When Brett McMurphy reported a few weeks ago that the Big 12 had at least twenty expansion candidates, the most common comment that I saw in my Twitter feed was that this was just like “The Bachelor”. As an admitted former viewer of the show* and considering the latest report that the Big 12 is down to circa 12 candidates, it’s a perfect comparison. Out of the reported survivors, we have:

  • The “First Impression Rose” candidate that seems like a natural fit (Cincinnati);
  • A contender that is absolutely perfect on paper and The Bachelor has lots of chemistry with… yet also has some serious baggage that puts it at risk of getting the final rose (BYU);
  • Someone that the producers (AKA politicians) clearly want to keep on the show regardless of how The Bachelor personally feels and, even with lukewarm chemistry, may end up in the final rose ceremony through attrition by keeping everything on the down-low and not acting bats**t crazy (Houston);
  • A contestant that seems to have all of the right attributes yet lives on the other side of the country from The Bachelor with a lot glaring cultural differences (UConn);
  • Twins that The Bachelor sees a lot of potential in but no one has any idea if there’s a long-term relationship there (UCF and USF);
  • A candidate that questions whether a relationship here will work and where The Bachelor might actually be more interested in the contender than the contender is interested in The Bachelor (Air Force);
  • A bachelorette that attracts the adventurous side of The Bachelor in outdoor activity dates like rock climbing, but no one is sure whether they will be any good in the one sport (football) that The Bachelor really cares about (Colorado State);
  • The smart ones with multiple advanced degrees that are easy to talk to… and 99.9% certain to end up in the friend zone (Tulane and Rice); and
  • A couple of others that used to be in the power ranks back in the day and may at least get a date card (Temple and SMU).

(* In my opinion, the flagships of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” have been getting a bit long in the tooth for several years. However, I’m ALL IN on “Bachelor in Paradise”. It’s like watching The Lord of the Flies in reality-TV form. I love everything about it.)

It’s unclear whether Memphis has survived (my gut feeling is that they’re still alive), but if they move on to the next round, it’s because they’re a contender with loaded parents that are willing to buy their way to the final rose ceremony.

As for all of the other candidates, it appears that they have been eliminated in the very first rose ceremony without even an obligatory make-out session with The Bachelor (although no one can discount a surprise return from one or more of them in later episodes). The Big 12 seems content with dragging this expansion process out until a conference leadership meeting on October 17th, so we’ll likely be talking about the remaining contenders ad nauseum for the next few weeks. Therefore, in the spirit of Chris Harrison, let’s take a moment and say our goodbyes to those that did not receive a rose:

  • East Carolina – In Bachelor terms, ECU is the candidate that all of the other contestants seem to like but The Bachelor has no interest in at all. Under my conference realignment maxim (“Think like a university president and NOT like a sports fan”), ECU is a classic sports fan thinker’s choice. Fans see that ECU has excellent football attendance with a core group of passionate backers and a typically competitive on-the-field football team. University presidents, though, see a school that doesn’t fit the applicable academic profile and is located in a small market in what is already the most over-saturated state in the country for power conference sports (North Carolina). The Pirates had to give it the old college try to apply for Big 12 expansion in order to provide their fans some hope, but I doubt anyone at the school realistically believed that the Big 12 was actually going to call them up.
  • Boise State – If ECU is a candidate that other contestants seemed to like, then Boise State is the audience favorite that was eliminated early and would be in line to be named “The Bachelorette”. There might be no better example of a “Fan’s Choice” that conflicts with the “University President’s Choice” in conference realignment than Boise State. The on-the-field performance of the Broncos for the past decade speaks for itself for fans, but the university presidents still see a lack of an institutional and academic fit in a small TV market. The primary reason why Boise State was considered at all is that they arguably have the most valuable national TV brand out of any non-power conference school. However, the off-the-field academic reputation is still a killer (both with the Big 12 here and the Pac-12 in the future).
  • San Diego State – The Aztecs could look good on paper for the Big 12, but if UConn already lives pretty far from The Bachelor, then San Diego State is effectively on another planet. In my Big 12 Expansion Index post, I gave SDSU some high marks since it was an evaluation that largely discounted geographic proximity as a factor. However, reality might be setting in here that there needs to be some semblance of geographic proximity in conference realignment. For all of the complaints about the power conferences expanding the geographic boundaries to large distances, the reality is that every power conference move made since 2010 was with a school in a state that was geographically contiguous to the then-existing league footprint, as applicable… with the exception of West Virginia going to the Big 12. It was just difficult to see the Big 12 turning an already bad geographic situation into a comically horrific geographic situation.
  • UNLV – Similar issues here as San Diego State. Now, I’ll say that both the San Diego and Las Vegas markets are still quite ripe for the picking for college sports since they are among the largest TV markets that don’t have legitimate power conference representation. If the Raiders end up moving to Las Vegas (and as much as I don’t want to condone owners holding cities hostage for publicly financed stadiums, anyone without Oakland-tinged glasses can see that Las Vegas and the Raiders are perfect for each other), that could create a state-of-the-art stadium that might be shared with UNLV. At the end of the day, though, the issue for both SDSU and UNLV is that they are not institutionally or academically-aligned with the Pac-12 and their geography with the Big 12 is a problem, so they’re stuck at this time.  Improving off-the-field academic items will be much more of a factor for the future conference realignment prospects of San Diego State and UNLV compared to on-the-field football ability.
  • New Mexico – There’s nothing wrong with New Mexico: it’s a solid flagship university in a growing state with a very good basketball fan base that’s contiguous to the existing Big 12 footprint. The issue is that there never seemed to be a spark between UNM and the Big 12 as other candidates seemed to cover the Lobos’ positives just a little bit better. If the Big 12 really wants a basketball-oriented flagship, then UConn has elite programs for both men’s and women’s hoops and is there for the taking. If the Big 12 wants geographic proximity, then there are schools like Houston, Rice, SMU, Tulane and Memphis available. If the Big 12 wants a solid overall school in a new market, then Cincinnati covers even more bases in a larger TV market and recruiting territory. So, New Mexico isn’t the worst option, but it also one of the best options, either.
  • Northern Illinois – There is no more damning charge in The Bachelor when someone is accused of “not being there for the right reasons”. When a contestant is clearly angling for a spot on “The Bachelorette” or “Bachelor in Paradise” or looking for free advertising for a home business, then “The Right Reasons” Police come out. I know that my brain is turning to mush due to an excess of conference realignment Tweets when (a) someone participating on a contrived reality TV dating show believes that they have the moral authority to accuse another of “not being there for the right reasons” and (b) I always totally agree with the accuser. “The Right Reasons” Police are always right. Now, I’m certainly not saying NIU was doing anything nefarious here (and I’ll be upfront and state that NIU is personally my favorite Group of Five school), but let’s face it: the Huskies knew that they weren’t getting a Big 12 invite. Instead, this presentation to the Big 12 was really aimed toward convincing the AAC and/or Mountain West Conference to consider NIU if/when those leagues lose any schools. NIU senses an opportunity to move up the pecking order even if it might be just one rung up from the MAC as opposed to a rocket to the top.
  • Arkansas State – Similar issues here as NIU, where Arkansas State knew that their Big 12 chances were zero but wanted to go through an audition for other conferences (such as the AAC or Conference USA). There could very well be a large shakeup in the Group of Five non-power conferences even if the Big 12 only adds 2 new members and the current Arkansas State home of the Sun Belt Conference is the most vulnerable. Positioning for a potential new home outside of the Sun Belt would be prudent for any member of that league.

In witnessing the Big 12 expansion process unfold, there seem to be a few overarching takeaways (none of which are surprises except for the last point):

(1) Politics Matter – Politics, both the procedural kind (politicians trading favors) and the societal issue kind, are no stranger to the history of conference realignment. Just look at how heavily politicians got involved in the original formation of the Big 12 in the 1990s and the ACC expansion of the early-2000s (with a key role played by current Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine in leveraging the vote of UVA to get Virginia Tech into the league). As a result, anyone that discounts the open and unambiguous statements from the Governor and Lt. Governor of Texas in support of Houston to the Big 12 ignores them at their own peril. One of the most common comments that I get on Twitter is that the non-Texas-based Big 12 schools don’t want to add another Texas member. My general reply is, “So what?!” There are few complaints that I’ve heard over the years more than the belief that the Big 12 is beholden to UT, yet there is now this argument that the other Big 12 schools will suddenly ignore UT on expansion. That makes zero sense to me. From a pure vote counting perspective, the Big 12 needs 8 schools to approve any expansion and the university presidents at Texas and Texas Tech are already on-the-record of wanting (or needing) to vote for Houston. It’s not exactly a stretch that politicians that have stuck their necks out for Baylor and/or TCU in conference realignment matters previously are going to call in some chits to secure their support for Houston, too. All it takes it one of either Baylor or TCU to bow to political pressure and there is now a Texas-based group that has veto power over all expansion in the Big 12 (similar to how UVA effectively had veto power in the early-2000s ACC expansion process since UNC and Duke had come out as firm votes against any type of expansion). Saying that the Big 12 will expand without the support of Texas is like saying that Donald Trump can win the White House without winning Florida: the electoral math doesn’t work.

At the same time, as I explained in my last post, BYU is dealing with rapid changes in society with respect to LGBT rights and pushback against the language in the school’s Honor Code regarding homosexuality. What might have been a socially “acceptable” position in 2010 regarding the treatment of the LGBT community is not necessarily going to be a socially acceptable position in 2016, just as there was a sea change in the public’s viewpoints regarding racial segregation and civil rights from 1960 to 1966. As result, the “religious liberty” argument isn’t going to work for BYU in this context. Instead, the school is going to need to assuage the legitimate practical concerns of the Big 12 presidents regarding any prospect of discrimination against the LGBT community and possibly amend its Honor Code so that it does not specifically reference homosexuality (similar to what Baylor did last year). I have some faith that this would actually occur (and not just because of Big 12 expansion, but simply in response to societal changes in general). The Honor Code is not a set-in-stone document that is mandated by the Bible or Book of Mormon and can certainly be changed to reflect the times while continuing to be consistent with the school’s underlying religious beliefs (similar to adjustments made by a Baptist school like Baylor or many Catholic universities across the country over the years). I’ve said this many times before: on traditional conference realignment metrics, BYU is the most valuable option for the Big 12. However, the political issues matter greatly here and they’re significantly more important today compared to only a few years ago.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that the Texas politicians that have openly pushed against gay marriage while trying to defend the ability to discriminate on “religious liberty” grounds are now the same ones that are advocating for Houston going to the Big 12… and the best way for Houston to get into the Big 12 is for BYU to be rejected by Big 12 presidents that don’t buy anti-LGBT discrimination as being justifiable based on “religious liberty” at all. Politics can make for strange bedfellows.

(2) Academics Matter – As I’ve noted with some of the fallen candidates above and time and time again, conference realignment decisions are ultimately made by university presidents as opposed to fans, coaches and athletic directors. Those university presidents simply have a different worldview. It’s not just overall academic snobbery. Instead, think of it from the personal incentive perspective of a university president. For a football coach or athletic director to go from, say, Kansas State to Rice, that is generally deemed to be a step down in money and prestige. However, a university president going from Kansas State to Rice (an academically prestigious AAU member) is considered to be a major promotion in the world of academia. Heck, it’s arguably an upgrade for any of the Big 12 university presidents (outside of the University of Texas) to take the same job at Rice or Tulane. Therefore, no one should be surprised that those academically elite schools are still in the process. The Big 12 university presidents are going to be quite nice and cordial in speaking with the respective administrators, board of trustee members and donors at schools like Rice and Tulane since those same presidents might be on the other side of the interview process with those schools looking for a job later on.

Meanwhile, the schools that aren’t in a strong position academically have a massive strike against them in the power conference realignment game. The lowest ranked school in the US News national university rankings out of all of the 5 power conferences is West Virginia at #175. Out of the 20 reported Big 12 candidates, 12 schools were ranked higher than WVU (Rice, Tulane, UConn, SMU, BYU, Temple, Colorado State, Cincinnati, San Diego State, USF, and UCF along with Air Force that had scores in the national liberal arts rankings that would put it in the elite category)… and 11 of those schools have moved on in the process (with San Diego State being the only exception). Out of the 8 schools that were ranked lower than WVU (New Mexico, Houston, East Carolina, Memphis, Northern Illinois, UNLV, Boise State and Arkansas State), only Houston is confirmed to have moved on (aided greatly by the political factor in point #1) and the status of Memphis is unclear. That doesn’t mean that the Big 12 is going to expand with Rice and Tulane, but lack of an academic reputation has shown to be a direct elimination factor for all of the power conferences.   Great academics might not get a school into a power conference, but poor academics can keep a school out of one.

3. Geography Sort of Matters – As I noted in my comments about San Diego State and UNLV, conferences will only ignore geographic issues up to a point. The Big 12 has already expanded eastward to West Virginia, so extending the league footprint further east with UConn and/or Temple as options is at least on the table. Likewise, the Big 12 was once in the Rocky Mountain region when Colorado was in the conference and they would like to be in it again (hence the interest in BYU, Colorado State and Air Force). However, the thought of expanding the lague all the way to the West Coast with a school like San Diego State really pushed the limits of practicality. There’s bad geography in conference realignment (e.g. Nebraska to Rutgers), and then there’s BAD GEOGRAPHY (e.g. West Virginia to San Diego State).

4. Confidentiality Does NOT Matter – In recent conference realignment history, there has been quite a bit of laughable subterfuge and public media denials of what was actually occurring behind the scenes up until actual expansion announcements were made. Recall Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany stating back in 2010 that he would give a conference that he wanted to poach from a lot of notice… and that “notice” consisted of calling the Big 12 a few hours before he was going to hold a press conference that the Big Ten was adding Nebraska. The subsequent additions of Maryland and Rutgers by the Big Ten came out of nowhere timing-wise. The SEC would continuously deny that they were even looking at expansion despite reports galore that Texas A&M and then Missouri were ready to join. The Pac-12’s attempt at creating a new Pac-16 conference with Texas, Oklahoma and other Big 12 schools ended up getting exposed to the public, but even to this day, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott won’t provide details of how close they were to sealing the deal. The ACC has a well-established track record of making conference expansion decisions with very few leaks.

By comparison, the current Big 12 expansion process is a veritable fire hose of open quotes and comments. Candidate schools haven’t even tried to hide the fact that they are applying to the Big 12 and, in many cases, are openly going on the record about the application process. At the same time, while conference realignment observers could reasonably guess who was being considered by the Big Ten, SEC and ACC in recent expansion discussions, there hasn’t been the direct and specific confirmation from conference offices about candidates in the way that we see with the Big 12 now. I can’t imagine the type of confirmed information that’s already out there about the Big 12’s expansion moves ever leaking out of the Big Ten or SEC. Mike DeCourcy of The Sporting News notes how crass the Big 12 process has been up to this point.

Now, from the perspective of a conference realignment blogger, this openness is great and provides a ton of material that isn’t just pure speculation. However, there could be a whole lot of burned bridges among administrators of different schools and university leaders with their own alumni and fan bases when probably only 2 (and no more than 4) schools end up with Big 12 invites and over a dozen schools are left behind at the alter. (Lord help us if the Big 12 decides to not expand with anyone at all.)

As always, we’ll keep an eye out for the latest conference realignment news. Until then, enjoy the start of the football season!

(Image from Yahoo!)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Geo says:

    Go Bucks!

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Hawkeyes #1 in the West.

    Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux Tigers! On to Lambeaux Field!

    Like

  4. mdahmus says:

    BYU has an academic issue that’s not related to their rankings – which disqualifies them from serious conferences – the issue of academic freedom (which Think Like A University President should include). BYU does OK on basic metrics but very badly on AF.

    Like

    • houstontexasjack says:

      BYU is also not well known for research. With the exception of TCU, and they had a great football run and historical advantage from the possibility of rekindling SWC rivalries, expansion adds in the Power Five have been research universities who are all Carnegie Tier One: Utah and Colorado in the Pac-12; Nebraska (despite the AAU’s refusal to count agricultural research dollars for its total, ag dollars for research are still research dollars), Rutgers, and Maryland for the Big Ten; Texas A&M and Missouri for the SEC; and Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville for the ACC.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        While it’s not JUST academic snobbery, there is going to be an academic snobbery bias in the process, and academic snobbery is not focused on the factor of social service through providing quality undergraduate education, it’s focused on research status.

        So I looked at the academic snobbery side by looking AWRU rankings, with the CWUR rankings in parentheses, and there is a strong academic bias, and BYU is indeed the marginal school remaining in terms of academic standing. AWRU only lists the top 500 … and the ones below 100 in cohorts of 50 and 100 … and has some discipline biases, so I included the CWUR ranking in parentheses:

        Not Yet Out:
        79: Rice (114)
        201-300: USF(164), UC(165), UH(233), CSU(282)
        301-400: UConn(225)
        401-500: UCF(396), BYU(435)
        AWRU unranked: SMU(142), Tulane(288),
        AWRU, CWUR unranked: AF

        Already Out:
        201-300: NM(196)
        301-400: Temple(380)
        401-500: SDSU(376)
        AWRU unranked: NIU(617), UNLV(691), ECU(751), Memphis(792)
        AWRU, CWUR unranked: Arkansas State, Boise State

        Note that AF is a fine undergraduate institution, and given it’s mission, it will be excused for not cranking out a large number of publications.

        Also note that Houston is an example of a school that due to it’s own undergraduate service mission does not have the same college prep scores and rejection rates as some elite undergraduate schools, but does allocate sufficient resources to research to rank among the top 100 US research Universities (those rankings are World rankings … so, for instance, US Universities are less than 150 of the 500 in the AWRU list).

        Like

  5. Carl says:

    Let’s go, State!

    Like

  6. houstontexasjack says:

    Memphis might also be the Lace or Daniel expansion candidate–doing their darnedest to get a lot of attention and making a splash on the first episode, only to briefly survive long enough for a couple weeks of good television.

    Like

  7. Ben Penticoff says:

    The West has several solid expansion candidates – if you’re looking for up-and-comers. I am a Boise St fan, but I know we’re not an academic peer to the PAC-12 schools. We are growing, but still not there. I do think the PAC-12 may look at a few Mountain West schools as projects if XII schools are not an option. Not saying they will, but it is a possibility.

    Like

  8. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red!

    Like

  9. Josh says:

    Frank,
    I think you overestimate the Texas political factor. First off, how many times in 2011 was Texas politics given as a major reason why Texas and Texas A&M could never be separated? We all know how that turned out. Second, while the presidents make the ultimate final decision, it is not like they make these decisions without consulting coaches and athletic administrators. The reason I bring that up is because Texas and Texas Tech coaches absolutely DO NOT WANT Houston in the conference with them. IMO, the very public announcement by Tech and Texas administrators is just a pure political maneuver. Texas (and Tech) may vote for Houston in expansion, but they already know that Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, probably Baylor and others will not vote for Houston. This provides them the cover of saying they support Houston but they know full well that it will never happen. Texas and Texas Tech are trying to score political brownie points.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I think you overestimate the Texas political factor. First off, how many times in 2011 was Texas politics given as a major reason why Texas and Texas A&M could never be separated? We all know how that turned out.

      Politics can change. It took an Aggie governor’s support to make it happen. That doesn’t mean, that with different politicians in power, those citing political obstacles were making it up.

      Like

  10. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17436368/big-12-narrows-list-expansion-candidates-least-12-schools

    ESPN continues to find sources that support their POV.

    Sources have said that it’s “becoming less and less likely” that the league would expand to 14 teams. The most likely scenario is the Big 12 remains at 10 teams or adds two schools for a 12-team league with two six-team divisions, sources said.

    It’s probably true, but how much faith can you put in anonymous sources saying what ESPN wants to hear?

    Like

    • “a group was assembled in Bullocks office”

      why Bob Bullock, because he was the Lt Governor and he was the most powerful person in Texas at the time. He called in Mobley and told him to go to the Big 12 or else.

      You notice that it was tu and Deloss Dodd in 94 and 2010 playing footsie with the Pac 10 (getting turned down originally). A&M had to protect it’s interests and get out when Perry said it was okay too.

      Like

  11. Clint Torres says:

    UCF and USB are not twins. Dumb comparison.

    Like

  12. vp19 says:

    If the Big 12 powers that be decide to simultaneously placate Texas pols, WVU’s desire for a nearby partner and gamble on Florida’s potential, I could see the foursome of Cincinnati, Houston, Central Florida and South Florida getting the roses. It also breaks into a cleaner divisional setup:

    East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, South Florida, West Virginia
    West: Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

    Yes, the West is demonstrably stronger, but improved access to Florida recruiting could help schools such as Iowa State, which has pursued Florida talent back to its Big Eight days. Geting in roads to Ohio won’t hurt either.

    I’m not saying this will happen — I still sense that when all is said and done, Cincy and Houston will be the winners — but Florida football talent is so deep that giving a nod to UCF and USF could pay off for the long haul should OU and Texas ever choose to go elsewhere.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      The Tampa/Orlando Florida axis and the access to SW and Central Ohio recruiting frounds from UC and WVU might be enough to placate the Kansases on losing the two away games to Texas.

      With a two game expansion, it might be necessary to split the Texas schools to placate Kansas, which in turn would reinforce Texas’s preference for Houston, since Texas, Texas Tech and Houston in the Oklahoma division and Baylor and TCU in the Kansas division with eight game, half of the cross division each year scheduling means as many Texas away games per year for Texas as now.

      Like

  13. Marc Shepherd says:

    Penn State will honor the 50th anniversary of Joe Paterno’s first game as head coach at their September 17th game vs. Temple.

    I am personally of the view that Paterno’s lapses during the Sandusky era — assuming there were any — do not mean that his considerable accomplishments as a coach should be completely ignored. A 50th anniversary seems like a suitable occasion to honor him, but it is almost certain to be protested in some quarters.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17442174/penn-state-nittany-lions-honor-joe-paterno-50th-anniversary-first-game-head-coach

      In the ESPN.com video, Rece Davis calls it a tone deaf move and says it isn’t the right time or place.

      I agree with you. I see no problem in honoring a great coach’s football success as long PSU doesn’t just ignore his flaws. Put a big sign up in the stadium with his record 409 wins (I assume the national titles and perfect seasons are already acknowledged somewhere). Maybe name the field after him (JoePa Field at Beaver Stadium) eventually, but for that I’d wait until after the legal cases get finished (just in case bad news comes out). You really should be careful who you memorialize with statues on campus though.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I visited Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia a few years ago. I appreciated that the tour guides and programming there praised Thomas Jefferson’s tremendous accomplishments, as would be expected. I also appreciated that they criticized him for his lifelong hypocrisy in speaking out for liberty while owning slaves his entire adult life. After all, the entire estate, while designed by Jefferson, was built by the labor of slaves. Perhaps this should be Penn State’s approach towards Joe Paterno.

        Like

        • Carl says:

          > Perhaps this should be Penn State’s
          > approach towards Joe Paterno.

          I don’t think this is likely. The Penn State BoT has always known the Freeh report to be false, but some members were hoping to keep that secret from the public and, more importantly, from the courts. They were counting on the overwhelming public outrage, the Curley/Schultz/Spanier criminal charges, attorney-client privilege with Freeh, etc. to help keep the truth hidden.

          But other BoT members successfully fought to review the Freeh report docs, and that review is nearing completion. There are also lawsuits against many of the main players in this fiasco. More are coming. (Fiduciary breach.)

          These are some of the reasons PSU is finally beginning to acknowledge Paterno. They have no choice. It’s going to get ugly.

          Like

          • @Carl – I’m trying to understand your argument. You’re actually saying that Penn State leadership has been effectively *forced* to acknowledge Paterno and has tried to *hide* arguments that would have absolved Paterno???

            As an admitted outsider to the process, there is a very large flaw in what you’re stating: no one, even if they have been sainted like Mother Theresa will be this weekend, has any legal right to have a public commemoration by the university. It is one thing to say that Penn State does not have the legal right to slander or push false information about Paterno or anyone else. That has some semblance of a valid legal argument. However, this particular honoring of Paterno is purely a public relations decision. Penn State has zero legal obligation to perform such honoring and it would have no bearing on any lawsuit that might be out there. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            > I’m trying to understand your argument.
            > You’re actually saying that Penn State
            > leadership has been effectively *forced*
            > to acknowledge Paterno …

            Yes, that’s correct.

            Not forced legally, directly, now. But analogous to the way that the Big 12 may be “forced” to pass over BYU because of the issues discussed here in depth, the Penn State BoT is being *forced* to deal with the fact that the Freeh report is a sham and is about to be exposed legally. (I don’t expect anyone to take my word about the Freeh report, but the info is not hidden, it’s not hard to find, and it will be coming out in court.)

            Now, the leaders of the 2011-2012 PSU BoT are gone, which means that the new leaders are left holding the bag. One of the main questions is: do they want to continue defending the indefensible and take on the political and legal liability that that would entail, or do they just take the national PR hit now and protect themselves and the university (politically and legally) moving forward?

            They know that the Freeh report will be exposed in court — they already knew it was a sham, and now an official review is almost done — and they understand the legal shitstorm this implies. There are many moving parts, but here’s just one: no previous PSU BoT has even reviewed the Freeh report, which cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps $0.5 billion when all is said and done and indirect costs are considered). Not only did they neglect to review it, they *refused* to review it, and their refusal was intentionally put on record by those BoT members conducting the review now.

            Until now the PSU BoT has been trying to walk the fine legal line of neither accepting nor rejecting the Freeh report’s conclusions. They couldn’t officially accept the Freeh report because they knew it was a sham; they couldn’t officially reject the Freeh report because the report’s conclusions were necessary for some BoT members’ political and legal safety.

            > … and has tried to *hide* arguments that
            > would have absolved Paterno???

            Um, kind of. But this also kind of misses the point. With respect to the Freeh report, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE against Paterno. None. It’s deliberately concocted innuendo.

            To support the innuendo, the report even contains explicit fabrications, e.g., that Freeh found Schultz’s “secret Sandusky files”. There were no secret Sandusky files, and Freeh didn’t find the files. The files had already been turned over to the PA OAG in compliance with a subpoena, and the OAG then gave the files to Freeh. (Freeh was neither an independent nor impartial agent.)

            There’s much more to the story, but I think I’ve answered your specific questions, Frank.

            From your other post:

            > If Penn State wants to honor Paterno,
            > then they should step up and actually
            > *own* it by explaining their rationale.

            I agree with this 100%. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The machinations behind the scenes are quite heavy right now, and there is another BoT meeting on the Thursday and Friday before the Saturday game at which Paterno will be honored.

            P.S. To repeat myself, I don’t know whether or not there exists any evidence to implicate Paterno in anything — only that the Freeh report does not contain any, and the current media narrative is as accurate as Sara Ganim’s reporting.

            Like

      • I think it’s tone deaf in the sense that it’s not recognizing that there are still a lot of raw emotions across the country and Penn State’s approach to it is making it worse. From my vantage point, if Penn State is going to come out and openly state that this is the right time to honor Joe Paterno and the school is going to directly defend his legacy, then that’s their prerogative. Even if people don’t agree with it, then at least the school is upfront about what it believes. However, they’re not actually doing that here. They just issued a PR statement stating that they were going to commemorate Paterno and then the school has refused to comment on it at all. If the school actually thought that they could slip this under the radar and saw no need to come out and publicly defend it, then they’re even more tone deaf than what Rece Davis suggests.

        Look – I don’t want to this to devolve into a debate whether the Freeh Report was accurate or what charges were brought or the level of responsibility Paterno actually had with respect to Sandusky’s sexual abuse and pedophilia. That always seems to happen whenever the subject of JoePa comes up… and that’s not really the point. As of today, the rest of the country is nowhere near ready to absolve JoePa in the manner that the Penn State community has already done. Maybe a lot of Paterno supporters don’t agree with the rest of the country, but that’s simply where the public is at right now. It seems like a large portion of the PSU community is like a political candidate that only has an echo chamber of advisers that tells him what he wants hear, so he’s oblivious to what the rest of the country actually thinks beyond his core group of supporters. If Penn State wants to honor Paterno, then they should step up and actually *own* it by explaining their rationale. Just thinking that they could make an announcement and wait until Saturday passes without comment is only going to make a lot of the rest of the general public believe that the school is ignoring the victims (whether that’s actually happening in reality or not).

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I don’t want to this to devolve into a debate whether the Freeh Report was accurate…

          Best of luck with that!

          Maybe a lot of Paterno supporters don’t agree with the rest of the country, but that’s simply where the public is at right now…If Penn State wants to honor Paterno, then they should step up and actually *own* it by explaining their rationale.

          I agree: the general public isn’t going to pore over the data the way Carl has pored over the data—or even to the lesser extent that FTT commenters have. They have a visceral reaction, and it may be unfair, but it is what it is.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Frank the Tank,

          “I think it’s tone deaf in the sense that it’s not recognizing that there are still a lot of raw emotions across the country and Penn State’s approach to it is making it worse.”

          When wouldn’t that be true? This is a topic some people won’t ever let go. At some point PSU has to be able to recognize his accomplishments on the field regardless of what happened off the field. It’s the 50th anniversary of his hiring, it’s not like they picked some arbitrary year. For me, they’ve waited long enough to be able to acknowledge his accomplishments in the stadium.

          “From my vantage point, if Penn State is going to come out and openly state that this is the right time to honor Joe Paterno and the school is going to directly defend his legacy, then that’s their prerogative.”

          What’s to defend? He won 409 games. It doesn’t get much better on the field. To me the statue is where they start to get into the gray area of his overall legacy.

          “Look – I don’t want to this to devolve into a debate whether the Freeh Report was accurate or what charges were brought or the level of responsibility Paterno actually had with respect to Sandusky’s sexual abuse and pedophilia.”

