Brian – as a fan, I complete agree on UConn. UConn offers essentially the same cash opportunity as Rutgers. Between NYC and Boston, close to Hartford in a very wealthy state. OSU and Mich fans would pack UConn’s stadium just like they pack Maryland and Rutgers. Plus UConn actually is a blue blood in basketball and would be the school to make Big 10 basketball relevant in NYC. Put MSU-UConn at MSG and get a huge amount of NYC media.
Maybe the Big 10 is done chasing cash, but I doubt it. UConn is worth more than Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.
LikeLike
Mark,
“UConn offers essentially the same cash opportunity as Rutgers.”
I doubt that. Certainly not now, and probably not even before RU was added.
“Between NYC and Boston,”
NYC-RU = 36 miles
NYC-UConn = 142
Philly-RU = 65
Boston-UConn = 85
RU-UMD = 191
RU-PSU = 228
UConn-UMD = 357
UConn-PSU = 366
RU is between NYC and Philly and significantly closer to both of them. It’s also much closer to DC and fellow newbie UMD as well as old eastern member PSU. That means a lot more synergy with RU. The much greater proximity to NYC also really impacts the value there. Nobody but UConn fans believe that UConn football matters at all in NYC.
“close to Hartford”
About as close as RU is to NYC. I’ll take metro NYC over Hartford.
“in a very wealthy state.”
It is. But the areas around NYC in all directions have significant wealth. CT is just so small it doesn’t get as diluted by the rest of the population. NJ is a much bigger state and is #3 in per capita income.
“OSU and Mich fans would pack UConn’s stadium just like they pack Maryland and Rutgers.”
Probably, but that’s just because tickets are cheap. NYC isn’t a hotbed of alumni for OSU. Neither is Boston.
“Plus UConn actually is a blue blood in basketball”
That’s a given, but how much is it worth? The vast majority of TV money is for football. It would help with BTN subscriptions but CT is a small state (NJ is more than 2 times larger).
“and would be the school to make Big 10 basketball relevant in NYC.”
No, it would just keep a winning UConn relevant in NYC. They’ll never care about teams from flyover states.
“Put MSU-UConn at MSG and get a huge amount of NYC media.”
For 1 game, sure. But we can already get that without adding UConn.
“Maybe the Big 10 is done chasing cash, but I doubt it.”
I do think they’re worried about over-expanding, but I’m not sure they’re done either. It depends on who asks to join. There’s always room for a UT.
“UConn is worth more than Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.”
MO – MO is 50% larger than CT meaning 50% more BTN money, CT would slightly bump the hoops deal, MO has better football and brings an old rivalry with NE and potentially KU, AAU
KU – slightly smaller state, equal MBB, old rivals with NE, AAU
OU – CFB king trumps MBB king any day, OK is slightly larger than CT, brings valuable rivalry with NE
And before you ask, AAU membership has value to the B10’s reputation but not any direct financial value.
“Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.”
I obviously disagree. And so does the ACC or they would’ve added UConn. And so does the B10, or they would’ve added UConn over RU. Why do fans think they know more about the value of a school than the conference that used experts to analyze all the candidates and spent hours making the decision.
LikeLike
Brian:
”
MO – MO is 50% larger than CT meaning 50% more BTN money, CT would slightly bump the hoops deal, MO has better football and brings an old rivalry with NE and potentially KU, AAU
KU – slightly smaller state, equal MBB, old rivals with NE, AAU
OU – CFB king trumps MBB king any day, OK is slightly larger than CT, brings valuable rivalry with NE
And before you ask, AAU membership has value to the B10’s reputation but not any direct financial value.
“Only Texas is more valuable to the other conference schools of the current Big 12 and G5 schools for the Big 10.”
I obviously disagree. And so does the ACC or they would’ve added UConn. And so does the B10, or they would’ve added UConn over RU. Why do fans think they know more about the value of a school than the conference that used experts to analyze all the candidates and spent hours making the decision.”
I agree that Rutgers is closer to NYC than UConn, my point is that UConn is the next school in line as they bring more value than all the other choices except Texas:
Missouri – train wreck of a school right now, terrible football and basketball. Bad location in middle of the state dilutes its reach in KC and StL as KC is a Kansas town and the Big 10 already has 1/3 of the St L market in Illinois. And I disagree on 50% more BTN money – BTN could charge more in Connecticut plus I would assume there are more cable subs per capita in Connecticut vs Missouri
Kansas – tiny and poor state, very little value, Gets play in KC, but Connecticut much richer and bigger. KU will probably lose AAU status in the next purge, the gov is killing the state university system with huge tax cuts. Football is hopeless, maybe even worse than Rutgers
Oklahoma – poor small state again dependent upon energy that looks like a losing bet for the next 10 years. Yes good football, but Big 10 has enough good football teams so one more just takes away wins for UM, OSU, MSU, etc. No chance at AAU in our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes.
LikeLike
I don’t see UConn adding any value to the BIG. The only scenario is if the BIG needs an even number and no one else is available, but that’s highly, highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I agree that Rutgers is closer to NYC than UConn, my point is that UConn is the next school in line as they bring more value than all the other choices except Texas:”
What value do they bring? They hurt the academics of the B10. They greatly increase travel. They aren’t all that near any major city and they aren’t allowed to move home football games from the middle of CT to a big city. They add great hoops programs, but there is very little money in that. CT is a small state so BTN subscriptions don’t raise much. And all the playoff, bowl and NCAA money gets split more ways. Where is the net benefit here?
If UConn is the best option available, then expansion won’t and shouldn’t happen.
“Missouri – train wreck of a school right now, terrible football and basketball. Bad location in middle of the state dilutes its reach in KC and StL as KC is a Kansas town and the Big 10 already has 1/3 of the St L market in Illinois. And I disagree on 50% more BTN money – BTN could charge more in Connecticut plus I would assume there are more cable subs per capita in Connecticut vs Missouri.”
MO isn’t leaving the SEC anyway. Beyond that, most of KC is in MO just like most of STL is in MO. MO is a bigger state and they pay the SECN footprint fee which is more than BTN charges. CT won’t pay more than MO for BTN because that’s not how it works. There is one price for in the footprint and another for outside of it. CT residents wouldn’t pay more anyway because so many of them don’t care about UConn sports.
Why would you assume more subscribers per capita in CT? Do people not watch TV in MO? There 2.35M households in MO versus 1.36M in CT. The per capita difference would have to be huge for it to matter at all. And all the national data I’ve seen shows relatively variation in cable usage from place to place (80-95% basically everywhere).
“Kansas – tiny and poor state, very little value, Gets play in KC, but Connecticut much richer and bigger. KU will probably lose AAU status in the next purge, the gov is killing the state university system with huge tax cuts. Football is hopeless, maybe even worse than Rutgers”
CT – 3.6M, #29 state in population
KS – 2.9M, #34 state
Huge difference there. You can hypothesize KU losing AAU status, but they have it and UConn never has and isn’t particularly close to getting it. And the lack of WBB is literally meaningless for expansion.
“Oklahoma – poor small state again dependent upon energy that looks like a losing bet for the next 10 years. Yes good football, but Big 10 has enough good football teams so one more just takes away wins for UM, OSU, MSU, etc. No chance at AAU in our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes.”
OK – 3.9M, #28 state
CT – 3.6M, #29 state
Good football trumps almost everything else. OU has fans nationally that care about football, the actual money-driving sport. OU also adds another important game to the B10 roster that is highly valuable for TV deals (OU/NE) in addition to all their other games.
The B10 does not have enough good football teams at all. The lack of quality depth is one of the national complaints about the B10. OU would greatly increase the strength of the West division and provide another power capable of regular playoffs visits.
OU is worth millions more than UConn to the B10. It’s not even close.
LikeLike
Let MI play them and leave us alone.
MI doesn’t want a steady diet of games in Storrs, either. The one road game Michigan agreed to play @UConn, they tried desperately to persuade the Huskies to move it to an NFL stadium.
The Huskies refused, because when they got state money to expand their stadium, they agreed to stop moving big games out of town. That expansion got them to a whopping 42,704, which would be smaller than any stadium in the Big Ten. (NW is the only league stadium under 50k, at 47,130.)
LikeLike
Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Texas to the B1G at the end of the B12 GOR. Delany plans to retire in 2020 and will announce those schools are coming to the B1G before he retires so he can go out with a bang.
UT’s president and chancellor both favore a move to the B1G. David Boren, Oklahoma’s president, wants to go to a conference with elite academics.
Since the RRR game is vitally important for OU and UT, OU and UT will both go to the same conference. If Delany wants to expand with KS and MO too, they will be easy gets for Delany.
LikeLike
1. OU, KU, and UT are bound to the Big 12 for another five years after Delany retires.
2. I highly doubt Delany will do something as disruptive to the Big Ten as adding four members and then retire.
3. [Redacted] is an absolute mess right now and will probably be still be sorting it out for years. Even if they were not, they have zero reason to leave the SEC.
LikeLike
Love the [Redacted]. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
CFP money distributed as a flat payment to each conference (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/revenue-distribution), so if ESPN/FOX pay a pro rata increase for each new member on the TV side won’t it cost each member to expand around $1MM* (55/10 vs 55/12) if they go to 12 or or $1.6MM* if they go to 14 (55/10 vs 55/14). Is the Big 12 expecting a championship game to make up for it?
*Even more if you count NCAA distributions
LikeLike
The idea, as I’ve heard it expressed, is that incoming members will have to accept a lower share of the revenue, so existing members’ revenue will actually go up.
LikeLike
@NeutronSoup – Exactly. The theory is that the Big 12 will get the pro rata increase in TV revenue in expansion, but actually pay out less to the new members for a period of time (which results in a net TV revenue increase for each of the existing Big 12 schools).
LikeLike
CFP about $50 million. Sugar Bowl $40 million 2 out of 3 years-$26.7. CCG about $30 million.
Those all have to be split. That’s 11 million ten ways, 9 million twelve ways and 8 million fourteen ways. That’s roughly $2 million if they add 2 and $3 million per school if they add 4. Now you could argue the improved chances of making the playoff and the likelihood of the round robin and a 10 team ccg knocking a team out of the playoff or a 2nd NY6 bowl makes expansion a wash on splitting ccg $. But that still leaves a $1 million per school hit for a 2 team expansion and a $2 million per school hit for a 4 team expansion.
TCU and WVU reached full shares in 5 years. I suspect the new schools will take to the end of the contract to get full shares (8 years), which means the existing schools will be ahead, and maybe far enough ahead that financially it won’t matter that they make less than they would have in 9 years.
There’s been a lot of discussion of marketing analysis so it seems they think there are corporate sponsorship opportunities that generate some additional revenue for the conference as well. So it may not be just the pro rata TV that the new members bring in.
LikeLike
The new members are ALL going to agree to take less money at the beginning. and my guess is the “buy-in” will be at least 5 years, if not 8 (to coincide with the expiring GOR).
LikeLike
oh, sorry. (read before posting)… yeah, what FtT said. 🙂
LikeLike
I know that BYU and the PAC schools do not mesh well, but if BYU goes to the Big 12 the west’s last solid expansion option for the PAC is gone. No way they take Boise, Idaho, any of the other Cali schools, the New Mexico programs are terrible, UNLV may be an okay option only in combination with somonelse, there is simply no other options. If the Big 12 was spurred to action because the ACC solidified, you would think the PAC would also be, unless they think they can make another run at the Big 12 when their deal comes to an end, but I think the BigTen is in far better position to grab the best on the Big 12 if they do in fact break up in the end.
LikeLike
The State of Idaho has to buck up and reorganize its university system such that Boise State becomes the flagship (rechristened Idaho State?).
LikeLike
Idaho St already exists: http://www.isubengals.com/
LikeLike
I knew that, but being re-classified as a flagship might help overcome whatever stigma might be associated with having been a lesser campus (and in BSU’s case a Juco). The present day Idaho State in Pocatello can become Idaho Tech or Idaho A&M whatever. Me, I’d prefer the Idaho Vandals up in Moscow take one for the team in that regard.
LikeLike
Ain’t happening. Boise St isn’t very represented in the legislature. Many from UI law school. Very protective of their turf.
LikeLike
It can’t be said often enough. There is zero chance that BYU will ever be invited to the Pac. The academic freedom issues and cultural divide make it an absolute non-starter.
LikeLike
if they (the PAC12) were smart, and he’s not as smart as their commissioner thinks he is, they would immediately go to 14 by adding byu and co state. that gives both Utah and Colorado instate rivals (just like Oregon, asu, wa) and locks out the big 12 from any west expansion. but it wont happen because of the pac12’s religious school biases.
mr greg.
LikeLike
mr greg,
“if they (the PAC12) were smart, and he’s not as smart as their commissioner thinks he is, they would immediately go to 14 by adding byu and co state.”
No, they wouldn’t. I won’t debate how smart Scott is, but he knows enough to realize that adding more schools in states already in the footprint doesn’t make money for the P12.
“that gives both Utah and Colorado instate rivals (just like Oregon, asu, wa)”
All of those were added when travel was more important than TV money.
“and locks out the big 12 from any west expansion.”
Why stop the B12 from adding schools you don’t want? That’s bad business.
“but it wont happen because of the pac12’s religious school biases.”
Most P5 conferences have issues with BYU’s stances on certain issues. It’s not about religious schools, because plenty of those have been or are in P5 conferences. It’s BYU in particular that’s the problem.
LikeLike
Nice work
I would add 2 thoughts/comments/questions regarding UH & why it might not be a bad insurance policy for the teams outside of Texas as well
…adding UH adds political pressure on Texas to keep the Big12 alive, more Texas skin in the game to make Texit at least harder
…If Texit happens, then big 12 may need Houston for the Houston market & to help with the Texas market in general…plus if Texit happens, I would expect Oklahoma to be not much behind, which I think you have argued is the 3rd most important team to the Texas market
LikeLike
agree on this point. the Presidents of IowaSt, KS, KSt, etc., should be looking beyond this expansion with the thought that UT and OK will leave. Houston is a good addition for the non-state-of-Texas schools because it helps keep the State-of-Texas tv eyeballs if/when UT leaves. (note “helps”; not “completely compensates”).
LikeLike
The KSU pres did. He’s now pres at WSU.
Just kidding. Presidents don’t school hop primarily on athletic affiliation. They do, however, on all the other measures people ignore when evaluating candidates for affiliation invites (think like a pres).
LikeLike
Good call on Texas politics. Although Sittler covered OU and so the general assumption was that OU was the school who wanted Houston from his comment.
I think its pretty clear Texas wanted to stay at 10. But once there was support for expansion, the governor gave them orders to make sure UH was included.
And UT wasn’t “responsible” for getting TCU in. UT just sealed the deal. As the OU AD made clear in the article, OU wanted TCU and there was some support elsewhere in the conference. Drinking with Deloss Dodds just removed any opposition from UT and then everyone else fell in line.
LikeLike
While you are right about demographics and academics as regards the B1G, ACC and Pac, financially, the Big 12 is just fine relative to the Pac 12 and ACC (depending on how much their revenue increases with their network deal and GOR extension).
The Big 12 is always a solid 3rd in attendance and school revenues (average or median), well ahead of the Pac and ACC. They are actually first in “profitability,” limiting school subsidies. And they have been ahead of the Pac in distributions (even without considering the Big 12’s separate tier 3 TV) at least since 2010. Last year was the first time the ACC was ahead of the Big 12 and that was a one year blip because the Orange Bowl was not a playoff bowl, but the Sugar Bowl was.
LikeLike
To be clear, “school revenues” are the individual school’s total athletic revenues as reported in the USA Today annual report and elsewhere.
LikeLike
three questions:
1) Does any expansion reduce the chance Texas or OU and KU leave as the GOR expires?
2) How are FOX and ESPN feeling about shelling out and extra $25-50m (2 or 4 schools) per year for G5 schools, and seeing 16-28 current Big 12 match ups replaced playing these new schools?
3) Would adding these G5 schools reduce the tier1 value in 2025 TV deal?
LikeLike
1) No. If anything, it would increase it.
2) I’m sure they are feeling they’re being taken advantage of. Rare, but true.
3) Of course it will.
LikeLike
I have been thinking for some time that FOX and ESPN will push to limit expansion to two schools. The others will be there if they want or need to go back and expand again in five years. Not pissing off your media partners should be a factor.
My read is Houston gets one of those two spots, and that is probably at the expense of Cincy, to get Texas (state of and school) on board. Houston also nixes Memphis. BYU or UConn get the other spot. The Baylor situation and the LDS honor code being applied to sexual assault victims makes me think the timing favors UConn.
So if two schools, Houston and UConn wouldn’t shock me.
There is one other factor. School Presidents/Chancellors will be making presentations. The data and info doesn’t matter much – it’s been analyzed to death already – but the presenter does. This is the personality test, do the B12 Presidents and Chancellors like the peer presenting or do they prefer not to work with them? That could shuffle the order of preference and elevate one or bounce out another.
LikeLike
1) Probably not by much, if at all. But no one knows what those chances are anyway, so how will we ever know?
2) They cannot be very happy. You make the bed, you gotta lie in it.
3) If these schools are entitled to full shares starting in 2025, then the per-school payout almost certainly has to go down. But the B12 need not give them full shares. Even half-shares would be far more than they were getting in the AAC.
LikeLike
Marc, by 2025 the per school matters because the new schools would be on full scale or close. So if the B12 is worth $6m/yr less per school due to dilution that impacts every current member $60m over a decade. That ties back to #1. Hence the reason I asked.
LikeLike
Marc, by 2025 the per school matters…
Of course it does. It is the only thing that matters. I thought I had made that clear.
…because the new schools would be on full scale or close.
You are assuming the B12 will do the dumbest thing imaginable—always possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.
As Frank pointed out, “each member of the Big 12 makes more annual TV revenue than the entire AAC.” This means that you don’t need to give an AAC school very much at all, for the move to be worth their while.
So, why would you promise them full shares in eight years, knowing that the league is doomed if you do? You can say to a Cincinnati or UConn: get real, in eight years you aren’t going to be as valuable as Oklahoma. If you think you are, then stay in the AAC, and we will invite someone else.
LikeLike
This is, of course, analogous to the RU invitation to the B1G. RU was saved from the fate of the AAC. When Delany did not offered a 6 year phase in with relatively little for the first few years, it was still a huge improvement.
Give an ACC school a one-third share for 4 years, then a 1/2 share for the 4 years and they will have to jump at it. Worry about full shares in 2025.
On the RU boards, there are still clowns arguing that the deal should be renegotiated for more money now. Sane people try to tell them to shut up and be happy.
Of course on the UConn boards there are clowns who think that the B1G and ACC both really really want UConn. So the theory goes, the B12 will need to make an offer to UConn, which can then leverage that offer with both the B1G and ACC, or certainly at least one of them.
Sane people on the UConn boards are just hoping to get a B12 offer. Of course, even some of the rational UConn posters think that the NYC and Boston TV markets are part of UConn’s appeal. Somehow, I am not sure if even a UConn-Oklahoma football game would get the attention of anyone outside of Storrs.
As someone has posted, not a whole lot of B12 alums (or families of current students) in Boston or NYC. (As opposed to the huge number of B1G alum and families)
LikeLike
This is, of course, analogous to the RU invitation to the B1G. RU was saved from the fate of the AAC. When Delany did not offered a 6 year phase in with relatively little for the first few years, it was still a huge improvement.
Right, and I’m suggesting they take it even farther. Say to Cincinnati, “You are never getting a full share, ever, unless you meet certain hurdles (attendance, TV ratings, etc.) that prove you are truly a peer.”
LikeLike
I don’t think BYU dilutes anything. They are probably top half P5 level in value.
I don’t think Houston or Cincinnati dilute much.
But if you go 4, you likely get dilution. The idea would be that the programs grow and increase in value. That’s a risk.
LikeLike
I don’t think BYU dilutes anything. They are probably top half P5 level in value.
I don’t think Houston or Cincinnati dilute much.
Think of it this way: what kind of deal does the B12 get next time? Every conference is looking to see their media deal go up, and the B10 has already done that. If Houston or Cincy is only mildly dilutive, it’s still dilution. Do these adds allow the B12 to keep up with the Joneses?
LikeLike
BYU would probably be the 3rd most valuable school if added, Cincinnati would be 6th (ahead of KSU, ISU, TCU, Bay, Tex Tech) and Houston would probably be about the same as Cincinnati. I doubt they make the buy in more than 8 years.
LikeLike
1) if they get more money it does (and not just pro rata)
2) they never like paying more money, but the value of these schools will increase some because they are playing more attractive competition.
3) not adding 2. BYU is an above average P5 school Houston and Cincinnati aren’t far below average. Adding 4, maybe it does.
LikeLike
Roll (Tulane Green) Wave into the Big XXII-2+4!
LikeLike
forgot to click notify
LikeLike
Tulane + TCU
Life would be good for you Alan!
LikeLike
Its the Big 12-2-1+1-1+1+X
LikeLike
Cincy(ohio market and wv issue) no brainer, I would go Uconn, Memphis and USF after that. Byu to much cultural difference.
LikeLike
Hi Frank, I recently started following you and think you have a great handle on the Big XII expansion. I would love a history lesson on how the conference got in the predicament over the years. Was it pure lack of leadership or nothing could have been done? Over the years I thought they had enough to do what the ACC did. That is get ND or take the top four ACC football schools. FSU, Clemson, Maimi and VT and roll a tv network. Really feel UT has ruined the conference and cut their own nose off! EMAW!
LikeLike
@WildcatJeff – I don’t think that there was much that could be done. The Big 12 was originally started as a marriage of convenience between the old Big 8 and the hand-picked Texas-based schools from the SWC and that has meant that there wasn’t anything other than money tying the league together. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC all have various bonds (whether academics, history together, regional strength, etc.) beyond money (which, to be sure, is still critically important) that the Big 12 simply never had. That’s why when I first started writing about conference realignment back in 2009, it was already clear that the Big 12 and Big East (and even better example of a marriage of convenience) were the most vulnerable leagues by far.
LikeLike
Granted, the Big 12 and Big East had inherent problems that were difficult to solve. But poor management definitely contributed to their troubles.
The B12 was the only power conference that fired its commissioner, Dan Beebe. I recall the explanation: “There’s a perception he only listens to one school.” The parody twitter account, @DanBeebe, made fun of this to hilarious effect.
Underlying the joke, is the fact that the B12 wasn’t an “All for one, One for all” conference. The Big Ten would be a very different place, if Michigan and Ohio State were hoarding most of the tier 3 revenue for themselves.
LikeLike
Yep, the Big 12 was a shotgun marriage and most of those end in divorce court. This CYA expansion has little to do with Texas and/or OU ditching the league. As for Houston, the political pressure is (IMO) overblown. Texas A&M leaving for the SEC made the political damage a lesser problem for Texas. Either Texas went so public with the backing of Houston because they know the votes to kill it are already in line — or they don’t give a damn in the long run. The Coogs bring next to nothing in terms of solidifying the Houston market for the Big 12. First and foremost, Houston is a pro town, really entrenched that way. Last year not a single regular season college football game was in the Top 100 sporting events telecast in the Houston market. Not Texas. Not A&M. Not Alabama. and not Houston. As a matter of fact when you breakdown the ratings, Alabama played in five games that got a 2.0 or better rating. Texas played in four. Houston had two — their last two games of the season. I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division, and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens. This is a cynical, short-sided, reactionary money grab by the Big 12 and it will not enhance their sustainability in any way shape or form.
LikeLike
I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division, and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens.
Why would the four survivors conveniently and coincidentally agree to expand at the same time to exactly 16 teams? At no time in history have all the “power” leagues had the same number of teams.
The flaw in this theory becomes obvious, when you try to figure out which 64 teams would make it, and which leagues would accept the stragglers. There is no central authority that will force the B10 and/or SEC to accept schools they don’t want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Ross,
“I have always believed that we are headed to a four league 64-team (plus ND) super division,”
Why? First, why have the symmetry of 4×16 and then have ND separate to screw things up? Second, what makes you believe all the leagues will naturally end at 16? The P12 had a shot but Texas said no. There’s no group of 4 the P12 would accept that doesn’t include UT. And if that block (UT, TT, OU, OkSU) does go west, why would the B10 and SEC respond by taking the scraps of the B12? What schools would the ACC find to add and how would they justify it?
“and the Big 12 will be the one without a seat at the table when that happens.”
It’s possible we drop to a P4 at some point and certainly the B12 could be the victim.
“This is a cynical, short-sided, reactionary money grab by the Big 12 and it will not enhance their sustainability in any way shape or form.”
It should keep them together until the GOR ends at least. Beyond that is a guessing game. Having more money to pay the current members can’t hurt, but is it worth the extra travel and games against G5 programs?
LikeLike
WildcatJeff,
“I would love a history lesson on how the conference got in the predicament over the years. Was it pure lack of leadership or nothing could have been done?”
50 years ago, the Big 8 and SWC were power conferences with some great programs in them. But once the Supreme Court opened up college football to TV money in 1984, things started to change. The Big 8 suffered from the small population in it’s footprint in the plains states. The SWC was almost entirely in TX and TX was early in its population boom (TX has grown over 50% since 1980) so it wasn’t quite the huge state it is now. The SWC also had a bunch of schools cheating with several getting caught by the NCAA. That culminated with SMU getting the death penalty which signaled the beginning of the end for the SWC.
Arkansas left for the SEC in 1992 and the SWC splintered. The Big 8 needed the population in TX and the SWC teams needed a stable home. They merged into the B12 in 1996. Unfortunately they just didn’t have enough time to coalesce into a real conference. There was a dominance struggle that Texas won and that led to some hurt feelings in Nebraska. When the B10 announced they were looking to expand, multiple B12 schools showed interest. Colorado left for the P12 (where many of their alumni are) before the B10 grabbed Nebraska and another round of infighting led to Texas A&M leaving the next year. Missouri almost had to go as well since they’d so openly sought greener pastures.
What could the B12 and its members have done differently?
1. The SWC could’ve not cheated so much and destroyed their reputations.
2. The schools could’ve been better academically so other conferences wouldn’t be as appealing to the presidents. This is the fault of the state governments, generally.
3. The Big 8 could’ve insisted on absorbing the 4 new members rather than merging. That was the beginning of giving Texas too much power for the conference to survive.
4. Texas could’ve not been so selfish, but that would mean putting the conference ahead of the school and that isn’t their job. But not forcing some of the changes they did and not starting the LHN would’ve kept things together for longer at least.
In reality, the B12 was doomed by geography (not in Eastern time zone, sparse population to the west) and demographics (only TX has a large population) as much as anything. The LHN was probably the final nail in the coffin but you can’t expect a university to turn down $15M per year guaranteed when they know they will always land on their feet.
“Over the years I thought they had enough to do what the ACC did. That is get ND or take the top four ACC football schools. FSU, Clemson, Maimi and VT and roll a tv network.”
Except ND wants east coast exposure much more than TX and plains exposure. As for taking 4 ACC schools, the distance and finances were always going to make that nearly impossible. The B12 never had sufficient advantages to raid the ACC. They will be fairly close in money most years and it takes a huge gap to get a school to leave one P5 conference for another unless their home conference disintegrates.
“Really feel UT has ruined the conference and cut their own nose off! EMAW!”
They did hurt the B12 but they didn’t cut off their nose. They’ll be fine no matter what. All the other P5 conference would gladly add them.
LikeLike
Colorado had a Big 12 and Pac 12 offer and chose the Big 12 by one vote. A few months later the board changed and they have wanted in the Pac 12 ever since. Their alumni are much heavier in Pac 12 states. CU leaving was inevitable. It just took Utah to grow into an acceptable program for the Pac 12.
A&M wanted in the SEC in 1994. Texas politics forced them into the Big 12 against their will. Not much that could be done once an opportunity presented itself.
Mizzou simply followed the first 3 in jumping at an opportunity for more money and stability. Had Nebraska still been in the conference, things might have been different with Mizzou.
The one thing that could have been done with Nebraska was if OU had agreed to continue the series every year. But OU didn’t want to play NU and UT every year. NU was a juggernaut then and OU was struggling. One of those early Big 12 games was something like 73-7. With OU off the schedule, NU really didn’t have any rivals. They dominated ISU and Mizzou. They had something like 30+ year winning streaks against KU and KSU. And their CU rivalry wasn’t anything like OU.
Revenue distribution was really irrelevant. All 4 schools that left were “have” schools like UT, OU and KU. They were united on all revenue distribution plans against the 5 “have-nots,” Baylor, KSU, ISU, Tech and Ok. St.
LikeLike
Money grabbing will ultimately hurt CFB! Lack of local rivals and lost traditions will erode total viewership and money. Mizzou in SEC east, Nebraska to Maryland, etc. what is you take?
LikeLike
Money grabbing will ultimately hurt CFB!
What you call “money grabbing,” is what others call “revenue.” It’s what college sports have been doing, for as long as the people in charge have known there was money to be made. That’s a lot longer than either of us have been around.
“Money grabbing” is the phrase that people use for the subset of revenue they happen to dislike.
Mizzou in SEC east, Nebraska to Maryland, etc. what is you take?
Conference realignment isn’t a new phenomenon. It has happened many times, without being the death of the sport. People get over it. In 15–20 years, 100% of Missouri’s student body will consist of people who never knew the Tigers as anything other than an SEC team.
LikeLike
Fight on State
LikeLike
Thinking about the states of Utah and Colorado,
BYU > University of Utah
Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU,
Then in Colorado, B12>Pac12.
Colorado State has BYU fans to the west (Idaho, Utah, Arizona)
I think most people underestimate the significance of the LDS population in the mountain west.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Corridor
Colorado State has Kansas, Kansas State, TTech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State to the east.
University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
How many California school alumni live in Colorado?
B12 would be the prominent conference in Utah and Colorado with a BYU, CSU addition.
I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest.
They couldn’t generate enough value as subset of the old big east. What’s changed
that the leftovers of big east football can create value?
Let WV wither on the vine.
LikeLike
Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU…I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest…Let WV wither on the vine.
The B12 disagrees with you. They could’ve had BYU or CSU in 2012. They chose WV.
LikeLike
dtwphx,
“Thinking about the states of Utah and Colorado,
BYU > University of Utah”
Not as a school it isn’t. Especially not to P12 presidents.
“Lets say B12 takes BYU and CSU,
Then in Colorado, B12>Pac12.”
Not by much and the majority still don’t care because they’re out biking/climbing/etc or rooting for the Broncos.
“I think most people underestimate the significance of the LDS population in the mountain west.”
There are 6.5M LDS members in the US total, mostly in the west. It gives BYU a large fan base, but not all of them care about college sports obviously.
There are 27.5M people in TX, 20.3M in FL, 11.6M in OH, …
“University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
How many California school alumni live in Colorado?”
http://www.coloradodaily.com/sports/buffs/ci_28266585/colorado-athletics-fundraising-soars-west-coast
CO has 2-3 times as many alumni in CA as they do in the entire B12 footprint. They also increased athletic fundraising in CA 900% by moving (320% for P12 footprint) while only dropping 16% in B12 states.
Only about 50,000 B12 alumni live in CO right now. Stanford’s Alumni Association has 2800 members in CO. UW claims over 2200. Utah claims about 3500. So call it 30,000+ P12 alumni in Colorado.
“B12 would be the prominent conference in Utah and Colorado with a BYU, CSU addition.”
CSU doesn’t bring prominence.
“I don’t get how UConn, WV, Cinci have any value, or create any critical mass of interest.”
WV is already a member and isn’t being dropped or treated poorly. You need to get past that fantasy. UConn brings elite hoops teams and proximity to huge TV markets. UC brings quality athletics, access to OH and a neighbor for WV. All of these schools bring the benefit of games in the Eastern time zone.
“They couldn’t generate enough value as subset of the old big east.”
The Big East didn’t have UT and OU in it.
“What’s changed that the leftovers of big east football can create value?”
A TV contract that guarantees $25M per year per school added no matter who it is.
“Let WV wither on the vine.”
Not going to happen.
LikeLike
“University of Colorado alumni may live in California, but the reverse isn’t true.
How many California school alumni live in Colorado?”
– Whatever the current number may be, it is one that has been rapidly increasing over the past decade & is projected to keep growing. California has become an exporter of citizens & Colorado is one of the prime destinations.
LikeLike
@Scarlet_Lutefisk – This is true as a general matter. There’s a lot of flow between Colorado and California in general. In the past year, Colorado took in more former California residents than any other state (while Texas was #2). On the flip side, Texas was the #1 draw for former Colorado residents, while California was #2. Overall, California had the second highest net loss of population to Colorado (with Big Ten center Illinois being #1). Demographically, the state of Colorado is much more West Coast-looking than it was when the Big 12 was initially formed in the 1990s. (I’d say the same about Utah and Arizona, as well.)
LikeLike
In the 70s the Coloradans hated Texans for buying up the farms & ranches and the ski resort properties and driving up prices Now they hate the Californians.
And I understand the Kansans hate the Coloradans for doing the same to Kansas as they escape high prices in Colorado.
LikeLike
Have you ever been to Colorado? I’ve spent significant time and Colorado St is like MAC school in support. Doesn’t ever register. Much of population growth in Colorado is Hispanics who have not grown to love CSU. Plus Colorado is like the Pac 12 states, the folks just aren’t into watching sports except for the Broncos.
LikeLike
The week before the B12 meetings Yoda tweeted source in Belmont said BYU and Cincinnati were in and all would be settled before season start. Now:
Tuxedo Yoda
Tuxedo Yoda – @TuxedoYoda
@J1012Jeff When B12 has press conference on 8/16/16, don’t be surprised to see ADs from UCF & USF sitting with Bowlsby. Big 16 looks likely.
6:07 AM – 29 Jul 2016
2 RETWEETS4 LIKES
Not sure on most tweeters including Yoda, but he did change to pro expansion while it still seemed unlikely primarily because of UT.
LikeLike
To clarify, Yoda still anti expansion. He changed his prediction of what would likely happen.
LikeLike
Since the networks were dumb enough to give them a blanket pro rata deal, going to 16 would be tempting. Doing football-only for some of them would be tempting, too.
UC to pair with WV
UH to keep UT happy
UCF and USF to get into FL
BYU and UConn to fill it out
A – OU, OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU, WV, UC, UCF
B – UT, TT, Baylor, TCU, UH, UConn, BYU, USF
Lock crossover games in the order listed (old Big 8 members get a TX school, old Big East members meet, FL schools meet, BYU/UC is leftover) and play a 7+1+1 schedule.
LikeLike
I will opt for the worst decision
Adds Houston to further fracture the state of Texas and shrink the footprint
Adds BYU to create another island on the opposite side of the conference
a) Pisses off schools in Texas not named Texas
b) Pisses off old Big 8 schools for having to deal with BYU in their division
c) Pisses off West Virginia for keeping them isolated from the rest
In the end, Oklahoma gets nothing they want and leave at earliest convenience
Best option is a PAC move with Oklahoma State
Seems B1G and SEC will not take both
Seems doubtful ACC will take both
While some are saying 14 / 16, if it has taken this long, just getting to 12 may be futile
LikeLike
If that happens, then the P12 can add UCF, USF, UC and UConn. It gives them some Eastern time zone games and a new MBB blue blood to replace UCLA. They also get FL access.
Yes, I’m kidding.
LikeLike
The force is NOT with Yoda. But he is well dressed.
LikeLike
“But he is well dressed.”
It’s really a tuxedo print tee shirt.
LikeLike
Texas politics has always played a huge deal in the Big 12 and in higher education in Texas. I would guess that UH with Tech and UT’s support is a shoe in. I would also guess that Tech and Houston are more than likely to get a nod of tier one status in Texas over North Texas, UTD, UTSA or any other system schools.
LikeLike
I just wish Loki had some political clout for Rice. Shame they did not jump up after the SWC folded and another, less academics school did.
LikeLike
Drop the s on academics, damn I hate when the phone puts words in my communications. Auto fill is the work of the devil.
LikeLike
This time, unlike 1994, its more than just pure power politics. The governor is a Texas grad. The state is trying to push other schools into becoming a top tier university to increase job creating research as well as opportunities for good students to stay in state who can’t get into Texas or A&M. California has something like 9 AAU members and NY something like 7. Texas has 3. They created a matching research fund for these schools. Right now Houston and Texas Tech are the only ones who qualify for it, but UT-Dallas is close. UT-Arlington, UTSA, North Texas, Texas St. and UTEP are also eligible if they can meet the criteria.
So rather than Baylor and Texas Tech grads in influential positions pushing the interest of their university, the governor, who doesn’t have ties to UH, is pushing something he believes serves a state interest. The UH president has said not being P5 limits their possibilities.
LikeLike
Bullet you totally missed the politics involved as many reporters did in 1994, There was only ONE politician that mattered in 94 and it was Bob Bolluck as a Tech undergrad and Baylor law school grad, he made all the decisions along with Deloss Dodds. Bob Bolluck as the Lt Governor had more power and control of the purse strings then Ann Richards, whom he hated. Tech and Baylor were just the best of what was left in the SWC.
This round of realignment and tier one funding UTD & UTA do qualify, but just barely. Tech and UH will almost certainly receive preferred treatment in the future assuming they fall in line with UT. It is important to also note who is on the Texas Board of Higher Education. I have not looked recently but assume that most are appointees of Rick Perry and will have a large amount of negotiations in the matter.
LikeLike
It was more than just Bob Bullock. The speaker of the House (Laney?) was from Tech. In the meeting, Bullock was there along with two others-Montford (Tech) and Sibley (Baylor) who had leadership positions in the Senate. There was just an unprecedented alignment of Baylor and Tech political power at just the right time.
