Big 12 Expansion Press Conference Pregame Thoughts and Open Thread

Posted: October 17, 2016 in Big 12 Expansion, Sports
Tags:

460x

The Big 12 will be live streaming a news conference today at 5:30 pm Central Time regarding expansion. Will the Big 12 expand by none as has been intimated over the past few weeks (with ESPN and Fox kicking in some money to kill expansion)? Maybe the Big 12 presidents will expand by 2, 4 or kick the can down the road?

This is just my gut feeling, but I believe the Big 12 presidents will vote to expand by 2 despite so much tampering down of expansion expectations over the last month. Whenever the Big 12 presidents have actually met together, they seem to believe that expansion is a positive. It’s only when they separate and are left to their own devices that more negative perceptions about expansion come around. Strictly on a psychological basis, the group dynamics can change a lot of things since the presidents have to confront what is best for the Big 12 conference overall as opposed to solely thinking about their own individual school’s interests.

We’ll see what happens. If the Big 12 decides to expand, it seems that this will come down to a game of musical chairs between BYU (arguably the most valuable school but also the most controversial politically), Houston (helped by a heavy dose of Texas politics) and Cincinnati (the non-controversial and very good across the board candidate but doesn’t have the passionate supporters that BYU and Houston seem to have). If any of the other candidates get into the Big 12 (which I examined Bachelor-style last month), then it would almost certainly entail the Big 12 expanding by 4. (As I noted on Twitter earlier today, my “crazy but plausible” scenario is the Big 12 adding BYU, Houston, Cincinnati… and Colorado State. This would address the disproportionately high number of Big 12 alums that live in the Denver market. I don’t think that scenario is very likely, but who knows what will happen when these Big 12 presidents get into a room.)

Regardless, feel free to use this post as an open thread to discuss Big 12 expansion and the presidential press conference. It’s pretty rare to have such anticipation for a conference realignment event where the outcome is truly up in the air, so enjoy the speculation while you can!

UPDATE (2:24 PM CT): Chip Brown reporting that there were no schools added by the Big 12:

We’ll see whether that means that Big 12 expansion is dead or if the presidents will continue to discuss this further ad nauseum.

UPDATE (2:34 PM CT): Pete Thamel also with a report that there won’t be Big 12 expansion:

UPDATE (2:52 PM CT): Jake Trotter from ESPN with another confirming report that there won’t be Big 12 expansion.:

Soooooo, it looks like this is going to be a pretty boring press conference.

(Image from Associated Press)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Nostradamus says:

    Chip Brown has spoken

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Go Hawks!

    Like

  3. Matthew Smith says:

    Clearly Bama’s just SKEEERED

    Like

  4. Chip Brown tweet: No new members were added to the #Big12 during today’s Big 12 Board of Directors meeting, multiple sources tell http://HornsDigest.com .

    Like

  5. Jake says:

    When the Big 12 finally goes tits up, would the ACC be interested in TCU? I figure that’s the best shot the Frogs have of staying in a power conference.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Would any self-respecting conference take the conference-killers? Everywhere TCU goes they leave behind the smoldering ruins of a conference. CUSA and MWC are still around but greatly diminished, much like the B12 may be in 10 years.

      Like

      • Jake says:

        The MWC had its best years with TCU on board; how many other teams in that conference notched a Rose Bowl win? Plus, it’s not like anything the conference did would have stopped Utah from leaving. Then BYU had to do their thing, I suppose. And how was TCU or anyone else supposed to keep CUSA teams from going to the Big East at that point?

        As for the ACC, what conference wouldn’t want a presence in Texas? They added BC not so long ago. It’d be hard to find a closer match for TCU than that. Two mid-sized private schools in big, pro-sports heavy markets. Except TCU has been better at football lately.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          If (when) the Big 12 folds, will TCU be the best choice in Texas for any conference? If so, will that conference care? The SEC has A & M. Someone will presumably get Texas. Would the B1G or Pac have any interest in TCU? It is a church based private university that is not in the AAU. Not the type of school for either conference.

          That leaves the ACC as the remaining lifeboat, if it become the G4.
          What does TCU do for the ACC?

          Would Houston be in the running for the ACC? Instead of TCU?

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Jake,

          I was just joking about TCU’s track record of killing conferences. I don’t believe any P5 conference would worry about that (B12 certainly didn’t). That said, I think TCU is too far away for the ACC to want them. Unless they were part of a package that included UT somehow.

          “The MWC had its best years with TCU on board;”

          Utah and BYU also contributed quite a bit over that period.

          “how many other teams in that conference notched a Rose Bowl win?”

          I think Utah’s 13-0 season with a Sugar Bowl win counts as the equivalent.

          “Plus, it’s not like anything the conference did would have stopped Utah from leaving.”

          Of course not. Nor BYU nor TCU. A promotion is a promotion.

          “As for the ACC, what conference wouldn’t want a presence in Texas?”

          One that’s 1000+ miles away. The amount of travel required for every other member to get their teams to TCU is very expensive and hard on the athletes. Doing that for a brand like ND is one thing. I don’t think TCU justifies it. It’s not like they couldn’t have added TCU before 2011. Plus the ACC doesn’t have demographic issues since they have the entire Atlantic coast including FL.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Right Brian. For all the talk about Texas as conference killers, they’ve only been in two conferences. Now TCU’s trail of destruction:
            TIAA-gone
            SWC-gone
            WAC-gone (for football)
            CUSA-diminished-only USM still around who played fb against them
            MWC-diminished with 3 top teams leaving
            Big East-gone
            Big 12-at risk?

            Like

          • Jake says:

            I don’t imagine TCU would go to the ACC alone. Maybe along with Texas or OU, or Baylor or Tech or something. Also, I kind of suspect that the ACC will lose a school or two by that time. But 2024 is still awhile from now.

            Like

          • Brutus says:

            How about this theory. OU and KU still leave the Big 12, but TX remains 2-4 new schools join and become TX proxies. The conference will be valuable as long as TX is there. It does not matter if the additions are SMU or RICE or Houston, it is still P5 worthy because TX is there. TX and OU preserve the Red River SHootout. Why would this not work for TX

            1) SOS for them is the same or better because they no longer need to play Kansas and theoretically, whichever G5 team that joins is going to be better than KU
            2) They still play OU even if it is now a non con game (it was before when OU was Big 8)
            3) TX gets more power to dictate conference agenda and has does not even have to pretend to play nice because other schools have no options
            4) TX keeps LHN
            5) TX maintains best and most geographic area for Olympic SPorts
            6) If TX leaves, even becomes FB independent, they have less power than they will staying part of Proxy 12.
            7) TX can probably get just as much money in Proxy 12 than any other conference.

            any thoughts.?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jake,

            “I don’t imagine TCU would go to the ACC alone. Maybe along with Texas or OU, or Baylor or Tech or something.”

            Off the top of my head I can’t think of a scenario that makes sense for the ACC to take TCU. UT and OU already have little brothers they’d try to bring along if they weren’t going alone. That doesn’t mean the scenario doesn’t exist, but I don’t know what it would be.

            “Also, I kind of suspect that the ACC will lose a school or two by that time. But 2024 is still awhile from now.”

            I have a hard time imagining any school leaving the ACC with over 10 years left in the GOR. The money gap would have to be huge because the penalty would likely be enormous.

            Like

  6. Northwestern crushes Michigan State. Life is good.

    Like

  7. Jake says:

    When the Big 12 finally goes tits up, any chance the ACC would be interested in TCU? I figure that’s the best shot the Frogs have of staying in a power conference.

    Like

  8. Nostradamus says:

    Like

  9. Nostradamus says:

    It will be interesting to see what happens with ESPN and Fox now with the Big XII. The conference has made it perfectly clear it doesn’t have the 8 votes needed for any candidate. There isn’t a whole lot of leverage left to try and get the networks to pay you not to expand when you aren’t going to expand in the first place.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Yes, that’s just more poor planning by the B12. You can’t hold a vote when losing it also destroys your other major option.

      Hopefully all they did was table the discussion while they negotiate with the networks so they know what their alternatives are.

      My guess is they end up getting about $20M more per year but have to extend the TV deal a few years. However, the GOR isn’t extended along with it. The GOR isn’t necessary in the B12 since they don’t have a conference network and UT and OU will refuse to extend it. In response, the other 8 will try to raise the exit fee.

      Like

  10. Geo says:

    My gut says no,expansion bc the announcement is late in the day. All expansion announcements came around the lunch time hour.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Well nothing could happen today anyway since its not a Tuesday.

      I wonder, has the bachelor ever refused to offer the final rose?

      Like

      • @bullet – Yes! Brad Womack is infamous for not choosing anyone in the final rose ceremony. He is also the only person to ever be a two-time Bachelor. (Womack picked someone on his second time on the show, although the relationship flamed out within a couple of months after the season wrapped up.) Superficial connection to Big 12 expansion: he lives in Austin, Texas.

        Like

  11. Jersey Bernie says:

    On the UConn boards, obviously most people desperately want the Big 12. There are still a goodly number that to this day pretty much cannot understand why the ACC and B1G are not in a bidding war to claim the Huskies before it is too late.

    On the Rutgers front the over/under is 17. That is 17 points cumulative total over the last 5 games of the season. Rutgers must have the worst quarterback at any P5 school (and nearly any G5 school). Lost their one really talented offensive player a few weeks ago and that was pretty much it.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Nouveau riche fan base, Bernie. College administrators have long memories, and Connecticut’s ambulance-chasing attorney general bad-mouthing the ACC after it took Boston College instead of the Huskies (still puppies at big-time football) made any P5 league reluctant to admit Connecticut.

      Like

  12. Carl says:

    Go State! Beat the Buckeyes! (just fantasizing for a minute)

    Like

  13. So does this mean that the Big 12 takes a hit on the “brand” or perception that they are trailing all of the other conferences or will it be spun that they are more valuable now? It seems like at this point the conferences are jockeying for position and gauging the interest of potential partners in the future, more than anything else.

    In other words, why did the Big 12 even publically think about expanding at all?

    Like

  14. houstontexasjack says:

    I am disappointed for UH, and I do not know if the political winds down here will blow quite so much in their favor in the next go-round. The UT land-buy in Houston for that research campus presented a unique chance to exert pressure on UT’s administration. However, Houston has moved up to be the #8 TV market in the country and the metro area’s strengths aren’t changing. I think UH needs to be careful about making the right trades over the coming weeks and months to solidify potential future support for UT. 2017 is a legislative year, so perhaps UH might push to include language regarding getting a chunk of the Permanent University Fund if they are not in a major conference by a designated time period and if UT is permitted to build their research campus in Houston. Although I’d expect UT and A&M to retch at such a measure, it would force some sort of political concessions from the legislature.

    Like

  15. Mike says:

    For as much as we all love realignment, does anyone feel burned out by the Big 12 drama? I do.

    Like

    • @Mike – I’ve definitely been burned out with the hemming and hawing. It isn’t as if though the Big 12 has been getting inundated with new information. They have been effectively been evaluating the same handful of schools for literally several years and still couldn’t come to a consensus (despite an *overall* message from consultants that expansion would be beneficial).

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        Frank, doesn’t Delaney look even more brilliant with his six year Contract with ESPN and Fox? Just imagine how much money the Big 10 can add with Texas and ( or) Oklahoma? Obviously, Kansas is the fallback School. The one question I have is this? If the Big XII is actually the Walking Dead, do you think it is possible that small schools like Boston College, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt and even Purdue give up ( or are made to give up) football. Theoretically speaking, if KU, OU and UT decide they want to join the Big 10, could Purdue could be encouraged to step aside, give up football ( since they cannot compete), and become another College Of Chicago ( still getting CIC money) and let the Confetence add KU, OU & UT for Schools: 14, 15 & 16.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          David Brown,

          “Frank, doesn’t Delaney look even more brilliant with his six year Contract with ESPN and Fox?”

          I still think 8 years would’ve been better (end in 2025 when the B12 GOR ends). I don’t think going first next time is necessarily best unless we do yet another short deal to also go last.

          “Just imagine how much money the Big 10 can add with Texas and ( or) Oklahoma? Obviously, Kansas is the fallback School.”

          UT would be huge money. OU would be decent money but it’s not a huge state. KU would add vale for hoops but is as bad as RU in football.

          “The one question I have is this? If the Big XII is actually the Walking Dead, do you think it is possible that small schools like Boston College, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt and even Purdue give up ( or are made to give up) football. Theoretically speaking, if KU, OU and UT decide they want to join the Big 10, could Purdue could be encouraged to step aside, give up football ( since they cannot compete), and become another College Of Chicago ( still getting CIC money) and let the Confetence add KU, OU & UT for Schools: 14, 15 & 16.”

          Never, at least not in the B10. I do believe PU will be strongly encouraged to spend more on athletics with the new TV deal starting next year, though. They already divert several million to the academic side and are about to get a $9M bump in TV money. They need to start paying their coaches more and become competitive again. Hopefully the new AD leads them this way starting with the hire of a new FB coach.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            I agree I do not think the Big 10 would kick out Purdue ( they did not throw out Northwestern when they were the B10 bottom feeder), But my problem with Purdue is not just sending sports money to the Academic Departments, but this: Already Schools like Northwestern and Iowa are investing big time in upgrading their facilities. Penn State will be next ( The Nittany Lions can be a game changer in Big 10 sports ( see the Peguila Ice Center), and even Rutgers is talking about finally getting out of the RAC ( Rutgers Athletic Center). What you do not want to be is the Boston College of the Big 10. Awful teams and worse facilities and only selling out when Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan or Indiana come to town. Maybe for the Boilermakers it’s a realization they are not catching up with Northwestern or Minnesota ( let alone Michigan or Ohio State), and dropping football makes economic sense. By the way, an extra $9,000,000 might help but not that much. Already Penn State sunk $25,000,000 into the Lasch Building upgrade and that is just for football. They along with Populus are creating a Master Plan for upgrading Beaver Stadium, the Jordan Center, the McCoy Natorium and other facilities: I would even bet on Illinois, Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers upgrading before Purdue does.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Maybe for the Boilermakers it’s a realization they are not catching up with Northwestern or Minnesota ( let alone Michigan or Ohio State), and dropping football makes economic sense.

            If they drop football, they lose millions of dollars in Big Ten media money. I don’t see that happening.

            There is no reason for Purdue to suck as badly as they do, when Northwestern has had better results. It wasn’t that long ago that Joe Tiller had the Boilers bowl eligible in ten out of his twelve seasons, including a Rose Bowl. They dropped off a bit in his final few seasons, but they were in the upper half of the Big Ten in eight of his first ten years.

            It’s not as if this happened decades ago: Tiller retired in 2008. There’s no reason why, with the right coach, Purdue couldn’t be back at that level, especially when they play in the weaker of the two divisions.

            Like

          • Tyson says:

            Doubt Purdue goes anywhere voluntarily (nor can I imagine them being booted by the B1G)…looks like they are planning serious facility upgrades

            http://www.purduefootballmasterplan.com/ross-ade-renovation/index.html

            Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            Correct, the school announced a $66MM football performance complex and has already broken ground. The real proof will be who they hire and how much $$ they devote to assistant salaries. Our president is not interested in “arms races” but we need to do better than the status quo. We’ll see.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BoilerTex,

            “Correct, the school announced a $66MM football performance complex and has already broken ground. The real proof will be who they hire and how much $$ they devote to assistant salaries. Our president is not interested in “arms races” but we need to do better than the status quo. We’ll see.”

            Exactly. This is where that extra $9M per year comes in. There’s no excuse for paying coaches so little anymore. Find a good coach and pay his staff enough that he can keep good assistants around.

            Like

    • Jake says:

      Speaking as someone with degrees from two Big 12 universities (and working on a third), burned out isn’t quite the phrase I’d choose. I’ve already moved on to looking at where my school will end up next, though (see above).

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Wouldn’t Iowa State have more to offer the Big 12 than Texas Christian (alumni and stadium size, basketball programs, nationally prominent wrestling)? It’d be nice if ISU promised to revive baseball as a condition of admitting it, but SU didn’t need to do it for ACC inclusion.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          Iowa State offers nothing to any Power Conference. Iowa is the bigger State School generates more interest and certainly has a better wrestling program then they do, as does Big XII Conference mate Oklahoma State. The greatest wrestler in ISU History ( Cael Sanderson) left Ames because the Cyclones could not compete with what Penn State had to offer, and we see the results almost every year. TCU and even Boston College, Washington State and Wake Forest win more football games then the Cyclones. I would take TCU and any Power Five School over them, as well as non P5 Schools like Central Florida, South Florida, Colorado State, Air Force, San Diego State and even maybe even UNLV over Iowa State.

          Like

        • Jake says:

          As much as I love college baseball, I don’t think any conference commissioner, athletic director, or university president weighs it very heavily in realignment decisions.

          But Iowa State is a perennial bottom-dweller football program, the second most popular program in a state of 3 million people. TCU is about the fifth biggest program in Texas, yes, but it’s a state of 27 million people with major media markets. And TCU, you know, wins occasionally. The Clones have us beat when it comes to basketball, for sure, but maybe Jamie Dixon can turn things around. ISU could really be SOL when things go south in the Big 12; TCU’s prospects are uncertain for sure, but the Frogs probably have a couple more options.

          Like

  16. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17819583/big-12-expansion-goes-psychologically-disadvantaged-great-runaround

    Were there any great candidates out there? No, not with the potential toxicity swirling around BYU. But think about some of the recent Power 5 expansion additions: Maryland, Rutgers, Colorado, Utah, TCU, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, even Louisville.

    How many of those were or are considered home runs? None. But some have added value, including TCU, a conference nomad which quickly became one of the better Big 12 football programs. If the Big 12 really wanted to give this process its due, it should have looked for the next TCU, projecting 5-10 years out rather than talking in circles. And if the Big 12 is ultimately doomed in the long-term, adding members would have brought a short-term financial windfall, which could help current members who won’t find soft landing spots if the conference dissolves.

    In not expanding and, equally important, not extending its grant of rights, the Big 12 possibly signed its own death warrant Monday. It remains the most vulnerable league. The loss of one more heavyweight, Texas or Oklahoma, likely would TKO the conference. “A very bad strategic move,” a source close to the process told ESPN.com. “Painfully incremental decision-making.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Were there any great candidates out there? No, not with the potential toxicity swirling around BYU. But think about some of the recent Power 5 expansion additions: Maryland, Rutgers, Colorado, Utah, TCU, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, even Louisville.

      Maybe none of those were slam dunks, but I’d argue that they were all better than the B12’s latest slate of candidates.

      TCU and West Virginia were more-or-less “compelled” additions: the B12 had to get back to at least 10 members. Likewise, after losing Maryland, the ACC had to get back to an even number, and Louisville was the best available.

      When the Pac added Colorado, it was getting a school that has always been considered power conference material, by any definition. Utah was then the 12th school that enabled them to add a conference championship game. The rules have changed now: the ability to stage that game is no longer a reason to expand.

      While the jury may be out on Maryland and Rutgers, depending on whom you ask, there’s no doubt the B10 thought they were hitting a home run, or at least a solid extra-base hit, since there was otherwise no particular urgency for them to act.

      How many of those were or are considered home runs? None. But some have added value, including TCU, a conference nomad which quickly became one of the better Big 12 football programs. If the Big 12 really wanted to give this process its due, it should have looked for the next TCU, projecting 5-10 years out rather than talking in circles.

      When the B12 added TCU, it wasn’t “projecting”: Gary Paterson had already shown that the Horned Frogs could compete with other P5 teams.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        Rutgers helped BTN get on Cablevision which they were not before. That is 3.5 million subscribers @ $5:00 a month. Not to mention Eastern Protection ( along with Maryland) for Penn State. The problem for Rutgers is NJ/NY has always been a pro town ( especially with the Yankees), and the College Alpha Dog was St Johns, followed by Syracuse. However, Rutgers is getting more coverage then ever ( including games @ Yankee Stadium), and with Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan coming to NJ every other year, that will continue. Rutgers has a chance to actually be a success.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ROBERT M SYKES says:

          The most popular college football team in NYC is Rutgers, followed by Notre Dame. Syracuse is a distant 6th:

          https://new-york-ny.knoji.com/10-most-popular-college-football-teams-in-new-york-city/

          That is why the B1G chose them. They are the best entre into the NYC television market.

          Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          Not to sound “politically incorrect” but is Syracuse as an athletic brand have an elevated status in the Jewish community in NY/NYC, simply for the fact its not a Catholic (ND, SJ) or Italian-American affinity (Penn State, JoePa) brand. It may rank lower overall, but be #1 in that sector of the marketplace.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I don’t consider that politically incorrect, merely wrong — or, at least, not supported by any data I have ever seen or heard of.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Urban, I have lived in NJ for a long time and knows lots of people who went to Penn State. I have never heard anyone suggest Penn State has any Italian American affinity, notwithstanding Paterno.

            Being a distant 6th in NYC is not much of an elevation for SU.

            UConn constantly pushes two things. Basketball, which is certainly legit. AND bringing the NYC market. UConn is barely ahead of Michigan in 4th and 5th places, and not much ahead of SU.

            Perhaps Ann Arbor is really the 6th borough of NYC, not Storrs, CT.

            It seems as though half of the comments by UConn fans relates to bringing the NYC market.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Maybe none of those were slam dunks, but I’d argue that they were all better than the B12’s latest slate of candidates.”

        Probably, but I think the point is that none of them were great additions on paper but they all have paid off in one way or another. BYU, UC, UH et al might be schools that would grow into solid members given the finances of a P5 school.

        “When the Pac added Colorado, it was getting a school that has always been considered power conference material, by any definition. Utah was then the 12th school that enabled them to add a conference championship game. The rules have changed now: the ability to stage that game is no longer a reason to expand.”

        True, but CO and Utah are now 2 of the best teams in the P12 South so it’s worked out anyway.

        “While the jury may be out on Maryland and Rutgers, depending on whom you ask, there’s no doubt the B10 thought they were hitting a home run, or at least a solid extra-base hit, since there was otherwise no particular urgency for them to act.”

        They’ve worked out financially and UMD has been fine on the field (not in football so much, but other sports). RU might develop over the next decade given the infusion of cash and interest in sports.

        “When the B12 added TCU, it wasn’t “projecting”: Gary Paterson had already shown that the Horned Frogs could compete with other P5 teams.”

        It’s one thing to compete in 1-2 big games per year, it’s another to play a P5 schedule. It took Utah several years to regain their success once the SOS jumped up, for example. I think that’s the projection he means.

        Like

    • vp19 says:

      Which is why ISU is doomed in the next decade — and this Cyclones message board has its head in the sand: http://iowastate.247sports.com/Board/101486/Contents/Big-12-Expansion-Decision-Thread-48317607

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        Iowa State is not only doomed in the Next Decade, but are doomed in the present ( just like the past). The other doomed Schools ( Kansas State, TCU etc at least have some recent past memories to enjoy). ISU has lived off of OU and beating Iowa once in a blue moon for a Century.

        Like

    • Jake says:

      Maybe not expanding was a bad move, but I don’t see how any additions the Big 12 could have made would have secured the long-term future of the conference. Would Texas turn down a Big Ten invite because they are getting to play Houston and BYU every year? Doubtful. The best thing the Big 12 can do right now is make as much money as possible for the next decade or so. Maybe standing pat does that; I don’t know the details, and there may be more negotiations with the TV partners.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Jake,

        “Maybe not expanding was a bad move, but I don’t see how any additions the Big 12 could have made would have secured the long-term future of the conference.”

        I agree it was unlikely to make a big difference. That said, maybe removing the “psychological disadvantage” would help the stability all by itself. Also, the B12’s experts said going to 12 with 8 games and a CCG would significantly improve their odds of making the playoff. More playoff appearances might also improve the psyche of the members while bringing more money in future TV deals. And if the 2 newbies developed into solid programs they way TCU has, they could add real value to the TV deal by adding new markets or strengthening current ones.

        “Would Texas turn down a Big Ten invite because they are getting to play Houston and BYU every year? Doubtful.”

        No, but they probably prefer to stay put as long as the money gap doesn’t become large. So if expansion would increase UT’s revenues, then it’s helpful for keeping the B12 together.

        “The best thing the Big 12 can do right now is make as much money as possible for the next decade or so.”

        Yes. The real question many have is whether the smaller schools should’ve forced expansion to maximize revenues now for themselves in preparation for potentially losing UT and OU in 2025.

        “Maybe standing pat does that; I don’t know the details, and there may be more negotiations with the TV partners.”

        They will renegotiate their TV deals with ESPN and Fox. They will drop the pro rata clause (or limit it to current P5 members + a few others) in exchange for a pay raise. They also are adding a CCG. The networks will probably try to extend the deal in exchange for a pay raise, but UT and OU will refuse to extend the GOR as part of that deal. Still, the B12 will get a bump of around $5M per year per school (CCG is worth about $30M and the networks pitch in $20M more for not expanding and dropping the pro rata clause). That boost should be enough to keep everyone happy for quite a while.

        Like

  17. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  18. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-12-expansion-conference-should-apologize-oklahoma-texas-mandel-101716

    Stewart Mandel think the B12 needs to apologize for how they went about this.

    It should apologize to the leaders at BYU, Houston and Cincinnati for dangling a coveted Power 5 golden ticket and inspiring them to publicly grovel for it. It should apologize to fans of Connecticut, UCF, USF and Colorado State for giving them months of false hope. It should apologize to administrators at SMU, Tulane, Air Force and Rice for putting time and effort into delivering needless presentations last month for invitations the league surely knew were never coming.

    And it should apologize to American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco for treating it as a farm league team where the star players could get called up at any moment.

    The Big 12 was never under any obligation to expand, so it’s not like it made a right or wrong call Monday when it “unanimously” elected to remain at 10 members. But imagine being a supporter of one of the supposed finalists when board chairman David Boren said at a press conference Monday that he and his colleagues did not even discuss individual candidates at their meeting.

    The weakest of the Power 5 conferences spent the past 18 months standing in judgment of all those purportedly inferior programs. The 10-team league hadn’t added new members since 2012 because it didn’t think any of the available candidates were attractive enough. And after compelling presidents and ADs of those schools to desperately court its favor, the conference came to the conclusion that … nope, still not good enough.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I don’t foresee any scenario where the B12 apologizes, but I agree with Mandel that this was an ugly, ugly process. My take is that expansion never had a consensus. Remember, it was a considered a mild surprise a number of months ago, when the league agreed to consider candidates, as many had expected it to stand pat.

      My guess is that the anti-expansion schools said, “Okay, we’ll look at candidates: more information never hurt anybody.” But in the end, they dangled false hope, while landing exactly where they were leaning all along.

      By the way, although Frank was wrong, I give him credit for putting a concrete prediction out there. It wasn’t a crazy prediction, either, even though it was incorrect.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Had BYU adjusted their honor code and still not been admitted, then they might be owed an apology.

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      I happen to agree. Especially because there are Schools in the Big XII who complain about BYU’s Honor Code but run a shit show program that is not only inferior to BYU, but Houston, UCF, USF, Air Force, Colorado State and Academically speaking Rice. Yes, Iowa State I am talking about you and your President. There is no major University or Professional team in this Country with the exception ( for now) of the Cubs ( Purdue included) that is as historically inept as Iowa State in football. ISU should be more concerned with their pathetic program then any BYU Honor Code.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        And yet it has expanded its stadium to more than 60,000, and regularly fills it. No college football fan base supports its team more and gets less out of it than Iowa State’s — and its basketball support is solid (for both men and women).

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          It is true that the Cyclone fans do support their team no matter what ( another Cub comparison). But unlike the Cubs with Theo Epstein ( or @ Kansas State with Bill Synder) there is no one turning things around in Ames and after the likely end of the Big XII they will be lucky to be in the AAC or MWC. I do hope they win a Title before the Conference ends ( if only for the fans).

          Like

          • Jake says:

            Do you really think the Big 12 will “end”? Even if OU and Texas leave (maybe with a couple of others), wouldn’t the remaining schools who couldn’t do any better for themselves just reload with the best of the AAC and MWC?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Do you really think the Big 12 will “end”? Even if OU and Texas leave (maybe with a couple of others), wouldn’t the remaining schools who couldn’t do any better for themselves just reload with the best of the AAC and MWC?

            That is the most believable scenario. But without OU and UT, they are really a “Little 12,” regardless of what they call it. As Brian put it on the previous thread, do you think they keep their Sugar Bowl tie-in, with the two big schools gone? Do they keep their New Year’s Six auto-bid?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            They have a better shot of keeping their automatic NY6 bowl as a conference of 10 “P5 schools” than as a conference of 8. And as a conference of 7 or 6, fuggeditaboudit. But in shortsighted self-interest calculations, might be easier to live in denial about the risk of UT and OU leaving in the 20’s.

            Like

  19. Pat Kinnick says:

    Go Hawks! Boomer Sooner to B1G

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I could see the Sooners in the Big 10. Of course, the weak Academic part would hurt, but if KU or ( especially) UT came along it would be political cover. I do believe that those schools really would not cry if the Big XII would die because it eliminates the little brother issue ( at OSU and KSU) and lessens the effect of Texas politics ( Tech). I do think that Oklahoma State has the best chance at a Power Conference of the Schools not named KU, OU & UT.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        David Brown,

        “I could see the Sooners in the Big 10. Of course, the weak Academic part would hurt, but if KU or ( especially) UT came along it would be political cover.”

        NE’s AAU report had data from 2008 listing the schools by AAU criteria. OU was tied for #91 with VT and NCSU, so it’s not terrible. That’s higher than NE was. It’s a long way from making the AAU (last 2 new members were #31 and #37 on the list), and would only be ahead of 1 AAU member currently (#94), but there are 3 in the 80s that OU might be able to catch with a focus on academics.

        “I do believe that those schools really would not cry if the Big XII would die because it eliminates the little brother issue ( at OSU and KSU) and lessens the effect of Texas politics ( Tech).”

        It’s hard to say because alumni hate to lose all their familiar rivalries. But they certainly know that their little brothers hold them back from getting invitations to certain conferences (esp. B10). We’ve heard some people claim that OU and KU aren’t really tied to their little brothers like UT is to TT, so maybe it isn’t a big factor.

        “I do think that Oklahoma State has the best chance at a Power Conference of the Schools not named KU, OU & UT.”

        They’re the best program, probably, but who wants the #2 school in a smallish state unless it’s part of a package deal like the P16 plan? One of the TX schools at least offers access to better recruiting and more fans. I don’t think any of the other 7 schools offer enough value to overcome their locations.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          Brian:?I do not think you and I have much disagreement. On the rivalry issue all three Schools lost a big rival: 1:UT lost A&M. 2: OU lost Nebraska. 3: Kansas lost Missouri. The Alumni and fans are surviving. Of the non UT Texas Schools in the Big XII it is TCU that offers the most ( the Dallas/ Fort Worth Market) despite the way they jump from Conference to Conference that offers the most to another Power Conference. Why? Baylor is toxic and Tech is out in the middle of nowhere ( Lubbock). I would choose Houston over those two: If I would rank Big XII Schools by value I would go: 1: UT. 2: OU. 3: KU. 4: OSU. 5: TCU. 6: BU. 7: TT. 8: WVA. 9: ISU. 10: KSU. I only rank the Cyclones higher because of AAU.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “I do not think you and I have much disagreement.”

            Agreed.

            “On the rivalry issue all three Schools lost a big rival: 1:UT lost A&M. 2: OU lost Nebraska. 3: Kansas lost Missouri. The Alumni and fans are surviving.”

            Losing 1 is bad. Losing all your usual foes is a whole different thing. It takes years for fans to get over it (if they ever do) and the new home needs to provide obvious upsides to placate them.

            “Of the non UT Texas Schools in the Big XII it is TCU that offers the most ( the Dallas/ Fort Worth Market) despite the way they jump from Conference to Conference that offers the most to another Power Conference.”

            Yes and no. They’re in that market, but do they deliver that market to an outside P5 conference? I’m sure TCU draws good ratings when the team is doing well, but will fans watch TCU vs Duke if TCU isn’t a top 10 team? Will UT and TAMU not dominate the ratings?

            On top of that, travel is still a huge concern for any other P5 conference. It doesn’t matter for football, but sending 15 other teams to TX during the week is expensive and time consuming. I’m just not sure the value of TCU trumps the cost for a distant P5 conference (and the same would be true for most P5 members).

            “If I would rank Big XII Schools by value I would go: 1: UT. 2: OU. 3: KU. 4: OSU. 5: TCU. 6: BU. 7: TT. 8: WVA. 9: ISU. 10: KSU. I only rank the Cyclones higher because of AAU.”

            The problem is that after #3 the rankings are irrelevant because the value isn’t high enough to justify adding them. The only way schools 4-10 go anywhere is if they’re part of a package deal with #1-3 so that the top team can provide the extra value. I’m not even sure KU provides enough value except to the B10 (shorter travel, could use the MBB to help BTN).