          Good luck with Joebots out there.

          “As of today, the rest of the country is nowhere near ready to absolve JoePa in the manner that the Penn State community has already done.”

          To a certain extent, tough crap. He was their coach and they can commemorate him whenever they want. The rest of the country shouldn’t hold PSU hostage.

          “If Penn State wants to honor Paterno, then they should step up and actually *own* it by explaining their rationale.”

          It’s his 50th anniversary. That’s all the rationale they need.

          Like

    • Mark says:

      This just reinforces that PSU should have killed the football team for 2-4 years. This is the worst scandal in college sports ever, and now they are going to honor the scumbag. Shame the Big 10 didn’t take the opportunity to actual lead and force PSU to shut it down. I doubt the program will ever recover, since the wound will never heal.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        This just reinforces that PSU should have killed the football team for 2-4 years.

        You’ve got to be kidding me. Atrocious as it was, what purpose would be served by that?

        Shame the Big 10 didn’t take the opportunity to actual lead and force PSU to shut it down.

        The B1G is not going to eat its own young. Penn State is a huge part of the league’s strategy.

        I doubt the program will ever recover, since the wound will never heal.

        Of course it will recover. It is already well on the way to doing so. Major programs like Penn State have built-in structural advantages that no one can take away. It’s not like PSU is a haven for child rapists. It was the haven for one particular monster who is gone and will never come back.

        Like

        • Mark says:

          If the PSU football team was shut down, it would have demonstrated that football was not the most important value at PSU, but instead taking care of the victims was paramount. Instead the PSU board decided football was too big fail and the reputation and integrity of the school continues to fall.

          The Big 10 could have made the choice for PSU, but they failed as well. Now we learn that the scumbag coach knew about what was going on in the 1970s and covered it up to win a few pointless games.

          PSU as an institution is forever stained. If I ran the school I’d remove all references to the scumbag coach, apologize sincerely and often, open all records to document the tremendous failure as a lesson to others and kill the football team for a few years to demonstrate the purpose of PSU is to educate the youth of Pennsylvania with integrity.

          Like

          • Kevin says:

            Wow. Good thing you aren’t running the school. Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just killed 85 scholarship opportunities to play football and the likely impact of killing many of the remaining 500 plus PSU scholarship athletes that need football to support their programs. Not to mention all the AD jobs.

            Seems the bad actors have been punished. Move on.

            If your wife or family member commits murder should we lock up your entire family? That will send a message.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            Kevin –

            1. All 85 players can play elsewhere, so no impact. If they just want to go to school, PSU can honor the scholarship
            2. PSU is wealthy enough to keep all other sports without any issue; if not, the Big 10 can help without any issue
            3. There is no way to move on from 40 years of child rape, ever
            4. AD jobs – really? You care more about some AD admins vs the moral foundation of the school? Attitudes like yours are what’s wrong at PSU

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            Mark

            You are wrong on the ships. You lose 85 at PSU where are they going because other schools are limited to 85. Maybe the 85 PSU players go elsewhere but then you deny 85 other potential scholarships. The universe of available scholarships has decreased by 85.

            PSU can afford the other costs without football? Doubtful.

            Punishing the masses for the sins of a few sends the wrong message. Need to deal with cancer not kill the patient.

            Like

  14. Marc Shepherd says:

    Jim Johnson of SouthernPigskin.com argues that strength of non-conference schedules doesn’t matter.

    In 2014, only one of the four playoff teams played a non-conference opponent that finished the season ranked: Oregon, who beat Michigan State.

    In 2015, none of the four playoff teams played a non-conference opponent who finished the season ranked. And only Alabama played an overall top-10 strength of schedule. Oklahoma, Clemson, and Michigan State were 20th, 47th, and 53rd respectively.

    Moreover, Iowa and North Carolina would most assuredly have been playoff teams if they’d won their CCGs, and they were 62nd and 63rd respectively.

    The writer argues that, however entertaining big non-conference games are for the fans, it is actually better strategically to play a weak non-conference schedule, and play for an undefeated regular season.

    Note that my posting this does not constitute agreement with it.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Marc Shepherd,

      “Jim Johnson of SouthernPigskin.com argues that strength of non-conference schedules doesn’t matter.”

      The point is, power five teams just need to worry about going undefeated and winning their conference, a plenty difficult task without any added obstacles. There is not a world in which an unbeaten power five conference champion misses the playoff due to the strength, or lack thereof, of its non-conference schedule.

      That’s his article summed up in one paragraph. And to a limited extent, he’s right. OOC SOS is irrelevant if you’re undefeated and win your conference. But in the much more likely world where you lose 1 or more games, OOC SOS does matter.

      1. Independents can’t win a conference or get that 13th game, so SOS is vital for them if they aren’t 12-0.

      2. G5 teams can probably only get in by being undefeated conference champions with a good OOC SOS. If they didn’t beat some decent P5 teams OOC, they won’t even get a look.

      3. At 12-1 as a P5 champion, OOC SOS matters more for seeding than whether or not you get in. No 12-1 P5 champ has been left out.

      4. At 11-1 or 11-2 as a P5 champion, OOC SOS will be vital. Had Baylor played a solid OOC schedule in 2014 they might well have been ahead of OSU. As was discussed on Frank’s last post, most years you won’t have 4 or more P5 champs with 0-1 losses. OOC SOS may be the deciding factor between 2-loss champions.

      “Moreover, Iowa and North Carolina would most assuredly have been playoff teams if they’d won their CCGs, and they were 62nd and 63rd respectively.”

      And because of their weak OOC SOS, IA’s 1 loss would’ve eliminated them from contention even in a year with multiple 2-loss champions because they had no good wins to stand on.

      “The writer argues that, however entertaining big non-conference games are for the fans, it is actually better strategically to play a weak non-conference schedule, and play for an undefeated regular season.”

      I think he’s wrong mathematically. So few teams can rely on going 9-0 or 10-0 in conference that they need to plan for the years with 1 loss or even 2 losses. It takes good wins, especially OOC, to overcome those losses many times. OSU at least tried to have a decent OOC SOS which was more than Baylor did in 2014, so OSU got in. If Baylor had beaten a top 25 team OOC, my guess is that they would’ve gotten in. Sure a tough OOC game can hurt you, but it’ll at least boost ticket sales so you get something out of it no matter what.

      Like

      • @Brian – I think the practical standard is this: if a national title contender at least attempts to have a good non-conference schedule (e.g. if you play a school like Texas or USC that happens to have a down year), then you’re not going to get knocked. On the flip side, if you openly and purposely have a terrible non-conference schedule and everyone knows it (like Baylor did in 2014), then you’re not going to get any benefit of the doubt. A great non-conference schedule won’t get a school into the playoff, but a terrible one (meaning one that doesn’t have any P5 teams) can keep a school out of the playoff.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The reality is, the exact situation he’s talking about hasn’t happened yet.

          In 2014, Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State all had one loss vs. P5 opposition. OSU’s loss came earlier, they played one extra game, and they annihilated a pretty good Wisconsin team in their final opportunity to make a good impression. Advantage: OSU.

          But if you replace VT on OSU’s 2014 schedule with Eastern Michigan, then OSU is probably undefeated, and then it isn’t even a serious debate: OSU gets a playoff spot, and there is no argument about that from practically anyone.

          A more interesting question is what would’ve happened to Stanford last year, if you replace their road loss to Northwestern with a win against a G5 team. Then, they’re 12-1. Maybe Oklahoma still beats out the Cardinal for the fourth spot, but the Committee probably sweats a bit more to arrive at that decision.

          Like

    • 8-team playoffs now says:

      Which is why we need to expand the playoffs to 8. More slots means less pressure to play a watered down OOC schedule in order to be undefeated, more slots means a much greater chance a team can lose a tough OOC game and still be included.

      Like

  15. Michael in Raleigh says:

    This is the first night of football season, so I’m changing the subject momentarily from conference realignment.

    That was as crushing a loss as I can remember in a long time, but I’m still proud of the effort put forth by my App State Mountaineers tonight against Tennessee. So close, so very close…

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      FYI, Tennessee’s offensive coordinator is Mike Debord, the same OC that Michigan had that fatal day nine years ago. Both games came down to toss-up plays, with crushing losses for one side or the other.

      Tennessee reminds me of Michigan, in some ways, in that every year the faithful say that the Return to Glory is at hand, and it almost never seems to happen. Looks like the Vols are a year away…again.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        I only saw the last third of the game, but it looked like underdone offensive line play by Tennessee … yet again.

        Lucky they had a size advantage … against an opponent that only gives up raw quality in skill positions but is better coached, they wouldn’t have ruled the fourth quarter defensively, and it wouldn’t have come down to an overtime opportunity to win.

        Though at least instead of losing ugly from ahead like several times last year, they won ugly from behind. They don’t promise to give a lot of pretty wins, so if they want to rack wins up, they need to learn how to win ugly.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      I hope people don’t abuse the kicker on social media.

      Vandy blew their game, too.

      Like

  16. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Given the huge drop in TV revenue under Conference USA’s new contract, combined with the exit fee from the Sun Belt and entrance fee to C-USA, I have my doubts whether Arkansas State would have any interests in going to that league. This has been backed up by some statements from their AD.

    The financial differences are negligible at this point between the SBC and C-USA. The MAC is much higher than both. The MWC has very unequal revenue distribution, and the AAC is easily the best among the G5. Then, of course, is the wide chasm between the AAC and the Pac-12/ACC/Big 12, and then another big one to the SEC/B1G. I could see Sun Belt schools jockeying to join maybe the AAC, maybe even the MAC, but C-USA doesn’t do all that much financially or for exposure anymore.

    In fact, what would be nice, and will never happen, would be for the SBC and C-USA schools to combine and then divide into 2-3 conferences based on geography. Money would be essentially the same as it is now but a lot more convenient for, ya know, the fans. At least the spread-out power five leagues can justify their geography based on the money, but not so much with C-USA and the Sun Belt.

    (I know Group of Five realignment isn’t as sexy as Big 12/Power Five, but I bring it up. Frank’s blog has long been the most intelligent, civil place for discussion of these topics, so I like coming here for discussion even though my alma mater is well on the outside of the Power Five.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • bullet says:

      If the Big 12 were to take 4, the G5 should all go 14 and turn into the G4, reducing a lot of their overlap. MAC, AAC and MWC pick CUSA schools. Remnants merge with most of the Sun Belt. There are 60 G5 now + 4 independents (not counting Idaho who is soon moving down).

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        Only happens if the $1m/school from the CFP money is capped at $14m instead of $10m, as today. And it’s clear that there’s CUSA and Sunbelt to vote against raising that cap … indeed, since the votes were there to drop it from $12m to $10m, it would seem like it would need two or three conferences to flip their position.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Well if 3 of them go to 14, they can change the rule.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            But first they have to want to go to 14, and “achieve a re-arrangement of the G5 into a G4” is not something in and of itself which offers obvious benefits to supermajorities of the MWC, AAC, and MAC.

            Like

    • I agree completely. I’m sure it’s too complicated to make work, but it’d be nice to see C-USA and Sun Belt combine and go with some sort of geographical divisions whereby very few games are played between the far flung members. You could do pods of 6, play your 5 pod members every year and one team from the other three pods annually. Unlike the P5 schools, lowering travel costs would probably outweigh any losses in TV revenue.

      Like

  17. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  18. Tom says:

    Frank, how do you feel about Nick V. being named The Bachelor?

    Like

  19. bullet says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17451020/memphis-tigers-potential-big-12-expansion-candidate

    So its 11. ESPN reporting Memphis and Temple are out.

    Eliminating only 7 out of 20 didn’t make much sense. Unless they really were copying the Bachelor! What was it? 16 roses for the 24 on the first rose ceremony?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Of all the commonly mentioned candidates, Memphis made the least sense to me. I don’t see how they could overcome poor academics and an almost complete lack of football tradition.

      Like

  20. bullet says:

    Who is left:
    Former SWC members, Rice, SMU, Houston
    Former Big East II members, UConn, Cincinnati, USF
    Former SEC member, Tulane
    Top 3 remaining “unpromoted” BCS era MWC schools-BYU, Air Force, Colorado St.
    Largest school in the country, UCF

    They have pretty much given roses to all the club members + the Florida club member’s twin.

    NIU, Arkansas St., ECU, Memphis and Boise have never been members of the club. UNLV, New Mexico and San Diego St. were the dregs of the BCS era MWC. Temple got kicked out of the club.

    Like

  21. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/135946/wisconsin-lsu-season-opener-highlights-contrast-in-recruiting-styles

    The LSU/WI game provides an opportunity to compare 2 very different recruiting styles.

    Over the past six recruiting classes, from 2011 to 2016, Wisconsin has signed a total of 19 four-star players and zero five-star players. During that same span, LSU has signed 90 four- and five-star players, including 20 in the 2013 class alone, according to ESPN.com’s ratings.

    The Tigers will take the field for the season opener with 18 four- and five-star players in the starting 22 — including all 11 players on defense. ESPN’s average rating for LSU’s starting defense is 4.09 stars, with an overall grade of 84.7. Meanwhile, the Badgers will have three offensive and defensive starters rated as four-star prospects out of high school. Only nine of Wisconsin’s defensive starters even earned high school ratings and averaged 3.2 stars, with a grade of 76.1.

    A FiveThirtyEight.com study concluded Wisconsin overachieved relative to its recruiting rankings better than any Power 5 program from 2005 to 2014. The Badgers finished 32 spots higher than predicted, using Rivals’ recruiting ratings as a metric.

    During that 10-year span, LSU won 103 games (with two national championship appearances) while Wisconsin won 98 games. And when the teams met in the season opener two years ago, the Tigers required a furious second-half comeback to squeak by with a 28-24 victory.

    I think the win totals over that span are a little misleading if you compare the schedules. That was the peak of SEC dominance and B10 weakness.

    WI’s record vs ranked teams over those 10 years = 18-19 = 3.7 ranked foes per whole season
    LSU’s record vs ranked teams over those 10 years = 39-21 = 6.0 ranked foes per whole season

    LSU played 62% more ranked teams and basically matched WI’s losses while doubling up their wins (WI – 0.486, LSU – 0.650).

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Evidently, recruiting rankings aren’t everything.

      Even if you look past one game, Wisconsin has definitely overperformed their recruiting rankings. They’ve played the top 25 even while regularly having recruiting classes that are decidedly outside the top 25.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Recruiting rankings are remarkably accurate, bearing in mind that they’re predictions of the future performance of teenagers. But recruiting rankings entirely ignore coaching / scheme, since the recruiting analyst generally does not know what coach / scheme the athlete will ultimately be playing for. Coaching and scheme do matter, in the end.

        Even if recruiting rankings were perfect, you would expect to find some statistical outliers, and it may be the Badgers are precisely that. With no system at all all, you’d expect some program to greatly over-perform their recruiting rankings over time, because that is how random variation works.

        I don’t know if Wisconsin’s over-performance has gone on long enough, and to a sufficient degree, that you’d have to consider it statistically significant, i.e., that they really do have a system, and it’s not just “noise”.

        Like

  22. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/135979/minnesotas-tracy-claeys-has-edgy-approach-to-two-point-conversion

    Tracy Claeys says he’ll always go for 2 when up 7 late in the fourth.

    Claeys had done the exact same thing last season. In last year’s Minnesota win at Illinois, he went for two with 1:25 to go with his team leading 30-23. That time the Gophers convereted, and the final score was 32-23.

    “My opinion is that 95 percent of the time, those that teams go down and score late, they’re going to kick the extra point and go to overtime,” said Claeys, who has a degree in mathematics. “And so I would rather take the chance on getting 3 yards and ending the game.”

    I don’t know if the math supports him, but I like the aggressiveness.

    2-pt conversion success rate in CFB ~ 40%
    1-pt conversion success rate in CFB ~ 96%

    So about 40% of the time he puts the game out of reach. The other 60% he gets to kick off and play defense to prevent a matching TD. A CFB team scores a TD about 25% of the time they get the ball on average. That makes it 15% of the time the other team gets within 1. Even if the other team always goes for the win, that’s only 6% of all the games.

    So:
    MN goes up 9 – 40%
    MN stays up 7 – 60%
    MN stops other team – 45%
    MN stays up 7 and PAT misses so MN wins – 0-4% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN stays up 7 then goes to OT – 0-15% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN stays up 7 then loses – 0-6% (depends how many coaches go for it)

    MN W – 85% + 0-9% (2-pt fails) + 0-1% (PAT fails)
    MN OT – 0-15%
    MN L – 0-6%

    Versus:
    MN goes up 8 – 96%
    MN stays up 7 – 4%
    MN stops other team – 75%
    MN stays up 7 and PAT misses so MN wins – 0-1% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN stays up 7 then goes to OT – 0-3% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN stays up 7 then loses – 0-2% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN goes up 8 and 2-pt fails so MN wins – 0-14% (depends how many coaches go for it)
    MN goes up 8 then goes to OT – 0-10% (depends how many coaches go for it)

    MN W – 75% + 0-14% (2-pt fails) + 0-1% (PAT fails)
    MN OT – 0-13%
    MN L – 0-2%

    Going for 2 is slightly riskier, but not very much. The benefits in team morale and fan excitement may make it a toss up. He’s also probably correct that most coaches would play for the tie, so it’s basically win or go to OT.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It is amazing how many fan posts I saw, pronoucing Claeys a complete idiot, without so much as running the numbers.

      Like

    • Logan says:

      Good breakdown. I have a question about this assumption:

      A CFB team scores a TD about 25% of the time they get the ball on average.

      Is this all possessions? So it would include when a team takes over at their opponents 1 yard line after a turnover?

      In this case, your opponent will likely, if you have a good kicker, have to go 75 yards in a limited amount of time (in this case, less than 90 seconds). There are other factors as well (timeouts, quality of opp offense vs your defense). With limited time, the defense knows the offense will be likely to pass. On the other hand, the offense will be aggressive and go for it on 4th downs. It seems like 25% would be optimistic in many of these late-game situations and therefore would be another reason to kick the PAT and go up 8.

      I do think teams should be more aggressive going for two. I’m a big proponent of going for 2 when down 15 in the mid-4th quarter. Most coaches prefer to kick the PAT to make it a one possession game.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Logan,

        “Good breakdown. I have a question about this assumption:

        A CFB team scores a TD about 25% of the time they get the ball on average.

        Is this all possessions? So it would include when a team takes over at their opponents 1 yard line after a turnover?”

        Yes, it’s based on all drives. I know it’s a bad assumption, but I have no intention of doing the research to get accurate data for just the first drive after a kickoff. It’ll vary wildly from team to team anyway and any good coach would adjust his decision based on the opponent.

        “In this case, your opponent will likely, if you have a good kicker, have to go 75 yards in a limited amount of time (in this case, less than 90 seconds). There are other factors as well (timeouts, quality of opp offense vs your defense). With limited time, the defense knows the offense will be likely to pass. On the other hand, the offense will be aggressive and go for it on 4th downs. It seems like 25% would be optimistic in many of these late-game situations and therefore would be another reason to kick the PAT and go up 8.”

        Or maybe the team plays prevent D and the O drives down close to the red zone pretty easily. I have no idea which is more common. I was just trying to show Claeys wasn’t making a terrible decision by the numbers.

        “I do think teams should be more aggressive going for two. I’m a big proponent of going for 2 when down 15 in the mid-4th quarter. Most coaches prefer to kick the PAT to make it a one possession game.”

        If you go for 2 and miss, you trail by 9 and need 2 scores while losing morale. On the bright side you have more time to get those 2 scores. On the dark side the other team knows they can just eat clock since you need 2 scores. If you go for 1, it’s almost automatic and you only need 1 more TD. That leaves a coin flip (okay, 40% overall but the O would have momentum) play to decide the game. The other team also can’t just sit on the ball to eat clock as easily. I think it comes down to most people preferring to risk it on the last play and trust in fate.

        Like

  23. 8-team playoffs now says:

    I have to laugh at your mantra of “Think like a university president’ yet you:

    1. Recently tweeted: “Yes, it was a surprise to see Memphis miss the first cut since they seemed to be in at least the top 6 options.” C’mon, their relatively very inferior academics was well-known.

    Perhaps you put too much faith in sports reporters, who tend to do an hour or two of research and then anoint themselves ‘experts’. McMurphy is good, but so many others are basically recycling rumors among themselves until it becomes ‘Everybody know that….” The AD’s and coaches they talk to have opnions (albeit more informed than most) but aren’t privy to all or sometimes even most of the decision-making process and factors.

    2. Use USNews & WR’s rankings to justify points. The presidents don’t think too highly of those rankings, for a variety or reasons including that USN&WR toys with the rankings each year to stir the pot and generate buzz.

    I also think it is quite unfair and comparing apples and oranges to attack the B12 for the leaks in this expansion exploration. Previous attempts by other P5 conferences involved raiding other P5 conferences, schools that already had power status. The schools had strong reasons to keep it secret. In contrast this time we have outsider schools, desperate to move up to the P5, leaking the info for their self-interest. If it were not reported that they were pursuing the B12 many of those admins might find themselves on the hotseat with alumni, donors, and their legislatures.

    It seems as if the collegiality of presidents meant that the B12 wasn’t going to turn away and embarrass any schools that wanted to present. Thus it swelled to 20+ schools that were politely given a chance to present their case, then a cut was made. The Arkansas State president has stated that the process was quite helpful in the feedback he was given and created new opportunities for future academic collaboration on projects. Said it was info that they’d normally have to pay consultants millions to get.

    The whole theme of ‘A circus’ and ‘An embarrassing mess of a process’ is driven by the usual fools and blowhards in the media who do an hour or research (if that) and become holier than thou experts. Many of these geniuses had listed Memphis and/or Boise St as likely new members if the B12 added 4 schools. Clearly they didn’t have much understanding of what the presidents are actually looking for. DeCoursy comes across as just another mouthy, clueless sportswriter ass. But in a financially dying media, too many of them try to be the next Skip Bayless.

    Of course OU’s president Boren has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth, so the B12 isn’t totally smooth. But I find it refreshing how candid and open Iowa St’s president is on the subject when taping a meeting with students.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      8-team playoffs now,

      “I have to laugh at your mantra of “Think like a university president’ yet you:

      1. Recently tweeted: “Yes, it was a surprise to see Memphis miss the first cut since they seemed to be in at least the top 6 options.” C’mon, their relatively very inferior academics was well-known.”

      Memphis is relatively local and was offering bribes. Many thought the first cut would just drop the obviously pointless candidates and get the list back to the ones being considered seriously before. I didn’t see Memphis as a strong candidate but proximity and recruiting made them a possible choice to make the first cut.

      “2. Use USNews & WR’s rankings to justify points. The presidents don’t think too highly of those rankings, for a variety or reasons including that USN&WR toys with the rankings each year to stir the pot and generate buzz.”

      Frank’s well aware of that, but USN&WR’s rankings are the ones most people are aware of. My guess is that is why he used them rather than ARWU or Times HE.

      “I also think it is quite unfair and comparing apples and oranges to attack the B12 for the leaks in this expansion exploration. Previous attempts by other P5 conferences involved raiding other P5 conferences, schools that already had power status. The schools had strong reasons to keep it secret.”

      Rutgers. Enough said.

      Also, how does this explain leaks from the B12 side?

      “The whole theme of ‘A circus’ and ‘An embarrassing mess of a process’ is driven by the usual fools and blowhards in the media who do an hour or research (if that) and become holier than thou experts.”

      Or by anyone with a functioning brain who isn’t a fan of a B12 school. The B12 can’t control which schools want in or how those schools act, but the B12 does supposedly control their own process.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Rutgers has been talked about for a quarter century by the Big 10.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          He claimed that all the previous P5 expansion involved current power conference schools and thus it was kept quiet. RU wasn’t a power conference member and there was no big talk. They didn’t run a major PR campaign in the media to try to get into the B10.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            The Big Least it may have been, but Rutgers was a member of a BCS AQ conference at the time they announced their move.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “The Big Least it may have been, but Rutgers was a member of a BCS AQ conference at the time they announced their move.”

            Previous attempts by other P5 conferences involved raiding other P5 conferences, schools that already had power status.

            He specifically said P5 conferences and the Big East isn’t one.

            Like

        • vp19 says:

          Maryland would have ranked ahead of Rutgers in the B1G expansion pecking order — certainly on big-time athletic tradition, with academics and media markets being a wash (D.C. and Baltimore aren’t as large as NYC or Philly, bt UMd has more of a following in D.C./Balt. compared to RU in NYC/Phila), but as 2009 turned into 2010, College Park wasn’t in anyone’s conventional thinking, because who thought it would leave the ACC for the Big Ten?

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I do not agree that the media markets are anywhere close to a wash. The issue is not whether UMd has more of a following in their market. The question is the number of B1G fans in the market. NYC and NJ have a very large group of PSU fans, and lots of other B1G alumni.

            I do not believe that the B1G has released formal numbers, but I believe that the NYC-North NJ and the South Jersey-Philly markets brought in many more eyeballs than the DC/Baltimore markets.

            Clearly there is no conversation related to athletic history.

            As far as RU and B1G entry media campaign, I do not believe that there was any publicity at all, beyond the normal very low level chatter about RU wanting to be in the B1G, which was the case for a very long time.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Maryland was the 13th school announced, and Rutgers the 14th. The Big Ten didn’t covet Rutgers, and then ask, “Hmmm…who could be #14? Let’s invite Maryland!” It was the opposite.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Marc, I agree that there was a very good reason that UMd was 13 and RU 14.

            I think that it was pretty straight forward that UMd did not have to do anything. They could have stayed in the ACC indefinitely. UMd needed to be courted and induced by the B1G.

            RU was on bended knee asking to be accepted by the B1G. RU had nothing else on the table. No ACC offer had been made and the Big 12 would be insane.

            In addition, I think that a poll of RU fans, etc., would have overwhelmingly chosen the B1G over the ACC if given that choice.

            If UMd did not leave the ACC, RU probably would still have been available five or ten years later. (Though I think that RU’s value to the B1G might have decreased a bit after a number of years in the AAC). Absent some odd things happening RU would just sit and wait for the B1G.

            With UMd, the B1G had to convince them to “break up” with their girlfriend and leave the old gang behind. That is not easy.

            To RU (particularly as the Big Least exploded) the B1G was the woman who was valedictorian of the college class, and also first runner up for Miss America. (And she has a great personality, etc.) When she asked RU to go on a date, it was very easy to say yes.

            Like

  24. vp19 says:

    Did UH punch its ticket into the Big 12 today?

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Nope. They lost the OU vote.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        With a reminder of the kind of FB talent that is available in East Texas … those AD’s who think that defending their profile in East Texas is a greater gain to recruiting than the threat of Houston being able to recruit more strongly against them might be MORE inclined to admit Houston. OU could well consider themselves in that category … perhaps Kansas State less so.

        But for University Presidents, especially of low population Great Plains states, it is quite possible that defending their profile in East Texas for recruiting students generally is a bigger issue.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Think like a university president, not like a fan.

      Like

  25. Kevin says:

    Go Badgers. Great atmosphere yesterday. Still getting my voice back.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Kevin – belated congrats on the win. I just made it back from a fun-filled few days in B1G country (with the exception of the 1st, 2nd & 4th quarters of the LSU game). Along with the game in Lambeau, I took in Sunday’s Cubs/Giants matchup and yesterday’s ChiSox/Detroit game.

      Great people and hospitality in Wisconsin and Illinois, lots of fun, and very bad LSU QB play.

      Like

  26. Richard says:

    Small nit: Rice presidency is more like the Stanford coaching job (Rice is still quite small). Stanford presidency is like OSU coaching job (or maybe ‘Bama coaching job).

    Tulane presidency would be like a KU football coaching job. AAU (like KU is P5), but on the lower end.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Richard – regarding the Tulane presidency and comparing it to the Kansas head football coaching job, you ought to do a little research before making such an outlandish claim.

      The current president of Tulane, Michael Fitts, was previously the dean of Penn’s law school and the president of the American Law Deans Association. He ha a BA from Harvard and a JD from Yale where he served as the editor of the Yale Law Journal. Prior to entering academia, he served as a clerk for federal judge and civil rights advocate Leon Higginbotham, who became a mentor to him. President Fitts then worked as an attorney in the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where he served as outside counsel to the President, White House and Cabinet.

      Fitts predecessor (and my president) was Scott Cowan. Prior to being named president of Tulane, Cowan was the dean of the Weatherhead School of Management at Case-Western Reserve University. Cowan has too many other awards and honors to list, so you can read about them here: http://www.scottcowen.com/about/

      Cowan’s predecessor was Eamon Kelly, who served as the chairman of the AAU while he was Tulane’s president.

      Kelly’s predecessor was Sheldon Hackney. Hackney was a graduate of the US Naval Academy, Vanderbilt and Yale. Prior to accepting the presidency of Tulane, Hackney was the provost at Princeton. He left Tulane to become the president at Penn. After retiring from Penn, he was appointed by President Clinton as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

      Hackney’s predecessor was Herbert Longnecker. Longnecker came from the University Of Illinois system where he ran its Chicago colleges of dentistry, medicine and pharmacy; its school of nursing; and its 620-bed hospital. Prior to his work at Illinois, Longnecker was at Pitt where he served as a biochemistry professor, dean of research in the natural sciences and dean of the Graduate School. In 1944, the American Chemical Society named him one of the 10 ablest chemists in the United Sates in his specialty. During World War II, Dr. Longenecker put his skills to work for the war effort. One of the committees on which he served helped redesign K-rations and powdered foods that soldiers received. Among the scientists whom Dr. Longenecker brought to Pittsburgh was Dr. Jonas Salk, who conducted at the university the animal and human tests that led to the landmark achievement of the first polio vaccine.