LikeLike
I am a Penn State guy, so I have no dog in this hunt. So keep this in mind.?Frank says think like a University President. Which of the Schools will help grow the Big XII? The Numero Uno School is UCF. If you can get an agreement for USF, Houston and Cincinnati, all the better. But if UT and its surrogate ( Tech, TCU and Baylor) insist on Houston plus one, make it UCF. They are offering growth opportunities plus the State of Florida.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen any source anywhere, suggesting that UCF would be their second choice in a two-school expansion. If university presidents think like that, they are doing an amazingly good job of keeping that opinion to themselves.
LikeLike
I like yoda’s call for BIG XVI! BYU, Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, & Memphis or UConn in that order. BYU and Cincy solid no drop off, UCF & USF growth, Houston for UT and Memphis for Justin as long as Fred throws in $500 mil guarenteed in next 5 years. UConn is only out due to distance.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/07/29/missouri-hank-foley-interim-athletic-director-chancellor-search
MO’s interim chancellor is now also their interim AD after the current interim AD left to become the AD at North Texas. Remember this started just 2 weeks ago when MO’s AD left to take the AD job at Baylor.
LikeLike
With the exception of Hawaii ( and they have Plenty of Asian Campus Cuties to check out ), and New Mexico State is their a worse place to go then North Texas? I would sooner go to Wyoming, UTEP or Marshall then North Texas. Not to mention, Why leave a Power 5 job to go there? Makes no sense.
LikeLike
They lost 1500 students after the BLM disaster last year. They are really hurting financially. Probably not a worse FBS school to be an employee of right now.
LikeLike
I understand that they had the incident related to Ferguson last year, but Missouri > North Texas and even UTEP > North Texas. North Texas is the nadir of College Football ( even worse then SMU, post Death Penalty).
LikeLike
The nadir is worse than not having a paycheck.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnists/chad-leistikow/2016/07/29/leistikow-big-ten-iowa-michigan-ohio-state-jim-harbaugh-predictions/87683378/
A writer predicts the B10 race this year and thinks the crossovers will have more impact than ever in determining the division winners (at least in the West).
I think Michigan is the best team in the Big Ten East, and I think Iowa is best in the West. BUT …
… I’ve got Ohio State, behind Big Ten MVP J.T. Barrett, routing Minnesota — yes, Minnesota — in the league championship game Dec. 3 in Indianapolis.
Huh?
Well, it’s the first year of nine-game conference schedules in a 14-team league. And when each school faces three of the seven teams in the opposite division, not all schedules are created equal. And this year’s Big Ten title chase, in my opinion, is going to be more widely affected by schedules than when there were just two crossovers.
Let’s look at two teams that some think could challenge the West-favored Hawkeyes: Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The Badgers’ three East opponents (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State) were a combined 36-6 last year.
The Gophers’ draw (Maryland, Penn State and Rutgers) was 14-23.
His predictions:
East:
1. OSU 8-1 – lose @MSU but beat MI at home to win the East
2. MI 8-1 – win @MSU but lose @OSU
3. MSU 6-3 – he sees MSU being inconsistent
4. PSU 5-4
5. IN 3-6 (but 6-6 overall)
6. UMD 3-6 (but 6-6 overall) – upsets MSU
7. RU 1-8
West:
1. MN 6-3 – beat IA to win the West
2. IA 6-3
3. NW 5-4
4. NE 5-4
5. IL 4-5 (but 6-6 overall)
6. WI 3-6 – blame the schedule
7. PU 0-9
I’m not saying I agree but it’s good to see people starting to take the schedules into account.
LikeLike
He says the schedules are what will cost the best teams the divisions but he has the division winners beating the best teams and only getting into the title game on H2H tiebreaker. And in Michigan’s case OSU is their only conference loss. Why didn’t he just say home field advantage?
LikeLike
morganwick,
“He says the schedules are what will cost the best teams the divisions but he has the division winners beating the best teams and only getting into the title game on H2H tiebreaker. And in Michigan’s case OSU is their only conference loss. Why didn’t he just say home field advantage?”
I think he really meant that about the West more than the East.
The only reason he thinks MN can get into a tie is because their crossovers are much easier than IA’s or WI’s. And WI only finishes that low due to their crossovers and playing 6 tough games in a row.
LikeLike
Frank, the service academies were my idea and you borrowed it from me…..Boilerbuilder
LikeLike
@Colin Meyer – Great minds must think alike. I honestly had been looking at the service academies for quite awhile.
LikeLike
Thinking like a university president:
I want to add programs that help raise my national awareness, help recruit students and athletes, improve my academic standing.
For WVU Cincinatti will only compete against WVU for students and athlete without raising national awareness or academic. Cincinatti is a bad addition for WVU.
A better addition would be Navy: better national profile, does not compete for same students or athletes, DC metro area more dynamic thus better to raise profile, but doesn’t raise academic profile.
Big xii team #11: Navy (alternative for a WVU travel partner could be Temple)
#12: BYU (best of the non p5)
#13: Air Force (same pros/cons as Navy while serving as travel parter and geographic bridge to BYU)
#14: Tulane ( because neither service academies is about academic and nor is BYU)
LikeLike
I think when the Big East was doomed was when they seriously considered Navy. There was an anonymous quote from a BE president talking about Navy and talked about “class, class, class.” Shortly thereafter, Pitt fled to the ACC. If that was it, Rice would be fought over by every P5. The service academies can’t compete in a P5 conference in the long run and it wouldn’t be good for them or our future officers.
With Air Force there is a mistaken perception that the Big 12 invited them and Air Force turned them down. The Big 12 asked them if they had any interest. Air Force said no. There is a huge difference between being considered and an invitation. There are at least 10 schools being “considered” for the Big 12 now.
LikeLike
neomodernism,
“Thinking like a university president:
I want to add programs that help raise my national awareness, help recruit students and athletes, improve my academic standing.”
Fair enough.
“For WVU Cincinatti will only compete against WVU for students and athlete without raising national awareness or academic. Cincinatti is a bad addition for WVU.”
There isn’t much competition for students. UC is almost 90% OH residents and both UC and WVU have very high acceptance rates so very few are applying to both and then choosing one. UC is a better school than WVU, too. The schools already compete for athletes so that won’t change too much.
The good thing for WVU is that UC provides a drivable road game and chance to build a rivalry.
“A better addition would be Navy: better national profile, does not compete for same students or athletes, DC metro area more dynamic thus better to raise profile, but doesn’t raise academic profile.”
Navy is more known nationally because of the service not the academy, but UC athletics are better and more widely watched than Navy’s.
LikeLike
yes both UC and WVU currently compete for athletes in Ohio, but being a P5 gives WVU some leverage against G5 UC
yes Navy uses its service reputation rather than its athletic reputation to gain national awareness and this is still an advantage over UC; that between a game of WVU v Navy as opposed to WVU vs UC there will be more canal viewers.
especially using a model of targeted and streamed viewers rather than cable bungling
LikeLike
The issue with Navy is rather that conferences are membership clubs, not corporations, and Navy cannot be moved from the AAC to the Big12 by M&A deal between the Big12 and the AAC. Navy has got to accept the invite, and there’s very strong reasons for them not to do so.
LikeLike
neomodernism,
“yes both UC and WVU currently compete for athletes in Ohio, but being a P5 gives WVU some leverage against G5 UC”
Not much leverage, based on their recruiting.
“yes Navy uses its service reputation rather than its athletic reputation to gain national awareness and this is still an advantage over UC; that between a game of WVU v Navy as opposed to WVU vs UC there will be more canal viewers.”
Navy draws a decent audience twice per year – for Army and Notre Dame. Army is the only game that weekend which helps the ratings a lot. ND brings the audience itself and that game only gets about 3M viewers per year (it’s one of the lowest rated game for ND every year).
In other words, everyone is aware we have a Navy but very few people care to watch their football team unless nothing else is on.
LikeLike
As Frank suggested, I think the service academies are very unlikely, by their own choice. They need carefully curated schedules to even have a shot at bowl eligibility. They don’t want to get beat up regularly by the big-time Texas and Oklahoma schools.
LikeLike
in all likelihood Texas and OU won’t be in the same division so each academy would only play UT and OU once.
Navy had previously declared their preference to play in the West of the AAC (vs Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis( (http://footballscoop.com/news/miles-from-the-atlantic-ocean-navy-will-join-the-american-s-west-division/)
being in the Big XII continues to allow them to play in Texas, Oklahoma, maybe even in New Orleans and/or Memphis)
LikeLike
There is, however, a big difference between playing in Texas and playing Big12 sized linemen when you play in Texas. Navy plays against bigger lines than their’s on average in the AAC, but the size difference gets substantially worse in the Big12.
LikeLike
The service academies recently will allow athlete graduates to serve in the reserves to satisfy their obligation. If so theses graduates can go pro as long as they serve that one weekend a month.
With this allowance they will be better able to recruit.
I am skeptical this allowance was to allow them to continue as is against G5s.
LikeLike
Unless they’ve changes their rules, the size issue is because players have to be eligible for military roles in the future. Many of those jobs come with size limits that prevent the academies from having 6’7″ 350lb linemen. Before they graduate they have to match the military’s guidelines for fitness (1.5 miles in 10:30) and appropriate weight for their height. The OL and DL often have to drop 50 pounds to make their limits.
LikeLike
The service academies recently will allow athlete graduates to serve in the reserves to satisfy their obligation. If so theses graduates can go pro as long as they serve that one weekend a month.
With this allowance they will be better able to recruit.
I am skeptical this allowance was to allow them to continue as is against G5s.
I am skeptical that the academies have any ambition whatsoever to compete with the power five. They passed that rule to get some good press when they have the rare, twice-per-decade star, not to start turning out NFL talent at the rate Oklahoma and Texas do.
LikeLike
The military/government don’t make rules for the exceptionals
LikeLike
They just did.
LikeLike
The exception that the service academies just made is for their own benefit (as well as the athletes), which is fine. How often was David Robinson called “the Admiral”? How often was Roger Staubach’s Navy background mentioned? This is great publicity for the Navy and the Naval Academy.
LikeLike
Let’s hear from the Dude:
ESPN/Fox aren’t especially keen on the B12 adding 4. They may add $ to keep it at 12.
…
Adding 4 likely pays the current 10 members more than the ACC will receive for ACCN.
…
Adding 4 also positions the Big 12 to launch a network in the future.
…
My opinion only. ESPN/Fox will pay to limit Big 12 expansion to 12. Keeps the door open to add P12 schools in 2024.
…
If the Big 12 does limit expansion to 12 UC looks to be the odd school out. Assuming Texas really wants UH in the B12 & is willing to deal
…
Industry sources tell me that ESPN/Fox could live with BYU & UH/UC added to the Big 12.
…
An industry expert told me to view candidates differently. If none meet min metrics which ones are closest?
He’s crazy to think the B12 is stealing UCLA or any other P12 school in the future, but I’ll give him credit for this one:
I sat thru the entire speech and Hilary didn’t give her opinion on Big 12 expansion.
LikeLike
@Brian – Heh! The Dude left a nice “non-partisan” Tweet for me about this post:
Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV 8h8 hours ago
@frankthetank111 I’m disappointed in you. Your blog post is both partisan & stupid.
LikeLike
The Dude also went on a bit of rant (although I think that’s his normal state of mind). I had to just had to glaze over the Twitter notifications at a certain point:
https://twitter.com/theDudeofWV/status/759059251859980288?lang=en
LikeLike
@ Frank
The Dude calling you stupid?
One must think the Dude never spends time looking in the mirror.
The Dude brings out the twit in twitter
LikeLike
I’d call it a badge of honor. When has the Dude ever had a clue about expansion?
LikeLike
I posted that on a Texas board and another poster said:
“I can’t imagine any context in which I would care what Hillary says about it, but I definitely don’t want Trump involved, because I have no interest in a yuuuge conference. “
LikeLike
A Big 12 Network will never happen unless it can make Texas more money than the LHN can (even as a football independent) AND the Big Ten and Pac-12 won’t come calling at the next opportunity (or a Big 12 Network can make Texas more money than the Pac-12 Network). Otherwise Texas will leave and there won’t be a Big 12 worth building a network around.
LikeLike
morganwick,
“A Big 12 Network will never happen unless it can make Texas more money than the LHN can (even as a football independent) AND the Big Ten and Pac-12 won’t come calling at the next opportunity (or a Big 12 Network can make Texas more money than the Pac-12 Network). Otherwise Texas will leave and there won’t be a Big 12 worth building a network around.”
I assume he was thinking that a Big 14 could potentially start a 13 team network.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most
Just a reminder of the B12’s preferences last time around:
A source with direct knowledge of the Big 12’s expansion plans told ESPN.com’s Andy Katz that Missouri’s indecision has put the expansion committee and the conference in a tough position as it waits to see how many teams it will seek to add to the conference.
…
There were a number of top candidates, the source said, including BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, TCU and previously unmentioned Tulane, of Conference USA. The source said the Big 12 has been contacted by a number of other schools about possible inclusion, as well.
…
The source said that Tulane would become a viable option for the Big 12 if it were to grab four schools to beef up the membership to 12, in a situation where BYU decides it doesn’t want to leave its football independence or its new tie to the WCC in all other sports. Tulane is interesting to the Big 12 because of its location in New Orleans and in a state, Louisiana, where the Big 12 is absent, as well as the school’s renewed commitment to sports and facilities after Hurricane Katrina.
A source with knowledge of Tulane’s situation told ESPN.com that the Green Wave have privately been making overtures to the Big East and Big 12 about possible membership but didn’t want to upset Conference USA as that league looks to form a partnership with the Mountain West.
LikeLike
If both Houston and Tulane make it I may just quit watching college football.
LikeLike
I tell you, a Texas version of Stanford might be attractive to PAC CEO’s. Talk to OU next time the Sooners look toward the exit.
LikeLike
If the little bros can be ditched, UT, OU, KU and Rice make a lot of sense for PAC-16.
LikeLike
It makes zero sense if you are Kansas. If I am KU I want the B10 where my road games will not start @ 9:00 local time on the miserable Pac-12 Network with ( so far no Direct TV) carriage, from places like Pullman, Washington ( at least Purdue is 12:00PM on BTN).
LikeLike
It makes sense for Kansas if your two options are joining a Pac-16 with Texas & Oklahoma or being stuck in a Big 12 with leftover and mid-majors.
LikeLike
Connecticut to the Big 12 is not the best fit but why not? The Huskies already play in a league where the closest rival is 200 miles away. They bring the New York market despite the naysayers here. UConn vs MSU in the elite 8, won by UConn on the way to another National Championship, was a home game in MSG. SNY holds the rights to the Men’s and Women’s (11 National Championships) as well as football. Did I mention to you who say the Huskies don’t have a hold on New York City that SNY is Sportsnet New York? The football team is down but all of the teams HAVE NOT played in a BCS game. UConn has. By the way, didn’t Robert Griffin III not say that playing at Rentschler Field was the loudest place he’s ever played? Yes he did.
LikeLike
As long as UConn bball is top notch, it will be noticed in NYC. In the same way that Villanova is noticed, or Georgetown would be noticed. Big East basketball is a big deal in NY. MSG is ground zero for the Big East, and the Garden is a really big deal for all of college basketball.
That is why UConn would be perfect back in the Big East.
I am not sure what your first two sentences have to do with the Big 12. Obviously UConn will jump at an invite to any P5.
Perhaps the Big 12 will add 4 teams and UConn will be one of them. Then we will see whether the Big 12 moves the needle at all in NY.
LikeLike
I could see the Big East being conservative in expansion (e.g. not offering to SLU, Dayton, Richmond etc) on the chance that Syracuse, BC, and Wake do not survive a consolidation of the P5 to the P4/3. I’m turn those schools may drop their football altogether or to the same level as Villanova, Grown etc.
LikeLike
I think they should just take Dayton and SLU and further separate themselves from the A10. The A10 mostly overlaps their region.
LikeLike
whalerfan,
“They bring the New York market despite the naysayers here.”
According to what data? Only 11% of NYC are CFB fans at all, and of those UConn is 4th (around 5% market share) well behind #1 RU (about 20% market share). UConn MBB and WBB do really well for college sports, but hoops doesn’t drive P5 expansion.
“UConn vs MSU in the elite 8, won by UConn on the way to another National Championship, was a home game in MSG.”
UConn is 500 miles closer to MSG and has many more alumni in the area. Of course it felt like a home game for them. That doesn’t prove that they bring the market. NYC loves winners, not UConn in general.
“SNY holds the rights to the Men’s and Women’s (11 National Championships) as well as football. Did I mention to you who say the Huskies don’t have a hold on New York City that SNY is Sportsnet New York?”
SNY had a deal with RU years before they signed the deal with UConn. But RU has upgraded their game coverage to BTN from SNY although SNY still has lots of RU coverage.
“The football team is down but all of the teams HAVE NOT played in a BCS game. UConn has.”
And they were roundly criticized as by far the worst team ever to make a BCS game. They tied for the 2010 BE title at 8-4 and got crushed in their bowl.
BCS/NY6 games:
Boise – 3
UC – 2
UConn, UCF – 1
Major bowls from before the BCS (NY6 minus Peach):
UH – 4
Navy – 3
Tulane – 2
UConn has been ranked in the AP poll only 6 times. Ever. And never in the final poll. Lots of other expansion candidates have done much better.
LikeLike
@frank
I don’t know what Detroit is like since they renovated, but that made LAX look like a palace by comparison. Albany, GA had a better airport than Detroit. I’ve been in most of the major airports and none were anywhere as close to as bad as Detroit.
But yes, I was sitting on a rental car bus this summer for 30-45 minutes trying to get the last few hundred yards to the LAX terminal. We finally got off early, walked and did make it to the restroom and the plane on time!
LikeLike
Detroit (DTW) opened two brand new airport terminals in the last 5-10 years. I fly out of there monthly and it’s very nice. You must have been in a different Detroit.
LikeLike
“since they renovated”
LikeLike
I never flew out of Detroit before they renovated, but it was my connection airport for my flights to/from Beijing in my first semester teaching there, and after the renovation, it’s quite nice. With O’Hare, Newark and DTW to choose from this coming year, I’d be picking DTW even at a small price penalty.
LikeLike
As a Big 12 fan and a Missouri fan I would love to see Mizzou return but that will not happen. So my realistic dream for the Big 12 is to become the Big 16. I propose they add BYU, Colorado St., Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and Tulane. With this addition I propose pods of the following:
West North South East
BYU TCU Texas Houston
Baylor Kansas St. Oklahoma St. Tulane
Colorado St. Memphis Texas Tech Cincinnati
Iowa St. Kansas Oklahoma West Virginia
In Odd years the West division would be the North and West and Even years South and West.
In Odd years the East division would be the South and East and Even years North and East.
West rotates 2 games from the East and the North rotates 2 games from the South.
Another thing to help the growth of the conference is that I would make every team play a Conference Game at a Neutral Site. Giving the schedule a 4/4 home and away split.
I would also start rotating my Conference Championship game to multiple neutral sites not just Jerry World and Arrowhead Stadium.
LikeLike
you must be voting for Trump too (no offense)
LikeLike
Frank,
I noticed 3 MWC contenders did not make the cut on your most recent list (SDSU, UNLV, New Mex). I assume the geography of SDSU is too much of an issue – although if paired with BYU, it actually seems like it makes as much sense as the Florida schools.
If UNLV had a better stadium and could field a decent team I am sure they might merit more consideration too.
The other one no one is mentioning though is New Mexico. I can’t see a huge difference between them and CSU. UNM has good academics and is good in many other sports. It is closer to TT and the other big 12 schools. Their football team was above average and beating power 5 teams a fair amount until the hired Locksley as HC in 2009. The Davie switch took time to rebuild but they nearly made the champ game in MWC last year. So their team is roughly back on par w/ CSU now.
CSU promotes the ‘Denver’ market but realistically it’s an NFL town and the fact it took so long to build a new stadium due to the locals in FT. Collins fighting, shows the support for CSU is not overwhelming. Furthermore, w/o conference network implications, seems like “owning 2mil in Albuquerque and really the whole state, might trumps mild support in larger pro sport city.
Likewise CSU stadium will hold 41k max. UNM when it was better in mid 2000’s could put 43k in it’s stadium. Neither is recruiting hot bed but not devoid of talent.
I would like to see as many MWC teams as possible slide over to Big12 but I just don’t comprehend why CSU is getting so many mentions and New Mexico hasn’t had a single mention.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Tim,
“I noticed 3 MWC contenders did not make the cut on your most recent list (SDSU, UNLV, New Mex). I assume the geography of SDSU is too much of an issue – although if paired with BYU, it actually seems like it makes as much sense as the Florida schools.”
He supported SDSU last time but there has been literally no talk about SDSU as a candidate. I think the B12 prefers to go east rather than west for the better time slots and population.
“If UNLV had a better stadium and could field a decent team I am sure they might merit more consideration too.”
The stadium is in the works but they’ll have to prove they can succeed on the field. They’ve been terrible for decades.
“The other one no one is mentioning though is New Mexico. I can’t see a huge difference between them and CSU. UNM has good academics and is good in many other sports. It is closer to TT and the other big 12 schools. Their football team was above average and beating power 5 teams a fair amount until the hired Locksley as HC in 2009. The Davie switch took time to rebuild but they nearly made the champ game in MWC last year. So their team is roughly back on par w/ CSU now.”
UNM has potential but has to prove they can have CFB success. But again, the B12 doesn’t seem to want to go westward. They already have 1 Eastern time zone school and growing into the Mountain time zone causes problems. BYU is fighting that issue, too.
“I would like to see as many MWC teams as possible slide over to Big12 but I just don’t comprehend why CSU is getting so many mentions and New Mexico hasn’t had a single mention.
Any thoughts?”
CO used to be a B12 member, so CSU would be riding their coattails. The B12 is familiar in Colorado while NM may be more used to the P12.
LikeLike
MWC commissioner said 2 of their schools were being considered. Those two are almost certainly Colorado St. and Boise St.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
(I have no real investment here, but, for the fun of it ….)
BXII: I say THINK BIG, THINK HUGE !!!!
Add SIX and go PODS.
So, both Florida schools, Cincy, Memphis (sorry UConn — you lose !), Houston and CSU (sorry BYU, you lose !). Pod it out. (I’ve never been a fan of pods, but for the fun of it ….)
Pod East = 2 Floridas, Cincy and WVir
Pod North = Kansas, KState, IState and CSU
Pod Middle (or Pod River) = Memphis, Houston, OK and OkieSt
Pod South = UT, TT, Baylor and TCU
they already play 9 games. So, pods rotate creating 8 team divisions: play 7 in-division and two cross-overs. You’ll play every team at least once every three years.
Lots of inventory.
Treat the new six teams like legally beatable bastard step children. reduced $$$ and voting rights for, like, 8 years. They will agree to it; they are desperate. Cinny has already said it will take less money at the beginning.
Advantages: BXII has basically 8 years or so before the GOR expires. That’s 8 years to build some interest and fan loyalty to these new schools. With more money (even if lots less then OK and UT get), the new schools can improve their on-field football product. With new name-brand teams to play (occasionally), they can get better recruits. Playing in places like TX and FL and OH will help with recruiting.
As noted: lots of inventory.
Also an improved BBall product.
Further, with 16 schools, if UT and OK leave, the remaining 14 have a much better chance of remaining a P5 conference (particularly if they can use the next 8 years to put a better football product on the field).
If you are the President of not-UT and not-OK, my guess is you are looking past this expansion to the day when UT and OK leave. (maybe they won’t, but you have to plan as if they are going to leave.) As such, Houston is actually a good addition since, in some small to medium way, Houston “fills the hole” (marketwise) that is going to be left when UT leaves.
CSU is closer, less hassle, better market, easier to get; thus, CSU gets the nod.
LikeLike
That setup would mean that the current non-Texas members (Oklahoma, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU) would stop playing in Texas regularly. I doubt that would go over well.
LikeLike
well, the pods rotate, so I guess there is one year out of three where the North and East pods are not linked to a pod with TX teams.
I suppose you could spread the Texas teams out more. Put TT, Baylor and the Okies in one pod, leaving UH, UT, and TCU in pod with Memphis.
There are still two cross-over games to schedule. It could be worked out to have a least one texas team every year. details details. grin.
LikeLike
That setup would mean that the current non-Texas members (Oklahoma, OKST, KU, KSU, ISU) would stop playing in Texas regularly. I doubt that would go over well.
Also, if I am understanding the proposal, Texas/Oklahoma wouldn’t be locked every year. There’s no way the league would allow its most valuable game to ever rotate off the schedule.
LikeLike
Marc, I didn’t even notice that. Excellent point.
LikeLike
It is very very very very likely that the BXII GOR will be extended (like the ACC extended its GOR).
If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that ESPiN and FOX will ask the BXII to extend its GOR. And it is reasonable to assume that the BXII will add at least 10 years to its GOR.
LikeLike
Don’t think so, as long as the expansion exists within the pro rata of the existing contract. No reason to – nothing gained by it for OU or UT.
LikeLike
not about UT and OK; it’s about the networks. ESPiN and FOX say: “sure, we’ll give more money, but we see risk that BXII implodes in 8 years. “we need security; we need to know our investment in your league will not be wasted; we have shareholders to consider; you have obligations to your stake-holders…” “if you aren’t going to leave the BXII, why not extend the GOR?” “Oh, so you ARE leaving? and our investment IS at risk?” “No, well then what’s the problem with extending the GOR?” “We’ll give more $$ (or won’t fight about what the contract requires [or whatever]) if you extend the GOR.”
Eventually GOR is extended in exchange for more $$ for everyone.
And the contact can be fought. Clever lawyers can come up with a whole list of reasons why ESPiN and FOX should not be compelled to pay $30M a year to Cincy or CSU or BYU or UCF.
LikeLike
No.
No negotiation necessary. B12 expands and ESPN/fox owe the conference 25M more per school.
Only way GOR gets revisited is if whole contract is redone. Is the B12 with the new G5 members going to claim significantly more worth immediately? If no, why would ESPN/fox offer, and why would conference extend GOR losing future leverage?
LikeLike
I will defer to all your ‘clever lawyers’ on here, but without a Big 12 network, there isn’t any investment. ESPN and FOX are paying for the right to televise ‘X’ number of football and basketball games each year. I think everyone not named OU or UT would love a GOR extension, but they won’t get it because OU and UT don’t want it and won’t give it. They have future options that the others don’t have.
A separate question that I don’t believe has been addressed; why doesn’t the Big 12 tell ESPN and FOX ‘we will amend the contract eliminating the pro-rata increase of $25M per school/per year if you will pay us ‘X’ amount of money to not add any of these largely non-accretive universities?’ All of them will be available in 2025 when the current contract expires.
LikeLike
1. You know they haven’t?
2. Might the response be: only with extending contract and GOR?
LikeLike
@cc
1. I would think there would be something, somewhere addressing this possibility-on a blog, twitter, ESPN, etc. It would seem the clause was inserted for the possibility of adding Florida State/Clemson/GT/?, and not for the purpose of adding w/x/y/z(insert your personal favorites). As has been pointed out, many times, when there is no consensus #11 who is accretive, why go to 12 or 14? Obviously, by shorting the new members, the short term additional money for the current 10 is a reason to expand. But, if they can come close to that money without expanding, why expand?
LikeLike
largeR,
“1. I would think there would be something, somewhere addressing this possibility-on a blog, twitter, ESPN, etc. It would seem the clause was inserted for the possibility of adding Florida State/Clemson/GT/?, and not for the purpose of adding w/x/y/z(insert your personal favorites). As has been pointed out, many times, when there is no consensus #11 who is accretive, why go to 12 or 14? Obviously, by shorting the new members, the short term additional money for the current 10 is a reason to expand. But, if they can come close to that money without expanding, why expand?”
There can’t be any sort of in depth discussion of it because ESPN/Fox can’t respond until they see the potential candidates and evaluate whether it’s better to pay for them or pay to not have them. They need to see the group of 2 or 4 to be able to analyze them as a group. For example, UCF by itself has a different value than UCF with USF. Besides, this sudden urge to expand probably caught the networks a little off guard. They need to crunch a lot of numbers to determine how much value not adding any team has.
Also, they run a risk if they try to buy their way out of the clause. ESPN has been accused of trying to control expansion before. If they were caught buying out of that clause rather than promoting certain schools to P5 status there could be serious issues. After all, they knowingly left it non-specific before. They could’ve provided some restrictions at the time (other P5 members, certain specific criteria, etc) but didn’t.
LikeLike
Brian,
I agree. ESPN/Fox could have legal issues and certainly would have major political ones if they bought the Big 12 out of any expansion.
LikeLike
“…and certainly would have major political ones if they bought the Big 12 out of any expansion.”
Really? Haven’t they done that through a proxy already?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Really? Haven’t they done that through a proxy already?”
No, they started a business venture that had the side effect of interrupting expansion. This would be a blatant cash for not adding certain teams to P5 deal. Even the government might look into that.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“not about UT and OK”
Actually it is. The TV networks have to fulfill their contractual obligations so they have no leverage. Extending the GOR requires a unanimous vote, so UT and OU can say no if they want. Fox/ESPN can buy their votes, but that’s a huge gamble. All schools will expect equal pay in the next TV deal, so continuing to pay UT and OU more means paying 10-12 other schools more too. Wouldn’t you prefer to have some idea of what they’re worth before agreeing to pay $30M+ per year to all of them for a decade ($3B+ over a decade)?
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“It is very very very very likely that the BXII GOR will be extended (like the ACC extended its GOR).”
That’s not what I’ve read. UT and OU are not interested in extending the GOR according to rumors/sources.
“If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that ESPiN and FOX will ask the BXII to extend its GOR. And it is reasonable to assume that the BXII will add at least 10 years to its GOR.”
Why should they extend their GOR when the deal requires Fox/ESPN to pay through 2024-25? Is the TV deal also getting extended the extra 10 years?
I’d think both sides would want a few years with the new members in the B12 to evaluate their worth for the next TV deal. Agreeing to 10 extra years based on pure guesses about their value is bad business. I’d look for Fox/ESPN to come to the B12 in 2022 or so and ask them to extend the GOR and Tv deal then.
LikeLike
If I understand correctly, ESPiN agreed to create the ACC Network, but as part of the deal, ESPiN asked the ACC to extend its GOR. And, iirc, an extra 10 years was added.
A new network has up-front costs, and loses money initially. ESPN doesn’t want to make that investment, if it’ll be worthless in a few years. The network was the “carrot”, that made the “stick” of 10 more GOR years worthwhile to the ACC schools. You don’t give up “something” (your rights) for “nothing”.
The B12 has an existing contract that requires a pro-rata increase for every school added. The B12 doesn’t need to sign anything to get the benefit of that increase. To get another decade on the GOR, the networks would need to offer something very substantial. No one seems to think it’ll be a network, which would practically be doomed to fail without the league’s most valuable athletic program, Texas.
What could ESPN and/or FOX offer that would induce the schools to relinquish their rights for another decade? I am drawing a blank.
LikeLike
Interesting podcast with Iowa St. AD. Expansion talk starts about 9 minutes in.
He really doesn’t want expansion without a GOR extension. Mentions that a lot of ADs are really in the dark on these sorts of issues.
Worth noting that Chuck Neinas said all the Big 12 ADs were against expansion at a time when Boren indicated the presidents were split about 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 on the fence.
http://cyclonefanatic.com/podcasts/off-the-record-podcast-w-cw-jamie-pollard/
LikeLike
Pollard is a fine AD (he’d be my choice to succeed Anderson at Maryland), and the GOR extension is critical for ISU, just as the ACC GOR extension was critical for Wake and BC.
LikeLike
And to tie in with discussion above, at one point he talks about academics. Then he says (not an exact quote), “but what really matters is money.”
LikeLike
OK I am a KSU homer, but not sure why KU gets mentioned as third most likely to get plucked after UT and OU???? KSU has the third most wins in football of league teams since the league formed in 1996. KSU enrollment has grown around 8k more per year to 25k same as KU. There is a lot of passion and much more TV veiwers for KSU than KU in football. Really see the other 8 current schools besides UT and OU as very similar in value. Anyone strongly disagree and why if so.
LikeLike
Because Kansas is a basketball king, the state flagship university & an AAU member.
Before Bill Snyder KSU was among the absolute football programs in Div 1.
LikeLike
AAU.
Basketball all time royalty.
LikeLike
Wildcat, I have no opinion as to whether KSU really has the same value as KU. Having said that, we all know that KU is one of a very few schools that get value through basketball. And academics. For the two leagues that might want Kansas, the B1G and maybe the P12, that AAU membership is really a big deal.
I also cannot see the SEC going to KSU. The SEC does not need anyone and certainly would only take schools with obvious value to the league.
Bluntly, the B1G will not take a school that is not AAU, with the possible exception of schools like OU or FSU (or of course, ND). That leaves a real problem for KSU, without regard to its other merits.
KSU might have lots to offer, but there is no where to go.
LikeLike
KSU hasn’t shown that it’s anything more than Iowa State without Snyder.
LikeLike
Wildcat Jeff,
“OK I am a KSU homer, but not sure why KU gets mentioned as third most likely to get plucked after UT and OU????”
Because it’s a MBB king like UT and OU are in CFB. Also it’s a state flagship and AAU member so the presidents like it’s academics. KU has almost 4 times the endowment of KSU and is a considerably better school by reputation and rankings.
“KSU has the third most wins in football of league teams since the league formed in 1996.”
KSU has been terrible essentially every year since the Depression that Bill Snyder wasn’t coaching. Even he will have to retire soon. Can anyone else make that program successful? Most people doubt it. Also, frankly, Snyder’s extreme use of JUCO players hurts the reputation of KSU as a program and as a school.
“KSU enrollment has grown around 8k more per year to 25k same as KU.”
KU still has a lot more alumni, though.
“There is a lot of passion and much more TV veiwers for KSU than KU in football.”
Only masochists voluntarily watch KU football. How many watch KSU when they’re bad? We know KU hoops will be good and bring viewers. Even in their best years, KSU doesn’t draw a large national audience.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
I looked at audiences in 2014 and 2015. KSU only topped 1M viewers against ranked teams or UT. Those were also the only games KSU had on major networks (ABC, Fox, ESPN). If KSU was a draw they’d get more national exposure.
I don’t dispute they outdraw KU though.
“Really see the other 8 current schools besides UT and OU as very similar in value. Anyone strongly disagree and why if so.”
As I said, KU is a MBB king with a national following. And for B10 consideration, KU and ISU are the only others acceptable academically although the B10 has zero interest in ISU.
If you look at value to P5 conferences, only those 3 have any. If you consider value to G5 conferences, then you could differentiate the other 7. Unfortunately for you, KSU would probably be 9th or 10th (possibly ahead of only ISU). TT, TCU and Baylor at least provide TX access. OkSU is viewed as more successful and is somewhat close to TX plus OK is bigger than KS. WV has a history of success and fans just as rabid as anyone’s. KSU and ISU are little brothers in small states. ISU has strong academics while KSU has some recent CFB success, so it depends on what they want.
LikeLike
If it’s expansion to 12 — Houston (Texas politics) and Cincinnati (to give WVU a neighbor).
If it’s expansion to 14 — Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Memphis. Connecticut gets it only if ESPN strong-arms the Big 12.
LikeLike
Memphis: 3rd-best school in Tennessee (at best); commuter school; mediocre academics; no history of sustained success in football.
If it gets a bid, it’s a pure recruiting play plus FedEx dollars, and I don’t think that’s how a university president thinks.
LikeLike
Geography might play a factor — somehwat in-between the Cinci/WVU eastern flank and the Okla/Tex southern half of the Big 12. In that vein, I’d probably go with Tulane if it had FedEx $$$.
LikeLike
“If it gets a bid, it’s a pure recruiting play plus FedEx dollars, and I don’t think that’s how a university president thinks.”
And no actual guarantee of FedEx dollars. It seems like the FedEx dollars line has been used before, without the FedEx dollars actually materializing.
LikeLike
Its also a bet on the future. Memphis has always supported football well-USFL, WFL. Memphis had a period of football mediocrity from 2003-2005 (usually they are just bad) and averaged nearly 40,000 fans every year. They averaged 43,802 last year. If they get admitted, it will be based on a belief that membership in the Big 12 will enable them to fill their stadium and that fan support will enable sustained success. Its a bet on Memphis becoming the next Louisville.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/texas-a-m-assistants-suspended-for-degrading-comments-in-presentation-to-women/
TAMU had to suspend 2 assistant coaches for providing a sexist presentation for the women’s football clinic the school runs every year.
Head coach Kevin Sumlin apologized for not reviewing their slides in advance.
“There is absolutely no place in our program or in our University community for inappropriate conduct or degrading comments towards women, or anyone, regardless of intent,” Sumlin said in the statement, adding he was “unaware” of the contents of the presentation.
“We want to sincerely apologize to the passionate Aggie fans and to women everywhere for our failed attempt at humor during this week’s Aggie Football Chalk Talk and fundraiser,” another statement from Banks and Turner read. “We clearly understand now that our comments and slides were not appropriate or consistent with the values of our football program or our Department. We must do better, and we will.”
LikeLike
You just wonder how anybody can think that is appropriate to show to women. Maybe they put it together while drinking with a bunch of male friends.
Although people are a lot coarser and more open about sexual matters than they used to be.
LikeLike
BYU
Cincinnati
Colorado State
Houston
LikeLike
Some numbers on the candidates-the number of times ranked in the AP Poll and the number of times in the final top 10. Below the candidates are the Big 12 schools. One more school for comparison-Miami (Ohio) 42 weeks in poll and 2 times in final top 10.