            Like

  20. Eric says:

    I was rooting strongly for Cincinnati, but at the end of the day, I think this was the smartest choice. My train of thought:

    1. If ESPN/FOX are willing to pay to get rid of the clause mandating the pay increase, then that means any teams the Big 12 were looking at likely added far less value than they added. While the Big 12 for now could have forced the network’s hand, the contract will be up in a few years and then what? It’s doubtful those schools would suddenly be that much more valuable in a few years and even more doubtful you would be able to deny them a full equal share at that point. That means less per team next time most likely vs. what they get would get with the current 10.

    2. The Big 12 needs whatever breaks it can get in revenue to survive. If Texas/Oklahoma are falling behind, there is far less emotional attachment to the Big 12 than other powers have for their conferences. That means don’t expand now if you think there is a decent risk it will hurt revenue down the line.

    3. Further, expanding means difficult divisional questions that would separate teams from others they’d like to play (most likely the Texas schools from each other) and would also reduce negative feelings about leaving teams you play all the time (making it easier to part ways).

    4. It’s not like the Big 12 can’t come back and offer teams later if the contracts are better off with them at that time. There is a small risk someone else is gone, but that doesn’t seem to be a huge issue right now.

    5. Finally, I buy the lack of a CCG is hurting Big 12 schools sometimes (although it would have helped eventually too), but I don’t think I buy only 10 teams is (on a per team basis). While it may have a few less playoff teams, it is also dividing money fewer ways and that’s a point most seem to miss (in other words, missing once in awhile with 10 might be better than an extra trip with 12/14, particularly if it means your school is more likely to make it with less competition).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      This was it. 5 years ago, the CUSA schools (now mostly in the AAC) were only making a million or so less than a Washington St. Now its $25 million for the AAC vs. the bottom of the P5. There’s a real question whether the AAC and MWC can sustain their level of spending. So the Big 12 really needed to take schools now or never have another chance. In 8 years, the gap will have become enormous. The exposure gap is pretty big as well. It will make recruiting much more difficult. Only Houston and BYU cracked the top 50 in recruiting last year. Not sure many, if any other, non-P5 cracked the top 60.

      The Big 12 thought Louisville would be available later. BYU, Houston and Cincinnati may still not be in a P5, but may be a shadow of themselves in 8 years relative to the P5. Whereas, they might be quite good in the P5.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I do think that if a lower division school can put together a good program they can still one day make a P-5 ( or 4) Conference. The likes of a UCF or USF that is on the rise could one day surplant a Boston College or Wake Forest in the ACC. Boise St, UNLV or San Diego State to the PAC is possible as well.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Nobody is ever getting “surplanted”.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I agree with @ccrider55: no conference is kicking out a Wake Forest type of school, to promote a G5 school.

          There have been very few promotions from mid-major to power five (or its equivalent), and they have all been due to existential threats. We don’t have promotion and relegation the way they do in Association Football. Schools are going to get promoted only where there are losses that have to be made up, e.g., Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

          Like

          • Redwood86 says:

            The only way to kick a school out of a conference would be to disband the conference. . .

            The Pac-12 will NEVER accept SDSU or Boise State. UNLV is a possibility (as is Nevada) but both have A LOT of work to do, both on the gridiron and academically, before they will be considered.

            BTW, if Texas and OU want to maximize their chances of getting into the playoffs regularly, they are much better off in the Pac-12 than any other conference. Moreover, the Pac-12 is much more open to taking the weak sister tag-alongs than any other conference. They would likely be in a division with each other, OSU, TTech, UofA, ASU, CO, and Utah. The other division would likely consist of the original Pac-8.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          David Brown,

          “I do think that if a lower division school can put together a good program they can still one day make a P-5 ( or 4) Conference.”

          I agree that it’ll always be possible, but it gets harder as the top conferences consolidate power. If the B12 ever splinters, there may be a push towards 16+ by several of the remaining P4. That would be the last chance for a while for a G5 team to move up. The next shot might be in the mid-2030s when the ACC GOR expires.

          “The likes of a UCF or USF that is on the rise could one day surplant a Boston College or Wake Forest in the ACC. Boise St, UNLV or San Diego State to the PAC is possible as well.”

          I think schools being supplanted is very unlikely. For that to happen, court decisions would have to force the top level of the NCAA into full pay for play mode at which point economics would drive some schools to drop down to a lower level that is affordable.

          Like

      • Sam240 says:

        “The Big 12 thought Louisville would be available later.” – Bullet

        If I remember correctly, the ACC originally preferred UConn to Louisville, but pressure from ESPN led to the ACC going with their second choice.

        ESPN might have been thinking long-term. If the ACC had added UConn, that would have left both Cincinnati and Louisville available for the Big 12. Frank pointed out that Cincinnati would be a wonderful 11th team for the conference, but there was no obvious candidate for Number 12. Louisville, which would fill in the geographic gap between the Great Plains and Cincinnati, would have been the obvious candidate there.

        So, by pressuring the ACC to add Louisville, ESPN ensured that both UConn and Cincinnati would stay out of the P5 and kept the Big 12 from expanding.

        If the ACC added Louisville instead of UConn because of their concerns about Big 12 expansion, it was a very shrewd move.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        This was it…the Big 12 really needed to take schools now or never have another chance.

        That is, assuming your predictions of gloom and doom are true. I don’t believe they are.

        If I remember correctly, the ACC originally preferred UConn to Louisville, but pressure from ESPN led to the ACC going with their second choice…So, by pressuring the ACC to add Louisville, ESPN ensured that both UConn and Cincinnati would stay out of the P5 and kept the Big 12 from expanding.

        I would need a lot of convincing, to believe that ESPN: A) Wanted this; and B) If so, were capable of projecting that many chess moves ahead.

        Rather, I think ESPN simply wanted the ACC to have the best football product it could. Compared to UConn, Louisville offered roughly comparable hoops, but much better football. I think the ACC’s football-oriented schools wanted that too.

        Like

      • Eric says:

        I just don’t see it that way. Schools further down have always had disadvantages and you always see them rise (at least temporarily). Extra money makes it a easier, but you still have the scholarship limits in place and you have scheduling issues and such that are going to make it likely for a G5 conference team or two a year to rise up. What I mean by that is that while it might be tougher to rise, schedules are lighter overall which means if a good G5 conference team gets a good out of conference win, their path to a great season is actually easier than most the bottom teams from power 5 conferences.

        None of this means that none of the potential expansion targets wouldn’t be better off in the Big 12 (they probably would), but it’s not like we are going to lose the top of the Group of 5. The team pecking order there might shift around a little, but there will always be choices if the Big 12 decides later 12 is better.

        Like

  21. ccrider55 says:

    Most talk about Raiders, but this may be a boost to UNLV’s potential consideration by a power conference?

    http://m.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/gov-brian-sandoval-signs-football-stadium-bill-video

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I think ESPN and Fox made it clear what their opinion of G5 schools was.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I think a true power conference will take what a for profit commercial entity suggests into their deliberations, and then do what is in the conference’s best long term interest.

        Not saying UNLV is gold, but the state seems to have shown an investment interest in growing the brand.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      UNLV has to start winning a lot in football and improving their academics significantly before the P12 might be interested. I don’t think the B12 wants to extend that far west anyway.

      Like

  22. bullet says:

    They even managed to tick off the Longhorn governor.

    Greg Abbott ‏@GregAbbott_TX 57m
    57 minutes ago

    The Big 12 owes a lot of people an apology. It punted on expansion & shanked its future. @UHouston deserved better.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. noah iverson says:

    the Big 12 was never going to expand because the whole point of expansion is to increase fees for Tier 3 media rights which the Big 12 is not unified on(no network package).

    I called this in Mid-August. At no point did expansion make sense. If the Big 12 breaks up in a half decade it will be because:

    1. Oklahoma gets jumpy about not making as much as other Big power 4 schools
    2. OSU can land on its feet with OU departure
    3. Texas becomes independent like UND but in the Pac 12

    Like

  24. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  25. Marc Shepherd says:

    It’s interesting to see how the hometown papers of the spurned schools are reacting to this news. For instance, here’s the Hartford Courant:

    The future of UConn athletics as a major player on the stage of college athletics took a mighty blow Monday when the Big 12 Conference announced it will not expand beyond its current 10-team format. UConn will continue to do business in the American Athletic Conference, a pretty big step down from the Power Five conferences

    You can’t seriously call it a “mighty blow” (if you’re at all serious), when most observers did not expect UConn would be in the top two, had the league chosen to expand. In fact, this decision is probably for the best, since almost any plausible Big 12 expansion would have poached at least one, if not more, of the AAC’s most valuable programs, leaving UConn stuck in a conference even weaker than it is now. (The article does make this observation, further down.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      In case it’s not obvious, the last paragraph above should have been “undented”. Only the first part of the block quote is from the article.

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      The University of Connecticut has for the past several years tried to changes its image including pushing itself as a “New York School” ( although it is part of the Hartford TV Market ( unlike Rutgers which actually is in the New York TV Market)). The jealousy towards Rutgers is insane ( only matched by their dislike of Boston College). The one thing they have in their favor is Wonen’s College Basketball ( although certainly not as popular as Men’s ( let alone football)). The Huskies are headed down the Louisiana Tech path ( great times in the 1970’s( including Championship ladies basketball and Terry Bradshaw) and Conference USA in 2016).

      Like

      • PJ says:

        Fairfield County is part of the New York TV market and heavily follows the University of Connecticut. Also, it’s interesting that a team that has won 4 MEN’S College Basketball titles, (including two in the past six years) only brings women’s college basketball to the table. I guess UConn fans should be jealous of Rutgers and BC teams which never win anything and are already roughly as good as Louisiana Tech is currently.

        Like

  26. bullet says:

    From Bowlsby in the press conference. He believed “many” were additive.

    “But we reside in very fertile recruiting grounds. We have great coaches. We have great venues and great traditions. I think we’re always going to be concerned about revenue. As we went through this process, we certainly looked at schools from the vantage point of, Are they additive? I think there are many of them that are additive.
    Having said that, in the end, I think the additive nature of them was probably offset by some of the things we might have to give up, like some of the traditional rivals, the full round-robins, the double rounds in basketball.”

    Like

  27. [Quote]:Right Brian. For all the talk about Texas as conference killers, they’ve only been in two conferences. Now TCU’s trail of destruction:
    TIAA-gone
    SWC-gone
    WAC-gone (for football)
    CUSA-diminished-only USM still around who played fb against them
    MWC-diminished with 3 top teams leaving
    Big East-gone
    Big 12-at risk?[/End Quote]

    TCU is not a conference killer, UT has been noted by Nebraska AD and Arkansas AD as well as Texas lawmakers. which openly talked about UT’s desire to join the PAC as reason’s why they bolted from the SWC and the Big 12. It was also the SAME Texas AD that did it both times. Deloss Dodds.

    There is a conference killer in this country and it’s

    Like

      • David Brown says:

        Almost Everyone who is not located in Austin, Lubbock ( Texas Tech) or a UT grad knows what UT is about. The problem is that a lot of other Schools ( see Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor and TCU ) know that without Texas (and to a lesser extent Oklahoma) they are becoming the University of Connecticut in importance nationally so they will do whatever those Schools want ( especially UT) even if it hurts them long term

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It’s a pretty big reach to put the demise of the SWC on the University of Texas. Doesn’t SMU bear at least some of the blame?

      The Big 12 is still alive, at least as of 11am this morning, so the count of conferences “killed” by UT stands at zero.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I have to agree. I am not a Longhorn fan (in fact, root for the Aggies over them), but I have always seriously disagreed with most the accusations against them. They considered conference options just like the rest of the Big 12 and unlike some teams they choose to stay. So if they left, they would be blamed for the Big 12 failure and when they stayed they are still blamed?

        I get people get riled up with the Longhorn Network, but all that really amounts to is the school keeping its 3rd tier rights, something most conferences did until just a few years ago (SEC only abandoned when they wanted to start the SEC Network in fact).

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Its primarily the Oilers, Cowboys, OU and UGA (lawsuit against the NCAA). SMU hastened the end and made it uglier. Pre-Oilers, Rice used to fill their 70,000 seat stadium. SMU often filled the 68k (at the time) Cotton Bowl.

        It was inevitable once the NCAA monopoly was gone and perhaps even before that. Adding Houston may have added a few years to it as they added some competition. They also woke up A&M and SMU.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      You obviously haven’t read what Pearlman said once the exit fee was settled. He said he and the UT president always had a good relationship.

      The former Nebraska AD is a jerk. He also is the one who managed to get A&M into debt and refused the offer to join Texas in the Longhorn network.

      Arkansas wanted Texas to join them in the SEC. They still listen when people talk to them about joining the Big 12. Obviously its not as profitable and stable so they wouldn’t do it, but it makes a lot of sense for them if all other things were equal.

      Like

  28. Brutus says:

    Now that the Big 12 has signed its death sentence, everyone feels that OU, KU, TX and one or tow others are gone by 2025. While I think OU and KU are gone, I have a gut feeling that Texas stays. Here is why.

    1) OU and TX have an agreement to play Red River every year even if OU in BIG.
    2) TX now has full control of BIg 12 with no dissenting votes. All schools new and old become Texas Proxies. Texas can exert more power to then get an unequal revenue distribution on all rights as they give legitimacy to the confernence.
    3) No other school besides OU and KU who are already gone will have a lifeline to a new conference. Ok State, and K State would only have a lifeline if Big Brother took them.Therefore TX has power.
    4) TX gets to keep Olympic Sports in the region and they do not have to worry about travel costs for the Olympic Sports
    5) TX will not have to play nice in the sandbox as they would if they went to the ACC, BIG, SEC or PAC.
    6) TX football does not suffer because the conference is essentially the same less OU (but TX still will play OU every year anyway), and in fact, their SOS will be improved because they will not have KU anymore and whomever is added is going to be better thank KU.
    7) Basketball may suffer marginally but not too much if a solid bball program is added.

    Like

  29. Mike says:

    Lots here from a the Iowa St AD

    http://cyclonefanatic.com/2016/10/williams-what-the-big-12-is-banking-on/

    I didn’t listen to the interview that this was based on to validate he actually said what he’s attributed as saying, so beware.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://247sports.com/Bolt/Iowa-State-AD-Without-Texas-Oklahoma-Big-12-is-Mountain-West-48346796

      Here’s more from Pollard.

      “(Big 12) commissioner (Bob) Bowlsby was kind of forced into having to go through this process.” Pollard said in an interview with iHeartRadio. “When you know that the athletic administrators think that the best solution is the solution we currently have, why would we then want to say no we’d rather have 12 members?

      “Because we want to add more schools to this league that are going to be like Rutgers or Boston College in their conferences? Which have no fans coming to the games, and they’re getting outscored 170 to whatever it was. In Boston College’s case, haven’t won a game in two to three years in their conference. That totally dilutes your value.”

      Right. Diluting the B12’s value is ISU’s job.

      The Cyclones athletics director thinks the best is yet to come for the conference, and the criticism of the Big 12 in recent years has been unwarranted.

      “I think it’s fair to say that a lot more money will be coming into the Big 12 over the next eight years,” Pollard said. “The league is really strong. Everybody just wants to beat it up.”

      Like

  30. BuckeyeBeau says:

    A good read. (I also did not listen to verify, but ….)

    the “money quote” for me:

    Pollard: “I have people who say that Texas and Oklahoma are going to bolt, well if Texas and Oklahoma don’t want us to add any members, I guarantee you that if we add members and forced it on them, they would bolt. That’s a part of this process that people aren’t thinking about.”

    One commenter summarized as follows: “… the people that allow us to feed at their table [TX and OK] are more likely to continue to allow us to feed at their table because we didn’t invite other people to that same table.”

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Sorry, this was supposed to be a “reply” to Mike above.

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      Another way to put it is Iowa State is a lap dog University if there ever was one. Schools like Nebraska and even Texas’s “Little Brother” A&M bailed when the got the chance because they know who Schools like ISU are puppets and who pulled the strings in the Big XII. I feel sorry for the fans who backed a University that for a Century has had no interest in winning, and still does not ( losing to Northern Iowa). No one expects ISU to
      Compete with OU and UT on a consistent basis, but acting like getting a few crumbs from the Sooners and Longhorns is so great, think about this: Your competitor in Iowa City has been to Rose Bowls as has gulp Northwestern, Purdue and Washington State. If there is a School that belongs in Confetence USA ( at best) ISU is it.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Did someone at ISU steal your girlfriend?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Iowa St. has beaten Iowa 10 of the last 19 times they played after being dominated for many years, only coming within 10 points twice in 15 years. They aren’t the same ISU from prior to the Big 12.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            And for decades, U of I wouldn’t schedule Iowa State in anything. It wasn’t until the late ’60s, under pressure from the state legislature, that Iowa relented, beginning a men’s basketball series in the early ’70s and finally facing them in football in 1977 (the schools’ first game in that sport since the Cyclones surprised the Hawkeyes in 1934). ISU’s development in athletics has been stunted by such longtime treatment.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Another way to put it is Iowa State is a lap dog University if there ever was one. Schools like Nebraska and even Texas’s “Little Brother” A&M bailed when the got the chance because they know who Schools like ISU are puppets and who pulled the strings in the Big XII.

        ISU’s Pollard acknowledged the reality, which is refreshing. Their position isn’t really much different from that of Wake Forest in the ACC, Washington State in the Pac-12, or Purdue in the Big Ten. But those other leagues are more cohesive, meaning that those schools are unlikely ever to face the kind of crisis the lower-end Big 12 schools have to deal with.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          And all things being equal — geography, etc. — Iowa State would be more attractive to a P5 conference than Wake Forest.

          Like

        • David Brown says:

          ISU is weaker then those Schools ( especially Washington State and Purdue). Not only because the Cougars and Boilermakers have been to the Rose Bowl, but The Washington Huskies and Indiana Hoosiers would miss their interstate rival. In fact, with UW in the National Championship hunt and WSU going for the Rose Bowl, this year’s Apple Cup at WSU may be the most important ever. No one except the fans cares if ISU does

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            That’s why Iowa State probably will be the biggest victim of conference realignment a decade from now, through no real fault of its own.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            At least they have fans. ISU has averaged 54,838 over the last 4 years with last year topping 56k. Washington St. is 31,326 with last year under 30k. Purdue used to have fans. Their 4 year is 41,330 while last year was only 37,508.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Last year Iowa St. drew about 500 fans more per game than Washington ST. and Wake Forest, COMBINED.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            ISU grads also generally are able to manage the difference between “then” and “than”…

            Sorry. Personal pet peeve.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Can ISU’s big-time fan support give them safe harbor in a power conference in the event of a Big 12 implosion? The only realistic candidate to accept the Cyclones would be the ACC (perhaps as a partner for WVU, whose stadium was designed by the same architects of ISU’s facility).

            Like

  31. Mike says:

    Good news for the PAC12

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2016/10/18/Pac-12.aspx

    Pac-12 Networks has picked up about 4 million homes thanks to Dish’s decision to move the channel from a sports tier to a broader tier nationally.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      People think it is good news but only at the margins. Dish lost a whole lot of subscribers in Q2, and still no carriage on Direct TV, Charter and Cablevision.

      Like

  32. Michael in Raleigh says:

    One possibility for FBS realignment could be the Sun Belt and C-USA schools combining somehow and then re-dividing geographically. Once Idaho and NMSU leave the SBC for football after the 2017 season, they’ll each cover similar territory from extreme western Texas northeastward to West Virginia and then along the East coast to Miami.

    Both leagues are decidedly a step below the American. Neither commands much in TV money. The Sun Belt is limited to a handful of games on ESPN TV networks with the remainder going on ESPN3 and/or American Sports Network (a new syndicated “network” not too different from Raycom). Income from these media is pretty negligible. C-USA, in its current form, is on several different platforms (ESPN networks, BeIn, CBSSN, and ASN), and their per-school media income is barely more than the SBC’ s.

    I can’t help but wonder whether there is any discussion happening among college presidents at both leagues for having more common sense leagues. It would be one thing if one league offered significantly more revenue than the other, but that is no longer the case.

    So how much sense does it make for Appalachian State, in western North Carolina, to be in the same conference with Texas State and two Louisiana schools but not with Charlotte, Old Dominion, Marshall, and Middle Tennessee? How much sense does it make for UAB not to share a league with Troy and South Alabama? WhY shouldn’t Texas State be with other Texas schools rather than two Georgia schools and two Carolina schools (App State and Coastal)?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      The budgets at the CUSA schools are bigger. When you look at who CUSA invited last time, it ran pretty much along budget lines and was not in relation to football success.

      Now with their reduced contract, neither earns much and both earn about a half million less than the MAC.

      Like

  33. Mike says:

    One big happy family.

    Even though the Big 12 announced its decision not to expand was unanimous, sources told ESPN on Tuesday there were schools that ultimately agreed to go along with the plan when it became obvious the conference would not reach the supermajority to expand.

    In a 714-word league memo covering the league’s talking points, obtained by ESPN, the first two items instructed officials to: “Indicate the Board arrived at a “Unanimous Consensus” and “The Board was unanimous in its desire and commitment to stay at 10 members.”

    The internal Big 12 memo also suggested conference officials not “indicate that TV influenced (its) decision” and that the Big 12 was not “psychologically disadvantaged” because it didn’t expand.

    [snip]

    The conference also provided a number of “message points,” which recommended not discussing individual schools and also quashing any conversation that the Big 12 is “dysfunctional.”

    [snip]

    Among the talking points in the memo, officials of the 10 member schools were told to emphasize that the vote was reached via “unanimous consensus” and that “expansion is no longer an active agenda item.” In addition, it recommended school officials to say the Big 12 was “exhaustive in our research” and that it would not “publicly discuss consideration details.”

    As for the “don’ts,” officials were told to avoid saying that expansion “is dilutive” and that any of the candidates “were not deemed Power 5 worthy.” They also were told to avoid mentioning any “expansion candidate/school by name.”

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17827297/big-12-reaches-united-decision-decline-expansion-earlier-divide

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Pretty sloppy that leaking. Maybe some president didn’t like the talking points?

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        It’s a pretty good rule that when you’re given a messaging list of “do’s” and “don’ts,” a lot of the “do’s” are false, and a lot of the “don’ts” are true.

        Like

  34. bullet says:

    The Big 12 adding 4 teams would have been interesting from a realignment standpoint. Probably would have had lots of repercussions among the G5.

    But adding more than 2 was pretty risky from a dilution standpoint as well as creating separation between members (you see each other more with 12 than with 14).

    I would have liked to see them add two. Bowlsby did say “many” were additive. There is no question BYU athletically is a top half P5 school. Houston proved they could more than hold their own competitively while in the SWC. Cincinnati did well in the Big East.

    I think Boren and Bowlsby created an environment with their comments that does make the Big 12 “psychologically disadvantaged” and that expanding was the only way to undo that. They really did a dis-service to the conference. Its doubly bad as this is appears to be the worst year in football for the conference in over a decade. The messy too public process was not good for the conference either.

    I also think having a conference championship game with 10 teams and a round robin will hurt them. They will lose 2nd (or 3rd) NY6 bowl bids because of it. With the 14 team conferences, your top teams are not very likely to play each other twice in the same season. And often not at all. So you pile up losses at the top.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “The Big 12 adding 4 teams would have been interesting from a realignment standpoint. Probably would have had lots of repercussions among the G5.”

      Fun for us, not so much for the schools involved.

      “But adding more than 2 was pretty risky from a dilution standpoint as well as creating separation between members (you see each other more with 12 than with 14).”

      Four could’ve made sense if it was strategic planning for losing OU and UT soon. I just don’t think there was a cohesive group of four that made sense for the B12.

      “I would have liked to see them add two.”

      Reading between the lines it sounds like with BYU off the table UT and/or OU vetoed expansion. The others could have forced it, but at the cost of knowing the kings would leave in 2025.

      “I also think having a conference championship game with 10 teams and a round robin will hurt them.”

      I think it will help them a little. It hurts the B12 to be the only P5 without a CCG. That extra data point will help them more than hurt them.

      “They will lose 2nd (or 3rd) NY6 bowl bids because of it.”

      I think it would average out over time. Some years the loser will drop down a level, but the committee has been pretty good about not punishing the CCG losers in their final rankings too much.

      2014:
      ACC: #4 FSU nipped #11 GT, GT dropped to #12
      B10: #5 OSU crushed #13 WI, WI dropped to #18
      P12: #2 OR whipped #7 AZ, AZ dropped to #10
      SEC: #1 AL whipped #16 MO, MO stayed #16

      B12 (not a CCG): #6 Baylor beat #9 KSU, KSU dropped to #11

      2015:
      ACC: #1 Clemson beat #10 UNC, UNC stayed #10
      B10: #5 MSU nipped #4 IA, IA dropped to #5
      P12: #7 Stanford beat #20 USC, USC dropped to #25
      SEC: #2 AL beat #18 UF, UF dropped to #19

      After the contract bowls replace any champs they lost to semifinals, then the top teams plus the top G5 champ get in no matter what. 25% of the CCG losers didn’t drop at all in the rankings. 38% dropped only 1 spot. None dropped more than 5 spots.

      On the other hand, winning the game could elevate a team into the CFP or the NY6.

      “With the 14 team conferences, your top teams are not very likely to play each other twice in the same season.”

      It depends on your scheduling. With 9 games, you have a 43% chance of the top 2 teams playing if you do an equal rotation. It’s even higher in the B10 (50%+) due to the parity-based scheduling. Conferences with only 8 games, including a locked rival, play each other a lot less frequently (28% chance).

      “And often not at all. So you pile up losses at the top.”

      On the other hand, B12 teams also can’t ever miss any of the bad teams so you get several easy wins built in.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Interesting data on the ccg losers. They tend to drop like a rock in the regular polls.

        You don’t really have a 43% chance of the top two teams playing because the very fact that they play makes the loser less likely to win their division.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I was just doing the easy math. Let’s go to actual data.

          SEC:
          24 CCGs, 6 rematches (25%), 8 game schedule
          The original winner went 5-1 in the CCG.
          Scheduling math says they should have had rematches about 39% of the time.

          B12:
          15 CCGs, 6 rematches (40%), 8 game schedule
          The original winner went 4-2 in the CCG.
          Scheduling math says they should have had rematches 50% of the time.

          P12:
          5 CCGs, 4 rematches (80%), 9 game schedule
          The original winner went 4-0 in the CCG.
          Scheduling math says they should have had rematches about 67% of the time.

          B10:
          5 CCGs, 2 rematches (40%), 8 game schedule
          The original winner went 0-2 in the CCG.
          Scheduling math says they should have had rematches about 35% of the time.

          Totals:
          49 CCGs, 18 rematches (37%), mix of schedules
          The original winner went 13-5 in the CCG.
          Scheduling math says there should have been rematches about 45% of the time.

          So yes, you are slightly less likely to have a rematch than the schedule math predicts. But it isn’t a big effect.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “Interesting data on the ccg losers. They tend to drop like a rock in the regular polls.”

          For comparison:

          CFP rankings (again)

          2014:
          ACC: #4 FSU nipped #11 GT, GT dropped to #12
          B10: #5 OSU crushed #13 WI, WI dropped to #18
          P12: #2 OR whipped #7 AZ, AZ dropped to #10
          SEC: #1 AL whipped #16 MO, MO stayed #16

          B12 (not a CCG): #6 Baylor beat #9 KSU, KSU dropped to #11

          2015:
          ACC: #1 Clemson beat #10 UNC, UNC stayed #10
          B10: #5 MSU nipped #4 IA, IA dropped to #5
          P12: #7 Stanford beat #20 USC, USC dropped to #25
          SEC: #2 AL beat #18 UF, UF dropped to #19

          AP Poll

          2014:
          GT rose from 12 to 10
          WI dropped from 11 to 17
          AZ dropped from 8 to 12
          MO dropped from 14 to 16

          KSU dropped from 9 to 11

          CFP: -1, -5, -3, 0, -2 = -11 overall
          AP: +2, -6, -4, -2, -2 = -12 overall

          2015:
          UNC dropped from 8 to 10
          IA dropped from 4 to 6
          USC dropped from 24 to 27
          UF dropped from 18 to 19

          CFP: 0, -1, -5, -1 = -7 overall
          AP: -2, -2, -3, -1 = -9 overall

          On average a team dropped 2 spots in the CFP and 2.33 spots in the AP. And only the AP ever rewarded a team for a close loss.

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Bowlsby did say “many” were additive.

      Depends what you mean by “additive”. Given the pro rata clause in the TV contracts, legacy Big 12 teams could have seen their revenue go up, but it wasn’t going to last, unless they consigned the newbies to permanent second-tier status.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Unless you believe their TV deal would take a jump in 2025 like many TV deals do. You could keep the newbies on partial payments until the current deal ends so that the current members never see a decrease in revenue.

        Easy example assuming a pro rata payout increasing by $1M per year
        (assume it starts at $25M in 2017):
        2017 – 10 @ $27.3M + 2 @ $10M, bank $7M
        2018 – 10 @ $28.3M + 2 @ $12M, bank $5M
        2019 – 10 @ $29.3M + 2 @ $14M, bank $3M
        2020 – 10 @ $30.3M + 2 @ $16M, bank $1M
        2021 – 10 @ $31.3M + 2 @ $18M, spend $1M
        2022 – 10 @ $32.3M + 2 @ $20M, spend $3M
        2023 – 10 @ $33.3M + 2 @ $22M, spend $5M
        2024 – 10 @ $34.3M + 2 @ $24M, spend $7M
        2025 – 12 @ $35.3M (new deal)

        That’s $2.3M per original school per year added to the payout by expansion (and don’t forget the CCG bump of $2.5-3M that’s coming). Or they could pay the newbies a little more and themselves a little less (increase by $3M per year instead of $2M gets the newbies to $31M in 2024 and gets a $1.6M per year bump for the original 10).

        All they need is for their next TV deal to increase from $33M per school to $35.3M (7% increase) and they can continue to increase their payouts as shown. That seems plausible.

        By the way, I’m not claiming these are the correct numbers for the B12. I just used a round number in the ballpark to show proof of concept.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I’m not claiming these are the correct numbers for the B12. I just used a round number in the ballpark to show proof of concept.

          However, I have to think the B12 does not believe those are the real numbers, or else they likely would have expanded.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “However, I have to think the B12 does not believe those are the real numbers, or else they likely would have expanded.”

            The pro rata number everyone threw around was $25M per school, so that’s where I started. An annual $1M escalation starts as a 4% escalation clause which is within what other deals have had. So other than $25M for 2017 not being exact, my numbers aren’t bad.

            The speculation is in how they’d pay the newbies, so I gave the info for 2 different plans.

            The question is in 2025, how much would a 12 team B12 be worth. Considering the jump the B10 made adding inventory and markets should boost the B12 a little at least. If 2024 was $32M per team, jumping to $35.3M per team isn’t crazy. The B10 is looking at an increase of over $9M when the new deal starts.

            Like

  35. Brian says:

    http://247sports.com/Article/The-Purdue-Boilermakers-should-do-their-diligence-on-Bo-Pelini-48338197

    Bo Pelini is apparently interested in the PU job.

    “He would definitely be interested in this job,” a source who coached under Pelini told 247Sports this week. “I think he would make a more immediate impact more than any other guy I believe. He would change that culture real quick.”

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      He is an intriguing choice I hadn’t thought of. Most people seem to think P. J. Fleck is hot enough to punch his ticket at a better school than Purdue; and Les Miles is too old for a total rebuilding job, at a school with no recent history of winning.

      Like

      • ROBERT M SYKES says:

        As a Boilermaker, I would prefer Tom Herman, but Pelini is good enough

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I think Tom Herman is aiming a lot higher. The last three Houston Cougars head coaches who parlayed success there to a better offer, were Jack Pardee (NFL Houston Oilers), Art Briles (Baylor) and Kevin Sumlin (Texas A&M). They all got better jobs than Purdue.

          Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            Yes, no way we get Herman. I am holding out hope for Fleck.

            Like

          • urbanleftbehind says:

            Is Fleck sufficiently religious? Maybe he can row on the Brazos.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Was Baylor really a better job than Purdue? I recall Baylor being at the bottom of the Big 12 standings year after year after year before Briles got there. Meanwhile, Purdue under Joe Tiller made it to bowl games most of the time he was coach, including one appearance in the Rose Bowl. Yes, Baylor has always been in Texas (prime recruiting territory), but when Briles was hired, Texas was still rolling strong, Oklahoma was competing year in and year out for national championships, and I think Mike Leach was still at Texas Tech.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Baylor was pretty good under Grant Teaff from 1974 until he retired in the mid 90s. Then they made a series of really bad hires. Purdue, of course, did nothing from 1967 until Tiller got hired around 2000 or so and then returned to where they were once he left.

            Indiana is a basketball state.

            Like

  36. bullet says:

    Thought this guys take was interesting. Fox and ESPN took the extraordinary step of publically saying no. And not just anonymously.

    http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/lack-of-big-12-expansion-shows-who-really-holds-the-power-in-college-football.html

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      The “take” is that BXII expansion was killed by ESPN and FOX. The networks run CFB. This is a view expressed a few times on these boards.