      Fitts, Cowan, Kelly, Hackney, and Longnecker at Tulane aren’t exactly Beaty, Bowan, Weiss, Gill & Mangino at Kansas.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        So all except Kelly were provosts or deans at AAU schools before becoming President of Tulane (Kelly was mostly outside of academia).

        How is that different from Beaty, Bowan, Weiss, Gill & Mangino, who all had been a coordinator at a P5 school or HC at a G5 school (in the case of Weis, an NFL HC as well)?

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Richard – what a stretch! Mangino is really the only one that fits the mold of a high level program up and comer that Tulane has traditionally hired as its president. Mangino was OC at Oklahoma prior to being hired at Kansas. He’s now jobless. Gill was HC at Buffalo, hired and fired at Kansas, now he’s HC at Liberty. Weiss was HC at Notre Dame but fired, fired at Kansas and now jobless. Bowen was interim HC at Kansas and now DC at Kansas. Beaty was the WR coach at A&M.

          Also, all the Tulane presidents I referenced were successful before, during, and after their time at Tulane, or retired. None was fired.

          Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17447429/power-5-conference-schools-made-6-billion-last-year-gap-haves-nots-grows

    P5 schools (well, ADs) made over $6B last year, almost $4B more than all the other NCAA schools combined. In that sense, the gap between the haves and have-nots has never been larger. On the other hand, net revenue has grown by about 50% over the past 8 years for both groups. Unfortunately student fees and subsidies make up half the revenue for the small schools versus 5% for the P5.

    The Outside the Lines analysis shows that the disparity between the richest and poorest schools has never been greater. In 2008, the gap between the average overall revenue of schools in today’s Power Five conferences and those in the Group of Five was about $43 million. In 2015, it was $65 million. For public schools, if subsidies are subtracted from that revenue, the gap gets even wider, from an average $53 million in 2008 to $83 million in 2015.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      In the meantime, the MWC won’t be sitting idly by waiting to be poached as commissioner Craig Thompson confirmed Saturday that his conference will look to expand independent of what the Big 12 does. And, more to the point, Thompson doesn’t hide the fact that the league would like a presence in the state of Texas.

      Got any inside info on Rice getting in? The presidents would have to be thrilled to add a school like Rice. It also brings Houston access. UTEP fits better geographically, of course.

      Like

  28. ccrider55 says:

    I’d rather listen to either ND or UT announcers. Tessitore is the new Mushmouth, trying to insert “drama” instead of just calling the game. It’ll provide enough without help.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      ESPN’s CFB announcing talent is way down, with Sean McDonough off to the NFL and Brad Nessler to CBS. A year ago, I don’t think Tessitore would’ve been assigned to this game.

      Like

  29. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17467337/usc-jabari-ruffin-suspended-half-game-stomping-alabama-player-groin

    USC has suspended their nut-stomper for a half game. No word from LSU yet on a suspension for their ejected player.

    Like

  30. ccrider55 says:

    Now LHN has something to split time with during the Vince Young/Reggie Bush Rose Bowl endless loop…

    Like

  31. ccrider55 says:

    In expansion news, SEC will add just one school. Alabama will be splitting – one in east and one in west. They’ve got the staff.

    Stewart Mandel
    Stewart Mandel – Verified account ‏@slmandel

    If Alabama’s directory is up to date, Sarkisian marks at least 21 analysts/player personnel/ops guys on Saban’s staff. Monstrous.
    10:27 AM – 5 Sep 2016
    72 RETWEETS45 LIKES

    Bullet, this is what I mean by professionalism of CFB.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The theory is that he’s there to get up to date on the players and the offense so he can replace Kiffin next season after Kiffin gets another HC job somewhere.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      They ended the limit on the number of football personnel and Saban has a blank check. I imagine Texas and Ohio State are doing something similar. There are people who would have been coordinators at G5 schools who are working as analysts/recruiting coordinators at a school like Alabama.

      Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      These schools have so much income that they have to make up new ways to spend it, as long as it isn’t pay-for-play. So, they create new non-coach coaching positions because the money has to be sent somewhere.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Meanwhile sports get cut and rarely, if ever, restored at D1 P5 schools.

        Color me unimpressed with the execution of the educational mission of these athletic depts. It’s one thing to strive to make more to support student opportunities. It’s another to simply strive to win at a single sport and spend whatever seems to even slightly improve that possibility.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Exactly. Very well said, ccrider.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            But this is the deep South, where football is as worshiped as any secular activity. It’s sad the NCAA apparently is powerless to curb these excesses.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Color me unimpressed with the execution of the educational mission of these athletic depts.

          I am not sure they ever had the high-minded motives you attribute to them — at least, not in our lifetimes.

          It’s sad the NCAA apparently is powerless to curb these excesses.

          The NCAA has spent over a hundred years “curbing excesses.” As soon as they find a way to regulate a particular activity, the money flows to something else they had not yet thought of regulating. Remember, these are the clowns who, until recently, regulated when you could serve cream cheese on bagels.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “I am not sure they ever had the high-minded motives you attribute to them — at least, not in our lifetimes.”

            You’re a new born? 😏

            The Ivy’s deemphasized during my lifetime.

            LDS dropped intercollegiate competition at BYU-I, and now at BYU-Hawaii.

            There are a number of schools that currently field quite a few teams/sports. Not so much in areas that FB is religion.

            My point isn’t that WSU can field Ohio St number of sports, but that those with similar resources should field a similar/proportional number of opportunities.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “I am not sure they ever had the high-minded motives you attribute to them — at least, not in our lifetimes.”

            The Ivy’s deemphasized during my lifetime.

            I meant the SEC.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The “director of xyz” position isn’t exclusive to one conference. As it spreads it negatively effects more than the obvious extreme examples, perhaps even more those not at the top of the income pyramid.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The SEC might be the most extreme example, but yours — the Ivy League — is the most extreme in the other direction. At most Division I schools with successful revenue sports, athletic departments don’t have the mission you attribute to them.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…but yours — the Ivy League — is the most extreme in the other direction.”

            No, that would be BYU Idaho and Hawaii, or U of Chicago. Or schools that have chosen to drop to D3, or even abandon FB completely.

            Regulations governing number of coaches and scholarships were instituted to try to control costs by these schools you think don’t care about student opportunity. Even the minimum sports offered requirement is to assure schools don’t pour all the $’s into one or two sports at the expense of all other offerings.

            Like

        • bob sykes says:

          If the goal is preparing elite athletes for professional careers, athletic departments in general do a very good job. If you focus on what they are trying to, prepare professional athletes, they are substantially superior to the academics departments.

          I taught engineering at a major research university for 35 years. The AD did a much better job than we did. They did lots of hands on, one on one instruction, made huge demands, and got results.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “If the goal is preparing elite athletes for professional careers…”

            It’s not. It’s an added bonus to the college education scholly athletes are getting free.

            “The AD did a much better job than we did. They did lots of hands on, one on one instruction, made huge demands, and got results.”

            How many are making a living as a pro athlete? I bet every academic dept has a far higher percent applying their studies in a profession than the athletic dept.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            On that metric, it seems that even degrees often stereotyped as turning out more taxi drivers and grocery store clerks than people working in their field, like fine arts, literature and history, would likely have a higher percentage of people actually working in something closely related to their undergraduate training.

            Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      I hope UTK gets to play the Alabama that gets the second string FB players.

      Like

  32. bullet says:

    They love college football in the deep south. UT-ND, with a 7.0 rating, matching the best rating in 2015, had better ratings in Birmingham than in DFW, Houston or San Antonio.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/05/more-people-watched-texas-notre-dame-in-birmingham-than-in-texas/

    As for Houston-OU, big ratings winner too. And did better in Houston than UT-ND.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/04/houstons-triumph-over-ou-a-winner-in-the-ratings-too/

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      How many Sunday evening Labor Day weekend FB games with no CFB or nfl competition are there to compare the ratings with?

      Don’t get me wrong. Great game, inspite of the obnoxious announcing, but I’d have watched any decently played game last night (Ivy, FCS, etc). Bonus that it was an exciting finish.

      Like

  33. loki_the_bubba says:

    Article on Tom Herman at Houston. But the opening gives you a hint about how bad things were at Rice before our recent building plan.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2658032-cfbs-hottest-coach-turns-down-big-money-prestige-to-build-unlikely-powerhouse

    Like

  34. bullet says:

    World University rankings out. At a quick glance seems very different than previous. Favors private schools more.
    http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2016

    Public schools in top 100:
    Michigan top public US university at #23. UCBerkeley #2 at 28, UCLA #3 at 31, UCSD #4 at 40, Wisconsin #5 at 53, Washington #6 at 59, Illinois #7 at 66, Texas #8 at 67, Georgia Tech #9 at 71, UNC #10 at 78, UC Davis #11 at 85, Ohio ST. #12 at 88, Purdue #13 at 92, Penn St. #14 at 95.

    Chicago was ranked #10 in the world and Northwestern #26. Top 5 were MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Cal Tech.

    Like

  35. Carl says:

    Here’s a shock:

    http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Sources-question-whether-BU-sexual-assault-investigation-was-flawed-392649461.html

    “WACO, Texas (KWTX) Baylor and Pepper Hamilton, the independent law firm the university hired to investigate the sexual assault scandal that engulfed the school’s football program, fumbled, according to university insiders and secret recordings of meetings with athletic staffers obtained by KWTX, which suggest that the firm’s investigators came to Waco with an agenda to purge members of the football program and had a racial undertone in their line of questioning.”

    (Just to be clear, again: I’m not defending Baylor football — I know almost nothing about what really happened there.)

    Like

  36. bullet says:

    ISU student body president was on the losing side of the vote opposing allowing BYU to join the Big 12 (as mentioned in Frank’s tweets). Article has his comments and a copy of the letter he sent:

    http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/politics_and_administration/campus/article_ebca0410-7613-11e6-a0ca-537fa50038ed.html

    Like

  37. ccrider55 says:

    An interesting interview regarding TV changes and Turner moves/intentions.

    http://www.recode.net/2016/9/9/12844978/turner-john-martin-cnn-tnt-tbs-streaming

    Like

  38. Jersey Bernie says:

    The woman who accused former Auburn running back Jovon Robinson of domestic violence emailed Auburn coach Gus Malzahn after Robinson’s dismissal and said she lied in her initial accusations.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/report-woman-says-she-made-up-accusations-vs-jovon-robinson-after-his-dismissal-211448233.html

    Like

  39. I’d kill for a taco right now.

    Like

  40. Marc Shepherd says:

    The New York Times has a story on Houston’s Big 12 bid.

    Like

  41. Rusty Gull says:

    Can we just end this process already? We have plenty of good candidates for expansion. Take ’em before they’re gone. This is simple: Snag BYU as soon as possible, and take Colorado State as a travel partner. In combination they provide the academic chops and the athletic profile (or at least BYU compensates for any perceived shortcomings with CSU). In the process, the Big 12 sets itself up as a competitor to the Pac 12 in terms of long-term future expansion (ie, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, etc). The Big 12 could be the major player between East Texas (well…cough…Morgantown…) and Utah, instead of chasing the SEC or the Big 10 for expansion candidates in the East. It becomes relevant in the compelling, growing media markets of Denver and Salt Lake City. So much future growth is in the West – demographics, jobs, corporate growth, alumni, etc. If Houston must join also in the interests of political expedience and Texas influence, so be it. They will be a strong partner as well. Lastly — and this comes after ensuring that old Big 8 friends Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri don’t want to come back — pick up the member with the strongest combination of academics, overall athletics, and national profile. That school is UConn.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Can we just end this process already? We have plenty of good candidates for expansion. Take ’em before they’re gone.

      Gone where?

      Snag BYU as soon as possible, and take Colorado State as a travel partner.

      The whole “travel partner” idea is generally silly, and especially here. BYU is accepting the first P5 invitation it gets, regardless of location. It does not require a close-by school to sweeten the deal.

      In the process, the Big 12 sets itself up as a competitor to the Pac 12 in terms of long-term future expansion (ie, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, etc).

      The Pac-12 wants none of those schools.

      The Big 12 could be the major player between East Texas (well…cough…Morgantown…) and Utah, instead of chasing the SEC or the Big 10 for expansion candidates in the East.

      None of the Big 12’s candidates are schools the SEC or Big 10 is likely to ever want.

      Lastly…pick up the member with the strongest combination of academics, overall athletics, and national profile. That school is UConn.

      Expansion is about football, which provides the vast majority of the television revenue. UConn is terrible at football and has no national profile in the sport.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        I doubt any conference can survive with full-time members spanning three time zones (with the possible exception of a Pac-16 with Texas, TTech, OU and Okie State). And take it from me — the Big 12 shouldn’t want Connecticut; it’s weak in football (with little of the potential or talent base of UCF or USF) and has an annoying nouveau riche fan base. Let the evil empire of women’s basketball twist in the wind.

        Like

  42. ccrider55 says:

    One post about the OkSt game. Why did they throw at all? If you do, why not roll outside the tackle box to negate intentional grounding? But why not just run back for 4+ seconds and fall down? Officials missed the “loss of down” exception to the application of the untimed down penalty, but I didn’t see coaches challenging it until later. Coaches should be as aware of the rules as the refs. It’s their job to teach the game, and the game is defined by it’s rules.

    Every year there are game changing mistakes. Sometimes mid game. Sometimes at the end. Failed (successful) on sides kick. 5th down scores. Etc. Is the uproar that it aided a non P5 school? The misapplied rule didn’t score. Failure to simply RUN the clock out, followed by failure to defend a desperation play did.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      One post about the OkSt game. Why did they throw at all? If you do, why not roll outside the tackle box to negate intentional grounding? But why not just run back for 4+ seconds and fall down?

      The coach didn’t exactly explain his reasoning, but each of your proposed alternatives has risks. The QB could inadvertently down the ball before 4 seconds are up. A defender could slip through the line and force a fumble. Granted, neither of these scenarios is especially likely. But the coach evidently thought that heaving the ball as far as it could go, where no opponent could possibly get to it, was the safest of strategies.

      Coaches should be as aware of the rules as the refs. It’s their job to teach the game, and the game is defined by it’s rules.

      This is apparently an obscure enough situation, that none of the field officials, neither of the replay officials, and no coach on the OkSt staff, was aware of it.

      And the funny thing is, the non-rule that the officials “made up”, is the way that most people think it should work. Their intuition was right, even though the rule book reads the opposite way. The offense trying to protect a lead shouldn’t be rewarded for using up the final four seconds with an illegal play.

      Every year there are game changing mistakes. Sometimes mid game. Sometimes at the end. Failed (successful) on sides kick. 5th down scores. Etc. Is the uproar that it aided a non P5 school?

      I don’t think so. This comes up whenever the officials make an egregious error on the final play of a game — even when both teams are on the same level.

      Years ago, the Detroit Lions kicked the game-winning FG as time expired, to defeat the Dallas Cowboys. The Lions had 12 men on the field, but the officials didn’t notice. Naturally, there were calls from Cowboys’ officials (to say nothing of their fans) to invalidate the result, but the NFL allowed it to stand.

      In 1997, Nebraska defeated Missouri. On the final play of regulation, a Nebraska player kicked the ball into the endzone, where a teammate caught it for a TD. The extra point tied the game, which the Cornhuskers went on to win in overtime. The kicked ball was illegal, and should have been called back, handing Missouri the win. It was allowed to stand.

      I’m sure there are other examples.

      I agree that there is no point in overturning the result, even where it is clear what the outcome “should have been”. Officiating errors on the final play aren’t that common. On any other play, however egregious the mistake, there is no way of knowing what would have happened. You have to let it stand.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        The throw should have been out of bounds…but backwards. Not a pass – a legal lateral. Only loss would have been to total yards for the game, not the game.

        Drat, that’s two comments. I’m done.

        Like

  43. ccrider55 says:

    A reflection of the concern that BYU’s honor code engenders expressed in NCAA action:
    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17

    Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        I was about to sigh and say something about how I wish politicians would spend more time on issues that actually matter within their purview….then I read that headline and burst out laughing.

        Wow.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        They say they really don’t want to have it on campus, so I’m curious where the ACC CG will end up. Orlando is busy that weekend.

        NFL options:
        DC, Nashville, Philly, Tampa, Miami – teams are on the road or have a bye that weekend

        I also wonder what the actual vote was. 11-4 (all NC schools opposed)? 13-2 (UNC and NCSU opposed for political reasons)? 15-0? They only needed a majority vote (8-7) to do this.

        http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article101789597.html

        Before the conference reached its decision, the conversation among its presidents had been “constructive, wide-ranging and vigorous,” Clemson president James P. Clements, the chair of the ACC Council of Presidents, said in a statement.

        “The decision to move the neutral site championships out of North Carolina while HB2 remains the law was not an easy one,” he said, “but it is consistent with the shared values of inclusion and non-discrimination at all of our institutions.”

        The council had met on Tuesday and Wednesday and voted on Wednesday on whether to move the league’s neutral-site championships out of North Carolina during this academic year. The vote among the league’s 15 school presidents required a simple majority.

        The loss of ACC championships could cost the state millions of dollars in revenue. The football championship game, which had been played in Charlotte since 2010, had an economic impact of $32.4 million last year, according to the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority. The game had been under contract to be played at Charlotte’s Bank of America Stadium through 2019.

        On a smaller scale the Town of Cary, hit hard by the NCAA’s decision to remove championship events from the state, again received a financial blow with the ACC’s announcement on Wednesday. Cary had been set to host the ACC Women’s Soccer Championship on Nov. 4 and 6 and the ACC Men’s and Women’s Tennis Championships April 26-30 in 2017.

        Those two events would have generated nearly $500,000 in revenue for Cary, according to the Greater Raleigh Sports Alliance.

        http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article101807412.html

        UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt and N.C. State Chancellor Randy Woodson, in a joint statement: “We appreciate the Council of Presidents’ reaffirmation of the ACC’s strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, as well as the decision to keep ACC championship contests on our campuses. However, we regret today’s decision will negatively affect many North Carolinians, especially in the affected host communities. UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C .State remain steadfast in our commitment to welcoming and supporting all people.”

        Statement from Carolina Panthers: “We are aware of the decision from the Atlantic Coast Conference. Although we are disappointed, we remain steadfast in providing an inclusive environment at Bank of America Stadium. As we stated last summer, after more than 20 years of operations, we undoubtedly have had transgender persons attend events here and, presumably, they have used the restroom of the gender with which they identify. Our organization is against discrimination and has a long history of treating all of our patrons at Bank of America Stadium with dignity and respect.”

        Statement from Durham Bulls: “Our partners at the Atlantic Coast Conference had a difficult decision to make regarding the location of neutral site championships throughout the state of North Carolina. We understand the conference’s position, and support our partner’s decision to remove those championships from North Carolina. We look forward to a resolution of this issue, so that we can welcome the tournament back to Durham in future years. We have opposed House Bill 2 from the beginning, and continue to share that sentiment.”

        Like

  44. Tyson says:

    What is the legal justification for spiking the ball in an “end-of-game trying to stop the clock” scenario, and why is it not intentional grounding since the QB isn’t outside the tackles and the ball doesn’t cross the LOS. I have seen MANY of these where the actual motion of the QB is so frantic it is indistinguishable from a fumble.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      It’s attempting to stop the clock, not avoid being tackled – loss of yardage and/or risk of fumble. Basically a created a rule to substitute for timeouts…which are limited to 3/half by other rule.

      Like

  45. loki_the_bubba says:

    In actual realignment news, The Atlantic Sun and Big South now have an agreement on football members. Any A-Sun member who wants to move up to scholarship FCS can automatically join the Big South.

    http://www.krcrtv.com/sports/big-south-asun-form-fcs-member-partnership/79647125

    Like

  46. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Not that anyone on this board cares, but the totally unreliable USN&WR rankings are out.

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

    Ivy: #1 Princeton, #2 Harvard, #3 Yale, #5 Columbia, #8 Penn, #11 Datmouth, #14 Brown & #15 Cornell

    Pac-12: #5 Stanford, #20 Cal, #23 USC, #24 UCLA, #54 Washington, #92 Colorado, #103 Oregon, #111 Utah, #124 Arizona, #129 Ariz St., #143 Ore St. & #143 Wash St.

    ACC: #8 Duke, #24 Virginia, #27 Wake Forest, #30 North Carolina, #31 BC, #34 GA Tech, #44 Miami, #60 Syracuse, #66 Clemson, #68 Pitt, #74 VA Tech, #92 Florida St., #92 NC State & #171 Louisville

    B1G: #12 Northwestern, #27 Michigan, #44 Illinois, #44 Wisconsin, #50 Penn State, #54 Ohio State, #60 Purdue, #60 Maryland, #70 Rutgers, #71 Minnesota, #82 Michigan State, #82 Iowa, #86 Indiana & #111 Nebraska

    SEC: #15 Vandy, #50 Florida, #56 Georgia, #74 A&M, #99 Auburn, #103 Alabama, #103 Tennessee, #107 South Carolina, #111 Missouri, #133 kentucky, #135, LSU, #135 Arkansas, #135 Ole Miss, #176 Miss State

    Ind: #15 Notre Dame & #68 BYU

    Big XII: #56 Texas, #71 Baylor, #82 TCU, #111 Iowa State, #111 Oklahoma, #118 Kansas, #135 K-State, #152 OK State, #176 TX Tech & #183 West VA

    Big XII expansion candidates: #15 Rice, #39 Tulane, #56 SMU, #60 UConn, #86 Tulsa, #118 Temple, #129 Colorado State, #135 Cincy, #159 USF, #176 UCF, #194 Houston

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Another reason to be disappointed in how far we have fallen. This is CUSA:

      15 Rice

      159 UAB
      202 LaTech
      202 UNC-Charlotte
      210 ODU
      220 Southern Miss

      NR FAU
      NR FIU
      NR Middle Tennessee
      NR North Texas
      NR UTEP
      NR UTSA

      Not Listed – Marshall, WKU

      Like

  47. ccrider55 says:

    Bullet:

    You’re in Atlanta, aren’t you? Braves fan?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Sean_Breslin/status/775499310809116672

    Like

  48. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The 2017 SEC schedule was released yesterday.

    http://www.secsports.com/article/17538190/sec-releases-2017-football-schedule

    Here’s the P-5, BYU, and AAC non-conference schedules.

    Alabama v. Florida State at Atlanta 9/2
    Arkansas v. TCU 9/9
    Auburn at Clemson 9/9
    Florida v. Michigan at Arlington 9/2; v. Florida State 11/25
    Georgia at Notre Dame 9/9; at GA Tech 11/25
    Kentucky v. Louisville 11/25
    LSU v BYU at Houston 9/2; v. Syracuse 9/23
    Ole Miss at Cal 9/16
    Miss State v. BYU 10/14
    Mizzou v. Purdue 9/16; at UConn 10/28
    South Carolina v. NC State at Charlotte 9/2; v. Clemson 11/25
    Tennessee v. GA Tech at Atlanta 9/4
    Texas A&M at UCLA 9/2
    Vandy v. K-State 9/16

    Regarding the week before Rivalry week, there are five conference game scheduled:

    Miss State at Arkansas
    Kentucky at Georgia
    Texas A&M at Ole Miss
    LSU at Tennessee
    Mizzou at Vandy

    Regarding an earlier post on a previous thread, here’s LSU closing stretch:

    10/7 v. Florida; 10/14 v. Auburn; 10/21 at Ole Miss; 11/4 at Alabama; 11/11 v. Arkansas; 11/18 at Tennessee; and 11/25 v. A&M. Only Auburn is not currently ranked.

    Thanksgiving note: It looks like the LSU/A&M game won’t be played on Thanksgiving anymore when played at College Station! Going forward, the Thanksgiving night game will be the Egg Bowl, whether its played in Oxford or StarkVega$.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Alan from Baton Rouge,

      “Here’s the P-5, BYU, and AAC non-conference schedules.”

      There are a lot of good games in there, but also a few clunkers as expected. That’s about what you expect from any conference any more. I’ll just comment on a few of them.

      “Florida v. Michigan at Arlington 9/2; v. Florida State 11/25”

      Kudos to UF for playing 2 tough games.

      “Georgia at Notre Dame 9/9; at GA Tech 11/25”

      ND must not play at GT for a while based on this. Access to Atlanta is always good for ND.

      “LSU v BYU at Houston 9/2; v. Syracuse 9/23”

      That’s easier than a typical LSU OOC schedule. SU is pretty bad.

      “Mizzou v. Purdue 9/16; at UConn 10/28”

      PU is about as bad as any P5 team can be and UConn is weak for an AAC team.

      “South Carolina v. NC State at Charlotte 9/2; v. Clemson 11/25”

      Two rivalry-type games for a team that’s been down is a really good schedule.

      “Regarding the week before Rivalry week, there are five conference game scheduled:

      Miss State at Arkansas
      Kentucky at Georgia
      Texas A&M at Ole Miss
      LSU at Tennessee
      Mizzou at Vandy”

      Leaving AL (Mercer), AU (ULM), UF (UAB) and SC (Wofford). Obviously AL and AU play the last week, so at least the cupcakes balance out. It’s unknown who FSU and Clemson play that penultimate week. UGA gets UK which is about as close to a cupcake as an SEC game gets. Only UK has a tough game before their big OOC rivalry and UL is going to kill them anyway.

      “Thanksgiving note: It looks like the LSU/A&M game won’t be played on Thanksgiving anymore when played at College Station! Going forward, the Thanksgiving night game will be the Egg Bowl, whether its played in Oxford or StarkVega$.”

      That’s good for everyone, isn’t it? The MS schools could use the exposure and there’s less travel involved for an in-state rivalry.

      Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17549405/oklahoma-president-boren-says-big-12-expansion-not-sure-thing

    OU president Boren says B12 expansion may not happen and there may not be a decision at the October B12 board meeting.

    “I would just caution you and say, I would not take expansion as a given,” Boren said after the university regents meeting on Oklahoma’s campus in Tulsa. “I’m not saying there won’t be expansion. But I’m not saying it can be automatically assumed that there will be expansion.”

    “They’ve all done an excellent job at putting their best foot forward and showing their strengths,” Boren said of the list of expansion finalists, which comprise Air Force, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Connecticut, Houston, Rice, SMU, South Florida and Tulane. “The question at the end of the day is, can we say with certainty, that expansion would add strength to the conference? I think there’s a lot of discussion that will have to go on before we reach that decision.”

    One of the impetuses for expansion has been the pro rata clauses that were written in the current contracts that mandate Big 12 television partners ESPN and Fox pay the conference up to $25 million a year for each member the league adds.

    Boren said that while the pro rata bumps are motivation for expansion, they’re also a concern.

    “We do have a relationship to maintain, not only short term, but long term with the networks,” Boren said. “When you have a partnership and you have a friendship, it isn’t just for today, it’s long term. And I think you have to think about long-term implications in any action we take. If we were to expand by two teams, four teams, that has financial implications for the networks. I think we have to see if that adds to the long-term stability or not.”

    “I’m not certain there will be a decision at the October board meeting on expansion at this time,” he said. “We’re going to look at every way in which we can make the conference stronger and better. But I’m not sure the automatic answer to that is expansion.

    “The situation is still pretty fluid.”

    Like

  50. Tyson says:

    So the ACC has pulled championship games from the state of NC to punish them for HB2. Here is the state GOP’s response, and it is excellent. Of course, there won’t be a reply

    http://conservativetribune.com/after-ncaa-ditches-nc-over-law/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=ConservativeTribune&utm_content=2016-09-15&utm_campaign=manualpost

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/09/13/big-12-will-add-two-schools-last-long-term

    Why the B12 will expand now with UH and UC but fall apart later.

    Even so, because of the nice bonus its TV partners would have to fork over, here’s betting the Big 12 adds two schools. Furthermore, the lucky couple will be Houston and Cincinnati, essentially for two reasons:

    They’re the easiest and most logical candidates for the short term.

    There’s no long term for the Big 12.

    In my case, for instance, “long term” means a shelf life that isn’t stamped on the label.

    The Big 12’s TV deals run out in 2024-25. At that time, if not sooner, it’ll be like flipping on the lights and watching the teenagers scatter.

    The reason it won’t last is because Texas and Oklahoma aren’t in it for the long haul. Texas has stuck it out this long, in fact, because of its lucrative Longhorn Network, which its Big 12 peers allowed it to keep, basically because they had no other choice.

    But Texas’ deal with ESPN runs out in 2030, and if the date doesn’t exactly coincide with the expiration of the Big 12’s TV deal, it’s close enough that it won’t impede negotiations with another league.

    Texas has long wished to move on from its roots and partner up with other big universities with similar academic and athletic ideals. Once upon a time, it was the Pac-10. Now the Big Ten seems a more likely destination.

    That’s if it’s still called the Big Ten when its massive $2.64 billion deal with Fox and ESPN runs out in 2023.

    The college landscape will shift dramatically once again when all those TV contracts expire. None of the big players wants to re-up just yet simply because no one knows now what the market will bear.

    Frankly, these weren’t among the notions I had for the league when all the talk of expansion came up again. My bad was looking at it from a point of prestige. If the Big 12 were to add, say, Florida State and Clemson, then it could go toe-to-toe with the SEC or anyone else. But if those prospects had ever been valid, they became moot when the ACC and ESPN signed a deal this summer guaranteeing the launch of the league’s own network in 2019 and a new deal running through 2035-36. Considering that teams sign a grant of rights with their leagues, guaranteeing a school’s revenues to its league through the length of the deal, it pretty much means the ACC is locked up longer than Charles Manson.

    If the Big 12 were really, truly interested in its long-term interests, I believe it would work with BYU officials to reshape some of its stances. Because in every other sense, BYU is a no-brainer. Best expansion candidate by far.