School weeks in poll times in final top 10
BYU 242 —- 3
Houston 184 —- 7
Boise 127 —- 4
Tulane 59 —- 2
Colorado St. 43 —- –
Cincinnati 41 —- 1
USF 26 —- –
UCF 11 —- –
Uconn 6 —- –
Memphis 6 —- –
Oklahoma 783 —- 39
Texas 702 —- 26
West Virginia 272 —- 6
TCU 220 —- 9
Ok. State 212 —- 3
Kansas St. 208 —- 6
Baylor 189 —- 2
Texas Tech 139 —- –
Kansas 109 —- 3
Iowa St. 40 —- –
LikeLike
Is that list all time? Last 10 years or so would make more sense. Miami OH hasn’t been ranking in a very, very. very long time
LikeLike
That’s all time. I don’t think a 10 year cycle makes much sense. Look at OU during the 90s or Alabama in the 10 years before Saban. Certainly more recent results matter more. Miami was top 10 with Ben R. as QB in 2003.
All time demonstrates what a school is capable of. And the fact that Miami is still ahead of Cincinnati (who is ahead of UConn, USF, UCF and Memphis) even though Cincinnati spent 10 years in a BCS conference tells you that Cincinnati really hasn’t done that well in football. I think people significantly overvalue them, although programs can fundamentally change as Florida and FSU have in one direction and Minnesota and Pitt in the opposite.
Houston gets underrated. If you exclude Boise (who really has no chance), Houston has more top 10 finishes than all the other candidates combined and more than all the Big 12 schools except UT, OU and TCU.
LikeLike
How does anything before 2000 or even 2005 matter today? In 10 more years there is a strong chance that the G-5 might transition FCS. The resources spent on MAC football don’t make sense today, and they will seem really odd in 10 more years.
LikeLike
“How does anything before 2000 or even 2005 matter today?”
How do you not think history isn’t important and informative? What is the best predictor of future performance? History.
LikeLike
Mark, compared to other college sports, football moves glacially. The roster sizes and equipment costs make it so. There are no football overnight-success equivalents of George Mason, Virginia Commonwealth or Florida Gulf Coast.
LikeLike
Guess the Big 10 should just kick out Michigan and Penn St. then. Its been about 10 years since either has done anything. Alabama the 10 years before Nick Saban didn’t look much better. I can show you similar 10 year periods for USC, Texas, OU and Ohio St. as well. Notre Dame had about a 20 year period of mediocrity before they made the BCS title game vs. FSU. They were still the most valuable property in college football (or at least 2nd).
LikeLike
Yes, Penn State should have been kicked out of the Big 10, but that is for moral failure that continues today. I think Michigan makes a ton of money for the other schools, so I doubt they will be kicked out. I strong disagree that past performance is the best predictor of future results. I guess Chicago, Tulane, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Minnesota, St Mary’s etc etc are due for this season.
I believe the amount of money spent on the coach and facilities, along with school location, is actually the best predictor of future success. Much better than past performance.
LikeLike
If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.”
Absolutely no way. The little guys would demand every penny they’re due under the TV deal. That’s 8 years at $25-30M each for 7-8 schools ($1.5B or more). The networks would only pay a small portion of that if OU and UT leave, leaving those 2 on the hook for the difference. Nobody can afford that kind of buyout. If it folds, it will be when the GOR ends. Maybe 1-2 years early at most.
LikeLike
@Brian, The little guys would get every penny no matter what through the end of the current Big 12 contract. Any new adds are done pro-rata based on the existing contract. if UT and OK left tomorrow for another conference the total pie is virtually the same. In the long-run (after 2025) the television partners would not pay the little guys at the same rate
LikeLike
Kevin,
“The little guys would get every penny no matter what through the end of the current Big 12 contract.”
Agreed, but for a different reason.
“Any new adds are done pro-rata based on the existing contract.”
New adds, yes. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a composition clause allowing the networks to renegotiate if current members leave. Only idiots wouldn’t include that clause for the B12 to protect against UT and/or OU leaving.
“if UT and OK left tomorrow for another conference the total pie is virtually the same.”
I highly doubt the networks would pay that total pie. That’s the issue. UT/OU or their new home(s) would have to cover the difference.
“In the long-run (after 2025) the television partners would not pay the little guys at the same rate”
Yes, and there’s nothing they can do about that.
LikeLike
If GOR isn’t extended with expansion I wonder if the conference begins to fold quickly. Not sure they would have the votes to fold but commitment would be nonexistent.
No school has ever tried to skip out on a GOR. There’s a first time for everything, but it’s probably harder than most people think, and to my knowledge, no school has ever even seriously considered it.
There will be no GOR extension without substantial consideration: otherwise, why would schools like Texas and Oklahoma lock up their rights for any longer than they have to? Jamie Pollard can rattle his saber all he wants, but ultimately he’s in a position of weakness. The league will exist as a power conference if Texas and Oklahoma want it to; Iowa State has no say in the matter.
If the GOR stays as-is, then you could expect Texas and Oklahoma to start seriously looking at their options in the early 2020s—which doesn’t mean they will leave. After all, Texas basically killed the Pac-16 when it decided that keeping the Longhorn Network was more important to them. Five years from now, they may value it less; or, conferences wooing the Longhorns may decide that the network is less of an impediment than it was before.
LikeLike
“…when it decided that keeping the Longhorn Network was more important to them.”
…when it decided that keeping the rights than enabled the future Longhorn Network was more important to them.
There, fixed that for ya (before bullet notes the time line).
LikeLike
In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.
LikeLike
In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.
It’s true that BYU does not help much with recruiting, but university presidents aren’t one-dimensional. If you make a list of, say, the 10 factors that matter to university presidents, BYU scores higher in most dimensions, than most of the realistically available candidates.
If you choose a school as a pure recruiting play, you’ve got to be really sure it will deliver. Tennessee, for example, is a middling state, in terms of the number of FBS football players produced. Their best players are generally going to get snapped up by the University of Tennessee and schools in neighboring SEC states.
How many star Tennessee players are you going to peel away per year, who wouldn’t have otherwise chosen the Big 12? And how much is that worth it to you, when Memphis otherwise brings very little to the table, in terms of academics, brand value, or historical competitiveness in football?
Similar questions have to be asked about Tulane, although Tulane is far better in academics, and Louisiana is a far better state for recruiting, than Tennessee. However, I have not seen many lists that have Tulane as a candidate, so apparently those factors, without more, aren’t enough.
Cincinnati certainly benefits from being in a recruiting-rich state, but as Frank has explained, the Bearcats help the B12 in multiple ways. They aren’t on the list only so that the B12 can recruit Ohio.
LikeLike
I don’t think anybody who gets added changes any school’s recruiting philosophy. Right now Iowa St. and WVU recruit Florida. Nobody else does much there. Adding UCF and USF isn’t going to change that. Now it could help (or hurt) WVU and ISU. Adding Cincinnati could help (or hurt) the schools that already recruit Ohio. Tulane might make some positive difference because Big 12 schools are close to Louisiana and already recruit there. But as is often mentioned with Houston, its possible that an addition can dilute recruiting.
LikeLike
DH,
“In terms of expanding recruiting for the existing B-12 members, if you add Houston you will need Ohio, Tennessee, and Louisiana. BYU doesn’t help much in that area.”
They have Texas. They don’t really need to add any other recruiting grounds. They can already get a few people from the other top states to fill the holes. It’s not like UC, Memphis and Tulane will get them the top players in OH, TN or LA. OSU, UofTN and LSU will always dominate in those states.
LikeLike
If they add 4, should the Big XII do an hour-long New Member Selection Show where the new teams are unveiled one by one (highest score/most votes to lowest)?
LikeLike
Can they sit at a table with a dozen team baseball caps in front of Bowlsby and the three members of the composition committee?
LikeLike
No. That’s ridiculous.
They would use football helmets, not baseball caps.
Our ten finalists are:
Pull out a trunk filled with helmets and one at a time, line up helmets for Boise St., BYU, Colorado St., Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, UConn, USF and UCF.
LikeLike
Would be amusing watching Gee put a helmet on. I see dashboard bobble head dolls being sold in the student store of the invited school who’s helmet he selected.
LikeLike
Don’t forget to pick up a helmet of a team not to be invited and pretend to put it on before setting it back down. That way you can utterly destroy their fan base!
LikeLike
After PriceWaterhouseCoopers brings in a box with the bobble heads, Bowlsby calls out:
And our most congenial prize, who will receive a 4 game home and home football series with Iowa St. and a 4 game home and home basketball series with Texas Tech is (pulls out Tulane bobblehead).
Our 4th runnerup, who will receive a 2 game home and home football series with Iowa St. and a 2 game home and home basketball series with Texas Tech is (pulls out Memphis booblehead).
….
LikeLike
Maybe go full Lee Corso and use mascot heads?
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“If they add 4, should the Big XII do an hour-long New Member Selection Show where the new teams are unveiled one by one (highest score/most votes to lowest)?”
First I think they need to make a list of demeaning challenges that they make the president of each school go through to “earn” their spot in the B12. It’d be great reality TV.
Then stage a debate where all the presidents are on stage and a moderator spends an hour questioning them. It’d be like the Republican debates with 10 people fighting for air time.
Finally have the B12 presidents retire to a “war room” where they deliberate while a bunch of analysts crunch the metrics on athletics, academics, TV ratings, etc for about half an hour.
After that, you’re ready to do a reveal show with live cameras on each campus to show students celebrating if their schools makes it or crying if they don’t. Have Bowlsby come on and defend the presidents’s choices afterwards, preferably with a live Q&A session with fans to wrap it up.
LikeLike
that would be better fill of a network’s time than failed pilots
LikeLike
I have a question about site loading time. I frequently find that the rest of the page seems to have loaded quickly, and there’s a noticeably long wait for the two “bots” that show Frank’s Facebook and Twitter feeds at the upper left-hand corner.
Does anyone else experience this, and can anything be done to speed it up?
LikeLike
Iowa State’s stance going forward seems fairly simple: Do whatever it takes to keep the Big 12 stable.
“If any institution would compel the current 10 members of the Big 12 to unanimously extend its grant of rights, then I would support that institution being a member of the Big 12,” Pollard said. “If they are not an institution that would compel everybody to extend their grant of rights, then Iowa State is not going to vote yes for that member.”
http://cyclonefanatic.com/2016/07/williams-pollard-candid-on-big-12-expansion/
LikeLike
Smoothie King II,
“Iowa State’s stance going forward seems fairly simple: Do whatever it takes to keep the Big 12 stable.”
Are they willing to go back to vastly unequal pay to keep UT and OU happy?
“What I know is that the 10 members of the Big 12 are not going to vote to extend their grant of rights unless the institutions or the television deal or both are something that is unanimous amongst the institutions,” Pollard said. “The grant of rights extension is only going to happen among the 10 current members if those numbers are so substantial that you want to stay that I am committed to the Big 12 for more than the next six years. That can happen in multiple ways.”
…
However the ACC’s new deal certainly changed things. It left the Big 12 as the only Power 5 conference without a conference network (although the Pac-12 Network is kind of a joke) going forward, which also threatened the Big 12’s current position in conference revenue. As of last year, the Big 12 ranked third behind the Big Ten and SEC in conference revenue. The fear for the Big 12 is falling behind and dropping to No. 4, and eventually 5.
…
“There is uncertainty, not within the Big 12 but will the television partners negotiate with us or do we have to force them to negotiate with us by adding members? Because if we add members they contractually have to give us more money,” Pollard said. “And perhaps they will choose to give us a lot of money but not add members. There are a lot of things that could happen.”
It’s easy for ISU’s AD to say ISU won’t vote for someone, but he has no say in the matter. Will they really say no if UT and OU say they won’t extend the GOR until the TV deal gets extended in 6 years (and the networks say they want to wait til then to see what value the new members actually provide)?
LikeLike
Big 12 teams earn $25M for tier 1+2 TV revenue/year from ESPN+Fox through 2024-25
AAC teams get $2M in TV revenue through 2020. Mountain West teams get $1.7M. C-USA $500k. BYU gets $6-7M for their football home games from ESPN. Given the huge disparity in revenue between the Power 5 ‘haves’ & Gang of 5 ’have nots” – the Big 12 can use their pro rata clause as a loophole to jump from $250M to $350M then use the 4 expansion teams as serfs.
TCU and West Virginia joined the Big 12 in 2012 and took 5 years to vest; getting their first full share this season… Let’s say the Big 12 now adds BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis… Here’s a fair 8 year plan since the Big 12 is offering the last life raft:
Year 1 2017- $6M new teams / $32.6M current Big 12 teams
2018 – $8M new / $31.8M current
2019 – $10M / $31.0M
2020 – $12M / $30.2M
2021 – $14M / $29.4M
2022 – $16M / $28.6M
2023 – $18M / $27.8M
Year 8 2024 – $20M / $27.0M
This would pay the new 4 teams $13.0M/season – 6-7x more than the AAC and double BYU. The current ten Big 12 teams would make another $38.4 in revenue over the 8 years or $4.8/season each..
Big 12 TV contract expires after 2024-25 season. ESPN/FOX will have paid the Big 12 an extra $800M for adding 4 teams. They might be pissed since they’re currently paying $96M over those 8 years for BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis. That $700M price hike could be what breaks up the Big 12.
College Football Playoff also expires in 2025. Texas’ Longhorn Network with ESPN is $15M for 20 years from 2011 to 2030. ACC Network and Grant of Rights run 20 years through 2035-36. Notre Dame’s NBC contract is $15M/year and runs through 2025.
I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:
–Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports; plays 5 games/year against the ACC and has to join if/when they join a football conference again. They could play Texas A&M, Oklahoma & Texas Tech to round out their annual 8 game ‘conference schedule.’ Mix in Arkansas, Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma State for games 9 & 10.
–Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.
–Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.
–Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14
That’d leave 9 Big XII to raid from the AAC:
EAST — Connecticut, ECU, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF
WEST — Tulane, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Iowa State
8 of these teams were part of the BCS before the Big East went under – could they stay a Power 5?
LikeLike
I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:
–Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports…
–Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.
–Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.
–Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14
You are assuming events so unlikely that they border on ridiculous. Why would the SEC want the scraps of the B12? They are in a position of strength. They don’t have to expand again…ever. If they do, it has to be compelling. They aren’t taking the second-best schools (OKSt and KSU) in two low-population, low-growth states. Either they will get the flagship schools they want, or they’ll stand pat.
Likewise, it is pretty unlikely that the Big Ten wants Oklahoma and Kansas without Texas. It is even less likely that the Pac wants a second Colorado school, or a religious institution. We don’t even know that the ACC wants a second prima donna member with a Notre Dame-like deal; or, that UT wants such a deal either.
LikeLike
tigertails,
“Big 12 teams earn $25M for tier 1+2 TV revenue/year from ESPN+Fox through 2024-25
AAC teams get $2M in TV revenue through 2020. Mountain West teams get $1.7M. C-USA $500k. BYU gets $6-7M for their football home games from ESPN. Given the huge disparity in revenue between the Power 5 ‘haves’ & Gang of 5 ’have nots” – the Big 12 can use their pro rata clause as a loophole to jump from $250M to $350M then use the 4 expansion teams as serfs.”
That’s the idea. But remember that those are average numbers, not the actual annual payments.
“TCU and West Virginia joined the Big 12 in 2012 and took 5 years to vest; getting their first full share this season… Let’s say the Big 12 now adds BYU, Cincinnati, Houston & Memphis… Here’s a fair 8 year plan since the Big 12 is offering the last life raft:
Year 1 2017- $6M new teams / $32.6M current Big 12 teams
2018 – $8M new / $31.8M current
2019 – $10M / $31.0M
2020 – $12M / $30.2M
2021 – $14M / $29.4M
2022 – $16M / $28.6M
2023 – $18M / $27.8M
Year 8 2024 – $20M / $27.0M”
The B12 would never set their schools up to have declining revenue like that. Try this:
Assuming $25M is the average and the payout escalates $1.5M per year (starts at 20 and grows to 30.5):
2016 – / $18.5M
2017 – $6M / $25.6M
2018 – 8 / 26.9
2019 – 10 / 28.2
2020 – 12 / 29.5
2021 – 14 / 30.8
2022 – 16 / 32.1
2023 – 18 / 33.4
2024 – 20 / 34.7
But by 2024 the networks would be paying $30.5M per team, setting up an issue for 2025 unless the deal gets much bigger. A better plan would be for the B12 to save some of that money to slowly pay out in 2025 and beyond to keep the payment always increasing.
2017 – $6M / $23.8M
2018 – 8 / 25.3
2019 – 10 / 26.8
2020 – 12 / 28.3
2021 – 14 / 29.8
2022 – 16 / 31.3
2023 – 18 / 32.8
2024 – 20 / 34.3
2025 – 35.0
2026 – 35.5
2027 – 36.0
2028 – 36.5 (and the TV deal is self-supporting from here on)
They could save less if they think the TV deal will grow, but I was being conservative and assuming it just got continued with the same terms ($1.5M growth per school per year based on the previous year).
There are small tweaks they could make (smaller growth per year so it stays constant the whole time – about $1.1M per year), but this plan pays them an extra $3.8M per school through 2024 while providing continuous growth.
“I could then see 16-team conferences then with Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas moving and maybe bringing their little-brothers along for the ride:”
Why would they all end at 16? They’ve never all been the same size.
“–Texas becomes an Independent and takes Notre Dame’s deal to join the ACC for all other sports; plays 5 games/year against the ACC and has to join if/when they join a football conference again. They could play Texas A&M, Oklahoma & Texas Tech to round out their annual 8 game ‘conference schedule.’ Mix in Arkansas, Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma State for games 9 & 10.”
UT doesn’t want in the ACC for non-revenue sports. Besides
“–Oklahoma & Kansas to the B1G 16.”
Maybe.
“–Oklahoma State & Kansas State (or TCU) to the SEC 16.”
No. They aren’t taking schools like this. KSU brings nothing. OkSU has no value without OU.
“–Colorado State & BYU to the PAC 14”
No. The P12 already has CO and BYU has always been available for them. They will never add BYU and CSU has no value to them. It’d be like the B10 adding NIU.
“That’d leave 9 Big XII to raid from the AAC:
EAST — Connecticut, ECU, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF
WEST — Tulane, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Iowa State
8 of these teams were part of the BCS before the Big East went under – could they stay a Power 5?”
No, they couldn’t. There isn’t a single power team in the bunch.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/07/31/baylor-strict-conduct-code-might-have-silenced-rape-victims/87884594/
The Pepper Hamilton report may cause problems for BYU trying to get into the B12.
The sexual assault scandal that took down Baylor University’s president and revered football coach also found a problem with a bedrock of the school’s faith-based education: a student conduct code banning alcohol, drugs and premarital sex that may have driven some victims into silence.
Investigators with the Pepper Hamilton law firm who dug into Baylor’s response to sexual assault claims determined the school’s rigid approach to drugs, alcohol and sex and “perceived judgmental responses” to victims who reported being raped “created barriers” to reporting assaults. Some women faced the prospect of their family being notified.
“A number of victims were told that if they made a report of rape, their parents would be informed of the details of where they were and what they were doing,” said Chad Dunn, a Houston attorney who represents six women who have sued Baylor under the anonymous identification of Jane Doe.
Fresh off that scandal, how concerned might B12 presidents be about adding an even more strict school?
LikeLike
If it were up to me, I’d add Houston and Tulane and keep it at a manageable 12 with the Red River being the dividing line. Texas, TCU, Baylor, TTech, Houston, and Tulane in the South (or Cotton) Division and OU, Okie State, KState, KU, IowaState, WVU in the North (or Orange) Division. Keep at least Texas/OU every year. Almost everyone in the North would get to play in Texas every year every other year twice (yes potential for @ Tulane & home to 2 Texas schools for someone but it would rotate around). Houston is going to get in because of politics anyway, but it also helps fend off SEC interest in Houston, to some degree, and adds former rivalries. Tulane is a historic suck in football, but adds New Orleans and the coveted AAU putting the Big12 even with the SEC at 4 AAU schools. What fans wouldn’t want to go on a road trip to New Orleans? The Big12 has no Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern, nor Stanford so why not get your own smart-kid private school? Sucks for WVU, but I hate that they are in the Big12 anyway. I would hate having UConn, Boise St, or Directional Florida. I wouldn’t care for Cinci, but could deal with them if the Big12 went to 14 with BYU.
What will the Big12 do? Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they drew the school names out of a hat or threw darts blindfolded at a wall with the school logos on them!
LikeLike
So if the folks on twitter on the fringes – not “The Dude” or “Tuxedo Yoda” types – are to be believed, it will be Houston and Cincinnati this week? Seems the Houston pick will be more political than substance and Cincinnati is the presidential option pick. If university presidents come from academics and not athletics then grading may look like this.
Houston is the C student who has an uncle in state politics who sits on the committee that approves state funding for public schools in the state
Cincinnati is the solid B student who has some A’s, mostly B’s, but no C’s. Steady with little or no real risk
Everybody else seems to have at least a D or F that stops them
Connecticut gets an A in basketball, but an F in travel distance
Memphis gets an A in sugar daddy, but an F in academics
BYU gets an A in sports, but a D or F in culture
Rice gets an A in academics, but a D in location (B12 already in Texas)
Colorado State gets solid C’s, but no real A’s or B’s
Tulane gets A’s in location and academics, but struggles elsewhere
San Diego State looks like Colorado State with better better GPA, but no A’s
Twins (UCF and USF) has B’s but D’s offset them, notably distance
Boise State gets a B in football, but as the jock, gets an F for everything else
Air Force (Army and Navy are too far) gets the A in deportment, but not much else
UNLV gets a B in basketball, but I’s for casinos instead of going to classes
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/07/31/bob-hunter-column–want-to-be-really-big-hook-horns-sooners.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Article on how the B1G should call Texas and Oklahoma. Seems obvious.
LikeLike
http://collegespun.com/big-12/oklahoma/paul-finebaum-thinks-oklahoma-would-rather-be-in-big-ten-sec
Paul Finebaum thinks B1G/SEC for Oklahoma
LikeLike
I wonder if UT & OK can force their way out of the Big12/GOR immediately using the expansion as leverage. Basically “were leaving no matter what. If you don’t let us leave now we’ll veto expansion and you lose the extra $$$ that comes with expansion. Either way the XII isnt going to get anything near the same $$$ in the next contract either way so if you let us go now you can at least milk the current contact for the next 10 years”.
This, of course, assumes that the media companies can’t block them leaving as well.
LikeLike
I wonder if UT & OK can force their way out of the Big12/GOR immediately using the expansion as leverage…This, of course, assumes that the media companies can’t block them leaving as well.
The TV contracts aren’t public, but I would be shocked if they don’t protect the networks against the possibility of UT and OK leaving—and taking their media rights with them.
Letting UT and OK out of the GOR would either void their media deal, or take such a huge bite, that no expansion could make up for it.
LikeLike
http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthread.php?104865-CR-Part-))XII((-Conference-Hospice-amp-Realignment-Speculation/page141
“I’ll believe that adding two/four G5 schools improves the Big Xii when someone can demonstrate how adding dog poop to stew improves the flavor.”~RocketCitySooner
Apparently there are a great deal of Sooner fans not thrilled by expansion or extending the GOR. Some amusing quotes in their discussion.
LikeLike
I believe Texas and OU have agreed to expansion as a way of ensuring a more seemless transition for themselves when they leave the Big 12. And Houston will certainly be a part of this expansion. It is a money grab, pure and simple, and who could blame them? They will offer a $3Mil/year cut to the new candidates, and the conference gets $22Mil per team to divide up among the existing ten teams. Adding Houston keeps the Big 12 presence in the state and gives a natural, non-private school partner for Tech staying behind. I believe Texas and OU have been given assurances that by offering their support for expansion candidates, they will not be challenged when they leave the conference in 4-5 years.
LikeLike
It is a money grab, pure and simple…
College sports have been growing revenue (the more neutral term for “money grab”) since forever. Why would you expect now to be any different?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/08/01/Media/Big-12-TV.aspx
The Big 12’s TV partners are pushing back on the conference’s plans to expand.
ESPN and Fox Sports believe that expansion with schools from outside the power five conferences will water down the Big 12 and make it less valuable, not more, sources said. But the Big 12 is financially motivated to add more teams. A clause in the conference’s media deals stipulate that if the Big 12 expands, it would receive pro rata increases in its rights fees.
LikeLike
If the networks, both of which have encountered some financial challenges in the last year with cutbacks and subscriber losses, decided to staunchly challenge the contracts, they could simply not pay the increases and force the conference to take them to court. ESPN and Fox would argue that the move to expand and charge the TV networks more money does not reflect the spirit of the original deals, which were signed four years ago. The conference, of course, can fall back on its contracts, which spell out pro rata increases.
Another option would be to go along with the increases now and not support the Big 12 in 2025, when the grant of rights and the TV deals expire.
LikeLike
Interesting part that implies the B12should “repay” the “favor” that is claimed the nets did when keeping twelve team payments to the ten team conference instead of invoking the pro rata reduction of conference payments. This ignores that the continuation (along with LHN possibility) was significant in preventing the collapse collapsing at that time. That is what they were paying for. It wasn’t generosity.
LikeLike
Interesting part that implies the B12should “repay” the “favor” that is claimed the nets did when keeping twelve team payments to the ten team conference instead of invoking the pro rata reduction of conference payments.
Maybe I’ve said this before, but twelve teams playing eight games is 48 conference games plus a CCG. Ten teams playing nine games is 45 conference games. At the time, the “great Beebe deal” wasn’t as big of a favor* from ESPN/FOX’s perspective as people think it was given how undervalued the Big 12’s contract was at the time.
*For those that don’t know/remember conference contracts are priced using conference games only
LikeLike
This expansion would add 9-18 conference games plus 4-8 OOC games to the inventory. The schools might not be big brands, but ESPN and Fox can still sell ads for those games and or subcontract them out to recoup the money. The extra inventory should help make up for the lesser brands.
Besides, are they really worse brands than KU and ISU in football? BYU is a solid brand and is treated as a P5 school by the other conferences for scheduling purposes. UC has been decent and was in a BCS conference. UH was great last year and used to be in a power conference.
The networks can try to negotiate but their lawyers will them they don’t have a leg to stand on in court. It’s not like the B12 is adding D-III schools.
LikeLike
I believe the solution for the big xii and ESPN-fox:
1. Expand with four teams. As the networks are concerned about brand dilution, take BYU, navy and Air Force as these are national brands.
2. Graduate the payment to the expansion schools. Take “profit” to buy out ESPN of the LHN and convert it to a Big xiv network. The conference now own the network, win. ESPN gets out of a money losing LHN, win. Texas gets paid for the LHN, win.
3. Sign GoR with the big xiv network to start when the current one expires. Lease the network to ESPN & Fox.
LikeLike
Small problem, UT doesn’t want to lose the LHN. When they originally talked about setting it up they were willing to lose money on it to have the exposure. Now that they get $15M per year they will definitely not let it go. We’ll see in 2031 if they keep it or not. And the rest of the B12 is not going to give all their money to UT to buy out the LHN deal anyway.
LikeLike
Year 1 or expansion: each expanded team gets 10 millions and the conference pockets 60 millions (25 millions per expanded team from the networks) to buy out the LHN and convert it to the Big xiv network, 15 millions of which goes to UT.
Every year after that the conference pot shrinks as the expansion teams make more; continue the buy out till done and honor UT’s 15 millions till original contracts expire.
UT gets its money but loses the LHN
The conference actually owns its own network (rather than ESPN/fox) and come 2026 the conference owns the GoR rather than the networks; plus the elephant LHN won’t be there anymore.
ESPN gets out of having to pay UT for the money losing LHN
LikeLike
So Iowa St, KSU, etc pay UT ESPN’s payment out of their own (conference) pocket? Great…(sarcasm)
LikeLike
No
Instead of the conference splitting the money 10 ways, the conference buys out the LHN.
Each school never received any of it to begin with.
LikeLike
Ok. Instead of putting a larger amount in ISU, KSU, etc pocket let’s take less and pay UT what ESPN owes with the difference. Thank you cards from Bristol make it all better…
LikeLike
neomodernism,
“Year 1 or expansion: each expanded team gets 10 millions and the conference pockets 60 millions (25 millions per expanded team from the networks) to buy out the LHN and convert it to the Big xiv network, 15 millions of which goes to UT.”
That does nothing to help the problem I mentioned. UT doesn’t want to give up the LHN. You’d have to pay them a lot more than the $15M they get from ESPN to get them to give up LHN if they would agree to drop it at all. So at best they start out with $30M extra ($3M per school). Is it worth adding 4 teams for that?
“Every year after that the conference pot shrinks as the expansion teams make more; continue the buy out till done and honor UT’s 15 millions till original contracts expire.”
The LHN deal runs until 2031. The B12 TV deal runs until 2025. By then, at the latest, the newbies would expect full shares. So everyone is going to sacrifice money for 6 more years to pay UT? I’ll believe that when I see it.
“UT gets its money but loses the LHN”
You still have to convince them to do it. They don’t have to say yes. It isn’t really abuot the money for them, it’s the exposure.
“The conference actually owns its own network (rather than ESPN/fox)”
That’s worked really well for the P12 so far.
“and come 2026 the conference owns the GoR rather than the networks;”
The conference always owns the GOR. That’s what the schools grant the rights to. The conference then shops those rights to networks.
“plus the elephant LHN won’t be there anymore.
ESPN gets out of having to pay UT for the money losing LHN”
Great for ESPN, terrible for the ISUs of the B12.
LikeLike
So big xii expansion is just a money grab?
LikeLike
So big xii expansion is just a money grab?
As if that’s anything new…?
LikeLike
Money grab now
Lose out later
LikeLike
Lose out later
More like…doomed either way, so you might as well make the money while it’s there to be made.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the BIG XII is “doomed”. The league teams still make more money from football/sports annually than the ACC or PAC12. That may change over time and that is why these decisions are crucial. BYU instantly adds money to every member’s pockets. Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, or others could add money over time. Boise, Neb. FSU, Baylor, KSU and others have grown over time. Yesterday the AP put out the top 100 ever. KSU before the mid-90s never would have made it in the top 100. Now they are 44! Also competition makes the NFL and CFB! Competition creates drama! Widening the gap in CFB and calling for junior members in the BIGXII is stupid cause is lessens the drama. We already hate watching the SEC play only 9 games per year against the P5! The other three games are not worth watching because you know the outcome! No competition, no drama!
LikeLike
Wildcat Jeff,
Thinking like a fan, not a president.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter if the new additions are valuable or not…the networks contact stipulates pro rata increases. Texas and OU, and the rest of the conference for that matter, don’t care too much about harming any so-called “relationship” with the networks as there is now an implicit understanding that the Big 12 as it is now constituted will cease to exist. For the teams that are going to be left behind this is called “making hay while the sun is shining.” Not the Big 12’s problem that the contract favors them.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter if the new additions are valuable or not…the networks contact stipulates pro rata increases.
I don’t think we’ve seen the exact language.* There may be some language in the contract that could give ESPN/FOX some wiggle room. If so, we won’t know until they head to court.
*Was the Big 12’s contract entered into evidence in the O’Bannon suit? I can’t remember.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t know if it is clearly spelled out or not, only repeating what I have read; that said, I gotta believe that the sudden move towards embracing expansion is due to the contractual certainty of a huge payout
LikeLike
I certainly don’t know if it is clearly spelled out or not, only repeating what I have read; that said, I gotta believe that the sudden move towards embracing expansion is due to the contractual certainty of a huge payout
Its in the Big 12’s best interest to make it sound like its guaranteed. If ESPN/FOX do have wiggle room they don’t want them to use it.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 contract was. Don’t remember about the Big 12 contract, but I’ve seen people list detailed numbers on the payout by year through 2025 that indicates they got those numbers from somewhere.
LikeLike
It seems daft for the university presidents of the Big XII’s ‘little 8’ to use expansion at this time to simply cash out. Shouldn’t the president of, say, ISU be thinking about positioning his school to be in the most valuable/viable conference possible in 2030 and beyond? Thinking along those lines, is it a good risk to support adding Tulane and/or Memphis now (along with Cincinnati and maybe + 1? ) in the expectation they will both use the time and exposure to develop into something more valuable than any of the other realistic options that will be available 10 years from now, whether or not Texas and Oklahoma leave?
Will BYU stick around should Texas/Oklahoma leave? How valuable is BYU if they plan to follow those one or both out the door? Are they worth the risk?
Could Texas (and maybe Oklahoma) try and negotiate a ND-ACC like arrangement with the Big XII?
Is SEC membership a realistic option for Oklahoma? How about independence?
What affect does the potential (inevitable?) expansion of the playoff have on ‘little 8’ thinking? How about Oklahoma and Texas?
The evolution of the P5 into the P4 is inevitable – its consolidation is now plain for all to see. Given the playoff committee’s emphasis on sos, the gradual weakening of Texas/Oklahoma’s long-term position – potentially accelerated by expansion – seems clear. Unless the playoff somehow makes an accommodation for this both will have to leave.
LikeLike
I have to think the option/dream of pulling someone from the ACC in 2025 that would immediately be on par, disappeared with the ACC gor extension.
So the option is now to grow some schools (2 or 4) over the next 10 years, where the networks are forced to overpay for those schools.
Hopefully in 10 years, when the contract is up, the new schools will have improved sufficiently to not hurt the conference.
But I do think Texas is agreeing to expansion to position themselves in the conference to play teams that they want to play. Splitting into divisions will allow UT to dissociate themselves from teams that they don’t want to have as close a connection to. The larger the conference (14 or 16), the more it doesn’t really matter who’s in the other division of your conference.
So, from ISU’s perspective, how do you add value to the conference in 10 years time, while also constructing a division for Texas and Oklahoma that they are happy with?
I think that is where adding Houston comes in. If you have a division of TTech, Texas, Houston, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, plus 1 or 2 more. You have a division of mostly public universities from OK and TX. In this scenario Texas doesn’t have to play ISU, KSU, WV as often, so it doesn’t matter as much if they are in the conference.
ISU just needs to be reasonably confident that the 2 or 4 teams that come into the conference will add value in 10 years time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I think that is where adding Houston comes in. If you have a division of TTech, Texas, Houston, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, plus 1 or 2 more. You have a division of mostly public universities from OK and TX. In this scenario Texas doesn’t have to play ISU, KSU, WV as often, so it doesn’t matter as much if they are in the conference.”
For a two-team expansion, would the two Private Texas schools in their division be enough to satisfy the games in Texas needs of Kansas State and Kansas? Or would they prefer Houston combined with TCU in their division?
LikeLike
What is really significant about this article is that it is saying the Big 12 is negotiating with the networks. It is confirming that they have a package or alternative group of packages to discuss with the networks.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17191475/in-big-12-expansion-oklahoma-sooners-leverage-motivation-unclear
Little different tone than the SBJ article which says ESPN/Fox will fight expansion. In this article, the ESPN writer, after talking to someone in the industry, basically says ESPN/Fox have no leverage and “…ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope….”
LikeLike
ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope
Legally, if the contract requires pro rata payments for new members, with no further conditions, then the networks have to pay. If they signed a deal they now regret, then too bad.
As a practical matter, it is often a bad idea to screw your long-term business partner, even if you have every right to do so. This is what the B12 has to weigh.
LikeLike
This is the point, Marc…in all likelihood Texas and OU (the drivers in this discussion) are proceeding under the assumption that they will no longer be a part of the Big 12. Now it’s possible the teams that will be left behind in the scenario might want to soften the blow to the networks in return for consideration the next go-round, when the Big 12 will be negotiating without Texas and OU and (perhaps others) as part of the inventory. Seems to me that the Big 12 teams not named Texas or OU would have EVERY reason to milk this thing for all it’s worth for the present, unless they are given assurances they won’t be dropped once the big boys leave
LikeLike
…in all likelihood Texas and OU (the drivers in this discussion) are proceeding under the assumption that they will no longer be a part of the Big 12.
The thing is, I am not as convinced as you are, that they consider this “likely”. Sure, they want to keep their options open, but that doesn’t mean they’ll leave. After all, when they had a serious offer a few years ago (the P16), they wound up staying, because UT preferred to create the LHN and keep the royalties to itself.
I am far from convinced that any other league wants Oklahoma and/or Kansas, if they don’t get Texas too. And if the LHN is ultimately considered a success (however UT defines that), then UT may decide to stay in the B12, and OU could have nowhere else to go.
LikeLike
Would ESPN pay for realignment vaccination booster (LHN extension) in return for stopping/limiting this expansion?
I still don’t see LHN GOR going away before it expires in ’31.
LikeLike
Wonder if UT would block expansion for an extension of LHN…?
A booster dose of realignment vaccination.
LikeLike
ESPN and Fox can only ask and hope
Legally, if the contract requires pro rata payments for new members, with no further conditions, then the networks have to pay. If they signed a deal they now regret, then too bad.
As a practical matter, it is often a bad idea to screw your long-term business partner, even if you have every right to do so. This is what the B12 has to weigh.
What’s to stop ESPN/FOX saying OK go ahead and expand and oh BTW UT & OU are joining the BIG and we’ll indemnify UT & OU for their GOR payments. Further more we’ll have to renegotiate our original agreement with you (Big 12) because UT & OU are no longer members.
LikeLike
A tortious interference lawsuit with punitive damages would stop them. And ESPN really has to tread lightly to avoid anti-trust scrutiny over the long run. When you have such disproportionate market power, you have to be careful when throwing your weight around.