      One quote:

      “The uncomfortable reality of college football is that the networks have an active role in not just covering the teams or broadcasting games, but deciding “who’s in” and “who’s out” from a very literal sense of the words.”

      I also thought it interesting that ESPN has the rights to BYU games right now for $6-9M per year. (I did not know that prior to reading this). So, the obvious point is that ESPN gets nothing new in the inventory but has to pay $16+M more.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I wonder if any of the candidate schools would consider a lawsuit against the networks. I don’t know if they could find sufficient grounds or not, but these public statements telling the B12 not to expand are quite different from anything the networks ever said before.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Seems the appropriate place to note what I thought was just a misspelling by FtT. Perhaps not?

          “I believe the Big 12 presidents will vote to expand by 2 despite so much tampering down of expansion expectations over the last month.”

          “Tampering” down?

          Like

  37. Tyson says:

    Really interesting essay by a very knowledgeable poster on the Orangebloods message boards about the Big 12 expansion process.

    https://texas.forums.rivals.com/threads/conference-realignment-thoughts.270243/

    Like

    • Tyson says:

      “I read some of the posts on this, but frankly not all of them. I am going to give my view on what happened to start this, why did UT behave the way it did, and what happened. As a number of people have a hardon for u of h, I will address that too

      I. Background: The big 12 lost some teams, doesn’t have a conference game, and is not as strong as it once was. Leaving Baylor or tcu out of the playoffs two years ago was painful. Therefore, the question as to if the big12 should “do something” is totally legitimate. Adding teams is a rational way to do something. At worst, you create a conference championship game that is on at the same time as the others, and it sways voters on a key day.

      With all that said, it’s very unlikely that a team that is not Baylor would be left out with either zero or one losses. Really really hard to leave out OU or UT. Baylor is obviously it’s own worst enemy, not only because the school has been exposed as corrupt, but because of an awful out-of-conference schedule. So, here, UT and OU don’t have a big problem. Baylor’s problem is baylor’s problem, not UT or OU.

      II. What happened? As far as we can tell, a lot of the noise started in the state of Oklahoma. It’s almost like Boren woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day, starting making public statements, and eventually got to Gundy to make some. We all know the substance of his non-economic argument, and he is not wrong. See my second paragraph. The interesting thing is that Boren was making an economic argument that adding teams was accretive. So, the president of OU is saying that if the big 12 adds some teams, every single big 12 member will get millions more.

      From everyone in the big 12’s perspective (including UT), this is totally out of left field. So, everyone crunches their own numbers, which they have done before, and start calling around to figure out what the hell Boren is talking about. It turns out Boren won’t listen to anyone, he doesn’t even have any numbers. so people start demanding to see the numbers

      It turns out, Boren had dinner with somebody talking about TV deals, and he had too much wine (figuratively). At this dinner, two critical errors were made. First, Boren thought that the pac12 network was worth 10mm a team per year. It turns out it’s just a few million per year, as TV is generally saturated at this point, and the whole cable model is melting down. So, he is off by say 7mm on point 1. Second, Boren forgot that he sells OU 3rd tier rights for about 5mm per year (I forgot the exact amount). OU has a quasi local network where it sells its shitty games and basketball and baseball, just like the LHN. So Boren is running around with a memo written on his Commodore 64 saying adding teams is like 10mm a year accretive, when the reality is that adding teams is about 2mm dilutive for OU (math is add pac12channel economics of 3mm, lose tier 3 deal of 5mm, for a net of negative 2). The numbers are actually better for other big 12 members (other than UT) because only ut and OU have significant 3rd tier deals.

      So, basically, nobody knows what Boren is talking about. Everyone calls OU’s athletic and media department and it turns out that OU’s athletic department doesn’t know either. But, UT (and bowlsby) have figured out the pac12 deal which was forecast at 10ishmm a couple of years ago is a dud, and it’s coming in at 3 mm, but At this point, Boren is so far in front of this, he has Boone and Gundy spooled up, he is planting stories in papers and whatnot.

      Bowlsby can’t talk any sense into Boren, so OF COURSE the big 12 has to study it. So, the studying stArts. By this time, people have boren’s Commodore 64 report, which is immediately ripped to shreds by every single school (but it’s all done privately….so you GUYS NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT). Well, Boren thinks everyone is lying to him. So, a couple of regents who are friends with OU regents call them, and provide the real numbers that refute the Commodore 64 report. They haul the AD/lawyers/media experts in and realize Boren is just wrong, and they are ultimately forced to bitch slap him publicly, as he is still tweeting wrong stuff.

      At this point, the studying has started, and they do in fact study it. It’s a media circus. We have schools In far off states issuing press releases. I have no idea how people expect blwsby to manage this circus.

      One major thing that we all “discovered” was that we could ram more teams into the main TV deal according to the contract…and they need to gross up to keep each big 12 team at par. Initially, I guessed that ramming BYU in was something the networks could live with, as they have actual viewers…so the networks were sorta chilling and waiting. But, when the narrative changed to adding awful schools, the networks realized they stood to loose tens of millions (on a NPv basis, probably over 100mm), they threatened to go nuclear and just not pay anything incremental.

      So, there ended up being no economic argument for a deal. All of the adds were dilutive. And maybe a new team could have agreed to take a lower amount, but I surmise the numbers just didn’t work (I don’t actually know)

      III. UT’s perspective

      UT realizes that the conference is not optimal, but there is no serious proposal on the table on how to fix it. Playoffs, expansion of playoffs to 8 teams, LHN, over the top subscribing to TV, cable problems, all make this complicated….today and in 5 years. The grant of rights is a show stopper. UT is just in wait and see mode. Plus, our team sucks, so it’s no time to go rocking the boat.

      UT is stuck until the GOR is a few years away. I am not sure we care about adding teams in The interim. UT has two rules: 1. Adding a team should be accretive, and it sure as hell cannot be dilutive. 2. If you want us to blow up the LHN, you need to make us whole and more.

      UT does not give two shits about byu or Houston or whatever. Sure, maybe somebody here or there has a hardon because of BYUs weirdo beliefs or wants UofH. But the other teams under consideration were hilarious. From UT’s perspective, if we play for 5 years in Cincy or whatever, it doesn’t upset anything long term. It just doesn’t matter. Pay us and we fly to Cincy, but there is no way we are paying for a 5 way chilimac in Ohio when Texas Chili Parlour is just down the street on Lavaca.

      By the way, we have a great relationship with OU. Boren stoked up all this acrimony over UT, but OU’s regents effectively apologized via the public bitch slap. Boren is a politician, and will get over it, just like any politician recovers. I know I am supposed to hate OU, but I love having them in the conference, I love playing them. Whatever we do in 5 years, it would be a tragedy if it doesn’t include them, and my prediction is that we use our muscle to bring them with us (if it’s an academically superior conference). UT and OU are good…zero worries.

      IV. Houston

      UH was a commuter school with open enrollement, and now it’s trying to be big time. Good for them. They have a long way to go. I wish them luck, and frankly the state should give them money to accomplish this. They need to copy UTD and build near elite science, math, engineering and business degrees. They also need more elite alumni to step up and give big gifts. It would be an enormous boost to the city and state to make a competitor school to UT and A&M. Right now, I have my money onUTD, but it’s a race UH should have won years ago. The good news is both can be in the winners circle.

      I don’t see anything special about Houston. I don’t see how the governer pressuring UT to let Houston it mattered when all the other schools could obviously block Houston. The networks did not want to pay tens of millions for them, because nobody nationally cares about UofH. Nobody in the big 12 has either fiduciary or moral duty to UH, and there was no leverage to ram them in.

      Had adding teams been accretive, then maybe we would have gotten to Houston, but because it wasn’t accretive, I am not sure Houston was ever even considered. Nor was south north eastern Florida or whatever that community college in Florida is called.

      V. For the record, this is what happens when people lead with their mouth, and don’t do their work.
      People like to make fun of UT for hiring consultants, lawyers, IMG, but the upside is that we generally show up to a meeting knowing what we are talking about, and people listen carefully to every word we say. We don’t issue public statements to embarrass people. Our mouth does not write a check that our ass can’t cash.

      I think bowlsby has a tough hand, but is doing a fine job. He is very smart and well spoken. Boren simply went bananas. Could you imagine being Ryan right now, with Donald Trump going crazy? What can you actually do other than let it play out? Bowlsby is a professional and took it like a man.”

      Like

      • Brutus says:

        But here is where the Texas perspective falls short. 1) Boren is right, the Big 12 is psychologically disadvantaged and generally disadvantaged. Perception is reality and this is what people outside of Texas perceive, so to ignore it is at your own peril.
        2) The name of the game is eyeballs. What can generate the most eyeballs for your program to create as much of a national buzz while still staying true to your core markets. When the Big brought in WV it made a mistake. This was not a like minded school in a Big 12 region. Problem is you need to do something to help them. This is why you add Cincy or UConn. Get more Eastern Time Zone Content.
        3) The population centers and narratives about places are drawn in the Eastern and Pacific Time Zones. This is where the BIg 12 is lacking. It needs Eastern Time Zone content. Expansion into that time zone is going to be naturally accretive.
        4) The Big 12 is geographically disadvantaged, It is in flyover country and only in 5 states. Smallest footprint of all. People outside those states do not talk Big 12. You need more areas where people have a vested interest in the conference. THis is where Boren is right and also he is right that Houston would have been a huge mistake. Look at the BIG, yes Rutgers football sucks but it has people in NJ talking about BIG football because they now have a vested interest in the conference even if their team sucks. The lack of states and especially populous states outside of TX kills the Big 12. This is why expansion to Ohio, Conn and FL makes sense. BYU lesser so. You need to create the eyeballs and the vested interest.
        5) Competitive balance and recruiting are important. Open up new recruiting areas, not just for new members but for everyone. In this case Cincy should be a no brainer. Right now, TX is the recruiting ground for the entire conference. If you don’t get your players from TX you don’t have a team. if you add Houston and BYU you dilute the state of Texas even more. This is obviously a concern as the talent pool gets tighter with more lines in the pond. If you get Cincy or a Florida school you expand the footprint to talent rich markets which only bolsters the strength of the conference long term.

        The numbers point to expansion being additive and beneficial and Boren is absolutely right, it needs to be the right schools which is not Houston. Texas is being disingenuous with the additions because they are supporting dilutive candidates. The facts back this up.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        The flaw in this is, of course, that Bowlsby came out and said we needed to expand. He also called many schools “additive.” It takes a pretty negative view of him to view additive as good for 8 years and then a disaster after that.

        Clearly the networks weren’t in love with the alternatives, but that could well be their own needs. ESPN already has all these schools cheap. Maybe BYU in the Big 12 increases its value enough to offset the extra money. Hard to see the others going up so much in value. As for Fox, they just added roughly 30 Big 10 games to their inventory. Maybe they don’t want anymore inventory.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The flaw in this is, of course, that Bowlsby came out and said we needed to expand.

          The flaw in your flaw, is that Bowlsby has selfish interests of his own, and like everyone else, what he says publicly might not be the whole story. He is just one of many actors on this stage.

          Clearly the networks weren’t in love with the alternatives, but that could well be their own needs.

          That’s true, but conferences, more than ever, are primarily economic constructs, built mostly with football money. This is especially true of the Big 12, which was created for economic reasons to begin with; and compared to their P5 counterparts, does not have much tradition to fall back on.

          But university presidents and conference commissioners have to at least pretend to be interested in other factors than just making money. Networks don’t have to pretend, as they are explicitly profit-seeking entertainers, and have never claimed to be anything else. So, when they say none of the schools are accretive, I am inclined to believe them.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Well none of the schools are accretive to ESPN because ESPN is paying a lot less and already has them! Fox probably doesn’t need them. Their interests do NOT coincide with those of the Big 12.

            As for what Bowlsby’s “selfish interests” are, you will have to speculate since I can’t think of any.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Well none of the schools are accretive to ESPN because ESPN is paying a lot less and already has them! Fox probably doesn’t need them. Their interests do NOT coincide with those of the Big 12.

            The B12 is mainly an economic cooperative created to collect and distribute TV money. Over time, it cannot be worth much more than the value of its assets to the broadcasters.

            The Big Ten, with its decades-long history of academic cooperation, could argue with a straight face that it has more value than just its TV contracts (although they nevertheless dominate). The Big 12, which lacks that history, cannot.

            As for what Bowlsby’s “selfish interests” are, you will have to speculate since I can’t think of any.

            A school like Texas or Oklahoma is considering the possibility that they might be better off in a different league. Bowlsby, on the other hand, is most definitely not better off if they leave: his power will be diminished.

            On top of that, his personal reputation can’t help but take a hit, for failing to keep it together, even if he was faced with an impossible task. As it is, the league looks foolish for putting on a Bachelor-like spectacle that ended with no one being selected. He is the face of the league, and is tarred with how that process was managed.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “He is the face of the league, and is tarred with how that process was managed.”

            He is the figurehead of the league. He should have applied for the UT AD position if he wanted to wield the actual power.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I fail to see how falsely saying they were additive helps his reputation given that he lead the process.

            Now there can be differences of opinions between ESPN, Fox and the Big 12 TV consultants on what these schools values will be in 2025. But Bowlsby is clearly saying that the value is there, whether it be through TV, marketing, sponsors, NCAA bb credits, increased playoff bids, home attendance, whatever sources of revenue he has identified.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I fail to see how falsely saying they were additive helps his reputation given that he lead the process.

            Now there can be differences of opinions between ESPN, Fox and the Big 12 TV consultants on what these schools values will be in 2025. But Bowlsby is clearly saying that the value is there, whether it be through TV, marketing, sponsors, NCAA bb credits, increased playoff bids, home attendance, whatever sources of revenue he has identified.

            What I am saying, is that if the merits are arguable, he will probably take the side that also happens to coincide with his own career and reputational interests.

            It’s not as if the Big 12 has the chance to get Ohio State (an obvious win), or that Northern Iowa is the best school available (an obvious non-starter). Instead, we’ve got a bunch of middling schools that might be additive, but could be dillutive, depending on your assumptions.

            In that situation, I would expect Bowlsby’s Bayesian priors to favor expansion, and to give more weight to the arguments for addition, assuming those arguments can be rationally made. But “rational” does not mean “correct”.

            It is not like university presidents to turn down free money. That they elected not to expand tells me that they saw no clear winners. They saw assumptions that, if believed, would be additive; but the reliability of those assumptions was sufficiently doubtful that they were not willing to act.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Ok, I understand what you are saying.

            But Bowlsby was originally anti-expansion. When they started getting data he clearly became pro-expansion. So something in those consultant’s reports convinced him.

            Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        So again, this was George Costanzas’ Yankee supervisor Wilhelm’s “Big Project” (at the end of the episode, Mrs. Wilhelm had to remind Mr. Wilhelm to take his meds).

        Like

  38. Brian says:

    http://www.campusrush.com/college-football-regular-season-alabama-ohio-state-2052322210.html

    7 terrible ideas for CFB.

    I’ll qualify what comes next by saying that I was at a baseball game as I mulled this over, and one reason I love baseball is its postseason randomness. Wild-cards play one-game playoffs to get in—and plenty of times go on to win it all.

    I want more of that randomness in college football, and I want it to matter.

    Why would chaos be the goal? That’s a great way to lose fans and money. The worst thing about postseason systems is their failure to accurately determine the best team. That’s not a strength.

    She seems to be saying she just wants the best teams to not be so good and thus lose more. In a competitive environment, you’re always going to get some dominance. There are easier ways to achieve chaos than her ideas anyway.

    Her ideas:

    1. Give us the eight-team playoff. … That in and of itself is enough to capture more interest, and to make the eventual champion play in three playoff games certainly increases the odds of chaos. It’s also fun to see those teams that pop up in the top 10 every few years after a great run get a shot at a legitimate postseason. Teams No. 3–15 I often find are the most interesting and fluid, year to year.

    2. Also, mandate a spot for a Group of Five team in this eight-team shebang. Houston having one bad Saturday shouldn’t doom it.

    3. Mandate some nonconference games. I love that in recent years, Power Five conference commissioners have spoken out against their schools lining up September as a parade of bunny opponents. But let’s take it one step further: Why not mandate one nonconference game a year in the same vein as the NFL does in its scheduling? … This would take some reorganizing—either turning the Power Five into the Power Four or Power Six—but it would be great to force, say, the top five teams in each conference to schedule one of their nonconference games against a team from an assigned other conference that finished in the same place the year before. I say five teams because to make everyone do this we’d have to standardize the size of each conference. For example: Ole Miss finished third in the SEC (ranking teams irrespective of division) in 2015. Under this system, it’d have been mandated to play Ohio State, which finished third in the Big Ten, this year.

    4. Schedule inter-division conference games by record. Let’s take my second suggestion a step further and mandate the No. 2 team, say, in the SEC West, have to play the No. 2 team in the SEC East the following year. That’d force the SEC to have more than one intra-division game a year in order to ensure all of its teams actually played one another, but let them handle that. Why shouldn’t the best two teams in a conference play not only in a championship game, but also the following year?

    5. And in that same vein, mandate conference championship games. This seems so obvious it’s almost an afterthought, but yeah. The best two teams in a conference should play each other, and I’m not sure what argument there is against that.

    6. Put a cap on coaching salaries. College football is all about the coach. Urban Meyer and Nick Saban are the best in the business, and it’s no surprise their teams are also at the top of the game. Alabama and Ohio State would do anything to keep these guys, but as much as the idea of the coach as an institution is adorable, it’s also—sorry—boring. Not that capping salaries would encourage movement, but it would at least incentivize some coaches to listen to other offers if they felt restless or up for a new challenge—and it would also make those of us who feel a little nauseated when we see that a coach is a state’s highest-paid employee feel a bit better, as a bonus.

    7. Did I mention an eight-team playoff?

    #1 is given without any good supporting argument. An increase in chaos is not a reason to expand the playoff.

    #2 is likely to happen if #1 occurs, but her argument is weak. UH wouldn’t get in over an undefeated Boise this year anyway.

    #3 and #4 would require the schools to yield power that they will never yield. Maybe two conferences will strike a deal to do something, but the schools would never try to have the NCAA impose such a thing.

    #5 seems moot with the B12 adding a CCG next year, but it also fits the description above.

    #6 is illegal.

    #7 is a repeat.

    Like

  39. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-12-expansion-texas-longhorns-oklahoma-sooners-conference-future-mandel-mailbag-101916

    Stewart Mandel still doesn’t understand the B10 or realignment very well.

    Stewart: With the Big 12 deciding not to expand, it seems the league is poised to collapse in favor of four super conferences. The Big Ten and SEC can each take two to get to 16, the Pac 12 can take four, and the ACC can take one (or two depending on what ND does). Care to speculate where teams land?

    — Foster, Wilmington, North Carolina

    IF the league comes apart in 2025, when its current TV deals and Grant of Rights expire, and IF the conference landscape looks generally similar to what it does now, the biggest question would be whether Texas and Oklahoma bind together or act on their own. If the latter, Texas goes to the Big Ten and Oklahoma the SEC. Those two leagues are the clear alpha dog conferences, and those two schools are the only ones with the leverage to essentially pick their spot.

    Good enough so far. I won’t say he’s right or wrong, but it’s a reasonable stance. Of course he didn’t say what would happen in the first scenario at all.

    As for the other schools, Oklahoma State would go wherever Oklahoma does. Texas Tech in the Big Ten seems like an odd fit, but if that’s what it takes to get Texas, Jim Delany’s successor would likely do it.

    OkSU would like to go wherever OU goes, but who beyond the P12 wants a second school from OK? As for TT, Delany’s successor can suggest whatever he wants. He’d need a gun to get the COP/C to approve TT under any circumstances.

    After that … I’m not sure any of the others would land in a current Power 5 conference. The ACC would be more likely to take Connecticut than West Virginia, and if the Pac-12 can’t get Texas or Oklahoma it either stays put or grabs a couple of closer schools like Boise State. So Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia would be in much the same boat as the schools trying to get into the Big 12 now. Perhaps there would be some sort of marriage between the Big 12’s leftovers and the best of the Group of 5.

    Perhaps a harsher view on KU than many have, but still reasonable. I don’t see the P12 taking any western schools in the next 20 years or so. Maybe someone will become academically suitable in the future, but for now I think it’s UT and friends or bust.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It amazes me that so many people think the four remaining power conferences would agree to land conveniently on 16 members. The power leagues, however you define that phrase, have never had the same number of schools at any time. They act independently, according to their own needs and priorities.

      The only big prizes are Texas and Oklahoma. I don’t see any league making a deal without one or the other, or both. The remaining P5 conferences don’t have pressing needs that any other B12 school satisfies.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Will you guys stop making such logical and informed statements?

        {checks to see if the dudes twitter account has melted}

        Ahh, see? The B12 is the most successful conference in history…

        Like

    • David Brown says:

      I do not see the Big 10 taking Texas Tech. The Academics ( not to mention being a Middle Of The Road Big XII team) is why. If Texas demanded another Texas team, Houston ( sports ) or Rice ( Academics) would be far superior choices. I suspect the ideal combination would be Texas ( sports AND Academics), and either Rice ( think how much they can contribute to the CIC ( like Johns Hopkins), Kansas ( Basketball & Academics) or Oklahoma ( football).

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        UT probably won’t be able to get another Texas school into the Big Ten. If they want to bring a partner with them, they’ll need to knock on the Pac-12’s door again.

        Rice clears the Big Ten’s academic hurdle with room to spare, but the Big Ten is a sports league after all, and Rice isn’t good enough in the revenue sports. You may note that Rutgers isn’t good either, but Rutgers brought a useful state market along with them. Rice brings none of that, assuming you are already getting UT.

        But anyhow, I don’t see Texas arguing for Rice or Houston, as it was willing to kick them to the curb when the Big 12 was formed. We know about the famous “Tech problem,” but I can’t see the Big Ten going for that. They will want #16 to bring distinct strengths, as Oklahoma and Kansas do, but Tech does not.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I watched Rice this weekend and I saw the Quarterback is a NASA intern, and the School was # 13 overall in Academics. While I agree that Rice is inferior to OU and KU in sports the kind of Research money they would bring to the CIC would be nice.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            There’s no denying Rice academics, but that’s not what drives the expansion bus.

            Empirically, the league’s behavior is that the academics need to be “good enough”; and then, athletic and marketing considerations determine which schools get in.

            After all, Rice is not bound by a GOR: the Big Ten could’ve had them at any time, and never even sniffed in that direction.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Rice is excellent academically, but is a bad institutional fit for the Big Ten. Rice has 6600 students, NW has the fewest in the B1G at 21k.

            This research ranking:
            https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd

            Has Rice ranked 128th by R&D expenditures. Nebraska is 80th, Oklahoma 83rd, Rutgers 31st, Maryland 43rd.

            Like

        • Mack says:

          The B1G might take another Texas school with UT but I doubt A&M will leave the SEC, and that is the only other Texas school that the B1G would consider inviting. .

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I am not familiar with the details the Nebraska “removal” from the AAU, but I know that it related partially to fact that the medical school was on a different campus, so those research dollars did not count. Further agricultural research does not count as much. Very tough for the Cornhuskers.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            In the research funding ranking, most ag research funding does not count at all, since it’s mostly formula research grants rather than competitive research grants. And, of course, given the existence of the formula agricultural land grant ag research funding, there’s much less urgency in developing competitive research grant funding for ag research.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “I am not familiar with the details the Nebraska “removal” from the AAU, but I know that it related partially to fact that the medical school was on a different campus, so those research dollars did not count.”

            The medical center is a peer institution within their University of Nebraska system that is located in a different city. Of course the medical school shouldn’t be counted as UNL, those dollars and brain power have little to nothing to do with the UNL campus.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The medical center is a peer institution within their University of Nebraska system that is located in a different city. Of course the medical school shouldn’t be counted as UNL, those dollars and brain power have little to nothing to do with the UNL campus.

            The multiple campuses of state university systems are usually more interrelated than this comment would suggest.

            The Kansas medical school is also in a different city than the main university. It’s just an administrative distinction that the state of Kansas considers that school to be part of KU, and the state of Nebraska does not.

            Granted, the AAU can define its membership criteria any way it wants, and Nebraska knew the rules.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jersey Bernie,

            “I am not familiar with the details the Nebraska “removal” from the AAU, but I know that it related partially to fact that the medical school was on a different campus, so those research dollars did not count. Further agricultural research does not count as much. Very tough for the Cornhuskers.”

            http://www.chronicle.com/article/Ouster-Opens-a-Painful-Debate/127364/

            Here’s a good article about it if anyone wants a refresher.

            The unprecedented move was fraught with intrigue and politics not typical of staid and collegial academic associations, say several presidents in the AAU with knowledge of the process who asked not to be named because of the group’s confidential proceedings.

            “There were a lot of people who didn’t want them disassociated,” said one public-university president. “I don’t think you’ll see another vote anytime soon on eliminating a member. The wounds are too great over this episode. I anticipate a lot of future debate over the criteria.”

            The AAU’s two-phase membership criteria focus primarily on an institution’s amount of competitive research funds and its share of faculty members who belong to the National Academies. Faculty awards and citations are also taken into account.

            Presidents say that in recent years discussions about membership in the association have become much more quantified, with an increasing emphasis on a rankings methodology developed by the membership committee and senior AAU staff. Last April the association as a whole adopted revised criteria that compared AAU institutions with nonmembers on research dollars and eliminated the assumption that current members would automatically continue on.

            “It was very clear that the easiest path to scoring high on the criteria is to have large medical schools or large science and engineering faculties,” said Nancy Cantor, chancellor of Syracuse University, which was reviewed along with Nebraska and has decided to leave the AAU voluntarily in the coming months (see a related article).

            The membership committee was responsible for drafting the new criteria, and presidents who recall last spring’s meeting said there was little discussion of the new method among the full membership before it was adopted. “Many of us didn’t realize the full impact of that new criteria,” Ms. Cantor said.

            Another university leader said that, given that the association is made up of presidents who regularly criticize university rankings, “there’s concern by some of us that too many membership decisions are being made purely by the numbers.”

            “That’s why this vote [on Nebraska] was so divided,” said the president, who leads a private institution. “I think that it shows the membership itself is divided about what it means to be a top research university.”

            “The greatest debates within AAU tend to be reserved for who is in and who isn’t in,” said the public-university president.

            A year ago, the AAU invited its first new member in nearly a decade, the Georgia Institute of Technology. Some presidents don’t want the group to get too big, and so as it adds members, they believe those at the bottom of the rankings should be pruned.

            “At 100 members, it’s no longer a private group,” said another public-university president. “The advantage of this association, compared to others in higher ed, is that we’re all supposed to be alike. If that’s no longer the case, then we lose the benefits of membership”

            What particularly hurt Nebraska in those metrics is that as a land-grant institution in a farming state, it gets a large share of its research dollars for agriculture. The entire University of Nebraska system had $13.2-million in federally financed farm-related research in 2008, or about 10 percent of its total federal research dollars, as compared with a nationwide average of about 3 percent.

            The AAU, however, does not give such research the same weight in its membership criteria because much of federal support for agricultural work is awarded through formulas and earmarks rather than peer-reviewed grants. As a result, presidents of land-grant institutions say that the AAU metrics are stacked against them. They maintain that differences between states in climate, soil, and crops necessitate formula-driven funds.

            Large public institutions like Nebraska are also hurt in the AAU rankings by a process the association calls “normalization,” which seeks to determine per-faculty research rewards by dividing total research dollars by the number of faculty members at an institution.

            For Nebraska, that means the total research dollars are divided by a significant portion of faculty devoted to agricultural research, even though their research rewards are not considered as valuable under AAU metrics. The normalization process tends to help smaller members with smaller overall research budgets, like Brandeis and Rice Universities.

            In his e-mail to the campus and in interviews with The Chronicle, Mr. Perlman said what put Nebraska at a particular disadvantage was the lack of an on-campus medical school.

            While other AAU members, such as Cornell and Pennsylvania State Universities, for instance, lack medical schools on their main campuses, Nebraska’s medical school is also under a totally separate administrative structure from the Lincoln campus, an arrangement that is unlike the ones at those other institutions. As a result, its research dollars are not counted by the AAU, even though, as a medical school, it can’t belong to the association on its own.

            A medical school both improves an institution’s absolute number of research dollars and improves its score on the ratio of research output to tenure-track faculty, since medical schools often rely heavily on researchers who are not tenure-track faculty, Mr. Perlman said

            Like

          • bullet says:

            A lot of AAU schools don’t have medical schools. Texas didn’t have one until this year. Texas A&M is a big ag school that didn’t have one until just a few years ago, and they are a relatively new admit to the AAU.

            Syracuse has intentionally de-emphasized research in recent years. Their research expenditures (at least at the time they dropped out of the AAU) were relatively tiny. Something like $36 million as I recall.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            A lot of AAU schools don’t have medical schools.

            I think you mean, “a handful.”

            Texas didn’t have one until this year. Texas A&M is a big ag school that didn’t have one until just a few years ago, and they are a relatively new admit to the AAU.

            As explained in Brian’s post, it wasn’t just the lack of a medical school, but also the way the agriculture faculty was counted. In essence, the ag professors brought the average down, while getting zero credit for their own research, which was deemed to be non-competitive.

            The Texas A&M Medical School awarded its first degrees in 1981, which was long before the AAU revised its membership criteria and began to consider kicking members out.

            Like

  40. Mike says:

    https://missouri.rivals.com/news/zero-trust-inside-mizzou-s-move-to-the-southeastern-conference

    Zero Trust: Inside Mizzou’s move to the Southeastern Conference

    A read that’s worth you time.

    Like

    • ROBERT M SYKES says:

      I agree with Gee that if the B1G adds two more teams it should be Kansas and Missouri.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Kansas maybe, but the train has left the station on the other one.

        Like

        • ROBERT M SYKES says:

          Then, I suppose, the other would have to be Oklahoma.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Would the B1G overlook Oklahoma’s lack of AAU membership? I think that an UT & OU combination would result in “flexibility” by the B1G, but that might be the only way for the B1G to ignore the Oklahoma “AAU issue”.

            Would the B1G take UT and Kansas over UT and Oklahoma? That decision might show how serious this AAU problem is for B1G presidents.

            Kansas will be there and available to the B1G for a long time, if there is no Big 12. It does not seem likely that the PAC 12 would go that far east for Kansas, so even with a king basketball program, Kansas does not have a lot of potential safe landing spaces.

            Certainly the SEC or ACC are not going to Kansas.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Would the B1G overlook Oklahoma’s lack of AAU membership?

            That is the big unknown of expansion. To date, Notre Dame is the only known exception that the Big Ten was willing to make. However, at the time they admitted Nebraska, they knew the school’s AAU membership was under review, and it was at least possible that it wouldn’t have that status for very much longer.

            If you can argue that Nebraska’s non-AAU status was priced into its stock when they got the invitation, then maybe that exception is also open to another “reasonably good” non-AAU state flagship with a blue-chip football program, like Oklahoma.

            Would the B1G take UT and Kansas over UT and Oklahoma? That decision might show how serious this AAU problem is for B1G presidents.

            Kansas will be there and available to the B1G for a long time, if there is no Big 12.

            Yes, but conferences these days practically always expand to even numbers for football. The Big Ten’s addition of Penn State stands as the most notable exception, but that was before divisional play — as divisions with unequal numbers are awkward.

            This would seem to imply that if the Big Ten takes UT and OU, there will never be a time for Kansas, unless there is another school available whom they really want, for which the Jayhawks are the obvious complement, much as Rutgers was to Maryland. It’s like Noah’s Ark from now on: they have to enter two by two.

            I do agree that if the Big Ten doesn’t take Kansas, no other P5 league is likely to be interested, either.

            Like

          • Tyson says:

            Texas to the B1G might require OU to be invited as well, but I can’t see Texas insisting on KU being part of the deal, though I’d be happy to see KU and Mizzou brought in for a 9 team B1G West of :
            Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska Missouri Iowa Illinois Minnesota Wisconsin
            That’s be a pretty salty bunch

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Too many thinking like a fan, not a president. From that article speaking to the 2010 P16 proposal:
            “LOFTIN: “Scott told me that it wasn’t an easy sell because other than A&M and Texas the other schools really didn’t have the reputation academically that they really wanted. Colorado did. Utah didn’t.”

            I just don’t see Sooners making a home in the B1G. Remember Delaney pointedly stating that going forward academics were priority.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Texas to the B1G might require OU to be invited as well, but I can’t see Texas insisting on KU being part of the deal…

            I’m sure that OU would be UT’s preferred partner, as they could keep the Red River Rivalry as a conference game, and still schedule big-name non-conference opponents. UT has no history with Kansas that they care much about.