    But if you’re only talking about the next seven or eight years, and you want your money now, you go for the easy fix. The money’s the same. Houston and Cincinnati would settle for far less than the $20 million annual share the other Big 12 members receive, at least initially. The other members then get to split what ESPN reluctantly must dole out in its pro rata arrangement.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      If the Big 12 wants to go long-term (which it should for the sake of the likes of K-State and ISU, among others), Central Florida and South Florida need to be part of any expansion. They will give the conference a tap to that never ending reservoir of Florida prep football talent, and while neither are UF, FSU or Miami, they’re closer to those schools in potential than they are to Florida Atlantic or Florida International. It’s a gamble the Big 12 needs to take if it wants like after a Texit (I’m sure I’m not the first to use that phrase).

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        …wants life after a Texit.” (oopsie.)

        Like

      • bob sykes says:

        UCF and USF are too low on the academic food to get into any P5. So is Memphis.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I am not so sure how much marginal recruiting value UCF and USF add. People always seem to assume this is the case, without backing it up — even assuming that this factor ought to dominate all others in the expansion decision.

        Bear in mind that those two schools aren’t candidates for any other P5 league, so they’ll always be available. There is no rush to grab them now, unless they really are the best options.

        UCF and USF are too low on the academic food to get into any P5. So is Memphis.

        Except…the B12 already eliminated Memphis. It did not eliminate the two Florida schools.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I just don’t see anybody changing their recruiting patterns because UCF and USF are added to the league. And Florida is already fiercely competitive.

          Like

  52. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17556071/penn-state-nittany-lions-unveil-plans-joe-paterno-commemoration

    PSU has released some details about their plans to commemorate JoePa Saturday.

    In a written statement Thursday, athletic director Sandy Barbour said, “Coach Paterno wanted academic success not only for his players but also for every student who came through Penn State. Together with his wife, Sue, they helped countless students become leaders and earn a Penn State diploma. Our plans are consistent with the wishes of the Paterno family as well, with a focus on the players and their accomplishments at Penn State and beyond.”

    Mike Irwin and John Runnells, captains of the 1966 team, will be hand on for the coin toss. Barbour said “further in-game introductions of players will take place, along with video presentations on the impact to student-athletes.”

    The Paterno Foundation, which is not affiliated with the university, announced earlier this week that several hundred former Nittany Lions football players are expected to attend a private event Friday to celebrate the coach’s career. The event will take place at Medlar Field at Lubrano Park, which is near Beaver Stadium.

    Like

  53. Brian says:

    http://btn.com/2016/09/14/btn-tailgate-unveils-sites-of-first-six-campus-visits/

    BTN Tailgate has announced their first 6 game sites, starting 9/24.

    Big Ten Network today announced the sites for the first six weeks of BTN Tailgate, the network’s new pregame show originating from a different Big Ten campus each week during conference play. Tailgate’s debut episode will be live from East Lansing, when the Michigan State Spartans host the Wisconsin Badgers on Sept. 24 in a potential battle of top 15 teams. Over the first two to three years of the show, BTN Tailgate plans to visit each Big Ten campus.

    BTN Tailgate Campus Locations

    Entrance will open at 9 a.m. ET, 90 minutes prior to the start of the live show.

    • Sept. 24 – Munn Field at Michigan State University
    • Oct. 1 – Ed Weir Track; NE corner of Memorial Stadium at the University of Nebraska
    • Oct. 8 – RPAC (adjacent to the building) at Ohio State University
    • Oct. 15 – Mellencamp Pavilion (south end) at Indiana University
    • Oct. 22 – Krause Family Plaza (south end of Kinnick) at the University of Iowa
    • Oct. 29 – Grange Grove at the University of Illinois

    9/24 – WI @ MSU
    10/1 – IL @ NE
    10/8 – IN @ OSU
    10/15 – NE @ IN
    10/22 – WI @ IA
    10/29 – MN @ IL

    The November sites are undecided so far, but you can make some guesses.

    11/5 – IA @ PSU is scheduled for BTN at 7:30pm
    11/12 – MN @ NE is scheduled for BTN at 7:30pm
    11/19 – PSU @ RU is scheduled for BTN at 8:00pm
    11/26 – no BTN game scheduled yet

    Like

  54. bullet says:

    http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansion-status-houston-cincinnati-byu-uconn-david-boren-2006279271.html

    Pete Thamel’s latest take on Big 12 expansion. Summary-Nobody knows. And Boren needs to quit talking.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I think Boren is not so subtly hinting to BYU that the ball is in their court. They provide political cover over honor code and…

      Like

    • Brian says:

      After making a round of calls around the league and college sports the past 24 hours, it was hard to tell who reacted the strongest to Boren’s latest comments. Was it the anger from Boren’s Big 12 colleagues at Boren reminding everyone—again!—how divided the Big 12 is? Or was it the laughter from officials in the college athletic industry and in other leagues at how consistent and persistent Boren is in his uncanny ability to make a mockery of the league? “It’s high comedy,” an industry source said Wednesday. “It really is.”

      In making calls this week to find out what’s really going to happen in the Big 12, the answer remained a similar refrain: No one really knows. Other than a laugh track at the Big 12’s expense—Why is this taking so long? Why can’t they shut up Boren? Why did Rice get an interview?—one clear pattern did emerge.

      Nothing has happened with the Big 12 in the past two months that gives any hint that the league will survive past its current television contract in 2024–25. There’s no consensus on what schools to add, how many schools to add or even if it should add schools. (Athletic directors around the league have long been cool on that prospect, but they have virtually no say in this spectacle.) More critically for the future of the league, neither Oklahoma nor Texas have given any public hint they have long-term plans to stay in the league. That’s a question we’d really like to hear Boren answer.

      I think everyone would like to hear Boren (and UT’s president) answer that, especially the other B12 presidents.

      And the league still faces the looming risk of alienating its current television partners, ESPN and FOX, who feel like they are about to be forced to pay nearly $25 million per school annually for inventory that it clearly doesn’t value. There’s a strong feeling remaining in the television industry that the Big 12 is taking Tony Soprano negotiating tactics to the table by taking advantage of the pro rata clause. “ESPN and FOX have never been more aligned about anything than how they feel about this shakedown,” said a television industry source.

      I’m so tired of the networks playing the aggrieved party here. They both have dozens of lawyers available to them and they wrote and signed a contract with this clause in it. It would’ve been trivial to include a limitation on the schools this applied to (BCS/P5 members plus ND & BYU, for example) but they didn’t. The other party isn’t a villain for using the contract as written.

      Besides, one could argue that the B12 is currently underpaid for their first tier rights so this change would bring them up to par. The networks know the money is going more to the current members than the newbies, at least at first. I think their real complaint is the amount of TV dead weight at the bottom of the B12 already and not wanting to increase that. ESPN already pays BYU a decent amount per year, though, and UC and UH have decent TV markets. Adding a B12 CG certainly will increase the value of the conference for them late in the season.

      The third consideration is whether it’s cheaper to pay this pro rata fee or pay the B10 or SEC or P12 for adding UT and OU. I think any other P5 conference would expect more than a $25M per year bump per school for adding those two or even just one of them.

      Here’s the uncomfortable question for the Big 12: Do Oklahoma and Texas offer more value to ESPN and FOX in the Big 12? Or are ESPN and FOX better off with Texas or Oklahoma in one of the leagues where they control the network?

      If Texas went to the Big Ten, it would be a boon for FOX, the Big Ten’s financial partner in the Big Ten Network. If Texas went to the ACC, the same could be said for ESPN and the upcoming ACC Network. Same for Oklahoma, which would likely go to the SEC, where ESPN owns a majority of the inventory and is a partner in the SEC Network.

      Maybe the networks are trying to stop expansion to speed the B12 dissolving so they can add UT and OU to their conference networks? It seems unlikely to me, but it’s possible I guess.

      Thamel’s prediction:
      60% – B12 adds UC and UH

      Could Boren defend taking BYU? Probably not after a slew of LGBT groups have spoken out against the school, which has an “honor code” that includes the following provision: “Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. 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.”

      There’s already been a student government vote at Iowa State against the admission of BYU.

      The potential of BYU’s candidacy has taken a precipitous dip. (Boren had long been considered a huge backer of BYU, which some speculate may be a reason he has cooled on his expansion stance.)

      30% – nothing happens

      BYU is toxic, but some presidents still feel it is the strongest addition and brings the biggest national following. Houston has the most potential as a program, but may have the least support. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren’t giddy about Houston. Texas has come out publicly saying it will favor the Cougars, but there are few in Austin political circles who feel like that’s anything more than public posturing. If Texas was serious about supporting Houston, it would have to back it up with action. The chance that Texas votes to extend the league’s grant of rights in order to support Houston’s candidacy is completely unrealistic.

      Basically, the Big 12 needs Houston more than it wants it. It would have preferred BYU, but can’t take another spate of bad publicity. (There were already complications with BYU refusing to schedule games on Sunday, but those pale in comparison to forcing risk-averse presidents to take a stand against LGBT groups.) Cincinnati is safe, but it falls into the old line about the Big 12. If there were perfect options for the league it would have expanded already.

      10% – something wacky happens

      Could there be four teams added for a money grab and an entrée into Florida? Sure. But the only school not yet mentioned that is still perceived to have a realistic chance in all this is Connecticut. Yet UConn’s chances have dimmed as BYU’s candidacy has crumbled, as both could have conceivably been added as football-only. UConn would have placed its other sports in the Big East. (UConn’s candidacy really got hurt when the league decided against a television network, as UConn’s Northeast market was a much better sell than its football program.)

      What else wacky could happen? Nothing should be left off the table. But for now, only Cincinnati, Houston, BYU and Connecticut have a reasonable chance. And it appears Cincinnati and Houston have pulled away. But this being the Big 12, we know there’s a lot of time left for something strange to happen.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Hard to have any sympathy for ESPN and Fox. And with the way ESPN has treated the Big 12 even less. They have run with the negative stories (justified or not) on the Big 12’s stability.

        And they have downplayed their better teams when they weren’t UT or OU.

        In 2011 they had their BCS show and tried to justify Alabama getting in by comparing them to 2 loss Pac 12 champ Oregon and 1 loss Pac 12 runnerup Stanford. They didn’t even MENTION 1 loss Big 12 champ Oklahoma St. who was the obvious team to compare against.

        Think it was 2013 when Ohio St. and Baylor were unbeaten, but Ohio St. wasn’t very well regarded, they were speculating whether 1 loss Missouri from the SEC would catch Ohio St. in the BCS. Didn’t even MENTION unbeaten Baylor who was right behind them and who, analysis showed, probably would have caught Ohio St. (had they not gotten upset). Missouri really had no chance with the way the formulas worked.

        ESPN has been really promoting the SEC. They have largely ignored the Big 12 unless it is negative. They don’t particularly promote the Pac 12 either. ESPN has both of those conferences. But, of course, they only have half of those conferences. Right now they have all the SEC but the 1 CBS game, all the ACC and all the top half of games for the Big 10.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          And they own SECN and the coming ACCN.

          Still a proponent of the conference actually owning, or as with BTN having significant ownership in, the networks attributed to and named for them.

          Like

  55. Brian says:

    http://dataomaha.com/bigstory/sports/college-footballs-greatest-myth

    Dirk Chatelain says home field advantage is dying in CFB, especially in the B10.

    Across the five major conferences, from 1996 through 2013, home teams won 56.5 percent of league games. There were a few ups and downs, but the rate was pretty steady.

    Now look at 2014 and 2015, the two most balanced seasons in the 20-year span. Power Five home teams won just 50.8 percent. Their total record: 267-259.

    “Wow,” said Phil Steele, the college football author who makes a living studying numbers like these. “You would think it would be a bigger factor. I’m surprised.”

    Nowhere have things shifted more than the Big Ten.

    Home teams dominated conference play from 1996-2011, winning 57.9 percent of games. The past four years, Big Ten home teams are 102-105 — 49.3 percent. It’s a stunning departure from tradition.

    I started digging through the Big Ten and didn’t stop until I compiled 20 years of data for the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC — more than 4,500 total games.

    The peak of home-field advantage during the 20-year span was 2003, when Power Five home teams won 64 percent of conference games. It’s hard to relate to those numbers now.

    In 2014, Pac-12 home teams went 21-33, the worst mark of any major conference in 20 years of study.

    Big 12 home teams, who won 64.4 percent of league games from 2002 through 2009, have dropped to 53.5 percent since 2010.

    ACC home teams won 56.8 percent of conference games from 1996 through 2012. The past three years: 51.8.

    Who’s losing more often at home? According to research, it’s primarily the bad teams. Who’s winning more road games? The top tier, but especially elite teams like Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma.

    Is it possible the gap between great programs and bad programs is growing?

    To get closer to the target, we need to look at close games. Games decided by eight points or less. Maybe we can learn something.

    The percentage of one-possession games hasn’t changed much from a decade ago. Home teams are still winning a similar percentage outside the eight-point frame.

    Here’s what did change: From 2004 through 2011, home teams won 52 percent of close games (367-339). About what you’d expect, right?

    Contrast that to 2012 through 2015, when home teams’ win percentage in close games dropped to 41.6 percent (162-227).

    And here’s the real trend within the trend. The two leagues most responsible for the dip in home-field advantage are the Big Ten and Big 12. Look at the win percentage of home underdogs in those two leagues.

    BIG TEN

    » 2004-07: 36 percent (27-48)

    » 2008-11: 28 percent (21-53)

    » 2012-15: 15 percent (11-60)

    BIG 12

    » 2004-07: 34 percent (23-45)

    » 2008-11: 25 percent (19-56)

    » 2012-15: 19 percent (13-54)

    He also has a graph of the B10’s home winning percentage by year.

    He ends with some theories on what’s changed to reduce HFA:
    1. Crowd noise is less detrimental due to the rising use of hand signals and smaller, quieter crowds as ticket prices rise and attendance falls

    2. Games are longer and that helps favorites.

    3. Playing on the road isn’t the distraction it used to be as travel is easier and more familiar to young players. The hassles of home games may be as bad or worse than road games now.

    4. Officiating is more fair now thanks to replay and increased training.

    5. This change happened when realignment started. Is that coincidence or correlation?

    6. The one exception is the SEC where HFA hasn’t changed.

    Unlike the other Power Fives, SEC attendance rose in 2015 — six of the top nine nationally in attendance were SEC teams. Its offenses are running fewer plays per game than Power Five peers — seven fewer plays, in fact, than the average Big 12 team. Its point spreads are tighter and its home underdogs are actually winning more than five or 10 years ago.

    The SEC still represents parity. Everywhere else, the gap between haves and have-nots seems to be growing. And home-field advantage is hardly an advantage at all.

    In a sidebar he mentions a more detailed breakdown of who is losing more often at home than before.

    The drop comes from the bottom tiers. The fourth quintile, for instance, dropped from winning 46 percent in 2008-11 to 35 percent the past two years. The bottom quintile dropped from 28 percent to 15 percent.

    Who’s winning more road games? The top four tiers have all risen about 10 percentage points from 2008-11 to 2014-15, but the most dramatic jump — from 73 percent to 83 percent — happened in the first quintile. What’s it mean?

    Powerhouses aren’t being ambushed on the road as much. Look at the Big Ten the past two years. Only two ranked teams lost as road favorites — Michigan State at Nebraska in 2015 and Wisconsin at Northwestern in ’14.

    In 2004-05, by contrast, 11 ranked teams in Big Ten lost as road favorites.

    It sounds like expansion has diluted the P5 except for the SEC (largely due to adding TAMU and MO rather than weaker programs like RU, CO, etc). That means the best teams beat the worst teams more often than they used to. I wonder if the increasing TV contracts will help level the playing field (OSU gets diminishing returns on each extra dollar spent compared to schools like PU or IN) or if it will just increase the gap between the top and the bottom as more money flows in.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Interesting data. One factor he didn’t mention is the corporatization of college football. You are getting more suites and more business spectators like the pros. And with prices going up, maybe you are getting on average people a little less likely to really ring the stadium.

      You also have more TV timeouts which kill momentum and fan enthusiasm.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Two years of data might not be sufficient data to conclude that there has been a meaningful shift.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That’s true, but he also noted the trend over the longer term and a part of his analysis looked at 2011-2015 versus the past. And the fact this effect is measurable in multiple conferences increases its significance as it increases the number of data points. Perhaps the effect will fade if/when realignment settles down for a while. My guess is that the addition of middle of the pack and lower teams will lead to this being a new normal with the top separating from the bottom just a little more than before.

        What would interest me is to compare this to the old days (60s and 70s) when top teams tended to dominate.

        So here are the numbers for B10 games (just the 10 members at the time) for 1960-1979:
        Home – 0.564 (409-314-16)

        If I extend that to 1960-1995 (the year before his data period starts), it’s 0.551 in 1395 games.

        By comparison:
        “Across the five major conferences, from 1996 through 2013, home teams won 56.5 percent of league games. There were a few ups and downs, but the rate was pretty steady.”

        That’s a pretty close fit, extending his comparison back quite a ways.

        “Now look at 2014 and 2015, the two most balanced seasons in the 20-year span. Power Five home teams won just 50.8 percent. Their total record: 267-259.”

        I understand it’s only 2 years, but it is also 526 games. That’s a pretty healthy sample size.

        “Nowhere have things shifted more than the Big Ten.

        Home teams dominated conference play from 1996-2011, winning 57.9 percent of games. The past four years, Big Ten home teams are 102-105 — 49.3 percent. It’s a stunning departure from tradition.”

        So now this comparison can extend back to 1960. Something was clearly different in the past 2 seasons, but that could be a fluke of personnel.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      I think the biggest factor is instant replay.

      Some book/study (by Wertheimer and a U of Chicago Booth prof) showed that essentially all of home field advantage is due to the refs being (unconsciously) swayed by the booing of the home crowd.

      Like

  56. Marc Shepherd says:

    The New York Times has a news analysis on Penn State’s decision to honor Joe Paterno at today’s game.

    The school newspaper wrote an editorial, arguing that ‘this is in no way the right time or manner to “commemorate” him, if he even deserves to be so.’ For this apostasy, the newspaper editor was greeted with “hundreds of emails and online reader comments — most of them negative.”

    Among them, she was called…

    She was called a “clueless treacherous traitor” and told to resign from the paper or transfer to another university. She was accused of hating her university and hating football, and knowing nothing about Penn State history. She was called an idiot — by a teaching assistant at a Catholic school, no less — and other words that I can’t use here.

    One man wrote, “I hope God can forgive you for your actions, I sure the hell can’t.”

    Personally, I believe Paterno should be honored at some point, although I am not sure the point is now. The fact that the university refused a reporter’s request for comment, is telling in itself. Whenever and however Paterno is eventually commemorated, those responsible should feel like they can explain and defend that decision to all comers. Clearly, right now they cannot do so.

    The merits of the decision are arguable. The vitriolic insults hurled at a student who took a reasonable position, are sickening.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I think the 50th anniversary of his first game is an appropriate time to honor him. The key is to honor him in an appropriate way. Mention all his wins and titles and even his donations to PSU, but don’t stress what a great person he was too much. That’s where PSU can quickly get into trouble. Put some quick video remembrances from former players on the jumbotron and let them say how great he was rather than the school saying it.

      Like

      • Mark says:

        PSU is a cult. Joe Pa was a scumbag who only cared about winning, and put winning ahead of the children of State College. They are idiots for honoring that.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Mark,

          “PSU is a cult.”

          Perhaps, but you could call many football powers that. I’m not sure how much worse they are than others in that regard.

          “Joe Pa was a scumbag who only cared about winning, and put winning ahead of the children of State College.”

          This is such a simplistic view. JoePa did many great things in his life. He was a good father and husband, he gave millions to PSU on top of not demanding a competitive salary from them and probably gave millions to other charities like his church. He emphasized education to his players and tried to develop them as men and not just as players. He wasn’t perfect, obviously, and winning mattered a lot to him as it should to any coach. But to say that is all he cared about is moronic.

          Did he put winning ahead of the children? That’s one possible interpretation of the reported events (the most cynical and negative interpretation, but a possible one) but I don’t think it fits with his demonstrated personality in the rest of his life. I think it’s more likely that TPTB at PSU did that than JoePa did. It seems more likely to me that JoePa was fooled by a sociopath and found reports of Sandusky’s behavior hard to credit with all the charity work he did and JoePa’s fundamental belief in the good in people.

          “They are idiots for honoring that.”

          If that was what they were honoring, they would be idiots.

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I think the 50th anniversary of his first game is an appropriate time to honor him.

        Then why refuse to comment when a reporter asks about it? There are going to be questions, whether they honor him today or 50 years from today. The sign that the time is right, is that you can stand up and explain yourself as to why.

        Personally, I do think the 50th anniversary makes sense. The fact that the university is having so much trouble talking about it, suggests that there is still a lot of conflict about exactly how to (or even whether to) memorialize him.

        The heaps of scorn piled on a student editorial is also a pretty good indication that the fan base has not come to terms with what happened.

        Joe Pa was a scumbag who only cared about winning, and put winning ahead of the children of State College.

        That is demonstrably untrue. For practically all of his career, Paterno had a much-deserved reputation for “winning the right way,” which makes the Sandusky scandal all the more puzzling. Exactly how much Paterno knew about Sandusky, and when he knew it, has never been determined, and perhaps will never be.

        Like

        • Mark says:

          The courts have shown Paterno knew about Sandusky in the 1970s. The act of putting winning above children shows he was a fraud, and “winning the right way” was just a sick marketing slogan. It’s amazing that people can’t see the clear truth on this issue.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The courts have shown Paterno knew about Sandusky in the 1970s.

            The courts have not “shown” that. One witness said so in a deposition, but that witness hasn’t testified in front of a jury or been cross-examined.

            Now, I’m not the see-no-evil apologist that so many Penn State fans are, but a single uncontested deposition is fairly weak. It remains an open question what exactly Paterno knew, and when.

            Paterno doesn’t get a free pass from me, but there’s not enough to say he ever made the equivalence you are accusing him of, i.e., who cares if little boys are getting raped, as long as we win our next game.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Exactly, Marc. Someone claiming something and it being proven in court are very different things.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            > The courts have shown Paterno knew
            > about Sandusky in the 1970s.

            Not only is this a pure fabrication, but the “facts” in the 1970’s claims are also contradicted by known evidence. In other words, the claims have already been shown to be false. The Paternos have won the right to cross examine the claimants, so I expect this to come out in court.

            > It’s amazing that people can’t see the
            > clear truth on this issue.

            You’re right about that.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “Then why refuse to comment when a reporter asks about it?”

          Because PSU has the worst PR department on the face of the Earth? I didn’t say PSU did this the right way, just that I think it’s an appropriate time.

          “The sign that the time is right, is that you can stand up and explain yourself as to why.”

          409 wins and 2 national titles. That’s why.

          “Personally, I do think the 50th anniversary makes sense.”

          Exactly.

          “The fact that the university is having so much trouble talking about it, suggests that there is still a lot of conflict about exactly how to (or even whether to) memorialize him.”

          I’m guessing there are lawyers to blame for this.

          “The heaps of scorn piled on a student editorial is also a pretty good indication that the fan base has not come to terms with what happened.”

          They never will. Eventually the fans that remember JoePa will die off, but no opinions are going to change.

          Like

        • Carl says:

          > The fact that the university is
          > having so much trouble talking
          > about it, suggests that there is
          > still a lot of conflict about exactly
          > how to (or even whether to)
          > memorialize him.

          That’s one (not incorrect) interpretation, and there’s much more to the story than the straightforward meaning of these words. The university was (and is) between a rock and a hard place. Last fall Sue Paterno announced a private celebration for yesterday’s anniversary.

          Paterno family to celebrate 50th anniversary of Joe Paterno’s start as Penn State’s head coach
          http://www.mcall.com/sports/college/psu/nittany-lines/mc-sue-paterno-letter-to-penn-state-football-lettermen-story.html

          This put the BoT in a tough spot. They know what’s in — and NOT in — the Freeh report, and there are important political and legal implications. Donations to the university, especially to the athletic department, are down. It’s Joe’s 50th anniversary. Sue and 500 Lettermen are having a private celebration across the street from the stadium. The Freeh report is known to be fraudulent. The facts will be coming out in the many court cases that are yet to be tried. And Penn State does … nothing?

          It’s a tough spot.

          Of course, there were hard negotiations behind the scenes, but here’s how they turned out for PSU:

          Sue Paterno releases statement about honoring Joe
          http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/sue-paterno-releases-statement-about-honoring-joe

          “Earlier this month the University announced plans to commemorate this occasion as well. While we are pleased they have acknowledged Joe’s contributions, we communicated to the administration that we would like the focus for this event to remain on the players. The University has confirmed that this is their plan, and we commend them for their approach.”

          What does it mean? — Sue didn’t accept the university’s compromise. She wants an apology, not some half-baked, half-hearted celebration. And she wants the full story told.

          What is the full story? Well, I won’t go into any details again here, but Anthony Lubrano is a Penn State BoT member, and you can read what he just said:

          https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/latest-in-paterno-v-ncaa.108531/page-170#post-2314706

          Here’s the important part:

          “Finally, our review of the Freeh Source Materials continues. … Although I cannot comment on our findings, I can say that I am EXTREMELY pleased with our efforts thus far.”

          Keep watching?

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Worst fans on earth?

        What are Penn State fans thinking? That's embarrassing and terrible. pic.twitter.com/bz6OXyro3l— Chris Abaray (@ChrisAbaray) September 17, 2016

        Like

        • Mark says:

          Proud cult members

          Like

        • Brian says:

          That is indefensible. I’ll assume they don’t represent the majority of the PSU fan base, though.

          Like

          • Reid says:

            Did it ever cross your mind for even a nanosecond that these might be Temple fans disguised as Penn State supporters??

            Fact
            Joe Paterno never covered up for Jerry Sandusky. From the State Prosecutors Office. Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the man who led the Sandusky investigation, told 60 Minutes Sports Armen Keteyian he found no evidence that Joe Paterno participated in a cover up of any sort.

            Joe Paterno put Mike McQueary in DIRECT touch with AD Tim Curley , Joe Paterno’s direct supervisor and Gary Schultz who had oversight of University Police Department. PSU Police Force is the real Police. The Penn State police force comprises 46 armed officers. According to state law, these have both the power and the duty “to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner.”

            Fact
            Joe Paterno never interfered with the justice system. Carmine W. Prestia Jr. I’ve lived and worked in State College for the past 41 years: 25 with the State College Police Department, one year of retirement, and 15 years as a magisterial district judge. Never once in my time as a police officer or judge has anyone in the football program asked me to cover up anything, withdraw a charge, or do something else unethical. I certainly saw a number of players get in trouble. Offenses ranged from simple summary offenses to felonies of the first degree.
            http://www.statecollege.com/news/co…gn-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system,988524/

            Fact
            The Grand Jury report incorrectly stated that Mike McQueary had witnessed a rape. Joe Paterno was never told a report of a child was being raped. Mike McQueary has testified that he never witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in the shower, and didn’t tell anyone that he did. Because of the lack of evidence, Jerry was not convicted of a rape with regard to this 2001 incident. Also no victim testified in this incident. There were THREE not guilty verdicts in the Sandusky case and one of them was Count 7 –the incendiary allegation of a rape (IDSI) — made by Mike McQueary regarding the 2001 incident.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno was praised by the Attorney General office for his correct handling of the Jerry Sandusky incident in 2001. Based on the Feb. 2, 2012 subpoena directed at PSU by the US DOJ, Paterno was not a target or even mentioned. Nor did any of the information requested pertain to Paterno.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno did not ask Mike McQueary to stay quiet on the 2001 incident. Mike said no one ever gave him instructions to not talk about it. Mike said Coach Paterno was great about the whole thing.

            Fact
            The Office for the Attorney General did not feel Joe Paterno’s reporting of Jerry Sandusky were cause to be fired. Paterno is accused of no wrongdoing, and in fact authorities have said he fulfilled his legal obligations by reporting to his superiors.

            Fact
            Child Welfare agencies approved Jerry Sandusky to adopt 5 children. These were agencies that were educated and trained to spot people who were harmful to children. Jerry Sandusky also fostered several more children approved by these agencies. The agencies continued to place the children in Jerry Sandusky’s care over the years, and continued to allow Jerry Sandusky access to children at the 2nd Mile charity for at-risk youths.

            Fact
            The 2nd Mile Charity and youth agencies provided Jerry Sandusky access to trouble youths. The 2nd Mile gave one on one access to mentors and youth through The Friend and Friend Fitness programs, which pair up adults with children in the hope of fostering positive role model-mentor relationships. The Friend Fitness Program is a mentorship program involving college and elementary students who join together and participate in healthy, educational activities. The Friend Fitness program was available only in Centre County for adolescents.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno didn’t agree with giving access to PSU facilities for 2nd Mile use in Jerry Sandusky retirement package due to insurance liability issues. Joe was overruled. In the Jerry Sandusky Penn State Retirement Package in 1998- Sandusky asked for access to training and workout facilities. Paterno put a check mark next to that request to deny that request. In a sidebar, Paterno asked if this was for Sandusky’s personal use, or for Second Mile kids, and indicated that due to liability problems, facility access should not be extended to Second Mile kids. Paterno was overruled and Jerry Sandusky was granted access to bring Second Mile kids to workout facilities for the 2nd Mile Friends Fitness program.