LikeLike
The addition to the Big 12 won’t work. The Big 12 needs to breakup. Big 10 should expand to 18 teams as should the ACC, SEC, and Pac 12. All with 18 teams. No divisions. Pods of Six. Top 2 play in conferance championship game. Each team plays 9 Conference games – one rival game (within POD) and two more in POD, then three games against the two remaining pods, flipping every two years for home and home and to ensure playing everyone in your conference (Home and Home) every four years and playing your rival every year. 18 times 4 equals 72 teams. This means identifying 8 worthy programs to add to these conferences (after the Big 12 break up – 10 teams) to add to these four conferences. ND, BYU, Army, Navy, Air Force, UC, BSU, Col St, UConn, Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, etc… Can be determined who,is in and who is out. The remaining left out teams can re configure with geography and have a seat in the expanded 8 team playoff. Those left out should configure 4 other smaller conferences. They can have all their champions play a final four type of thing to see who gets in the big tournament. The big conferences should have to play 2 other big conference teams every year. The smaller conferences can play the big boys out of conference – 1 game or 2 games to round out scheduling but Big Boys can’t play FCS while the smaller four can to round out schedules. Done. You can thank me later when I am at Kramers … Geo
LikeLike
Your 4 x 18 scenario isn’t going to happen…but if the B1G wants to grab Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, could Iowa State pull a Virginia Tech and sneak in as member #18? It could be an academic and political trade-off for inviting non-AAU OU (the old “think like a university president” syndrome). It also creates a reasonably good East-West split:
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern
The state of Iowa then becomes the West equivalent of the state of Indiana (two B1G members in a relatively small state). ISU has excellent fan support for a beleaguered, tradition-poor athletic program; give it B1G branding and that will only amplify.
LikeLike
Endgame options in the mid 2020s?:
– Oklahoma and Texas to SEC16
– Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Missouri to B1G18
– Texas, TTech, UH, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas as a 6 team division of PAC18
– Texas, TTech, UH, Oklahoma, OSU, Memphis remain as a division of Big12.
LikeLike
Why is that described as an endgame? If the power conferences collapse from five to four, with the Big12 becoming the mythical “best of the rest” conference … and the same economic incentives are in place that drove that restructuring … why wouldn’t the next event be a collapse from four to three?
And if under current economic incentives, there is a stable position that is larger than three, why would it have to be at four? Why couldn’t it be at five? Why assume that THIS move by the Big12 is not the “end game” in and of itself?
LikeLike
And every conference that has been 14 or 16 or more, at Division I or Division II, has eventually split. The larger you are, the less likely you have enough in common to stay together.
LikeLike
BruceMcF, “endgame” was meant to mean where Texas and Oklahoma expect to be in 2030.
I think bullet 4 is the most likely scenario, keeping the big12 together, but Texas and Oklahoma dissociating themselves from teams in the conference that they don’t want a close connection with. (by putting them in the opposite division)
LikeLike
I think bullet 4 is the most likely scenario, keeping the big12 together, but Texas and Oklahoma dissociating themselves from teams in the conference that they don’t want a close connection with. (by putting them in the opposite division)
You aren’t really “dissociating” with teams in the opposite division: you still play them fairly often in football, and annually in all other sports.
What’s more, you create a situation where the South division almost always has the stronger champion, and a comparatively weak team can ruin a likely playoff berth by pulling a CCG upset.
LikeLike
I think if the Big 10 were able to get Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, I think the most likely 4th team would be Missouri. Yes yes, they are in a great conference, but I think they would still prefer the Big 10, plus they would reunite with old Big 6, Big 8, Big12 rivals. I think it would be too compelling for them. I just don’t see Texas going to another conference that splits earnings evenly, unless the money is so much better then what they earn in total including the LHN.
As a husker fan, this is my dream scenario.
LikeLike
Geo,
“The addition to the Big 12 won’t work.”
Possible.
“The Big 12 needs to breakup.”
Needs to? Why? Breaking up would be bad for most of the current members.
“Big 10 should expand to 18 teams as should the ACC, SEC, and Pac 12.”
Why? What 18 schools are out there that would add value to all those conferences? And why would they want 18 schools? You’d rarely play many of the schools.
“All with 18 teams. No divisions. Pods of Six.”
The power conferences have never been all the same size. What’s their incentive to do so now? Why wouldn’t one get to 20+ and another stay at 16 or fewer?
If they’re doing that, why not just lock some games and schedule as a conference? It works like pods but doesn’t force you to make clear cut groups.
1 group of 18:
9 games = 3 locked + 6 rotating through 14 others (play 43% of the time)
9 games = 4 locked + 5 rotating through 13 others (play 38% of the time)
9 games = 5 locked + 4 rotating through 12 others (play 33% of the time)
3 pods of 6:
9 games = 5 locked in pod + 2 rotating through each pod of 6 (play 33% of the time)
“Top 2 play in conferance championship game.”
Top 2 pod champs or just top 2?
“Each team plays 9 Conference games – one rival game (within POD) and two more in POD, then three games against the two remaining pods, flipping every two years for home and home and to ensure playing everyone in your conference (Home and Home) every four years and playing your rival every year.”
What’s the point of making pods if you only lock 1 game? Does MI get locked with OSU or MSU? Why should the fans of either team accept their rivalry going to 50% of the time when there are better plans?
“18 times 4 equals 72 teams. This means identifying 8 worthy programs to add to these conferences (after the Big 12 break up – 10 teams) to add to these four conferences.”
If there were 8 worthy schools out there that want to join a conference then the B12 wouldn’t be have spent years struggling with expansion.
” ND, BYU, Army, Navy, Air Force, UC, BSU, Col St, UConn, Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, etc…”
ND doesn’t want in a conference. The others have been available for a long time and nobody has decided to make them an offer? What makes them B10/ACC/SEC/P12 worthy now?
“The remaining left out teams can re configure with geography and have a seat in the expanded 8 team playoff.”
Why would the playoff let in 8 if they’ve dropped to 4 power conferences? The CCGs are already the quarterfinals at that point. They certainly wouldn’t create a seat for the G5.
LikeLike
Relax Brian. This is just a blog. It is for fun.
The Big 12 will come apart if someone leaves so why not just make it happen. As I said all those schools will end up in one of the big four conferences.
The POD system is based on that these 18 conferences have about 6 traditional powers. It’s not perfect but the PODS are strictly for scheduling and it allows you to play every team twice in four years. It also means that you don’t play all thee good teams one year the a bunch of bad teams two years later…
It’s a balance.
F*ck NOtre Dame. I don’t care what they want. It’s my fantasy so they have to join a conference…
Not every conference is expanding with better teams. That isn’t the point. They get solid teams in different markets – all so the Big 4 conferences have basically a balance that allows The Obama Type People of the world happy. Those being people who scream Fair all the time.
Don’t have an 8 team playoff. Have 4 with the conference championship game essenrtially being the first round. Of course none of this will happen. Abou 98.87 percent of this blog is shit that will never happen.
LikeLike
“As I said all those schools will end up in one of the big four conferences.”
Maybe in your never going to happen scenario. In reality several will be left out.
LikeLike
F*ck NOtre Dame. I don’t care what they want. It’s my fantasy so they have to join a conference…
If you’re talking fantasy, then why not have them join the CFL, and you’ll never see them again.
LikeLike
What the CFL?
LikeLike
The Canadian Football League.
LikeLike
I don’t see why a B1G 17 couldn’t also be an option. UT, OU, and KU to the B1G, two locked games in football for every team and seven more conference games per year = playing all non-locked teams 2 of every four years with home-and-homes. Teams play the two to their right and left as the below:
MD-UT-OU-KU-NU-Iowa-Minn-UW-NW-Ill-UI-PU-MSU-UM-OSU-PSU-RU-MD
Loses some traditional rivalries but keeps everybody playing everybody quite often, and gives UT an east coast game. Not likely, but it’s an option while you wait for a good #18.
LikeLike
An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.
LikeLike
An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.
One and one reason only the BIG would have an odd number of teams, is the hope/expectation of a small private Catholic school in northern Indiana joining someday.
LikeLike
I don’t see why a B1G 17 couldn’t also be an option. UT, OU, and KU to the B1G, two locked games in football for every team and seven more conference games per year = playing all non-locked teams 2 of every four years with home-and-homes.
Except, NCAA rules require divisions to stage a conference championship game — and I don’t see the B10 (or any other league) giving that up.
Maybe the rule will change, but it would put the Big Ten in a rather awkward position of campaigning for the very flexibility that they recently opposed.
An odd number of conference games among an odd number of schools isn’t feasible as it doesn’t even out.
It’s definitely feasible; other conferences have done it. The Big Ten did it for 21 years.
There are definite drawbacks: not all teams can play nine conference games, and at least one team must have a bye every week of the conference season (unless they play OOC). But it can be done. (Not that they would, nor am I supporting this.)
LikeLike
The narrative for most I’ve heard is that the Big 12 needs to be pro-active and expand. This is one of the few issues with realignment I have disagreed with Frank and seem to be disagreeing with most. I actually think the Big 12 is far more stable at 10 than it will be at 12/14 for several reasons.
1. It’s quite possible that expansion only works financially long term with a conference network in place. The biggest reason Texas remains is that they can keep the LHN. They might grudgingly give it up at some point, but doing so means there are few incentives anymore for staying in the Big 12 and if they leave, it won’t be alone.
2. Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more. If these new members aren’t really at least the average value of the rest of the conference though, you are going to make ESPN/FOX upset and you still have to work with them and eventually renegotiate.
3. Along those lines, consider that in a 10 team conference right now, you have Texas football, Oklahoma football, and Kansas basketball. That is 30% of the conference right there with extreme value properties. In particular Texas/Oklahoma football is probably a very disproportionate part of the value of contract. New members are not worth the same things and you risk diluting the value of those brands by making the money spread further. I’ll grant this isn’t quite that simple as you do also expand them into new markets, but you are getting far more limited markets with most these additions than past ones gave other conferences.
4. Ten teams is now different and the Big 12 got made fun of some for it. Different isn’t necessarily bad though as it brings attentions and encourages fans to defend the conference (and build support for it in the process). Think of Notre Dame and the flack they get for being independent and then consider if they are worth more independent or in a conference. I’d argue the former all day.
5. The round robin in football and double round robin in basketball means playing everyone twice. You feel very connected to the conference.
In short, I think the Big 12 is stronger and more secure with 10 and expansion is actually a short term plan that endangers the long run survival more than the opposite being true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s quite possible that expansion only works financially long term with a conference network in place.
You are basically saying that the Big 12 is doomed. If they are doomed, they might as well earn the money now, while it’s sitting there on the table.
Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.
Why necessarily short term? There is no reason to promise Cincinnati that it will ever make as much as the others. They could get a 20% share from now till eternity, and would still be making more than they’d ever have in the American. I don’t expect their deal to be that bad; but by the same token, they shouldn’t receive a full share until they are worth it, which might be never.
In effect, bring them in as permanent junior partners, with an arduous path to full partnership.
Ten teams is now different and the Big 12 got made fun of some for it. Different isn’t necessarily bad though as it brings attentions and encourages fans to defend the conference (and build support for it in the process).
Different isn’t necessarily good, either.
Think of Notre Dame and the flack they get for being independent and then consider if they are worth more independent or in a conference. I’d argue the former all day.
You have the flak backwards. Notre Dame doesn’t care what its opponents think. They care what their wealthy donors would think, if they joined a conference. But they’re the only school that treats independence as a birthright. Most schools that have been FBS independents, have gotten out of that status as soon as they could.
The round robin in football and double round robin in basketball means playing everyone twice. You feel very connected to the conference.
By that argument, no one should have expanded.
LikeLike
[i]Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.[/i]
[b]Why necessarily short term? [/b]There is no reason to promise Cincinnati that it will ever make as much as the others. They could get a 20% share from now till eternity, and would still be making more than they’d ever have in the American. I don’t expect their deal to be that bad; but by the same token, they shouldn’t receive a full share until they are worth it, which might be never.
In effect, bring them in as permanent junior partners, with an arduous path to full partnership.
I believe the short term may refer to the fact that if the Big-12 were to squeeze as much money from Fox and ESPN, those two media entities may not do business with the Big-12 when the current media contract ends.
LikeLike
Jae-VT,
“[i]Short term these contracts allow for you to give new members less and existing media contracts mean everyone else gets more.[/i]
[b]Why necessarily short term? [/b]”
You have to use less than and greater than signs, not square brackets [ ], to get the HTML coding to work. Like this not [i]like this[/i].
LikeLike
I am not saying the Big 12 is doomed without a network, but I am saying it’s possible, that at 12/14 members it might need a network in order to remain competitive financially. I am actually more confident at 10 without one as I feel the worth of the bigger schools doesn’t have to be spread as far along with the high revenue CCG (which will be added regardless) and CFP/Sugar Bowl money.
I think there is absolutely zero chance that any new members are not made whole. They can make the buy-in process longer, but they are not going to be known as having junior members. I can’t prove that, but I would be stunned if they did.
On the round robin, it’s not a be all/end all, but it is a nice feature to have, especially if you are trying to make a conference feel connected. Most the rest of the conferences have lost some of that with expansion (I know I feel far less connected to the Big Ten than in the past). It one reason to remain as is, just not the only reason.
Going somewhat on a tangent, but on Notre Dame. I understand the wealthy donors of Notre Dame don’t care about the flak, but at the same time, I think being different actively helps the Notre Dame brand. It hasn’t been a great 2 decades for them, but people seem to hate them just as much around the country. That’s not a bad thing for Notre Dame. People tune in for what they hate as much as for what they like.
LikeLike
I think there is absolutely zero chance that any new members are not made whole. They can make the buy-in process longer, but they are not going to be known as having junior members. I can’t prove that, but I would be stunned if they did.
I would be absolutely stunned if they add a school like Memphis, and promised them the same payout as Oklahoma and Texas, after a few short years. (Of course, this is the league that made its name with one dumb move after another, so I am ready to be stunned.)
I think being different actively helps the Notre Dame brand.
I agree with you there. Without a doubt, Notre Dame’s brand gets a boost from its independence, something no other top program has.
But this does not mean that all differences are good. Sometimes, it just means that you’re behind. I haven’t seen anyone else suggest that having fewer teams is a feature that fans find intrinsically compelling. Rather, it’s a reminder of the Big 12’s instability — that a league with “12” in its name has only ten members; that it suffered the worst losses of any power conference.
LikeLike
“I would be absolutely stunned if they add a school like Memphis, and promised them the same payout as Oklahoma and Texas, after a few short years.”
What do you mean by a few short years? He said they can make the buy in process longer. I doubt anyone will join if permanently segregated in an inferior position compared to there conference “mates”. And I doubt the conference would want to brand itself so permanently inferior it requires junior members to fill its ranks.
LikeLike
What do you mean by a few short years?
I mean, the length of the current TV deal. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Memphis is going to be the peer, even of the lowest of the current Big 12 schools, by then. To award them a full share, when they have not earned it, is to commit league suicide.
Because this is the Big 12, that is probably what they will do.
LikeLike
I’ve reluctantly come around to believing Boren. I used to believe as you do. With 12 you have better chances at the playoffs, which is crucial for national perception. The Big 12 gets dissed constantly for being smaller. You have fewer seats at the table. If everybody else was 12 that’s not a big difference. When they are 14, that’s 40% bigger. You could make another 12 team conference if the B1G, SEC and ACC went down to 10. The B1G and SEC have more power and that won’t change. But they can put a dent in it. On the playoff committee, basically the G5, Big 12 and ACC get their token seats while the B1G, SEC and Pac dominate the committee. They replaced a B1G coach with another retired B1G coach. The 4 coaches are all from those 3 conferences. You also get a better chance of getting ranked and you have more TV games. You get noticed more with a bigger conference.
I think its important not to dilute by adding multiple weak programs, especially in football. But BYU is not dilution. Houston had more success during their time in the SWC than most P5 schools have had in comparable time. Cincinnati did ok in the Big East and had a couple of really good seasons. All 3 also have solid basketball programs. Beyond that, you are risking adding someone who will be the homecoming opponent for Kansas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Houston had more success during their time in the SWC than most P5 schools have had in comparable time.
Except, it turned out they were cheating during most of their successful years.
LikeLike
I don’t recall them giving up any wins in the 70s. I only recall the Run n Shoot problems under John Jenkins.
LikeLike
And whatever they did paled in comparison to what SMU, TCU and A&M got caught at in that time frame.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17201971/ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-notre-dame-fighting-irish-top-ap-all-top-25
The AP has released an all-time top 100 based on their poll.
For the first time since that first poll in 1936, the AP has compiled an all-time Top 100 based on a formula that counts poll appearances (one point) to mark consistency, No. 1 rankings (one bonus point) to acknowledge elite programs, and a bonus for AP championships won (10 points).
AP All-Time Top 25
No. 1 Ohio State, 1,112 points.
No. 2 Oklahoma, 1,055.
No. 3 Notre Dame, 1,042.
No. 4 Alabama, 993.
No. 5 Southern California, 974.
No. 6 Nebraska, 901.
No. 7 Michigan, 894.
No. 8 Texas, 822.
No. 9 Florida State, 714.
No. 10 Florida, 674.
No. 11 LSU, 655..
No. 12 Penn State, 647..
No. 13 Miami, 642..
No. 14 Tennessee, 624.
No 15 Georgia, 572.
No. 16 Auburn, 570.
No. 17 UCLA, 535.
No. 18 Texas A&M, 447.
No. 19 Michigan State, 443.
No. 20 Washington, 430.
No. 21 Arkansas, 412.
No. 22 Clemson, 411.
No. 23 Pittsburgh, 356.
No. 24 Wisconsin, 336.
No. 25 Iowa, 329.
SEC – 8 (4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21)
B10 – 7 (1, 6, 7, 12, 19, 24, 25)
ACC – 4 (9, 13, 22, 23)
P12 – 3 (5, 17, 20)
B12 – 2 (2, 8)
Ind – 1 (3)
Rest of B10:
36. PU
37. MN
40. UMD
50. NW
51. IL
72. IN
86. RU
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100
The AP release has more details on each of the top 25.
LikeLike
There’s a considerable distance between #7 (Michigan) and #8 (Texas) — not that this surprises me. But I would bet that, in many Longhorns’ fans’ minds, they are much better than the #8 program in the history of the AP poll.
LikeLike
Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.
Look at their methodology, this list vastly overvalues AP awarded ‘championships’, which until relatively recently were not decided on the field, but rather via a beauty contest ranking. Look at how often those end of the regular season polls have been wrong when it came to predicting the conference championship game winners, and then again how the next week’s rankings have been wrong predicting bowl games. But somehow after the bowl games their rankings were suddenly more accurate?
Especially since for most of the period in question the ‘top 2’ teams didn’t play each other. Even with the BCS there was strong dispute most years on if the top 2 ranked team were really the best 2.
I’d like to see that list without the vastly skewing 10 points awarded for a mythical AP title. Stick with 1 pt for ranked and 2 pts for ranked #1. That would still be skewed by bias, but not as much.
LikeLike
Precisely as I would expect a Texas fan to put it.
LikeLike
Texas is perhaps the most underachieving program in the history of the game. Not that they don’t have a very good history…but with all of the advantages…they should easily be Top 3 and probably #1. I don’t know if it’s just been bad luck, sticking with the wrong coach(es) for too longer or what.
LikeLike
Well Texas is #3 in wins all time, behind only Michigan and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.
LikeLike
It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.
A “true” all-time ranking isn’t possible, as there is no accepted methodology for ranking programs across the entire history of college football. You could make up your own ranking, but it would simply be “Ross’s method,” no more “true” than the others.
LikeLike
The ranking doesn’t even attempt to use the entirety of college football history. In this sense, describing it as an all-time ranking is false, despite the fact that it has been consistently referred to as such.
There is also no accepted methodology for any period of time, let alone all of college football history. There isn’t even agreement within AP, seeing as a large number of people vote now and have voted over its lifespan – people with different priorities and biases. This is, however, beside the point – that this is no a true all-time ranking, regardless of how flawed or correct its methodology may be.
LikeLike
Ross,
“It’s also missing over 30 years of college football, so it’s not as if it’s a true all-time ranking.”
It’s exactly what it claims to be, an all-time AP poll ranking. It doesn’t pretend to cover the years before that nor should it since the AP produced it in honor of their 80th season of AP polls.
MI fans can still revel in their years of college rugby success before most people drove cars.
LikeLike
Without digging into the methodology…does it truly “overvalue” NC”s. If so…I’d certainly expect Bama to be #1. OSU has half the AP NC’s as the Tide.
LikeLike
“Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.”
Keeping things in perspective…
Ohio State 2-1
Michigan 1-0
Florida State 2-0-1
LikeLike
With the relatively small sample size for Texas against most of the Top Ten…not sure what his point is. It would be like using a single head-to-head App St – Mich game as a key metric when comparing the programs across their entire histories.
LikeLike
27-25 and 76-37-5, so yeah, scoreboard,
“Um, yeah, given how Texas has a winning record against 7 of the 9 teams they’ve played in the top 11.”
So what?
“Look at their methodology, this list vastly overvalues AP awarded ‘championships’,
…
I’d like to see that list without the vastly skewing 10 points awarded for a mythical AP title. Stick with 1 pt for ranked and 2 pts for ranked #1. That would still be skewed by bias, but not as much.”
It doesn’t change much. AL drops behind USC and MI passes NE. Outside the top 10, TN passes Miami and WI ties Pitt. UT is exactly where they were, #8 with a sizable gap in each direction.
RANK TEAM TOTAL
1 OHIO STATE 1062
2 OKLAHOMA 985
3 NOTRE DAME 962
4 USC 924
5 ALABAMA 893
6 MICHIGAN 874
7 NEBRASKA 861
8 TEXAS 792
9 FLORIDA STATE 684
10 FLORIDA 644
11 LSU 635
12 PENN STATE 627
13 TENNESSEE 604
14 MIAMI (FL) 592
15 GEORGIA 562
16 AUBURN 550
17 UCLA 535
18 TEXAS A&M 467
19 MICHIGAN STATE 433
20 WASHINGTON 430
21 ARKANSAS 412
22 CLEMSON 401
23 PITTSBURGH 336
23 WISCONSIN 336
25 IOWA 329
LikeLike
And an even bigger gap to #9 FSU. It makes it fairly clear who the kings have been.
If B10 teams would’ve won national titles in proportion to the rest of their success MI would be higher and OSU would have a bigger lead.
LikeLike
Well if you look at it, the most frequently mentioned kings are 1-10 and 12 & 13. Then the 4 SEC “princes” are 11 and 14-16. Not a large gap before #17 UCLA, but then it starts to slide off rapidly. One thing this does is it does count preseason polls. Not that would change it much, but it does tilt it more towards those teams already at the top.
LikeLike
Its interesting to note that, excluding Alabama, every one of the top 8 played an annual game (Oklahoma played two) against another top 8 school until very recently (Oklahoma/Nebraska).
LikeLiked by 1 person
In entire AP era…sure. But go back 4-5 decades (my lifetime) and FSU would be at or very near the top. This is why it’s somewhat pointless to cover so much ground. Just like when they try to compare teams from different eras.
LikeLike
TOM,
“In entire AP era…sure.”
Which is the entire point of an all-time AP top 25 list.
“But go back 4-5 decades (my lifetime) and FSU would be at or very near the top.”
Every school can cherry-pick periods of success. Why should we cater to FSU or any other school? Feel free to produce your own version of the list based on the past 50 years or whatever period you prefer.
“This is why it’s somewhat pointless to cover so much ground.”
It’s not pointless, it just doesn’t flatter FSU. This list is just a measure of history. It says nothing about the teams today.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct, the list is biased towards schools that have played football longer. If you were to use a points per year system schools like FSU, Boise St. and Miami would be much much higher.
LikeLike
singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,
“Absolutely correct, the list is biased towards schools that have played football longer. If you were to use a points per year system schools like FSU, Boise St. and Miami would be much much higher.”
FSU started playing CFB in 1947 while the AP poll started in 1936. You really think those 11 years are holding FSU back? FSU went back to independence in 1951 after 3 straight years of dominating the Dixie Conference. They made the coaches poll in the 60s several times. They hired Bowden in 1976. They joined the ACC in 1992. When in there are we allowed to start counting FSU football?
From 1960 on FSU is 10th in total AP poll appearances (compared to 9th place on the list above). They jump to 3rd if you wait until 1976 but that seems unfair to everyone else to basically only count the years with their best coach ever. If we take the last 50 years (1966 on) then FSU moves to 8th.
Miami has been playing since 1926. They played in the Orange Bowl in 1934 and again in 1946, so they were a real program back then. So why shouldn’t the whole history of the AP poll count for them? Do we have to wait until Schnellenberger arrived in 1979? Since then Miami is 10th in total appearances. Since 1966 (50 years), Miami is 17th in appearances.
Boise only moved to I-A in 1996, so their lack of history is factor. On the other hand, many would counter that the lack of history at Boise is part of the point. Everyone else has had time to suffer through droughts and long down times while BSU hasn’t. But since 1996 (20 years), BSU is 26th in total AP poll appearances.
LikeLike
Brian,
Come on. You can’t call the modern era of college football, whichever way you want to slice it…the past 25 years…the past 50 years…pick one…”cherry picking”. FSU has been a force during the most elite era of college football history.
For the record, FSU (FSC at the time, oldest school in Fla) fielded teams at the turn of the last century. It wasn’t contiguous history and they weren’t remarkable teams…so they were lost to history after the FSCW era. A little known fact outside of FLA (that no one cares about, understandably). So 1947 is just the conventional program start date. Sorry…useless trivia.
LikeLike
Brian,
Come on. You can’t call the modern era of college football, whichever way you want to slice it…the past 25 years…the past 50 years…pick one…”cherry picking”. FSU has been a force during the most elite era of college football history. And since it’s also the era that I’ve actually lived to see first-hand…it’s the most important too =)
LikeLike
sorry for double-post. i didn’t see my first one go through and re-typed it.
LikeLike
Florida is a few spots higher than I would have expected & I’m surprised to see Iowa & (especially) Wisconsin move into the top 25. Barry Alvarez truly turned around the Badgers.
LikeLike
Agreed. And I would have expected Miami to be higher than UF.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17202608/north-carolina-tar-heels-skip-self-imposed-penalties-response-ncaa-charges
UNC is trying to weasel out of NCAA punishment arguing jurisdiction, statute of limitations and other technicalities.
LikeLike
I haven’t figured out whether UNC’s objections have any merit. I read far enough to see that they are not pleading any excuses for the underlying behavior. But just as they are obligated to follow the rules, so is the NCAA. If the enforcement division actually did overstep the statute of limitations, exceed its jurisdiction, etc., UNC has every right to raise that.
LikeLike
The statute issue really comes down to whether the string of events can all be considered together or if each thing has to be treated as an isolated incident.
As for jurisdiction, they’re claiming that only the accreditation agency can punish them for running fake classes. Many would and have argued that they represent impermissible benefits since they were disproportionately used by athletes. Clearly that would be an NCAA issue if the latter argument holds.
The bigger point is that rather than admitting the issues and self-imposing punishment that fits their actions, they’re trying to avoid punishment by lawyering their way out of it. It may even work, but this is exactly the wrong example they should be setting.
LikeLike
But it is consistent with everything they have done so far. They’ve shown no remorse except at getting caught.
LikeLike
They’ve shown no remorse except at getting caught.
In other words, essentially the same as almost every program accused by the NCAA.
LikeLike
North Carolina has carried it a bit further and went after one of their whistleblowers at the institutional level in a way that is pretty much unprecedented in the BCS era.
LikeLike
UNC will kick all its other programs — including football — under the bus to protect its precious men’s basketball program. Even Kentucky wouldn’t go that far.
LikeLike
I don’t buy the notion that Fox and ESPN would seek retribution from the Big 12 for invoking the pro rata expansion clause. The contract runs until 2024-25 and renegotiation likely would not occur until a few years before then. By that point, the landscape of the value of sports rights fees may have undergone another major shift. I could see resistance and a legal fight depending on any ambiguities in the language of the clause–e.g. that it was intended only to apply to certain new members.
LikeLike
I don’t think they really could or will seek retribution. I have no doubt they are displeased about paying their contractually obligated pro-rata increase for teams they’re not overly interested in.
To that end, I could see say ESPN telling the Big XII something to the effect of the Big Ten negotiates two years before you, the Pac-12 a year before you. We don’t see you adding schools x and y doing anything to close the gap between those two conferences. That isn’t exactly retribution it would being honest.
LikeLike
if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?
BTW, if the Big-12 hoses the TV networks now, you can be certain that the networks will find a way to claw back some of the money – possibly by encouraging the collapse of the Big 12 prior to the next goround of negotations. And if the Big 12 goes away, Iowa State, KSU, Baylor, and West Virginia will almost certainly be screwed. TCU will be very vulnerable, and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will have to lobby very hard.
This is where the Pac-12 may successfully differentiate itself from the BiG and SEC. It is very comfortable pairing weaker sister schools with prize schools.
LikeLike
“if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?”
UT didn’t/doesn’t favor expansion.
Pro rata only applies to T1. Not ncaa or FB playoff/bowl money.
No “no brainer” schools available.
LikeLike
How much of that is a result of geographic isolation, being west of the Continental Divide? It simply will seem unfair if Wake Forest, a small private college, has found harbor in a BCS conference while Iowa State — an AAU public institution whose stadium is nearly twice as big as Wake’s, with far more consistent fan support in both football and men’s basketball — eventually is set adrift.
LikeLike
@vp19 – For better or worse, it really isn’t fair. The ACC is simply a stronger and more tight-knit league than the Big 12, so Wake Forest is going to have less risk than Iowa State. The Big Ten simply isn’t interested in Iowa State at all and it’s very unlikely that the University of Iowa would have any political leverage to get them in.
LikeLike
It simply will seem unfair if Wake Forest, a small private college, has found harbor in a BCS conference while Iowa State — an AAU public institution whose stadium is nearly twice as big as Wake’s, with far more consistent fan support in both football and men’s basketball — eventually is set adrift.
Life’s not intrinsically fair. Once upon a time, Rice was in a power conference too, and got “set adrift.”
Wake Forest didn’t just stumble into the safe harbor of a BCS conference. It was a founding member of the ACC, and before that, was in the Southern Conference with many of the same schools. They’ve always considered Wake a peer.
In the fan fantasy world, where all the conferences disband, forget their rivalries, and start choosing up sides again, as if it were sandlot baseball, perhaps Wake would be the 70 pound weakling that doesn’t get picked. But that’s not the world we are in.
LikeLike
The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!
LikeLike
Jeff, it looks as though you are suggesting that the P5 schools split from the NCAA and get one big media contract. Assuming that the SEC and the B1G continue to have significant financial advantages over the other conferences, why would they want to do that? It would simply move money to other schools.
The SEC and B1G are not likely to want such a deal.
If the P5 split football from the NCAA, what happens to all other sports? Would the NCAA agree to a split of football and keep everything else? What about G5 schools? They would likely be adamantly against a split, so the G5 would want the P5 completely out of the NCAA.
Obviously March Madness would not be the same without the P5 teams.
That would be an interesting situation.
LikeLike
The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!
If the top 40 schools really wanted to “only play each other,” they don’t need to break away from the NCAA. No NCAA rule is standing in the way of them doing that now. All that’s stopping them is the GORs they signed.
But the top 40 don’t actually want this. Remember, if the top 40 only played each other, then half of them would have losing records.
If the P5 split football from the NCAA, what happens to all other sports? Would the NCAA agree to a split of football and keep everything else? What about G5 schools? They would likely be adamantly against a split, so the G5 would want the P5 completely out of the NCAA.
The G5 need the P5. They are in no position to dictate terms.
LikeLike
Wildcat Jeff,
“The new world could be only P5 power schools that break away from the NCAA! If the top 40 to 64 broke away in 2036 and only played each other the media rights would go up by double in value. It would be huge!”
1. The top 40 aren’t going to leave a bunch of conference-mates behind any time soon.
2. Why break away from the NCAA just to have to build your own bureaucracy that does all the same things?
3. Can you imagine all the lawsuits and government interference any attempt to do that would bring?
4. The money would be huge but there’s no way the players would still be considered amateurs, so the schools wouldn’t gain much if at all.
LikeLike
Marc, I inarticulately stated my point. I meant that I believe that if the P5 wanted to pull football out of the NCAA, as a strategic matter, the G5 would push to force the P5 out completely. The reason for that push would be to convince the P5 to stay in the NCAA.
I agree that the G5 does need the P5 to an extent.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“if the Big 12 is guaranteed the same pro rata split regardless of size, why did it not expand long ago? Are we missing something here?”
The ACC extending their GOR and getting the ACCN was the tipping point. Before that, the B12 was leaning towards not expanding.
“BTW, if the Big-12 hoses the TV networks now, you can be certain that the networks will find a way to claw back some of the money”
They can’t claw it back, they can just not have to pay it in the future.
” – possibly by encouraging the collapse of the Big 12 prior to the next goround of negotations.”
That smacks of legal issues to me.
“And if the Big 12 goes away, Iowa State, KSU, Baylor, and West Virginia will almost certainly be screwed. TCU will be very vulnerable, and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will have to lobby very hard.”
There’s some chance the B12 goes away without expansion, too. They have to make a risk/reward judgement.
“This is where the Pac-12 may successfully differentiate itself from the BiG and SEC. It is very comfortable pairing weaker sister schools with prize schools.”
Are they comfortable with it or is just what has happened? Now that money matters a lot more I’m sure the P12 is less than pleased to have OrSU and WSU sucking up money. The 4 Cali schools and the 2 AZ schools are all solid members in different ways. CO and Utah are singles. So really you’re talking about just OrSU and WSU.
The SEC has pairs in MS, TN and AL with some clear little brothers. The B10 has them in IL, IN and MI. I don’t think the P12 is quite as unusual as you make it sound. The only real difference would be the willingness to accept little brothers now. The P12 was willing to do it for UT and OU but not OU alone. Nobody has offered to do it for KU. Probably nobody else would accept TT to get UT but the P12, but are we even sure the P12 would do that now?
LikeLike
Yes, “we” are sure that the Pac-12 would still take Texas Tech to get UT. In fact, I think the Pac-12 would let Texas name 3 schools to bring along if that’s what it would take to land the Longhorns.
LikeLike
I’d be more sure if it wasn’t for LHN. I’m pretty sure they’d still accept TT to get UT, but LHN may be a bigger obstacle than it appears.
LikeLike
Bowlsby once said OU president Boren is a very persuasive guy. Those stats showing a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs with 12 and a ccg did their persuading as well.
LikeLike
Yes, “we” are sure that the Pac-12 would still take Texas Tech to get UT. In fact, I think the Pac-12 would let Texas name 3 schools to bring along if that’s what it would take to land the Longhorns.
I don’t know how you could be sure, because the Pac-12 already turned down that deal once — because UT wanted the ability to create its own Tier 3 network, that it would not share. At the time, the Pac-12 considered that a deal-breaker. Maybe they’ve changed their minds, but we don’t know that.
Bowlsby once said OU president Boren is a very persuasive guy. Those stats showing a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs with 12 and a ccg did their persuading as well.
If you were the Commissioner of the B12, you’d be buttering up the president of Oklahoma too.
I didn’t find those stats very believable at all. Remember, UAB had a fancy expert report recommending it drop football, only to realize that it was a terrible mistake. You can find an expert to recommend just about anything.
LikeLike
The results of their simulations were pretty logical. Having more teams and divisions meant the top teams were less likely to beat each other during the season and would create a SOS bump in the ccg.
LikeLike
The results of their simulations were pretty logical. Having more teams and divisions meant the top teams were less likely to beat each other during the season and would create a SOS bump in the ccg.
When the Big 12 had a CCG, Texas and Oklahoma won 10 out of 15 times, and they always meet in the regular season. Of the 5 CCGs not won by UT or OU, only one winner is still in the league (KState).
This is the difference between an abstract statistical study, and the realities of the way the teams are aligned and scheduled.
LikeLike
And the winner usually didn’t play Nebraska or whoever the North division title winner was. Rematches were not very common. And the runnerup in the division often got a BCS bowl.
So it worked pretty well with 12 and a title game-except for the title game upsets!
LikeLike
And the winner usually didn’t play Nebraska or whoever the North division title winner was. Rematches were not very common.
That is true, but the original B12 was a “three-king league”. They divided 2-1, with Nebraska in the weaker North division. With Nebraska gone, UT and OU will almost certainly be in opposite divisions with a locked crossover. Once you split them, I would expect rematches to be a lot more common.
Also, the B12 originally didn’t play 9 conference games, so there were fewer crossover game. I don’t believe anyone sees them going back to 8 games.
LikeLike
For the Big 12, BYU should be considered a no-brainer.
I suppose UT’s opposition is due to fear its veto power being diluted to the point of ineffectiveness?
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“For the Big 12, BYU should be considered a no-brainer.”
Many same the same thing about the P12 and yet they have no interest in BYU.
“I suppose UT’s opposition is due to fear its veto power being diluted to the point of ineffectiveness?”
Why would BYU be any different than almost any other school for that? Why can’t a top academic school like UT resist BYU for the same reasons P12 schools do?
LikeLike
UT does not equal the Big 12. UT is arguably the only academically prestigious school in the entire conference. I doubt the rest of the conference has any qualms about BYU’s academics.
Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU. Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.
As for the Pac-12, it can also afford to be more selective than the Big 12 because of greater stability and strength. That said, if Utah did not exist, the Pac-12 might need to be more flexible about BYU.
Anyway, I think the Big 12 is doomed to fall apart when new TV contracts are negotiated. There will be a bidding war for Texas, and it will finally join a prestigious conference befitting its position. Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography. Methinks that analysis would make for a good next FranktheTank column.
LikeLike
By the way, given that Seattle, Portland, Arizona, and Utah are amongst the fastest-growing areas of the country, the Pac-12 may be much better-positioned to entice Texas than you think. 2 deadweight schools out of 12 compares favorably to the humongous amounts of deadweight in the ACC.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“By the way, given that Seattle, Portland, Arizona, and Utah are amongst the fastest-growing areas of the country, the Pac-12 may be much better-positioned to entice Texas than you think.”