            …though I’d be happy to see KU and Mizzou brought in for a 9 team B1G West of :
            Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska Missouri Iowa Illinois Minnesota Wisconsin
            That’s be a pretty salty bunch

            That’d be one heck of a division, though I wonder how the legacy Big Ten teams would feel about hardly ever playing their traditional conference mates anymore.

            Assuming 9 conference games, it would take 16 years to cycle through a home and home cycle with the East teams. If Illinois locks its game with Northwestern, they’d never play the rest of the league again (barring a CCG rematch).

            Anyhow, I have trouble imagining Mizzou leaving the SEC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jersey Bernie,

            “Would the B1G overlook Oklahoma’s lack of AAU membership?”

            Unknown, obviously. OU does slightly outrank NE on AAU metrics, though, so it would essentially be admitting another NE.

            “I think that an UT & OU combination would result in “flexibility” by the B1G, but that might be the only way for the B1G to ignore the Oklahoma “AAU issue”.”

            I’d agree. I don’t think OU and KU provide quite enough value as a pair to get in.

            “Would the B1G take UT and Kansas over UT and Oklahoma? That decision might show how serious this AAU problem is for B1G presidents.”

            I don’t think they would because OU provides so much more financial value (football king, national fan base, rivalries with UT and NE, 1M more people in state). KU and OU are very similar academically other than AAU status. Is that enough reason to take KU?

            “Kansas will be there and available to the B1G for a long time, if there is no Big 12. It does not seem likely that the PAC 12 would go that far east for Kansas, so even with a king basketball program, Kansas does not have a lot of potential safe landing spaces.

            Certainly the SEC or ACC are not going to Kansas.”

            Expansion is running in pairs now. The question becomes KU and whom. The only partners in their area are UT, OU, ISU and MO. ISU is not an option and MO is off the table, and we’re assuming UT and OU are already gone. That means they need an eastern partner, but the ACC schools are unavailable. I don’t believe the B10 would stoop to an all-hoops expansion of KU and UConn, so KU lacks a partner.

            On the other hand, the SEC has MO and could use the MBB power of KU to counterbalance UK. The SEC would need to find a partner but they’re options are a little wider (TCU, OkSU, WV, other).

            Or maybe conferences will drop divisions and make adding singletons possible again. All they need is to change the CCG rules.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “I just don’t see Sooners making a home in the B1G. Remember Delaney pointedly stating that going forward academics were priority.”

            The chance to get 2 kings and add the ability recruit students from TX would have massive appeal to the COP/C. The average of the academics of those 2 are more than good enough to get in. OU is NE just without any time in the AAU. OU outranks NE on many of the metrics the AAU uses to evaluate schools. If OU is the condition for getting UT, I think they might do it. They wouldn’t take OU and KU, probably.

            Like

          • thescarletwolverine says:

            “Or maybe conferences will drop divisions and make adding singletons possible again. All they need is to change the CCG rules.”

            Brian has it right. When expansion happens they need to get rid of the division requirement. Then everyone in a 16-team conference can have three locked rivals yearly with six other conference games. Each team would play every other team in the conference home and home over a four-year period. Every player would visit every school in the conference at least once.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            …though I’d be happy to see KU and Mizzou brought in for a 9 team B1G West of :
            Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska Missouri Iowa Illinois Minnesota Wisconsin
            That’s be a pretty salty bunch

            “That’d be one heck of a division, though I wonder how the legacy Big Ten teams would feel about hardly ever playing their traditional conference mates anymore.

            Assuming 9 conference games, it would take 16 years to cycle through a home and home cycle with the East teams. If Illinois locks its game with Northwestern, they’d never play the rest of the league again (barring a CCG rematch).”

            At 18, you almost have to do pods or drop divisions entirely. I don’t think there are great pods, so I’d go back to 1 conference. Play 10 games with 3 locked rivals and 7 games to rotate through the other 14 teams (50%). Teams can still get 7 home games if they insist, or they can play some neutral site OOC games. But with 6 kings in the conference, they already have several major games built in and they’ll be from other regions.

            “Anyhow, I have trouble imagining Mizzou leaving the SEC.”

            It’ll never happen, agreed.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      Interesting article.

      A little self-justification there. Missouri’s president Deaton claimed he resigned his position as head of the Big 12 the day after Boren made his wallflower comments on September 11. What I remembered was he was double dealing by being head of the council while negotiating with the SEC. And the article itself demonstrated that with its timeline saying he resigned October 4th.

      People in the Big 12 remember Lawrence Phillips and while a great coach, class is not something we associate with Tom Osborne. He was a whiny, bad loser (on those rare occasions that he lost). That “class” comment drains a lot of credibility from anything Alden says. Now I can’t really dispute his characterization of Deloss Dodds. Although contrary to the perception spread, Dodds didn’t have anything against the Big 12 North schools. He was a Kansas St. athlete, coach and administrator before he moved to Texas. The Big 12 was his baby and he really wanted it to succeed. I suspect the Pac 16 idea was more of President Powers.

      The administrators don’t mention the reason for the hostility against Mizzou in the boardroom in 2010 was due to their governor bad-mouthing Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. And the vitrol at the exit was different than with any of the other schools as they created havoc with their late exit. Even Chuck Neinas, interim commissioner and former Big 8 commissioner was bad-mouthing them. The Big 12 offered them a deal on the exit fee if they delayed a year. The Big 12, Big East and CUSA were all asking them to delay. The SEC was fine with it. But they wouldn’t and that generated a lot of the vitrol. They cost everybody a lot of money and time. They even cost FSU who lost their WVU ooc game and had to schedule an FCS school at home. Lots of chaos for everyone.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Nice find, Mike.

      One little tidbit of interest to me was Larry Scoot talking about Utah.

      LOFTIN: “Scott told me that it wasn’t an easy sell because other than A&M and Texas the other schools really didn’t have the reputation academically that they really wanted. Colorado did. Utah didn’t.”

      Utah isn’t AAU, but they were a top 50 school on the AAU rankings that NE released when they got booted. That would seem like a pretty decent academic reputation.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        And they got into the PAC when the aTm/UT gambit disappeared. OU/OkSU didn’t the next year.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Brian:

        Another interesting item: “EXCERPT FROM THE 100-YEAR DECISION: “When that news broke, that day’s meeting essentially ended. It wasn’t just an elephant in the room; it was the entire zoo.”

        GOTTLIEB: “Look, Chip had it right. They were gone and then ESPN was like if that deal blows up, we’ve got to go back and rework all of our contracts and FOX has the Pac-12 contract and it was a, there’s a term for it, not sunken costs, it was a loss leader. This idea like we’re gonna lose money on this Longhorn thing, maybe forever. Maybe eventually we’ll make money on it, but we’re gonna lose a whole hell of a lot more money if all of a sudden OU and Texas and Oklahoma State and somebody else goes to the PAC 12. Chip Brown had it right. At the last second that thing got blown up.”

        Two things. First, it appears ESPN stopping the current round of B12 expansion (if in fact they and fox arrange a financial boost through the CCG or otherwise) isn’t the first time they’ve thwarted realignment. And second, although it hadn’t officially been revealed it’s obvious the groundwork for the LHN had occurred already. And inspite of the “surprise” expressed at its payout level I’d bet that was the price asked to scuttle the P16.

        Like

  41. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux Tigers!

    Like

  42. Richard says:

    If the B10 had to take Rice to land UT, they would definitely do it. Sure, Rice is tiny, but they are in a major metropolis in a fertile state (and of course, has the academic side completely covered). OU is a king but isn’t AAU and is in a low population state and not actually in TX. Plus, I don’t think the B10 wants to load up completely with kings (UMich and OSU want reasonable paths to the playoffs and the B10W schools, if they add a king, would likely prefer an easy win as well rather 2 tough games).
    However, I doubt that UT would go to bat for Rice.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I was the person who mentioned Rice, and the odds are slim that the Big 10 would take Rice. Certain things would have to happen for this to occur. 1: OU and OSU go to the SEC ( taking OU off the Board). 2: UT agrees to come but wants a Texas School as a partner ( instead of say KU). 3: The Big 10 refuses to accept Tech, Houston, TCU or Baylor ( all highly likely). The idea of getting BTN on in Texas ( including Houston) is a plus for Rice ( not to mention Recruiting that Schools who recruit Nationally like Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State would like). Rice also excels at baseball ( something the Big 10 does not). My gut feeling is that if the Big 10 expands it will be KU with OU. After years of dealing with Schools like Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor and Texas Tech who vote to give UT everything it wants, I cannot see UT taking marching orders from Ann Arbor and Columbus, while I can see OU following Nebraska and taking the financial windfall from the Big 10 ( especially if OSU remains with UT in the Big XII ( or whatever it is called)).

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      If the B10 had to take Rice to land UT, they would definitely do it.

      Yes, but the odds of UT insisting on this are pretty close to zero, since UT didn’t go to bat for Rice when the Big 12 was founded. If OU wasn’t available (or the Big Ten didn’t want them), then it would be UT and Kansas.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Kansas also gives an easy win in football for the Western Division teams, while actually adding value to the BTN through it’s BBall.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Richard,

      “If the B10 had to take Rice to land UT, they would definitely do it. Sure, Rice is tiny, but they are in a major metropolis in a fertile state (and of course, has the academic side completely covered).”

      To be fair, their sports teams aren’t any worse than RU has been so far. They’d win the baseball title a lot.

      “OU is a king but isn’t AAU and is in a low population state and not actually in TX. Plus, I don’t think the B10 wants to load up completely with kings (UMich and OSU want reasonable paths to the playoffs and the B10W schools, if they add a king, would likely prefer an easy win as well rather 2 tough games).”

      Adding UT and OU would provide balance on paper, something the B10 is lacking at the moment. OU also might be a condition of getting UT (so they can keep the rivalry in conference), so basically getting another NE but with better football seems reasonable for the prize that is access to TX. The B10 provides plenty of easy wins already (IL, PU, RU, etc). Adding OU and UT would take the B10 to a SOS level more like the SEC.

      “However, I doubt that UT would go to bat for Rice.”

      Me too. They’ll still play OOC.

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Interesting to see Rice mentioned again when we’re 1-6 and had trouble putting away a bad FCS team Saturday.

      As others have noted, Rice is way too small to be considered for the B1G. I looked up the size of the FBS private schools a while back and it was staggering to me how much bigger schools like Northwestern, USC, BYU and others were. When my daughter went to Notre Dame I thought it was about the same size as Rice, not more than double.

      As for sports, basketball and football would be crushed for years. We could win in baseball most years. And be mid-pack in the irrelevant sports.

      For the academic side, Rice is selective and elite, yes, but does not have the breadth of B1G schools. Another factor of size that is often overlooked.

      Our relationship with UT has always been cordial and supportive as an institution. But they’ve thrown us to the curb in sports and will not hesitate to do it again.

      Like

  43. John says:

    Good read from Powermizzou
    Sure seems to point to B10 strategy of taking Neb with thought that B12 would then crumble & they could get MU & KU. If so, Delaney’s only misjudgement was knowing just how much $$$ ESPN would throw down to keep B12 from crumbling & therefore losing TX to the PAC.

    One point that seems to always get missed (and wasn’t in article)…Loftin’s book states that B12 ADs & admins knew as early as ’09 about TX plan to take their friends to PAC. This was b4 B10 announced expansion in play, & WAY b4 MO governor’s dumb comments. Seems Deloss & others very successfully demonized Mizzou as the catalyst. Pretty interesting that apparently (from the article) Tom Osbourne is about the only person to call Deloss out on this B.S. & stick up for MU.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      How good a track record does “Powermizzou” have? From other Big Ten insider comments, I thought their preferred strategy was to grow into Virginia and North Carolina. Of course, that was before the ACC extended its grant of rights into the 2030s, but the league certainly seemed to have its eye trained on the South, until the GOR foreclosed the possibility.

      Like

      • John says:

        Can’t speak to tract records. Think it is a great read as its full of first hand accounts from actual administrators. The rest just my opinion (& I am NO insider).

        Like

      • Mike says:

        How good a track record does “Powermizzou” have?

        IMHO – They are biased, but I would consider them responsible. Its their version of Chip Brown.

        Like

    • David Brown says:

      If the Big 10 wanted Missouri they could have had them ( the Tigers basically threw themselves at the Big 10 and the Conference said NO).

      M

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        When the Tigers “threw themselves at the Big 10,” the league had only one vacancy. No one, except the odd Tiger fan, has ever suggested that the Big Ten should have taken Missouri over Nebraska.

        From that point forward, any expansion had to be in pairs. By the time Maryland was available, Missouri no longer was. Had Missouri not joined the SEC, I think there’s a more than fair prospect that they and Maryland would have been numbers 13 & 14.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Loftin’s account contradicts what the Colorado AD said in the article.

      The Big 10 did publically announce they were looking to expand in December 2009.

      I don’t recall seeing a date when the Pac 16 talks started. Maybe Loftin is correct, but he is known to lie and has the 60s Aggie obsessive hatred of Texas so he’s not the best source.

      Like

  44. ccrider55 says:

    UK spending some of that SECN money:
    http://www.ukathletics.com/news/construction-of-new-baseball-stadium-approved-10-20-2016

    For 49M I really expected a larger capacity.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      cc- you’re right. LSU spent $43mm in 2009 for the Alex Box Stadium. Alex Box has a capacity of around 11,000 (counting SROs). Suites and club seats, a large concourse, chair backs, large playground areas, and a great scoreboard with probably the biggest TV screen in college baseball are a few of the amenities. I know stadium costs inflation factor is much higher than other construction projects, but $49mm sounds pretty high for 2500 seats and grass berms.

      Like

  45. Marc Shepherd says:

    The Big Ten now counts Fresno State as a “Power Five” opponent, which meets the league’s requirement to play at least one of these every year in the non-conference schedule.

    Apparently, the Bulldogs’ 34–38 record over the past six seasons, including 1–6 this year, is sufficiently impressive. Previously, the Big Ten agreed to count Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, BYU, Cincinnati, and UConn, as “Power Five” opponents.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      How the bleep is Boise State not a “Power 5 opponent”? Also at least give half of the MAC their due as BigTen killers.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I would add UCF, USF, Houston and San Diego State

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Because nobody has asked for an exemption for Boise yet.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Not sure, but doesn’t the PAC count them?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Probably. I’m sure the B10 would, but a school has to ask for the exemption. We just don’t schedule schools like Boise much so it may take a while before someone bothers to ask.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            MSU played them in ’12, and is scheduled to again in ’22 and ’23. They have games with all the P5 conferences scheduled through ’23, several years with two (plus BYU frequently).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “MSU played them in ’12, and is scheduled to again in ’22 and ’23. They have games with all the P5 conferences scheduled through ’23, several years with two (plus BYU frequently).”

            So maybe MSU will bother to ask in a few years. Or maybe MSU plans on scheduling a P5 team in addition to Boise so they won’t ask.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            I reckon the latter. They seem willing to have 6/6 home/away game schedules on occasion, which would give them a bit more scheduling flexibility.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      It sounds stupid, but it’s a losable game for MN in many years.

      Does anyone really have a problem with lower tier B10 schools playing someone like Fresno instead of a P5? We still want lots of B10 teams to get bowl eligible, right? With 9 conference games, I’m okay with the lower teams taking an easier path. The big 7 (OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, IA, MSU) and anyone else who wants to compete for the B10 title should play a P5, but RU and PU and IL don’t need yet another hard game.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        The question is whether the networks who bought into the expected future value of Big Ten schedules have a problem with it.

        Agreeing to count Army demonstrates strongly that it’s about brand value, not about competitive strength. Indeed, while Fresno State is currently #123/128 in Massey’s Composite … Kansas is 120, Iowa State is 106, Rutgers is 102, Purdue is 100. The bottom of the P5 overlaps the middle of the MAC, CUSA and Sunbelt, never mind the middle of the American or MWC.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          BruceMcF,

          “The question is whether the networks who bought into the expected future value of Big Ten schedules have a problem with it.”

          I really doubt that they do. A former visitor here with TV experience said the money in TV deals was for the big conference games and then just inventory. TCU/MN pulled a 1.7 on a Thursday night game opening weekend with no competition, so it’s not like the network is missing out on much by getting Fresno instead.

          “Agreeing to count Army demonstrates strongly that it’s about brand value, not about competitive strength. Indeed, while Fresno State is currently #123/128 in Massey’s Composite … Kansas is 120, Iowa State is 106, Rutgers is 102, Purdue is 100. The bottom of the P5 overlaps the middle of the MAC, CUSA and Sunbelt, never mind the middle of the American or MWC.”

          I think the B10 would approve any decent G5 program because they know teams like RU are horrible. They’ll just put internal pressure on the 7 biggest brands not to avoid true P5 teams, but those 7 aren’t a problem generally anyway.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            The big stadium schools face their own market pressure to include a “real” P5 H/H agreement in the mix, to avoid the value of their season ticket packages dropping too far in the years they have 4 rather than 5 Big Ten home games … that leaves two Go5 buy games in both 4 and 5 conference home game years.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Does anyone really have a problem with lower tier B10 schools playing someone like Fresno instead of a P5? We still want lots of B10 teams to get bowl eligible, right?

        I don’t have a problem with it substantively, but the optics aren’t that great when you claim to have a P5 scheduling requirement…and then make all of these exceptions.

        I wasn’t in favor of playing 9 conference games, either, as I felt it would result in fewer bowl-eligible Big Ten teams.

        Agreeing to count Army demonstrates strongly that it’s about brand value, not about competitive strength.

        In Army’s case, there is no doubt about it, since no one would claim they’ve played P5-equivalent football at any time in the recent past. But the service academies always draw well on TV, even when they’re terrible.

        On the other hand, if brand value is what’s driving it, is Fresno State a big draw? It’s the first I am hearing that.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “I don’t have a problem with it substantively, but the optics aren’t that great when you claim to have a P5 scheduling requirement…and then make all of these exceptions.”

          Agreed.

          “I wasn’t in favor of playing 9 conference games, either, as I felt it would result in fewer bowl-eligible Big Ten teams.”

          It will, but it’s one of the reasons for the big jump in TV money.

          “In Army’s case, there is no doubt about it, since no one would claim they’ve played P5-equivalent football at any time in the recent past. But the service academies always draw well on TV, even when they’re terrible.

          On the other hand, if brand value is what’s driving it, is Fresno State a big draw? It’s the first I am hearing that.”

          I don’t think it’s brand value at all. I think the B10 will approve almost anyone if the right school asks (they wouldn’t approve Fresno if OSU asked, for example).

          Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/10/20/title-ix-sexual-assault-explained

    Explaining Title IX and how sexual assaults are prosecuted on college campuses.

    Like

  47. Brian says:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-one-move-that-could-save-the-big-12-160138736.html

    Dan Wetzel says the one move that could save the B12 now is to push for expanding the playoff to 8 teams with the P5 getting autobids. That would make the B12 the easiest place for UT and OU to succeed and the money will be good enough (hopefully).

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      It might be the only way Iowa State and Kansas State remain P5 schools.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I would include Baylor as a School that will NOT be in a Power 5 Conference if UT leaves ( I think the Big XII could survive without OU, if UT remains). If the Conference goes away, I do not see he Big XII picking up the best Schools from the AAC & MWC, rather I see ISU & WVA in the AAC, Baylor and KSU in the MWC, KU in the Big 10 and the others dependent on what happens with OU and UT. For example: If OU goes SEC or PAC, OSU goes with them: If OU goes Big 10, then it’s MWC. Same for Tech and UT ( Just substitute ACC for SEC). TCU which is the strongest non UT team in the Big XII would have the choice of AAC or MWC ( I suspect AAC because of SMU). I suspect that OU and either KU or OSU will be gone ( most likely KU), and UT will remain in the Big XII ( joined by Houston and whatever School UT wants).

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Dan Wetzel says the one move that could save the B12 now is to push for expanding the playoff to 8 teams with the P5 getting autobids.

      This would require the other four P5 conferences to do the B12 a favor, and why would they?

      I would include Baylor as a School that will NOT be in a Power 5 Conference if UT leaves…

      Even without the sexual assault scandal, no other P5 league would ever have wanted Baylor.

      (I think the Big XII could survive without OU, if UT remains). If the Conference goes away, I do not see he Big XII picking up the best Schools from the AAC & MWC, rather I see ISU & WVA in the AAC, Baylor and KSU in the MWC, KU in the Big 10 and the others dependent on what happens with OU and UT…

      I cannot imagine Texas remaining in the Big 12 if Oklahoma leaves. They’re not going to stick around in a league that has no other anchor school except them. Without OU, the TV value of the league will plummet, and the Longhorns will not be able to avoid seeking another home.

      So now…the question is what the remaining eight will do. My hypothesis is that, even without UT and OU, the Big XII is a better brand name than any other mid-major. Therefore, the remaining eight will do the acquiring, rather than being acquired themselves.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The problem with the Big XII being a better brand as a Mid-Major is the assumption that only OU and UT leave. I think the probability is KU goes and OSU and to a lesser extent TT is also possible ( depending on what OU and UT do). Keep in mind the AAC has Houston, UCF and USF, and the MWC has Air Force, Boise State and San Diego State ( all better football brands then many Schools in Power 5 Conferences). Those reasons are why I could see the AAC and MWC gaining Schools if and when OU & UT depart. The odds are in favor of KU leaving as well

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Key is how many. If only OU, Texas, or OU, Texas and KU leaving, I could see the remaining being able to raid both the MWC and AAC. (For one thing, in that second scenario they are still only losing two schools from the top of the FB value ladder.)

          If it’s five or six rebuilding, it gets trickier. It may depend on how long they get to ride on existing contractual arrangements before the new status kicks in across the board. But if the balance falls the wrong way and there aren’t American schools accepting invites, then all those trips to the Great Plains to play in a Go6 conference might make the American look more appealing to WVU.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          There are certainly scenarios where the Big 12 is pillaged so thoroughly that only the crumbs remain. But no other power conference wants Texas Tech or Oklahoma State. We know the Pac-12 would have accepted them, as the price of also getting Texas and Oklahoma. UT’s unwillingness to share Tier 3 revenue scuttled that deal, but it was something the Pac-12 was willing to entertain.

          Does the SEC want two Oklahoma schools? Doubtful. Does the SEC want OU plus a second Texas school, when that school is not UT? Doubtful. If the Big Ten takes Texas and Oklahoma, it’s game over: there’d be nothing left that any other P5 conference wants.

          Even without UT, OU, and Kansas, the Big XII still has numerous schools that are better football brands than anything in the AAC. We would be in a Big East scenario: that league kept losing schools, and replenishing from the next layer beneath them.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            I disagree with this. There are Schools in the AAC like UCF and USF that have to possibility to be major players down the line. You also have Schools in the Big XII that you know are not getting any better ( Baylor ISU, KSU, and TCU). That is what the Big 10 saw in Rutgers but did not see in Missouri. As we have seen with the various problems in Columbia, not selecting the Tigers worked out fine. As far as Conferences selecting OSU or TT in order to get OU and ( or) UT ( in the case of the PAC) is concerned of course they would. The last thing other Conferences want is both OU and UT in the Big 10.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “I disagree with this. There are Schools in the AAC like UCF and USF that have to possibility to be major players down the line.”

            But that’s not what he said. He said they were bigger brands now. He would also probably point out that you can only have about 3 big brands in a state and FL already has 3 major brands. UCF and USF are likely to be Baylor/TCU/TT level brands at most (maybe 1 replaces Miami eventually).

            “You also have Schools in the Big XII that you know are not getting any better ( Baylor ISU, KSU, and TCU).”

            But the brand “Big XII” is better than any G5 brand so they’ll be the hunters.

            “That is what the Big 10 saw in Rutgers but did not see in Missouri.”

            The B10 never considered them both at the same time. There wasn’t a partner for MO when NE was added and then MO was off the table when RU was added.

            “As far as Conferences selecting OSU or TT in order to get OU and ( or) UT ( in the case of the PAC) is concerned of course they would.”

            Maybe. The SEC isn’t going to take schools they don’t want.

            “The last thing other Conferences want is both OU and UT in the Big 10.”

            No, the last thing they want is to dilute themselves with schools of no value. Besides, this highly depends on where UT and/or OU want to go.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            There are Schools in the AAC like UCF and USF that have to possibility to be major players down the line.

            There is also the possibility that they never will. As we have just seen, the Big XII did not consider that chance sufficiently certain that they were willing to bet their future on it.

            You also have Schools in the Big XII that you know are not getting any better (Baylor, ISU, KSU, and TCU).

            Leaving aside Iowa State, no G5 conference has a trio of football brands as good as Baylor, KSU, and TCU. Even poor Iowa State is a more desirable school than most of the mid-majors.

            Now, I cannot say for sure that the balance of power won’t have shifted dramatically by the time the decision is made, but I do know that such shifts are relatively uncommon.

            That is what the Big 10 saw in Rutgers but did not see in Missouri. As we have seen with the various problems in Columbia, not selecting the Tigers worked out fine.

            As Brian pointed out, there was no time when the Big Ten was in a position to choose between them. Given what has happened in Columbia, the Big Ten may very well be thanking its lucky stars that it dodged a bullet, but I don’t think they saw that coming. Anyhow, the Rutgers athletic department has not exactly been a garden of roses, either.

            In fact, had they ever been in a position to make that choice, I think there’s a fair chance that they would’ve taken Missouri.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “This would require the other four P5 conferences to do the B12 a favor, and why would they?”

        Money. The other reason would be to avoid ever missing the playoff.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          If those arguments were sufficiently persuasive, then the remaining P5s would be doing what they always do: acting in their own interest, not the Big 12’s. The question is whether they reach that point on the Big 12’s timeline. I haven’t heard anyone with decision-making authority suggest that they’d tear up the playoff contracts before the final year scheduled, which is 2025–26.

          Now, a few years before that, they’ll be talking about whether they want to revise the structure or sign up for more of the same. But that’ll be the same time that the Big 12’s grant of rights is approaching expiration, and the same time that the Big Ten is taking its football rights back to market.

          If a couple of the major conferences think they can get Texas and Oklahoma, and the interest is mutual, there’s a pretty strong incentive to delay expanding the playoff till after the last rites have been given to the Big 12.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            And risk increased federal scrutiny if several of the weaker Big 12 schools — with decades of tradition in big-time athletics (including football, unlike Temple) — be tossed out through no fault of their own?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “If those arguments were sufficiently persuasive, then the remaining P5s would be doing what they always do: acting in their own interest, not the Big 12’s.”

            Exactly. It would still be good for the B12, but they’d all benefit in this hypothetical.

            “The question is whether they reach that point on the Big 12’s timeline. I haven’t heard anyone with decision-making authority suggest that they’d tear up the playoff contracts before the final year scheduled, which is 2025–26.”

            That’s the problem. Theoretically they could try to change it after 6 years I suppose, but absolutely nobody in charge seems to want 8 teams right now. I’m not sure they’ll want it then, either. Especially if looks like it’ll be the P4 when the new deal starts.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “And risk increased federal scrutiny if several of the weaker Big 12 schools — with decades of tradition in big-time athletics (including football, unlike Temple) — be tossed out through no fault of their own?”

            I don’t see that as much of a risk. TX, OK, KS and IA all have schools that would be in the P4. That leaves only WV to fully complain. Besides, making wise additions isn’t something the feds should punish. Kicking someone out would be more likely to draw scrutiny.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            And risk increased federal scrutiny if several of the weaker Big 12 schools — with decades of tradition in big-time athletics (including football, unlike Temple) — be tossed out through no fault of their own?

            There is no legal right to be in a power conference. I do think the potential for Congressional scrutiny is the reason why the playoff system is designed so that literally any FBS school could make it, even if the path for a non-P5 school is an arduous one, with no room for error. Giving them a microscopic chance is far better than designing the system to fully exclude them.

            Like

  48. bullet says:

    http://www.doublet973.com/story/33449202/tech-talk-interview-dr-lawrence-schovanec

    8 minute interview with Texas Tech president.

    Said it wasn’t as much about Fox and ESPN as reported as they were ambivalent to 10/12/14, but did make a comment that the networks had a certain “level they wanted to provide.” Reporter didn’t followup (did that mean they told the Big 12 they would pay $X but no more)
    Said Tech could support adding “some” of the schools, but everyone voted to stay at 10 (doesn’t contradict ESPN report that pro-expansion presidents could read the tea leaves).
    Said ADs and coaches were strongly in favor of 10.
    Mentions possible discussions and alliances with other leagues.
    Candidly says nobody knows what will happen in 8 years.
    Mentions 64 team power 5 and how its relation to NCAA is talked about.
    Technology could dramatically affect things.

    Like

  49. Jersey Bernie says:

    Here is a Sporting News take on the Big 12 not expanding. http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/byu-cincinnati-big-12-expansion-denied-cougars-college-football-week-8/h9z0p4pjmuvr16oilf2m14bxr

    The author is a huge supporter of the Big 12 adding BYU and Cincinnati.

    Interesting sentence:

    It might be better than the SEC bringing in Texas A&M and Missouri. It’s definitely better than the Big Ten bringing in Maryland and Rutgers.

    To me this is just another sports writer who does not understand expansion. The SEC expansion to Texas to get A & M was huge. The B1G stopped the ACC control of the East Coast and now largely owns the DC to NYC market.

    Why would Cincinnati and BYU be better than those moves?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Jersey Bernie,

      “The author is a huge supporter of the Big 12 adding BYU and Cincinnati.”

      Once he failed to mention the Honor Code issue, you knew he was clueless. He also didn’t mention the travel to UC or Nippert Stadium’s still small capacity. All he looked at was W/L in CFB and MBB lately. That’s not how presidents decide on expansion.

      “To me this is just another sports writer who does not understand expansion. The SEC expansion to Texas to get A & M was huge. The B1G stopped the ACC control of the East Coast and now largely owns the DC to NYC market.”

      It’s beyond not understanding, it’s delusional. The only move that would top getting TAMU is a move getting a king from a top recruiting state. Any conference would take TAMU and MO over BYU and UC without even pausing to think about it.

      “Why would Cincinnati and BYU be better than those moves?”

      It wouldn’t.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The Sporting News Article was designed to stir up discussion. No one in their right minds thinks Cincinnati and BYU are better then A&M and Missouri. You can argue Houston would have been a better choice then Cincinnati and maybe BYU. Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big 10 so they can as mentioned blunt the ACC in the Northeast and actually be the Top Dog Conference in the NY Market. One thing about the Big 10 is they look far into the future, and although Rutgers sucks now, and it may take a Decade Rutgers will payoff in the long run. What killed Rutgers for a long time, was a lack of identity. Most people do not know even know that Rutgers is the State University Of New Jersey. Now although they are still in New Jersey, they are expanding their reach, as they become more and more part of the Big 10, and the New York TV Marke ( which their Home Campus is big part of ( unlike Connecticut. Sorry UConn you are not in Fairfield County)). they are finding their identity. They have to step up to the plate no more not caring if anyone knows who they are, and scheduling garbage games ( especially at the RAC ( Rutgers Athletic Center)). This match will be great for the Big 10 and Rutgers ( despite what the critics say). Rutgers will be better then any addition except perhaps A&M going forward.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          “No one in their right minds thinks Cincinnati and BYU are better then A&M and Missouri.”

          Yes. BYU/UC or Houston/UC were marginal expansions, relative to either A&M/Mizzou or MD/Rutgers, with the only question being whether they were above or below the line.

          But it being the Big12, with some and maybe all of the former SWC schools lined up demanding UH and the former Big8 schools reportedly lined up opposing UH, BYU/UC could be above the line for 6 schools, UH/UC above the line for 5 schools, and both end up short of 8 votes.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The Sporting News Article was designed to stir up discussion.

          True, but that could be said of most news articles; it still does not distinguish good ones from bad ones. You can stir up discussion while saying something that makes sense.

          One thing about the Big 10 is they look far into the future, and although Rutgers sucks now, and it may take a Decade Rutgers will payoff in the long run.

          The Big Ten can afford to look far into the future. The Big 12 is simply trying to figure out if it will still exist in 10 years.

          What killed Rutgers for a long time, was a lack of identity.

          I believe you have it backwards. The lack of an “identity” didn’t prevent Rutgers from being good at sports. Being bad at sports meant that no one outside the state paid attention to them. No one hands you an “identity”; you claim it by being doing things that are worthy of attention.

          Until about 35 or 40 years ago, Rutgers was playing a pseudo Patriot League schedule. It takes a long time to build up a power football program out of nowhere. Rutgers’ first bowl appearance ever was in 1978. Their regular-season opponents that year were Penn State, Bucknell, Princeton, Yale, UConn, Villanova, Columbia, UMass, Temple, Holy Cross, and Colgate. (Remember, UConn and UMass weren’t I–A then.) They went 9–2 against that schedule, with losses to Penn State and Colgate.

          Like

  50. ccrider55 says:

    I really miss defense.

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    Let’s 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.