            Fact
            Jerry Sandusky was retired from Penn State in 1999. He did not coach at Penn State after 1999 and wasn’t coaching during the 2001 incident. For his retirement package he received Emeritus Status

            Fact
            Due to Jerry Sandusky Emeritus Status, Joe Paterno and Penn State could not remove Jerry Sandusky’s access to Penn State Facilities because he had not been convicted of a crime. Emeritus Status (entitles bearer to a lifetime office and lifetime access to campus) The Freeh report (page 81) states that University counsel (Cynthia Baldwin) said that the University could not legally revoke Sandusky’s access to the athletic facilities because of his Emeritus status, and because he had not been convicted of a crime. Page 106 reiterates this. Page 107 adds that Baldwin said “his access could not be eliminated without the University being sued.”

            Fact
            In the Jerry Sandusky trial, no victims testified against Jerry Sandusky that they were abused on Penn State’s campus in 2001. Also zero victims testified in the trial that they were abused on PSU campus after 2001.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno had no knowledge of 1998 Jerry Sandusky incident being a crime. What was eventually known is that Jerry Sandusky was exonerated. The 1998 incident was reported to police and thoroughly investigated by all agencies. The police went as far to set up a sting operation by recording conversations Sandusky had with the boy’s mother. The incident was investigated to the fullest extent and the District Attorney concluded no crimes were committed. DPW didn’t even think there was enough cause to “indicate” Jerry Sandusky (a much lower standard is needed for this vs. bringing criminal charges btw) nor did they remove his 1 on 1 access to kids after the 1998 claims.In accordance with 055 Pa. Code § 3490.91. regarding the confidentiality of child abuse reports, the information regarding the nature of the 1998 child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky was not provided to Timothy Curley, Dr. Graham Spanier, or Joe Paterno.

            Fact
            There are no facts that point to Paterno knowing anything in 1970’s. Joe Paterno had been questioned in his Grand jury testimony if he had any prior to 2001 knowledge of Jerry Sandusky inappropriate sexual conduct.
            Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?
            Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.

            Even the 1976 accuser’s own lawyer Michael Boni said “The headlines of these stories is Paterno knew of Sandusky’s molestation in the ’70s, ’76 or ’77. I’m unaware of direct, irrefutable evidence that that’s the case. Believe me, I’m the last person to defend the guy, but I am the first person to believe in our justice system. And I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence.”

            There are 2 claims of abuse in the 1970’s but neither falls into the way Jerry Sandusky was to have victimized the boys
            Sandusky victimizing acts according to testimony from his reported victims:
            1. Never victimized a female.
            2. Never victimized a minor male in the presence of a minor female.
            3. Never overtly victimized a minor male in the presence of other minor males.
            4. Never overtly victimized a minor male in the (known) presence of other adults.
            5. Never victimized a stranger.
            6. Never used violence to force himself on a minor male.
            7. Never provided victims with drugs or alcohol in the commission of his crimes.
            Yet the 70’s claims and previously publicized claims include one or more of these as allegations by claimants who received settlements from Penn State. According to Sandusky’s criminal profile, he was an acquaintance offender who slowly groomed his victims to comply with various levels of sexual abuse. Not all victims would comply to the same levels, therefore there is varying testimony about the actual crimes. However, what was consistent among Sandusky’s victims was the manner in which he operated or his modus operandi. He met his victims through The Second Mile, took about one year to assess them and choose his targets, then began the grooming and victimizing of them.

            Fact
            PSU Board of Trustees did not check the veracity of any civil claim of abuse. They paid claims in the amount of $90 million. Each settlement that PSU paid contained a clause that prevented the claimant to pursue additional monetary compensation from The Second Mile and/or former board members of The Second Mile.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno did not say he should have done more. What he did say was qualified: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more” Hindsight: wisdom or knowledge gained only after something (usually bad) has happened as was the case in 2011 after Joe Paterno found out the seriousness of the charges against Jerry Sandusky.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno never committed a major recruiting violation. For someone who people claim he covered up for Jerry Sandusky in order to win football games one would think that sort of person would then treat rules like recruiting rules with little care. Yet as of 2016, there are only four athletic programs from major conferences on the list of non-cheating schools. They are Penn State, Boston College, Northwestern, and Stanford.

            Fact
            Joe Paterno’s FBI file included zero mentions of Jerry Sandusky or any mention of Joe Paterno being aware of Jerry Sandusky being a child sexual predator. The file’s accessible 868 pages don’t mention Jerry Sandusky or the former Penn State assistant coach’s child sexual abuse scandal.
            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/29/joe-paterno-fbi-file-makes-no-mention-jerry-sandus/

            Fact
            Media fell for false narrative in Atlanta Olympic bomber case when Louis Freeh pinned the crime falsely on Richard Jewell. In its rush to show the world how quickly it could get is man, the FBI trampled on my rights as a citizen. In its rush for the headline that the hero was the bomber, the media cared nothing for my feelings as a human being. In their mad rush to fulfill their own personal agendas, the FBI and the media almost destroyed me and my mother. You, the media, were looking too. Your cameras trained on my mother and me, your cameras and the FBI followed my every move. I felt like a hunted animal, followed constantly, waiting to be killed. The media said I fit the profile of a lone bomber. That was a lie. The media said I was a former law enforcement officer, a frustrated police wannabe. That was a lie. I was then and am now a law enforcement officer. The fact that I was between jobs and took a position as a security guard at the Olympics did not change that fact. The media said I was an overzealous officer. That was a lie. Three days into the process, the press went into a kind of media frenzy, and at that particular point, the press was not doing Mr. Jewell, the facts, the case, anybody any great service.
            http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/jewell.html
            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports-july-dec96-jewell_10-28/

            Fact
            Media fell for false narrative in Duke Lacrosse case that the Duke Lacrosse was covering up for rape. “The media quickly latched onto a narrative too seductive to check: rich, wild, white jocks had brutalized a working class, black mother of two,” reads the American Journalism Review’s analysis.

            Fact
            Media fell for false narrative in Virginia Fraternity rape case. Media Bias: Nearly 40 years ago, Bob Dylan, singing about what he felt was a miscarriage of justice, said, “The newspapers, they all went along for the ride.” Today the ride goes on, with broadcasters having jumped aboard. This time, the ride was on the back of a University of Virginia fraternity, smeared by a Rolling Stone article accusing members of the group of the gang rape of a female freshman named “Jackie.” “The major broadcast networks,” reports the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group, “rushed to the story and devoted multiple segments to both the article and reaction on the school’s campus.” On Nov. 23 and 24, the Big Three networks devoted “11 minutes and 14 seconds” of coverage to the gang rape story. They, of course, were happy to, because it supported the narrative that a brutal “rape culture” exists on American campuses. The narrative has been discredited, but the media played a prominent role in its development and will not easily let it go.
            http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/rolling-stone-rape-story-example-of-media-bias/

            Like

          • Reid says:

            Did it ever cross your minds that these “Penn State fans” might be Temple supporters disguised as PSU fans in order to embarrass Penn State? After all, these same “Penn State fans” were reportedly cheering when Temple scored during the game…

            Like

  57. loki_the_bubba says:

    I was at the game last night and I must say Bravo MOB. Now the messages this morning from my Baylor friends sound like JoPa apologists.

    http://deadspin.com/rice-mob-performs-baylor-scandal-themed-halftime-show-1786745425

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Hopkins Horn
      14h14 hours ago
      Hopkins Horn ‏@HopkinsHorn17
      @RedDirtSport @TheFrogCastTCU @DebiJenkins Coaches & administrators enabling rape culture? Yawn. Nerd halftime band performance? OUTRAGE!

      Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/family/broken-bones-and-bruises-rise-as-youth-soccer-gets-aggressive.html

    Youth soccer is getting more physical which has caused a vast increase in injuries including concussions.

    Youth soccer participation has surged in the past 25 years, and so has the risk of getting hurt while playing it. A new study of children’s soccer injuries released Monday in the journal Pediatrics found soaring rates of concussions, broken bones, lacerations, torn tendons and ankle sprains since 1990.

    Part of the rise can be explained by increased awareness of concussion risks and higher reporting of head injuries, a trend that is common in most youth sports. But the data show that injuries like fractures, lacerations and sprains are also on the rise. That suggests that as more kids play soccer year round and the game gets more competitive, a child’s risk for injury has also increased.

    “They’re just playing a lot more than they ever did before and in some cases more intensely than they ever did before,” said Tracy Mehan, manager of translational research in the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, where the study was conducted. “All those things will contribute to the increase in injuries.”

    For every 10,000 children who played soccer in 2014, 223 of them sustained an injury serious enough to be treated in a hospital emergency room. That represents a 74 percent increase from 2004, when the injury rate was 128.5 injuries per 10,000 kids. Clearly, some of that rise results from more parents taking children to hospitals to be checked for concussions. But when the researchers removed head injuries from the data, they found that injuries still increased by 60 percent, to 191 per 10,000 kids in 2014, up from 119 in 2004.

    If soccer gets more dangerous, football will benefit.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      The biggest risk for concussions is people banging heads going for a header. But they can also get a concussion just from heading it. They are eliminating headers in some youth soccer. They’ve found some retired soccer players with CTE.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Apparently elbows to the head are also a semi-frequent cause, but they also disappear if headers do. More scary are the head to goal post incidents for goalies.

        Like

  59. frug says:

    Iowa joins 2013 Oregon St., 2010 V-Tech, 2007 Michigan, and 1983 Penn St. on the list of ranked teams to ever lose to an FCS/I-AA team.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      On a day where Appalachian State effectively hit the big time by hosting Miami, N.D. State became the new Appalachian. But I doubt that in 2025, any P5 team will be paying a visit to Fargo.

      Like

  60. ccrider55 says:

    Seems to be a buffalo/bison kinda day.

    Like

  61. Brian says:

    It’s never too early to look at the CFP contender pool. For now I’ll define it as all undefeated teams plus 1-loss P5 teams or independents. 2-loss P5 teams could come back into it later in the season.

    59 current contenders

    ACC (10):
    0 losses – UL, WF, Clemson, GT, Miami
    1 loss – FSU, NCSU, VT, UNC, Pitt

    B10 (12):
    0 losses – OSU, MI, MSU, IN, UMD, WI, NE, MN
    1 loss – PSU, RU, IA, PU

    B12 (7):
    0 losses – Baylor, WV
    1 loss – UT, TT, TCU, OkSU, KSU

    P12 (10):
    0 losses – UW, Stanford, ASU, Utah
    1 loss – Cal, OR, OrSU, AZ, CO, UCLA

    SEC (8):
    0 losses – UF, UGA, TN, AL, TAMU, AR
    1 loss – SC, LSU

    Other (12):
    0 losses – USF, UH, Navy, Memphis, Army, CMU, WMU, Toledo, AF, Boise, SDSU, GA Southern

    Like

  62. Brian says:

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

    Coaches Poll:
    1. AL – 59
    2. OSU – 3
    3. Clemson – 1
    4. UL
    5. MI
    6. Stanford
    7. UH
    8. MSU
    9. UW
    10. WI

    Others of note:
    20. NE
    21. Ole Miss at 1-2
    25. IA
    26. OU at 1-2

    OU loses to #2 and #7 and is out of the poll while MS loses to #1 and #14 (who got blown out by #4) and stays in. Granted MS had big leads in both games while OU trailed most of both games, but it seems awfully early to me to have a 2-loss team in the top 25.

    By conference:
    SEC – 8 = 57%
    B10 – 6 = 43%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    ACC – 4 = 26%
    P12 – 3 = 25%
    Other – 1 (UH)

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

      AP Poll:
      1. AL – 50
      2. OSU – 4
      3. UL – 6
      4. MI – 1
      5. Clemson
      6. UH
      7. Stanford
      8. MSU
      9. UW
      10. TAMU

      Others of note:
      11. WI
      20. NE
      23. Ole Miss at 1-2
      25. OU at 1-2

      By conference:
      SEC – 8 = 57%
      B10 – 5 = 36%
      B12 – 3 = 30%
      ACC – 4 = 26%
      P12 – 3 = 25%
      Other – 2 (UH, SDSU)

      Like

  63. ccrider55 says:

    Allan:

    What’s with those uniforms? That didn’t look right…at all.

    Like

  64. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/five-ways-to-ensure-football-players-stop-dropping-the-ball-at-the-goal-line/

    Players dropping the ball before crossing the goal line is becoming an epidemic. Here are 5 suggestions for how to fix it.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      How about touching the ball down in the end zone…?
      Exceptions being 1) being tackled preventing the touch down and 2) when catching a pass in the end zone as going OB.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Beyond bench time, the coaches out to publically suspend them for a game or two. Show video of them doing stadium steps to the whole team.

      Or maybe kick them off the team. I’d be tempted. The guy has to be pretty arrogant and stupid. That will hurt you sometime again.

      The Pac 12’s stretch on “no immediate recovery” rewards the behavior. The ball immediately was rolling around in the end zone from the ball carrier’s momentum. I don’t know how that wasn’t a touchback except that they created the result they wanted with their “judgement call.”

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Beyond bench time, the coaches out to publicly suspend them for a game or two…Or maybe kick them off the team. I’d be tempted.

        I haven’t seen anyone suspended or kicked off the team for dumb plays, such as illegal celebration.

        Under current rules (which I disagree with), if a runner headed for the endzone starts to celebrate too soon, it’s a foul at the point of the infraction, and the score is wiped out — and this has happened. No suspension.

        Like any other dumb mistake, it’s a teaching moment.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        it was B12 officials who blew whistle and signaled touchdown. Review showed multiple players (both teams) run past the ball, and one politely pick it up and give to the ref. If I was recovering a ball I’d either down it for a touchback, or head upfield. He didn’t down it (therefore no touchback) nor head upfield.

        B12 refs didn’t even review the Mayfield drop. There are enough mistakes by every set of refs (MAC/B12 last week) to not suggest any particular conference’s refs are…what…more incompetent than the others.

        Perhaps creating a “by rule” intentionally dropping the ball, before goal line is celebration/unsportsmanlike ?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Didn’t realize stupidity was quite so common in college football. 6 or 7 times in the Big 12 in the last 4 or 5 years.

          http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/bohls-could-byu-houston-both-get-left-out-of-big-1/nsb6h/

          “5. What is it with all these college players dropping the ball before they cross the goal line? Big 12 officiating supervisor Walt Anderson said it’s happened in the Big 12 “six or seven times that I’m aware of over the last four or five years.” He said he might recommend a rule change. “I have always had an issue with rewarding a team or a player for doing something stupid,” he said. Perhaps in the future, the defense could be awarded the ball at the 20 as a touchback if neither team recovers the fumble. … The Big 12 refs signaled a touchdown on Vic Enwere’s 55-yard run even though he dropped the ball early to celebrate. But the Pac-12 refs in the replay booth blew it by not giving Texas the ball at the 20 since Longhorns safety Dylan Haines eventually picked up the ball. As for the Pac-12’s statement that Haines didn’t make an “immediate recovery,” Anderson said, “It’s a very subjective thing. There’s no magic time. It’s all a matter of feel.” Anderson said he planned to send out in his weekly bulletin to refs and coaches a message to “let things continue and now blow the whistle. Just leave the ball there and see what happens.””

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “And see what happens” is a thought out plan? Would not having blown the whistle have caused a touch back for UT last week? What if a ball boy picks it up? Is a ref who just “saw” and ruled what he thinks is a touchdown likely to swallow his whistle and not begin preparing for the PAT (and regulating the post TD celebration)?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            …Would having not blown…

            Like

          • bullet says:

            A UT player picked it up within 3 seconds.

            If there is a fumble and nobody sees it they don’t blow it dead immediately. That does occasionally happen.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            I agree, but the judgment of whether it was “recovered” still is in play (player neither downed it or headed up field). Perhaps simple solution is to define a dead ball in the end zone same as if it was dropped, crossed the goal line, and then rolled OB. That’s a touchback by definition.

            I still think an unsportsmanlike or celebration penalty should apply. However an unsportsmanlike prior to crossing the goal line would be a yardage penalty with idiot’s team retaining possession. More I think about it I like defining dead ball in offensive end zone is a touchback.

            What happens if it’s an offensive player that picks up and returns it to the ref, or the ball boy, 15-20 seconds later?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I still think an unsportsmanlike or celebration penalty should apply.

            In all cases I’ve seen, they haven’t “celebrated” or done anything “unsportsmanlike”. They have simply dropped the ball in a perfectly acceptable way—half-a-yard early. The “penalty” of losing what would have been a sure touchdown is enough of a sanction for that.

            It’s like a baseball player having a home run taken away, because he inadvertently missed touching all four bases—not common, but it does happen. Even where the defense can’t stop you, you still need to fulfill all the requirements to score, or you don’t get credit.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “They have simply dropped the ball in a perfectly acceptable way…”

            That depends on a definition of acceptable that begins with dropping the ball at all is ok. Why are they dropping it? Is it that heavy? Are they coached to get rid of it as quickly as possible?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            That depends on a definition of acceptable that begins with dropping the ball at all is ok. Why are they dropping it? Is it that heavy? Are they coached to get rid of it as quickly as possible?

            No one has ever suggested that dropping the ball after you have scored is unacceptable or unsportsmanlike—even though players have done it, for years and years, without comment.

            You have probably seen this many times yourself, and found it entirely unremarkable.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes, I’ve seen one where it was dropped when curving across the field as reaching the goal line heading back to his sideline. All the others were in a hurry to stand, pose, and/or celebrate in the end one. It’s the mic drop for a FB game.

            Articles after many occurrences have mentioned/questioned the hurry to celebrate as a reason for dropping quick. I’m just saying it seems the drop may be or is a part of the celebration/posing. It could be defined (as I mentioned above) as such by rule.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            It seems likely that its the current interpretation, that dropping the football is not “excessively celebrating” in the way that spiking and other tosses of the football are, that leads to the decision to incorporate a “mike drop” into a hopefully “non-excessive” celebration routine.

            If that’s the case, I’d prefer that the old fashioned rugby style grounding in the end zone be the release of the football that is considered to be not excessively celebratory.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Articles after many occurrences have mentioned/questioned the hurry to celebrate as a reason for dropping quick. I’m just saying it seems the drop may be or is a part of the celebration/posing. It could be defined (as I mentioned above) as such by rule.

            The player already incurs the “penalty” of taking a sure touchdown off the board, which seems to be more than enough.

            Slate has an article that identifies about 30 times that this has happened, including the NFL.

            I don’t quite understand your push for new rules. The rule we’ve got says it all: to credit a score, you have to cross the goal line with the ball in your hand.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            There is a big judgment being asked of officials that could dramatically effect a game. Reducing the amount of judgment needed to be applied is usually a good thing.

            My preference would be redefining a dead ball in offensive end zone is a touchback (like when it rolls out of bounds). In The UT/Cal game no judgment needed as to whether it was recovered or not. If recovered it’s UT’s at the 20. If not it’s still UT’s at the 20.

            Like

  65. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/09/19/baylor-shawn-oakman-locker-room-rice/90702502/

    Baylor allowed one of their former players accused of sexual assault into the locker room this weekend. Will they never learn?

    Like

  66. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17595894/acc-turn-contractor-atlantic-division-ends-3-way-tie

    The ACC will be using analytics as their tiebreaker if they face a 3-way tie for a division champ like the B12 did in 2008 (all 11-1 and 1-1 in the round robin).

    The Atlantic Coast Conference will turn to a ranking from a privately contracted company to determine which team will play for the league title if No. 3 Louisville, No. 5 Clemson and No. 13 Florida State finish in a three-way tie atop the Atlantic Division.

    The ACC has partnered with SportSource Analytics, the same company that provides statistics to the College Football Playoff selection committee members.

    This particular ranking, though — a team rating score metric — is not given to the CFP committee members, and it’s not free to the public like the former BCS standings, which was also used to break three-way ties. The highest-ranked team in the team rating score metric would win the Atlantic Division, and SportSource Analytics would permit the ACC to release the ranking of the teams in the conference in the event it is required to break a tie.

    This would be the ACC’s seventh tiebreaker, and for it to even come to fruition in its only likely form, Clemson has to beat Louisville on Oct. 1, and Florida State has to beat Clemson at home on Oct. 29 — and all three teams couldn’t lose again.

    The ACC decided to use SportSource Analytics as its No. 7 tiebreaker this summer because the CFP ranking it would need isn’t released until Nov. 29 and the ACC title game is Dec. 3.

    SportSource Analytics explained the team rating score as “a metric that evaluates all facets of on-field team performance that are highly correlated to team success and combines them into a single comparable value.” It combines statistics from offense, defense and special teams and uses “individual statistics that are a mix of raw, tempo-agnostic, opponent-adjusted and efficiency metrics.” Conference and nonconference winning percentages, as well as strength of schedule, also factor into the statistic.

    I think this sort of thing is a smart move. The final CFP rankings don’t come out until the Tuesday night of CCG week. It’s not fair to the other division champ to only have 3 days to prepare for their opponent while all 3 teams can prepare for them starting Sunday.

    The B10 should implement a similar change to their tiebreakers. I don’t know if this metric is the best one to use, but you should use something that is available ASAP.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Heaven forbid if the analytics chooses the least attractive team in ESPN’s eyes (e.g., Wake Forest).

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The chances of that happening are pretty remote: it’s the #7 tie-breaker. But if it ever came down to that, the optics of it could be terrible: deciding the division championship based on an obscure and previously unheralded number that almost no one understands.

      Not that I’m an opponent of advanced stats; it’s quite the opposite. But the fan in the stands won’t get it. “We contracted with a private firm you never heard of, whose computers spitted out a number, using a proprietary formula that is not available for anyone else to double-check.”

      I would use more naive statistics, comparable to the NFL tie-breakers: simpler metrics that anyone can calculate. Their 12th tie-breaker, a coin toss, has never been used, and the NFL has been doing this a lot longer than college football.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “The chances of that happening are pretty remote: it’s the #7 tie-breaker.”

        It’s not as remote as make it sound. It happened to the B12 in 2008 (OU, UT and TT went 7-1 and 1-1 versus each other). Most of the tiebreakers don’t apply to that scenario but rather to multiple losses (3 6-2 or 5-3 teams, etc)

        http://www.theacc.com/page/ACC-Football-Championship-Tiebreakers

        If more than one team in the same division is tied for the best winning percentage in its Conference games then, in order to determine the divisional champion, the procedures listed below will be followed.

        A. Two-Team Tie

        Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams.
        Winning percentage of the tied teams within the division.
        Head-to-head competition versus the team within the division with the best overall winning-percentage (divisional and non-divisional), and proceeding though the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last using the league’s tie-breaking procedures.
        Overall winning percentage versus all common non-divisional opponents.
        Combined winning percentage versus all non-divisional opponents.
        Winning percentage versus common non-divisional opponents based upon their order of finish (overall conference winning percentage) and proceeding through other common non-divisional opponents based upon their order of finish within the division.
        The tied team with the higher ranking in the full Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games. If both tied teams are not ranked in the full Bowl Championship Series Standings, the computer ranking portion of the Standings will be used, eliminating the high and the low computer ranking, and averaging the remaining rankings.
        The representative shall be chosen by a draw as administered by the Commissioner or Commissioner’s designee.

        B. Three (or More) Team Tie

        (Three team (or more) tiebreaker procedure will be used to break all ties to identify the Championship game representative. Once a team is eliminated from the tie, the tie-breaking procedures restart for the remaining teams. If the three (or more) team tie can only be reduced to two teams, the two-team tiebreaking procedure will then be applied).

        Combined head-to-head winning percentage among the tied teams.
        Winning percentage of the tied teams within the division.
        Head-to-head competition versus the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference winning percentage, and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken first to last, using the league’s tie-breaking procedures.
        Combined winning percentage versus all common non-divisional opponents.
        Combined winning percentage versus all non-divisional opponents.
        Winning percentage versus common non-divisional opponents based upon their order of finish (overall conference winning percentage) and proceeding through other common non-divisional opponents based upon their divisional order of finish.
        The tied team with the highest ranking in the full Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the two-team tiebreaking procedure shall be applied between the top two ranked tied teams. If all tied teams are not ranked in the full Bowl Championship Series Standings, the computer ranking portion of the Standings will be used, eliminating the high and the low computer ranking, and averaging the remaining rankings.
        The representative shall be chosen by a draw as administered by the Commissioner or Commissioner’s designee.

        They’re essentially the same as the B10’s except the ACC’s plan allows for the circumstance of 2 division teams not playing each other (cancelled due to weather perhaps, or in the future not playing a full round robin). The ACC also uses total non-division W% before going to the rankings and goes through common crossovers in order.

        So what does it come down to:
        0. Conference W% – there’s no tie to break otherwise
        1. Head-to-head records – did anyone sweep the round robin?
        2. Division W% – crossover losses are better
        3. H2H vs #4, then vs #5, … – the team with the best divisional loss is out
        4. Common crossover W% – same effect as total common conference W% (what B10 uses)
        5. Total crossover W% – same as total conference W%
        6. Common crossover W% in order of finish – best crossover loss is out
        7. CFP ranking -> analytic ranking (unless the top 2 are close then H2H determines)
        8. Random draw

        Say 3 teams ends up 7-1. If they all went 1-1 in the round robin, then #1 is out. Being 7-1 also eliminates #2-4 and #6. If all 3 had the same OOC record then #5 is out. That means 3 teams going 11-1 and 1-1 in the round robin takes you to #7, and it happened just 8 years ago in the B12.

        Some notes on the rules:
        * I always think rule #3 is written incorrectly. Shouldn’t you try to eliminate the teams with the worst loss (to #7, then to #6, ..) rather than the best loss? The same is true of rule #6 but the B10 doesn’t have that rule. Or is that what they mean but they wrote it poorly?

        * I don’t see how #5 can be applied. We know the total conference W% is the same or we wouldn’t be using the tiebreakers. We know the divisional W% is the same or we wouldn’t get past #2. Math says that the total crossover W% thus has to be the same.

        * It seems like #6 should come before #5 just for continuity. 1-3 look at division games. 4 looks at common crossover games but 5 includes all crossover games before 6 returns to the common crossovers.

        * Thanks to using analytics, #8 should never be needed. The odds of 3 teams being the exact same in analytic rankings are essentially nil.

        “But if it ever came down to that, the optics of it could be terrible: deciding the division championship based on an obscure and previously unheralded number that almost no one understands.”

        What better choice exists? Using the BCS computers (or something similar) because they’re out there? Using the AP poll (enter the cries of bias and brand favoritism)?

        “Not that I’m an opponent of advanced stats; it’s quite the opposite. But the fan in the stands won’t get it. “We contracted with a private firm you never heard of, whose computers spitted out a number, using a proprietary formula that is not available for anyone else to double-check.””

        The number is available others, it’s just not free.

        “I would use more naive statistics, comparable to the NFL tie-breakers: simpler metrics that anyone can calculate. Their 12th tie-breaker, a coin toss, has never been used, and the NFL has been doing this a lot longer than college football.”

        http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

        1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs).
        2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
        3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
        4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
        5. Strength of victory.
        6. Strength of schedule.
        7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
        8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
        9. Best net points in common games.
        10. Best net points in all games.
        11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
        12. Coin toss

        Remember 1 important difference – the NFL uses total W% rather than conference W% to generate standings.

        1 – same
        2 – same
        3 – same as #4
        4 – N/A
        5 – the combined W% of teams you beat (much more reasonable in NFL than CFB since records don’t correlate as well to actual team strength)
        6 – the combined W% of all the teams you played (see note above)
        7 – would favor running up the score so CFB won’t use it
        8 – see above
        9 – point differential is something the CFP committee uses but it still favors running up the score
        10 – varied OOC SOS make it less valid in CFB
        11 – same complaint as before
        12 – same as #8

        I’d say the analytic ranking is on par with #5-11 for the NFL but makes more sense for CFB where the quality of teams is much more disparate than in the NFL. On the other hand, these are tiebreakers and almost anything is a valid way to break the tie.

        My preference:
        0. Division W% should be how standings are determined in the first place. Nobody should feel punished by the crossover games scheduled.
        1. Total common W%
        2. Head-to-head
        3. Eliminate those with the worst loss among division opponents.
        4. Eliminate those with the worst loss among common crossover opponents
        5. Eliminate those with the worst loss among common OOC opponents (use BCS computers to rank OOC teams).
        6. Select the team with the highest ranked OOC opponent (use BCS computers)
        7. Eliminate those with the lowest ranked OOC opponent (use BCS computers)
        8. Total conference W%
        9. Eliminate those with the worst loss among crossover opponents

        The goal is to use all common opponents first. Next I reward the ambition to schedule good OOC games. That should be the end of it, but there’s some tiny chance that teams are tied in the computers so it continues. Next I punish playing terrible teams. Only then do I start to consider the crossover games that aren’t common opponents because teams had no say in which teams they played.

        Like

  67. vp19 says:

    Kirk Bohls of the Austin American-Statesman says Cincinnati and (surprise!) South Florida have the inside track on Big 12 expansion. Neither batch of Cougars (Brigham Young or Houston) can overcome opposition: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/bohls-could-byu-houston-both-get-left-out-of-big-1/nsb6h/

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Kirk Bohls of the Austin American-Statesman says Cincinnati and (surprise!) South Florida have the inside track on Big 12 expansion.

      That isn’t exactly what he says. He definitely thinks BYU is out, which is no surprise. But of Houston, all he can say is: “…who really knows if Houston is a viable candidate. I’ve heard nothing to dissuade me from thinking many in the Big 12 still oppose (i.e. are afraid of) Houston’s inclusion.”

      And: “I think there’s just as much chance that the Big 12 invites Cincinnati and maybe South Florida to put the league in new TV (and recruiting) markets.”

      The word “maybe” isn’t an inside track, especially as he cites no source—not even an anonymous one. It’s just what he “thinks”.

      Like

  68. Brian says:

    BTN has #10/11 WI @ #8 MSU at noon this week.