I don’t think I ever claimed the P12 wasn’t decently positioned to entice UT. UT has at least 2 good options (the ACC only makes sense to me in a ND-like deal). It’s more about what UT wants rather than one being obviously better than the other.
“2 deadweight schools out of 12 compares favorably to the humongous amounts of deadweight in the ACC.”
Yes, but maybe that means that the ACC will offer something nobody else would.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“UT does not equal the Big 12.”
No, but UT is the keystone of the B12. If they don’t want a certain school in, the rest would be wise not to aggravate them by overriding UT. After all, UT can leave whenever they want while most of the others don’t have good options. They need to appease UT if they have any hope of keeping the B12 together.
“UT is arguably the only academically prestigious school in the entire conference. I doubt the rest of the conference has any qualms about BYU’s academics.”
I’d guess many of them have some concerns about research that is forbidden, actions that aren’t allowed, interference from the church in education, etc. That’s the portion of the academics that bother presidents about BYU, not the quality of their math classes. Baylor was forced upon them and at least they will play on Sundays. With the recent reports saying the Baylor honor code was part of the problem in their scandal, are they looking to add another school that’s even more strict?
KU and ISU would certainly argue about academic prestige as AAU members. Maybe TCU and Baylor would, too, since everyone defines prestigious universities differently. Regardless, I’m not claiming anyone would resist BYU because they are a bad school.
“Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU.”
KU and their hoops fans would argue that point, but it’s probably true (or at least close to true) in football.
“Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.”
Clearly it isn’t because the B12 could’ve added BYU at any point along the line and they still haven’t.
“As for the Pac-12, it can also afford to be more selective than the Big 12 because of greater stability and strength. That said, if Utah did not exist, the Pac-12 might need to be more flexible about BYU.”
Good luck convincing the California schools to approve BYU.
“Anyway, I think the Big 12 is doomed to fall apart when new TV contracts are negotiated.”
Entirely possible and maybe even probable.
“There will be a bidding war for Texas, and it will finally join a prestigious conference befitting its position.”
I’d argue that the B12 was prestigious when UT joined and only lost that prestige in the past 10-12 years once NE and then CO fell off. They were at 12 with a CCG well before the B10 or P12 and OU and UT were top programs.
“Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography.”
As long as they don’t join the SEC I don’t really have a huge preference. They are the only logical expansion for the P12, so in that sense I root for the P12. With UT the P12 can get to 14 or even 16. Without them, I think they stay at 12.
As for geography, I think it’s problematic no matter where they go. The nearest school in the B10 is NE at 823 miles away while in the P12 it’s UA at 893 miles and for the ACC it’s GT at 954 miles. Within 1000 miles, the B10 has 6 schools with 2 more really close. The P12 has 3 within 1000 miles while the ACC has 4 or 5 (depends if ND counts). The point is that they’re flying anywhere they go, but the B10 is still slightly closer than the P12 and ACC. The SEC is by far the closest P5 conference to UT outside of the B12.
B10 pros:
ET and CT teams (better time zones for viewers)
NE is an old foe
Great research academics
$$$
P12 pros:
UT might strike a better deal (keep LHN, bring TT, etc)
Access to CA
Fewer football kings to contend with means easier CFP access
Solid academics
ACC pros:
UT might strike a better deal (keep LHN, bring TT, etc)
Access to FL and other SE states
Good academics
ET teams
“Methinks that analysis would make for a good next FranktheTank column.”
I don’t know that it should be next, but it would be a solid topic after this round of B12 expansion plays out.
LikeLike
The Big 12 in 2010 had 7/12 members in the AAU, 58.3%. Only the Big 10, Ivy and barely the Pac 10 (6/10-60%) had a higher % in Division I.
LikeLike
Back then, 2010, the Big XII was on par with any conference! UT and Beebee ruined the Big XII! Some visionaries talked of a conference network but they sat on their hands in the 2000s and they are on the verge of no longer existing in 2025!
LikeLike
They almost were gone in 2010.
LikeLike
Aside from UT, and perhaps Oklahoma, no other school in the conference brings as big a following as BYU. Add to that a consistently competitive sports program, and – for the Big 12 – it is a no-brainer.
As Brian noticed, it must be a “brainer”, because they could’ve added BYU at any time, and chose not to. The last time the B12 expanded, I don’t think it was even seriously considered.
That said, if you stipulate that the B12 must expand, I do think BYU is the best candidate on the board. The state government of Texas has pretty much demanded that Houston has to be the other, so those are your two schools, if they stop at 12.
Personally, I want the Pac-12 to nab’em. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I am not sure that the BiG has a better shot than the ACC or Pac-12 due to problematic geography.
This is exactly what Frank means, when he refers to “thinking like a fan”. Regardless of which league it joins, UT athletes are going to be flying to every game. Once you are in the airplane, there isn’t a meaningful difference between, say, 1000 miles and 1200 miles. Distance of the airport to campus is far more meaningful, unless we are talking about huge differences in flight time.
In the Pac-12, UT would be playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times. On the whole, the Pac-12 is not as prestigious academically as the B10. (The P12 has Stanford and Cal, but it has a lot of dead weight too.) Then, you consider that the B10 has a far better payout and a conference network that is actually successful.
However, the Pac-12 has fewer expansion options, so it might be more flexible about the LHN than the B10 is willing to be — although that is speculation. We don’t know what the parties’ views will be in 2025.
LikeLike
I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan. Colorado is a quality school, as apparently is Arizona now. ASU seems to be getting better and Utah is an up-and-comer. The only deadweights are Oregon, Oregon State, and WSU. The BiG, OTOH, has mostly middle of the pack schools with a couple of notable laggards. The academic quality of the BiG may be more consistent (i.e. – more evenly distributed around the median), but it may be a real stretch to say that it is higher than the Pac-12.
As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid. But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.
It is not thinking like a fan to say that Texans, from the very top to the very bottom, would probably prefer to travel to Arizona, California, and Colorado (which is where many Texans have 2nd homes) than to Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey, and Maryland. And I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.
Finally, things have changed a lot since 2010. The Pac-12 now almost certainly recognizes that it really needs Texas in its conference. Sharing of 3rd-tier revenue is undoubtedly a big issue. But, excessive intransigence risks jeopardizing the conference’s standing over time.
LikeLike
Another point on Texas: I suspect there are many more Texas alums in Pac-12 territories than in BiG territories – which is a consideration.
As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences. As a Stanford alum, I can tell you that Bowlsby is ok – he knows how to hire a football coach – but definitely has his weaknesses too (doesn’t know how to hire a basketball coach and is not a good operations guy).
LikeLike
Redwood86:
So an AAU school is deadwood?
LikeLike
I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan.
It depends what gets ranked. I looked at the 2014 report of Top American Research Universities, which I think is a fair proxy for what university presidents care about.
Yes, the top of the Pac-12 is very strong. But it has six schools that are “worse” than the Big 10’s best 12. (The Big Ten has two outliers, but none below the Pac-12’s worst school.)
Michigan: 2
Wisconsin: 3
Washington: 4
UCLA: 8
Stanford: 9
Minnesota: 14
Ohio State: 17
Cal: 18
Penn State: 19
Northwestern: 27
Arizona: 28
USC: 29
Texas: 30
Purdue: 31
Illinois: 32
Michigan State: 36
Maryland: 37
Iowa: 42
Rutgers: 45
Utah: 50
Colorado: 55
Arizona State: 58
Washington State: 68
Iowa State: 79
Nebraska: 82
Oregon State: 83
Kansas: 98
Indiana: 104
Kansas State: 109
Oklahoma: 125
Oregon: 144
As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid. But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.
It is not “thinking like a fan,” because members of the UT administration have cited this as an issue in various interviews, so apparently they care about it. Football drives re-alignment decisions, but the times of football games are no advantage in the Pac-12. If it were, I agree that football would probably win. But with game times being a neutral issue for football, the detriment for other sports becomes a consideration.
I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.
Now, that’s thinking like a fan (assuming that is even true—I don’t know).
As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences.
We do agree on that, but there are many, and not just B12 management, to whom the purported “obviousness” of BYU is not entirely clear.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW academically outrank every school in the BiG except Northwestern and Michigan.”
By what metrics?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/country/93/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only
Times Higher Education World University rankings:
3. Stanford
13. Cal
16. UCLA
21. MI
25. NW
32. UW
36. IL
50. WI
65. MN
68. USC
That’s 5 and 5 for the top 10 from the 2 conferences.
75. PSU
90. OSU
99. MSU
8 to 5 in favor of the B10 in the top 100.
113. PU
117. UMD
123. RU
127. CO
11 to 6 in favor of the B10 in the top 50 in the US.
“Colorado is a quality school, as apparently is Arizona now. ASU seems to be getting better and Utah is an up-and-comer. The only deadweights are Oregon, Oregon State, and WSU.”
Rest of the P12:
163. UA
182. Utah
189. ASU
251-300. OrSU
301-350. UO
351-400. WSU
“The BiG, OTOH, has mostly middle of the pack schools with a couple of notable laggards.”
Rest of the B10:
201-250. IN & IA
301-350. NE
What pack are they the middle of, exactly? 11 of the 14 members are ahead of “quality school” Colorado. 13 of 14 are ahead of the P12’s 3 deadweight members.
“The academic quality of the BiG may be more consistent (i.e. – more evenly distributed around the median), but it may be a real stretch to say that it is higher than the Pac-12.”
13 of 14 are AAU members. 11 of 14 make the top 50 in the US versus 6 of 12 for the P12.
Granted, Times HE isn’t the only ranking system. Let’s look at ARWU.
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html
2. Stanford
4. Cal
12. UCLA
15. UW
22. MI
24. WI
27. NW
29. IL
30. MN
34. CO
Again it’s an even split in the top 10.
43. UMD
49. USC
60. PSU
61. PU
64. RU
67. OSU
90. UA
93. ASU & Utah
99. MSU
11 of 14 B10 schools make the top 50 in the US (also top 100 in the world) versus 9 of 12 P12 schools, very comparable.
Rest of the P12:
151-200. OrSU
301-400. UO & WSU
Rest of the B10:
101-150. IN
151-200. IA
201-300. NE
Still an edge at the bottom for the B10.
“As for UT playing a lot of night road games at undesirable times, that would not occur much in football. ESPN and Fox are not going to put Texas in the 10:30pm eastern time slot too often – that would be stupid.”
UA and ASU only play night home games for much of the season due to the heat. Besides, the networks would like to draw better ratings in the late slots. They will put UT there some just like they do USC. In 2015 USC had 3 regular season games start at 9pm ET or later and another at 8:55pm. 2 of those started at 10:30pm or later.
“But in sports like basketball, yes, the weekday games in CA and the northwest would be at 9pm central. But those would be over by 11pm – so not sure how undesirable that is. BTW, focusing on this is thinking like a “fan”.”
Actually, presidents worry about players getting back to campus really late when they have classes the next day.
“It is not thinking like a fan to say that Texans, from the very top to the very bottom, would probably prefer to travel to Arizona, California, and Colorado (which is where many Texans have 2nd homes) than to Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey, and Maryland. And I imagine, for a Texan, traveling to Seattle would beat going to Michigan.”
UT is over 90% in-state students. The most non-residents come from CA, but #2 is IL.
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/student-life/diversity/#
CA – 98
IL – 64
NJ – 28
CO – 27
OH – 17
AZ, MD – 15
PA – 14
MI, WA – 7
MN – 5
OR – 4
IN, WI – 3
IA – 2
NE, UT – 1
So the school is pulling from both regions about equally. As to where the alumni live, that’s harder to find out. Perhaps bullet can provide more info.
“Finally, things have changed a lot since 2010. The Pac-12 now almost certainly recognizes that it really needs Texas in its conference. Sharing of 3rd-tier revenue is undoubtedly a big issue. But, excessive intransigence risks jeopardizing the conference’s standing over time.”
It’s hard to predict what presidents will do sometimes.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Another point on Texas: I suspect there are many more Texas alums in Pac-12 territories than in BiG territories – which is a consideration.”
It is a consideration, but that’s hard information hard to find online usually. Perhaps a UT alumnus can pass on that info. I’m sure CA has a lot in part because it’s so big and has nice weather. What I’ve found online seems to show that the next state is NY, so I think UT alumni go everywhere.
“As for BYU being a “brainer”, I think we can agree that over the past 10 years the Big 12 has had the least brainy management of all the power conferences.”
That doesn’t make you right and them wrong. They spent more time looking at more data and thinking like presidents than you have.
LikeLike
Frank tweeted several links of interest here.
http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-continues-support-for-big-12-expansion-with-g5-teams.html
This is an opinion piece arguing that Fox is still supporting B12 expansion. Unfortunately many people seem to be taking it as factual reporting.
http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansion-tv-contract-espn-fox-1957715979.html
In contrast, Andy Staples reports that both networks are fighting this.
For the networks, this will not stand. Their opening salvo came Monday in the form of a story by John Ourand and Michael Smith in The Sports Business Journal. Based on conversations with people on various sides of the deal, that stance has not changed. In fact, the longer the Big 12 goes without explaining or clarifying its expansion intentions, the more the networks will dig in. ESPN and Fox are different companies and have different styles of doing business. ESPN, perhaps because it has many avenues with which to negotiate with the Big 12 (the Sugar Bowl contract, deals with leagues the Big 12 might poach from, the corporate partner program) has taken a slightly softer tone. Fox, which doesn’t have as many deals to leverage in a negotiation, has taken the more aggressive tone. Regardless of their differences, executives at both networks feel the Big 12 is violating the spirit of the original deal.
http://www.campusrush.com/aac-big-12-expansion-new-media-tv-deal-1956747135.html
Meanwhile, Pete Thamel looks at how new media companies might be very important to the B12 and AAC in the near future.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Big 12’s long-term plans are predicated on cashing in from alternative broadcast sources, which could include Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Netflix or some broadcast medium that’s yet to have been invented.
In a fitting twist, the appetite of those non-traditional broadcasters will best be gauged by none other than the AAC. The AAC’s television deals expire in 2019, which means that it will get a chance to be a guinea pig for bringing so-called “new media” to the table. “Anyone with eyes can tell that the big Internet companies—I wouldn’t even call them new media, they’re not anymore—are going to be bigger players,” AAC commissioner Mike Aresco told SI.com on Tuesday. “There’s no question. TV is TV and media is media. You can watch a game on a pie plate.”
Aresco said that the league is in talks with Amazon to broadcast some of its women’s basketball and non-revenue sports as soon as this year. Amazon has more than 50 million subscribers to its Prime Video service. While nothing is finalized, that offers a small window into a new world.
All 3 pieces are worth reading, but I don’t put a lot of stock in the first opinion piece since prominent reporters are saying the opposite.
LikeLike
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17208637/district-attorney-asks-baylor-bears-pepper-hamilton-investigation-access
The DA in Waco has asked Baylor for full access to the entire Pepper Hamilton investigation.
Sources told ESPN that the DA’s office has relayed an informal request to Baylor officials for access to the information from the Pepper Hamilton investigation. The DA’s office is seeking to determine if the findings contain evidence of additional crimes by student-athletes, sources said.
Prosecutors also want to know if there is evidence of criminal conduct by Baylor coaches, faculty or staff in connection with sexual assaults by students.
LikeLike
Good article on the status of Big 12 expansion from Dallas, where they talked to “5 school and industry sources”:
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/08/03/houston-cincinnati-among-schools-vying-big-12-bid-espn-fox-thrilled-expansion-talks
LikeLike
Good read, but if you want cliff notes:
2 or 4 almost certain
maybe by 9/1, but good chance of slipping to October
UH/Cincinnati/BYU top 3 but nobody has 8 votes
CSU/UConn/Memphis/UCF clustered for #4
Fox and ESPN probably posturing as Fox probably wants expansion
And as for the wishful thinking from all contenders not named Houston and the skepticism from a lot of people around the country and in Big 12 territory in defiance of all common sense, Texas is strongly supporting Houston.
LikeLike
The lack of common sense I’m referring to is the denial that the governor might have actually meant what he said.
LikeLike
Not the Gov so much – that makes some sense. My curiosity is with UT supporting. Trying to rebuild the SWC? Cause that was so much fun? (Maybe Rice has hope)
LikeLike
My curiosity is with UT supporting. Trying to rebuild the SWC?
Doesn’t the Governor have a number of his own hand-picked people on the UT board?
LikeLike
Over time he has all 9. So basically the UT and TT presidents are effectively his employees. But more important is that he has influence over the budget. If he really means what he says (and there is no reason to believe he doesn’t) and gets backed by the Lt. Governor (who is a UH alum), then presidents would be very wise to cooperate.
Even if somebody else got brought in on an 8-2 vote, there could be negative repercussions on UT and TT from some of the legislature. UH has a substantial presence there.
LikeLike
Even if UT really had a choice, there are a lot of reasons for choosing UH. They get universally dissed both within and without the Big 12 footprint, which I find pretty interesting. They are in Big 12 territory already. And they don’t draw well. But you have to consider the other options-UConn, USF, UCF, Cincinnati, Memphis, Colorado St. and BYU. All but BYU fail to draw well.
1. Houston has a history of success. They have been ranked 184 times in the AP poll. That is 2nd behind BYU among the contenders and more than all the rest combined. They have finished in the final top 10 7 times. That is more than all the other contenders combined including BYU. Its also more often than every Big 12 member but UT, OU and TCU. They have 5 final 4s. Only Cincinnati with 6 has more. UConn has hardware but has only been there 5 times. Only Kansas, of course, and Oklahoma St., who has 6, have more among current members. Houston has had success in other sports and does have 16 NCAA championships in golf. Other than UConn and BYU, I doubt any of the others have any in any sport.
2. Presence. Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC teams are playing neutral site games in Houston (and Dallas). Being there improves your visibility for recruiting and connecting with alumni (see Big 10 and Rutgers). Houston is a big base for Big 12 alumni and its the nation’s 4th largest city and 5th largest metro (DFW #4).
3. Home crowds. Other than BYU and perhaps Cincinnati for WVU only, the other contenders would generate negative interest in Big 12 stadiums. Houston has a chance to re-kindle rivalries and generate interest in the 6 southern schools. UH was, for a time, UT’s 2nd biggest rival. Also see #1. Good opponents generate interest.
4. TV ratings. We don’t have the detailed TV analysis. We don’t know what it showed. It probably showed BYU #1 and the others close. But UH would have been near the top. We know in the AAC contract UH was the newest member and yet was one of the 4 “Class A” members along with 10 year members, UConn & Cincinnati as well as Temple. Virtually all games are national now. There is too much emphasis on “new markets” and not enough on the impact nationally. UConn, USF and UCF haven’t even been in the top division 20 years. A lot of casual viewers probably don’t know they play football. Memphis and Colorado St. have generally been pretty bad at football (which is 80-85% of the revenue). 15 years ago, Cincinnati was no different than Memphis. In any event, UCF, USF, Memphis, and Cincinnati don’t own their market (pretty much the same for CSU) and are in smaller markets than Houston. UConn is in a relatively small state. Again, see #1. Good opponents generate interest.
5. Academic reasons. From UT’s standpoint, a better, more attractive UH relieves the considerable pressure on Texas to expand its enrollment beyond the 50,000 they have maintained for the last 35 years. UT thinks it can’t maintain quality with more students. A lot of really good students in Texas who can’t get into UT or A&M head out of state, sometimes to lesser schools than UH. Those kids and their parents complain to the legislature.
LikeLike
bullet,
I’m not anti-UH, but you’re really stretching some of these points.
UH hasn’t been in a power conference since the SWC collapsed in 1996 and was only in the SWC for 25 years, so they’ve been out of a power conference almost as long as they were in one. UC was in the Big East/AAC for 8 seasons as a BCS conference and the AAC has been G5 for just 2 years. BYU is treated as a P5 team for scheduling purposes by multiple P5 conferences right now.
“1. Houston has a history of success. They have been ranked 184 times in the AP poll. That is 2nd behind BYU among the contenders and more than all the rest combined.”
UH has finished ranked in the final AP poll twice in the past 25 years and 5 times in the past 35 years. UC has finished ranked 4 times in the past 10 years and made 2 BCS bowls. BYU has finished ranked 8 times in the past 25 years and 14 in the past 35 including a national title.
Even UConn and UCF managed BCS games. UH hasn’t seen a major bowl since 1984, the same time BYU was winning the national title.
“They have finished in the final top 10 7 times.”
But only once in the past 25 years and twice since the 70s.
“That is more than all the other contenders combined including BYU.”
It’s also ancient history. SMU used to be a power, too. So did MN. At some point the history loses it’s influence.
“There is too much emphasis on “new markets” and not enough on the impact nationally.”
Unless, of course, an expanded B12 tries to form a B12N in the future.
“UConn, USF and UCF haven’t even been in the top division 20 years.”
No, but two of them made BCS games while UH has been in G5.
“15 years ago, Cincinnati was no different than Memphis.”
15 years ago UC was a decent team in C-USA. 10 years ago they were in a BCS conference and preparing to win 10 games in 5 of the next 6 seasons and 9 in 7 of the next 8.
“In any event, UCF, USF, Memphis, and Cincinnati don’t own their market (pretty much the same for CSU) and are in smaller markets than Houston.”
But UH doesn’t own Houston either. The question is how many eyeballs do they add. The problem for UH is that many of their fans already watch the B12. That’s much less true for the others.
LikeLike
What UH did in the SWC demonstrates what they can do in a major conference. UConn and USF didn’t do nearly as well when they were in the Big East. Neither did Cincinnati. Cincinnati spent 10 years in a BCS conference and only has been ranked 4 more weeks than UH was in CUSA in the last 20 years. Getting in a BCS bowl and getting ranked is a lot easier when you were in a BCS conference, especially the #6 BCS conference. UConn ended up 8-5 the year they got a BCS bowl.
Anybody but BYU and Houston are a risk that they will flop. I think the evidence indicates that UConn, USF and UCF would be at best 10th in a 12 team Big 12 and quite possibly 12th. UConn and USF were bottom half in Big East (often bottom quarter) in a conference where West Virginia was the biggest power. UCF went winless only two years after a BCS bowl win.
As for Cincinnati’s history, its rival Miami has spent more weeks ranked in the AP Poll despite being in the MAC. They also have more top 10 finishes (2 vs. 1).
LikeLike
1/6th of the Houston market added is more than 100% of Memphis. Its more than 50% of Cincinnati and more than 1/3 of Orlando or Tampa. Houston doesn’t have to add as big a % in order to bring more local fans.
There are roughly 16% more people in Texas and an 8% larger area than Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee combined. And its growing quicker. Those 5 states have 8 SEC teams. And 4 of those schools have won an MNC since the beginning of the BCS era. 6 P5 teams in Texas is not too many.
LikeLike
bullet,
“What UH did in the SWC demonstrates what they can do in a major conference.”
No, it demonstrates what they could do in a major conference back then. Things change. UH would be coming in as a G5 school and would be facing a very different landscape than in the 70s and 80s.
“UConn and USF didn’t do nearly as well when they were in the Big East. Neither did Cincinnati.”
I’m not pretending they did. But results from the 80s don’t carry much weight in today’s world.
“Getting in a BCS bowl and getting ranked is a lot easier when you were in a BCS conference,”
Yes, and UH spent 25 years in a power conference while the others didn’t. Perhaps you should modify your statements about how impressive UH’s performance is since they were the only ones to spend so long in a power conference.
“Anybody but BYU and Houston are a risk that they will flop.”
Everyone is a risk that they will flop. One or two bad hires and a program is derailed.
“1/6th of the Houston market added is more than 100% of Memphis. Its more than 50% of Cincinnati and more than 1/3 of Orlando or Tampa. Houston doesn’t have to add as big a % in order to bring more local fans.”
Yes, and that still doesn’t show that UH brings more new eyeballs. How much of the Houston market did the B12 already have? Of the remainder, how many will be brought in by adding UH?
LikeLike
Oh [Redacted]
LikeLike
8/1
Follow
jessicalarson
@sooner2016
UT and OU are both talking to the B1G. OU is also talking with the Pac 12 – was stated on SiriusXM 84 this afternoon.
————————————————–
Think it’d be great if UT pushing for more Texas school’s into the Big 12 would ease their departure to the B1G.
LikeLike
My first question on reading such things, is always: does this person have a demonstrated track record of being right about conference realignment?
Otherwise, it’s just another Bluevod or Dude of WV.
LikeLike
Marc – I always think that also. I share posts/tweets based only on the conversation/topic. Not on if it is a legitimate source or not. As such she only states she heard the rumor, not who said it. Could be Joe Shmoe calling from the local Waffle House parking lot.
LikeLike
Texas to the B1G is the only move that Texas can make that can equal and/or better the move by TAMU to the SEC. There seems to be something fishy to me about Texas pushing for the inclusion of UH into the B12 – like, look we’re going to support UH’s inclusion into a bigger conference but you’d better not stand in our way when we move to the B1G.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Texas to the B1G is the only end game that makes sense, it’s the only move Texas can make that’ll trump TAMU’s move to the SEC. Their support of UH into the B12 seems very fishy to me, like they’re cutting a deal to leave the B12 for the B1G, by getting UH into the door of the B12.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The issue with Texas to the B1G is who comes with them?
I speculate that, given the present situation, the presidents prefer in this order:
1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
2. Kansas (Better academics than OU)
3. Oklahoma (Worse academics than KU)
Fans prefer:
1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
2. Oklahoma (Better football than KU)
3. Kansas (Better basketball than OU)
So, is it either KU or OU?
Texas likely wants to stay tied to OU, and they’re likely not going to move to the B1G with Kansas and not OU. Therefore, I think if the B1G wants Texas, they’re taking OU too. Also, Nebraska would like OU as well, they would also like Kansas, but they’d prefer OU over KU.
Yes, the RRR could continue if Texas goes to the B1G and OU goes to the SEC, but it’s never the same unless you’re in the same conference, and much harder to schedule.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dirwin7,
“The issue with Texas to the B1G is who comes with them?
I speculate that, given the present situation, the presidents prefer in this order:
1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
2. Kansas (Better academics than OU)
3. Oklahoma (Worse academics than KU)
Fans prefer:
1. Notre Dame (Not happening)
2. Oklahoma (Better football than KU)
3. Kansas (Better basketball than OU)”
I’m not sure the presidents would put KU ahead of OU. Yes they prefer KU’s academics (AAU member, slightly higher ranked) but expansion is also about money and OU brings much more of that. Add in NE favoring their old rivalry and a much needed infusion of power into the B10 West and it’s hard to favor KU. Maybe they go to 18 and add both OU and KU as well as an eastern school (UConn for even more hoops power?) if UT demands more than 1 partner.
Besides, it may be more about what UT wants than what the B10 presidents prefer. Either OU is acceptable or they aren’t.
“So, is it either KU or OU?”
If they only bring one, then yes.
“Texas likely wants to stay tied to OU, and they’re likely not going to move to the B1G with Kansas and not OU. Therefore, I think if the B1G wants Texas, they’re taking OU too.”
That would be my guess. With 9 conference games, they don’t want the RRR locked on top of that.
LikeLike
If the BIG did add UCONN it would also be another hockey team and give the conference an even number of teams.
LikeLike
If the BIG did add UCONN it would also be another hockey team and give the conference an even number of teams.
Although true, hockey will never be the reason any school gets a B10 invite. In addition, the Huskies are relatively new to Division I hockey (less than 20 years) and have an all-time losing record. They wouldn’t add much excitement—even to those who think hockey ought to figure in the decision.
LikeLike
Think if you’re Texas – you were in the B12, a totally respectable conference that you ruled. It was never the best conference but it was good, you had yourself, OU, Kansas, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, these are all institutions that carry some weight. The rest of the league was…meh. Then all of a sudden you lose 4 of the top 7 schools in the league. What’s worse is that your biggest rival, TAMU, the school you’ve been having a biggest dick contest with since the beginning of time goes to the SEC and gloats about it (remember the SECede shirts?). Now you’re left in a conference with 3 top schools and a bunch of schools you feel you’re better than and Texas is becoming SEC territory because no one wants to watch Baylor (even though Baylor has been good) play Iowa State, they want to watch TAMU play Alabama.
The only thing you can do to take back the glory and to take back attention to you, is to go to the B1G, where you’re back to playing Nebraska, where you can play OSU, Michigan, PSU, Michigan State, Wisconsin, maybe Oklahoma comes along for the ride too.
The ACC doesn’t do it, and I don’t think the Pac12 does it for you either. Let’s face it, the ACC and P12 have some good football teams at the top, but they’re not die hard football conferences, and the fanbases really don’t care all that much.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pac 12 works but the $ is better in the B1G
LikeLike
@dirwin7 has a point: the Big Ten is the only move UT can make that tops the move A&M made. I just don’t know how much that figures in their decision.
LikeLike
Not at all.
LikeLike
Doubt $s are the deciding factor. Academics, location, and the ability to help TT. OU with the same helping ability re OkSU. There is, or at least was, only one place that would offer four for two.
One power conf (P16) dominating near 1/3 of the U.S. population vs the other three sharing a bit over 2/3 might be more attractive than eastern centric media might think.
LikeLike
I really don’t think helping Texas Tech is what Texas cares about – that was the “Tech Problem”. But the Tech Problem is possibly why getting UH into the B12 helps Texas with. Think about it, if UH is added to the B12, now you have 5 schools in the State of TX in the B12, UT, TCU, Baylor, UH, and TT. When Texas had the Tech Problem you only had UT, Baylor, and TT. Now, if UH is added and UT wants to jump ship to the B1G, Tech doesn’t have the political pull it did before to stick with UT, because now there’s 4 other institutions that are trying to use their political pull to either go along with UT or keep UT in the B12. If UT decides to leave, and say that TT tries to play politics and go along with, now you’ve got TCU, UH, and Baylor saying “us too”. But they know that all 5 aren’t going, and the other three aren’t going to let TT go without them. So, what happens is they end up succeeding only in keeping TT with the other 3, letting UT go away.
Having the 4 remaining schools, TCU, UH, TT, and Baylor in the same conference isn’t great but darn, it isn’t too shabby either. They can create/keep a conference together with honestly, pretty similar institutions such as Iowa State, KSU, OkSU, and WV (Kansas and OK are likely gone). And add in that if the B12 adds U Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, your conference is listed below, it’s not a Power 5, but it’s not the AAC either, you can work with this:
TCU
UH
TT
Baylor
U Cincinnati
Memphis
WV
Iowa State
KSU
OkSU
BYU
South FL/U Cent. FL
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure the PAC would swap KU for TT.
You really think TT is going to vote for increasing the likelihood of being left behind (voting UH in)? TT’s only ticket out/up IF B12 dies is with UT. If we can see that so can they.
Point is there was an offer (the only one logical) that took two Texas public schools. Two aren’t going the B1G or SEC. I suppose a twenty plus ACC might, but again only with UT.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“One power conf (P16) dominating near 1/3 of the U.S. population vs the other three sharing a bit over 2/3 might be more attractive than eastern centric media might think.”
If they all cared equally about college sports that would hold more weight. But we all know that CFB fans are concentrated in certain regions more than others. It’s the number of CFB viewers that matters and the western population is relatively light on CFB fans.
LikeLike
If you want to think like a university president, and not like a sports fan, then consider these facts:
https://mup.asu.edu/Top-Universities
Total Research x $1000:
2012 : A&M = 669,968 / UT = 549,312
2011 : A&M = 682,553 / UT = 558,377
2010 : A&M = 666,516 / UT = 531,412
2009 : A&M = 630,655 / UT = 506,369
2008 : A&M = 582,365 / UT = 493,294
LikeLike
Here are additional facts to consider:
Total Research x $1000:
2012 : Texas Tech = 105,147
2011 : Texas Tech = Not Available
2010 : Texas Tech = 106,220
2009 : Texas Tech = Not Available
2008 : Texas Tech = Not Available
In other words, A&M has total research that is greater than UT & Texas Tech combined.
Of course, the above total research for UT is for UT-Austin only and not the entire UT-system.
Anyway, my point here is that UT and A&M are also academic rivals not only athletic rivals.
LikeLike
How/why did aTm’s research #s enter the B12 expansion discussion?
LikeLike
Because the color of money is green.
LikeLike
UT concerned about A&M? UT put up those numbers without a medical school on its Austin campus. The research $$ of UT MD Anderson exceed UT-Austin and are almost equal to A&M. UT has 3 other health related campuses in the top 100 research universities. In any case, the Dell (good indication of funding source) College of Medicine is opening this year on the Austin campus. With the amount of $$ going to medical research, the UT Austin campus will be blowing past A&M research $$$ in future years.
LikeLike
From the same link (*):
https://mup.asu.edu/Top-Universities
In the intense competition for national and international prestige, universities seek funds from multiple sources to improve their research productivity and performance. As we have demonstrated elsewhere in the work of The Center for Measuring University Performance (MUP Center), the essential element for academic research success is money. While it is possible for a rich university to perform poorly in the research competition, poor institutions are unable to provide the resources needed for their faculty and staff to deliver significant amounts of high quality research. The cost is high because almost everything research requires is expensive. This is especially so in the most important domains of science and engineering, the primary benchmarks for academic institutional prestige.
Not only do science and engineering (S&E) projects require expensive space, elaborate equipment, and significant staff support, but faculty and other expert science and engineering personnel command high salaries and are often tempted by offers from competing institutions. Faculty mobility and the replacement of retiring colleagues generate additional costs as each new S&E faculty member comes with a requirement for extensive startup costs in equipment and laboratories along with salaries for new highly specialized non-faculty technicians, post-docs, and stipends for graduate students. Frequently, as well, a new distinguished hire will bring along additional tenure level faculty colleagues in allied fields who will have their own startup costs.
Universities seek money for research from every possible source. Internal budgets from tuition and fees (and in public universities from state appropriations) provide core academic support and subsidize research expenses. In addition, donors, competitive federal grants, foundation grants, state government grants and contracts, local government projects, corporate contracts, and other grants or contracts from public or private agencies (domestic and international) all serve to sustain an institution’s research mission.
This search for funding is particularly critical because few S&E or other research projects sponsored by outside agencies pay the full cost of producing the work. The difference between the sponsors’ funding and what the work costs to deliver must be covered from some other source, usually internal university funds from tuition and fees, state appropriations, earnings on endowment, and annual giving. While it may appear that increasing amounts of sponsored research is a good thing, generating more dollars to spend on research productivity and quality, the more sponsored research a university does the more internal funding is required to make up the difference between the sponsors’ funds and the full cost of the work.
Increased scale in a university research enterprise, especially in S&E disciplines, however, does provide a significant benefit because the more research activity the university generates the more cost sharing is possible for administrative and especially regulatory support, infrastructure, and some equipment technicians. While many of these expenses are included in the indirect cost charged to grants, these payments generally cover only around 25% of the full cost.
(*) Tracking Academic Research Funding: The Competitive Context for the Last Ten Years; Diane D. Craig and John V. Lombardi, The Center for Measuring University Performance; The Top American Research Universities, 2014 Annual Report.
LikeLike
Take BYU and Boise State for football only.
Take Colorado State and Cincinnati for all sports.
Take Wichita State and either Gonzaga or Dayton for non-football sports.
LikeLike
UT acquired good acreage just south of the 6-10 loop,not too far from the Texas Medical Center, for their research campus. UH responded by protesting UT’s access to the permanent university fund, a multi-billion dollar fund, and publicly sent a letter requesting the legislature grant UH access to that fund. Other UT satellite campuses, such as in the Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio were less-than-thrilled with the idea UT would be diverting its resources into the Houston area. Legislators in their areas gave quotes to papers and UH just might have had momentum to pull off stopping UT’s plans or, worst of all for UT, getting access to the PUF. As with the US’ agreement to withdraw Jupiter missiles from Turkey in the Cuban missile crisis, UH will not publicly say they are giving a quid pro quo to back off opposition to the campus and, more importantly, push to hack off a big portion of the PUF for UH’s use. However, 2017 is a legislative year in Texas (our legislature meets only in odd-numbered years) and UH just might quietly not have opposition to UT’s plans in its legislative priorities before the session kicks off. Helping get UH into the Big 12 has a lot of benefits for UT.
Texas Tech’s support is a bit harder to pin down. One thought is that, with another state institution in the conference, Tech could better coordinate with UH to do some damage to the PUF if UT were to leave in the future. I am less familiar with Tech’s priorities at this point–I know they recently started a medical school in El Paso and may be looking to grow in that part of the state–but winning over Houston-area legislators with support wouldn’t hurt their interests.
LikeLike
Thank you for posting this. very interesting.
LikeLike
The deciding factors might be Fox and ESPN. Ruthenberg at Enid News, OK, claims that the networks are balking at providing any new money if expansion occurs.
http://www.enidnews.com/sports/local_sports/ruthenberg-throwing-cold-water-on-hot-big-expansion-talk/article_93859070-43b7-5cdd-a5ef-96c85ffeb02f.html
They’re probably on solid ground. The contract was signed when the B12 had 12 teams, so an expansion back to twelve might not invoke the additional money clause. An expansion to 14 might only get additional money for two schools, not four. So, the B12 is looking at a dilution of the payments per school, and that should put the kibosh on expansion.
Aside possibly for BYU, the other candidates don’t appear to bring any P5-like value to a P5 conference, which is a good enough reason not to expand. The B12 is in the position that its parts are worth more than the whole. Perhaps they should negotiate a parts sale to the other P5 conferences.
LikeLike
The deciding factors might be Fox and ESPN. Ruthenberg at Enid News, OK, claims that the networks are balking at providing any new money if expansion occurs.
Actually, all he’s done is to cite a Sports Business Journal article that’s a week old. That article is entitled to some weight, but almost every conceivable permutation has been “reported” by someone. It’s hard to know who to believe.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“The contract was signed when the B12 had 12 teams,”
No, they signed a new deal with 10 members that included the GOR.