    14 current contenders (-0 from last week)

    ACC (2):
    0 losses – Clemson
    1 loss – UL

    B10 (3):
    0 losses – MI, NE
    1 loss – OSU

    B12 (2):
    0 losses – Baylor, WV
    1 loss – none

    P12 (2):
    0 losses – UW
    1 loss – Utah

    SEC (3):
    0 losses – AL
    1 loss – UF, TAMU

    Other (2):
    0 losses – WMU, Boise

    Top 2-loss options:
    WI, TN, OU

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      This scenario is not very likely, but it’s worth asking if an undefeated Baylor or WV would be chosen over a 1-loss team that won a CCG?

      You can’t blame West Virginia for its non-conference scheduling: they played Missouri and BYU. When they planned it, that line-up probably looked good. Too bad neither team is having a particularly good year. (Their third non-con game was Youngstown State.) Baylor, of course, played its usual joke of a non-conference schedule: Northwestern State, SMU, and Rice.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “This scenario is not very likely, but it’s worth asking if an undefeated Baylor or WV would be chosen over a 1-loss team that won a CCG?”

        It depends on the 1-loss team and the conference (Utah would have the weakest argument right now). Only Baylor, WV and OU are ranked in the B12, so neither Baylor nor WV would have a great resume. Baylor scheduled 3 cupcakes OOC and would be punished more than WV for it. I think the committee will always favor an undefeated P5 champ over a 1-loss P5 champ for making the playoff, but the B12 champ would be the #4 seed (aka “fodder for AL”).

        Like

  52. Brian says:

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

    Coaches Poll:
    1. AL – 63
    2. MI
    3. Clemson – 1
    4. UW
    5. UL – top 1-loss team
    6. Baylor
    6. NE
    8. OSU
    9. WV
    10. TAMU

    Others of note:
    11. WI – top 2-loss team
    13. Boise – top G5 division leader
    21. WMU – MACtion

    By conference:
    SEC – 6 = 43%
    ACC – 6 = 43%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    P12 – 3 = 25%
    Other – 4 (Boise, WMU, Navy, UH)

    http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

    AP Poll:
    1. AL – 60
    2. MI – 1
    3. Clemson
    4. UW
    5. UL – top 1-loss team
    6. OSU
    7. NE
    8. Baylor
    9. TAMU
    10. WV

    Others of note:
    11. WI – top 2-loss team
    13. Boise – top G5 division leader
    20. WMU – MACtion
    24. PSU

    By conference:
    SEC – 6 = 43%
    ACC – 5 = 36%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    B12 – 3 = 30%
    P12 – 3 = 25%
    Other – 3 (Boise, WMU, Navy)

    Like

  53. urbanleftbehind says:

    Did Franklin save his job last night?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I didn’t think last night was a must-win for Franklin. He needs to show improvement over two straight 7–6 campaigns, but he was on track to do that, even with a loss. Given the roster he inherited, I don’t think they were ready to fire him, unless the wheels came off in the second half of the season.

      This is a program that hadn’t beaten a ranked team since 2013, and hadn’t beaten a top-10 team since 2008. That streak isn’t entirely on Franklin, but sooner or later he needed a signature win, and now he has one.

      All of PSU’s remaining five games are winnable: @Purdue, Iowa, @Indiana, @Rutgers, MSU. Even a 3–2 finish would improve on last season. With the two toughest games being at home, 5–0 is not totally out of the question.

      Like

  54. ccrider55 says:

    From Sports business daily:
    “Amid possible Big 12 expansion, ESPN “opted to restructure its deal, agreeing to pay the conference more money,” while Fox “decided to stand pat,” according to Smith & Ourand of SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. The result is that the Big 12 will “see a little more money from ESPN” — about $10M…”

    10M/8yrs/10teams=125k/team yearly

    Not quite the buyout price I’d anticipated. I guess some may be hidden in the still to be decided CCG price.

    Like

  55. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17871778/fifth-big-ten-divisional-tiebreaker-now-overall-win-percentage

    The B10 has removed the CFP rankings from the list of divisional tiebreakers due to how late the rankings come out during CCG week. The new #5 is overall W% with #6 a random draw. So if the B10 ever has a 3-way 8-1 tie in a division where the three went 1-1 round robin, it’ll either come down to OOC W% or a random draw.

    I’d rather see the B10 use stats from the round robin games to eliminate the bottom team and then use head-to-head to determine the champ. Weight road games so a win = 1.25W and a loss = 0.75L (2 road games = 1.25-0.75, road win and home loss = 1.25-1.25, home win and road loss = 0.75-0.75, 2 home games = 0.75-1.25). If they all played 1 home and 1 away, then go to total MOV. If it’s still tied, then weight the PF and PA (1.25 x road pts scored and home pts allowed, 0.75 x road points allowed and home points scored) to find a weighted MOV.

    OOC games should never be a factor in the conference race, and neither should random draws unless absolutely nothing else will work.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      OOC games should never be a factor in the conference race, and neither should random draws unless absolutely nothing else will work.

      I agree. There is no equity in the scheduling of OOC games. I mean, imagine if Minnesota is one of the teams, in the year that Fresno State is their best OOC game.

      Doesn’t the Committee have a metric it uses called “Strength of Record”? Even though we won’t have the actual CFP rankings, it would seem they could calculate this, and use it as a tie-breaker. Whatever its flaws, this stat would be a much better metric than a random draw — and probably a reasonable proxy for what the Committee would eventually do, if their rankings came out soon enough.

      Brian’s suggestion is fine too — anything to avoid a random draw, which I think would be a PR disaster if it ever happened.

      Like

  56. Brian says:

    https://twitter.com/flugempire

    Tweets from Greg Flugaur citing his source (BTM):

    “OU made it known to UT they will not sign an extended GOR if it’s included in a bump in payouts from FOX/ESPN in return of no EXP”

    “B10 & ESPN’s relationship is warming up…”
    “B10 is working on possible angles to make ESPN happy in 2022/23 when B10 targets Texas”

    “LHN is dead in the eyes of this current leadership in Texas.”

    “More Concussion lawsuits are expected for the Big Ten Conference”

    And some other tweets:

    As our OU Contacts have told us since Spring of “15”…and again Saturday night…Oklahoma will not sign extended Big 12 GOR.

    Oklahoma is serving as FOX’s proxy in B12 internal negotiations. Oklahoma & FOX interests continue to intertwine.

    From Dude “If ESPN has bought its way out of pro rata clause but Fox hasn’t the door opens for the Big 12 to expand at the expense of Fox”

    No..door is shut Dude. OU is FOX’s proxy. Expansion of Big 12 is over…you still don’t get it..

    So even the twitterverse is saying expansion is over until the 2020s.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      “B10 & ESPN’s relationship is warming up…”
      “B10 is working on possible angles to make ESPN happy in 2022/23 when B10 targets Texas”

      Almost half of UT’s conference games are deadweight, as far as the Networks are concerned. I mean, what’s the market for UT vs. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, or WV? In the Big Ten, they won’t play King vs. King every week, but I don’t think the league has a quartet of opponents as bad (for ratings) as those four.

      In contrast, UT’s only guaranteed blockbuster in the B12 is OU. Other games could be a big deal, or not, depending on the standings in any given year, but OU is their only bankable game. It’s indicative of how far it’s fallen, that it was shown this year at 11am ET on FS1. Indiana at Ohio State at 3:30pm on ESPN out-rated it.

      In the Big Ten, they’d be playing Nebraska annually, and at least one of Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. And that’s on top of Oklahoma, which I assume would remain on their schedule whether the Sooners get a B10 invite or not.

      It’s probably not hard to get ESPN to warm up to that schedule.

      “LHN is dead in the eyes of this current leadership in Texas.”

      I’ve long suspected this would be the end result. The LHN contract goes through 2032, but at some point well before that, it may be apparent to all parties that it has failed. If so, they could tear up the contract, and replace it with an alternative that’s better for both sides.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        And while it is hardly against a football king, it has been reported (and posted on this board) that UT found it very important to play in NYC and Washington DC. The RU – UMd pair are a major attraction for UT.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I wonder how you get UT to go to the NYC Area and the same for Washington/Baltimore as often as they like? Certainly bringing the Sooners along instead of the Jayhawks would help because UT wants to continue the Red River Rivalry, and bringing OU frees up a game for UT ( it also strengthens the Western Division).The BEST way I see it working is a 13 Game Schedule. A Hypothetical 11Game Conference Schedule for UT could be: 1: Illinois. 2: Indiana. 3: Iowa. 4: Minnesota. 5: Nebraska. 6: Northwestern. 7: Oklahoma. 8: Wisconsin. Rutgers or Maryland could be a permanent crossover game for UT. You could also have IU/PU, IL/OSU, Minn/UM crossovers. That would also give UT two non Conference Games.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            i did forget 2 Eastern teams playing UT. One in Austin and one away

            Like

          • jog267 says:

            You get UT to NYC/DC area annually by either eliminating divisions entirely and giving UT RU and MD as protected rivals or simply placing the Longhorns in the Eastern Division.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            You get UT to NYC/DC area annually by either eliminating divisions entirely and giving UT RU and MD as protected rivals or simply placing the Longhorns in the Eastern Division.

            As Brian noted (below), it is pretty hard to make it work with static divisions. Texas in the East would exacerbate a divisional split that is already very imbalanced. Texas in the West would make it very hard for them to play RU/MD with any decent frequency, unless everyone else’s goals are second to making the Longhorns happy. It would be a very poor start to the newly expanded league, if Texas has, or is perceived to have, a bunch of extra privileges. Inevitably, I think you have to eliminate divisions or implement rotating pods.

            Even then, I am not sure you can get Texas to the East coast every single year without breaking something else, but you can get them there reasonably often. Two years out of four would be more than they have today.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Even then, I am not sure you can get Texas to the East coast every single year without breaking something else, but you can get them there reasonably often. Two years out of four would be more than they have today.”

            You can’t get them there every year without locking them with both RU and UMD. But it they really want that much east coast access, they can use some OOC games to get it. They could play a big name team in a neutral-site game held in NYC or DC/Baltimore. They could play lesser teams in 2 for 1s with the road game in NYC or DC/Baltimore. About all they’ve done so far is play ND.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I cannot imagine that RU and UMd would be very happy about locking in UT, to go along with Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and maybe even Penn State if they come back for real (like they did last week). That is nuts.

            There is no practical way to get UT to the east coast every year, or even every other year, unless the divisions are changed fairly dramatically. If it is UT plus OU, then presumably those two could be in a division with RU and UMd, Penn State and three other schools. There is no way that PSU (or RU or UMd) want to give up playing each other. Maybe Nebraska is thrown in there to renew its rivalries with UT and OU. That also puts all six “new schools” in one division.

            I also agree that as attractive as UT might be, I am not sure that the B1G will be so accommodating that all schedules will be based around the Longhorns.

            UT must want to go to DC and NYC not for recruiting territory, but for exposure in media major markets. They do not need northeastern recruiting territory.

            The B1G is the only school where UT gets to play in the super major markets of NY, DC and Chicago. (And arguably Philly due to the PSU/South Jersey RU presence)

            The PAC offers LA and SF, but that is not nearly the same. There is no way that the SEC or ACC provide competitive media exposure, if that is what UT wants.

            Of course a lot of things can happen in the next seven or eight years.

            Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Marc:

        “The LHN contract goes through 2032, but at some point well before that, it may be apparent to all parties that it has failed. If so, they could tear up the contract, and replace it with an alternative that’s better for both sides.”

        What would that be? BTN is getting any joiner’s T3. P1?N – same. ACCN? ESPN owned but I doubt they’ll let UT get an unequal share. SECN – same.

        UT has 15M reasons to continue the contract (unless they can be bought out at close to full price) until ’32. ESPN doesn’t have to bid on a Texas included B1G 16, P16, or (unlikely) 16 team SEC or ACC, which makes the LHN a good strategic expenditure for as long as possible.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          The LHN contract goes through 2032, but at some point well before that, it may be apparent to all parties that it has failed. If so, they could tear up the contract, and replace it with an alternative that’s better for both sides.

          “What would that be?”

          Rebrand LHN as BTN-Texas? Get ESPN to pay off UT’s buy-in to BTN? Get to keep LHN as long as BTN gets first dibs on any games and it’s bundled with BTN by providers? In return ESPN gets out of the deal, perhaps at a discount or perhaps with something else (B10 inventory?)

          “BTN is getting any joiner’s T3.”

          Are they? Probably, but not necessarily right away.

          “UT has 15M reasons to continue the contract (unless they can be bought out at close to full price) until ’32.”

          BTN in TX at $1/month would yield at least $90M per year. There should be available cash to pay off the LHN deal even if the cable markets dies.

          “ESPN doesn’t have to bid on a Texas included B1G 16, P16, or (unlikely) 16 team SEC or ACC, which makes the LHN a good strategic expenditure for as long as possible.”

          They sort of do have to bid, though. They can’t really afford to let someone else have all of one of those conferences. Most likely they’ll continue to do splits with Fox and maybe others in the future.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Rebrand LHN as BTN-Texas?”
            Are we going to dedicate a channel to PSU, UM, OSU, UNL, etc?

            “Get ESPN to pay off UT’s buy-in to BTN?”
            They are going to enable a 51% fox owned competitor network?

            “Get to keep LHN as long as BTN gets first dibs on any games and it’s bundled with BTN by providers?”
            You cool if Michigan and/or PSU start and keep theirs? How does Iowa, Illinois, Minn, etc feel about that?

            “BTN in TX at $1/month would yield at least $90M per year. There should be available cash to pay off the LHN deal …”
            Or ESPN could pay their own debts, or UT could forgive the debt (assuming ESPN is cool with B12 going away and doesn’t enforce the contract) and join as an equal member after the buy in.
            When

            “They sort of do have to bid, though.”
            Not until UT joins one of them.
            “They can’t really afford to let someone else have all of one of those conferences.”
            Which of the (future) P4 conferences do they not already broadcast? ACCN and SECN (like the LHN) are both 100% ESPN owned. That’s where the mothership would most benefit. BTN is Fox and P12N independent. Where’s their incentive?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Are we going to dedicate a channel to PSU, UM, OSU, UNL, etc?”

            BTN could consider copying the P12 model, but my guess is OTT will replace that in the near future. But even if they don’t start other regionals, it would be a way to let the LHN deal expire that still helps the BTN. I wouldn’t let UT extend the deal unless other regionals are started.

            “They are going to enable a 51% fox owned competitor network?”

            The buy in has been about $100M for everyone so far. ESPN owes UT over $200M. If they can significantly reduce what they have to pay, it may be a wise business decision for them. BTN is already out there and successful. At some point cutting their losses may seem wise.

            “You cool if Michigan and/or PSU start and keep theirs?”

            As long as they don’t get priority over BTN for any games, yes. Why should I care if they show games that would be only available online otherwise? The money model would have to be a little different from LHN, but the idea of a dedicated network doesn’t bother me.

            “How does Iowa, Illinois, Minn, etc feel about that?”

            I don’t know, but I could see them as part of regionals as well. Don’t just let the big boys have them, but include some smaller brands in each one (Here’s a sample 4 region plan – OSU, IN & PU; PSU, RU & UMD; MI, MSU, NW & IL; NE, WI, IA & MN).

            “Or ESPN could pay their own debts,”

            You asked earlier why ESPN would agree to help out BTN. BTN helping to cover what they owe UT would be a decent reason.

            “or UT could forgive the debt (assuming ESPN is cool with B12 going away and doesn’t enforce the contract) and join as an equal member after the buy in.”

            Why would UT forgive the debt if they can get someone to agree to cover it (at least partially)? UT knows that they are coveted and they would try to leverage that for the best possible deal for themselves.

            “Not until UT joins one of them.”

            Obviously. But ESPN can’t prevent that from happening.

            “Which of the (future) P4 conferences do they not already broadcast?”

            If they didn’t bid on the future home of UT, that one.

            “ACCN and SECN (like the LHN) are both 100% ESPN owned. That’s where the mothership would most benefit. BTN is Fox and P12N independent. Where’s their incentive?”

            $$$. They can’t really control where UT goes. If the president and BoT decide the B10 or the P12 is the right home for the university, ESPN will just have to deal with it. The new conference and ESPN (and maybe Fox) would then have to negotiate what to do with LHN.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “Obviously. But ESPN can’t prevent that from happening.”

            They can until ’32. And potentially save 100-200M each year. Not in total, yearly.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “They can until ’32. And potentially save 100-200M each year. Not in total, yearly.”

            They can’t stop UT from changing conferences. They can insist on upholding the LHN contract. Those are very different things.

            And I really don’t buy that they could save that much annually when you consider everything. Are you subtracting the savings from paying the B12? What about potentially paying less or nothing instead of the $15M for LHN? Yes they’d have to pay the B10 more, but so would Fox assuming they keep splitting the deal.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “Obviously. But ESPN can’t prevent that from happening.”

            They can until ’32. And potentially save 100-200M each year. Not in total, yearly.

            You are ignoring the revenue side. Yeah, they’d pay less for the status quo. They’d also be paying for a lot of dog-food games that don’t attract a lot of viewers.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            Yes, it’s a balancing act. However if aggregating assets didn’t create increased value of individuals within the group we’d have a hundred something independents. As we haven’t seen any actual moves toward dissolving the LHN by either side (muttering and grousings not withstanding), it’s not a stretch to say it’s serving a purpose.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Yes, it’s a balancing act. However if aggregating assets didn’t create increased value of individuals within the group we’d have a hundred something independents. As we haven’t seen any actual moves toward dissolving the LHN by either side (muttering and grousings not withstanding), it’s not a stretch to say it’s serving a purpose.

            Until the GOR approaches expiration, what could they do? The GOR means that even if a better option exists, they can’t seriously consider it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            ” They’d also be paying for a lot of dog-food games that don’t attract a lot of viewers.”

            It’s the games they are paying for now…? Aren’t they? What am I missing?

            Repost in right place…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Yes, it’s a balancing act. However if aggregating assets didn’t create increased value of individuals within the group we’d have a hundred something independents.”

            Yes, but you seem to be neglecting that they could stop paying for some teams while paying others more in this scenario. Paying 50 teams $20M is no different from paying 40 teams $25M, is it? If it gets the network equal or better games and ratings, consolidation for the same cost doesn’t hurt them at all.

            “As we haven’t seen any actual moves toward dissolving the LHN by either side (muttering and grousings not withstanding), it’s not a stretch to say it’s serving a purpose.”

            It’s serving a purpose now, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to serve that purpose or that priorities won’t change. If LHN holds UT back from something they want more, then they’ll consider renegotiating. If ESPN thinks they could cut their losses or make larger gains elsewhere, then they’ll consider renegotiating. Both sides need to be unhappy and there has to be an alternative both prefer. When the B12 GoR expires, those conditions might occur.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “It’s the games they are paying for now…? Aren’t they? What am I missing?”

            I think his point is that if the end result gets them better games, it would be worth paying more. Combine that with not having to pay the schools that get left behind and it can make good financial sense to do it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            If you leave very many schools behind some of the upper middle will lose some status as they loose more. Plus, leaving enough behind risks their joining and forming a reasonably viable, if not fully equal competitive alternative conference that would draw some media attention.

            There is a reason we’ve never actually booted a school, and only lost a few as the number of top D1 conferences has shrunk. The lesser are essential for the group at the top as opponents, and as frames of reference.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “If you leave very many schools behind some of the upper middle will lose some status as they loose more.”

            The B12 schools wouldn’t disappear, just drop to G5 status.

            “Plus, leaving enough behind risks their joining and forming a reasonably viable, if not fully equal competitive alternative conference that would draw some media attention.”

            The entire AAC makes less per year from TV ($18M) than any single member of a P5 conference. Every P5 CCG is worth more than the annual AAC payout.

            “There is a reason we’ve never actually booted a school, and only lost a few as the number of top D1 conferences has shrunk. The lesser are essential for the group at the top as opponents, and as frames of reference.”

            There are also specifics reason that schools get added to P5 conferences. Many of the current B12 members don’t have anything the other P5’s want. If UT and OU leave the B12, some/many of the B12 members will be left behind.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            Agreed. My point was simply regarding “better” games. Too many better games will mean more losses. Going to 9 conf games plus a mandated P5 will add a few. If 50-80% of B12 is relegated that will cause more tough conf games for the joined conference(s), and increase the strength of some ooc games.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Agreed. My point was simply regarding “better” games. Too many better games will mean more losses.”

            Yes, you can’t have everyone be kings. But a better game for TV can also mean an equally bad team but in a bigger market so the ratings are better.

            “If 50-80% of B12 is relegated that will cause more tough conf games for the joined conference(s), and increase the strength of some ooc games.”

            It will do that, certainly. The trade-off is more playoff appearances and major bowls for the conference as well as more money.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          UT has 15M reasons to continue the contract (unless they can be bought out at close to full price) until ’32.

          If you’re UT, you calculate the present value all of your media deals in both leagues. Let’s say that, by 2025, the Big Ten will be distributing as much money per school, or more, as the Big 12’s distribution plus the LHN’s $15 million. On top of that, the LHN’s $15 million per year ends in 2032, and everyone knows it won’t continue at that price. The Big Ten’s media deals have no such end date.

          I believe UT is sophisticated enough to understand that you don’t cling to $15 million a year that ends in 2032, if someone is offering you a better deal that has no end date.

          Now, I realize that there are many intangibles on both sides of the ledger, beyond the mere present value of the media properties. But it is not difficult at all to imagine a scenario where it’s in UT’s financial interest to let go of the LHN, if they get an overall better deal in its stead.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “But it is not difficult at all to imagine a scenario where it’s in UT’s financial interest to let go of the LHN…”

            But you have to take both parties interest. When a scenario is in their UT’s financial interest to let go, it’s in ESPN’s interest to enforce current contract (and vice versa).

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            But you have to take both parties interest. When a scenario is in their UT’s financial interest to let go, it’s in ESPN’s interest to enforce current contract (and vice versa).

            You can have a contract where both sides are losers. ESPN is unhappy, because they overpaid. UT is unhappy, because they know it isn’t going to endure.

            In this scenario, ESPN would pay more, but they wouldn’t mind, because they’d get games with much larger audiences. UT would give up the LHN, but they wouldn’t mind, because they’d get paid more, and wouldn’t have to worry about it going away in 2032.

            Let me stipulate that this is not a prediction per se, just an illustration of what I can very easily believe will happen.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “ESPN is unhappy, because they overpaid.”
            Did they? The B1G upcoming contract is what, 400-450M/yr. 2011 estimate by a media source when asked was the P16 deal would have been above that – half a decade ago. 15M/yr to delay that kind of bargaining power from the B1G in current and future negotiations is money well spent.

            “UT is unhappy, because they know it isn’t going to endure.”
            That was their choice. And they are still cashing the checks…

            “Let me stipulate that this is not a prediction per se, just an illustration of what I can very easily believe will happen.”
            I understand, but disagree about the ease. You need to have it be in everyone’s best interest. UT, ESPN obviously, but also Fox and the member schools of the B1G need to benefit. That is difficult when they have directly competing interests. What is a benefit for one is a cost for another.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “ESPN is unhappy, because they overpaid.”
            Did they?

            For argument’s sake, I am taking as given what multiple media have reported, i.e., that both sides consider the LHN a failure. If they don’t actually believe that, of course, that makes the discussion moot.

            “UT is unhappy, because they know it isn’t going to endure.”
            That was their choice. And they are still cashing the checks…

            All contracts involve a bet on the future. It is not terribly uncommon to realize, after the passage of time, that you bet wrong.

            I think it is fair to guess that UT believed they were creating an enduring asset, which (like most sports media properties) would be renewed in 2032 for a lot more than when they started. If that is no longer true, it would obviously affect their bargaining position. How could it not?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Did they?”

            Yes, by all accounts they did.

            “The B1G upcoming contract is what, 400-450M/yr. 2011 estimate by a media source when asked was the P16 deal would have been above that – half a decade ago. 15M/yr to delay that kind of bargaining power from the B1G in current and future negotiations is money well spent.”

            But if you’re playing that game, you also need to factor in that they could stop paying the B12 at the current rate. Basically they’d just be paying for UT and OU, not for Baylor, ISU, LSU, KU, etc. Would the B10 deal increase so much that new B10 > old B10 + B12 + LHN? I doubt it.

            “That was their choice. And they are still cashing the checks…”

            Yes, but if you know the checks will stop coming on a certain date, then you start planning for the future as that date approaches.

            “I understand, but disagree about the ease. You need to have it be in everyone’s best interest.”

            It doesn’t have to be in their best interest, it just has to be the best available option. Sometimes you have to pick the least distasteful outcome.

            “UT, ESPN obviously, but also Fox and the member schools of the B1G need to benefit.”

            There are many non-financial considerations for UT and the B10 in terms of benefits. ESPN and Fox also have some but they’ll clearly focus more on the bottom line.

            “That is difficult when they have directly competing interests. What is a benefit for one is a cost for another.”

            ESPN and Fox are reaching a point where everything is a trade off. Any new inventory they add means they need to drop something else. ESPN may benefit from having UT and OU in the B10 because they don’t have to pay or show the smaller B12 schools as much. Add in cutting their losses on LHN so they can afford to keep the ACC happy and it may work out for them just fine.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            ““Did they?”

            Yes, by all accounts they did.”

            By all accounts meaning strictly LHN income and carriage? If the goal was a conference realignment vaccine it is working very well.

            “Sometimes you have to pick the least distasteful outcome.”

            A conference like the B1G doesn’t “have” to make a least distasteful decision. I thought you were a proponent of “sometimes the best move is no move” philosophy?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “By all accounts meaning strictly LHN income and carriage? If the goal was a conference realignment vaccine it is working very well.”

            I believe they could’ve offered UT less and for a shorter time period and still gotten the deal, so they overpaid. UT has said they cared about the exposure much more than the money.

            “A conference like the B1G doesn’t “have” to make a least distasteful decision.”

            I was speaking in terms of ESPN making a decision.

            “I thought you were a proponent of “sometimes the best move is no move” philosophy?”

            I am. I don’t want further B10 expansion (or any expansion). The only time I’d want the B10 to add UT and OU is if the alternative was them joining the SEC instead.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          ” They’d also be paying for a lot of dog-food games that don’t attract a lot of viewers.”

          It’s the games they are paying for now…? Aren’t they? What am I missing?

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Almost half of UT’s conference games are deadweight, as far as the Networks are concerned. I mean, what’s the market for UT vs. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, or WV? In the Big Ten, they won’t play King vs. King every week, but I don’t think the league has a quartet of opponents as bad (for ratings) as those four.”

        PU, IL, IN and RU? Would MN, NW or UMD be much of a draw for UT fans (solid programs, but far away and not big brands)?

        “In contrast, UT’s only guaranteed blockbuster in the B12 is OU. Other games could be a big deal, or not, depending on the standings in any given year, but OU is their only bankable game. It’s indicative of how far it’s fallen, that it was shown this year at 11am ET on FS1. Indiana at Ohio State at 3:30pm on ESPN out-rated it.”

        This is the price the B12 pays for having 2 networks sharing their inventory. Fox had first choice and took this game. They out it on FS1 to try to build the network. The B10 is going to face the same issues going forward except for probably having more games protected from FS1 treatment (top pick must be on broadcast perhaps).

        “In the Big Ten, they’d be playing Nebraska annually, and at least one of Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. And that’s on top of Oklahoma, which I assume would remain on their schedule whether the Sooners get a B10 invite or not.”

        Divisions:
        W – UT, OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
        E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, UMD, IN, PU, RU

        9 games = 7 in division + 2 crossovers (25% play)
        You could split each division into 2 tiers of 4 and rotate the schedule so everyone plays one top tier and one lower tier team.

        Or maybe use tiers to recreate parity-based scheduling.

        E1 – OSU, MI, PSU
        E2 – MSU, UMD, IN, PU, RU

        W1 – UT, OU, NE
        W2 – WI, IA, MN, NW, IL

        9 games for UT = 7 in the W + 1 E1 (33%) + 1 E2 (20%)
        9 games for IL = 7 in the W + 1 E1 (20%) + 1 E2 (28%)

        9 games for OSU = 7 in the E + 1 W1 (33%) + 1 W2 (20%)
        9 games for PU = 7 in the W + 1 E1 (20%) + 1 E2 (28%)

        Those percentages drive us back to the preference for dropping divisions and scheduling as 1 big group with a few locked rivals instead.

        9 games = 3 locked + 6 rotating through the other 12 (50%)

        Or use the above tiers as pods, rotating E2 and W2 every 2 years. E1 plays 2 of W1 and E2 plays 2 of W2 for crossovers.

        “It’s probably not hard to get ESPN to warm up to that schedule.”

        Anything that gets them out of the LHN would delight them.

        “I’ve long suspected this would be the end result. The LHN contract goes through 2032, but at some point well before that, it may be apparent to all parties that it has failed. If so, they could tear up the contract, and replace it with an alternative that’s better for both sides.”

        UT would give up on that money, though. Maybe if it’s mixed into the overall B10 deal ESPN wouldn’t feel so bad about it. Perhaps ESPN would pay UT’s BTN buy-in with half that money while UT keeps getting it’s other half to give to academics?

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I mean, what’s the market for UT vs. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, or WV? In the Big Ten, they won’t play King vs. King every week, but I don’t think the league has a quartet of opponents as bad (for ratings) as those four.”

          PU, IL, IN and RU? Would MN, NW or UMD be much of a draw for UT fans (solid programs, but far away and not big brands)?

          I posit that UT would find it more useful to play in Chicago, NY Metro, or DC Metro, than at the Big 12 sites that I mentioned, even though the programs themselves are obviously not big brands. Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana are more populous states than Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia; by virtue of that fact alone, if no other, those games would probably draw larger audiences.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I posit that UT would find it more useful to play in Chicago, NY Metro, or DC Metro, than at the Big 12 sites that I mentioned, even though the programs themselves are obviously not big brands. Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana are more populous states than Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia; by virtue of that fact alone, if no other, those games would probably draw larger audiences.”

            You were talking from the networks’ perspective. I can see benefits for UT playing in those markets, but the ratings for the bottom B10 teams are not high.

            Like

        • David Brown says:

          Let’s say for argument’s sake the Big 10 takes UT and OU, I wonder if the Big 10 would be willing to let UT keep the LHN Network say for one football game and 2 basketball games per year and in return BTN gets Texas carriage and when the contract ends, LHN gets folded into BTN? Keep in mind, Johns Hopkins is keeping their ESPN Contract for lacrosse & Notre Dame their NBCSN Contract for hockey. For this to work, the Big 10 has to provide games that the Networks want. From a Penn State perspective you could lock in Wisconsin ( always a great game) and do home and home with OU, UT and Nebraska over 6 years OSU could do the same with Illinois, and Michigan with Minnesota. I guarantee that PSU/Nebraska, OSU/OU and UM/UT for 2 years ( then switching) is compelling games. As for the other Big 10 Games, Maybe Nebraska ( who likes and recruits in the Northeast) gets Rutgers, and Texas gets Maryland. The others can be divided say Iowa/ Michigan State and Oklahoma/Northwestern?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Let’s say for argument’s sake the Big 10 takes UT and OU…”
            I’d rather not, but ok.

            “I wonder if the Big 10 would be willing to let UT keep the LHN Network say for one football game and 2 basketball games per year…”
            It’s ESPN’s network. You’d be forcing fox to forfeit inventory for ESPN’s benefit…

            “…and in return BTN gets Texas carriage…”
            Carriage? How when the LHN is still there and carrying the inventory that drives it.

            “…and when the contract ends, LHN gets folded into BTN?”
            Why not just wait until then? UT would still need to buy in. The network and infrastructure is ESPN owned, not UT’s to “fold” how they choose.

            That’s the misunderstanding about the various nets. ACCN, SECN, and LHN are simply media rights deals like T1, with a dedicated channels (much as contracts requiring a certain number of games to be on ABC, big Fox, ESPN, etc). Ihey are simply contracts with a media company. BTN in part, and P12N in whole are property of the schools in their conference.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Let’s say for argument’s sake the Big 10 takes UT and OU, I wonder if the Big 10 would be willing to let UT keep the LHN Network say for one football game and 2 basketball games per year and in return BTN gets Texas carriage and when the contract ends, LHN gets folded into BTN?

            I can’t comment on the legal calisthenics that would be required to make this happen.

            Philosophically, the Big Ten needs to decide how far it will bend over backwards to get Texas. The Big 12 is not an “all share all” league, and there’s a perception this has hurt them. The Big Ten doesn’t want to compromise their structure, just to get a prima donna in the room.

            I am thinking, as you are, that any accommodation of the LHN would need to be short-term. The end state would need to be a model where Texas is on the same terms as every other Big Ten school. Now, would all of the various parties agree to what you’ve described? Or is that giving too much of the store away? I just don’t know.

            Keep in mind, Johns Hopkins is keeping their ESPN Contract for lacrosse & Notre Dame their NBCSN Contract for hockey.

            Those cases are readily distinguishable. There was never a scenario where the Big Ten would televise every JHU home lacrosse game, or every ND home hockey game. So, they might as well allow those deals to persist. Big Ten teams get another media outlet, and there is still more inventory in those sports than BTN knows what to do with. As affiliate members, JHU and ND aren’t buying into BTN, and enjoy none of its benefits.