    Other B10 games this week:

    ESPN2 – IA @ RU, 12pm
    ESPNU – CSU @ MN, 12pm
    ESPNN – NV @ PU, 12pm

    ABC – PSU @ MI, 3:30pm
    BTN – WF @ IN, 3:30pm

    BTN – NE @ NW, 7:30pm

    At noon, ESPN has UGA @ MS.

    1. Is this the best match-up BTN has ever had?

    I believe so. The best I could find before was #13 NW vs #18 MI in 2015. Anybody remember a better one?

    2. Should the B10 put games like this on BTN?

    Normally I’d say no but I don’t think they had much choice. ABC presumably picked PSU/MI before the season and ESPN has an SEC game. I think BTN gets to pick before the other ESPN channels, at least sometimes. It’s hard to imagine ESPN passing on a top 15 match-up for the games they did select unless the contracts required it.

    3. Is 12pm the right window for this game?

    No, unless they had no choice. They know that there are 3 other noon games. Why not swap with the 3:30 game if you can’t swap with the 7:30 game? Did contractual obligations prevent it?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://btn.com/2016/09/21/btn-gears-up-for-start-of-b1g-conference-play-after-record-weekend/

      Asked and answered.

      The Spartans and Badgers, ranked No. 8 and No. 11 in the AP Poll and No. 8 and No. 10 in the Amway Coaches Poll, present the first top-15 conference matchup in BTN history.

      Saturday also marks the debut of BTN Tailgate (their version of Gameday) at 10:30 am ET.

      BTN also set records last week.

      BTN wrapped up week three of its non-conference football broadcasts on Sept. 17 with the highest rated games across all cable networks in both the noon and 3:30 p.m. ET windows in the network’s 12 metered markets*. Colorado at Michigan led the way with a 2.3 HH rating in the 3:30 p.m. ET window, while Temple at Penn State and Georgia State at Wisconsin delivered a 1.1 HH rating at noon ET. Beyond the linear network performance, Colorado at Michigan also became the most-watched game in BTN2Go history with 207,000 video views.

      *Metered Markets: Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      ABC presumably picked PSU/MI before the season and ESPN has an SEC game.

      As of a week ago, the networks for PSU/MI and MSU/WI had not been announced. I believe Disney could’ve had either one. They chose PSU/MI, because both schools draw extremely well on TV, especially with MI rated #4/5.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “As of a week ago, the networks for PSU/MI and MSU/WI had not been announced.”

        Okay.

        “I believe Disney could’ve had either one. They chose PSU/MI, because both schools draw extremely well on TV, especially with MI rated #4/5.”

        That would have to be their logic, yes. But one would expect a battle of top 10/11 teams to draw a lot of neutral fans. This brand bias understandably aggravates fans of non-kings.

        I guess we can chalk this up as proof that brand trumps rankings for ratings, or at least that the networks believe that. The only other reason would be if obligations to show each team a certain amount forced ABC to pick up a PSU game so they chose this one, but that seems unlikely.

        Like

  69. Brian says:

    http://btn.com/2016/09/19/btn-announces-2016-17-mens-big-ten-conference-basketball-television-schedule/

    BTN has announced their MBB conference game schedule for this season.

    BTN’s 2016-17 men’s basketball schedule will feature more than 75 conference matchups. The slate includes five Big Ten Tournament games and 10 consecutive weeks of “Super Wednesday” doubleheaders,

    Throughout conference play, BTN will be home to 35 games involving Big Ten teams that finished in the top 25 of the USA Today sports men’s basketball coaches poll, including Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Purdue and Wisconsin. Conference play begins on Dec. 28 with an opening night doubleheader, as Nebraska travels to Bloomington to take on the Indiana Hoosiers and Iowa visits the Purdue Boilermakers in West Lafayette.

    January 28 will be “Super Saturday” on BTN, with a hockey-basketball doubleheader featuring Wisconsin, Rutgers and Ohio State at Madison Square Garden. The Wisconsin and Rutgers men’s basketball programs will face each other at noon ET, while the Wisconsin and Ohio State men’s hockey teams will take to the ice at 7 p.m. ET.

    Additionally, the network’s season-long coverage will include Tuesday and Thursday games presented by Quicken Loans and frequent doubleheaders on Saturdays and Sundays.

    BTN will also televise plenty of non-conference action, including the defending national champion Villanova Wildcats at Purdue on Nov. 14 as part of the Gavitt Tipoff Games. On Dec. 3, Oklahoma, fresh off a Final Four appearance, travels to Madison to take on the Badgers, while the Oklahoma State Cowboys visit College Park to take on the Maryland Terrapins. In-state rivalry games will feature Creighton and Nebraska on Dec. 7 and Butler and Indiana in the Crossroads Classic in Indianapolis on Dec. 17.

    Like

  70. Jersey Bernie says:

    According to Mark Holtzman, exec director of non-baseball revenue for the Yankees, the Yankees will have one major institutional partnership and that is Rutgers.

    There are 248,000 RU alums in the NYC Metro area and 43,000 in Manhattan alone.

    RU will play a “home game” against UMd in Yankee Stadium (over the objection of most season ticket holder). It will be a double header with a RU v. UMd wrestling match.

    “At the Yankee home games we run a spot on the board with (football) Coach (Chris) Ash up there,” Holtzman said, about an hour before the Big Ten Battle in the Bronx video was unveiled on the Yankee Stadium scoreboard following the fifth inning of the Yankees-Dodgers game. “We also do some stuff with the Yes Network. We have a lot of resources. I was with the NFL before this, and I thought teams like the Cowboys had resources, but there is no brand with the resources and the pull that the Yankees have.

    “So basically we’re co-branding with Rutgers and to, really, over the next four years market ourselves together.”

    http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2016/09/how_a_rutgers-yankees_partnership_led_to_big_ten_b.html#incart_river_index

    Like

  71. Brian says:

    http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2016/09/why_isnt_arizona_state_a_good.html

    A look at some sleeping giants in CFB. RU and UMD made the list but IL did not.

    Like

  72. Mike says:

    Is it just me or does everyone have new icons?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The system seems a little screwy. I see different icons under “Recent Comments” than I do by the actual comments. A few people have new icons but not most of them. You do get a new icon if you change email addresses, so I just assumed that was the cause.

      Like

  73. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17556361/putting-college-football-most-iconic-uniforms-oregon

    Oh, the horror.

    ESPN “Oregonizes” 8 classic CFB uniforms – OSU, MI, PSU, NE, AL, OU, UT and USC.

    Like

  74. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/136839/whoa-factor-badgers-brace-for-toughest-league-stretch-in-school-history

    We have a better idea now just how tough WI’s start in B10 play will be. This should be WI’s hardest schedule ever.

    #10/11 WI’s future schedule (they already beat #5 LSU – relevant context for the article below):

    9/24 @ #8 MSU
    10/1 @ #4 MI
    10/8 BYE
    10/15 vs #2 OSU
    10/22 @ IA
    10/29 vs #20 NE

    IA could/should be ranked again before they play WI since they’re #30 now and they have relatively easy games before playing WI.

    During Alvarez’s 16-year tenure as coach, his teams played five ranked Big Ten teams in a season on three separate occasions: in 1990, 1999 and 2003. He is the only Badgers coach ever to play that many ranked league teams in one season. But even under Alvarez, Wisconsin never experienced a stretch quite like what lies ahead for this season’s Badgers.

    No. 11 Wisconsin (3-0) plays at No. 8 Michigan State (2-0) at noon ET Saturday to begin perhaps the most difficult five-game run in school history. The following week, Wisconsin plays at No. 4 Michigan. After a bye, Wisconsin takes on No. 2 Ohio State, Iowa and No. 20 Nebraska.

    The Hawkeyes dropped from 13th to 30th (others receiving votes) in the latest Associated Press top-25 poll following a loss to North Dakota State last week. But Iowa could very well climb back into the rankings by the time the Hawkeyes and Badgers meet in Iowa City on Oct. 22, which could make five consecutive ranked opponents for Wisconsin.

    To put that mark into perspective, Wisconsin has never begun its Big Ten slate by playing even four straight ranked teams, dating to the first year of the AP poll in 1936. At the very least, Wisconsin likely will play three consecutive top-10 teams for only the second occasion in program history. The other came back in 1960.

    Alvarez’s 1995 team opened Big Ten play with three consecutive teams ranked in the top 11 — No. 6 Penn State, No. 4 Ohio State and No. 11 Northwestern — and went 1-2. His 1996 team, with freshman running back Ron Dayne, played those same three teams in a row when each was ranked in the top 14. Wisconsin went 0-3.

    WI could play 6 ranked teams including 5 in a row making this their hardest schedule ever. Upsets can happen, but all those B10 teams have a strong chance of getting and staying ranked because they all face backloaded schedules.

    MI – PSU, WI
    OSU – RU, IN, WI
    IA – RU, NW, MN, PU, WI
    NE – NW, IL, IN, PU, WI

    Like

  75. Brian says:

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/09/is-big-12-expansion-plan-big-mistake/

    The B12’s expansion plan is flawed. They need to poach the ACC despite it’s GoR.

    The article lists these possible choices: Miami, GT, Pitt, VT, UL

    While I understand her point, I think her choice of targets is wrong. VT will never willingly leave UVA. Pitt and UL both value MBB too much to leave for the B12 despite being great partners for WV. That only leaves GT and Miami. Miami would require a huge pay raise to leave FSU and other east coast opponents behind. Likewise, GT values ACC MBB and has long rivalries in the southeast. I don’t think the B12 could offer them enough money to get them because those schools don’t bring enough to the B12 to earn a big raise (small alumni bases, bigger state schools that dominate their areas).

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I saw an earlier version of that article, and didn’t even bother posting it here, as it was so absurd. The writer doesn’t seem to have a clue about the ties that bind those schools to the ACC — even without the grant of rights taken into account.

      As originally published, that article didn’t even mention the GOR. Someone must have pointed out that fatal flaw, and the current version at least addresses it, although not very persuasively.

      Like

  76. Mike says:

    Nothing “new” but interesting.

    http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2016/09/syracuse_uconn_headed_different_directions_since_the_big_east_split.html

    On Sept. 18, 2011, Syracuse and Pittsburgh officially left the Big East for the ACC, leaving UConn behind and changing the financial future for both sides.

    Four months earlier the Big East schools, with Pittsburgh among the most vocal opponents, turned down a deal from ESPN that would have reportedly paid each school around $11 million annually. It wouldn’t have been enough to match the other power conferences, but it might have been enough to keep the Big East competitive and the schools together.

    Former Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross said Thursday that he and Syracuse supported the contract with ESPN at the time, which was offered by current SU athletic director and former ESPN executive John Wildhack. Gross said it was fair and would have kept the league competitive. Others officials, he said, compared it to a deal recently-signed by the Pac-12 and thought the conference could get more.

    “John (Wildhack) brought us what I thought was a terrific deal,” Gross said. “It wasn’t far off of the others. But the Pac-12 numbers became public, and I feel like some people interpreted them the wrong way. That deal included giving back all the multimedia rights. The deal John offered us was a little more straight-forward.”

    The decision set the table for realignment. During the previous year, Gross said, Syracuse officials held informal discussions with the Big Ten about expansion. He declined to give specifics of the talks but said the experience prepared Syracuse for the coming decision. It took only about a month of conversation with the ACC.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Did this figure into SU bowing out of the AAU? And might it have joined Rutgers in an expansion before Maryland showed interest?

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Any preliminary conversations between Cuse and the B1G probably consisted of Cuse being told that the B1G was not interested. It is a private university, not a state U. It has excellent bball, but weak football. It is not AAU and is not a major research U.

        http://www.syracuse.com/su-news/index.ssf/2015/07/syracuse_university_looks_to_r.html

        “The institute is a bright spot at a university that turned to community engagement and development under former Chancellor Nancy Cantor. By 2011, the research dollars and credibility dwindled enough that the university left the prestigious Association of American Universities before it was kicked out.

        That year, SU was number 186 out of 200 in a national ranking of colleges for the total amount spent on research. It was just behind the Lafayette campus of the University of Louisiana and the University of Akron. ”

        Beating Akron in research dollars is probably not much of an attraction for the B1G.

        As an aside, Cuse does not bring the NYC market. Both Boston and Washington are closer to NYC than Syracuse. Since Cuse has been in the ACC, that does not seem to have in any way helped the ACC make any impact in NYC.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          BTW, I’m a native Syracusan who absolutely hates the term “Cuse.” Don’t use it.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            In this “neck of the woods” everyone calls them Cuse. I even know Syracuse alumni who call it Cuse. Anyway, as a courtesy to you, I will not call them Cuse on this board (unless I forget due to advanced senility). What would you prefer? Is “SU” okay? Naturally I am too lazy to type out the entire 8 letters. Please advise.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Did this figure into SU bowing out of the AAU? And might it have joined Rutgers in an expansion before Maryland showed interest?

        No, the time frame isn’t right.

        It is well known that Syracuse was “considered” for the Big Ten’s 12th school. By “considered,” I mean that the Big Ten looked at every AAU football school within or adjacent to the footprint, and Syracuse was on that list. That was when Syracuse and the Big Ten talked. At the time, Syracuse was in the AAU, as was Nebraska.

        Nebraska didn’t lose its AAU membership until after it joined the league. Syracuse was very similar to the Nebraska, in terms of the criteria the AAU cares about. Suspecting that they could be the next school booted out, they decided to leave on their own terms. That was entirely an academic decision, not a sports decision.

        Even if Syracuse had stayed in the AAU, there’s no believable scenario where they and Rutgers would have been the 13th and 14th schools. The Big Ten could’ve had those schools any time it wanted, and passed. The decision to expand was prompted by new information: Maryland was available. Maryland is in almost every way superior to Syracuse or Rutgers.

        Of course, once Maryland was on board, they needed #14, and Rutgers was the best of the remaining available schools. Rutgers is worse in most sports than Syracuse, but they are better academically, better for recruiting, and play in a better market. It’s a fool’s dream to imagine that they deliver the NYC market, but Syracuse doesn’t deliver it either.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          It may be a fools dream to think that RU would deliver the NY TV market, but it appears that a lot of fools think that the dream is real.

          http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

          And this analysis does not count Comcast, with millions of homes in NJ

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            And one of those fools is B1G Network President Mark Silverman. There are many more articles that also conclude that RU has delivered the NY market.

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

            Like

          • Brian says:

            To be fair, none of us know the terms of those deals. Is BTN getting the same $1/month from all of NYC as in other footprint areas? How many of their subscribers are actually covered by these deals? It’s a large amount of money regardless of the answers, but it could impact how one views it in terms of “delivering” NYC.

            Also, I think many people use the term “delivering” in the sense of drawing ratings, not just forced cable subscriptions. It remains to be seen how well RU delivers NYC for the B10 in that sense.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Brian, Delany and the B1G were looking to get money and a better position in NYC with RU. Delany was correct and, even with a terrible RU football team, that has happened. There are apparently a huge number (1.5 million B1G alums) from the NYC area through DC. That is what RU (and UMd) delivered.

            I guess that my question is whether there is any indication from anywhere indicating that the B1G does not believe that RU “delivered” NY?

            By the way, all of this ignores NJ, with a population of 9 million.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jersey Bernie,

            “Brian, Delany and the B1G were looking to get money and a better position in NYC with RU.”

            Yes. But we don’t know exactly how much the B10 got from the addition just yet. That’s all I’m saying. RU has at least paid for itself, but how much more it brought is an unknown to the public.

            “Delany was correct and, even with a terrible RU football team, that has happened. There are apparently a huge number (1.5 million B1G alums) from the NYC area through DC. That is what RU (and UMd) delivered.”

            Yes, but UMD and DC have nothing to do with saying RU delivered NYC.

            “I guess that my question is whether there is any indication from anywhere indicating that the B1G does not believe that RU “delivered” NY?”

            The B10 doesn’t say much about anything, so that’s not an indicator either way.

            It still doesn’t address the issue that many people use “delivered” in the context of ratings, not subscriptions. Have we seen any evidence for greatly increased ratings in NYC for the B10?

            “By the way, all of this ignores NJ, with a population of 9 million.”

            Because much of NJ isn’t part of the NYC market, and delivering NYC was what was being discussed.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            As someone who used to live in metro Philadelphia, I can tell you that Rutgers’ impact in South Jersey is negligible.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            VP, it probably less negligible than it used to be. I assume that you are speaking about TV markets, not alumni or college students. RU has never been negligible in South Jersey in either of those. It is still the only major state university in South Jersey, as well as North Jersey.

            While much of South Jersey is in the Philly TV market, on the Jersey side of the river, there are clearly more RU fans, alum, etc., than from PSU or any other school. The Philly market was already a home market for the B1G because of PSU. I do not know if the addition of RU changed anything in the Jersey side of the Philly market. Of the 9 million people in NJ, certainly well more than 5 million are in the NYC market.

            Let’s not lose track of the fact that my comments were in response to “It’s a fool’s dream to imagine that they deliver the NYC market, but Syracuse doesn’t deliver it either.”

            My point is the same, the fools include Jim Delany and all of those who write about the impact of RU on the NYC market.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Let’s not lose track of the fact that my comments were in response to “It’s a fool’s dream to imagine that they deliver the NYC market, but Syracuse doesn’t deliver it either.”

            I am still waiting for any evidence from you that Rutgers “delivered” NYC. The Big Ten network does not have basic carriage in NYC; it is a premium channel. I purchased it, but mainly for Michigan games, not Rutgers games. Who in NYC is purchasing it for Rutgers games? That’s the number you don’t have, but I am guessing it is not very many.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Marc, I concede. All of the analysts who have written about this are wrong. The indications from the B1G offices are wrong. You are correct and there is nothing more to say (at least not by me).

            Like

  77. Brian says:

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/8/18/12530108/ncaa-football-best-recruiters-2016

    The blue-chip ratio turns out to be a good predictor of which teams might win the national title. In essence, you need more 4* and 5* players than 2* and 3* players to win the title. Every champ since 2005 (the first time it could be measured) has met this threshold.

    The 13 teams to reach the blue-chip threshold this year are Alabama, USC, Ohio State, LSU, Notre Dame, Florida State, Michigan, Auburn, UCLA, Texas A&M, Georgia, Clemson, and Texas.

    This list includes schools that have won 12 of the last 14 national championships (Florida won the other two and met the mark at the time; it’s at 39 percent for 2016 after a recent coaching change). It also includes eight other national title game appearances in that span.

    UCLA, Georgia, Texas A&M and maybe Texas might stand out to some as surprises because of their relative lack of recent on-field success.

    So how well are they doing so far this year?

    Those 13 make up 5 of the AP top 10 (AL, OSU, MI, Clemson, TAMU). 4 others are in the top 25 (UGA, FSU, LSU, UT). UCLA has a top 10 loss and no big wins. ND has 2 top 25 losses. USC has 2 top 10 losses. AU has 2 top 25 losses.

    The rest of the top 10 teams:
    UL – 0.07 (#45 overall)
    UH – 0.04 (#50 overall)
    Stanford – 0.33 (#21 overall)
    MSU – 0.28 (#23 overall)
    UW – 0.26 (#24 overall)

    #14-18 are in the AP top 25
    #19 is PSU which is recovering from sanctions still
    #20 is OR which just lost a close road game at top 25 NE
    #22 SC has undergone a coaching change
    #25 is also in the AP top 25

    So of the top 25 by ratio, 18 are in the AP top 25 and 3 more are receiving votes. That’s a pretty solid metric so far.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Meanwhile, Southern Cal is in big trouble after a last-minute touchdown resulted in a 31-27 loss at Utah. The Trojans are now 1-3 and will find it hard to finish on the right side of .500.

      Will new AD Lynn Swann pursue a new coach for 2017 to placate an angry fan base?

      SC’s problem is the same one that plagued Michigan for many years: An overly insular athletic department. That approach doesn’t work anymore. But the school doesn’t have the courage to hire an athletic director who didn’t play football there.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Meanwhile, Southern Cal is in big trouble after a last-minute touchdown resulted in a 31-27 loss at Utah. The Trojans are now 1-3 and will find it hard to finish on the right side of .500.

        What’s gotta eat at USC fans is how they lost. Driving to salt away the game, Clay Helton punts on 4th & 3 from the Utah 37, even though the Utes had scored TDs on long drives the last two times they had the ball. The punt at least worked (downed at the 7), but naturally the Utes continued to move the ball, and scored with :14 remaining.

        On that final drive, Utah converted two 4th downs, including a 4th and 1, well within range of a field goal that would have tied it. So, it’s a tale of 4th downs: one where Utah played to win, and one where USC gave them that chance.

        Will new AD Lynn Swann pursue a new coach for 2017 to placate an angry fan base?

        I have to think Helton will need a big turn-around in the remaining 9 games, if he wants to be there in 2017.

        SC’s problem is the same one that plagued Michigan for many years: An overly insular athletic department. That approach doesn’t work anymore. But the school doesn’t have the courage to hire an athletic director who didn’t play football there.

        I don’t think the Michigan comparison holds water. After Lloyd Carr retired, Michigan did the most non-insular thing imaginable: it hired Rich Rodriguez, who had zero ties to the program. He promptly cleaned house, firing everyone except, for some reason, the running backs coach.

        After Rodriguez failed, it’s understandable that their next move was to hire the anti-Rodriguez. You or I might well have done that, too. I was a Brady Hoke skeptic from the beginning, but in all fairness, he at least had some success as a head coach at two prior stops, and was once considered a prime candidate to succeed Lloyd Carr directly, had he not left to take the head job at Ball State. Clay Helton had never held a head coaching job anywhere before taking the position at USC. No king program should be in the position of doing that.

        And that’s without considering the clown show circumstances of the various hirings and firings since Pete Carroll left: Lane Kiffin, Ed Orgeron, Clay Helton for one game, Steve Sarkesian, and Ed Orgeron again.

        I don’t think it’s a bad thing to hire an alumnus athlete to run your athletic department. But Warde Manuel, Michigan’s AD, had successful stints at Buffalo and UConn, before coming back to Michigan. Lynn Swann has never been an AD anywhere. Neither had Pat Haden.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Sorry, that’s: Lane Kiffin, Ed Orgeron, Clay Helton for one game, Steve Sarkesian, and Clay Helton again.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        vp19,

        “Meanwhile, Southern Cal is in big trouble after a last-minute touchdown resulted in a 31-27 loss at Utah. The Trojans are now 1-3 and will find it hard to finish on the right side of .500.

        Will new AD Lynn Swann pursue a new coach for 2017 to placate an angry fan base?”

        I doubt it, but it depends on his contract. Helton is new and USC is still feeling their NCAA sanctions this year.

        “SC’s problem is the same one that plagued Michigan for many years: An overly insular athletic department. That approach doesn’t work anymore. But the school doesn’t have the courage to hire an athletic director who didn’t play football there.”

        I don’t think the AD is the problem here. They need a better coach.

        Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          The AD is the reason they don’t have a better coach. Haden did not even conduct a formal search after firing Sarkisian.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Haden isn’t the AD anymore and Swann didn’t hire the current coach. Helton was hired less than a year ago but before Swann took over. You can’t blame Swann for Helton or the current state of the program.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      What’s interesting is no Oklahoma, no Nebraska, no Penn St., no Florida, no Miami.

      Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      I think this is what cost BVG his job today and turned the burners on Brian Kelly’s seat to 11. Texas has talent (and I’ve always had a soft spot for Strong), and MSU both overachieves and is a rivalry game. There is no justification to losing to a Duke team that has that much less talent than the Irish do.

      Then again, I’ve never been impressed by Kelly.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think that MSU game sucked the life out of them and the coaches just couldn’t turn around the team’s emotions soon enough. It happens a lot.

        ND’s D has been terrible this season (over 33 ppg). They had to do something.

        Like

  78. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17626923/former-baylor-university-president-kenneth-starr-says-art-briles-unfairly-criticized

    Ugh.

    Former Baylor president and chancellor Kenneth Starr defended former Bears football coach Art Briles on Saturday, saying he was unfairly criticized by the media for his handling of allegations of sexual assault against some of his players.

    During an interview at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, Starr said Briles was an “honorable man who conducted an honorable program.”

    On Saturday, Starr said he disagreed with the findings of Pepper Hamilton, the Philadelphia law firm that the university hired in the fall of 2015 to investigate the way it handled sexual assault allegations.

    “I disagree with the sense that there was a fundamental failure,” Starr said Saturday. “I love Title IX. It has been an instrument of great, great reform … [but] the pendulum has swung much too far in one direction.”

    Starr, who resigned as a law professor at Baylor in August, said he plans to write a book about his experiences at the school.

    Of course he’s going to write a book. Way to profit from coeds getting raped.

    Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Did it ever occur to you that those girls were actually Temple fans trying to make Baylor look bad?

      Like

      • Reid says:

        It’s pathetic that you continue to make snarky comments after you got burned so badly when you asked to be “regaled” with stories of how Paterno and Sandusky had a strained relationship for most of the time they worked together. I know you’re bitter (and doggedly obtuse about the whole situation) but it’s somewhat sad with how impressed you seem to be with yourself with all of these “clever” taunts. Here’s a clue… nobody else is impressed.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “It’s pathetic that you continue to make snarky comments after you got burned so badly when you asked to be “regaled” with stories of how Paterno and Sandusky had a strained relationship for most of the time they worked together.”

          — As usual your take is out of phase with the reality. There was no ‘burning’, there was nothing more than a generic quote from Paterno that the relationship with a man who he employed for 30 years was sometimes strained. That is true of any relationship. Sadly it is emblematic of the ‘fax & evidents’ that cultists like to trot out as support for their beliefs. Unfortunately for you they don’t hold up under scrutiny outside of the echo chamber of BWI.

          You couldn’t even manage to pull some of the quotes from Posnanski’s fluff piece of a book regarding Paterno’s unhappiness in later years with what he believed was Sandusky’s fading focus on recruiting.

          “I know you’re bitter (and doggedly obtuse about the whole situation) but it’s somewhat sad with how impressed you seem to be with yourself with all of these “clever” taunts. Here’s a clue… nobody else is impressed.”

          — What exactly would I have to be bitter about? Watching the cult’s self delusions over the past twenty years was nothing if not entertaining…up until the point where it became apparently they would glad feed their own young to the golden calf in the name of their false prophet.

          See I’m glad when you troglodytes slink forth from your caves to let the rest of the world see the madness in your eyes. Even Frank began to see the light after the latest

          So please, please tell us more about how no true Scotsman err …Nittany Lion…. would ever behave in anything but a righteous manner. Share with us again and again how it is always a conspiracy made up of fans jealous of ‘success with honor’ trying to bring down the holy sepulchre.

          Like

  79. vp19 says:

    Duke wins at Notre Dame. The Irish’s game at Southern Cal Nov. 26 might have bowl implications…will either qualify?

    Like

  80. Brian says:

    It’s never too early to look at the CFP contender pool. For now I’ll define it as all undefeated teams plus 1-loss P5 teams or independents. 2-loss P5 teams could come back into it later in the season.

    46 current contenders (-13 from last week)

    ACC (9):
    0 losses – UL, WF, Clemson, Miami
    1 loss – FSU, NCSU, VT, UNC, GT

    B10 (10):
    0 losses – OSU, MI, UMD, WI, NE, MN
    1 loss – MSU, IN, IA, PU

    B12 (6):
    0 losses – Baylor, WV
    1 loss – UT, TT, TCU, KSU

    P12 (5):
    0 losses – UW, Stanford, ASU, Utah
    1 loss – CO

    SEC (8):
    0 losses – UF, UGA, TN, AL, TAMU, AR
    1 loss – SC, LSU

    Other (8):
    0 losses – UH, Navy, Memphis, WMU, Toledo, AF, Boise, SDSU

    Like

  81. Brian says:

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

    Coaches Poll:
    1. AL – 61
    2. OSU – 2
    3. Clemson – 1
    4. UL
    5. MI
    6. Stanford
    7. UH
    8. WI
    9. UW
    10. TAMU

    Others of note:
    12. FSU – top 1-loss team
    15. NE
    16. MSU
    17. Ole Miss – only 2-loss team

    26. IA
    29. OU with 2 losses

    By conference:
    SEC – 7 = 50%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    ACC – 5 = 36%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    P12 – 3 = 25%
    Other – 2 (UH, SDSU)

    http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

    AP Poll:
    1. AL – 50
    2. OSU – 4
    3. UL – 6
    4. MI – 1
    5. Clemson
    6. UH
    7. Stanford
    8. WI
    9. TAMU
    10. UW

    Others of note:
    12. FSU – top 1-loss team
    15. NE
    16. Ole Miss – only 2-loss team
    17. MSU

    27. OU at 1-2

    By conference:
    SEC – 7 = 50%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    ACC – 4 = 26%
    P12 – 3 = 25%
    Other – 3 (UH, SDSU, Boise)

    Like

  82. vp19 says:

    The MLB community mourns the passing of Jose Fernandez in a boating accident. And I can’t help but think of the death of Lyman Bostock on a September weekend in 1978.

    Today also marks Vin Scully’s finale in the Dodger Stadium broadcast booth he’s occupied since it opened in 1962 (he previously did four years at the Coliseum after the Dodgers came to Los Angeles, and will do three more games in San Francisco before hanging up the microphone). It brings to mind a comment he made in 1991 when noting injured Andre Dawson’s status was “day-to-day”: “Aren’t we all.” As usual Vin sums it up succinctly.

    Like

  83. Brian says:

    http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_53f1a66a-8357-11e6-9401-c7a5b0a63245.html

    LSU has fired Les Miles and his OC Cam Cameron. Ed Orgeron is the interim coach.

    The decision to oust Cameron and Miles was made Sunday afternoon in a discussion involving LSU athletic director Joe Alleva, school president F. King Alexander and other university leaders.