LikeLike
I knew you guys might be missing something in this Big 12 expansion equation. It never has really stood to reason that if the Big 12 could easily make a pile of money by adding any old school that they would not have already done it.
The key issue: does the contract directly link the amount of money paid to the number of teams in the conference, and is it clear that the networks have been ignoring such language to the Big 12’s benefit? If so, Big 12 is hosed.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“I knew you guys might be missing something in this Big 12 expansion equation.”
Yes it’s us. And every single journalist covering the issue. And every source within the B12. We’re all wrong because you disagree.
“It never has really stood to reason that if the Big 12 could easily make a pile of money by adding any old school that they would not have already done it.”
1. The pile of money won’t be all that large per school.
2. They have to agree the expansion would help the conference and not hurt it.
3. They have to agree on specific schools to add.
It took a lot of analysis to show that being smaller was hurting them in the playoff. This same group had several schools against a CCG despite the obvious windfall. Getting 8 of 10 schools to agree on something this important isn’t easy, especially with the expansion options available to them.
“The key issue: does the contract directly link the amount of money paid to the number of teams in the conference,”
Everyone says it has a pro rata clause. The deal was signed when they had 10 members. The lack of specificity of schools they could add was plausibly explained as well. The networks may feel this expansion violates the spirit of the deal, but it won’t violate the letter of the deal or the B12 wouldn’t do it.
“and is it clear that the networks have been ignoring such language to the Big 12’s benefit? If so, Big 12 is hosed.”
They signed a new deal when they were at 10 members. Nothing was being ignored.
LikeLike
Update from Blauds.
https://tmgcollegesports.com/2016/08/05/big-12-focusing-on-adding-only-2-schools/
According to sources familiar with the process, the Big 12 is now focusing on adding two–not four– schools .. And while multiple schools will receive consideration, the front runners appear to be BYU–but probably in a football only scenario–and either Connecticut or Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Also:
Left out of this equation are schools such as Houston, Memphis and UCF. Other schools mentioned such as Tulane, Boise State, Colorado State and USF were never considered front runners.
None of this certain because the Big 12 has taken on the look of a political convention with back room deal being made as schools gather support.
and
Houston was considered a front runner with political support from the Texas governor’s office as well as the University of Texas administration. But there is very little support for the Cougars from the Big 12 schools north of the Red River. Houston needs 8 of 10 votes to get approval, which means it needs support from Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas or Kansas State. Right now, the votes are not there. which is why deals are being proposed.
LikeLike
But we’ve also been told there is no interest in football-only members and that UH almost has to get in or UT will try to block expansion.
LikeLike
That’s why this report makes no sense. There also has been some indication that OU was an early backer of UH (Dave Sittler’s articles). Sounds he is getting someone’s preferred result.
I think a BYU football only combined with UConn for all sports is one of the lowest two team probabilities out there.
LikeLike
It reads like TMG Sports added Bluevod as a consultant.
LikeLike
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17226092/woman-accusing-florida-gators-players-sexual-assault-boycotts-title-ix-hearing
Why do schools have such problems dealing with sexual assault cases? How hard is it to find an unbiased judge/lawyer?
A woman who accused Florida football players Antonio Callaway and Treon Harris of sexually assaulting her in December is boycotting a Title IX hearing because the university appointed a Gators football booster to adjudicate the case.
…
The U.S Department of Education allows schools to establish their own structure for adjudicating Title IX complaints within certain guidelines and standards. The agency requires anyone involved in the grievance procedure to have adequate training in handling complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence — and to be unbiased. A letter the agency sent to colleges and universities in 2011 states, “a school’s investigation and hearing process cannot be equitable unless they are impartial. Therefore, any real or perceived conflicts of interest between the fact-finder or decision-maker and the parties should be disclosed.”
Florida officials appointed attorney Jake Schickel to serve as a hearing officer. Schickel, a founding partner of a Jacksonville, Florida, law firm, has a bachelor’s degree in political science and law degree from Florida. He is also a past trustee of Florida’s Levin College of Law.
A former track and field athlete at Florida, Schickel, 68, is a Scholarship Club donor to Florida Football Boosters, which requires annual contributions of $4,800 to $8,599, according to a 2014-15 Year In Review program published by the UF athletics department. According to the documents, Schickel is also a 3-Point Club donor to Florida basketball, which requires annual contributions of $2,000 to $4,999.
“To be clear, this letter is not intended to cast any aspersions about Mr. Schickel’s character or his service to his alma mater,” Clune wrote in an Aug. 2 letter to Hass. “However, UF should never have asked him to serve as an objective reviewer and decision-maker on this matter when the claim has been brought against a star member of the very team for which both he and his law partners have provided considerable financial support.
“Quite frankly, short of finding a relative of Mr. Calloway, I’m not sure how UF could have found someone with more conflicts [than] Mr. Schickel.”
…
Brett Sokolow, executive director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, a nonprofit association for schools, colleges and universities, said if Florida is choosing someone with such deep ties to the athletic department and university, it opens up any potential decision to a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education or a Title IX lawsuit.
“The obligation for a Title IX investigation is for it to be impartial and completed by somebody whose perspective is objective. All of those associations with the university certainly raise the issue of potential bias,” he said. “How would the alleged victim feel like she’s getting a fair shake?”
“I’m not even sure it’s ethical under the state ethics rules for the attorney to take on this engagement, given his donations and other boosting of the athletic program,” he added.
He said any such conflicts should have been disclosed to both sides of the Title IX complaint. Clune said the information was not disclosed and that his firm discovered it on its own.
LikeLike
You wonder how much is intentional and how much is incompetence. There is a lot of incompetence out there.
LikeLike
Incompetently intentional, or intentionally incompetent. Not good either way.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2016-rio-olympics-by-college-team-conference-pac-12-dominates-representation/
A look at the number of Olympians by school and by conference. This is where the conference of champions really shines.
1. Cal — 50
2. USC — 48
3. Stanford — 43
4. UCLA — 34
T5. Florida — 30
T5. Michigan — 30
7. Texas A&M — 27
8. Georgia — 26
T9. Arizona State — 25
T9. Texas — 25
11. Penn State — 24
T16. Indiana — 17
19. Wisconsin — 16
22. Ohio State — 14
Pac-12 — 273: Cal – 50 | USC – 48 | Stanford – 43
SEC — 206: Florida – 30 | Texas A&M – 27 | Georgia – 26
Big Ten — 154: Michigan – 30 | Penn State – 24 | Indiana – 17
ACC — 137: Florida State – 21 | Virginia – 18 | North Carolina – 17
Big 12 — 100: Texas – 25 | Oklahoma – 8 | Kansas State – 8
LikeLike
Yup, the PAC is huge in the non-rev summer Olympic sports. Kudos. Great athletes…..It also has 5-6 incredible academic institutions…..just wish the fans out here gave a sh*t….
Do you a breakdown by conference for all Olympians (including the most recent winter games)? It’d be interesting to see how much ground the B1G makes up…..I’m sure a clear #2
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/nebraska-football-braces-for-potential-end-of-program-defining-sellout-streak/
Is NE’s sellout streak in jeopardy?
The definition of what it means to be a Nebraska fans is slowly, inevitably changing. Financial, social and inevitable events have forced Huskers everywhere to consider the unthinkable.
The streak of streaks is in danger of ending.
Indicators are there: It’s becoming OK to miss a game. Attendance is down for the first time since 2011. OK, the decline is only 1,251 per game (1.3 percent), but it’s enough to raise Big Red flags for something other than touchdowns.
There are actual TV commercials advertising tickets. Earlier this year, Huskers.com reportedly was selling 50-yard line seats (albeit at $400 a pop).
In May, a Nebraska fundraiser told the Associated Press the streak almost ended last year on three different occasions. Jack Pierce said he had to call “friends of the program” to buy up tickets that had been returned by the opponent.
…
To some, it’s a referendum on what it means to watch live sports these days. The game continues to thrive, but college football attendance is down overall for the fifth consecutive year.
Clearly, the temptation to relax at home in a recliner with a beer not available a college stadium is more than a temptation. It’s a national trend.
“The thing that concerns me most is the generational shift,” Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said. “I suspect you’re seeing that more than anything else at Nebraska.
“Forty-year season ticket holders are dying and their children don’t have the same passion, or they have more multi-faceted lives. For me, it’s less about the alternative ways of viewing the game than it is a decision not to view the game at all.”
…
Simply put: The challenge for most ADs these days is to create the game-day feeling of the world’s largest living room.
“What I find with a lot of the younger people I encounter,” Swarbrick said, “is they don’t want to dedicate four or five hours to anything. They’re always getting information. They’re always in motion.”
“You’d be crazy not to be engaged in [fan amenities].”
…
“We had to work like the devil to keep the streak going,” said former Nebraska AD Bill Byrne, who arrived from Oregon in 1992. “We were close to not selling it out. They had been worried for several years prior to that.”
Shortly thereafter, Nebraska won three national championships in four years. Ticket demand wasn’t an issue. Ticket supply was. Nebraska claims to be the only Power Five program without competition from another Power Five or the NFL team in its state.
…
Byrne inherited a streak built on winning with strong, ground-based football. Just like harvest time, it was nothing flashy. Starting with Devaney in 1962, the Huskers won at least nine games in 38 of the next 40 years. But since that 2001 season, Nebraska has gone through four coaches. It hasn’t won a conference title since 1999.
That makes 2016 critical for more than sellout reasons. Second-year coach Mike Riley is coming off the program’s second losing season (6-7) since 1961.
The answer to the angst may be as simple as Nebraska becoming a factor in the Big Ten West.
LikeLike
Very interesting article. Nebraska is just far enough from Omaha to make the trip a pain and take up most of the day. With a lackluster team, few visiting fans from many Big 10 schools and many non-traditional, low profile games on the schedule, it makes sense.
It won’t be easy – without a natural strong recruiting area and no games in Texas, Nebraska is destined to be prince instead of a king if they aren’t already.
LikeLike
It won’t be easy – without a natural strong recruiting area and no games in Texas, Nebraska is destined to be prince instead of a king if they aren’t already.
Nebraska has never had “a natural strong recruiting area,” and they never played regularly in Texas, aside from their comparatively brief stint in the B12.
I do think the schedule is now working against them. In the Big 8, Nebraska played plenty of ho-hum games against Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, etc., but those at least were games with tradition. Most of Nebraska’s current opponents don’t have that, and a tilt against Purdue does not exactly set the pulse racing.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I do think the schedule is now working against them. In the Big 8, Nebraska played plenty of ho-hum games against Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, etc., but those at least were games with tradition. Most of Nebraska’s current opponents don’t have that, and a tilt against Purdue does not exactly set the pulse racing.”
NE is also caught in the same scheduling trap as MI. This year’s B10 home slate is IL, MN, PU and crossover UMD. In odd years they get WI, IA, NW, a king (OSU for now) and another crossover. If the sellout streak ends, it’ll likely be in an even year.
LikeLike
It’s the Michigan problem—but worse, because of the general weakness of the West division. The years Michigan faces OSU and MSU on the road, they always have Penn State at home, and the crossovers are generally at least reasonable:
Wisconsin, Illinois (2016)
Wisconsin, Nebraska (2018)
Other potential crossovers include Minnesota (Brown Jug rivalry), Northwestern (Chicago connection) and Iowa (generally a strong opponent). If Illinois or Purdue is on the schedule, generally they’ll make that the Homecoming game.
LikeLike
sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/
The preseason Coaches Poll is out.
1. AL
2. Clemson
3. OU
4. FSU
5. OSU
6. LSU
7. Stanford
8. MI
9. ND
10. TN
11. MSU
MS
UH
TCU
15. IA
UGA
USC
UW
OkSU
UNC
Baylor
OR
UL
UCLA
UF
27. WI
34. NW
38. NE
49. IN
SEC (6) – 1, 6, 10, 12, 16, 25
ACC (4) – 2, 4, 20, 23
B10 (4) – 5, 8, 11, 15
B12 (4) – 3, 14, 19, 21
P12 (5) – 7, 17, 18, 22, 24
Other – 9, 13
LikeLike
Some analysis of the poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/08/04/preseason-amway-coaches-poll-top-25-outlooks-for-the-season/88045302/
Brief outlooks for each team.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/rankings/2016/08/04/amway-preseason-coaches-poll-college-football-playoff/87977056/
What can the poll tell us about the playoff?
* You don’t have to be top 5 but you want to be top 20
* Half of the top 3 teams have made it over the past 2 years
* It’s good to be #6 and bad to be #7
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/friday-five-most-overrated-teams-in-the-2016-preseason-coaches-poll/
5 most overrated teams:
1. TN
2. UW
3. LSU
4. USC
5. OSU
His comments on OSU:
This is a bit of a nitpick, but Ohio State begins the season ranked No. 5 in the Coaches Poll. Normally, this wouldn’t be a big deal. Ohio State is just one of those teams that begins every season near the top of the polls and usually in the top five. I actually believe Ohio State will win the Big Ten this season, which would likely place them in both the top five and the College Football Playoff. My only contention is that I’m not sure the Buckeyes should start this high considering all the talent the team lost off the roster.
The Buckeyes should be in the top 10, but I’d like to seem the new guys prove it a bit more before I put them in the top five. Now, that said, I look at the teams ranked behind Ohio State, and I don’t see any team I believe should definitely be ranked ahead of the Buckeyes.
I agree that OSU seems too high with so many new faces playing. OSU may become a top 5 team but they can’t be on day one. Losing to OU should fix that problem, though.
LikeLike
Another one:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/gallery/preseason-coaches-poll-ranking-who-is-number-one-080416
The 10 biggest errors in the poll:
Overrated – AL, OU, Stanford, MSU
Underrated – LSU, TN, IA, OkSU, UNC, Baylor
LikeLike
I don’t get too riled up about the preseason polls because many of the teams (particularly this year) have quick tests. tOSU is a good example. Maybe 5 is too high, but Oklahoma is week three. So, tOSU will either prove worthy of a top five ranking or prove to be over-rated.
Personally (I am a cynic), I think there is also some rating hype involved in these rankings. tOSU might be too high, but the networks/media manufacture a top five match-up by putting tOSU at #5.
LikeLike
This is the coaches poll so it’s hard to see how the media are manufacturing anything with this.
LikeLike
This is the coaches poll so it’s hard to see how the media are manufacturing anything with this.
Except…I’m not sure how thoughtfully a Pac-12 coach considers Tennessee. Maybe they rank the Volunteers high because they [or more likely, the SIDs actually filling out the poll] have heard that they’re “supposed to be good this year.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Except…I’m not sure how thoughtfully a Pac-12 coach considers Tennessee.”
Not at all thoughtfully.
“Maybe they rank the Volunteers high because they [or more likely, the SIDs actually filling out the poll] have heard that they’re “supposed to be good this year.””
That’s entirely possible, but they aren’t doing it to engineer a top 5 match-up on ABC which is what he’s implying. And there are lots of non-TV media members hyping teams like TN. They don’t benefit from any one team outranking another. Most times it really is just innocent hype.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/mailbag-how-the-college-football-playoff-could-be-forced-to-add-four-more-teams-080416
Stewart Mandel’s mailbag has some relevant questions:
#1 is about playoff expansion.
Will a playoff slate of FSU, Clemson and two SEC teams this year result in an eight-team playoff down the line, or does that scenario (all four playoff teams coming from two conferences) need to happen multiple times for an eight-team playoff to gather enough support?
— Krishnendu Roy, Valdosta, Georgia
First off, let’s acknowledge that preseason rankings rarely come to fruition. One or more of those four teams is going to wind up going 8-4 or worse, and somebody I don’t even have in my Top 25 is going to finish 11-1. And while we’ve always known there will be a day when the committee takes two teams from one conference, the possibility of them doing it twice in the same year is very remote given the emphasis placed on conference championships. The other Power 5 leagues would have to produce a bunch of 9-3 champions.
But if it did happen, we’d see a level of backlash that would make even the BCS blush — ESPECIALLY if two of the four are LSU and Alabama.
Within the sport, I sense less momentum for expanding the playoff today than I did two years ago. Four has gone very well so far. It feels right. It’s barely impacted the regular season. Eight, on the other hand, completely redefines the sport, likely requires a complete separation from the bowl system and, while inevitable, is not going to happen anytime soon. Initially, I said it would come halfway through the 12-year contract. I no longer see that as a possibility.
But I’ve also long maintained that the driving impetus for playoff expansion will not be money or TV ratings like so many assume, but rather the inherent discomfort that comes with five conferences playing for four spots. Someone is always going to be the unlucky loser. The Big 12’s exclusion in 2014 has sent that conference into an existential crisis that’s still playing out today. The Pac-12 was much more accepting of last year’s result, but imagine the outcry from its fans if it happens two years in a row.
So, if you’re one of those clamoring for this thing to go to eight – and for the record, I am most definitely not – you should root for the two-teams-from-one conference scenario to start occurring regularly. The more leagues that experience watching the playoff from the sideline, the more their collective angst will grow.
I agree that 2 teams from 2 conferences is highly unlikely. They’d almost have to be from opposite divisions and not have played each other during the season. It would require a freak loss (weather, injury that has since healed, blown call, etc) preventing one of them from making the CCG and/or several 3-loss P5 conference champs. That said, he’s right that champs getting left out will probably be the driving force for going to 8 teams. Where he may be wrong is that the B12 could go away in 2025 just when the current playoff ends. There’s no need to expand it if there are only 4 power conferences because then any champ left out deserved to be left out.
#2 is about B12 expansion.
Here’s your weekly Big 12 expansion question. During the previous round, the Big 12 seemed to be a step behind the other major conferences. Do you think bruised egos in the Big 12 leadership might lead to the league being the first to jump to 16 teams? They have a wide selection of teams and could leave few good options for other leagues in this next round of musical chairs. I could see them expanding with Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, UCF & USF.
— Joshua Moran, Spring, Texas
Bruised egos – or perhaps more accurately, wallet envy — are a big reason the Big 12 is even considering expansion. But given the SBJ report earlier this week that ESPN and FOX are pushing back against the Big 12 for trying to add perceived inferior programs, coupled with the general sense I have that the presidents may have a hard time agreeing on the same two schools, 16 seems very far-fetched. It would net the league more money but water down its product to the point where it might as well exist in some sort of new classification between Power 5 and Group of 5. It would feel desperate.
Given the presidents’ impetus appears to be primarily a cash grab – milking those TV contracts for as much of that pro rata money as possible – I initially guessed the league would shoot for 14. With a couple weeks’ reflection, though, 12 now seems much more likely. Presumably you could get eight of 10 presidents to agree on two schools, perhaps Cincinnati and Houston. Plus, it does the least to alienate the league’s TV partners short of scrapping expansion altogether (which could still happen mind you), and it gives the best hope for a smooth integration of the newbies. The larger you go from there, the more scattershot the final product will become.
Mandel sounds reasonable there. 12 is a decent compromise that gets them some money but isn’t too abusive of the TV contract. Going to 16 would be taking too big of a bite all at once I think as integrating 6 new schools would be chaos.
LikeLike
And a few more relevant to things we’ve discussed here.
Stewart, Can you please explain why the Big Ten is considered so much more valuable than the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12? Outside of two marquee football programs (Ohio State and Michigan), maybe three if you argue for Penn State or Nebraska, its “penetration” of the New York City (Rutgers) and DMV (Maryland) media markets, and huge alumni bases, I struggle to see how the Big Ten can be so much more valuable than those three conferences.
— Dan Pellegrino, Chicago
You mostly answered your own question, but conveniently, the AP’s all-time rankings released Tuesday also offers a pretty telling clue. The Big Ten claims three of the top six in Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska, and Penn State is in the Top 15. By contrast, the Big 12 (Texas and Oklahoma) and ACC (Florida State and Miami) have two schools ranked that high, the Pac-12 one (USC). All of those schools have enormous numbers of alumni and rabid national fan bases. Basically, it’s the stuff of TV executives’ dreams.
I will say that the Big Ten is not quite as clear-cut the most desirable TV conference as it was roughly a decade ago. Post-ACC expansion, it no longer claims the largest population footprint, even if Rutgers and Maryland are included. And from a purely on-field standpoint, it’s hard to argue the SEC isn’t a more desirable product. The Big Ten and SEC will both be printing money for years to come, in large part because of their conference networks. It’s not like the other three aren’t doing well themselves, but there’s a clear gap between the two groups.
Yes, outside of several hugely successful programs, large markets and gigantic alumni bases, why is the B10 so valuable? Mandel skipped over mentioning the strength of CFB fandom in the midwest compared to the west or east coasts as another reason if the questioner didn’t provide enough reasons.
When comparing programs’ historical significance, what do you consider the modern era? When scholarships were limited (more parity)? The BCS? The end of the College Football Association? I have a great appreciation for history, but also have a hard time thinking of Navy, Minnesota and Syracuse as top-level programs despite their successes 50+ years ago.
— Stephen Schott, location unknown
Good question. Eventually, history will treat the start of the BCS (1998) as the beginning of a completely new era, much the way we now downplay national championships schools claim from prior to the AP poll (which began in 1936). Decades from now, it will seem completely archaic that the sport ever operated without an official championship game. But right now, that distinction still feels a little too fresh for those of us who grew up on the old bowl system.
From a competitive standpoint, I would argue the “current” era of college football began in 1995 with the implementation of the 85-scholarship limit. That and several other major changes that took place around the same time – mass conference realignment and the advent of conference championship games; the implementation of overtime (’96); the first seeds of the spread-offense craze – all made the sport feel very different by the late ‘90s than it did just a decade earlier.
Taking a broader view, most would agree that the sport’s “modern” era began when integration fully took hold. Obviously, that took place over the course of a couple of decades, not at a specific date, but the famous 1970 USC-Alabama game in Birmingham – when Sam “Bam” Cummingham and the Trojans’ all-black backfield embarrassed Bear Bryant’s all-white Tide — is widely seen as the milestone that prompted Alabama and the other remaining southern outliers to start recruiting black players.
So again, it’s not as simple as, 1969 was the old era, 1970 the new era, but the larger social changes of the ‘60s directly impacted the transformation of college football.
I think the best answer is to weight historical results because there is no clear cutoff. I’ll often use post-WWII since things were so screwy during the war and the game was very different in the early days. I also use 50 years as a rolling cutoff that seems reasonable (1966-2015). It includes a lot of history that older fans remember without being completely unrecognizable for modern fans. It’s also getting close to the end of integration in CFB. Jumping to 20 years or 1996 may be the right choice when discussing the current status of programs since it includes some history but is largely focused on what just happened, but I think it ignores some important history that is relevant to how programs develop and the reputations they have. For TV things I could see using 1984 as the end of the old era thanks to the Supreme Court.
Now that the AP has released its own all-time rankings, I think it is time for you to update your 2012 Kings and Barons rankings and compare your current rankings to the AP’s all-time rankings.
— Kris, Austin, Texas
Well, I don’t really need to. The AP’s Top 13 programs are the exact same 13 that I dubbed the Kings of the sport.
Sorry again, Georgia.
LikeLike
I would say sometime in the 60s would fit as the beginning of the modern era. 1968 would be my choice.
There are a lot of things to argue for the 60s.
1. Unlimited substitution was allowed in 1965.
2. As you mention, integration was under way. First Black players in SWC and SEC were in 1965 at SMU and Kentucky.
3. The Colts/Giants sudden death game in 1958 and founding of the AFL in 1960 brought pro football to a new height of popularity.
4. Joe Namath’s 1965 400k contract with the Jets forever changed the dynamic between college and the pros.
5. The baby boom combined with Vietnam lead to massive growth in the universities.
As for 1968 specifically:
1. Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue tied for the Big 10 title in 1967. It took Purdue another 30 years to win a title and Minnesota and Indiana still haven’t. Indiana went to the Rose Bowl and lost 10-3 to USC and OJ Simpson.
2. Wyoming was invited to the Sugar Bowl after the 1967 season. It would be 40 years before another WAC team appeared.
3. The 1967 final AP poll had Indiana, Wyoming, Oregon St. and Purdue in the top 10.
4. The 1968 poll was 1. Ohio St., 2. Penn St., 3. Texas, 4. USC, 5. Notre Dame, 6. Arkansas, 7. Kansas, 8. Georgia, 9. Missouri, 10. Purdue, 11. Oklahoma, 12. Michigan, 13. Tennessee, 14. SMU, 15. Oregon St., 16. Auburn, 17. Alabama, 18. Houston, 19. LSU, 20. Ohio. That looks like something that would be much more likely to happen today as it is filled with traditional powers.
5. From a practical matter, the AP poll started ranking the top 20 instead of only the top 10 as in 1962-1967.
Also happens to be the first full season I personally remember as I only remember a few games from 67.
LikeLike
You could also argue 1985, the year after BYU won its MNC. The powers have really dominated since then. And 1984 was when OU and UGA won the Supreme Court case that ended the NCAA monopoly on TV. And the Florida schools started becoming players.
There’s a good argument for sometime between 1989 when FSU joined the ACC and 1996 when the Big 12 was formed as major realignment changed the game.
Now 20 years down the road, they will probably talk about 1998, the start of the BCS era, 2010 the start of the second realignment era or 2014, the start of the playoff era. The latter two dates also correspond with the increase in nationally televised games, that seem to be breaking up some of the domination of the traditional powers.
LikeLike
If you’re defining the “modern era,” only two events stand out. The first was the rise of the NFL, which has meant that any good player automatically thinks of college football as a path to a potential pro payday. It’s hard to pin an exact date for when this transition happened, but @bullet’s #4 (Joe Namath’s NFL contract) is as good as any.
The other was the 1984 Supreme Court decision, which ended the NCAA’s monopoly on televised football. This led most of the former independents to join conferences, and exacerbated the gulf between the haves and have-nots.
A number of other suggestions don’t have the same weight, e.g., the introduction of overtime games. Although most fans prefer decisive game to ties, the sport wasn’t fundamentally altered because of it.
You could also argue 1985, the year after BYU won its MNC. The powers have really dominated since then.
The powers dominated before then, too. In the thirty seasons before BYU’s title, 27 titles were won by “the usual suspects” (teams everyone recognizes as kings or princes today). Minnesota, Syracuse, and Pitt are the only ringers in that list.
Not to take anything away from BYU, but their title required a remarkable series of events to break their way. That could still happen today, but like any remarkable series of events, it remains unlikely. Every AP football NC, since the inception, was a team in one of today’s P5 conferences, except for BYU and Army’s two titles in the 1940s.
A month or two ago, one of the football journalists posted an entirely serious article about how Houston could win the NC this year. Three things would need to happen:
1) They need to go 12-0, including wins over Oklahoma and Louisville.
2) Their victims need to have strong overall seasons, so that #1 is meaningful
3) At least two P5 conferences need to crown weak champions.
All of these are possible.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If you’re defining the “modern era,” only two events stand out. The first was the rise of the NFL, which has meant that any good player automatically thinks of college football as a path to a potential pro payday. It’s hard to pin an exact date for when this transition happened, but @bullet’s #4 (Joe Namath’s NFL contract) is as good as any.
The other was the 1984 Supreme Court decision, which ended the NCAA’s monopoly on televised football. This led most of the former independents to join conferences, and exacerbated the gulf between the haves and have-nots.
A number of other suggestions don’t have the same weight, e.g., the introduction of overtime games. Although most fans prefer decisive game to ties, the sport wasn’t fundamentally altered because of it.”
Those are events that impacted the world of CFB certainly, but to deny that events like integration were important to the game on the field is silly. That marked the end of an era for several northern schools. Or the I-A/I-AA split when former powers like the Ivies officially dropped to a lower level. Or the beginning of scholarship limitations that allowed for more parity since the kings couldn’t stockpile all the best players.
Depending on what you’re talking about, the modern era might need different definitions.
LikeLike
Those are events that impacted the world of CFB certainly, but to deny that events like integration were important to the game on the field is silly. That marked the end of an era for several northern schools. Or the I-A/I-AA split when former powers like the Ivies officially dropped to a lower level. Or the beginning of scholarship limitations that allowed for more parity since the kings couldn’t stockpile all the best players.
No one would deny the importance of integration. It was one of many events, inside and outside of sports, over the course of many decades, that opened up opportunities previously denied to African-Americans. But as far as I can tell, it promoted racial equality but didn’t fundamentally alter the sport, any more than a drinking fountain was altered after people of all colors were allowed to drink from it.
The I-A/I-AA split, although it came slightly earlier, had the same animating purpose — control of TV revenues — that drove the lawsuit that eventually stripped the NCAA of its monopoly rights. But the I-A/I-AA split merely codified something that had been apparent for a very long time, i.e., that the Ivies weren’t football powers and weren’t trying to be. The Supreme Court case was more important, because it instantly changed the landscape from what it had been before, or would have been if the decision had come down the opposite way.
I vaguely recall the “sky is falling” predictions after scholarship limits were enacted. At the end of the day, those limits didn’t change very much: the national championships and top 10 rankings had always been heavily concentrated among a handful of kings and princes, and they still are.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No one would deny the importance of integration. It was one of many events, inside and outside of sports, over the course of many decades, that opened up opportunities previously denied to African-Americans. But as far as I can tell, it promoted racial equality but didn’t fundamentally alter the sport, any more than a drinking fountain was altered after people of all colors were allowed to drink from it.”
It definitely shifted power around.
Top 25 by overall W% from 1946-1960:
Southern schools = 8 – OU, MS, GT, USM, LT, TN, UT, Clemson
Southern AP poll champs – 6
Top 25 by overall W% from 1970-1994:
Southern schools = 13 – OU, AL, AU, FSU, UGA, TX, TN, Miami, AR, TAMU, Clemson, UF, UNC
Southern AP poll champs – 13
“The I-A/I-AA split, although it came slightly earlier, had the same animating purpose — control of TV revenues — that drove the lawsuit that eventually stripped the NCAA of its monopoly rights. But the I-A/I-AA split merely codified something that had been apparent for a very long time, i.e., that the Ivies weren’t football powers and weren’t trying to be.”
And anytime there is a major reclassification of many schools I think it’s fair to consider that an important point in history. It didn’t impact the top schools or play on the field, but CFB itself was a different beast when historical powers like the Ivies were officially left behind. And if you were interested in G5 schools perhaps you’d consider that split more important.
“The Supreme Court case was more important, because it instantly changed the landscape from what it had been before, or would have been if the decision had come down the opposite way.
I vaguely recall the “sky is falling” predictions after scholarship limits were enacted. At the end of the day, those limits didn’t change very much: the national championships and top 10 rankings had always been heavily concentrated among a handful of kings and princes, and they still are.”
But the SC case changed nothing on the field. The reduction in scholarships had more impact on the field, allowing many formerly mediocre programs to rise as more talent was available to them suddenly. You don’t get Boise or TCU or Utah without the scholarship limits. Just because the top 10 didn’t change much doesn’t mean the game wasn’t impacted. There are over 120 I-A programs, not just the kings and princes.
LikeLike
The start of integration coincided with the rise of the NFL.
LikeLike
For the 25 years after BYU won the title, the 16 schools who won AP titles also held 68 of the 75 top 3 positions. Only Georgia Tech, Utah, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Georgia (twice) and Auburn broke that stranglehold. And all 16 were top 3 at least twice. They had a very strong dominance of the top 5 as well. Since then, the 18 teams in the top 3 include Michigan St., Oklahoma St., TCU twice, Auburn 2 more times including a title and Oregon 3 more times. That’s half of the 18. I think its the national TV that has evened out things much more than scholarship limits.
So you don’t have to look it up, the 16 schools were Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., Alabama, Miami, Florida, Florida St., Notre Dame, Colorado, Washington, LSU and Tennessee. But pretty much anybody who really follows college football could have picked out all but Colorado and Washington without remembering the history..
LikeLike
A lot of factors overlapped from the 60s through the 90s. Depending on what aspect of CFB you’re looking at, different things may be the relevant start point for modern football. Integration, scholarship limits, TV money, realignment, the BC/BA/BCS/CFP all matter for different things. So do many other factors (NFL, southern migration, etc).
None of us have even mentioned Title IX but it’s had huge impacts on college athletics. It led to the first scholarship restrictions (105 in ’73 then 95 in ’78). That dropped to 85 in ’92.
http://fishduck.com/2012/01/85-scholarship-era-oregons-rise-power/
Here’s someone else arguing for the importance of the 85 limit in the rise of multiple programs and the fall of others. I’m not saying it was the only factor, but it’s not all coincidence either.
LikeLike
Within the sport, I sense less momentum for expanding the playoff today than I did two years ago. Four has gone very well so far. It feels right. It’s barely impacted the regular season. Eight, on the other hand, completely redefines the sport, likely requires a complete separation from the bowl system and, while inevitable, is not going to happen anytime soon. Initially, I said it would come halfway through the 12-year contract. I no longer see that as a possibility.
Contrary to Mandel, I never thought there was much chance that the playoff contract would be torn up halfway through, to make way for eight. College football is very slow to change. Although I think eight will happen eventually, I would bet on another 12-year 4-team playoff contract being signed after the current one.
I disagree with him that eight requires “a complete separation from the bowl system.” To the contrary, the most likely eight-team system would use the traditional premier bowls as the quarter finals, with the semi-finals and NCG coming later in January. All that would change about the bowls, is that four of them, rather than two, would have stakes beyond merely the pride of winning.
Mind you, playoff expansion has significant drawbacks, and I don’t expect to see eight anytime soon. But IF it ever happens, I have not seen a better or more likely system than to leverage the traditional bowls for the quarterfinals. I know that some people don’t much care about the bowl system, but the university presidents, athletic directors, coaches and players value it, and I haven’t seen the slightest indication of them wavering on that.
LikeLike
I’m a big Mandel fan overall…but his “6 year prediction” on the life of the CFP 4-team was always quizzical to me. CFB moves at a snail’s pace when it comes to change. The BCS existed for, like, 16 years? Even though it had major controversy within its first 5 or 6 years. Many were calling for an increase to 8 within the CFP’s first year!?!?! 4 is the right number.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“I’m a big Mandel fan overall…but his “6 year prediction” on the life of the CFP 4-team was always quizzical to me. CFB moves at a snail’s pace when it comes to change. The BCS existed for, like, 16 years? Even though it had major controversy within its first 5 or 6 years.”
That’s very true, but I suppose their counterargument would be that the BCS actually tweaked their formula multiple times and moved to a non-bowl NCG in response to complaints/issues. It wouldn’t be unprecedented for the CFP to change after 6 years. That said, going to 8 teams is a much bigger change than anything the BCS implemented.
“Many were calling for an increase to 8 within the CFP’s first year!?!?! 4 is the right number.”
Many wanted 8 before the CFP ever formed. They thought 4 was a very temporary compromise just to get the resistance to a playoff over and then everyone would see the wisdom of going to 8 teams.
LikeLike
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17172619/college-football-playoff-committee-members-takeaways-their-first-two-years
ESPN interviewed the 4 retiring members of the CFP committee about several things. We’ve often discussed the OSU/Baylor/TCU decision here, so below are the relevant excerpts.
Was the Baylor-TCU debate the most memorable part of your tenure?
Mike Tranghese: Without question, yes. That was the debate for the last five weeks of the year. We probably spent more time just discussing Baylor and TCU but then in the end, Ohio State just played very well at the end, and the way they dominated Wisconsin in the end, the championship game really took the pressure of making that decision out of our hands.
Osborne: That was a difficult one. I think the thing that was, as was mentioned many times, when you have a team that plays that 13th game against a supposedly good opponent and you win 59-0, decisively, then not having that championship game certainly was a factor to be considered. No question TCU and Baylor were really good teams and it was close, but it’s hard to turn your back on somebody that wins their conference championship by 59-0. The third quarterback played really well. It was a deal where you could say well, they’re going into the championship series with no quarterback because they obviously had one that could play.
Gould: They were both very accomplished, they were good programs, had good players. Personally, I went back to who they had played. Even within the same conference, where everybody plays everybody, you’re nonconference games, in some of the other conferences you get the luck of the draw the way the East and West or North and South, so strength of schedule mattered a lot and it should continue to play a role in that. It’s hard to pinpoint anything in particular.
…
Do you feel like you got it right the past two years?
Tranghese: Yeah. I think so. Year 1 was very difficult. I think Ohio State took us off the hook. If Ohio State hadn’t beaten Wisconsin, or let’s say hadn’t won convincingly, we would’ve had a very, very difficult decision to make. I don’t know how other people would have voted, but my sense was we were really split on it. That’s OK. We would’ve had to eventually reach a decision, because there was a great different of opinion just about Baylor and TCU. Some people felt strongly that Baylor had beaten TCU, but others felt that TCU was better. And then you had Ohio State in the mix at the end. It would have been very interesting, but we never got to that point. Ohio State made it clear who the fourth team is. We take them and they end up playing magnificently and running the table. And I didn’t think there was much mystery in last year. When Ohio State lost to Michigan State, that probably cleared it up a little bit.
In a nutshell, brand had nothing to do with it. Performance on the field and SOS made the difference.
LikeLike
Except tOSU did not have a strong schedule, doh! Yes, Baylor & TCU did not play anybody OOC, but tOSU LOST to the only team it played – and that team was darn mediocre.
The committee was only bailed out because the Buckeyes won its semi-final and the Championship. Had the semi-final vistory not happened, the CFP, as currently structured, would have lost its credibility in its very first year.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Except tOSU did not have a strong schedule, doh! Yes, Baylor & TCU did not play anybody OOC, but tOSU LOST to the only team it played – and that team was darn mediocre.”
OSU had by far the strongest OOC schedule and it included multiple decent teams unlike the schedules of TCU and Baylor.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2014-15.htm
Rankings from the Massey Composite after the 12/6/2014 games (chosen to be as objective as possible about rankings):
All losses in bold.