            Beyond that, the Big Ten made those deals to rectify clear weaknesses. Without JHU, they couldn’t have played men’s lacrosse at all, and the Big Ten’s nascent hockey league was considered fairly weak. Affiliation deals are always one-offs, and don’t really affect the conference’s culture very much.

            In the revenue sports, the Big Ten would naturally prefer to get stronger (who wouldn’t?), but they are not operating from a position of fundamental weakness. They are going to be a lot more careful about admitting Texas on terms not available to the legacy members, just to accommodate a school whose “me, me, me” attitude has brought the Big 12 to the brink of dissolution.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “It’s ESPN’s network. You’d be forcing fox to forfeit inventory for ESPN’s benefit…”

            Not quite. The move still adds inventory to BTN. Besides, what if the LHN and BTN could both show the game? LHN would provide homer announcers while BTN would be more neutral.

            “Carriage? How when the LHN is still there and carrying the inventory that drives it.”

            Because BTN would have the rest of the UT inventory.

            “Why not just wait until then?”

            Because that leaves UT in limbo, so they may feel compelled to sign some other deal. The B12 deal ends in 2025. The LHN deal lasts until 2032. Why not add the value of UT to the B10 now and pick up the residual value later rather than putting it all off and hoping UT doesn’t end up elsewhere?

            “UT would still need to buy in.”

            In some way, shape or form, yes.

            “The network and infrastructure is ESPN owned, not UT’s to “fold” how they choose.”

            All deals are negotiable.

            “That’s the misunderstanding about the various nets. ACCN, SECN, and LHN are simply media rights deals like T1, with a dedicated channels (much as contracts requiring a certain number of games to be on ABC, big Fox, ESPN, etc). Ihey are simply contracts with a media company.”

            1. You really think we don’t understand that here?
            2. All contracts are negotiable. All of them.

            “BTN in part, and P12N in whole are property of the schools in their conference.”

            Yes, but that’s just a different contract. There’s no fundamental difference between a media company owning something a a consortium of universities owning something. Ownership is ownership.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Philosophically, the Big Ten needs to decide how far it will bend over backwards to get Texas. The Big 12 is not an “all share all” league, and there’s a perception this has hurt them.”

            I think this perception is a touch overblown. The B12 switched to equal revenue distribution a while ago. The difference is that tier 3 rights are owned by the B12 while they are owned by all the other conferences. So yes, UT makes more from their tier 3 rights than ISU while OSU and PU get equal shares from BTN. But a much bigger difference can be found in ticket sales revenue and no conference shares that equally. OSU made $56M on ticket sales last year while PU made $11M. There is no such thing as an “all share all” league. But all the P5 leagues now share all conference-owned media rights equally.

            “I am thinking, as you are, that any accommodation of the LHN would need to be short-term.”

            Yes. It might have to happen for legal reasons. You shouldn’t reject the concept of adding UT over a relatively minor item like this. What’s 7 years of the LHN versus having UT in the B10 for 100 years?

            “The end state would need to be a model where Texas is on the same terms as every other Big Ten school.”

            Agreed.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            ““The end state would need to be a model where Texas is on the same terms as every other Big Ten school.”

            Agreed.”

            Hard to end there if you’re not even able to start there.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “1. You really think we don’t understand that here?”

            No, but people keep talking about what it takes to getUT to give up/fold what isn’t theirs. As long as it serves ESPN it doesn’t matter what UT wants until ’32.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            ““The end state would need to be a model where Texas is on the same terms as every other Big Ten school.”

            Agreed.”

            Hard to end there if you’re not even able to start there.

            Of course you can. Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers did not get equal shares, to begin with; furthermore, their buy-ins all occurred on different schedules. The league even gave Maryland special dispensation, to help them out with their ACC exit fee.

            There’s no reason, fundamentally, why UT’s phase-in could not feature a gradual phase-out of the LHN, as long as the end state is equality in a reasonable number of years.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            You’re talking about differing valuations respective to when buy in started, and terms of loans that will be paid back.

            Have we found an issue where the PAC holds to a more principled position?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            You’re talking about differing valuations respective to when buy in started, and terms of loans that will be paid back.

            Have we found an issue where the PAC holds to a more principled position?

            As I understand it, UT told the PAC that: 1) It wanted its own network, which it would not share; and 2) That would be the permanent state of affairs. The PAC said no. I am pretty sure the B10 would say no, too.

            We are talking now about a transitional period, after which UT would be a B10 member on the same terms as every other member. We could argue all day about whether all the parties would agree to that. But there is no argument that it’s the same arrangement that the PAC declined. That deal (had they accepted) was not transitional, as this one would be.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The PAC deal was ALL rights in to join. True, there was not yet a LHN, and I can’t be sure if they’d do a transition deal as you’re suggesting. My point is that ESPN is a co-decision maker in something like this. Other than UT ending up in a ESPN conference (ACC, SEC) I don’t see them benefiting long or short term by enabling further conference consolidation.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Hard to end there if you’re not even able to start there.”

            Not at all. NE, RU and UMD all didn’t start even and will end there. They agreed to 6 years of buy in and then will get equal shares. Understanding that an existing deal prevents UT from entering the same way as everyone else, it’s not that hard to have a temporary plan for those 7 years (if the deal can’t be bought out) that changes once the LHN deal ends.

            My guess is that the deal would be bought out in some form or fashion, though.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “No, but people keep talking about what it takes to getUT to give up/fold what isn’t theirs.”

            People say that because they believe UT wants the LHN deal more than ESPN does at this point. If given an out on the $200M+ they still owe UT, many believe ESPN would take it in a heartbeat.

            “As long as it serves ESPN it doesn’t matter what UT wants until ’32.”

            Unless something else will serve ESPN better. We just saw Fox and ESPN basically threaten the B12 not to invoke the pro rata clause although the B12 had the legal right to do so. This would be swapping roles with UT telling ESPN they should agree to an ending of the LHN deal. It’s not like ESPN wants LHN on principle, so you can always find a financial way to get out of the deal.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            My point is that ESPN is a co-decision maker in something like this. Other than UT ending up in a ESPN conference (ACC, SEC) I don’t see them benefiting long or short term by enabling further conference consolidation.

            What Brian and I are trying to say, is that once you get to 2025, there are only 7 years left. That’s a short enough time that both parties will be thinking, “What is the landscape after 2032?”

            I have not found a single article which suggests ESPN is happy with the deal it made, which (if true) means it is unlikely to be renewed in its present form, and they’d probably be happy to entertain discussions about abandoning it, as long as they make more money out of whatever structure replaces it.

            Seven years is a pretty short time in the sports rights business. It will be better to negotiate in 2025, when they still have some leverage, than to stick their heads in the sand until 2032, when they’ll have none.

            Like

  57. urbanleftbehind says:

    Locked 1 Locked 2 Locked 3
    Texas Oklahoma Maryland Illinois
    Oklahoma Texas Penn State Nebraska
    Nebraska Rutgers Iowa Oklahoma
    Minnesota Iowa Wisconsin Michigan
    Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin Nebraska
    Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa Illinois
    Illinois Northwestern Wisconsin Texas
    Northwestern Illinois Michigan State Purdue
    Purdue Indiana Ohio State Northwestern
    Indiana Purdue Michigan State Ohio State
    Michigan Ste Indiana Michigan Northwestern
    Michigan Ohio State Michigan State Minnesota
    Ohio State Michigan Indiana Purdue
    Penn State Maryland Rutgers Oklahoma
    Maryland Penn State Texas Rutgers
    Rutgers Nebraska Penn State Maryland

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      School is the first of 4 in each row, then read as their locked rival #1, lr #2, lr #3

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Some of those pairings are awfully ugly. You’re giving Ohio State the “gift” of one locked king and two locked patsies, while Oklahoma gets three locked kings. You’re locking Nebraska with Rutgers, a pairing desired by neither school (nor the rest of the league that wants more frequent NY-metro appearances).

      This is why I am pretty sure the “lock three” formula would not be adopted. There’s no way to do it without producing pairings that make no sense (Nebraska–Rutgers) or are blatantly unfair (the Ohio State / Oklahoma imbalance). The other problem with eliminating divisions, is the possibility that a team goes 9–0 while missing all of the kings on its schedule.

      Brian’s pods are better:

      E1 – OSU, MI, PSU
      E2 – MSU, UMD, IN, PU, RU

      W1 – UT, OU, NE
      W2 – WI, MN, IA, NW, IL

      Every two years, E2 and W2 switch places. You would need to lock MI–MSU when W1 is paired with E2. Maybe there are a few others you treat similarly, like NE–IA, PSU with at least one of RU/MD. But it doesn’t have as much cruft as the “lock three” plan, and nobody can reach the CCG without playing their share of the kings.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Some of those pairings are awfully ugly. You’re giving Ohio State the “gift” of one locked king and two locked patsies, while Oklahoma gets three locked kings. You’re locking Nebraska with Rutgers, a pairing desired by neither school (nor the rest of the league that wants more frequent NY-metro appearances).”

        His choices are perhaps less than ideal. That doesn’t invalidate the concept, though.

        “This is why I am pretty sure the “lock three” formula would not be adopted. There’s no way to do it without producing pairings that make no sense (Nebraska–Rutgers) or are blatantly unfair (the Ohio State / Oklahoma imbalance).”

        I think one could do a pretty good job if they follow these simple steps:

        1. Have each school submit an ordered list of the other B10 schools with a value assigned to each opponent. It’s fairly simple for a computer to then produce the maximum total point value with 3 locked rivals per school. Since we can’t do that, we have to substitute what the B10 has said is important and what we think the schools want.

        2. Start by locking all the obviously important rivalries.

        3. Add in lesser rivalries and important objectives next.

        4. Fill in the remaining spots.

        Example:

        Step 2 (obvious)

        UT – OU,
        OU – UT, NE,
        NE – OU,
        IA – WI, MN,
        WI – IA, MN,
        MN – IA, WI,
        NW – IL,
        IL – NW,
        PU – IN,
        IN – PU,
        OSU – MI,
        MI – OSU, MSU,
        MSU – MI,
        PSU –
        RU –
        UMD –

        Step 3 (fairly clear)

        UT – OU, NE,
        OU – UT, NE,
        NE – OU, IA, UT
        IA – WI, MN, NE
        WI – IA, MN,
        MN – IA, WI,
        NW – IL, MSU,
        IL – NW, OSU, PU
        PU – IN, IL,
        IN – PU, MSU,
        OSU – MI, IL, PSU
        MI – OSU, MSU,
        MSU – MI, NW, IN
        PSU – RU, UMD, OSU
        RU – PSU, UMD,
        UMD – PSU, RU,

        Step 4 (arguable)

        UT – OU, NE, UMD
        OU – UT, NE, PU
        NE – OU, IA, UT
        IA – WI, MN, NE
        WI – IA, MN, NW
        MN – IA, WI, IN
        NW – IL, MSU, WI
        IL – NW, OSU, PU
        PU – IN, IL, OU
        IN – PU, MSU, MN
        OSU – MI, IL, PSU
        MI – OSU, MSU, RU
        MSU – MI, NW, IN
        PSU – RU, UMD, OSU
        RU – PSU, UMD, MI
        UMD – PSU, RU, UT

        Those aren’t terrible, especially when you remember they’d play everyone else 50% of the time so imbalance in SOS averages out to a large extent.

        “The other problem with eliminating divisions, is the possibility that a team goes 9–0 while missing all of the kings on its schedule.”

        There would be 6 kings among 16 teams. My locked rivals list leaves only 5 teams without a locked king. For those 5 teams, they have 6 games to spread among 12 teams that includes 6 kings. While theoretically possible to avoid all 6, all the B10 would need to do is pair schools for scheduling purposes (1 from top 8 and 1 from bottom 8) to guarantee nobody avoids all the kings.

        “Brian’s pods are better:”

        Woo hoo!

        “But it doesn’t have as much cruft as the “lock three” plan, and nobody can reach the CCG without playing their share of the kings.”

        I think smart scheduling would avoid that either way. The locked 3 plan has the advantage of simplicity for the fans to understand, too.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The locked 3 plan has the advantage of simplicity for the fans to understand, too.

          I think even the existing system is beyond what most fans understand. They get that you play everyone in your own division. But the average fan has no idea how the remaining 3 games are chosen.

          Your 3-locked plan is much better than @urbanleftbehind’s, and yes, it is simple. But then, someone needs to explain to Oklahoma fans why they are stuck playing Purdue every year. In contrast, if you tell Oklahoma fans that their only locked games are Texas and Nebraska, they will get that. They won’t care that some schools have a different number of locked games. They will only care about themselves.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I think even the existing system is beyond what most fans understand. They get that you play everyone in your own division. But the average fan has no idea how the remaining 3 games are chosen.”

            Perhaps because the B10 has never even tried to explain it. Most fans get it once you explain the parity-based schedule to them.

            “Your 3-locked plan is much better than @urbanleftbehind’s, and yes, it is simple. But then, someone needs to explain to Oklahoma fans why they are stuck playing Purdue every year.”

            Because they already had 2 locked kings so I gave them an easier game for balance. It also gets PU a locked king game.

            “In contrast, if you tell Oklahoma fans that their only locked games are Texas and Nebraska, they will get that. They won’t care that some schools have a different number of locked games. They will only care about themselves.”

            And you can do that, but it’s slightly more complicated.

            Here’s are some options to better suit you:

            1. You could stop after step 3 when 6 schools have 3 locked rivals and 10 only have 2 and rotate from there.

            2. You do only part of step 4 (say locking MI and RU so RU gets a king and MI gets to their fan base in NYC) so it’s an 8 and 8 split. The 8 with 2 locked games rotate among themselves to get their 3rd game and then everyone rotates equally for the rest of the games.

            3. You could get away with only 2 locked rivals except for PSU and maybe NE. If you can convince PSU that with 5 kings rotating through 50% of the time they don’t need OSU locked then everyone could stop at 2 locked rivals. That gives you the simplicity I want without any bad pairings locked. The math isn’t as nice though (9 = 2 * 100% + 13 * 54%).

            Like

      • David Brown says:

        I really think down the line we are going to see 13 Game Schedules. Maybe 10 Conference Games: 7 in the Division. 1 locked in rivalry game and two crossover games plus 3 non Conference games. As a Penn State fan, we could be locked into Nebraska, Michigan State could do the same with Wisconsin, Ohio State/Illinois, Michigan/ Minnesota, Texas can start out with home and home with either Maryland or Rutgers and Oklahoma takes the other then switch. Purdue can take Iowa and Indiana Northwestern. Does that give us a tougher schedule? Yes, but we like playing Nebraska and Wisconsin annually so playing one or the other every year is not bad. Plus we want to be able to have 7 home games, Pitt on the schedule, and be able to play OU, UT and whichever School is not locked in UNL or UW on occasion.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I was reading Frank’s Tweets and it looks the Big XII took chump change not to expand. In other words take as much money as we can get now because we will be taking a hit later on. Basically ISU, KSU, BU, TCU and WVA are rearranging boat chairs on the Titanic, while KU, OSU and. TT are hoping to join OU & UT in the lifeboat.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          David Brown,

          “I really think down the line we are going to see 13 Game Schedules.”

          I think that’s quite a ways off. The presidents don’t want to push the season into finals time and starting earlier is dangerous with the summer heat. Once they’ve gotten used to the playoff money and the arms race continues to drive up costs, maybe then the presidents would listen to the argument that only the CCG teams would be playing in that extra week so it shouldn’t have a huge impact on student-athletes (same concept as the NCG being a week later only impacts 2 teams).

          I could see double-bye years turning into 13 game seasons the same way we went from 11 to 12. The after a few years the 13th game becomes permanent by pushing back CCGs. After all, Army and Navy already play that weekend.

          “Maybe 10 Conference Games: 7 in the Division. 1 locked in rivalry game and two crossover games plus 3 non Conference games.”

          The B10 and P12 would probably go to 10 conference games. The B12 can’t. The ACC and SEC would move to 9 conference games, but probably not 10.

          With 14 teams:
          1 group: 10 = 3 locked + 7 rotating (70%)
          Divisions: 10 = 6 in division + 4 crossovers (57%)

          With 16 teams:
          1 group: 10 = 3 locked + 7 rotating (58%) = 5 locked + 5 rotating (50%)
          Divisions: 10 = 7 in division + 3 crossovers (38%)
          Pods of 4: 10 = 3 in pod + 7 rotating (58%)

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            A hypothetical Penn State Schedule with Texas and Oklahoma ( or Kansas) might look like this: 1: Maryland. 2: Michigan. 3: Michigan State. 4: Ohio State. 5: Purdue. 6: Rutgers. 7: Indiana ( new). If we have the 9 Game Conference Schedule it would be rare that we face Nebraska or Wisconsin. I suspect that whatever system they come up ( pods included) we will be playing Maryland, Rutgers , Michigan State and Ohio State every year. The Terps and Scarlet Knights want us, the Big 10 loves to pair us up with Sparty and the closest to a hated rival we have is OSU, so I am sure Sandy Barbour and company will insist the Buckeyes remain on the Schedule. If the Big 10 goes to pods the School we may lose annually is Michigan. Obviously Ohio State will continue to play Michigan and Michigan will play State. So all the Eastern Heavyweights will play 2 heavyweights. We miss UM and vice versa same for OSU and MSU. To be honest I would not really complain about Michigan ( there has to be compromises) but in return I would like to see more of Nebraska or Wisconsin.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “A hypothetical Penn State Schedule with Texas and Oklahoma ( or Kansas) might look like this: 1: Maryland. 2: Michigan. 3: Michigan State. 4: Ohio State. 5: Purdue. 6: Rutgers. 7: Indiana ( new).”

            That would be the East division, yes. But PU would be the new one, not IN.

            “If we have the 9 Game Conference Schedule it would be rare that we face Nebraska or Wisconsin.”

            Why those 2 in particular? The B10 has always rotated schedules outside of locked games. You’d face them just as often as UT and OU.

            “I suspect that whatever system they come up ( pods included) we will be playing Maryland, Rutgers , Michigan State and Ohio State every year. The Terps and Scarlet Knights want us, the Big 10 loves to pair us up with Sparty and the closest to a hated rival we have is OSU, so I am sure Sandy Barbour and company will insist the Buckeyes remain on the Schedule.”

            UMD and RU, sure. OSU probably. The MSU game has always been a pairing of convenience so it will go away as soon as it isn’t useful. But if the system dropped to 2 locked games per school, PSU probably wouldn’t get OSU locked anymore as RU and UMD need that game more.

            “If the Big 10 goes to pods the School we may lose annually is Michigan. Obviously Ohio State will continue to play Michigan and Michigan will play State. So all the Eastern Heavyweights will play 2 heavyweights. We miss UM and vice versa same for OSU and MSU. To be honest I would not really complain about Michigan ( there has to be compromises) but in return I would like to see more of Nebraska or Wisconsin.”

            It all depends on the pods. The B10 really doesn’t work well for pods in my opinion because there are too many rivalries to neatly separate the schools and not lock multiple games.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I don’t have a strong feeling about whether we will eventually get to 13 games, but I wonder if the other leagues would be in any hurry to help the Big Ten with its scheduling woes in a 16-team league.

          Another intriguing question is whether other leagues would agree to allow the Big Ten to stage a CCG without divisions. Within the last year, the Big Ten led the charge to oppose relaxing that rule, when it was for other people’s convenience, but not its own. It would be interesting to see the debate, once the shoe is on the other foot.

          Like

          • TheScarletWolverine says:

            Well we know the ACC wanted it last time around, and if I recall correctly the ACC had a second vote from the P5 on their side as well so including the B1G that would be a majority of the P5 if the other votes stayed the same. Now perhaps they change their minds to get back at the Big Ten, but I see the locked three scenario happening at some point in time. You keep the most important yearly games, and the rest of the schools actually feel like they are in the same conference instead of not seeing each other on the schedule for years at a time.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Yes indeed, it was the B12 that was partnered with the ACC on that rule change. For many months, both leagues claimed (in the media) that all the other leagues were for it. None of the other leagues actually said anything, either way, until Jim Delany led the charge to torpedo it at the eleventh hour.

            In a peculiar last-minute compromise, they actually gave the B12 everything it wanted: they can stage a CCG with fewer than 12 teams; with or without divisions. The right to dispense with divisions was granted only to leagues with fewer than 12 teams. I never did understand how that particular exception served any regulatory purpose normally associated with the NCAA (e.g., amateurism, athlete safety, academic/athletic balance, competitive fairness). But somehow, they went ahead and did exactly that.

            I believe they did so, because otherwise they would basically have been telling the B12: “expand, or live with a permanent disadvantage in the playoff rankings”. Of course, if the B12 had expanded, the G5 were going to be the victims. They were probably the ones who lobbied hard for that particular exception, which I am sure Jim Delany would have been just as happy not to allow, since he and the other P5 leagues are hoping to benefit from the B12’s instability at some point in the future.

            Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17885705/ncaa-calls-north-carolina-procedural-arguments-merit

    The NCAA fires back at UNC’s claims of why the NCAA shouldn’t punish them.

    The NCAA says the University of North Carolina’s argument that the governing body lacks jurisdiction in the school’s multiyear academic fraud scandal is “without merit.”

    In a Sept. 19 filing released by the school Tuesday, the NCAA enforcement staff pushed back against the school’s procedural arguments in response to five serious charges by saying all the arguments lacked merit. UNC had argued that its accreditation agency — which put the school on a year of probation that expired over the summer — was the proper authority to handle such a matter instead of college sports’ governing body.

    UNC also argued that there was an expired four-year statute of limitations and that a March 2012 ruling in an earlier case should have precluded some of the current charges.

    In addition, the school said some material from an outside investigator’s report into academic irregularities on the Chapel Hill campus shouldn’t be used because interviews weren’t performed to NCAA protocols.

    “Indeed, its response rests almost entirely on these procedural issues and touches only minimally on the underlying substantive facts,” the enforcement staff’s reply states.

    After noting that many of the procedural issues had been addressed with the school previously, the documents states: “The parties explored each at length throughout this case and each is without merit.”

    North Carolina is scheduled to appear before an infractions committee panel in Indianapolis on Friday in what amounts to a pretrial hearing. The focus will be the procedural arguments and not the facts of whether violations occurred, including lack of institutional control.

    Like

  59. urbanleftbehind says:

    would this be like the merging of 1/2 the MWC and 1/2 the AAC into a 6th power conference?

    http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/25/australian-bachelor-couple-megan-marx-tiffany-scanlon

    Like

    • Brian says:

      We often talk about the top G5s combining (sometimes with the remainder of the B12). But can you really assemble a P5-level conference from those schools?

      AAC – USF, UCF, Temple, UC, UConn, ECU, Navy, Memphis, Tulsa, UH, SMU, Tulane
      MWC – Boise, WY, UNM, CSU, AF, USU, SDSU, HI, UNLV, SJSU, Fresno
      B12 – KU, TT, OkSU, Baylor, TCU, KSU, ISU, WV
      Ind. – BYU, Army, UMass

      Top 50 in W% over the past 20 years (12):
      2. Boise, 12. TCU, 19. BYU, 21. KSU, 25. WV, 31. TT, 32. OkSU, 35. UC, 38. AF, 41. Fresno, 44. Navy, 49. USF

      Skipped G5s (4): 26. Marshall, 28. Toledo, 42. NIU, 45. USM

      But a lot of that winning is due to weak schedules. How would they rank if they played a typical P5 schedule every season?

      http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/teams/teams2.shtml

      This link has average rankings for 1960-2015 for teams. Since I don’t want to do the work myself, I’ll use this as a surrogate.

      Top teams:
      18. Boise, 23. WV, 29. BYU, 37. TT, 40. OkSU, 45. UH, 55. SDSU, 60. AF, 63. USF, 66. Baylor, 70. TCU, 71. WY

      P5 teams lower than that (12; 3 from B12):
      72. IL, 73. UK, 76. KSU, 79. KU, 87. OrSU, 91. ISU, 92. WSU, 97. NW, 98. Duke, 105. IN, 110. Vandy, 116. WF

      Quick stats for this new group compared to P5 conferences:
      1. Top 10s
      New – 0
      P5 average – 1.8

      2. Top 25s
      New – 2
      P5 average – 4.2

      3. Top 50s
      New – 6
      P5 average – 7.6

      Then look at what markets you might get. The top 5 combine to provide Salt Lake City as the only major market. Then you get into Houston, San Diego, Tampa and Dallas but all with secondary schools. I just don’t see how this coalition provides P5 status except if it’s grandfathered in as the B12, but to do that they’d have top further weaken it by keeping all the old B12 members.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Historically, you can’t have a power conference without at least one powerful team. None of these schools has ever sniffed a national championship, except for Army (won it in a very different era) and BYU (a fluke year). It’s hard to imagine a sixth power league without an indisputably great anchor program.

      The Big East was considered a “power league” because it once had Miami, which at the time was considered an elite program (it has fallen on hard times since). After the Hurricanes left for the ACC, everyone recognized that it was only a matter of time before the BE would be demoted — as it eventually was.

      Top 50 in W% over the past 20 years (12):
      2. Boise, 12. TCU, 19. BYU, 21. KSU, 25. WV, 31. TT, 32. OkSU, 35. UC, 38. AF, 41. Fresno, 44. Navy, 49. USF

      Skipped G5s (4): 26. Marshall, 28. Toledo, 42. NIU, 45. USM

      But a lot of that winning is due to weak schedules. How would they rank if they played a typical P5 schedule every season?

      And conversely, would Kansas and Iowa State seem quite as bad, if they’d played a Mountain West schedule all these years?

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I certainly think it’s possible Kansas and Iowa State would suck in the Mountain West. In the case of KU it goes to hoops. Basketball is always going to be superior to football. It’s like Kentucky. There is a reason why Bear Bryant left UK: Hoops rule. ISU is worse. ISU could have dominated at wrestling ( see Sanderson, Cael), but chose not to. No one holds the leadership at ISU responsible for 100 plus years of bad football. Even Schools that were traditionally awful at football (like Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern and Washington State) made Major Bowl games down through the years ( unlike ISU). I have seen comments blaming The University Of Iowa not playing ISU for the plight of the Cyclones ( ignoring the past 40 years of bad football. Meanwhile Louisville which was shunned by Kentucky made something of themselves. So did Northwestern and Kansas State which over the years were worse then ISU). Kansas because of hoops will at worst end up in the MWC, ISU will be lucky to end up in the MWC.

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          Unless there are some real belt-tightening changes in the OH and MI state higher ed scene, the MAC stays at its current membership? I could see IA State landing there, but would the MAC avoid a legacy P5 addition because of perceived accumulated advantages?

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            I fail to see how the Mountain West or Mid-American wouldn’t pursue a school whose football attendance in recent years averages in the mid-50s, and whose men’s basketball program has risen to prince status from the Johnny Orr era onward (despite several coaching changes), if it was denied sanctuary in a P5 conference.

            Then again, I’m still trying to understand why David “I capitalize every other word” Brown (is he of German descent?) has this vendetta against the good people of Ames.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The concern the MAC might have is travel. Would adding ISU and a partner actually make them more money, or would the extra travel eat up any gains? And who would that partner be?

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          There is no doubt whatsoever that any G5 league would love, love, love, to have Iowa State. But as I have noted, I think the most probable scenario is that the B12 cast-offs stay together as a unit.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “But as I have noted, I think the most probable scenario is that the B12 cast-offs stay together as a unit.”

            Agreed. But who do they add to get back to 10/12?

            Assume the remainder of the B12 is ISU, KSU, OkSU, TT, TCU, Baylor and WV (only UT, OU and KU leave). They need to add at least 3 schools and more likely 5.

            Options:
            All the prior B12 options plus NIU (get into Chicago a little).

            For 10 – add BYU (FB only), Boise (FB only) and UC
            A – ISU, KSU, OkSU, UC, WV
            B – TT, Baylor, TCU, BYU, Boise

            For 12 – add BYU (FB only), Boise (FB only), NIU, UH and UC
            A – ISU, KSU, OkSU, UC, WV, NIU
            B – TT, Baylor, TCU, BYU, Boise, UH

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Assume the remainder of the B12 is ISU, KSU, OkSU, TT, TCU, Baylor and WV (only UT, OU and KU leave).

            Practically the only way they lose exactly those three schools, is if Texas becomes an independent in football — as conferences are fairly likely to add schools in pairs from now on.

            I know there has been discussion (mostly on fan boards) about UT joining the ACC with a Notre Dame type of deal, but I have seen scant evidence that either the school or the league would want this. If you look at UT’s non-conference scheduling across a spectrum of sports, they seem to have almost no interest in playing ACC schools. This is in contrast to ND, which had a long history of scheduling in that region, long before they joined formally.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Practically the only way they lose exactly those three schools, is if Texas becomes an independent in football — as conferences are fairly likely to add schools in pairs from now on.”

            I started with those 3 as the most likely choices to be gone. Obviously people can suppose TT and/or OkSU and/or KSU are also gone. I started with the largest possible B12 remnant to make it seem the most attractive to other G5 schools. If 6 schools leave, I’m not sure the remainder could backfill all those spots successfully.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Part of whether it survives as six depends on sequence. If one pair leaves, and then the Big12 backfills, and then another pair leaves, the first set of schools on the way has already got the ball rolling on being, at the very least, the sole Best of the Rest conference in the new Go6. Four should be available at that point which would cement that.

            Strategically, if they lose two, they SHOULD add BYU and Boise FB-only and two from the AAC to go to 12, since if they are already a Go6 member when they invite BYU, BYU would be far more likely to turn the invite down.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            It’s power conference or Indy for BYU.

            Like

  60. Jersey Bernie says:

    How many schools in G5 leagues may not be playing football at that level in 7 or 8 years?

    UConn athletics is estimated to need a contribution from the university of nearly $40 million in the next year or two. The State of Connecticut simply cannot subsidize UConn sports at that level and more for years to come. How long before UConn students decide that they are really a basketball school with a minor football program?

    There are now serious conversations about needing to downgrade football and then try to join the Big East, or A-10, with their profitable basketball program.

    Downgrading football will not make UConn sports solvent, but will save a lot of money.

    Will other G5 schools simply give up and downgrade their programs due to the cost of football?

    Does anyone know whether there is likely to be serious financial pressure on Cincinnati or other G5 schools that were looking at the Big 12 as a liferaft?

    Certainly all of the Big 12 schools will do quite well financially until the GOR expires. It seems likely that the remaining Big 12 schools, even if there are only six or seven, will be in much better shape than almost any of the P5 schools (Boise and BYU probably excepted).

    If that is true, P5 schools will still hope for Big 12 acceptance after UT and OU bolt.

    Here is a new article from the Hartford Courant indicating that CT Gov Malloy reached out to ESPN for help in getting UConn into the Big 12. There is also a denial that there has been a $10 million deal from ESPN to the Big 12. There have also been insanely dumb articles in the Courant saying the ESPN owed it to the state, since CT has given ESPN tax incentives to stay.

    http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-football/hc-uconn-espn-big-12-1028-20161027-story.html

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Jersey Bernie,

      “How many schools in G5 leagues may not be playing football at that level in 7 or 8 years?”

      I don’t think many will drop down, if any. What they will do is stop trying to spend as much as the P5s once they accept that they aren’t going to be added to any P5 conference.

      “UConn athletics is estimated to need a contribution from the university of nearly $40 million in the next year or two. The State of Connecticut simply cannot subsidize UConn sports at that level and more for years to come.”

      http://dailycampus.com/stories/2015/12/11/uconn-still-allocates-over-71-million-to-athletics-amid-budget-troubles

      This article says the university faces a $41M budget gap, not the AD. The AD received $17M in subsidies from the school in 2014.

      According to the documents, which were provided by the Huffington Post, almost $10 million from student fees goes toward athletics every year. This represents nearly 30 percent of the General University Fee, a $2,882 expense that every full-time UConn student pays.

      So now we’re down to $9M.

      Institutional funding to athletics is paid out of money UConn receives from what Jordan called auxiliary expenses, or funds that are not associated with tuition or academics.

      “We do segregate tuition and state tax money,” Jordan said. “Those two sources are only used for academic purposes.”

      And it’s not coming from taxes or tuition.

      A large part of athletic expenses is financial aid for students, Jordan said, which accounted for about $12.4 million in 2014, up from about $11 million in 2013. Athletics is the only department that counts student aid scholarships as an expense.

      If you move financial aid for athletes into the same pile as financial aid for all other students, then the student fees are more than covering the cost of athletics.

      “How long before UConn students decide that they are really a basketball school with a minor football program?”

      A long time.

      “With very few exceptions, no school does athletics to make money,” Jordan said.

      According to the documents, most of the revenue from ticket sales is from the football, men’s and women’s basketball teams and a small amount from both ice hockey and soccer teams. Donor contributions and guarantees from participation in away games is also centered on those sports.