    The Advocate reported at 3 p.m. that leaders were entering deep discussions regarding Miles and Cameron’s futures and that an extensive evaluation, usually reserved for after the season, was unfolding in Baton Rouge.

    FIU also fired their coach.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      CFB emulating NHL.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      How soon does he land a spot at Alabama?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Why bother? He’s got a big buyout coming and another school will hire him as HC for next season.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          This could give thr Big 12 an excuse not to admit Houston. But could it also doom Cincinnati’s chances, assuming there are enough votes to block Brigham Young?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I’m not following that…

            Like

          • ricomay789 says:

            I do not follow also.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            Cuse, Cuse, Cuse, Cuse, Cuse. (Just trying to wake him up!)

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            If it appears LSU will pilfer Herman from Houston. Get it?

            Like

          • largeR says:

            So any UH invite is contingent on Tom Herman coaching the Cougars…………………..got it!

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Any idiot could have predicted that if Herman keeps winning, he’d be moving up to a bigger job. I mean, Les Miles went to LSU from Oklahoma State—a better program than Houston is.

            Expansion is a long-term decision. If any school’s candidacy is dependent on a particular coach being there, it means they should not be a candidate in the first place. But the Big 12 presidents aren’t that dumb. If they want Houston, it’s not because of Herman.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Why would it? The incentive for Texas to push for Houston, even if they would be loathe to admit it, would be to shore up their profile in East Texas, which is being undermined by Texas A&M in the SEC.

            Like

    • frug says:

      I don’t get it. Why even bring Miles back if he was going to be on this short of a leash? Why not just go ahead and fire him at the end of last year (which is what everyone, including his players, assumed was going to happen)?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Because the players and fans loved him, they finished on a 2 game winning streak, they had 18 returning starters, they hired Aranda as DC, they signed the #3 recruiting class and Miles at least paid lip service to changing the offense in the off-season (and they have passed more this year, just not effectively).

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        LSU fans and boosters got greedy. Before the Nick Saban era, LSU won the SEC championship an average about once per decade, and won the national championship just once (1958).

        From 2001 to 2011, LSU won the SEC four times and the national championship twice. The fans thought this was the new normal. Viewed in that context, Miles was past his sell-by date: four straight seasons without so much as a CCG appearance, and certainly (by all appearances) headed for five.

        Snce losing the re-match vs. Alabama in the NCG after the 2011 season, LSU’s performance has nosedived relative to the first part of Saban’s career there, including four straight regular-season losses to the Crimson Tide.

        The fans may yet realize just how good they had it. One sportswriter pointed out the comparison to Tennessee, who fired Phil Fulmer in 2008, and haven’t sniffed the top of the SEC under three different head coaches.

        Like

  84. Kyle Peter says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17612297/where-do-things-stand-big-12-expansion-talks

    Forgive me if this was already posted.

    2 quotes at the end really stood out:

    “If the two parents don’t commit [to signing the extension],” said one industry source, “what does that tell you?”

    Said another: The Big 12 “could be close to the end.”

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Other notes:

      * The league is split on UH. The TX schools favor it but the others generally don’t.

      * BYU is considered toxic right now.

      * The B12 hasn’t even decided how to vote yet.

      One of the most under-discussed challenges to this undertaking is still ahead: How will the Big 12 actually conduct its expansion vote?

      In previous realignments, conferences were asked to vote “yes” or “no” on only a couple of schools. Considering the conference still has a pool of 11 candidates, the Big 12’s situation is far more convoluted.

      Will the league first vote on whether to expand, then the number to expand by, before finally deliberating on the individual schools? Or will the league go straight to voting on schools, one-by-one? Boren acknowledged last week that the Big 12 still had not settled on a method. Bowlsby has no voting power, but he could make recommendations that could help streamline the process.

      Any expansion candidate, however, will still need a super majority, or eight votes, in order to get an invitation. Considering so many options remain, it could prove difficult for any one school to get the necessary votes.

      “Nobody agrees on the teams right now,” one Big 12 official noted.

      To me the voting process seems fairly simple.

      1. Vote on whether you are willing to add at least 2 of the listed candidates to the B12.

      If you can’t get 8 Yes votes, then expansion dies without any schools actually being rejected individually (good for politics). If you do get the votes, then you move on to specifics.

      2. List the candidates you are willing to accept in order of preference.

      Produce an ordered list of the candidates by points for future voting.

      3. Propose pairs of teams in order and vote on them. The first pair that gets 8 votes is in.

      1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 4, 2 & 4, 3 & 4

      If none of those 6 pairs get in, nobody will. This also prevents any individual school from being rejected directly. Perhaps you can have a president advocate for a specific pair and then ask for a re-vote if that pair got at least 5 votes originally.

      4. If a pair was approved under #3, then return to #1 with the list of remaining candidates and repeat until no more expansion is accepted.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        To me the voting process seems fairly simple….

        This strikes me as far, far too reasonable for such a dysfunctional set of people to actually adopt it.

        Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Given his penchant for running his mouth and also his age, Boren + Big 12 expansion = Wilhelm + the Big Project (from George and his stint with the Yankees) from Seinfeld.

        Like

  85. gfunk says:

    QBs, QBs, and more QBs.

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen sudden, stellar QB play by younger players at both the collegiate and NFL level.

    Frank, I know you’re an Illini alum, but what you thinking on Trevor Siemian? I didn’t see it coming. He was absolutely average in college. Yes, it’s early, but that was a pretty special game yesterday.

    Carson Wentz and Dak Prescott do not look like rookies, especially the former.

    Lamar Jackson, well he certainly demonstrated ability and talent last season, especially if you watched the bowl game against aTm, but this season is clearly a jump.

    Of course, all of the above are certianly benefitting from outstadning line play, but such is required & goes a long ways in developing long term QB success. Jackson may fall outside of this equation, we have plenty of evidence to suggest his style of play doesn’t translate at the next level unless competent pocket play is established.

    Still though, I’m scratching my head on Siemian : ).

    Like

  86. gfunk says:

    ^^^^^ Still grammatically challenged.

    Like

  87. wscsuperfan says:

    Big 12 was holding out hope for Clemson and FSU until the ACC Network was announced in July

    http://newsok.com/tramel-ou-not-anti-expansion-ou-is-anti-expansion-candidates/article/5520007

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The Big 12 was delusional if it was holding out hope for FSU and Clemson. Even without the ACC Network announcement, the Big 12 was a “break glass in case of emergency” option for those schools. Neither of them ever wanted the Big 12. It was a place to land if the ACC ever became untenable.

      Like

  88. ccrider55 says:

    Baseball is doing just fine. CFB should note and not try to change from regional interest interest as it’s prime mover. It’s not the NFL, and that’s it’s strength.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/28/here-are-the-2016-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/#474684ed6f41

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      But the NFL can survive a Lions-Jaguars Super Bowl. Fox will consider the World Series a disaster if the Bosox, Cubs and/or Dodgers aren’t involved. (One reason I’d love to see a Rangers-Nationals WS.)

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Baseball “survived” Marlins/Indians, Blue Jays/Braves, Rays/Phillies etc. and is doing fine.

        Fox doing fine with all their baseball carrying RSNs. A blockbuster WS or Super Bowl is the desert following a full meal. What’s important is the value of the whole meal.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Baseball “survived” Marlins/Indians, Blue Jays/Braves, Rays/Phillies etc. and is doing fine.

          The original poster indulged in a bit of hyperbolae, as sports fans are wont to do. Still, there was a glimmer of truth amongst the bluster. The networks know that they aren’t going to get Yankees–Dodgers every year, but their economic model absolutely assumes they will get at least some blockbuster match-ups over the life of the contract, to make up for the bad years.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “The networks know that they aren’t going to get Yankees–Dodgers every year, but their economic model absolutely assumes they will get at least some blockbuster match-ups over the life of the contract, to make up for the bad years.”

            Completely true. But that is the networks. My contention was/is that Baseball (and CFB for the most part, with the heightened national recognition decades of regional success has afforded most king programs) has always understood the importance of, and marketed to the local regions. Perhaps media is learning this?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            But that is the networks. My contention was/is that Baseball (and CFB for the most part, with the heightened national recognition decades of regional success has afforded most king programs) has always understood the importance of, and marketed to the local regions. Perhaps media is learning this?

            Networks are media. Who exactly are the people who you believe don’t understand this, or who until recently didn’t understand it?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The contention was that baseball has changed its marketing focus. Media (networks) are not baseball, at least until MLB started its own distribution arm.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      In a sign that baseball has shifted to a more regionalized fan experience, local sports fans are also choosing regional sports networks over ESPN on the nights their MLB teams play. ESPN’s average local ratings crack the top 10 compared to RSN MLB ratings in only three markets (Kansas City at #9, Cleveland at #7 and Atlanta at #7). Otherwise, ESPN falls somewhere between 11 and 20 across the remaining markets.

      Below are shows ratings and viewership numbers for the sports prime time window from April 3-Sept 25, how the programming ranked across all networks, how the programming ranked against cable, last year’s rating average, the increase or decrease from the year prior, and how games ranked on ESPN when the home team played to the national audience.

      Fans like their local homer broadcast more than ESPN is what this tells me. Maybe because there isn’t continuous talk/promotion about ESPN’s favorite teams (NYY, BRS).

      Rather than averaging over that time window, perhaps they should compare to the ratings for other sports during their own seasons.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “In a sign that baseball has shifted to a more regionalized fan experience,…”

        I intended to question this assertion, but I forgot. When has baseball not been primarily a regional interest for fans? The only exception I can think of was how Turner broadcasting the Braves grew a TV fan base for a time when there was limited TV exposure generally. All expansion has been to develop/grow a fan base in desirable but unserved (uningaged). Market.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          From the rest of the article, I assumed they were claiming that the ESPN broadcast used to do a lot better and the RSN didn’t do as well. They didn’t present any evidence to support their assertion.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I’m not sure what, other than not showing games out of the mothership’s favored list, can/could have been done to shift the interest of the regionalized fans. It’s pretty much up to the fans to decide who/where to support with tickets and viewership. Broadcasts market to the interest.

            They try sometimes to create that interest, but with limited success. See: constant talk from week one about CFB playoff ramifications. Do Domers or Longhorns play to half empty stadiums? Will fans of mid level teams become fans midseason of playoff contenders simply because they are contenders?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I think that sort of marketing is aimed at casual fans who will only watch a game if they believe it’s an important game. A diehard fan will preferentially watch his own team no matter what, but you might convince a casual fan that of course the NYY/BoSox game is the most important thing ever and they have to watch or seem uncool when everyone else is talking about it.

            Like

  89. bullet says:

    http://www.kstatecollegian.com/2016/09/29/not-all-big-12-student-leaders-oppose-byu-as-conference-expansion-candidate/

    KSU paper did some research on what the student governments are saying at the various Big 12 institutions regarding BYU and conference realignment. Thought it was interesting that KSU’s government has, unlike ISU, amended their resolution to eliminate any specific reference to BYU.

    Like

  90. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/report-acc-moves-football-title-game-to-orlando-after-leaving-north-carolina/

    The ACCCG will be held in Orlando this season. The high school state championship games will be delayed a week since they were scheduled for that same weekend in the Citrus Bowl.

    This might be a slight advantage for Clemson but otherwise is pretty neutral.

    Like

  91. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/137024/big-ten-week-5-viewers-guide-michigan-wisconsin-finally-reunite

    This is one of the best weekends for big games in CFB history with 3 top 10 match-ups.

    According to ESPN Stats & Information, Saturday will mark the first time since October 2002 that one weekend featured three games involving Associated Press top-10 teams. There hasn’t been a week with three top-10 matchups all in conference play since November 1978.

    Friday:
    #7 Stanford @ #10 UW – 8:00 pm on ESPN

    Saturday:
    #8 WI @ #4 MI – 3:30 pm on ABC
    #3 UL @ #3 Clemson – 8:00 pm on ABC

    Like

  92. Brian says:

    http://btn.com/2016/09/28/big-ten-to-use-commemorative-sam-foltz-mike-sadler-coin-in-week-5/

    The B10 will use a commemorative coin for the coin flip in all 7 B10 games this weekend. One side has Sam Foltz and the other has Mike Sadler.

    Like

  93. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/with-wisconsin-facing-a-brutal-october-barry-alvarez-wants-to-rethink-scheduling/

    Barry Alvarez wants the B10 to rethink their scheduling policy, but Jim Delany isn’t too worried. I do give Alvarez credit for acknowledging that WI has been on the soft end of the schedule recently.

    Alvarez said he hopes Big Ten athletic directors rethink scheduling in the future.

    “I remember when that schedule came out (in 2013) and I thought, ‘How the hell did you kick out something looking like that?” Alvarez said. “But it’s cyclical. I look around and Nebraska had a bad draw when they came in. I think maybe that’s something we’ve got to look at down the road — equity for everybody. I can’t complain about it because other people went through the same gauntlet in past years.

    “I think you could take a look at the general strength of some programs and split them up. Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State have been good for a long time. Penn State normally is in that group. Just make sure someone doesn’t get all three year in a year. That’s hard to do. That’s something the ADs are going to have to talk about some day.”

    “We hoped (the schedule change) would enhance our television appeal,” Delany said. “We hoped it would enhance the appeal at the gate. We hoped it would impress the selection committee. We also knew that we would win fewer games and have fewer bowl-eligible teams. I wouldn’t be against looking at it down the road, but I think we have to let it play out.”

    It’s unlucky that WI got all their toughest games basically in a row, but his real complaint is tied to the parity-based scheduling and moving to 9 games. WI is in the top tier which means they’ll always play at least 1 of OSU, MI and PSU and often 2 of them (1.67 games per year against that group). In addition they’ll get MSU once every 3 years, so they’ll average 2 of those 4 teams every season. I doubt PSU, IN, RU and UMD feel too bad for WI since they get all of them every year.

    WI should be thankful that MSU is on tier 2 and not tier 1 or they’d play MSU a lot more often. And despite Alvarez’s comment about MSU being good for a long time, he has to understand that team strength will fluctuate but the schedule can’t be expected to account for that. WI is unlucky in that OSU and MSU are paired on their schedule for the next 6 years (they play both in 2016 and 2019 and neither in the other 4 years), but it also means they get easy years in 2017 and 2020 (MI, IN and UMD as crossovers) and 2018 and 2021 may not be bad (MI, PSU and RU).

    Like

  94. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17678885/ncaa-sets-oct-28-hearing-date-north-carolina-tar-heels-academic-case

    The lightning-fast progress in the UNC case continues. The NCAA has scheduled UNC to appear before the infractions committee on 10/28 to go over procedural arguments raised by UNC (like claiming only their accreditation agency has jurisdiction over these academic issues).

    “The panel will not discuss the underlying facts or allegations for the purpose of finding facts, concluding whether violations occurred or prescribing penalties,” the letter states.

    The hearing date is five years to the day of the school’s previous meeting with an infractions committee panel, which handled a probe launched in 2010 focused on improper benefits and academic misconduct within the football program. The academic case grew as an offshoot of that probe starting in fall 2011.

    Like

  95. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17646077/baylor-bears-good-be-big-problem-college-football

    People are starting to worry about what happens if Baylor has a great season. The rest of the B12 has looked beatable. Would the CFP take them? Yes, if they’re a top 4 team.

    Barring a major upset, Baylor figures to enter a Week 9 test at Texas — three days before the release of the first College Football Playoff rankings — as a top-10 team and the Big 12’s best hope to salvage something significant from this season.

    That’s a potential headache for the league, which admonished Baylor in July, and for the sport at large. But as far as College Football Playoff protocol is concerned, it should have no impact.

    “The committee’s only task is to pick the best teams,” CFP director Bill Hancock told ESPN.com. “They do pick those teams based on what transpires on the field.”

    Like

  96. Brian says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/30/cal-athletics-20-million-question-will-sports-need-to-be-axed/

    Cal is losing about $20M per year on athletics and has formed a task force to decide what to do about it.

    A soaring deficit has placed Cal’s athletics program in the university’s crosshairs and prompted the creation of a task force to determine whether the department, which is losing approximately $20 million per year, is sustainable in its current form.

    The 30-sport behemoth is caught between the rising costs of major college athletics and the massive debt service it owes on the Memorial Stadium renovation project.

    Although the books for the 2016 fiscal year have not been audited, the Bears are projecting a single-year loss of $21.76 million, according to documents obtained by this newspaper.

    That’s approximately 15 percent of the university-wide budget deficit of $150 million.

    “The situation on campus is very tense,’’ said Bob Jacobsen, dean of undergraduate studies and the faculty’s representative on athletic matters.

    Enter the Task Force on Intercollegiate Athletics, created by chancellor Nicholas Dirks this summer. Its charge: Review athletic department finances and recommend the appropriate “scale and scope … including the number of programs and roster sizes.’’

    The task force, which meets every two weeks, is in the early stages of its review and hopes to present its recommendation to campus leadership in early January. There have been no discussions thus far about potentially eliminating sports, according to university spokesman Dan Mogulof.

    Sources believe there are three potential outcomes:

    ♦ The university could re-commit to its current model but with long-term, sport-specific endowments to fund operations and with an additional $10 million (or more) in annual support from central campus. Currently, the Bears receive a subsidy of $5 million per year.

    ♦ The university could return to the 2010 approach and eliminate a handful of teams — this time for good.

    ♦ Or Cal could choose to make drastic cuts, downsizing all the way to a model of just 16 or 17 sports. (The NCAA minimum is 14.).

    “I would never want to eliminate opportunities for students to participate in athletics,” said Williams, a former Cal wrestler. “That being said, we know that our entire campus … has a $150 million structural deficit and recognize the need to review all options.”

    Also unclear is who would execute the task force’s recommendations. Dirks is a lame duck who’s stepping down when a successor is found, and the executive vice chancellor and provost, Carol Christ, is serving in an interim capacity.

    The university is in the process of cutting $40 million off the budget deficit. But eliminating sports teams is an emotionally- and politically-charged issue of a different order.

    “People believe the university is in no position to make any decisions,’’ said an athletic department source. “There are interims all over the place.”

    In his charge letter, Dirks asked the task force to base its recommendations on athletic programs at peer schools, specifically UCLA, Washington, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon.

    That math is easy: The Bears support more intercollegiate sports (30) than any school in the Pac-12 conference except Stanford, a private school, and the gap is substantial: Cal has five more teams than UCLA, eight more than Washington and 13 more than Colorado.

    “If you want a broad program, and you want a strong program, and you have limited dollars, something has to give,’’ said Jacobsen, who is not a member of the task force and emphasized that he was speaking only for himself.

    The Bears aren’t the only school in the conference with money problems. Washington reportedly projected a deficit of $14.8 million for the 2016 fiscal year and, like Cal, has been squeezed by the debt service from a stadium upgrade.

    For the next 16 years, the athletic department will make interest-only payments of approximately $18 million. But starting in 2032, the principal kicks in and annual payments soar — first to $30 million and eventually to almost $40 million.

    It’s death by debt service.

    “These are problems without easy answers,’’ said Michael O’Hare, a professor of public policy.

    “The faculty is divided in the sense that there are some big sports fans. But some of us are becoming impatient (with the deficit).”

    ♦ An increase, by almost $1 million, in the amount the Bears return to central campus as part of the university’s internal taxation system. (The total amount sent back to campus, $4.63 million, largely offsets the subsidy [$5M – I didn’t quote that part] the Bears receive.)

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      That’s the price of remodeling (to Cali earthquake code) a stadium that has a fault line run, not near, not right by, but actually through it.

      There is little here that wasn’t known for some time.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Some of it is new, like forming the task force and thus considering cutting sports again. We knew they had budget issues of course.

        This highlights the problem of the P12 looking long term with their P12N model when the schools need the revenue now.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        There is little here that wasn’t known for some time.

        Such articles are directed at a broader audience than sports aficionados; necessarily, they must repeat some information that those who follow it closely have “known for some time.”

        Like

    • bob sykes says:

      The whole university is grossly mismanaged, and significant cuts are needed in all programs.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That may well be true, but the biggest factor in budget problems for most universities is the drop in state funding. That’s not the fault of the school management. They can only raise tuition so high in response since they’re a state school. State schools in CA have lost about $1000 per year per student in net funding since 2000 due to the massive drop in state support.

        I think the problem in CA is bigger than just the UC system, too. I think the state is fiscally mismanaged and that problem has been passed down to the UC system (same with IL, LA and other states). I’m not saying the schools aren’t also causing some of their own problems, but I’m not sure any school can fix all of those problems on their own without taking drastic measures.

        Like

        • ROBERT M SYKES says:

          Well, that is sort of my point. The UC administration is confronted with a changing economic environment, and they are not taking responsible action to adjust to it.

          The bigger issue is the gross mismanagement of California itself. In 50 years it has gone from being one of the richest States to one of the poorest, with almost all indices of social quality down in the bottom tenth or so of the States.

          Like

  97. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17680212/brenda-tracy-talks-baylor-team-sexual-assault-prevention-leaves-feeling-defeated

    A former rape victim talked to the Baylor team over the summer about preventing sexual assaults.

    An alleged rape victim who visited Baylor football players in July to discuss sexual assault prevention spoke out Friday about an assistant coach who questioned her visit and who she says denied that the football program had anything to do with the school’s recent problems addressing sexual assaults.

    “I felt like the players were great. They were all engaged. They were all listening and all paying attention,” she told Outside the Lines of her talk July 25 with the Baylor football team. “I was really surprised and caught off guard when this coach pulled me aside. I was really surprised that he was that bold to say those things, but he was really awful and terrible.”

    Tracy said the assistant coach grabbed her and ushered her into an office as soon as Tracy started to leave the room. She said she was accompanied by Baylor Title IX coordinator Patty Crawford. Tracy did not name the coach in her Huffington Post blog.

    “One of the first things he says is he didn’t understand why I was there,” she told OTL. “He said this wasn’t a football issue. This was an issue on the rest of the campus. And he just went on and on that [former head coach] Art Briles did absolutely nothing and this was all unfounded and nothing happened and they were being treated unfairly and there was some conspiracy going on against Baylor football.”

    This is the problem with keeping the old coaching staff.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I’m not sure AAC or CUSA would admit them if/when B12 disolves. I know only one power conf school has ever been removed (and that was by their choice). If this isn’t addressed their might be another. Or the conference may just leave them SWC style.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Some people thought the Big Ten would kick out Penn State, and some fans still believe they should. It didn’t happen, and won’t.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          PSU, as far as I know, hasn’t retained involved coaches and allowed one to question/confront an invited speaker sharing her experience directly related to the issue facing that school.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            True, but after a while you should get used to the pattern. School X has a scandal, which (in someone’s mind) is the worse scandal they’ve ever seen; believes that X will get kicked out of their conference / given the death penalty / whatever. It doesn’t happen.

            Next time, it’s School Y or Z, and people think, “This one’s different.” Lather, rinse, and repeat.

            Baylor will be fine.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Probably right. But they are an SMU like liability to a somewhat unstable conference.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            SMU got the death penalty, which no one currently is suggesting will happen to Baylor. That’s probably what would have to happen, for the two cases to be comparable.

            It’s not even clear whether the NCAA will act at all. SMU got nabbed for paying its players, while already on probation for paying its players. It was that double dip, on a clear violation, that earned them the harshest penalty.

            In contrast, it’s not even clear that Baylor violated any specific NCAA rule whatsoever, even though we can all agree in principle that no legitimate program ought to behave that way. In that sense, it is very much like Penn State. The NCAA must surely be mindful that almost all of the PSU sanctions were eventually rolled back. It is not a great precedent for them.

            SMU’s sanctions exacerbated the problems in what was already a very troubled one-state, 8-team league. Once the decision was made to form the Big 12, the weakest schools got kicked to the curb, and SMU was one of the four affected. I am not sure the SWC would have kicked out SMU, even after the DP, if the league hadn’t already been on life support for a variety of reasons.

            Even with no sanctions, SMU might not have made the cut. Rice, one of the few SWC schools to run a clean program, didn’t make it either, which makes you wonder how much the sanctions really factored in the decision over which schools to keep.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            A part of the SWC demise was the embarrassing perception of the rampant violations at a number of schools. It is the public perception of problems I’m pointing out, not whether it is an NCAA violation or not. The SWC easily could have handled the lack of SMU FB for one year if they had chosen to. But they didn’t. Rice got hosed. ISU may suffer similarly.

            How long will UT want to consider themselves a proud member and ostensible leader of a conference that seemingly supports another member with CONTINUING issues they seem not to truly want to address.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            A source with direct knowledge told KWTX Tuesday that Crawford had a scheduled mediation with Baylor and that during the meeting, she asked for a significant amount of money, as part of a confidentiality agreement.

            Baylor refused, and Crawford told Baylor she planned to speak publicly about her frustration with the administration and the board of regents about the handling of the sexual assault investigation.

            Last month KWTX obtained a secretly recorded audio tape of a meeting between Crawford and members of the athletic staff in late July in which Crawford expressed frustration with the administration.

            She told the group she had begun to refuse to share names of those involved in Title IX investigations with Baylor administrators, fearful that the officials might take action before those involved in the investigations receive due process.

            “That’s what we talked about this week, I said this has to be very clear that at this point, no one is going to know, other than our office, who these people are, what their names are, where this is going”, Crawford says.

            “Because there have been occasions where I’ve been called on my cellphone on a Sunday morning by a board member wanting names.”

            Crawford also told the group she felt like the football team had been unfairly targeted, noting just two football players have been convicted of sexual assault during Briles’ tenure at Baylor.

            “A very small percentage of our cases have anything to do with athletics”, Crawford said in the meeting, of which KWTX obtained a recording.

            “And I’ve made that very clear to our leadership. This is not an athletics issue in the sense of violence and all these things, this is a human issue.”

            Crawford came to Baylor in November 2014 as the school’s Title IX Coordinator.

            Prior to Baylor, Crawford served as the Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of Indiana University East, as well as the Deputy Title IX Coordinator, Chief Diversity Officer, and Affirmative Action Officer for Indiana University.

            Like

  98. Brian says:

    Huge win for UW over Stanford last night, both on the scoreboard (44-6) and in terms of the CFP. They only face 2 more teams that don’t already have 2 losses (@ Utah, vs ASU) and then would likely play one of them again (or CO) in the CCG.

    Basically, UW is now the P12’s CFP hope. They didn’t play anyone OOC so they can’t afford multiple losses, though. Stanford would need UW to lose twice to make the CCG. Utah and ASU are in similar boats since none of them faced a good team OOC. Any of them could make the CFP with 1 loss but UW has the most hype so far.

    I guess Chris Petersen finally got his players in place and is showing what he can do at a power school.

    Like

  99. ccrider55 says:

    Somebody go to the locker rooms and let the ND and Syracuse defenses out.

    Like

  100. vp19 says:

    Iowa State gave Baylor all it could handle in Ames, and suddenly the Bears don’t look so beastly.

    Okie State surprised Texas, albeit in Stillwater.

    Maryland is handling Purdue fairly easily; I don’t see the Terps as a legit East contender, but Durkin will make sure no one takes them lightly. And Iowa stumbled against Northwestern at home.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      OSU cruised past RU as expected, and along the way J.T. Barrett became the career passing TD record holder at OSU (now 59). He’s only a junior, so he could put that record way out of reach with another 24+ games.

      The ACC no longer needs to worry about a 3-way tie. Tonight’s winner will face UNC, Miami or VT.

      Baylor and WV survived, but were not impressive. If one isn’t 12-0 it’ll be hard to make the CFP.

      The B10 looks to be OSU/MI vs NE/WI.

      The P12 looks like UW vs Utah.

      The SEC looks like AL/TAMU vs TN.

      Like

  101. Brian says:

    And things get worse for the P12. Utah lost and ASU is getting whipped by USC. That would leave no undefeated teams in the South (only CO without a P12 loss) and just UW in the North.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      And in Pullman, WSU is hammering Oregon…although I don’t think fans in College Park are yearning for Mike Leach anymore.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Lots of P12 school have been itching to pay OR back for some of their recent blowout wins.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Brady Hoke’s defense is getting torched. The Ducks have put up at least 32 points in every game, which ordinarily ought to be good enough to win, and yet they’re 2-3. The trouble is, they’re 109th in scoring defense, 116th in total defense, 70th in pass efficiency defense, and 102nd in rushing defense.

        Like

  102. Brian says:

    It’s never too early to look at the CFP contender pool. For now I’ll define it as all undefeated teams plus 1-loss P5 teams or independents. 2-loss P5 teams could come back into it later in the season.

    31 current contenders (-15 from last week)

    ACC (7):
    0 losses – Clemson, Miami
    1 loss – UL, WF, NCSU, VT, UNC

    B10 (7):
    0 losses – OSU, MI, UMD, NE
    1 loss – IN, WI, MN

    B12 (3):
    0 losses – Baylor, WV
    1 loss – TT

    P12 (5):
    0 losses – UW
    1 loss – Stanford, ASU, Utah, CO

    SEC (5):
    0 losses – TN, AL, TAMU
    1 loss – UF, AR

    Other (4):
    0 losses – UH, WMU, AF, Boise

    Like

  103. Brian says:

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

    Coaches Poll:
    1. AL – 57
    2. OSU – 3
    3. Clemson – 2
    4. MI
    5. UH
    6. UW
    7. TAMU
    8. UL
    9. TN
    10. Miami

    Others of note:
    12. NE
    13. WI
    14. Ole Miss – top 2-loss team
    25. WMU – MACtion makes the poll with 86 pts

    27. MSU – 71 (#26 has 77 pts)
    28. UMD – 70

    By conference:
    SEC – 6 = 43%
    ACC – 5 = 36%
    P12 – 4 = 33%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    B10 – 4 = 29%
    Other – 3 (UH, Boise, WMU)

    http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

    AP Poll:
    1. AL – 53
    2. OSU – 6
    3. Clemson – 1
    4. MI – 1
    5. UW
    6. UH
    7. UL
    8. TAMU
    9. TN
    10. Miami

    Others of note:
    11. WI
    12. NE
    14. Ole Miss – top 2-loss team

    By conference:
    SEC – 6 = 43%
    ACC – 6 = 43%
    P12 – 4 = 33%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    B10 – 4 = 29%
    Other – 2 (UH, Boise)

    Like

  104. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/10/02/week-5-takeaways-clemson-louisville-michigan-ohio-state-washington-tennessee

    If Clemson goes undefeated and Louisville avoids a slip-up, the ACC should become the first conference to send two teams to the playoff. Both the Tigers and the Cardinals looked deserving of playoff spots Saturday night in Death Valley.