OOC:
OSU – 40. UC, 53. VT, 66. Navy, 120. Kent St
TCU – 32. MN, 124. SMU, I-AA Samford (#24 among I-AAs, #106 overall by Sagarin)
Baylor – 108. Buffalo, 124. SMU, I-AA Northwestern State (#31 among I-AAs, #133 by Sagarin)
Only OSU played all I-A opponents. Only OSU played multiple top 100 opponents, let alone top 60. Only OSU played just 1 team outside the top 100 (Baylor played 3 out of 3).
Did OSU play a murderer’s row? No. But they tried to schedule a top team and played 2 other solid ones. TCU at least played 1 decent team but they weren’t aiming high when they scheduled MN. Baylor didn’t even try.
Conference:
OSU – 9. MSU, 16. WI, 32. MN, 51. UMD, 56. RU, 61. PSU, 65. MI, 70. IL, 87. IN
TCU – 6. Baylor, 12. KSU, 21. OU, 30. WV, 42, UT, 55. OkSU, 78. TT, 93. KU, 97. ISU
Baylor – 3. TCU, 12 KSU, 21. OU, 30. WV, 42, UT, 55. OkSU, 78. TT, 93. KU, 97. ISU
All 3 faced 1 top 10 team and 2 top 20 teams in conference. The B12 was more top heavy and more bottom heavy while OSU’s schedule had more middle.
Did OSU have the worst loss? Yes, but it came early in the year and the team showed growth. Baylor lost in mid-October right after barely beating TCU and I think the back to back losses hurt both of them.
But most importantly, the committee said TCU, FSU, OSU and Baylor were very close the week before. That means it all came down to the final week.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-faqs
What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?
The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
Switching to CFP rankings now:
3. TCU over NR. ISU 55-3 to go 11-1 and become B12 co-champ but lose the H2H tiebreaker
4. FSU over 11. GT 37-35 to go 13-0 and become ACC champ
5. OSU over 13. WI 59-0 to go 12-1 and become B10 champ
6. Baylor over 9. KSU 38-27 to go 11-1 and become B12 co-champ and win the H2H tiebreaker
2 of those 4 teams won outright championships and made the playoff. Another had a head to head win over the other one. 3 of the 4 boosted their SOS by beating a highly ranked team. So TCU slid to the bottom of those 4 by virtue of not winning their conference outright due to losing to Baylor and finishing with a cupcake. Nothing else changed. The game results that final weekend justified no other result as the committee members made clear.
LikeLike
The game results that final weekend justified no other result as the committee members made clear.
There’s no doubt it was at least debatable, especially as this was the playoff’s first year, and the committee’s criteria were not entirely clear. Plenty of experienced people outside of the committee itself expected TCU or Baylor to be the fourth team. Any choice of Baylor, TCU, or Ohio State for the final playoff berth could have been justified.
Obviously, given what we know now, the choice of Ohio State would seem unremarkable if a similar choice occurred again.
The committee was only bailed out because the Buckeyes won its semi-final and the Championship. Had the semi-final vistory not happened, the CFP, as currently structured, would have lost its credibility in its very first year.
No. Whichever of the three teams was picked, would have been the fourth seed, and therefore expected to lose. Now, if OSU had been blown out 45-0, many would have suggested that the Committee blew it, but seeding teams has never been an exact science.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There’s no doubt it was at least debatable, especially as this was the playoff’s first year, and the committee’s criteria were not entirely clear.”
1. The committee members said it really wasn’t debatable. It was obvious to them based on the weekend’s results. The fans debated it because they didn’t take the committee at its word as quoted above about how to choose teams. The media debated it because that’s how they make money.
2. The criteria were very clear, as quoted above. People just didn’t believe them. They expected a more poll-like vote where winners rarely drop.
“Plenty of experienced people outside of the committee itself expected TCU or Baylor to be the fourth team.”
As I recall, a lot of people started to move towards OSU as time progressed. Many were cynical and said it would be because of their brand, but the momentum was towards OSU.
Besides, what people expected was based on the poll systems they were used to seeing. The CFP had written guidelines but many didn’t want to believe them (that championships wouldn’t be counted until the team actually won them, etc).
“Any choice of Baylor, TCU, or Ohio State for the final playoff berth could have been justified.”
Not based on what they said the previous week and the voting guidelines they had. 3 teams won a championship that weekend against good teams and the other one beat a cupcake but didn’t become a true champion. That team dropped behind the champions just like the criteria said they should.
LikeLike
Count me in as one of those that holds out hope the big12 implodes, and OU and Tx are in play for the big.
None of the proposed new schools, to me, move the needle in terms of being associated with P5 football, or with TV sets. The big12’s only hope is that they continue to be a cut-rate conference to fill time on Saturdays for the lower tier ESPN and Fox channels. Not sure that being cut-rate in terms of rights fees (compared to the SEC and Big $$, that Tx and OU truly pine for) moves the needle for Tx and OU.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis of TV contracts and Big 12 expansion. Looks at TV value per game on the Tier I & II contracts in addition to the standard per team. SEC 4th per game. Big 12 distant 5th (but also has higher % of games).
http://big12fanatics.com/ask-the-monkey-why-expansion/
LikeLike
It’s a good piece although I think his percentage of total games is a little bit off. He assumes exactly 2 home OOC games per B10 team, for example, and the others are probably also wrong. His 4% escalation rate is probably not correct either but there’s no way to know. Those are pretty small nits to pick, though.
He brings up the issue of depth of inventory but doesn’t analyze it. Let’s use a simple linear model. The B12 average game would be 67.7 while the B10 (next highest percentage of inventory sold) average would be 72.6. That means the B10 games should be worth 7.2% more on average assuming all else was equal. However, the discount to the other P5 conferences would be even larger as they have sold less of their inventory. Obviously all else isn’t equal as B10 schools have larger fan bases and bigger markets in their footprint.
That is where analyzing the average ratings for national games is helpful. Several results are out there showing the B10 pulling 40% more viewers per game on average or more for national games (it varies by the year).
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/17/5216550/college-football-tv-ratings-2013-regular-season-final-sec
2013 – 2.9M vs 1.6M (+80%)
http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings
2014 – 2.55M vs 1.85M (+40%)
http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2015/12/21/10636988/sec-big-10-dominate-college-football-tv-ratings
2015 – 6M vs 4M on ABC games (+50%)
Combine that with the deeper dip into their inventory and maybe the B12 deserves to lag significantly per game.
The author concludes that what the B12 wants is to increase their per game paycheck and that makes perfect sense. What he hasn’t shown is that the B12 deserves a raise. If they were pulling equal ratings I think you’d see more negotiations with the networks to bring the deal closer to “fair market” value. I’m guessing the networks think the B12 isn’t that far from a fair value right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His Pac 12 average revenue is off, about 6% too high. We actually have the Pac 12 numbers because of the O’Brien case. Its actually about $270 million average for those 6 years. But as you say, it doesn’t change the basic points. And there is basketball mixed in with all those numbers, but that shouldn’t be dramatically different between conferences.
There is another article from about a year ago by a KSU professor (that I couldn’t quickly find) that tries to equalize the number of games televised as mentioned in the numbermonkey article. The Big 12 has more rated games, so its average ratings are lower, while other conferences have those games on unrated networks. When you do that, the SEC is clearly getting the best ratings, just not as dominant as in the two Aggie links. As noted in the barkingcarnival article, the B1G gets good top ratings, however, its average gets dragged down by the rest and is a distant 2nd. The Big 12 comes out 3rd, not nearly as far behind the B1G as the B1G is behind the SEC. The ACC is close behind with the Pac 12 trailing the field.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There is another article from about a year ago by a KSU professor (that I couldn’t quickly find) that tries to equalize the number of games televised as mentioned in the numbermonkey article.”
I know. That’s why I used multiple years and multiple sources that all measured slightly differently.
The 2013 numbers show the number of games for each conference:
SEC – 120
B12 – 92
ACC – 88
B10 – 82
P12 – 76
So yes, the B12 went deeper into its inventory but they have no complaints versus the SEC and the B10 was only at 12 teams then so that’s not a huge difference and that was the year with the biggest gap.
The 2014 numbers are skewed by the number of games and where they air IIRC.
The 2015 numbers use a smaller sample size (6 for B12, 17 for B10) but they’re apples to apples since they’re all ABC games.
“The Big 12 has more rated games, so its average ratings are lower, while other conferences have those games on unrated networks.”
The 2015 link shows the total year breakdown by network for each conference. It isn’t the total number of games that killed the B12 in overall averages (ACC – 42 games, P12 – 47, B12 – 49, SEC – 50, B10 – 53) but where the games aired.
Games on ESPNU/FS1 in 2015:
B12 – 24
P12 – 12
ACC, B10 – 10
SEC – 7
It’s the FS1 games that hurt the B12’s average. That said, they still trail the B10 if you ignore those games.
By the way, this is why the new B10 TV deal scares me a little. Fox has 25 games to air over 14 weeks or so. It’s hard to imagine more than 15 making Fox, so at least 10 will be on FS1. They might as well be on local access for the sort of ratings FS1 draws.
LikeLike
Content quality drives channel ratings. not vice-versa.
ABC > ESPN and Fox > FS1 because non cable/satellite subscribers generally have access to local network channels. But within the pay-TV universe, it doesn’t matter what channel a game is on – people will find the channel as long as it’s part of their package (and FS1 is now in just about every package that includes ESPN). To think otherwise is to think people are morons.
LikeLike
They aren’t?
LikeLike
Brian,
Was this it?
Click to access Adjusted%20Top%2025.pdf
LikeLike
Sorry that should’ve been for bullet.
LikeLike
Redwood-No. FS1 doesn’t match ESPN ratings no matter who is on. The network does matter. FS1 is usually separate from the other sports channels and the casual fans don’t find it. They aren’t used to looking for it.
ESPN gets a lot of great games, but the fact is CBS and ABC get better ratings than games on ESPN.
CBS/ABC/NBC are the top tier.
ESPN/Fox are the next tier (people aren’t really used to college football on Fox)
ESPN2/FS1 are the next.
Then you get ESPNU/ESPNNews/FS2 and the various conference networks.
LikeLike
Yes, Nostradamus. That is it. Thanks.
He made some simplifying assumptions that probably are favorable to the Big 12. But it is a lot closer to reality than the raw data.
The point was that the Big 10 may have had a similar number of games as Brian pointed out, but that was an average of 7 per Big 10 team. The Big 12 had 9 per team. The more games you get per team, the more likely you are to get “junk games,” at least as far as TV ratings go. The very top games are really valuable, and they get diluted in an average combined with everyone’s #8 and #9 games.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Content quality drives channel ratings. not vice-versa.”
It’s demonstrably untrue.
“ABC > ESPN and Fox > FS1 because non cable/satellite subscribers generally have access to local network channels.”
Lead in programming and many other things impact ratings. People watch CFB on ESPN over FS1 in part because it’s ESPN. ESPN will even tell you that’s true.
“But within the pay-TV universe, it doesn’t matter what channel a game is on – people will find the channel as long as it’s part of their package (and FS1 is now in just about every package that includes ESPN).”
Every network owner would tell you how wrong this is. You can even look at things like the NCAA tourney or the Olympics when coverage is spread over multiple networks.
You assume most people seek out a specific game rather than go to the channels they’re used to and watch whatever game is on.
“To think otherwise is to think people are morons.”
No, it’s to understand how TV actually works.
LikeLike
Oh please. You guys must be REALLY old.
First, I said that the “free” over-the-air broadcast networks are more accessible than the cable networks. So yes, to repeat myself, ABC trumps ESPN, Fox trumps FS1, and NBC trumps NBC-S. BTW, broadcast networks include Fox, as well as ABC,CBS, and NBC. Only a senior senior citizen would not include Fox in this group. Do you seriously believe that NFC games get lower ratings than AFC games because NFC games are mostly on Fox and AFC games are mostly on CBS? That is the logic of your argument about channel location mattering more than content quality!
Second, the only reason that FS1 is not up there with ESPN, etc. is because it is new – just 2 seasons old I believe – and had relatively weak football content (2nd-tier Pac-12 and Big-12 games). As its content improves with higher quality football content (hello BiG), the ratings will improve. Again, the analogy of Fox vs. ABC/CBS/NBC applies. And yes, FS1 is now in most packages that include ESPN and ESPN 2.
Speaking of ESPN, there is no discernible difference between ESPN and ESPN 2 when trying to “find a game”. The two are next to each other on most channel guides. The only reason that ESPN ratings are higher than ESPN 2 is because ESPN puts its best pay-TV content on ESPN, not ESPN 2. That was the exact point of my previous post – content drives ratings.
Moreover, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of a channel guide knows how to search for a football game to get a full selection of what’s on in his/her locations. This notion that the channel location drives ratings, aside from the important distinction between the “free” broadcast network channels (i.e. – Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC) and the pay-TV channels is so archaic as to be laughable. As noted above, it says much more about your age than anything else.
P.S. – Have you heard of Netflix or Amazon Prime Video or Hulu?
LikeLike
Ehh? Speak up sonny, my hearing trumpet is out getting cleaned. What’s this about nets in the Amazon? And what does that have to do with Hulu girls?
LikeLike
Networks have brands too, not just college sports programs. You halfway acknowledge it yourself in saying that FS1 is new. People know Fox has the NFL. Its not as well known for college football.
And casual fans (the vast majority) aren’t going to search for football unless it is something they really want to see. They’ll just go to ESPN or ABC or CBS, the networks with college football “branding.” If you’ve got 3 games from channels 3-9 and 5 from 45-54 and 1 on 79, the one on 79 won’t get watched as much as a comparable game. People who are switching will mostly stick with the games in the sports range.
You don’t go to the National Geographic Channel to see a recent movie. And Fox and FS1 haven’t gotten a “brand” as a place to go see college football. People who want to see those particular games will find it. But the people just looking for a game are more likely to end up elsewhere.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Oh please. You guys must be REALLY old.”
Right, it couldn’t possibly be that you’re just dead wrong.
“BTW, broadcast networks include Fox, as well as ABC,CBS, and NBC. Only a senior senior citizen would not include Fox in this group.”
Or someone who knows enough about CFB ratings to recognize that games on Fox draw lower ratings than games on ABC or CBS or NBC comparing the same time slots (prime time to prime time, etc).
“That is the logic of your argument about channel location mattering more than content quality!”
No, it isn’t. That your failure to understand the branding of various channels and how that impacts their ratings for certain programming.
“Second, the only reason that FS1 is not up there with ESPN, etc. is because it is new – just 2 seasons old I believe – and had relatively weak football content (2nd-tier Pac-12 and Big-12 games). As its content improves with higher quality football content (hello BiG), the ratings will improve.”
What’s your proof? You asserting it doesn’t make it true. If finding the channel is a non-issue then being new is irrelevant. FS1 had lots of B12 conference games that got killed by ACC conference games on ESPN and did about the same as ESPN2.
“Speaking of ESPN, there is no discernible difference between ESPN and ESPN 2 when trying to “find a game”. The two are next to each other on most channel guides. The only reason that ESPN ratings are higher than ESPN 2 is because ESPN puts its best pay-TV content on ESPN, not ESPN 2.”
The noon games on each channel are comparable (often both from the same conference) but ESPN kills ESPN2. You couldn’t be more factually wrong and ESPN/Disney executives would tell you that.
“Moreover, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of a channel guide knows how to search for a football game to get a full selection of what’s on in his/her locations.”
That’s great, but most people don’t do that. They flick through the usual channels and settle on what looks the best. Most fans aren’t looking for a particular game, just a fun game to watch.
“This notion that the channel location drives ratings, aside from the important distinction between the “free” broadcast network channels (i.e. – Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC) and the pay-TV channels is so archaic as to be laughable.”
Except for all those pesky facts that support it.
LikeLike
A Mountaineer wins the first US gold. Virginia Thrasher in rifle.
Never $%&@ with the Mountain State.
LikeLike
Here’s why we need to keep media from becoming so dominant they alter rules, influence makeup (currently B12 in college context), to create a made for tv media drama. Can’t even broadcast olympics in our hemisphere in real time. Stupid.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-tape-delay-olympic-opening-ceremony-rio-2016-8
Some of the quotes are doozies.
LikeLike
Face facts, the broadcast isn’t aimed at sports fans at all. The entire goal is to get as many women as possible to watch and all their decisions are based around that. It’s why they have so many personal stories instead of event coverage and why they show the sports that they do.
And it’s here that NBC’s reasoning for the tape delay gets rather perplexing. John Miller, NBC’s chief marketing officer, seems to say that delaying the broadcast is OK because women don’t care about the results:
“The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and miniseries wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sportswriters. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.”
…
But his logic seems to be that the large female audience watching the Olympics is watching for the feel-good, human-interest narratives and not for the actual competitions or results.
The corollary that follows would be that men exclusively care about the results. At best, this feels like a stale and outdated understanding of how and why both men and women consume sports.
Plus, a recent Gallup poll showed that American women’s interest in the Olympics is dropping. Whereas 63% of women polled in 2012 expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of interest in watching the London Games, only 47% said the same about Rio.
Perhaps we have to wait for NBC to alienate most female viewers and then they might start to care about men again.
But as expensive as the games are for NBC, they really have no choice but to maximize prime time. It’s why I stopped watching much of the Olympics years ago. I can get the results online when I want and no coverage I’m not interest in.
LikeLike
Exactly. That’s my warning to sports entities. Maximize your income for the product you offer. Do not alter the product to placate a commercial media enterprises wish. FIFA still has no timeouts, a low scoring sport, but get max bucks. Depend on the product you develop and promote. It’s yours. Others pay to piggyback on your success.
LikeLike
New Dish Network package lets subscribers drop ESPN and other sports networks
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dish-network-espn-20160804-snap-story.html
LikeLike
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2016/08/04/usa-gymnastics-sex-abuse-protected-coaches/85829732/
It’s not just colleges struggling with sexual abuse. The Indy Star investigates USA Gymnastics and their failure to report abuse allegations.
Top executives at one of America’s most prominent Olympic organizations failed to alert authorities to many allegations of sexual abuse by coaches — relying on a policy that enabled predators to abuse gymnasts long after USA Gymnastics had received warnings.
An IndyStar investigation uncovered multiple examples of children suffering the consequences, including a Georgia case in which a coach preyed on young female athletes for seven years after USA Gymnastics dismissed the first of four warnings about him.
In a 2013 lawsuit filed by one of that coach’s victims, two former USA Gymnastics officials admitted under oath that the organization routinely dismissed sexual abuse allegations as hearsay unless they came directly from a victim or victim’s parent.
Legal experts and child advocates expressed alarm about that approach, saying the best practice is to report every allegation to authorities. Laws in every state require people to report suspected child abuse.
…
USA Gymnastics would not disclose the total number of sexual misconduct allegations it receives each year. But records show the organization compiled complaint dossiers on more than 50 coaches and filed them in a drawer in its executive office in Indianapolis. The contents of those files remain secret, hidden under seal in the case filed by Ganser’s daughter. IndyStar, as part of the USA TODAY Network, filed a motion seeking to make the files public. The judge in that case has not yet ruled.
…
In the McCabe case, the organization acknowledged in court records that it seldom, if ever, forwarded allegations of child abuse to police or child protective services without being asked. When questioned under oath about its practices, Penny and his predecessor, Robert Colarossi, shed light on why. The reasons included concern about potential damage to a coach’s reputation if an allegation proved to be false.
Colarossi said he inherited an executive policy of dismissing complaints as “hearsay” unless they were signed by a victim or victim’s parent — a policy that experts said could deter people from reporting abuse. It’s not clear exactly when that policy was created or by whom.
…
Colarossi, who was USA Gymnastics president from 1998 to 2005, acknowledged in a deposition last year that the organization dismissed the allegations against McCabe as “hearsay” because they did not come from a victim or victim’s parent.
No one at the organization ever interviewed Dickey, Giunipero or two other coaches whom Giunipero recommended USA Gymnastics contact about McCabe’s conduct, according to court records.
“Because they are unsubstantiated allegations,” Colarossi explained as he was being deposed by attorney W. Brian Cornwell of Lasky Cooper Law, who is representing Ganser’s daughter. “This one says he’s a dangerous coach. Over here it says an incident happened. We don’t know what the incident is.”
Yeesh. In an organization built entirely around adults constantly working literally hands on with children, often 1 on 1, it’s incredible to see such ridiculous policies.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-college-footballs-major-rule-changes-for-2016/
The 10 biggest rule changes in CFB for this year.
LikeLike
I don’t like 1, 6 and 7 at all.
The blocking below the waist rule is waaaayyyy too complicated. You can block only from the front, but only in one direction, but in two directions if the ball carrier has crossed the line, unless of course its inside the tackle box…. Its kind of ridiculous. The players won’t have time to think of all the exceptions and the refs will miss the call.
6 on the clock stoppage is subjective. Maybe they just start from the snap on those last two minutes instead of making it start then only if one team is ahead. Refs will miss this one.
7 targeting. I don’t believe a replay official should call penalties. We are really slowing the game down and creating inconsistencies. Now I’ve got no problem if they later make the guy sit out half a game because of targeting in replay that didn’t get caught. I think that is a very good idea. But I don’t think they should make a penalty. That’s really a slippery slope. And you also get the question of when they call the penalty. Do they have to do it with the same rules on current replay? If so, how many do they really get? Its another needless complication.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your objection to #6. Of course, officials could miss any rule, but it is very clear cut: no judgment involved.
LikeLike
Makes it unnecessarily complicated. The clock gets started when the ball is ready for play, unless it is the last two minutes and unless the team on defense is ahead, then its on the snap. Just one more thing that they will get wrong.
Its like a government regulation. Or the IRS.
LikeLike
I like the rule. A couple years ago I saw a team burn 1:05 of 1:30 in half without a snap. Should have had to punt with just under a min. Probably would have been around 30 yards to FG range. The penalty and clock restart completely changed play selection/strategy with no TO’s. With only 25 secs defense can allow some completions over middle as advantageous.
LikeLike
Well why not make it a two minute rule regardless of whether or not the team is ahead?
LikeLike
So trailing team with no TO’s can’t use as such? In my example leading team was able to run two play clocks, with game clock running. Kinda unfair. Wouldn’t want to create an incentive for penalties in either case, leading or trailing.
LikeLike
What wasn’t mentioned is the Longhorn network. It’s not popular, rarely mentioned, but a money drain on ESPN. UT will stay in the Big 12 as long as the Longhorn contract is in place.
The most significant development is UT’s backing of UH to join the conference. Unless the recent pronouncements by Fox and ESPN shunning Big 12 expansion were not serious, there will be no expansion. It is, after all, all about the money.
Rice is a joke. Richer than any school in the discussion, the Owls refuse to spend the cash to upgrade their program. The Owls have no fan support in Houston.
LikeLike
Rice is an elite private school, a small Ivy. Tuition there used to be free, and it was extremely selective. How, or even why, they play football is a mystery. They’d be better off in a league with Amherst.
LikeLike
Rice is a joke and won’t spend money?
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/New-facility-adds-to-Rice-s-comfort-level-in-9123859.php?t=63f91afc12438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium
LikeLike
loki, why is Rice a joke? Rice is not interested in P5 football. They seem to be very happy where they are. So what is wrong with that? Harvard, Yale and Princeton have huge endowments. They could outspend anyone on their football programs (with just a small portion of the annual income from the endowments), except that “big time” football is an absolute irrelevancy to them.
LikeLike
My understanding is not that Rice won’t, but in fact are legally prevented from using any of the endowment money on athletics. Were they included in a P conference the distribution dollars would probably have a significantly larger helpful effect than other schools that have greater freedom in resource allocation. They are still small in enrollment and alumni, but compared to enormous state universities so is Stanford.
LikeLike
Yes, it is true that Rice is prohibited from using their endowment for athletics and other purposes. But that is true for many private schools. My understanding is that we’ve fallen behind schools like Stanford for a variety of reasons, maintenance of existing facilities is one of those reasons. Rice has spent north of $100mm in the last few years on athletics facilities, from the complete renovation of the basketball gym, to a new track/soccer stands and offices, to baseball updates, to the student health center that houses the swim team, to the new $30mm facility opening this year in the north end zone to try to rectify decades of neglect.
Another way we fell behind was in the structure of the athletics donation. Schools like Stanford have ‘endowed’ their scholarships with donations separate from the central endowment. Rice is only beginning that process. In fact, the school had rules in place that made it difficult to donate to athletics without a matching donation to the University. We also had rules in place that prevented significant corporate sponsorships.
As noted, Rice is very small, and some want it to remain that way. How small? Less than half the size of a Stanford or Notre Dame. Put us next to an Arizona State or Central Florida and our population is a rounding error. Teas A&M’s plan is to have an engineering department six times the size of our entire university.
And the collapse of the SWC came at an awful time for Rice. We had too many in the Athletic Department who were coasting on towards retirement doing things the old way as the world changed around them. If Rice had been grandfathered in to the P5 like a Northwestern or Wake Forest our world would be very different.
LikeLike
And at the time the SWC collapsed, Rice had around 4,000 total students and far and away the smallest undergraduate student body in I-A at around 2,500. Only the military academies and Tulsa had smaller overall enrollments (and not by much). Rice has caught Tulsa and is close to the academies in undergraduate enrollment and is close to Wake Forest in overall size.
LikeLike
I certainly understand your disappointment as an alum. It is a great academic school with no interest in big time football, perhaps for many reasons. My sons refused to go to colleges unless they had big time sports, so one went to UW-Madison and two to FSU.
LikeLike
JerseyB:
“It is a great academic school with no interest in big time football”
I don’t understand how you associate having been trapped in a financial and conference disadvantage with intentional lack of interest. I know the likelihood is extremely low but I only half jokingly have suggested the PAC might see the Owls as a potential Texas version of Stanford. A bit of an athletic project, but an academic fit and an inroad into the second largest state. Time, money, and power conf schedule would certainly improve their visibility.
LikeLike
loki, I am not picking on Rice. The article to which you linked did not suggest any interest in P5. Stanford has 16,000 students. Rice has less than 7,000. That is a big difference. I have no doubt that if Texas wanted to go to the Pac-12 and take Rice along, the league might be willing to add Rice. Other than that, Rice is not going anywhere
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie, I’m in no way thinking Rice is going anywhere soon, unless perhaps to the MWC or AAC as a back-fill. And it would take herculean efforts to get things changed in time for the 2024 round of expansion. But the gist in the original post of this conversation was that Rice is a joke and spend no money. I hope most people can see that that is not true.
LikeLike
They should spend enough so that they can be competitive with Tulsa, Tulane, SMU. If a large enough chunk of the AAC is taken by the Big XII, I could see the AAC not being long for the world, breaking up into 2-4 tighter cores that pick off closer-in schools (e.g. Temple and UCONN get Delaware and UMASS, UCF/USF/ECU grab FAU/FIU/GSU/CCU). The mid-south schools (all-private or a mix) could be 1 of those cores.
LikeLike
Rice is already competitive with Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU. In fact they are 26-20 against that group in football since the end of the SWC. Rice has a worse reputation in sports than it deserves. In other sports they have more conference championships than anyone in CUSA.
LikeLike
Well Rice won CUSA just a year or two ago in football.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Rice is already competitive with Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU. In fact they are 26-20 against that group in football since the end of the SWC. Rice has a worse reputation in sports than it deserves.”
Probably because the only times most of us see them on TV is when they are playing UT (and usually getting crushed).
LikeLike
loki – We in Baton Rouge don’t think Rice is a joke. It also looks like they are willing to spend money.
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_eaee2b28-58d3-11e6-91dd-e7385da043f1.html
Rice is paying LSU $3.5 million for a visit to Houston’s NRG Stadium in 2020.
BRING IT ON, OWLS!
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that $3.5mm is coming from the good folks at NRG Stadium. But it’s great to have three games with LSU back on the schedule.
LikeLike
I’m sure that’s the case as well, but I’ve got your back. LSU and Rice have a history of over 100 years, playing 55 games (LSU leads 37-13-5) with the first game in 1915 and the last game in 1995. If LSU is going to play G-5 schools, I’d rather play Rice & Tulane than some MAC-rifice team.
LikeLike
I was a junior at the last Rice win against LSU in 1980. I hope to see another soon. 😉
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“If LSU is going to play G-5 schools, I’d rather play Rice & Tulane than some MAC-rifice team.”
Presumably that’s at least in part because the MAC schools are from so far away that few fans travel and LSU fans don’t care about the other team. B10 fans feel the same way about Sun Belt schools.
I see in 2018 LSU actually replaced their I-AA penultimate week game with Rice. Hopefully LSU drops those late November I-AA games more often. Not that G5 teams are always all that much tougher, but it would certainly look better to the CFP committee.
I see that 2017 doesn’t have a late November OOC game at all which must be a shock to the fans. I’m guessing the OOC games might be moved around once the SEC schedule actually comes out.
LikeLike
Brian – since LSU and A&M started playing the last game of the regular season, the plan is to play a rent-a-win (sorry loki) the week before the A&M game in College Station, since it’s a short week in even-numbered years. A&M insists on playing their home game on Thanksgiving night. If the season allows for two open dates, LSU will use the second open date before that short week. The first open date is used before the Alabama game. Otherwise, when A&M plays at LSU in odd-numbered years, the November schedule has been and will likely be Bama, Ole Miss, Arkansas and A&M – easily the most difficult stretch in the SEC and possibly the nation.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – since LSU and A&M started playing the last game of the regular season, the plan is to play a rent-a-win (sorry loki) the week before the A&M game in College Station, since it’s a short week in even-numbered years. A&M insists on playing their home game on Thanksgiving night.”
Is playing TAMU last a permanent thing now? It’s only been 3 years so far. I understand why LSU does it, I was just saying I’d much rather see a G5 game rather than a I-AA.
“If the season allows for two open dates, LSU will use the second open date before that short week. The first open date is used before the Alabama game.”
This is something I find strange about SEC scheduling. Teams shouldn’t get to schedule their bye weeks. It’s one thing to give teams a bye before a short week as a matter of policy, but there’s zero reason why the powers always need a week off before playing each other.
“Otherwise, when A&M plays at LSU in odd-numbered years, the November schedule has been and will likely be Bama, Ole Miss, Arkansas and A&M – easily the most difficult stretch in the SEC and possibly the nation.”
That’s only happened once (last year) so far. In 2013 it was Ole Miss, Furman, bye, AL, bye, TAMU, AR. And historically, Ole Miss and Arkansas aren’t exactly killers. Even TAMU isn’t that great historically.
WI faces MSU, MI, bye, OSU, IA, NE and NW in 7 straight weeks this year (all but NE won 10 games last year), but B10 schedules mostly shift around every year or 2 so it won’t be a regular thing.
LikeLike
Brian – Much to the dismay of Arkansas fans, A&M is now LSU’s permanent rivalry week opponent.
Regarding open dates, you may find it strange, but that’s the way it is, at least for Alabama and LSU. Both request open dates before the game in which they play. The SEC office sets the schedule, but gives deference to such a request if possible.
2013 was a year with two open dates.
According to the all-time AP poll, Bama is #4, A&M is #18, Arkansas is #21, and Ole Miss is #29. All are rivalry games. I meant to write most difficult “closing” stretch run. BTW, my source for future scheduling is LSU’s senior associate athletic director in charge of scheduling.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – Much to the dismay of Arkansas fans, A&M is now LSU’s permanent rivalry week opponent.”
I figured it was quicker to ask you then to look it up. Either one is a decent finish for LSU but I can understand AR fans being disappointed.
“Regarding open dates, you may find it strange, but that’s the way it is, at least for Alabama and LSU. Both request open dates before the game in which they play. The SEC office sets the schedule, but gives deference to such a request if possible.”
Please note that I’m not saying it’s wrong, it just seems odd to me because it’s not what I’m used to. As CFB becomes a more national game due to the playoff, the conferences need to think about aligning on issues like this. OSU getting MSU and MI back to back (just an example I’m familiar with, I’m sure USC and other kings have similar stories) while SEC powers get a bye week to prepare for each other seems like an advantage for the SEC.
“2013 was a year with two open dates.”
I know. I was just pointing out that it had only happened once so far. And double byes also happen in 2019 and 2025 so 33% of the time in the odd years coming up.
“According to the all-time AP poll, Bama is #4, A&M is #18, Arkansas is #21, and Ole Miss is #29. All are rivalry games.”
But since the SEC went to 12 teams in 1993, AR is #43 and MS is #49 in total AP poll appearances. I’m not saying it isn’t a tough finish, just that they aren’t quite as scary as you made them all seem. Swapping UF and Auburn for AR and MS would make it much worse, for example.
“I meant to write most difficult “closing” stretch run.”
I figured, and like I said that is a 1 shot schedule for WI. I think most conferences schedule that way so some SEC team would almost have to win by default if everyone else is shifting their games around.
“BTW, my source for future scheduling is LSU’s senior associate athletic director in charge of scheduling.”
I don’t doubt that you know what you’re talking about. I just don’t have any access to releases about it so I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.
LikeLike
What wasn’t mentioned is the Longhorn network. It’s not popular, rarely mentioned, but a money drain on ESPN. UT will stay in the Big 12 as long as the Longhorn contract is in place.
Correction #1: UT will stay in the B12, unless another conference accepts them with the LHN. Last round, no other conference was willing to do that. In the mid-2020s, it could be different. The Pac-12, for instance, might realize that its own network has flopped, and it has no other realistic expansion options, making UT+LHN more attractive than it seemed before.
Correction #2: If it’s still true in the mid-2020s that LHN is “not popular, rarely mentioned, [and] a money drain on ESPN”, they may see the handwriting on the wall, and realize their $15m annual payday isn’t going to last forever.
Unless the recent pronouncements by Fox and ESPN shunning Big 12 expansion were not serious, there will be no expansion.
As Bowlsby put it, “everything is a negotiation.” Posturing through the media via unattributed quotes does not constitute the actual positions of the networks.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/no-1s
Only 44 schools have ever been #1 in the AP poll, and only 21 of those were #1 at least 10 times. Just for fun, Ralph Russo went through and picked the best team for each school that has been ranked #1. He gave preference to champions, obviously, as well as when in the season they were ranked and for how long. He also used SRS to compare the dominance of teams from different eras. The schools are listed in descending order of times ranked #1.
1. OSU – 1968
2. OU – 1974
3. ND – 1947
4. USC – 1972
5. AL – 1961
6t. FSU – 1999
6t. NE – 1971
8. Miami – 2001
9. UT – 2005
10. UF – 1996
11. MI – 1948
13. MSU – 1952
16. PSU – 1982
18. MN – 1941
21. IA – 1960
29. UMD – 1959
30t. NW – 1936
30t. PU – 1968
41t. WI – 1941
It really seems like the 60s and early 70s were a golden era. 5 of the top 10 had their best teams then.
LikeLike
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/08/05/sports/ncaafootball/ap-fbc-sec-scheduling.html?ref=ncaafootball
A look at the SEC’s success in “neutral site” season openers and the importance of them.
Alabama faces Southern California in Arlington, Texas. Ole Miss meets Florida State in Orlando, Florida. LSU takes on Wisconsin at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Georgia meets North Carolina in Atlanta. The trend continues Sept. 10 when Tennessee plays Virginia Tech at the Bristol Motor Speedway in Bristol, Tennessee.
And that doesn’t even include prestige nonconference games taking place on campus the first two weeks of the season. Auburn hosts Clemson and Texas A&M hosts UCLA on the season’s opening weekend. Arkansas visits TCU on Sept. 10.
…
The SEC’s knack for scheduling these high-profile openers — and winning them — has helped the league make an early case each year that it’s the nation’s toughest conference. The SEC is criticized for scheduling Football Championship Subdivision programs or low-level Group of Five teams in November, but it doesn’t shy away from anyone early.
SEC teams went 5-0 in nonconference games at neutral sites during last season’s opening week, which included Alabama starting its national title run by beating Wisconsin in Arlington, Texas. The SEC was 3-0 in neutral-site games during the opening week of 2014. Six of those eight games were against other Power Five teams.
An SEC team hasn’t lost a neutral-site game during the opening week of a season since 2013, when Mississippi State fell to Oklahoma State in Houston and Western Kentucky knocked off Kentucky in Nashville.
These games may take place long before the playoff committee releases its rankings, yet they still have an impact.
…
In recent years, the SEC has benefited from partisan crowds at games that technically took place at neutral sites. That certainly was the case when Texas A&M beat Arizona State in Houston and Tennessee defeated Bowling Green in Nashville last season.
This season, LSU must face Wisconsin at the home of the Green Bay Packers. Ole Miss isn’t expecting a friendly reception when it meets Florida State in Orlando.
…
These high-profile openers allow the SEC to maintain its schedule strength while continuing to play only eight conference games. The Big Ten is joining the Pac-12 and Big 12 in having nine-game conference schedules this year, leaving the SEC and Atlantic Coast Conference as the only Power Five leagues still playing only eight conference games.
Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart, who favors the nine-game conference schedule, said the league hasn’t had “a second’s worth of discussion” on a possible switch ever since SEC presidents and chancellors voted in 2014 to keep the eight-game schedule.
Then they go on to look at the consequences for the penultimate week of the season.
If only some of these attractive intersectional games could be spread out. Instead, the SEC often has one dull week in November while other Power Five leagues are in the heart of their conference schedules.
Check out the SEC schedule the week of Nov. 19. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky and South Carolina are all playing FCS programs. Texas A&M is hosting Texas-San Antonio, LSU faces South Alabama and Georgia meets Louisiana-Lafayette. That week also features Arkansas-Mississippi State, Ole Miss-Vanderbilt and Missouri-Tennessee conference matchups.