      “There is no expectation when you field a swimming team that you do it to make money,” Jordan said.

      Jordan argued that the benefit of athletics is not its direct income but as a way to boost UConn’s profile as a school and drive enrollment and donations. UConn is ranked as the 19th best public university by the U.S. News and World Report.

      According to the ranking, the Division 1 sports are a “major focus for students.”

      “Athletics is an important part of UConn, its culture and what we’re known for,” Jordan said. “It is a way that people get introduced to UConn.”

      Sports are cheap advertising for the school. If they help bring in out of state students, they’re well worth the expense.

      “There are now serious conversations about needing to downgrade football and then try to join the Big East, or A-10, with their profitable basketball program.”

      There are those discussions, but they’re mostly driven by hoops people that want to get into the Big East and don’t care about football. They could also just spend less and still be in the AAC.

      “Downgrading football will not make UConn sports solvent, but will save a lot of money.”

      It also costs them donations and students, so the net savings aren’t what they appear.

      “Will other G5 schools simply give up and downgrade their programs due to the cost of football?”

      Probably not. They’ll just let the gap between the P5 and G5 grow.

      “Does anyone know whether there is likely to be serious financial pressure on Cincinnati or other G5 schools that were looking at the Big 12 as a liferaft?”

      There will always be some pressure, but it’s never been a huge story at UC to my knowledge. I think some of the AAC members will reassess their budgets in the next few years as the odds for expansion have diminished.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      UH president’s e-mails got discovered in FOIA and she was quoted as saying she didn’t know how long the university could continue the current level of subsidization. And several schools have bigger subsidies than UH, notably UConn.

      Like

  61. Jersey Bernie says:

    Here is a Hartford Courant article that says that the estimated athletic subsidy for UConn is $39.2 million for 2017. The key issue (other than G5 status) is that UConn has been getting funding from the settlement related to the dissolution of the Big East. That money is stopping. I do not know which numbers are correct, but

    http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-huskies/hc-jacobs-column-power-five-1024-20161023-column.html

    “Benedict talked a lot about buckets of revenue, ticket sales, priority to seating, fundraising, a Nike apparel deal, an IMG multimedia rights deal. He talked about how UConn can do anything that a Power 5 school can do. The massive problem is the Power 5 conferences are distributing $30 million to their schools. UConn got $10 million last year, mainly because of money from the dissolution of the Big East. The TV money from ESPN is a couple million a year and the Big East money is going to dry up in 2018. Even the SNY money for UConn women is folded into the American distribution.

    In releasing its sales pitch to the Big 12, UConn showed an athletic budget of nearly $80 million a year, the most of non-Power 5 schools. The school showed $27 million in subsidies in 2014, $28 million in 2015 and estimates of $35.2 million in 2016 and $39.2 million in 2017. Much of the money will come from student fees. Good grief. Those numbers are either the best argument to drop football and join the Big East or attack on all fronts to infiltrate the Power 5 structure. I vote the latter course for the next few years.”

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      There is one thing that is apparent in all of this: The key University is Texas. What UT does will determine what happens with every other scenario. 1: Big XII remains intact @ 10 Schools. 2: Big 10 expands to 12. 3: UT goes to the Big 10 with OU: KU remains and Schools like Boise St, and Cincinnati are added: 4: UT goes to Big 10 with KU. OU and OSU to SEC: Probable end of Big XII. 5: UT, OU, OSU and either KU or TT to Pac. Again probable end of Big XII. If the Big XII ends I could project ISU and WVA in the AAC. KSU and Baylor in the MWC, TCU in either Conference depending on where KU ends up ( Big 10, PAC or worst case scenario with KSU in the MWC). Note: I have been very critical of Iowa State on this blog, but I do not see them dropped down to a MAC level:, The 50k + attendance certainly puts them on a different level then Kent State or Bowlng Green. Which is why it will be Big XII or MWC for the Cyclones.

      (

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        “Which is why it will be Big XII or MWC for the Cyclones.”

        Though you projected them AAC in one of your scenarios, so I take that to be Big12, MWC or AAC for the Cyclones. Their attendance is too big to leave them out of the “best of the rest” conference of their choice, whichever of the two that might be.

        The MAC angle would rather be whether, if it’s either BotR East or BotR West, there was some interest in a travel partner, where Northern Illinois at 4.5hrs drive away could come up in conversation.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I am not so keen on Northern Illinois for the Big XII. There are schools that I would select for the Big XII first. 1: Houston. 2: Cincinnati. 3: UCF. 4: USF: 5: BYU. 6: Boise State. 7:,Colorado State. 8: San Diego State. Throw in the fact, that no one knows how many ( if any) Schools would leave the Big XII? If it would be UT and OU alone ( say to the Big 10) you could add 4 Schools. Which would keep the Conference intact. That would work out perfectly for UT ( keeping the Red River Rivalry as a Conference Game) and the Big 10 ( basically balance out the Divisions). A brutal different Scenario for the Big XII, could be this: UT and Kansas ( instead of OU). We know UT wants Eastern exposure ( like the Cowboys playing in the NFC East). In exchange for the Longhorn Network being folded into BTN, and accepting KU instead of OU ( which works well with the AAA Issue), UT gets sent East and Purdue West. I know this strengthens the East ( MSU, OSU, PSU, UM and UT) at the expense of the West. But If UT would go for that, the idea of adding UT, expansion of BTN into Texas and what it would do for basketball on BTN ( UT is traditionally good at hoops, so it’s not just about KU). Under that scenario it becomes OU and OSU in the SEC.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            We know UT wants Eastern exposure ( like the Cowboys playing in the NFC East). In exchange for the Longhorn Network being folded into BTN, and accepting KU instead of OU (which works well with the AAA Issue), UT gets sent East and Purdue West.

            I am doubtful that the Big Ten would do something so obviously non-competitive, just to kow-tow to one school.

            Beyond this, I’m not sure it’s in the Longhorns’ interest, either. Their path to a playoff berth or a strong NY6 bowl is so much easier in the west. Even with a geographic split, they’d get reasonably frequent games against RU and MD, although not every year.

            Possibly worth noting: UT’s future non-conference schedule has just one game planned in the East: a visit to USF in 2022. (It’s a 2-for-1: the Bulls are visiting Austin twice.) If it matters to them that much, their schedule doesn’t show it.

            Like

          • Tom says:

            @Marc Shepherd

            UT has a home and home with Maryland in 2017-18, with the ’17 game in Austin and the ’18 game played at Landover, MD.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “I am not so keen on Northern Illinois for the Big XII.”

            For the current B12, no. For a B12 without all of its top brands? Then access to Chicago and a bridge from ISU to UC to WV makes more sense. They wouldn’t be the first school I’d suggest, but they could be #4 or #5. It also depends who else is willing to join.

            “There are schools that I would select for the Big XII first. 1: Houston. 2: Cincinnati. 3: UCF. 4: USF: 5: BYU. 6: Boise State. 7:,Colorado State. 8: San Diego State.”

            1. Would UH want in for sure?

            3 and 4. I’m really not sure UCF and USF want into a league that far away with no major brands. Nor am I sure the B12 would want the travel. Without major brands, the B12 would never get any real traction in FL.

            5. Would BYU accept? Maybe for FB only, but I doubt they want full membership in a non-P5 league.

            6. FB-only makes sense, but otherwise Boise is a lot of travel for no brand. It’s also a low-ranked school and presidents care about that.

            7. I’ve always thought CSU was overrated. Denver is a pro town that even CU couldn’t really bring to the B12. CSU is a lot of travel for very few eyes.

            8. The B12 isn’t expanding to the pacific time zone. I don’t think SDSU would really be interested anyway.

            “Throw in the fact, that no one knows how many ( if any) Schools would leave the Big XII? If it would be UT and OU alone ( say to the Big 10) you could add 4 Schools. Which would keep the Conference intact.”

            Intact but vastly reduced in value and appeal to other schools.

            “A brutal different Scenario for the Big XII, could be this: UT and Kansas ( instead of OU). We know UT wants Eastern exposure ( like the Cowboys playing in the NFC East). In exchange for the Longhorn Network being folded into BTN, and accepting KU instead of OU ( which works well with the AAA Issue), UT gets sent East and Purdue West. I know this strengthens the East ( MSU, OSU, PSU, UM and UT) at the expense of the West. But If UT would go for that, the idea of adding UT, expansion of BTN into Texas and what it would do for basketball on BTN ( UT is traditionally good at hoops, so it’s not just about KU). Under that scenario it becomes OU and OSU in the SEC.”

            There’s a lot here to discuss.

            a. UT and KU for academic reasons is possible, but UT would really prefer OU and might make that a condition of joining.

            b. Do they want eastern exposure? From 1997-2016, they’ve played the following eastern teams OOC: UNC (2), RU (2), UCF (2), FAU (2). Going forward, the only eastern team on their schedule is UMD (2). That’s a very small amount of eastern exposure for a king who can schedule almost anybody.

            c. ESPN would also have to agree on folding the LHN into BTN. I’d need to hear details on how that happens to fully believe it, but it’s certainly possible. Either way BTN could still expand into TX as BTN would have plenty of UT games to show, especially in MBB and baseball.

            d. I highly doubt UT would want to be in the East. Some eastern exposure is one thing, but rarely playing KU and NE and other CST teams to play RU, UMD and IN annually? I don’t think so. Besides, the B10 couldn’t tolerate that much imbalance. The whole point of these new divisions was to honor geography so UT would have to be in the West.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            UT has a home and home with Maryland in 2017-18, with the ’17 game in Austin and the ’18 game played at Landover, MD.

            Sorry…missed that one. However, as Brian noted, the core point remains true: they haven’t often gone out of their way to play Eastern teams, which you’d think they would, if the cared about it as much as some folks say.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I am not at all sure that UT wants eastern exposure. They specifically indicated that they wanted exposure in NYC and DC. The business and political capitals of the US (as well as NYC being by far the number 1 media market in the US).

            I believe that games against second level Florida schools are irrelevant. I would think that games against USF are of no use for the stategic purposes of UT, which certainly does not need to worry about being exposed to Tampa or central Florida area high schools.

            There are enough players in Texas and Louisiana to stock several top twenty schools without ever going further than that from Austin.

            While UT has not gone out of its way to try and schedule UMd or RU in the past, perhaps they have decided that this was now important going forward. Obviously I could not even speculate as to the real motivation of UT.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Texas and Maryland have a home-and-home set for later this decade (although UMd’s “home” game will be held at FedEx Field).

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Jersey Bernie,

      “Here is a Hartford Courant article that says that the estimated athletic subsidy for UConn is $39.2 million for 2017. The key issue (other than G5 status) is that UConn has been getting funding from the settlement related to the dissolution of the Big East. That money is stopping. I do not know which numbers are correct, but”

      I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the number jumped that much with the end of the BE money and increased expenses lately (FCOA, trying to get into the B12, etc).

      http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-huskies/hc-jacobs-column-power-five-1024-20161023-column.html

      I’m going to respond to some other quotes from that article in addition to the ones you pulled.

      In fairness to Cincinnati, to BYU, to Houston, to Boise State, to UConn, to USF and UCF and a dozen other schools, things need to change.

      Why is it fair for those schools to get paid more? The market has spoken about their value so far. Is it just because they want to be big time? Well, it took the P5 schools 100 years to get to the revenue levels they have now. They built the fan base for the sport. They invested over years and years and now these other schools want to reap the rewards without paying the price. Why is that fair?

      The 65 Power 5 schools that commandeer the great majority of revenue in college sports want no change beyond cherry-picking a school here and there to corral more revenue. About 63 percent of the 350 Division I schools have no FBS football and through 2014 NCAA autonomy legislation has the freedom not to do powerful things the Power 5 does. Those schools can better control their losses.

      The G5 could control their costs better than they do. They don’t have to do FCOA, but many are. They could cut costs in other areas. Some G5s spend much less than others on football.

      This leaves 63 schools, known as the Group of 5, trying to play big-time football without the big-time revenue. Can 18 percent of the NCAA Division I membership make a lot of noise? Sure. Can those five conferences push through NCAA legislation to help level the football field? Certainly, not on their own. And with the majority of those 63 not all-in for Power 5 membership, one has to wonder how many would have the stomach for an open fight.

      More importantly, should they win that fight? Nobody is forcing the G5 to do what they’re doing. They can all choose to drop to I-AA or D-III or drop football or just cut their football expenses. What is the basis for claiming they deserve more money? The TV networks are agnostic. They pay whoever brings them eyeballs. If the G5 aren’t getting paid much, it’s because not many people watch them. They could jack up their fees for playing OOC against the P5 (it’s starting to happen already). They could even make deals with specific P5 conferences (X games for Y dollars).

      This leaves 15-20 schools that could put together a huge all-fronts battle to gain some kind of equitable distribution before they spend themselves into oblivion.

      They get a bigger chunk of post-season revenue now than they ever have. At what level is the revenue split “equitable”? Does he expect the G5 schools to get paid the same as the P5?

      The Power 5 conferences essentially can act as a cartel, restricting membership, doling out hundreds of millions of dollars to long-standing weaker conference cronies while more competitive athletic programs are left on the outside. Worse, when they do see fit to add a school, they cut deals in which the newbies receive a significantly smaller share for years.

      Is he claiming it’s one big cartel or 5 separate cartels? Of course each conference can choose their own members. Why wouldn’t that be true? Conferences are more than just athletic alignments, and they don’t have a duty to maximize revenue through their membership. As for lesser deals for newbies, they make perfect sense in a world where the conference owns a network (fully or in part). Why would a new member be gifted something everyone else had to pay for? It’s also true just for the brand. The P5 conference brands have value and new members don’t bring the same cachet. Why shouldn’t new members pay for the privilege of getting to use a brand they didn’t help build? They can always say no if they don’t like the terms of their offer.

      Can’t there be a meeting of the minds among the NCAA, the Power 5 and networks for some kind of revenue sharing formula from its vast goldmine based on money invested into football, into athletic programs to help mitigate Group of 5 losses?

      Talk about collusion. That would be all kinds of illegal. But besides that, who is “it” with this vast goldmine? The NCAA has large revenues but it redistributes almost all of that back to the schools/athletes or pays for championships with it. They aren’t storing billions of dollars like Scrooge McDuck. The Power 5 are really 64 independent entities that all struggle to balance their own budgets. Many of them are also using significant subsidies for athletics, so they don’t have millions to spare. The networks are businesses that pay for content. They aren’t charities that can just choose to give away hundreds of millions to the G5. They owe it to their investors to make good deals.

      The G5 seem to neglect the fact that the P5 freely split NCAA tournament money with all D-I schools based on appearances. The differences come from football where the G5 product isn’t competitive. A few schools are, but the inventory they provide just isn’t that valuable. Who should be paying them more for games people don’t watch?

      Under the guise of eliminating a pro rata agreement and a new conference title game, ESPN is negotiating to pay the Big 12 not to expand. Think about that. Gov. Malloy doesn’t have to jump ugly in public, but a strong message of cooperation should be clear. You want tax breaks from the state? Give the state flagship university some breaks.

      Isn’t quid pro quo illegal? ESPN doesn’t owe CT anything. They are providing lots of well-paid employees that boost the tax base and keep businesses healthy. That’s why CT gave them tax breaks.

      Now to your quote.

      Benedict talked a lot about buckets of revenue, ticket sales, priority to seating, fundraising, a Nike apparel deal, an IMG multimedia rights deal. He talked about how UConn can do anything that a Power 5 school can do. The massive problem is the Power 5 conferences are distributing $30 million to their schools. UConn got $10 million last year, mainly because of money from the dissolution of the Big East. The TV money from ESPN is a couple million a year and the Big East money is going to dry up in 2018. Even the SNY money for UConn women is folded into the American distribution.

      In releasing its sales pitch to the Big 12, UConn showed an athletic budget of nearly $80 million a year, the most of non-Power 5 schools. The school showed $27 million in subsidies in 2014, $28 million in 2015 and estimates of $35.2 million in 2016 and $39.2 million in 2017. Much of the money will come from student fees. Good grief. Those numbers are either the best argument to drop football and join the Big East or attack on all fronts to infiltrate the Power 5 structure. I vote the latter course for the next few years.

      Budget = $80M
      AAC payout = $10M

      That’s the first problem. Why spend that much when you know your income is so much less?

      P5 payout = $30M
      Difference = $20M
      Subsidy = $28-39M

      Even with the P5 payout UConn would require a large subsidy. And they’d have to spend even more money if they got into a P5 conference to get their facilities up to snuff and have competitive salaries and things.

      They should start with the basic problem that they need more tickets sold, higher ticket prices and more donations. Until they fix their own house, why should anyone else worry about them?

      For example, take ISU which has a very similar budget to UConn.

      Averaging over the past 3 years:
      Ticket sales: ISU = $14M, UConn < $10M
      Donations: ISU = $17M, UConn < $7M
      CFB attendance: ISU = 54,700, UConn = 28,900

      Why should UConn get paid more when ISU fans are more invested? Sure, being in the B12 provides better opponents but ISU is also terrible. UConn has also been terrible going 11-26 the past 3 years and that's with a G5 schedule.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Brian, I agree with pretty much all of your criticism of Jeff Jacobs, the author of the article. Jacobs is crying and demanding someone, SOMEONE, do something about the system.

        He totally ignores the fact that the P5 set up works fine for at least 80% and probably 90% of NCAA schools. It keeps March madness in place, allows smaller schools to get major financials payoffs in other sports, etc.

        Jacobs wants a political and legal attack on the P5, and presumably the NCAA. He should be glad that he is not getting what he wants.

        If the G5 really managed a major attack on the P5 within the NCAA (which is ridiculous), the P5 could pack up and leave and take with them the Big East, A-10 and maybe a couple more basketball leagues) and then those 90 or 100 schools would have their own basketball tournament and keep the money for themselves. That would financially really hurt many small schools, so I would expect that those smaller schools would want to follow the P5 also.

        Bottom line, when the dust settled, I would expect a few dozen schools, (led by UConn?) would need to set up their own basketball tournament. That is a virtually impossible scenario. Even the basketball powers withing UConn would never go down that road.

        I do believe that Jacob’s approach is interesting for a reason not in the article. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is a big proponent of Congressional intervention, but he has little support.

        It has been suggested on this board that the P5 should collapse into a top end league of 24 or 32 schools (or some such number) and essentially try to get new TV deals which are not split with another 30 or 40 schools. I do believe something like this would allow the ideas of Jeff Jacobs to get legs. A large number of states would have to be pushed out of the P5 and there might well be a critical mass of political pressure against those teams.

        (No, I do not believe that the ACC ever kick out Wake Forest, the PAC ever kick out Washington State, etc. I only mention this as it relates to the Hartford Courant article)

        As to his theory (shared by others in CT) that ESPN is obligated to help UConn, that is nuts. Connecticut is bleeding jobs and employers, due to high taxes. If they were really stupid enough to “retaliate” against ESPN, there are probably 30 other states that would welcome ESPN with open arms. ESPN does not need to be in Connecticut, they choose to be there.

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          Yes, re the relocation of ESPN from CT as retaliation for untoward State interference, and we all know which state gets the lion share of relocated corporate campuses these days.

          Like

        • vp19 says:

          Jacobs, like so many in the Northeast, really isn’t cognizant of how big-time college athletics is run. True, there are many excesses, particularly in the SEC — the monwy Alabama spends on assistant football coaches frankly sickens me — but the environment has drastically changed from when Yale regularly filled up the Yale Bowl (and even from when Syracuse was a national power at Archbold Stadium). If Connecticut had possessed the academic heritage of Rutgers, it might be where RU is today, in the Big Ten.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Jersey Bernie,

          “Brian, I agree with pretty much all of your criticism of Jeff Jacobs, the author of the article. Jacobs is crying and demanding someone, SOMEONE, do something about the system.”

          Everyone in the comments on that article also chastise him, including UConn fans saying he’s making them look bad.

          “I do believe that Jacob’s approach is interesting for a reason not in the article. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is a big proponent of Congressional intervention, but he has little support.”

          And he’s been pretty quiet since Utah joined the P12. That’s the other reason this is hard to do. Most states have a P5 school or no G5 schools. Why would they waste government effort on something that’s working just fine for many of their constituents?

          “It has been suggested on this board that the P5 should collapse into a top end league of 24 or 32 schools (or some such number) and essentially try to get new TV deals which are not split with another 30 or 40 schools.”

          A few have suggested it. I don’t think it has a chance of happening unless the schools are forced to fully pay players. Only then might the P5 conferences dissolve as one group continue to make big money from sports (AL, UF, OSU, etc) and the others re-focus on academics (NW, Duke, Vandy, etc).

          “I do believe something like this would allow the ideas of Jeff Jacobs to get legs. A large number of states would have to be pushed out of the P5 and there might well be a critical mass of political pressure against those teams.”

          If they did it voluntarily, I agree that Congress would likely get involved. If it’s forced by the courts demanding that players get paid so many schools drop out of the top group, Congress might still get involved but perhaps to overrule the courts.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Isn’t it always interesting that schools said to focus “on academics” invariably are private institutions? You’re going to tell me that our top public flagships such as Cal-Berkeley, Michigan and the like aren’t great places of learning?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “Isn’t it always interesting that schools said to focus “on academics” invariably are private institutions? You’re going to tell me that our top public flagships such as Cal-Berkeley, Michigan and the like aren’t great places of learning?”

            Did I say that? No I didn’t. But many of the large public schools have so much invested in athletics at this point that they literally can’t afford to drop sports (millions in debt to service). Many private schools are rich enough to do whatever they want and they do tend to be more focused on academics than athletics. You should note that I didn’t list elite public schools like Cal nor private athletic powerhouses like ND and USC.

            Like

  62. bullet says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17905245/jury-rules-favor-ex-penn-state-assistant-mike-mcqueary-defamation-case

    McQueary given $7 million!!!! That’s just, wow!

    To me, the person who looks worst in the Sandusky mess after Sandusky himself, is McQueary. He heard it. And he didn’t do anything for a day or so. And then he went to Paterno instead of the police.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Jurors awarded McQueary $1.15 million on the defamation claim and $1.15 million on the misrepresentation allegation that two administrators lied to him when they said they took his report of Sandusky seriously and would respond appropriately. They also awarded $5 million in punitive damages.

      I think the amount will be reduced on appeal. I won’t say everything PSU did was fine, but he never got hired again because nobody ever thought he was a good coach. If he hadn’t played for JoePa he probably wouldn’t have gotten a job at PSU, either. After the change in HC, it’s common for the old staff to not be renewed so that’s not an issue.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        And he’s tainted by his connection with Sandusky and his own cowardice. That is on him and Sandusky, not PSU.

        Like

      • phil says:

        I was rooting for a USFL type verdict. A judgement blasting PSU for how things were handled, then awarding McQueary only $1 because he failed as a man.

        Like

  63. Marc Shepherd says:

    Tom Fornelli of CBS Sports on <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-bringing-the-big-12-championship-game-back-is-bad-for-the-conference/&quot;?Why bringing the Big 12 Championship Game back is bad for the conference.

    He ignores the main reason why it’s good: they’ll get paid for it.

    But I agree, there’s a decent chance they’ll regret it, at least from a competitive standpoint. (They won’t mind the cash.) When they had a CCG before, the underdog won in 3 out of the first 6 games played. If that happens again, a lot of Big 12 fans will be tearing their hair out.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Marc Shepherd,

      “Tom Fornelli of CBS Sports on why bringing the Big 12 Championship Game back is bad for the conference.

      He ignores the main reason why it’s good: they’ll get paid for it.”

      He ignores other points, too.

      1. A 13th data point can be helpful. The B12’s data analysis firm showed it is more likely to help than hurt. Even if it’s a 50/50 deal then getting more money for the same chances at the CFP seems wise.

      2. More people will pay attention to a CCG than just more conference games, keeping the B12 more relevant in the final week. It also means they can have major rivalries the same week as everyone else and thus provide better competition for eyeballs.

      3. Rematches can happen in all conferences, it’s just guaranteed in the B12. These games have always been pure money grabs and rematches are one of the negatives. As I showed a few days ago, P5 teams are 13-5 in their CCG rematches against a team they already beat. That will be lower in the B12 presumably since they always take the top 2 teams, but perhaps it’s a sign that the first win wasn’t dominant if the loser wins the second time. Maybe both teams are playoff worthy.

      4. I’m not sure how much this really hurts their chances of getting 2 teams in. With no CCG, there was essentially no chance of it ever happening. In almost every year no conference is going to get 2 teams in anyway. Would having divisions increase the odds of getting in two teams? We don’t know because it’s never happened.

      I think the best odds may be when the first game is a close home win for A and the CCG is a close win for B. Two 12-1 teams that split a pair of close games could make the playoff if several champs are weak. Is an 11-1 division runner-up that lost to the champ really more likely to get in than a 12-1 CCG loser who beat the champ during the season? As long as the CCG is close, I think having the win over the champ and losing the CCG is better than just having the loss.

      “But I agree, there’s a decent chance they’ll regret it, at least from a competitive standpoint.”

      But will they regret it any more than the other P5 conferences regret theirs? Every conference risks upsets that knock out a top team. But all the rest have the advantage of a 13th game if the B12 doesn’t play a CCG. This levels the playing field for the committee.

      “When they had a CCG before, the underdog won in 3 out of the first 6 games played. If that happens again, a lot of Big 12 fans will be tearing their hair out.”

      The B10 already had 7-5 WI upset NE. Other upsets will happen. There’s no reason to think the B12 is more prone to it than others.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        “When they had a CCG before, the underdog won in 3 out of the first 6 games played. If that happens again, a lot of Big 12 fans will be tearing their hair out.”

        The B10 already had 7-5 WI upset NE. Other upsets will happen. There’s no reason to think the B12 is more prone to it than others.

        I don’t think so either, but once the B10 never operated without a CCG, once the rules allowed it to have one.

        When the stated reason for adding the game is to increase your chances of making the playoff, there will be a lot of complaints if it winds up having the opposite effect. I get the reasons why it should be beneficial in theory, but the theory doesn’t always play out as expected.

        It reminds me of the ACC’s decision to choose a very unnatural division structure, so that they could have an FSU–Miami rematch in the CCG. It has never happened. That’s what happens sometimes, when you tempt the Football Gods.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “When the stated reason for adding the game is to increase your chances of making the playoff, there will be a lot of complaints if it winds up having the opposite effect. I get the reasons why it should be beneficial in theory, but the theory doesn’t always play out as expected.”

          I think they’ve been pretty open about also chasing the money with the CCG. And, as you know, there’s no way to ever know if the CCG hurts them because we can’t see what would’ve happened without it. Sure, we can tell when a top 3 team gets knocked out of the playoff by a CCG loss and the winner doesn’t get in either. But we won’t know how often 2014 would’ve been repeated (B12 champ doesn’t get in due to lack of a CCG). Or how often the upset winner and CCG loser both made NY6 games when only 1 would’ve without it, etc.

          “It reminds me of the ACC’s decision to choose a very unnatural division structure, so that they could have an FSU–Miami rematch in the CCG. It has never happened. That’s what happens sometimes, when you tempt the Football Gods.”

          Maybe that’s one reason the B12 avoid divisions and the obvious temptation to split UT and OU.

          Like

  64. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17910453/big-12-title-game-match-top-two-teams-conference-standings

    The B12 has decided not to use divisions. The top 2 teams by record will make the CCG.

    Bowlsby said the Big 12 would continue to use the same tiebreakers to determine the title game participants, with head-to-head matchups being the lone deciding factor when two teams finish with the same record. In the event three or more teams are tied, the Big 12 would compare conference records, then conference records against the next-highest-placed team(s), then scoring differential and then a draw — in that order.

    I believe this will open the door for larger conferences to be able to drop divisions in the future. It will require a rule change, but once one conference is doing it it’s easier to allow it for everyone.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Not when it hurts the Big 12 as in points 2 and 3. Not just minimal chance for a 2nd playoff team, but it hurts in getting a 2nd team in the NY6 as you guarantee another loss by one of your top 2 teams as they have to play each other twice.

      Very bad for the Big 12 long term. They should have done divisions even though that has drawbacks. But what they really should have done was go to 12 and do divisions.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “Not when it hurts the Big 12 as in points 2 and 3.”

        How will that impact whether the rule will be changed to let larger conferences do the same thing? They wouldn’t face the same downsides since rematches aren’t guaranteed.

        “Not just minimal chance for a 2nd playoff team, but it hurts in getting a 2nd team in the NY6 as you guarantee another loss by one of your top 2 teams as they have to play each other twice.”

        The default chance for getting 2 teams in is minimal. I’m not sure this really impacts it. Is a 12-1 CCG loser that also beat the champ really worse off than an 11-1 division runner up that lost to the champ? Yes it means an extra loss for the top 2, but it also means an extra elite win. As I showed a while ago the committee really hasn’t punished teams much for losing a CCG unless they got blown out. I think the win is more likely to help the champ than the loss is to hurt the loser.

        “Very bad for the Big 12 long term.”

        I think the 13th data point and ending conference play when everyone else does will keep more attention on the B12. Having an extra bye week and only 10 teams is bad for TV. It forces the networks to show some crappy games due to lack of inventory.

        Besides, who says there is a long term for the B12? They might disappear in less than 10 years. They need the CCG money now.

        “They should have done divisions even though that has drawbacks.”

        My guess is that they couldn’t easily settle on divisions. And since they play the full round robin, divisions don’t mean much. They’d just be a way to sneak a worse team into the CCG some years. If you have to have a rematch, you’re better off having 1 versus 2 rather than risking a major upset that really hurts the conference.

        “But what they really should have done was go to 12 and do divisions.”

        This might have been my choice as well, but we weren’t inside the discussions. The networks might have made it clear that wasn’t a good option.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        They should have done divisions even though that has drawbacks.

        I don’t see the point of divisions when everyone plays everyone. There is no upside. The downside is that you’ll have a weak CCG, in years when one division is markedly worse than the other.

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I believe this will open the door for larger conferences to be able to drop divisions in the future. It will require a rule change, but once one conference is doing it it’s easier to allow it for everyone.

      Yes, I believe it will come. It’s hard to articulate a valid reason for requiring conferences with 12+ teams to split into two divisions, when you’ve already allowed those with 10 or fewer to dispense with it.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        The only dispense with it as long as they play full RR.
        Bla, bla, argument for – bla, bla and against.
        Fundamental disagreement about justification for a 13th game.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “The only dispense with it as long as they play full RR.”

          Correct, but that’s only a concern for a conference of 10 or more. Any smaller conference plays a round robin without even thinking about it. A conference of 10 can do it as the B12 has shown. As long as the season is capped at 12 games, though, any conference with 11+ teams can’t be expected to play a round robin.

          “Fundamental disagreement about justification for a 13th game.”

          There was the original purpose of the rule, which was to have a better way to find a champion in a conference too large to play a full round robin. They chose to force the conference into divisions with the two division champs meeting, but I don’t believe that is actually necessary to meet the original intent. It does keep things objective, however, and maintains a round robin for each division.

          But let’s be honest. The main reason for these games is money and always has been in I-A.

          One question is what to do for larger and larger conferences. They can maintain divisional round robins, but it comes at the expense of rarely playing the schools in the the other division. That starts to defeat the purpose of being a conference in order to maintain the purity of the CCG concept, which seems like a backwards approach to me. The conference has to be the main concern and at some point that may force the dropping of full round robins in divisional play. That provides two options of course:

          1. Keep divisions but don’t play a full round robin in the division.

          2. Drop divisions entirely and just lock some games.
          2a. Form pods.
          2b. Lock a set number of rivals per school but they don’t have to break into distinct groups.

          We’ve already seen that an inability to do this contributed to the break up of the only 16 team conference in I-A. As the P5 conferences approach 16 teams, however, there is more on the line and they have the power to change the rules.

          The B12 presents the opposite issue. They don’t need a CCG since they play a full round robin but for political reasons are allowed to have one. The question of whether or not to form divisions is an interesting one due to the full round robin. Forming divisions maintains the purity of the CCG format but doesn’t optimize a game that is being held primarily for financial reasons. I think there may also have been some concern about how to split the schools into divisions anyway. Knowing that this game is almost entirely being played just for the money, I don’t really have a problem with them not using divisions.

          I’m against all CCGs and this one is just more honest than most about what’s driving it. But if can lead to OSU not having to play UMD, RU, IN and MSU every single year then I’ll support it for the greater good.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Any smaller conference plays a round robin without even thinking about it. A conference of 10 can do it as the B12 has shown.”

            Some unamed conference in the south still plays eight and has had some members advocate reducing that.

            “They chose to force the conference into divisions with the two division champs meeting,”

            No, they offered a way to hold a 13th game as a CCG. The choice to avail themselves of it was the conference’s.

            The change can be viewed as reaffirming the RR requirement and allowing the 10 team conf the flexibility to hold the CCG (for playoff and $$ concerns) without expansion. The RR requirement is perhaps a disincentive to conferences growing beyond 14-16?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The RR requirement is perhaps a disincentive to conferences growing beyond 14-16?