    I take issue with the phrase in bold.

    1. To get 2 teams from 1 conference in starts with only 3 conferences having elite champions. At this stage, why would anyone think that? UW is undefeated with a fairly easy schedule ahead. Both Baylor and WV are undefeated. The B10 has 2 top 5 teams in OSU and MI. The SEC has AL.

    UL isn’t getting in over a 13-0 UW or 12-0 Baylor/WV and 12-1 UW would have a very strong case (11-1 Baylor would be punished for their OOC schedule). So why assume both the P12 and B12 (or B10/SEC) will fail to have a great champion until they start to lose games?

    2. What if UL doesn’t look as great the rest of the season despite winning out?

    3. What if MI or OSU goes 11-1 with their only loss in The Game?

    4. What if TAMU or AL goes 11-1 with their only loss to the other?

    5. What if a 12-0 OSU/MI/AL/TAMU/etc gets their only loss in the CCG to another elite team?

    I think it’s way too early to say anyone “should” be the first 2-team conference.

    Like

  105. vp19 says:

    The first 2-teams-in-playoffs conference won’t be the ACC. The “SEC-uber-alles” contingent would scream holy hell if that hoops-crazed league got the honor.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      If it happens this year, I’m not sure anyone has a clear edge.

      The B10 had the best OOC season but OSU and MI play the last weekend of the regular season so the loser can’t recover. That requires a close loss and a bunch of other good wins. The best scenario for the B10 would be OU winning the B12 and CO winning the P12 South, then having 11-1 NE win a close and controversial game rematch versus 12-0 OSU (with both teams looking good) after OSU won the first game handily.

      The ACC needs a credible team in both divisions to make up for a weak OOC slate. Miami may fill that role versus Clemson, but only UL has a decent OOC game out of the three. That game at UH will be vital. FSU could still play spoiler for Clemson or Miami, too. The best scenario for the ACC is a battle of unbeatens with Clemson beating Miami in the CCG while UH runs the table except for when hosting UL.

      The SEC has AL and TAMU in the West and TN in the East, but TN plays those 2 in the next 2 weeks and AL plays TAMU the week after. UF has easier crossover games (vs LSU, @ AR), so they may end up winning the East despite TN beating them head to head. The best scenario for the SEC is 11-1 TN winning a rematch versus 12-0 AL in the CCG.

      But there are so many games left to play that it’s silly to claim any one conference has a clear edge right now.

      Like

  106. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/10/03/supreme-court-ed-obannon-ncaa-antitrust-case/91462090/

    The Supreme Court won’t hear the O’Bannon case.

    Both sides had asked the justices to hear the case, which also dealt with compensation for the use of college players’ names, images and likenesses in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts and video games.

    The initially parallel appeals, an uncommon circumstance, were made even more unusual when the O’Bannon plaintiffs later agreed with the NCAA in saying the high court should consider whether the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals properly applied a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the association historically has relied on in defending its amateurism system.

    Instead, Monday’s decision leaves intact the 9th Circuit’s dual rulings that:

    * The NCAA’s regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny, and rules limiting football and men’s basketball players to receiving tuition, fees, room, board and books violate antitrust laws.

    * While antitrust law requires that schools be allowed to provide these athletes with scholarships that cover all of their costs of attending college, including travel and personal incidentals, “it does not require more,” such as what it termed “cash sums untethered to educational expenses.”

    I hate how many cases the SC is refusing to hear since Scalia died. Do your job even if there are only 8 of you. Also bitch at Congress for refusing to even consider a replacement for months.

    Like

  107. Brian says:

    Perhaps a fun diversion:

    Which is the best non-revenue sport in the B10?

    Women’s volleyball (B10 has #1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24) or wrestling?

    The B10 has tremendous history in wrestling and tons of ranked teams every year, but relatively few schools play it. WVB has a lot more schools and is played in all regions. The B10 has 2 of the 4 teams that have won at least 4 titles and has won 10 of the past 17 titles.

    Are there any other sports the B10 dominates like this?

    Like

    • Mike says:

      I’d vote Women’s Volleyball.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “…but relatively few schools play it.”

      You don’t “play” wrestling… 🙄

      D1wrestling has lost a boatload of programs but there are still over 60 teams (I think). M Gym is barely double digits.

      That said I’d have to currently VB has a slight edge at the very top. B1G NCAA 2016 final wrestling standings : 1, 3, 5, 8, 9t, 9t, 17, 23, 28 (used nine – same number as you listed for VB)

      Like

  108. Mike says:

    The Big 12 is not expected to extend its grant of rights — the contract that essentially keeps the conference together — no matter the outcome of expansion talks, CBS Sports has learned.

    Multiple sources through the expansion process have mentioned that, for Texas and Oklahoma alone, it is difficult to find support to extend the grant of rights past its expiration in 2025.

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-expansion-losing-momentum-no-grant-of-rights-extension-ranking-candidates/

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      This is about the most unsurprising news imaginable. Schools don’t give their rights away for nothing — and right now, nothing is being offered. I don’t know what it would take, but it would have to be a number with a lot of zeroes. Otherwise, why shouldn’t Texas and Oklahoma keep their options open?

      Six or eight years from now, if the two king schools have a better offer on the table, they’ll take it. If there is no better offer, the rest of the Big 12 will still be there, as they have nowhere else to go.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        To be fair, some feel/felt a bump in pay in exchange for no expansion and a GOR extension might happen to avoid distributors being on hook for multiple G5 adds at current B12 pay rate. Also referred to as a shakedown, although one Fox/ESPN signed on for.

        But yes, not a surprise.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          ESPN/Fox are the ones doing the shakedown with their threats. They KNEW exactly who would be available when they signed the contract. BYU and Cincinnati have been discussed before. They are just using their ogliopoly power to try to get out of their obligations.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Please explain how ESPN and Fox are shaking down anything. What can they threaten to do to avoid potentially $1B in their cost? Are they threatening to pay a bribe? Is that a shakedown? Or is not paying it – living with the contract – seen as forcing something on the B12?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            How is the Big 12 doing a shakedown for simply taking an option provided willingly by Fox and ESPN in their contract?

            There is a veiled threat of payback if the Big 12 does do what the contract allows. That’s a lot more of an unethical activity than anything the Big 12 is doing.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            If they are asking for something to not do what the contract allows. No one thought they might add four G5 schools, and that’s on ESPN/Fox for not anticipating, but it sure seems there is dissent within about doing just that. I know it’s twitter rumor crap, but combine adds that with the rumor of repealing GOR as a part of trying to renegotiate early and it seems a significant threat to the value of what the current contract anticipated.

            Like

      • vp19 says:

        And the rest of the conference should try to make it as strong as possible post-Texas/Oklahoma and whomever also leaves (Kansas? Okie State?) If this means adding Cincinnati, Houston and both Central and South Florida, so be it. (Sorry, but Brigham Young brings too much baggage.)

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        To be fair, some feel/felt a bump in pay in exchange for no expansion and a GOR extension might happen to avoid distributors being on hook for multiple G5 adds at current B12 pay rate.

        That’s the one way it could happen, but I have trouble imagining the believable number the networks would plausibly pay, and that UT/OU, would consider worth their while, in exchange for relinquishing the right to look around in the mid-2020s.

        And the rest of the conference should try to make it as strong as possible post-Texas/Oklahoma and whomever also leaves (Kansas? Okie State?) If this means adding Cincinnati, Houston and both Central and South Florida, so be it. (Sorry, but Brigham Young brings too much baggage.)

        The challenge is finding a combination of either 2 or 4 schools that would attract eight votes. They might agree on expansion in principle, yet not agree on any combination of actual candidates. This is a conference with a long history of being unable to find common ground, even when the failure to do so made them collectively weaker.

        Like

  109. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17714179/radio-station-air-east-carolina-pirates-game-following-national-anthem-protest-band-members

    An ESPN radio affiliate in NC is refusing to carry the ECU game this weekend because some of ECU’s band protested during the national anthem last week.

    Colonial Radio Group president and CEO Jeff Andrulonis said sponsors agree with the decision, but he’ll lose advertising revenue.

    “I’m proud of our country and I’m proud of our soldiers — especially our soldiers from Fort Bragg fighting for our country — so I’ve decided that ESPN Fayetteville will ‘protest the protest,'” Andrulonis said.

    Like

  110. Brian says:

    http://footballscoop.com/news/mark-richt-personalized-bibles-made-every-one-miami-players-staff/

    Where should schools draw the line for a religious coach?

    So when he heard that some of his players didn’t have Bibles — or had older translations that were more difficult to understand — he set out to fix that, he said, with the help of team chaplain Steve DeBardelaben.

    DeBardelaben helped Richt acquire enough Bibles for his entire team and coaching staff and had each one personalized. During Sunday’s team meetings, the Bibles were given out and Richt said that while it was optional his players and staffers take them, he wanted to make sure everyone had the option of having a new Bible if they wanted it.

    “I told the guys, ‘It’s a choice. If you want to just leave it at the chair, you can. If you want to take it with you, you can. If you want to give it to somebody, you can. But I just heard enough guys say they didn’t have one and some guys said they had older versions that were harder to understand,” Richt said Wednesday. “We have chapel before the games and its 100 percent voluntary. Some guys go, and some guys don’t. There will be times I’ll give them those wise sayings from Proverbs, the book of wisdom. If anyone would take the challenge of reading a proverb a day, you’re going to get wiser. It’s good stuff. I just wanted to make it available to them.”

    This would be an issue if he was at a state school. But is it still problematic at a secular private school? Since they were all personalized, he’s going to know exactly who did and didn’t take the Bibles. And does the NCAA have to look into giving free books to players?

    Like

  111. Richard says:

    Well, this is a sports and politics blog (among other things) so I’ll tie the two together:

    Anyone who has been following the Presidential election this year would have noticed that, compared to what we have seen in recent decades, Hillary has overperformed in the growing coastal South (that are filling with transplanted Yankees and immigrants) and growing regions of the Mountain West (filling with transplanted Californians and Hispanics) compared to recent history while Trump is overperforming in Northern states that are filled with the white working class, growing older, and barely growing in population. If the GOP stays Trumpist (and I think they will because both the GOP base and Democrats actually would prefer that to occur), you could see the Democrats sweep the entire pre-ND/pre-Louisville ACC (minus SC, though even SC will become closer) in the 2020’s as well as come close to sweeping the former Mexican lands of the Southwest while the Trumpists make inroads in to the heart of the Big Ten. Even though OH and IA have been swing states since forever, ever since Bill Clinton, a near sweep of the old Big Ten states (with the exception of IN) has been the lynchpin of Democratic victory. Actually, the entire current B10 minus NE and IN.

    However, by 2020-2024, I believe that OH and IA will be as sufficiently red as VA and CO are sufficiently blue now But the tradeoff is that FL and NC will go from being very swingy/very slightly blue to being as sufficiently blue as VA and CO are now, and while PA and MI (and ME and NH) may finally be within striking distance for the Trumpist candidate, GA and AZ will be within striking distance for the Democrats. Even more worrying for the GOP, even TX and SC may be within reach for the Democrats.

    That’s a trade-off that the Democrats would take any day, and that’s is not a good-looking map for the GOP, but I don’t see how they can escape that. The GOP base wants to emphasize nativism and exclusion (and a big chunk of that base is straight out for bigotry and racism) while the Democrats wouldn’t mind elections being fought on those grounds because there’s not a lot shared between their new coalition of minorities and college-educated whites besides a shared belief in tolerance and diversity and shared abhorrence of bigotry, racism and nativism.

    What that means, though, is that both politics and society will get even more nasty. It will be just like the late 19th century and Gilded Age before the Great Depression, when your culture and region dictated your politics more than your economic beliefs did. Hopefully, we will be able to get through the 2020’s without massive societal upheaval.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-are-less-likely-to-value-expert-opinion/

      Sticking with politics (sort of), this article discusses a survey that found an interesting result.

      A newly released survey shows that Americans who care about expert opinion and scientific evidence hold different policy positions than those who don’t — across party lines.

      Sifting through so much information, Americans have to decide which pieces are valuable to them. When they do, some place a much higher value than others do on information that comes from sources referring to experts or scientific evidence, or that is based on government data. And the more people value those kinds of information, the more they are likely to support Obamacare and same-sex marriage and to believe global warming is happening.

      The effect persisted after controlling for demographic characteristics and for political party affiliation. So, for instance, 39 percent of Republicans who think information related to experts is important agree that “homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another,” compared with just 9 percent of Republicans who don’t.

      The study doesn’t tell us whether holding certain policy beliefs makes people more likely to place a premium on expertise or data, or the other way around — or whether some other trait determines both policy beliefs and prizing evidence. “Causality is difficult,” said Norman Bradburn, a senior fellow at NORC and the senior adviser on the report. “You can’t infer it.”

      What’s amazing/sad is that there was a large group that gave expert sources a value of 3 out of 10 or lower.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        I would wager that the underlying variable is degree of education, with the more highly educated valuing expert opinion more as well as being more liberal on the issues asked about. Or was education one of the demographic variable?

        Like

        • ROBERT M SYKES says:

          The reality is that our so-called experts are highly politicized and produce all sorts of unreliable data and opinion. Virtually no data published by the federal government is reliable, and even the most prestigious science journals are filled with unreproducible results. A ranking value of 3 or lower is justified. Belief in experts or government data or the benevolence of politicians is a superstition.

          Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          I would think that more highly educated people would be more likely to question experts. Bullet is absolutely correct. An expert can be bought to study, or say whatever anyone wishes.

          Remember that for years experts claimed that smoking cigarettes was completely safe.

          Margarine was the healthiest food one could eat and butter was poison. Now, not so much.

          Too much coffee would kill you. Now coffee is healthy and may prevent Alzheimers in women.

          I was speaking to a lawyer who is a friend of mine regarding a personal injury case. His client had badly broken one wrist years ago and the bones were fused, severely limiting movement.

          In their current (and totally unrelated case), a defense expert examined the two arms and wrists of the person and this expert wrote a report saying that the man with the fused wrist had compete and total flexibility and movement of both wrists.

          I also totally agree with bullet on soft sciences. Experts studies there are frequently insane.

          I guarantee that you can find a “qualified expert” to write a report that a child living with two loving gay parents is better off that that child would be with a loving mother and father. In fact, that expert will do a study and conclude that living with birth parents is much worse than with gay adoptive parents.

          You can also find an expert who will do a study and conclude that children should never be adopted by loving gay parents. They will say it is better to stay in the miserable foster home system than be adopted by terrific gay parents.

          Most people with any common sense will agree that both of the above “qualified experts” are nuts.

          It is sad, but there is no particular reason to believe something just because an “expert” says so.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Richard,

          “I would wager that the underlying variable is degree of education, with the more highly educated valuing expert opinion more as well as being more liberal on the issues asked about. Or was education one of the demographic variable?”

          I would think it would be one of the demographic variables but it doesn’t explicitly say.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Ever been on a jury trial? Gives you good reason to question “expert” opinion. There are a lot of people who claim to be experts who aren’t or who have an agenda (usually one they are paid to follow). Dealing with acquisition analysis and reading transit studies, you realize the conclusion is very often reached and the data massaged to reach that conclusion. There was a survey recently and only 27% thought media “fact-checkers” were reliable. 62% were perceptive enough to realize they weren’t.

        There’s a lack of professionalism among “experts” in many fields. You have to look at the data and reach your own conclusions.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          This is particularly true in the “soft” sciences. Its really hard to beat the nonsensical conclusions you get from reading education “experts.”

          Like

        • Brian says:

          There is a significant difference between valuing expert opinions/evidence and blindly trusting any one expert or source. People who give expertise a value of 3 or lower are generally trusting their gut on issues they know nothing about.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Part of being educated means (at least to me) being more able to discern which experts are really experts in a field and which are just called that.

          And you have a thing against fact-checkers, but frankly, I’d wager that when you disagree with them about an objective fact, they are right more often than you are, Bullet. You can have your own opinion but not your own reality.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        There were a lot of people questioning the conclusions of the experts the Big 12 hired that showed that they had a much better chance of making the playoff with a 12 team league with 8 conference games than with their 10 team round robin format.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Were they correct? There’s no way to ever know. But I ran the numbers here once and showed they have a point. The more teams in your conference, the more likely one of the top 4 teams is in your conference. It’s pretty simple math. Going to 12 also traditionally adds the CCG and the all important 13th data point. With the new rule, that’s largely moot except the B12 has to have a rematch while they wouldn’t with 12. Eight versus nine games is a much harder question with all the other variables.

          But questioning the experts is different from ignoring them, as I said above.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Right on cue, I found this article. “Is Modern Science Polluted?”
        http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/is-modern-science-polluted/

        Like

  112. Kyle Peter says:

    https://twitter.com/flugempire

    Extensive tweets on future of Big 12. Looks like it might end quickly.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      A few notes:
      * He has an OU source. To validate him, he reminds the reader that the source told him (and he tweeted) that there is no way OU would support expansion days before the recent reports became public. All further info below is from the source

      * No B12 member will challenge the GoR in court

      * There is no path to get 8 schools taken by other P5 conferences and thus not the 8 votes needed to dissolve the B12

      * The other B12 school will want to start negotiations for a secure TV deal in 2 years despite the current deal lasting 6 more years beyond that.

      * Only bargaining chip is to shorten the current GoR to end in 2-3 years. Schools will get a window to negotiate realignment elsewhere or commit long term to the B12 (until 2035 or so).

      * Other schools like UT seem to share this belief in what will happen.

      * Expect all but UT/OU/KU to start these negotiations in 24 months.

      Now some notes from flugaur:
      * Probably fewer than 7 schools will be looking for security through this plan, meaning that probably at least 1 more school thinks it can find a P5 home (maybe as a little brother to UT/OU).

      * He takes a few shots at the Dude of WV

      * 1 or both of UT and OU will leave the B12 by 2025, so the rest need to plan for that.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        There are a few moving parts not addressed by this:

        It is safe to assume that every P5 conference would love to have UT, under some set of conditions. But we don’t know what those conditions are. Would they accept the LHN in its current form? Would UT sacrifice the LHN, if the overall financial package was right?

        It is safe to assume that Kansas would accept a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat. But does the Big Ten want KU?

        It is also safe to assume that Oklahoma would accept a Big Ten or SEC invite in a heartbeat…but do those leagues want OU? What partners would have to come along, for the Big Ten or SEC to say yes?

        Expect all but UT/OU/KU to start these negotiations in 24 months.

        I think it is a mistake to bundle KU with UT and OU. If KU gets an offer at all, they are going to be the vegetable on the plate, along with either the rib steak (OU) or the porterhouse (UT). But maybe the Big Ten decides to feast on the rib and the porterhouse, and skips the vegetables.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “There are a few moving parts not addressed by this:”

          I’d say there are a lot of things it glosses over, but then the B12 members have shown a delusional belief during expansion about the desirability of their members and the attractiveness of their conference.

          “I think it is a mistake to bundle KU with UT and OU. If KU gets an offer at all, they are going to be the vegetable on the plate, along with either the rib steak (OU) or the porterhouse (UT). But maybe the Big Ten decides to feast on the rib and the porterhouse, and skips the vegetables.”

          I think he lumped them together because KU is the other school that firmly believes it would find a good home on its own merits if the B12 died. I’m not saying KU is right to think that, especially after the first round almost left them stranded, but I do think they believe it.

          Like

    • Mike says:

      IMHO, Flugar can be safely ignored.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Well sure. But no wise and truly informed people are doing long twitter rants about expansion so we have to settle for the nuts. It’s entertainment, not news.

        Like

  113. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17722766/acc-elects-keep-current-football-schedule-format

    The ACC ADs have again voted to keep the 8-game ACC schedule with a ninth P5 game required. The new ACCN deal requires the ACC to move to 10 P5 games once the network starts, so apparently they’ll add a second P5 OOC game to the requirements.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Where are you seeing the 10th P5 game requirement? In an earlier article it said their choices were 9+1 or 8+2, but supposedly Swofford said they could make some concessions and stick with 8+1, which they did.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “Where are you seeing the 10th P5 game requirement? In an earlier article it said their choices were 9+1 or 8+2, but supposedly Swofford said they could make some concessions and stick with 8+1, which they did.”

        The 10th game is from previous articles. I’ve seen nothing saying the ACC can get around that requirement. It’s hard to believe that in such a new contract the parties are already renegotiating around a fundamental part of it, but it’s possible. But I haven’t seen anything official that says it is true and has happened (I’m not saying you’re wrong either, just that I haven’t seen it).

        http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-acc-football-sked-vote-post.html

        Here’s an article from Monday saying the ACC needs to choose one of the two options, from the Newport News, VA newspaper. The writer wrongly guesses that 9+1 will win the AD vote, though.

        Clemson, Florida State and Louisville’s national prominence notwithstanding, their concerns may not override the scheduling issues most would face in the 8+2 model. And they certainly don’t override the infrequency of which far too many ACC teams play one another.

        If ESPN expanded the Power Five pool to include the American Athletic Conference, 8+2 would become far more palatable and likely prevail. If not, momentum is building for 9+1 as the ADs prepare for what promises to be an animated debate that could change minds.

        Here’s a breakdown:

        Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Georgia Tech and Duke appear to staunchly prefer 8+2. That’s five of the seven votes this option needs — a 7-all deadlock means the ACC remains at eight conference games and adds the second required Power Five contest. Commissioner John Swofford does not become Vice President Biden in the Senate and break the tie.

        Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina State, Wake Forest and Boston College are likely committed to 9+1. That’s six of the eight votes required.

        That leaves Virginia Tech’s Babcock, Pitt’s Scott Barnes and Syracuse’s John Wildhack, the latter two new to the conference since the 2014 vote. None has publicly revealed a preference, but Babcock and Barnes seem to be leaning toward 9+1, and if that’s where they land, change for the better is coming to ACC football.

        Like

  114. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-big-programs-like-lsu-are-firing-coaches-earlier-in-the-season-than-ever-before/

    An article about the growing trend of firing coaches early in the season.

    Over the past four years, 16 FBS coaches have been fired or resigned before the end of October, according to a CBS Sports review of past announcements of coaching changes. That happened just 13 times from 2004-12.

    Increasingly, the decisions are coming sooner. Thirteen of the 16 coaching change announcements from 2013-16 occurred before Oct. 15. Coaching changes were made that early only nine times from 2000-12. Even Florida’s famous 2004 firing of Ron Zook occurred on Oct. 25, and Zook was allowed to finish the season (a dying art for coaching changes).

    Once upon a time, departing football coaches used to finish the season. Between 2003-08, seven coaches who had been fired or announced their retirement by late October finished the season. No coach whose exit gets announced in September or October has stuck around since Tyrone Willingham completed a 0-12 season at Washington in 2008.

    Athletic directors used to talk about maintaining order on and off the field by keeping the departing head coach in charge. That thinking has changed to the idea that keeping a lame-duck coach around isn’t good for anyone. Some interim coaches have led successful turnaround seasons.

    Like

  115. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-enforcement-whats-working-whats-not-as-ole-miss-unc-cases-near-conclusions/

    A long piece about NCAA enforcement, some of the recent changes and how they’re working, and future changes under consideration.

    Like

  116. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/mailbag-two-theories-why-the-big-12-has-suddenly-collapsed-100516

    Theories on why the B12 is down.

    1. Poor recruiting due to conference instability (the reader’s suggestion).

    2. The loss of schools in realignment lead to lesser recruiting (Mandel’s #1, basically supporting the reader).

    3. The near-universal use of hurry-up spread offenses has lead to “soft” defenses even under noted defensive coaches like Stoops, Strong and Patterson (Mandel’s alternative).

    Like

  117. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/10/05/ncaa-division-1-council-proposes-early-signing-periods-satellite-camps-recruits/91627604/

    The NCAA D-I Council is proposing 2 brief (72 hour) early signing periods for CFB, one in June and one in December. It would go into effect for the 2017-2018 recruiting cycle if the NCAA approves it.

    There is also a proposal about satellite camps.

    The new proposal would allow them on a more limited basis than last year, setting a 10-day limit for schools to conduct camps and clinics. The days used do not have to be consecutive, allowing for greater flexibility. Previously, there were two 15-day periods in the offseason for coaches to conduct camps.

    Also, the camps must be “owned, operated and conducted by NCAA member schools and occur on the school’s campus or in facilities the school primarily uses for practice or competition.” This essentially addresses concerns many coaches raised about camps that were being held at high schools or junior colleges where it was unclear at times who was operating the camps and where the money was flowing, raising the specter of illegal recruiting.

    They’ll also propose adding a 10th assistant coach and work with the Football Oversight Committee on limiting staff size over the next year.

    Like

  118. Brian says:

    http://www.hammerandrails.com/2016/10/4/13164196/purdue-football-life-in-a-welfare-state-darrell-hazell-hot-seat

    A former PU player talks about the state of the program.

    The Purdue football coaches, players, and administration are living in a welfare state. The Big Ten is playing the role of the government and the Boilermakers are the citizens waiting for their chance to be fed. We’re taking the money to upgrade our facilities, great, but that will only allow us to catch up to the rest of our conference opponents until we are inevitably passed again and left wondering how we are going to impress recruits with the “stuff” they care about these days. We didn’t have recovery hot/cold tubs until the Mackey Renovation was completed. Our training room looked like something out of the first Major League movie.

    This culture starts at the top of the university, trickles into the athletics director’s office, and slowly works its way into the locker rooms. It’s a losing culture and Purdue fans should be sick of it. It’s the false narrative of “yeah we’re losing on the football field but we still make money” story that they’ve been trying to sell to us along with those $10 north end zone tickets. It’s been going on for too long so let’s take a look at where it all changed.

    We made the cheap hire with Danny Hope. No big deal right? Wrong. If you remember the final two candidates for that job were Hope and Paul Chryst. One is happily off the grid and the other is leading the eleventh ranked team in the country.

    Everything turned for the worse when Danny Hope and his staff decided to coddle their first recruiting class. None of the players or coaches from the Tiller regime were allowed to interact in their typical manners with the “Florida Boys.” All of a sudden guys were showing up late to team meetings, skipping class, skipping workouts, oh, and hiding in the practice field bathroom during cold November Wednesday nights. That’s right, two starters who shall not be named used to hide in the bathroom during practice because they were too cold.

    They were untouchable and it created a mess. Luckily for Hope, we had winners on those teams. We had leaders that had been to, won, and performed well in bowl games. He could hide the stench that was brewing in the locker room with a few big wins on the backs of guys whom he didn’t recruit. Don’t get me wrong, we all loved being around Coach Hope and he taught me a ton about how to live my life as a man, but those messages were ignored by his boys from down South.

    Darrell Hazell was hired to be the Febreeze that would cover up the smell of three Hope recruiting classes. He immediately got rid of some of the bad apples and was creating order and structure in the program. He had more of a mess on his hands than any of the job applicants that interviewed for our vacancy could have known. As most new coaches do, he wanted to play his guys, and now we are stuck with upperclassmen on the team who have checked out and accepted mediocrity.

    Everything I’ve heard about Hazell from his former players at both Ohio State and Purdue is that they would run through a brick wall for the guy. How thick is the brick wall at Purdue right now? It looks like these guys are trying but it’s hard to ignore the total lack of talent and/or talent development on behalf of this coaching staff.

    There is a lot more at the link.

    Like

    • bob sykes says:

      I am a Purdue grad, and I get their alumni mag. The administration is delusional. They keep sending me reports that PU is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, yet my former employer tOSU is consistently ranked above them. They are not only mediocre in sports, they are mediocre academically, and they are totally self unaware.

      When I was there in the 60’s, they were among the B1G elite. No more, and they don’t know it. The current Prez is a disaster,but he gets gallons of good ink.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        …they are mediocre academically…

        No Big Ten school is truly “mediocre” academically—not even Nebraska. Some are greater than others, but they are all above the average P5 school.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I was going to point out that same thing. Being a top 100 university is way above mediocre.

          Also, I don’t think rankings are a great comparison for a school like Purdue. Being sort of half of a university with IU being the other half, many of the metrics these systems use won’t be totally fair to PU. PU is generally considered a top 10 engineering school in the US, well above OSU (although OSU is climbing). Others may be catching up to PU, but PU hasn’t fallen very far.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Actually, Purdue isn’t GTech; they offer majors in almost everything. However, it is true that they only are strong/renown in STEM and quant fields (like operations). Yet they have more undergrads than UMich (GTech, where the vast majority of majors are in STEM or business, has roughly half as many undergrads as PU), so for many of their majors, PU just isn’t very selective or stand out.

            In the fields that Purdue is known for, however, PU is among the best.

            Like

      • BoilerTex says:

        Bob, did you see the WSJ university rankings last week? PU was the 4th best public university, tied with Berkeley. Every ranking has +/-; but to call PU mediocre is a bridge too far. I get it, I’m BSIE and we were #1 nationally all four years I was there (now #3 according to USNews), but we are very competitive in general with OSU in terms of WSJ, AWRU, etc.

        Like