It’s worth noting that many of the SEC teams scheduling FCS foes or Group of Five teams in mid-November are facing in-state rivals the following week. For instance, South Carolina faces Western Carolina the week before it visits Clemson. Alabama and Auburn both play FCS foes the week before their Iron Bowl showdown.
“I think television’s issue, which is valid, is that the inventory on that second-to-last weekend becomes limited,” Hart said. “We talk about this a lot. It’s an ongoing conversation in SEC meetings where we’re talking television, but I don’t think you’ll see an abrupt or immediate change in that regard. I do think there will be an overall effort — it’s already underway — for the Southeastern Conference to do the best they can, and they work hard at this, to provide the best inventory feasible and possible for our television partners.”
LikeLike
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17216980/baylor-offensive-lineman-rami-hammad-accused-last-fall-sexually-assaulting-student-violating-university-issued-no-contact-order
And the Baylor story just keeps on giving.
An OL was arrested and charged with stalking his ex-girlfriend. But wait, there’s more. He was accused last fall of sexual assault and violated a school-issued no contact order with the woman, and then promptly played in the game that weekend.
Baylor offensive lineman Rami Hammad — arrested on felony stalking charges Monday — was accused last fall of sexually assaulting a student and violating a university-issued no-contact order after confronting the woman, Outside the Lines has learned.
Hammad is facing felony stalking charges after his former girlfriend reported several instances from March to July in which he tracked her down, harassed her and twice physically assaulted her, including once at Baylor’s athletic facilities on campus.
Last fall, a different woman reported to Baylor’s Title IX office that she had been sexually assaulted by Hammad. After Hammad confronted the woman about why he was under investigation by the Title IX office, she requested a no-contact order from the university, according to documents reviewed by Outside the Lines. She received it, but three days later, Hammad allegedly confronted her again. She and two witnesses reported that confrontation to police, but she declined to press charges, believing the Title IX office would pursue the matter, she told Outside the Lines.
She additionally told Outside the Lines she was shocked and disappointed that Hammad was allowed to play in Baylor’s game against Texas Tech a few days later and the remainder of the season. She said hearing of the felony charges from Monday was “very disheartening.”
“This is all Baylor’s fault,” she said. “Had they taken my case slightly more seriously and put some kind of ‘warning’ on him, this wouldn’t have happened. … The mannerisms that she described are so similar. It’s not just something I wanted to remember.”
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/25-lgbt-groups-send-letter-to-big-12-urging-it-to-shun-byu-080816
25 LGBT groups sent the B12 a letter asking them not to invite BYU because it would be inconsistent with the B12’s membership values.
In the letter addressed to commissioner Bob Bowlsby, the authors write in part: “BYU … actively and openly discriminates against its LGBT students and staff. It provides no protections for LGBT students … Given BYU’s homophobic, biphobic and transphobic policies and practices, BYU should not be rewarded with Big 12 membership.”
…
BYU students and faculty are expected to follow the school’s Honor Code, which includes a section addressing “Homosexual Behavior.” While “same-gender attraction” is not itself an Honor Code violation, taking part in a same-sex relationship is.
“Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code,” it reads. “Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”
Under that definition, an openly gay individual cannot be a BYU coach or athlete unless that person practices chastity. BYU students found to be in violation of the Honor Code can be suspended or dismissed.
“BYU’s policies go against everything the Big 12 stands for,” said Ashland Johnson, director of policy and campaigns for Athlete’s Ally. “Their member schools are very progressive. If they allow BYU into their conference, all of the LGBT student-athletes, coaches and fans who travel to BYU will not have any [discrimination] protections.”
Any rebuttal, BYU?
In a statement to FOX Sports Monday, school spokesperson Carri Jenkins said, “BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards. We are very clear and open about our honor code, which all students understand and commit to when they apply for admission. One’s stated sexual orientation is not an issue.”
At least you’re upfront with your policy so nobody can claim they didn’t know about it.
The Big 12’s handbook includes a Policy on Diversity that reads in part: “It is the obligation of each Member Institution to refrain from discrimination prohibited by federal and state law, and to demonstrate a commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all student-athletes and athletics department personnel.”
A Big 12 spokesperson said Monday the policy applies to LGBT members. He could not confirm whether conference officials had received the letter.
How do athletes feel?
Several openly gay athletes have competed in the Big 12, including Oklahoma pole-vaulter Tanner Williams, who in 2015 became the first Division I athlete to publicly announce his same-sex marriage. Williams, who finished his career this spring, said were he still competing he would refuse to travel to BYU for a conference meet.
“These [LGBT] policies apply to the students there, would they apply to me?” said Williams. “What if I want to hold my husband’s hand? Would they kick me out for that? Would they not let me compete for that? That’s how I would look at it, and I know other athletes would feel the same way, whether they’re gay or allies.”
LikeLike
I hope the Big 12 invites BYU. I’m tired of the LGBT fascists doing their best to undermine religious liberty in this country.
LikeLike
Agreed completely. I understand the various perspectives, but it needs to also be accepted that others shouldn’t have to agree with you or face severe restrictions. It’s not just this, but too many people have opposed people even holding any kind of high ranking job if they disagreed. A new Firefox CEO/CFO/something had to resign after pressure for past positions despite his job having nothing to do with gay marriage/LGBT issues.
That said, I think this will be effective 😦
LikeLike
Eric,
“I understand the various perspectives, but it needs to also be accepted that others shouldn’t have to agree with you or face severe restrictions.”
BYU has never been in a power conference so how is it a severe restriction not to invite them to one now? Nobody is suggesting to kick them out of the NCAA or anything.
“It’s not just this, but too many people have opposed people even holding any kind of high ranking job if they disagreed. A new Firefox CEO/CFO/something had to resign after pressure for past positions despite his job having nothing to do with gay marriage/LGBT issues.”
As a person with the power to hire and fire people, of course his stated views on those issues would be of concern to people. I don’t know if he had a track record showing he acted neutrally or showed bias, but I can understand concern on the surface.
LikeLike
How about a relegious school that bans interracial dating? Expels the victim of mugging because it was the result of racist reaction to an interracial date.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to question whether other school would choose to voluntarily associate in an organized conference.
LikeLike
I’ll be upfront: I’m a 100% supporter of gay marriage and LGBTQ rights as a general matter. My basic viewpoint is that people should either (a) be happy for this advancement if you think likewise or (b) simply move on if you don’t think likewise since it doesn’t impact the sanctity of your own marriage, relationships, religious beliefs, etc. The people that trouble me are the ones that use the dog whistle of “religious liberty” in order to shoehorn discriminatory laws into the books (which, by the way, instantly repels the vast, vast, vast majority of voters under 40 in this country in the same way that “states’ rights” arguments that were thinly veiled ways to keep racial segregation in place repelled people in the past). The irony of this discussion about BYU is that Utah’s religious freedom law is actually a good example of being well-written and legitimately geared toward the protection of religious practices, whereas laws like the Indiana “religious freedom” law that was restructured in a way that basically made everyone (both left and right) angry last year or the North Carolina bathroom law were clearly geared toward discriminating against the LGBTQ community. Utah’s law ensures that religious beliefs cannot be curtailed within the context of the actual practice of that religion, which is much different than allowing to use personal religious beliefs to engage in discrimination against protected classes in a secular setting that is covered by equal protection laws (such as an open invite business) that many of the supposed religious liberty advocates are pushing for these days.
Now, putting aside my personal viewpoint (as it doesn’t really matter whether people personally agree with me or not when it comes to analyzing the impact on conference realignment), I know that the Pac-12 wouldn’t invite BYU based on LGBTQ issues in large part. There are significant scars from the LDS financial support of Proposition 8 in California that the West Coast schools won’t get over at any point soon (if ever). Whenever I have been asked about the prospect of BYU ever being invited by the Pac-12 (and I’ve been asked many times over many years at this point), my instant reaction is “NFW” and it’s largely tied to this issue specifically (more than just a general aversion to religious schools). It doesn’t matter how much money BYU could make for the Pac-12: ALL of the Pac-12 schools (not just the California-based ones) are in unison here.
As you can see from my own comments from last week, I was skeptical that the Big 12 would think the same way because of how they have allowed for Baylor to have its own discriminatory practices up until very recently. I just didn’t think the Big 12 schools would necessarily make this into a bright line issue. The more that I think about it, though, I seriously underestimated it (and like I’ve said, I’m as big of a LGBTQ rights advocate as you’ll find). If people believe that the University of Texas runs (or at least has disproportionate power within) the Big 12, then why wouldn’t UT (a fairly liberal university that is probably more culturally in tune with the Pac-12 than its own fellow Big 12 members) have a very large issue with allowing BYU into the league considering the school’s stances on homosexuality? This was a blind spot for me up to this point because of the presence of Baylor already being in the Big 12.
On a financial basis, BYU has long been the best choice for the Big 12. I’ve said this for years. However, I’ve also said in the past that there’s clearly something “personal” between BYU and the Big 12 – maybe it was about their negotiation tactics, maybe it was about Sunday play, maybe it was about how they wanted more for BYUtv, maybe it was about religion itself, etc. Unlike most realignment decisions, there were issues between BYU and the Big 12 that were clearly *not* about money or else BYU probably would have been invited already. The LGBTQ issue on top of all of that could certainly be a deal-breaker for the schools that already had hesitations about adding BYU.
BYU should be free to practice its religion and set its code of conduct however it sees fit. That is protected by the First Amendment. However, that doesn’t mean the Big 12 has to accept it, either. The Big 12 is every bit as much as a private association as BYU of the LDS church itself, so the Big 12 can apply whatever criteria it wants in choosing its members. As I wrote in my very first post about conference realignment, there are tons of off-the-field factors that can impact expansion decisions, such as academics, TV markets and brand value. Increased awareness of LGBTQ rights can certainly be a large deal – it clearly has been a deal-breaker for the Pac-12 with respect to BYU, so none of us should be surprised if it ends up being the case for the Big 12.
LikeLike
Typical liberal thought process, Frank. “If you agree, then be happy about it; if you don’t then keep your damned mouth shut and live with it.” The LGBTQ lobby is an insidious force for evil in our country. It’s strongest advocates are a thought-police gestapo who have absolutely ZERO regard for the beliefs of others.
LikeLike
@Tyson – I really don’t want to have this devolve into a political argument, but I’ll leave these two comments:
(1) I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I’ve been able to vote (first time in 1996). I’m hardly a liberal (and I say that living in a place where not having voted for Obama twice is a real statement versus, say, much of the South). Now, I won’t be voting Republican this year because of who the party has put up as their candidate, but that’s for a whole host of issues outside of LGBTQ rights (as the LGBTQ community is one of the few groups that Trump actually hasn’t completely gone out of his way to offend). As someone that has been a lifelong Republican, I simply disagree with the party on LGBTQ issues in the same manner as Ted Olsen (who was the longtime conservative lawyer that effectively got George W. Bush into office in the Bush v. Gore case in front of the Supreme Court but then also argued the Obergefell case on behalf of gay marriage advocates): for a party that says that it wants limited government intervention, it should apply that to *both* fiscal issues AND social issues.
(2) 20 years ago, my first college dorm neighbors happened to be a transgender woman (prepping to go through reassignment surgery) and a gay man. This was certainly long before gay marriage was “cool” (as DOMA had just passed) and seeing someone openly transgender was the equivalent of coming across a unicorn. As a suburban Chicago kid, I had absolutely ZERO experience with dealing with LGBTQ people (or at least I thought I did as I’ve seen several of my grade and high school friends come out over the years). In fact, I saw the transgender woman roller skating on the Quad on my move-in day and thought to myself, “Yeesh! That guy is a crazy freak!” Of course, I found out that I was living next to her about an hour later. The funny thing is, it took only about a week for me to realize that all of the preconceptions that I had growing up about LGBTQ people were completely ridiculous and false. At a base level, despite everything that I had been taught previously, I finally understood that no one chooses to be LGBTQ – you just are born that way. Once I came to that understanding, it changed my worldview since it’s simply incomprehensible to me that it’s acceptable to discriminate people on how they are *born*.
Of course, the “thought-police gestapo” at that time wasn’t championing the rights of my dorm neighbors. Instead, the “thought-police gestapo” back then left horrifically homophobic spray painted messages outside of our dorm building and on the Quad along with unchallenged personal harassment. I saw the absolute hell that my neighbors and other LGBTQ people went through up close and they are among the most despicable and disgusting things that I have ever seen in my life (and I went to what’s considered to be a liberal university, so I can’t imagine what it would have been like in other places). So, I don’t buy the supposed “thought-police gestapo”. The LGBTQ community has been openly beaten down for decades (including less than a decade ago with the Prop 8 vote in freaking California), but now they’re suddenly the intolerant ones that can’t give on different viewpoints? I don’t buy that for one second. I’ve seen it up close and personal what it as like not very long ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really want to see BYU be part of the BIG 12. I’m a huge college football fan, a BYU fan, and a Mormon, but I completely understand if the BIG 12 would pass on associating with BYU. BYU and the LDS church has the right to do what it wants, and make its own rules, but like Frank points out, young people feel strongly about LBGTQ rights, this included young Mormons, and when you have a choice of who you want to associate with, you have to take all information into consideration and BYU’s code is not acceptable in this changing world.
LikeLike
The presidents will be concerned about LGBT issues. Money can override a lot of stuff as college presidents have repeatedly demonstrated, but with the Baylor rapes, they will be even more sensitive. It may be too much controversy when it already gives them personal and institutional concerns. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Great commentary, Frank. But if UT does have such issues with BYU, then why do they play them on the field? By the way, I believe Cal did the same last year, and Stanford will be doing so in 2 years.
LikeLike
Tyson,
“Typical liberal thought process, Frank.”
Except he isn’t a liberal, but don’t let facts get in your way.
” “If you agree, then be happy about it; if you don’t then keep your damned mouth shut and live with it.””
He didn’t tell you to keep your mouth shut, but it might be a good idea based on the crap its spewing here. You do have to live with it. Remember that religious freedom you were so worried about? Not all religions are anti-LGBT, so respect their freedom instead of undermining it.
“The LGBTQ lobby is an insidious force for evil in our country.”
Nice open mind. Everyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong but evil. Now who’s restricting religious freedom?
“It’s strongest advocates are a thought-police gestapo who have absolutely ZERO regard for the beliefs of others.”
Whereas you have a vast respect for the beliefs of others as evidenced here.
LikeLike
FtT is a liberal…?
News to him, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Frank, I’m not advocating malicious or unkind treatment of anyone. And your experiences of 20 years ago notwithstanding, if you honestly don’t think there is an avalanche of LGBTQ propaganda and bias in our society currently, I would suggest you are just not paying attention. And it is because we are in a post-religious, very secular society now that these issues are coming to the fore…I will say I believe it is a conflict with a spiritual basis. And that “transgendered” people are under attack spiritually, and/or are mentally ill. You may not agree with me on this. I feel the same way about people who believe they are a cat…or that they are a tree, or Joseph Stalin. Ask anyone who works in Hollywood, or in academia, which would invite more opposition, if they came out as gay, or if they professed to be a conservative…or worse, a conservative Christian?
As for the conference realignment discussion, and why this is suddenly relevant in this context, it is because the LGBTQ lobby INSERTED it here. This is what they do…the conflict is essential to their cause. The bathroom bill in NC (where I live) was passed IN RESPONSE to the efforts of very left-leaning city council in Charlotte that wanted to make a political statement, regardless of how it would affect millions of N Carolinians’ right to privacy—ie, the bathroom bill was not a swipe at transgendered people; it was suddenly essential to prevent lewd teenage boys from deciding they wanted to watch girls shower, and do so immune from punishment, since they could just claim to “identify” as female. The response from the left has been predictable and appalling. I suspect the “outrage” over a possible BYU invite to the Big 12 will prevent that from happening as well.
LikeLike
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601660408,00.html
Yea, we’ve never had existential crisis before
LikeLike
Tyson,
“Frank, I’m not advocating malicious or unkind treatment of anyone.”
The sad thing is that you are and don’t even realize it.
“And your experiences of 20 years ago notwithstanding, if you honestly don’t think there is an avalanche of LGBTQ propaganda and bias in our society currently, I would suggest you are just not paying attention.”
We’re biased towards LGBTQ? That would be news to the millions of people every year who get threatened, shamed, mocked and even injured because they are LGBTQ. When “That’s so straight” becomes an insult maybe you’d have a point.
As for propaganda, in what way is what they’re saying misleading or biased?
“And it is because we are in a post-religious, very secular society now that these issues are coming to the fore…I will say I believe it is a conflict with a spiritual basis.”
Or you could expand your horizons enough to realize that not every religion agrees with fundamentalist Christians and stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and athiest.
It’s hard to feel bad for the “oppressed” Christians that make up 73% of the US and 92% of Congress. I have a tough time believing the Man is holding Christians down in some sort of religious apartheid since the government is almost entirely Christian.
“And that “transgendered” people are under attack spiritually, and/or are mentally ill.”
Too bad there is physical evidence in the brain supporting transgender as being real.
“You may not agree with me on this.”
No, I prefer to side with the truth not scared fairy tales.
“Ask anyone who works in Hollywood, or in academia, which would invite more opposition, if they came out as gay, or if they professed to be a conservative…or worse, a conservative Christian?”
1. It depends on the school and the department.
2. Even better, ask them why. The intolerance (based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc) of many CCs is a huge part of the problem. Universities need to be open to all people and all factual or rational viewpoints. Nothing is sillier than watching CCs try to ban science from institutions of higher learning.
Are some liberals intolerant of conservative viewpoints? Yes, and that’s not okay either unless it’s a factual disagreement (the Earth is round or it’s flat, it’s billions of years old or 6000, etc). But they don’t need to be tolerant of conservative bigotry in any of its forms.
“As for the conference realignment discussion, and why this is suddenly relevant in this context, it is because the LGBTQ lobby INSERTED it here.”
How dare they bring up a relevant issue? The nerve! Why don’t they know to stay in their place?
“This is what they do…the conflict is essential to their cause.”
That’s how civil rights tend to come about. Without they fight they remain oppressed.
“The bathroom bill in NC (where I live) was passed IN RESPONSE to the efforts of very left-leaning city council in Charlotte that wanted to make a political statement, regardless of how it would affect millions of N Carolinians’ right to privacy—ie, the bathroom bill was not a swipe at transgendered people; it was suddenly essential to prevent lewd teenage boys from deciding they wanted to watch girls shower, and do so immune from punishment, since they could just claim to “identify” as female.”
How many documented cases have there been in the US of men/boys using such a law to harm or spy on women/girls when they weren’t already a sexual predator breaking other laws or about to break one (looking to rape someone, for example)? Current laws don’t stop rapists from entering a women’s bathroom, obviously, but they’re criminals. Breaking the law is what they do.
How many documented cases have there been in the US of transgender people attacking someone in a bathroom?
How many documented cases have there been in the US of transgender people being attacked in bathrooms?
How many people have been attacked verbally or physically because someone mistakenly thought they were in the wrong bathroom?
LikeLike
Only one comment Frank. The “they were all born that way” is a way to delegitimize any opposition. There is no doubt many, maybe the overwhelming majority, are born that way. But not all. And I doubt anyone is born bi-sexual. That’s a choice.
I’m not saying that should be a factor. Just that the use of “they were all born that way” is a way to allow one to look down on anyone who doesn’t agree with one’s opinion. Kind of like someone calling a Down’s syndrome child “stupid.”
Its unfortunately, way too common in a lot of our political debates. For all the talk of open conversations, such is really discouraged in our society. There is much less tolerance of different opinions than there used to be. You often joked about avoiding politics at parties, but it was nothing like it is now. You have to be careful which friends you invite to a function. We had to work hard to change a conversation that was getting really nasty when we invited two couples, who should have gotten along, to our house for dinner. Its a shame because it really is stimulating to have people with differing ideas.
LikeLike
Its unfortunately, way too common in a lot of our political debates. For all the talk of open conversations, such is really discouraged in our society. There is much less tolerance of different opinions than there used to be. You often joked about avoiding politics at parties, but it was nothing like it is now. You have to be careful which friends you invite to a function. We had to work hard to change a conversation that was getting really nasty when we invited two couples, who should have gotten along, to our house for dinner. Its a shame because it really is stimulating to have people with differing ideas.
I just can’t believe that’s true. Maybe people are more willing to share unpopular opinions in polite company, but I can’t believe society is less tolerant of diverse views. Civil rights, various religions, suffrage, labor rights all were movements where different opinions were suppressed with violence. I doubt there are many people in hospitals due to their rejection of climate change, LGBTQ rights, or love of Obamacare.
LikeLike
MIke – not in the hospital, just socially shunned.
It is completely true. As a gay man who votes more Republican than Democrat, I can assure you that I must watch what I say in social settings or the eye-raising and looks across the table immediately begin. And the arguments against my view are always of the PC/ad hominen sort, rather than substantive.
LikeLike
ad hominem
LikeLike
bullet,
“Only one comment Frank. The “they were all born that way” is a way to delegitimize any opposition. There is no doubt many, maybe the overwhelming majority, are born that way. But not all. And I doubt anyone is born bi-sexual. That’s a choice.”
All the science I’ve seen says you’re wrong, though. They are all born that way just like you were presumably born male. People can choose to act different ways (prisoners having homosexual sex, for example), but they aren’t actually trans- or bi- or homosexual. It’s about the mind, not the actions.
And in this world, why would anyone choose to be LGBTQ if they aren’t? The risks of suicide, physical assault and sexual assault are orders of magnitude higher for LGBTQ people.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“It is completely true. As a gay man who votes more Republican than Democrat, I can assure you that I must watch what I say in social settings or the eye-raising and looks across the table immediately begin. And the arguments against my view are always of the PC/ad hominen sort, rather than substantive.”
And you think things were better 20 or 50 years ago? That’s Mike’s point. 50 years ago you’d worry about people jumping you outside and beating you to death. Now you worry about being shunned.
I understand what bullet is saying as politics has seemingly become even more nasty and divisive in the past 25 years. People used to be able to disagree civilly on many topics and now more and more things are getting lumped into the undiscussable group. But the rule always used to be never to discuss religion or politics in polite company, so I think that’s one reason why things were more civil in some ways in the past.
When you actually look back, though, politics has been nasty and divisive since day 1 in the US. We’re just a little more exposed to it now with 24 hour media.
LikeLike
Tyson,
“I hope the Big 12 invites BYU. I’m tired of the LGBT fascists doing their best to undermine religious liberty in this country.”
I’ll try to avoid the politics and instead point out this:
1. Fascism is a far-right ideology so hard to apply to LGBT advocates. There are more apt metaphors to be used.
2. It’s not about religious liberty. It’s about the multiple state schools in the B12 that couldn’t enforce the rules that BYU does and in fact espouse opposed viewpoints to those of BYU and whether they should promote a school like BYU to the P5. They also note that athletes and coaches could be made to feel very unwelcome at BYU, something they intentionally fight on their own campuses.
3. I believe the concerns about poor treatment for visitors are unfounded. I’ve never heard any reports of problems for visitors to BYU even if they displayed legal behavior that violates the BYU honor code. If BYU fans were mistreating athletes or fans that acted “inappropriately” at BYU I think the media would’ve mentioned it by now.
LikeLike
U must have failed work history. Racism and Nazism are left philosophies/ movements. Both are different flavors of socialism.
Hard to take any of your comments seriously when u don’t even know what u r saying
LikeLike
“Hard to take any of your comments seriously when u don’t even know what u r saying”
— Irony
LikeLike
ND and Bleacher Report are going into business together. BR will be embedded with the team and produce content for them.
This isn’t the first time a CFB version of Hard Knocks has been done. Showtime did it with ND last year and USC this year I think. ESPN has done brief stints of it but never a full season. BTN and others do it. But isn’t it a little different to have an outlet that supposedly reports neutrally on CFB have a financial arrangement with just 1 school and be embedded with them all season every season? It just seems like one more step down the path.
LikeLike
NBC Sports had an article about it.
Notre Dame announced a social media partnership with Bleacher Report on Thursday, believed to be the the first of its kind. B/R will have a team embedded in South Bend, producing a wide array of social media—all to be distributed across the wide variety of outlets on both Notre Dame and B/R’s different social platforms.
…
Viewed as a pilot program, the joint venture allows B/R exclusive access to Notre Dame’s football team—telling a variety of stories that’ll be jointly distributed through Notre Dame’s social media platforms as well as Bleacher Report’s Team Stream app and widely-followed accounts on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Bleacher Report reports more engagement across those three platforms than any other publisher in the U.S.
…
The content, distributed in a variety of shapes and sizes, will have less of a long-form, narrative focus than last season’s Showtime series. It’ll also capitalize on B/R’s success at connecting with a younger generation of sports fan, something that helps the Irish football program tell their story—to fans and recruits alike.
I find that going to BR’s home page or CFB page defaults to the ND team stream on the left side of the page. I believe you need an account to change that to your favorite team (and no I don’t have or want a BR account). The CFB page starts with about 5 ND stories and then has general CFB coverage below that. If you click on the CFB team stream it will replace all the ND stuff with general CFB coverage. If you go to the B10 page under CFB, it’ll be all B10 stuff.
So basically it defaults to ND but otherwise is probably unchanged. It’s not like I regularly use their site, so it won’t bother me. I’ve seen enough slideshows to last a lifetime.
LikeLike
New AD for Purdue
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/georgia-tech-athletic-director-leaving-to-take-same-position-at-purdue-in-july/
LikeLike
Two very similar schools, both academically and athletically. If he has any black and old gold ties (one combo sometimes seen at Tech, but discountenanced in favor of navy and the official white), he can still use them.
Ramblin’ Wrecks and Boilermakers sort or works, too.
And, he’s only 60 miles or so from his alma mater, ND
LikeLike
New AD for Mizzou, too. Jim Sterk of San Diego State.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/sec/university-of-missouri/article94700317.html
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/paul-johnson-tech-way-behind-acc-in-facilities-sta/nsCQh/
This is on the heels of the FB coach complaining about facilities and staff salaries.
“If you look at the other schools, we’re probably behind in most every aspect, from facilities to staff to salaries to whatever,” he said.
A locker-room renovation is on the radar for athletic director Mike Bobinski – plans have been drawn up – but the project has not advanced past a planning stage.
“I guess they’re waiting for somebody to fund it,” Johnson said.
Without added donor support, the budget doesn’t have much room for more costs. Tech, which typically aims to break even annually, is projecting a $2.4 million deficit for the upcoming fiscal year for a variety of reasons, including costs relating to the dismissal of former coach Brian Gregory and the hire of coach Josh Pastner, expected lower ticket sales for football and basketball and an $850,000 waterproofing project at Bobby Dodd Stadium.
Saturday at the team’s media day, Bobinski addressed the matter of other schools in the ACC, notably Clemson, increasing non-coaching staff. Bobinski said that “I think that could be our hope as things evolve here and we have a couple of opportunities that we believe will come our way in the years to come to improve financial conditions.”
Also remember that the previous AD left for Clemson just 3 years ago. If it wasn’t for the GOR, I’d point how the financial situation makes GT a prime expansion candidate for the B10. When PU can steal your people, you’re low on the P5 totem pole.
LikeLike
I’ve been gone for a while, but came back to see what this community had to say about Big 12 realignment. Since most of us are Big Ten fans, it’s not a surprise to see widespread agreement that UT is allowing expansion (especially Houston) to get cover for leaving down the road. But while some are debating whether it will be OU or Kansas who comes with UT, I don’t know that 16 has to be the end game. Mizzou would be easy picking for the Big Ten, especially with that school’s academic and athletic problems recently. The money upgrade and academic boost would really help if they left the SEC. Moving with Kansas would be a positive for alums too.
Three pods who play yearly, rotating the non-pod teams evenly. Top 2 teams play in Big Ten title game. The pods have a regional flavor (UT, OU, KU, Mizzou, Illinois, Purdue) and (Neb, Iowa, Minny, Wiscy, MSU, NW) and (UM, PSU, OSU, Indiana, UMD, Rutgers). One crossover game yearly (Neb/OU, MSU/UM, NW/Illi, Indy/Purdue for example).
The conference has the best academic/athletic schools from Texas to NY. 6 of the top 12 all-time in football. It has its perfect bridge in every state. UT has regional peers and isn’t an island in the Big 10.
Announce it around 2021…start it in July 2023 (new Big Ten TV deal)…and the penalties in 2023-2024 will be a drop in the bucket considering what the Big Ten will be raking in.
LikeLike
Kansas and OU would fit well in the SEC. Geographically, better. Previously acquainted too. NW Division in 16 teams, PODS of four: OU, Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas. Money and income would be about the same but the new SEC schools income would be immediately accessible. No wait like the BiG enforced on Nebraska, Penn State Rutgers and Maryland. I expect the SEC would toss their hat into that invitation. Especially now the ACC has a long running GOR. If expansion is in the plans of either conference, the interaction will be interesting. Of course, the SEC is pretty happy with the existing members and existing money. Know really know if OU and KU would make the other members more money annually.
OU LSU Auburn Florida
Mizzou Old Miss Alabama South Carolina
Arkansas A&M Georgia Kentucky
Kansas Miss State Tennessee Vandy
Puts a lot of fannies in the seats.
LikeLike
Pretty good, except for what could be the downgrade of Florida v. Georgia to a sporasdic rotating pair, although I think both programs would not mind the opportunity for a true home game instead.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“Pretty good, except for what could be the downgrade of Florida v. Georgia to a sporasdic rotating pair, although I think both programs would not mind the opportunity for a true home game instead.”
They make more money keeping it a neutral site game than they would get from a home and home. Still, UGA discusses switching it to home and home every so often before resinging the deal to keep it as is.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“Mizzou would be easy picking for the Big Ten, especially with that school’s academic and athletic problems recently. The money upgrade and academic boost would really help if they left the SEC. Moving with Kansas would be a positive for alums too.”
1. Money boost? The SEC pays more right now (should change in 2017-18 with the new TV deal) and MO would have to buy into the BTN so they wouldn’t get a big raise for at least 6 years.
2. Why would the B10 want their recent academic and athletic problems?
3. Wouldn’t the SEC fight to keep them somehow?
“Three pods who play yearly, rotating the non-pod teams evenly. Top 2 teams play in Big Ten title game. The pods have a regional flavor (UT, OU, KU, Mizzou, Illinois, Purdue) and (Neb, Iowa, Minny, Wiscy, MSU, NW) and (UM, PSU, OSU, Indiana, UMD, Rutgers). One crossover game yearly (Neb/OU, MSU/UM, NW/Illi, Indy/Purdue for example).”
Why go to the trouble when you could just as easily lock 4-5 games per team? Either way would require a change in CCG rules and locking specific games allows more freedom in which rivalries to preserve.
LikeLike
Wasn’t it Missouri’s dithering about the buy in that allowed Nebraska to pick up the phone and say, “The deal you offered Missouri, we’ll take it!”
LikeLike
If you believe certain Missouri fans. The more widely accepted historical views is that the Big Ten was never that far alone with anyone, and that Nebraska’s ultimatum with the Big XII accelerated the Big Ten’s timetable.
LikeLike
Michael Phelps is in the top 50 (#42) of countries for all-time Olympic gold medal totals (he has 21), and some of those countries no longer exist (both USSR and Russia lead him, for example). He’s tied with the Czech Republic and Ethiopia. He’s just behind South Africa and Brazil.
Meanwhile, the US has more gold medals than any other current country has total medals (Russia and Germany pass the total when you include their whole history).
Running totals:
US – 1072, 859, 750 = 2681
Russia/USSR – 710, 586, 572 = 1868
Germany* – 547, 567, 567 = 1681
UK – 246, 276, 284 = 806
France – 233, 254, 293 = 780
* Include the totals from West Germany, East Germany and United Team of Germany
Normalized:
US – 8.27 medals per 1 million current residents
Russia – 13.1*
Germany – 20.8*
UK – 12.4
France – 12.1
* Has been caught with nationalized doping
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/podcast-big-12-asked-to-pass-on-byu-ranking-the-top-20-coaches-080916
Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman’s podcast discusses the LGBT issue for BYU and the B12 before moving on to the top 20 CFB coaches
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/podcast-big-12-asked-to-pass-on-byu-ranking-the-top-20-coaches-080916
Richard Deitsch’s podcast features John Ourand from SBJ.
In this episode, Ourand and Deitsch discuss the viewership potential for the Rio Olympics, how NBC Sports will cover the negative stories coming out of Rio, whether the Olympics is a good investment for NBC, the upcoming ACC Network and whether it was a good investment for ESPN, the future of the Longhorn Network, why Tom Jackson left ESPN and the many changes to ESPN’s NFL studio coverage, whether ESPN is a left-leaning organization and what such a perception means for viewers, whether sports media members should discuss politics on social media, Twitter and the live streaming of sports, what Yahoo’s sale means for sites such as The Vertical and much more.
LikeLike
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/sec-east-non-conference-schedule-grades.html
OOC schedule grades for the SEC East.
Some of these schools should be embarrassed, especially since 3 of the P5 conferences play 9 conference games. For example:
Florida Gators:
September 3rd: Massachusetts
September 17th: North Texas
November 19th: Presbyterian
November 26th: @Florida State
South Carolina Gamecocks:
September 17th: East Carolina
October 22nd: Massachusetts
November 19th: Western Carolina
November 26th: @Clemson
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/sec-west-non-conference-schedule-grades.html
And the West.
LikeLike
A lot of uF fans are pissed about the awful slate this year. Throw in those 3 abysmal cupcakes on top of Vandy, Kentucky, post-Spurried USCe, Ark, Missouri…and the gators are just trying to get by on the SEC brand schedule. A few years of that will result in empty seats and lowered donations unless they start winning big.
LikeLike
FtT:
Responding to your amateur sports tweet: start your own pro athlete college sports organization, or become a fan of any number of paid alternatives to the current college system. Just don’t denigrate a system that has no obligation to become an nfl light, or a version of nba developmental league. Compete with and overcome the amateur if a pro model is so obviously superior.
Oh, and say goodby to the broad offering of different sports the B1G is usually applauded for. And enjoy the occasional work stoppages as union and ownership fight over compensation. Which side do alumni side with, and support with donations?
LikeLike
Regarding B12, here’s Tramel’s latest take:
“I say the Big 12 is playing poker. It doesn’t want more members. It wants more money. Your call, ESPN and Fox.”
http://m.newsok.com/are-the-big-12-powers-playing-poker-with-espn-fox/article/5513165?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/will-sugar-and-rose-bowls-be-permanent-semifinals/article/5513014
Tramel also had this piece on whether the Rose and Sugar will become the permanent semifinals.
The Orange Bowl once was synonymous with tradition.
New Year’s Night. The smiley orange midfield logo. A halftime show for the ages.
That was then.
Here are the dates of the Orange Bowls going forward from 2010: Jan. 5, Jan. 3, Jan. 4, Jan. 1, Jan. 3, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 30 (this season), Dec. 31, Dec. 29 (2018 national semifinal).
…
The prime New Year’s Day slots can’t be touched. They are reserved for the Rose, run by the Big Ten and the Pac-12, and the Sugar, run by the SEC and the Big 12.
And it makes me wonder. Is all this a precursor to the Rose and Sugar bowls becoming annual semifinals?
If college football eventually reaches four 16-team conferences — and we’re closer to such symmetry than ever before — the College Football Playoff would be set for a simple four-team format.
Four leagues. Four champions.
Why would the Rose and the Sugar share the wealth? They already flex their muscle to keep the Orange, Cotton, Fiesta and Peach on second-class status with dates.
Why would the Big Ten (primarily) allow its Rose Bowl to be anything but a semifinal every season? Why would the SEC (primarily) allows its Sugar Bowl to be anything but a semifinal every season?
Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ in the Rose Bowl. SEC champ vs. ACC champ in the Sugar Bowl, assuming the ACC survives and the Big 12 doesn’t, which has been an excellent assumption for several years and has never looked like a better bet.
I can see why he might think that would happen if it becomes the P4, but he neglects ND and all the G5 schools. There has to be some possible path to the playoff for all I-A members. Because of that, there’s no way the Rose wants to give up the B10/P12 game to always be a semifinal. I could see the Rose and Sugar staying as bowls on 1/1 with quarterfinals in the other NY6 bowls and then Pasadena and New Orleans potentially hosting the semifinals a week later.
LikeLike
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/08/09/even-big-12-expand-14-teams-byus-lgbt-views-keep-source-serious-issue
Chuck Carlton says the LGBT issue is very real and may keep BYU out even if the B12 expands to 14 according to multiple sources. Also says it’s close to 50/50 whether to expand to 12 or 14.
“It is a serious issue,” said an industry source familiar with the Big 12 discussions. “Whether it keeps them out or not, it is a serious issue.”
The top three Big 12 expansion candidates have been viewed as Cincinnati, Houston and BYU, sources said. If the Big 12 only expands by two to 12, BYU could be out.
“Three schools for two possible spots,” said the source. “This doesn’t help.”
If the league goes to 14 — right now about a 51-49 proposition according to one source — BYU still might not be guaranteed a spot with schools like Memphis, Central Florida, UConn and Colorado State among those in contention.
BYU also has a sexual assault issue:
BYU has other issues that might give the Big 12 pause. The school announced this week it is being investigated by the Department of Education for its handling of sexual assault reports.
After the very public issues at Baylor, Big 12 presidents may be unlikely to embrace another private school with strong church ties and potential Title IX issues.
BYU has also drawn scrutiny with allegations its Honor Code discourages students from reporting sexual assaults. Similar suggestions have been made about the situation at Baylor, according to an Associated Press report.
Finally:
Any Big 12 expansion candidate needs eight votes to be added. Sources indicated that the Big 12 will probably seriously talk with six to eight candidates before decision on whether to add two or four members. Discussions with TV partners ESPN and Fox — which are believed to have favored the addition of BYU — are part of the equation, as well.
LikeLike