            You actually think Larry Scott, Jim Delany, and Greg Sankey don’t want conferences to grow beyond 14–16?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Some unamed conference in the south still plays eight and has had some members advocate reducing that.”

            They can’t play 13, so why should it matter to us whether they play 8 or 9? They’re only hurting themselves with their chicken schedule.

            “No, they offered a way to hold a 13th game as a CCG. The choice to avail themselves of it was the conference’s.”

            You know exactly what I mean. The rule chose to force divisions in order to get the CCG. The rule didn’t have to be written that way, it just was.

            “The change can be viewed as reaffirming the RR requirement and allowing the 10 team conf the flexibility to hold the CCG (for playoff and $$ concerns) without expansion.”

            Yes, the whole point seemed to be to require the B12 to keep 9 games. The B12 wanted to keep it anyway so I’m not sure it served much purpose.

            “The RR requirement is perhaps a disincentive to conferences growing beyond 14-16?”

            Why would the schools restrict themselves that way unnecessarily? I think they’re just waiting for someone to get large enough that they request a rule change. If the ACC asked for the freedom to drop divisions, I think it would be granted as long as they play at least 9 games. I’m not sure they could play 8 games without divisions (since the argument for no divisions is to play each other more often).

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            As late as 1987, said unnamed conference (as in Securities and Exchange Commission) played but a six-game league schedule. From 1988 to 1991, it grew to seven games, and since divisional play was instituted in 1992, it has remained at eight.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “As late as 1987, said unnamed conference (as in Securities and Exchange Commission) played but a six-game league schedule.”

            Since the Southern Conference split up, the SEC has never felt the need to play each other a lot. The SEC didn’t standardize their scheduling until 1974 when they mandated 6 games per team. Before that, most played 5-7 games against other SEC teams although some played as few as 4 or as many as 10 in a given season.

            “From 1988 to 1991, it grew to seven games, and since divisional play was instituted in 1992, it has remained at eight.”

            http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2014/8/12/5996727/flashback-1987-should-the-sec-expand-to-7-conference-games

            The growth to 7 was likely a response to the Supreme Court freeing up TV rights in 1984. It had the direct results of killing a lot of OOC rivalries as the SEC teams generally dropped a major OOC rival (AU/GT, UF/Miami, etc) in exchange for the 7th SEC game.

            http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2014/8/14/6004569/flashback-1991-sec-to-become-first-super-conference-play-8-games

            Obviously the move to 8 was due to expansion. This further hindered OOC schedules in the SEC but the move to 12 games in 2006 helped restore some quality OOC games.

            http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2015/5/11/8581595/sec-football-the-historical-sec-scheduling-part-i

            But the SEC started with a 5-2-1 plan, meaning 2 locked rivals per team. Thus they accepted it taking 8 years to play everyone home and home even back then. In 2003 they finally switched to a 5-1-2 plan. The point, again, is that the SEC has never felt a need to play everyone else frequently. I don’t know if that’s a function of travel issues or what, but it’s been true for a long time.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Some unamed conference in the south still plays eight and has had some members advocate reducing that.

            Is that a bug or a feature? To me, it’s the latter. Conferences decide how they want to schedule, and fans decide whether they care to watch it or not. This is how a free market should work. Starting next year, no league will have the disadvantage of playing one less game, and there’s a Committee to punish leagues that perennially schedule weaklings, a problem the SEC is not likely to have.

            I would note that in the latest strength of schedule rankings, seven of the top ten hail from conferences that play 8 league games, the ACC and the SEC. Compare that to the Big 12, which has just two schools in the top 25 SOS, #15 Oklahoma and #20 Texas.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            If the ACC asked for the freedom to drop divisions, I think it would be granted as long as they play at least 9 games. I’m not sure they could play 8 games without divisions (since the argument for no divisions is to play each other more often).

            Even with 8 games, a no-division structure would “smooth out” the frequency of play, which I believe is the main complaint of certain ACC schools. For instance, Boston College plays FSU annually, but Miami only once every six years. In a no-divisions structure, each team would have a smaller number of annual games, which would therefore increase the meeting frequency of those that aren’t contested every year.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The ACC and SEC strength of schedules will drop as they play their buy a win games later in the season.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The ACC and SEC strength of schedules will drop as they play their buy a win games later in the season.

            This is true, but not to the point where you’d say they are “skating” by playing the schedules they play, relative to their peers.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Even with 8 games, a no-division structure would “smooth out” the frequency of play, which I believe is the main complaint of certain ACC schools.”

            It would, but I don’t see the others changing the rules just for that. 3 of the P5 play 9 games and want the other 2 to match them so it’s a level playing field. They won’t force 9 games on anyone, but I could see them requiring 9 games to get an exception to the division setup.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I would note that in the latest strength of schedule rankings, seven of the top ten hail from conferences that play 8 league games, the ACC and the SEC. Compare that to the Big 12, which has just two schools in the top 25 SOS, #15 Oklahoma and #20 Texas.”

            To which bullet said:

            “The ACC and SEC strength of schedules will drop as they play their buy a win games later in the season.”

            Back to Marc:

            “This is true, but not to the point where you’d say they are “skating” by playing the schedules they play, relative to their peers.”

            So far teams have played 8 of 12 games. Are the ACC and SEC teams “skating” by playing only 8 conference games? No, but it does have an impact, especially if they get a late cupcake (SOS is front-loaded and teams essentially get an extra bye late when players are tired and hurt). There’s also a trade-off that many 9-game teams look to have an easier OOC schedule to compensate for the 9th game, so the SOS works out about the same.

            https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/season-sos-by-other

            That’s the full season SOS from the same site.

            ACC – 6, 9, 15, 23, 25 (top 3 are from Atlantic)
            SEC – 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 18, 19, 21 (top 6 are from West)
            B10 – 2, 4, 11 (OSU and MI plus WI who played them both)
            P12 – 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24 (5 are from North)
            B12 – 12 (OU with those tough OOC games)

            The top teams are largely clumped by their division, especially for the 8-game conferences (fewer crossovers to balance it out).

            The top teams in SOS will still shuffle some as the season progresses.

            Current SOS:
            11+ = 1
            10-10.9 = 3
            9-9.9 = 6
            8-8.9 = 0
            7-7.9 = 3

            Top 10 are all 9+ now.

            Season SOS:
            11+ = 2
            10-10.9 = 3
            9-9.9 = 0
            8-8.9 = 6
            7-7.9 = 0

            The top 10 cutoff drops to everyone above 8.0.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            So far teams have played 8 of 12 games. Are the ACC and SEC teams “skating” by playing only 8 conference games? No, but it does have an impact, especially if they get a late cupcake (SOS is front-loaded and teams essentially get an extra bye late when players are tired and hurt).

            True, but the option to schedule cupcakes late is open to all. If that advantage is helping the SEC, the other leagues could do it too.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “True, but the option to schedule cupcakes late is open to all. If that advantage is helping the SEC, the other leagues could do it too.”

            True, except many conferences prevent that from happening (may be part of TV deal).

            The other relevant fact is that adding a 9th conference game isn’t always a boost to SOS. A team in a strong division may well lower their SOS by playing a typical team from the other division. But conference games are harder than the team ranking would indicate in my opinion. Those teams know you better than an equivalent OOC team would so even if the SOS was identical computationally, the schedule with 9 conference games seems harder to me.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “True, but the option to schedule cupcakes late is open to all. If that advantage is helping the SEC, the other leagues could do it too.”

            True, except many conferences prevent that from happening (may be part of TV deal).

            Whole conferences would need to make that decision (as the SEC clearly has done), and it would take years to implement, given how far in advance non-conference games are planned. You could be right about TV.

            …the schedule with 9 conference games seems harder to me.

            It could be, but I think there are more variables than legislation can iron out: 8 or 9 conference games; P5 scheduling requirement (or not), and how they define that; permission to play FCS (or not); Notre Dame deal (ACC only); number of “easy outs” on the league schedule; luck of the conference draw, for those that don’t play a RR; other types of scheduling luck (e.g., catching a usually strong opponent in one of their bad years).

            And we now have the best system we’ve ever had for sorting that out, at least at the top: a committee that operates with actual rules, and has to justify its opinions, unlike traditional poll voters.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Whole conferences would need to make that decision (as the SEC clearly has done), and it would take years to implement, given how far in advance non-conference games are planned.”

            And unlike the SEC, some of the other conferences have long histories of playing each other a lot and playing all the OOC games early in the season. It’d be very hard for them to change their stripes enough to drop to 8 games and start playing cupcakes in November.

            “It could be, but I think there are more variables than legislation can iron out:”

            Of course there are, and I’m not advocating for trying to legislate it. I was just supposing how several of the P5s might approach the ACC requesting the right to drop divisions but stay at 8 games. I dislike CCGs, but there are part of the game now. Given that, I don’t want to restrict how other conferences schedule or how they determine their champion. I do reserve the right to make fun of and/or complain about the choices they make, though, even if they aren’t objectively wrong.

            “And we now have the best system we’ve ever had for sorting that out, at least at the top: a committee that operates with actual rules, and has to justify its opinions, unlike traditional poll voters.”

            I wish they had to provide some transparency at the end though. Even if they don’t want to put names to votes for obvious reasons, show all the final votes so people can see what the committee was thinking (how close were various teams, etc). I’d love to see that every week, but I think it’s important after the final vote. I’d also love to hear each member explain how they personally go about ranking teams (important stats, what they look for in video, how they handle SOS, etc). They could do that in the summer when it’s all hypothetical just to give us something to talk about.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Sagarin has a totally different SOS than your site in top 25:
            Pac 12 7
            SEC 6 (5 in SEC West)
            Big 12 4
            Big 10 4
            ACC 3
            Ind 1

            BYU is #17
            FSU-4, Clemson 18, UNC-21
            WI-3, Rutgers-12, MSU-15, NW-19
            Iowa St.-16, Texas-20, OU-22, KS-24
            MS-1, TN-5, AR-6, AL-7, AU-9, A&M-23
            Stanford-2, USC-8, OR St.-10, UCLA-11, AZ-13, OR-14, CU-25

            Like

        • bullet says:

          There isn’t for a 10 team conference.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The only dispense with it as long as they play full RR.
          Bla, bla, argument for – bla, bla and against.
          Fundamental disagreement about justification for a 13th game.

          Go ahead…just try to state a regulatory justification for the rule as they have now written it.

          The point originally was to avoid the extra game, except where it was actually needed — for conferences too large to play a RR. Now that they allow it for any conference of any size, what is the justification?

          Like

  65. Jersey Bernie says:

    And now for some really ugly stuff from Baylor. Four gang rapes in the last 5 years. 19 players involved.

    From this report, they did not quite throw Briles under the bus, but how is it possible that he knew almost nothing this?

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/horrifying-details-of-baylor-sexual-assault-scandal-revealed/

    “In a series of interviews with the Wall Street Journal, Baylor regents tell the paper that the scandal involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four gang rapes, since 2011.”

    “The revelations included at least one case in which Briles was aware of an alleged incident and not only didn’t tell the police but didn’t alert the school’s judicial affairs staff or the Title IX office in charge of coordinating the school’s response to sexual violence.

    “There was a cultural issue there that was putting winning football games above everything else, including our values,” said J. Cary Gray, a lawyer and member of the Baylor board of regents. “We did not have a caring community when it came to these women who reported that they were assaulted. And that is not OK.”

    “There was a cultural issue there that was putting winning football games above everything else, including our values,” said J. Cary Gray, a lawyer and member of the Baylor board of regents. “We did not have a caring community when it came to these women who reported that they were assaulted. And that is not OK.”

    Like

  66. bullet says:

    http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/-Regent-Facts-dont-support-biting-newspaper-report-on-BU-sex-scandal-399105771.html?ref=771

    This article calls into question the WSJ claim that 19 players were involved.

    “Several sources say the biting article has caused a rift among the school’s regents.
    The regent was present when attorneys from the Pepper Hamilton law firm briefed the board in May about the findings of its investigation of the school’s handling of sexual assault complaints.
    “The vast majority of those allegations presented did not have facts to support them.””
    ….
    “Pepper Hamilton produced a 13-page findings of fact that didn’t identify any specific cases or name Briles or any other individual.
    Baylor has maintained since May that it couldn’t provide any details about the specific cases in which Pepper Hamilton found university and athletic department failures, but five months later, apparently acting on advice of the Los Angeles PR firm G.F. Bunting+Co., made selected regents available for interviews with the Journal, the New York Times, USA Today and Showtime’s “60 Minutes Sports.””
    ….
    “The university told the paper that football players were involved in 10.4 percent of Title IX reported incidents in those four years, which suggests that members of the team were linked to only four alleged sexual offenses.
    Tevin Elliot was convicted of two counts of sexual assault, for assaulting a former Baylor student in 2012. Elliot was kicked off the team shortly after the team learned about the first sexual assault allegation, in April of 2012, three days before he was arrested and charged with the crime.
    Sam Ukwuachu was convicted in 2015 of assaulting a former Baylor soccer player in 2013. Ukwuachu transferred from Boise State to play football at Baylor after he was dismissed from that team in May of 2013.
    Rami Hammad, offensive lineman for the Bears in 2015, was accused by a student of sexually assaulting her in his apartment early in the fall semester of that year.
    Sources close to the football team said that Rami was cleared by Title IX in that case.
    After the season, Hammad was charged with felony stalking in an incident involving his ex-girlfriend.
    And former Baylor football standout Shawn Oakman, whose hopes of being picked up in the NFL draft were derailed by his April 13 arrest on a sexual assault charge, was indicted in July by the McLennan County Grand Jury.
    No other players or former players have been charged.”

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “This article calls into question the WSJ claim that 19 players were involved.”

      It does, but in a disingenuous way.

      Several sources say the biting article has caused a rift among the school’s regents.
      The regent was present when attorneys from the Pepper Hamilton law firm briefed the board in May about the findings of its investigation of the school’s handling of sexual assault complaints.
      “The vast majority of those allegations presented did not have facts to support them.”

      As in there is no proof beyond the allegations. It’s not that they were disproven or there are alibi facts or something. The investigation just didn’t find any evidence beyond the accusations. Since most sexual assaults lack witnesses and PH looked into this well after the events happened, this shouldn’t be surprising.

      “Pepper Hamilton produced a 13-page findings of fact that didn’t identify any specific cases or name Briles or any other individual.

      Baylor has maintained since May that it couldn’t provide any details about the specific cases in which Pepper Hamilton found university and athletic department failures, but five months later, apparently acting on advice of the Los Angeles PR firm G.F. Bunting+Co., made selected regents available for interviews with the Journal, the New York Times, USA Today and Showtime’s “60 Minutes Sports.”

      Perhaps PH was told not to identify individuals from the start?

      “The university told the paper that football players were involved in 10.4 percent of Title IX reported incidents in those four years, which suggests that members of the team were linked to only four alleged sexual offenses.

      Those are only the officially reported ones. Clearly more have made complaints than that. The relevance of the 10.4% is that male athletes make up less than 3% off the student body.

      No other players or former players have been charged.

      It’s very hard to charge someone with sexual assault without clear physical evidence. It usually devolves to he said-she said which is reasonable doubt. Not being charged with sexual assault is very different from being innocent. And that’s the unfortunate thing, because maybe there are a lot of false accusations here. But there seems to be enough evidence to indicate that the school and the athletic department screwed up.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      No other players or former players have been charged.

      There seems to be some ignorance in the media, and maybe some Baylor regents too.

      The rap against Baylor is that it failed to investigate every complaint thoroughly. It has the obligation to do this, even if no one is ever charged. Also, the standard of proof in a Title IX case is weaker.

      The fact that no one was charged does not mean the university handled these cases correctly.

      Like

  67. bullet says:

    I don’t think their keeping things so close to the vest is helping them. Sounds like the lawyers are telling them to keep things with the lawyers to reduce exposure in lawsuits, but the speculation is killing them.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Sexual assault allegations are the hardest to defend in the court of public opinion and the hardest to prosecute in a court of law. By trying to win in court Baylor is losing in public.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      If the 10% are football players is correct, that is a lot less than FSU. The title IX coordinator at FSU gave the figure at FSU. Don’t readily have the link, but the figure was something like 40%, maybe 50%.

      Like

  68. FLP_NDRox says:

    http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

    ESPN has lost another 620,000 subscribers this month? Has the sports rights fees bubble finally burst?

    If it has, does that stop the current consolidation?

    I sure hope so.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      FLP_NDRox,

      “ESPN has lost another 620,000 subscribers this month?”

      Cable lost 650,000 subscribers. Some networks lost over 700,000 subscribers (NBCSN, NBA-TV). ESPN is in 89.0M homes (75% coverage) with cable in 98.4M (83%).

      One hugely important note is that these subscriber numbers don’t include streaming services like Sling TV or Sony’s Vue, both of which carry ESPN.

      “Has the sports rights fees bubble finally burst?”

      Doubtful. Live rights gain value as subscribers become fewer.

      “If it has, does that stop the current consolidation?”

      What current consolidation is that? If the B12 doesn’t splinter in 2025 it’ll be at least 2035 before any realignment happens.

      “I sure hope so.”

      So do I.

      Like

  69. ccrider55 says:

    “Has the sports rights fees bubble finally burst?”

    I doubt it. ESPN may be encroached upon – they are now the establishment being challenged by innovation and upstarts sort of like themselves 30+ years ago. How many predictions of burst bubbles have we had in the last two or more decades? How we consume it may evolve, but until the interest itself in sports declines it won’t. Live content is, and will continue to be king.

    Like

  70. Brian says:

    The first CFP rankings come out Tuesday. Let’s 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.

    12 current contenders (-2 from last week)

    ACC (2):
    0 losses – Clemson
    1 loss – UL

    B10 (3):
    0 losses – MI
    1 loss – OSU, NE

    B12 (2):
    0 losses – none
    1 loss – Baylor, WV

    P12 (1):
    0 losses – UW
    1 loss – none

    SEC (3):
    0 losses – AL
    1 loss – UF, TAMU

    Other (1):
    0 losses – WMU

    Top 2-loss options:
    WI, OU

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Louisville and Texas A&M are effectively two-loss teams, because to reach their CCG, they’d need Clemson or Alabama respectively to lose twice. To reach the playoff without reaching their CCGs, they’d the gift of multiple losses by the leaders of other conferences.

      Baylor and WV do not have the advantage of a CCG, and they suffer from the B12’s overall lack of schedule strength. They need to win out, and then hope at least a couple of the other conference leaders stumble.

      Clemson, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Washington, Alabama, and Florida, are the teams that can reach the playoff without getting outside help.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Louisville and Texas A&M are effectively two-loss teams, because to reach their CCG, they’d need Clemson or Alabama respectively to lose twice. To reach the playoff without reaching their CCGs, they’d the gift of multiple losses by the leaders of other conferences.”

        It’s too early to play that game. All 1-loss P5 teams have a shot at the playoff at this point. AL still has LSU and AU to play, for example. The CCGs could have upsets. Would you take 10-3 VT or UNC over 11-1 UL? In a few weeks I may add all other P5 division leaders with 0-2 losses because chaos in the CCGs could do weird things to the rankings.

        “Baylor and WV do not have the advantage of a CCG, and they suffer from the B12’s overall lack of schedule strength. They need to win out, and then hope at least a couple of the other conference leaders stumble.”

        Yes, but they’re still in the running for now. I’d rather keep teams too long then cut them and have to bring them back.

        Any CFP predictions out there?

        My guess:
        1. AL
        2. MI
        3. Clemson
        4. UW
        5. UL
        6. TAMU
        7. OSU
        8. WI
        9. OU
        10. NE

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        It’s too early to play that game. All 1-loss P5 teams have a shot at the playoff at this point. AL still has LSU and AU to play, for example. The CCGs could have upsets. Would you take 10-3 VT or UNC over 11-1 UL? In a few weeks I may add all other P5 division leaders with 0-2 losses because chaos in the CCGs could do weird things to the rankings.

        I don’t think it’s too early to notice facts, when those facts are simple. Louisville needs to win out, and hope Clemson loses 2 of the next 3. (Oh, and those 3 are against Syracuse, Pitt, and Wake Forest; the first two at home.) Ohio State just needs to win out. I find that a fairly meaningful difference — not that it couldn’t happen.

        “Baylor and WV do not have the advantage of a CCG, and they suffer from the B12’s overall lack of schedule strength. They need to win out, and then hope at least a couple of the other conference leaders stumble.”

        Yes, but they’re still in the running for now. I’d rather keep teams too long then cut them and have to bring them back.

        They should be listed…without a doubt. I am just dividing your list into two subdivisions: those who can make the playoff if they keep winning, and those who need help.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “I don’t think it’s too early to notice facts, when those facts are simple. Louisville needs to win out, and hope Clemson loses 2 of the next 3. (Oh, and those 3 are against Syracuse, Pitt, and Wake Forest; the first two at home.) Ohio State just needs to win out. I find that a fairly meaningful difference — not that it couldn’t happen.”

          Obviously some teams have simpler paths than others. But you listed only one way UL could get in. They could also be a second ACC team in due to CCG upsets or other losses, or they could replace the ACC champ if there’s a CCG upset. As a 1-loss P5 team they still have a chance so they make the list.

          The more advanced list, which you’re making, is those who control their own chance to win their conference with a second tier of those most likely to capitalize on any upsets. I just think it’s still too early to bother with that as there are too many potential upsets left.

          Possible division winners:
          ACC A – all but BC
          ACC C – everyone
          B10 E – all but MSU and RU
          B10 W – everyone
          B12 – everyone
          P12 N – everyone
          P12 S – everyone
          SEC E – everyone
          SEC W – all but MS

          In control to be division winners:
          ACC A – Clemson
          ACC C – VT, UNC
          B10 E – MI, OSU
          B10 W – NE
          B12 – OU, Baylor, OkSU, WV
          P12 N – UW, WSU
          P12 S – CO
          SEC E – UF
          SEC W – AL, AU, LSU

          In control to be conference winners and 0 or 1 loss total:
          ACC A – Clemson
          ACC C – none
          B10 E – MI, OSU
          B10 W – NE
          B12 – Baylor, WV
          P12 N – UW
          P12 S – none
          SEC E – UF
          SEC W – AL

          It’s possible that those are the only teams that will make the CFP, but I still believe it’s too soon to eliminate a team like UL. Several of the 2-loss teams are still viable in my mind, too.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The more advanced list, which you’re making, is those who control their own chance to win their conference with a second tier of those most likely to capitalize on any upsets.

          Not exactly. I wasn’t trying to list everyone who is still mathematically alive to win their conference. I am just splitting the playoff contenders’ list you already made, into two further groups: A) Those who’d obviously make it, if they win out; B) Those who’d need additional help.

          Group A is: Clemson, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Washington, Alabama, and Florida

          Group B is: Louisville, Baylor, West Virginia, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Western Mich.

          Like

  71. Brian says:

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

    Coaches Poll:
    1. AL – 63
    2. MI
    3. Clemson – 1
    4. UW
    5. UL – top 1-loss team
    6. OSU
    7. TAMU
    8. WI – top 2-loss team
    9. UF
    10. NE

    Others of note:
    18. WMU – top G5 division leader
    23. PSU

    By conference:
    B12 – 4 = 40%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    SEC – 5 = 36%
    ACC – 5 = 36%
    P12 – 4 = 33%
    Other – 2 (WMU, Boise)

    http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

    AP Poll:
    1. AL – 60
    2. MI – 1
    3. Clemson
    4. UW
    5. UL – top 1-loss team
    6. OSU
    7. TAMU
    8. WI – top 2-loss team
    9. NE
    10. UF

    Others of note:
    17. WMU – top G5 division leader
    20. PSU

    By conference:
    SEC – 5 = 36%
    ACC – 5 = 36%
    B10 – 5 = 36%
    B12 – 4 = 40%
    P12 – 4 = 33%
    Other – 2 (WMU, Boise)

    Like

  72. ccrider55 says:

    Here’s a school trying to best support the intent of college athletics – prioritizing the athletes and coaches. Hopefully they can find funding for stable support. Would be unconscionable to lose the mighty Banana Slugs.

    “The director of athletics position was eliminated to avoid being forced to cut teams and coaches this year,” Hernandez-Jason said.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/31/ucsc-lays-off-athletics-director-further-clouding-ncaa-programs-murky-future/

    Like

  73. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

    The preseason MBB polls are out. Duke is the clear #1.

    AP:
    1. Duke
    2. UK
    3. KU
    4. Villanova
    5. OR
    6. UNC
    7. Xavier
    8. UVA
    9. WI
    10. AZ

    11. IN
    12. MSU
    15. PU
    25. UMD
    RV. OSU, MI

    The Coaches poll is similar with B10 teams from #9, 11, 12, 15 and 21.

    I’ll go out on a limb and guess that a team wearing blue wins the title this year.

    Like

  74. Marc Shepherd says:

    Yahoo’s Pat Forde has Five thoughts ahead of first College Football Playoff rankings release.

    His “first thought” is that this could be the year that the committee chooses two teams from the same conference. But to get there, he relies on his “second thought,” that the committee should end its practice of favoring conference champions. Even if you agree with that idea, they’re not going to change the rules in the middle of the season.

    His “third thought” is that “the Big 12 is done as a 2016 playoff contender.” I certainly agree that the Big 12 champ is highly unlikely to get the nod over any other 1-loss champ, but you can’t rule out CCG upsets.

    Click through if you’re dying to know thoughts four and five.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Pat Forde is a Mizzou grad who regularly disses the Big 12. On the other hand, he’s following herd mentality. Its the same herd that I thought was ridiculous when it wrote off the Big 10 after Ohio St. lost to Virginia Tech a couple years back early in the season.

      Now I doubt anybody in the Big 12 will win out, but if WVU or Baylor do, they will be in the playoff. If OU wins out, they have a chance with upsets elsewhere. Most likely everybody has at least one more loss. Good chance neither the Big 12 or Pac 12 is in the playoff this year.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I doubt anybody in the Big 12 will win out, but if WVU or Baylor do, they will be in the playoff.

        That’s hyperbole, as much as the original statement was. WVU and Baylor do not control their own destinies. If the favorites in the other conferences keep winning, it will be a replay of 2014, and the Big 12 will be left out.

        For them to have any chance at all, at least one conference must crown a 2-loss champ — and even then, the Big 12 champ won’t be a sure thing, as the other leagues’ winners will have at least one more quality win than the Mountaineers or Bears do.

        Both teams are hurt by the Big 12’s overall weakness this year. Baylor played its usual joke of a non-conference schedule. WVU is marginally better: at least they tried to schedule some serious non-conference opposition. Unfortunately for them, neither Missouri nor BYU is having a very good year, so WVU’s wins over them don’t look that impressive.

        If OU wins out, they have a chance with upsets elsewhere.

        OU needs a ton of help. Their loss to Houston isn’t looking as respectable as it once did, and Ohio State humiliated them at home. They’d probably need one of the other conferences to crown a 3-loss champ.

        Good chance neither the Big 12 or Pac 12 is in the playoff this year.

        I don’t know about a “good chance,” but the Pac 12 could be in trouble if the “right” upsets happen. Despite Washington’s gaudy 8–0 record, they played a weak non-conference schedule, and they have some tough games remaining. Every other Pac 12 contender has at least two losses, and a number of them lack quality non-conference wins.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Marc Shepherd,

      “Yahoo’s Pat Forde has Five thoughts ahead of first College Football Playoff rankings release.”

      Forde being wrong about something is like the sun rising in the east.

      “His “first thought” is that this could be the year that the committee chooses two teams from the same conference.”

      And that’ll be the first thought for all sportswriters until it happens because it’s so good for clicks.

      “But to get there, he relies on his “second thought,” that the committee should end its practice of favoring conference champions.”

      Which is a pointless “thought” since it’s written in black and white in the rules for the committee to follow. The committee can’t choose to ignore the mandate to value championships as a way to separate equivalent teams.

      “Even if you agree with that idea, they’re not going to change the rules in the middle of the season.”

      They’ll never change that rule because it was a demand from those like the B10 and P12 that wanted to make being not being a runner-up mandatory (champs and independents only).

      The commissioners partitioned the nation into five major conferences to maximize TV money. That doesn’t mean all five leagues were created equally, and it doesn’t mean the champions of those five deserve some exalted status over a superior team that happened to not win its league.

      1. The commissioners did no such thing. Conferences formed organically long, long ago and some of them became more significant than others based on who was in them. Over time other schools have chosen to join these power conferences when given the chance. Some conferences have merged, others have split, and all of this was determined by college presidents not conference commissioners.

      2. The rules don’t say that all champions have status above a superior team and I don’t think the committee has acted that way. They say that championship status should be a tiebreaker between similar teams and it has been. Of course, one factor in the quality of a team for many people is whether or not it won its conference because winning is hard.

      I would challenge him to name a clearly superior team that was left out of the playoffs so far. In 2014 OSU, Baylor and TCU were similar in quality during the season and all were technically champs (TCU would’ve lost the tiebreaker). In 2015 OSU, MSU and IA all seemed similar as well.

      “His “third thought” is that “the Big 12 is done as a 2016 playoff contender.” I certainly agree that the Big 12 champ is highly unlikely to get the nod over any other 1-loss champ, but you can’t rule out CCG upsets.”

      There is plenty of time for multiple conferences to end up with 2-loss or even 3-loss champions. 11-1 WV or 10-2 OU still have a shot. The ACC champ could be 11-2 VT. The B10 champ could be 11-2 WI. The P12 champ could be 11-2 or even 10-3 (WSU, CO, Utah). The SEC champ could be 11-2 or even 10-3 UF.

      I think there are 3 relevant questions:
      1. Does an 11-1 champ from the B12 would top an 11-2 champ from another P5 conference this year? Certainly it should top a 10-3 champ, right?

      2. Does an 11-1 B12 champ top an 11-1 runner-up from another conference (UL is highly ranked, for example)?

      3. Does a 10-2 B12 champ top an 11-1 runner-up from another conference?

      My guesses are:
      1. No, due to SOS.
      2. Yes, due to champ status unless the difference on the field is very obvious.
      3. Maybe for OU, but doubtful.

      Like

  75. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/is-the-college-football-playoff-process-too-taxing-and-is-the-committee-too-old/

    Is the CFP committee too old and is the job too taxing?

    The current committee ranges in age from 43 to 77. The average age is slightly more than 61. That’s about three years older than the also-powerful NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Committee, average age 58.5.

    “Overall, no, this committee is not too old overall,” said CFP executive director Bill Hancock, “The committee has gotten it right both years and that will happen again this year. These 12 people are highly respected, and they have a great perspective on the game.”

    Of course Hancock is also an older man, so his opinion may be a bit biased. I think age cuts both ways. The older folks probably are less emotional about things but are also more set in their opinions and less likely to consider new ways of evaluating teams (like advanced stats).

    The big difference is the basketball selection committee meets once a year, in March, to select its bracket. That is nothing compared to the six-week slog the CFP committee endures.

    The weekly travel, said one person associated with the process said, “absolutely killed me.”

    That should be no surprise. Former member Mike Tranghese traveled more than 1,700 miles weekly from his home near Providence, Rhode Island, to the CFP meetings in Dallas. Haden flew 1,400 miles each week for six straight weeks from Los Angeles.

    ” … My doctors advised me to reduce my traveling,” Haden said upon his departure from the committee.

    I’d think they could video-conference rather than meeting in person, especially for the November rankings which don’t actually matter. The technology is available and the CFP can afford it. Maybe just meet in person for the final vote.

    They could also stop doing it weekly. Every other week would be fine and give more time for things to change between rankings. If it was me, I’d do them the first week of October, the first week of November, the third week of November (I could skip this one), after Thanksgiving weekend and after the CCGs at most.

    “No, we do not believe [six weeks] is too much,” Hancock said. “In the planning stages three years ago, we did consider compiling rankings only one time. But we knew fans would enjoy this way much more than if we just dropped rankings on them after the conference championship games.”

    There’s a reason MBB doesn’t do this, though. Why set yourself up for complaints by how teams move up and down if you don’t need to? Just meet and discuss the teams so others can give you ideas of things and teams to focus on going forward, and save the actual voting for the final time. Maybe do a post-Thanksgiving vote just to run through the process once for everyone, but not every week in November.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      “No, we do not believe [six weeks] is too much,” Hancock said. “In the planning stages three years ago, we did consider compiling rankings only one time. But we knew fans would enjoy this way much more than if we just dropped rankings on them after the conference championship games.”

      For as long as he has been a public figure in college sports, I don’t remember Hancock ever saying anything except, “The status quo is exactly right,” until the moment when his bosses decided it wasn’t.

      There’s a reason MBB doesn’t do this, though. Why set yourself up for complaints by how teams move up and down if you don’t need to?

      Have they ever said that this was the reason why the MBB committee doesn’t release interim rankings? I am not aware that it was ever considered.

      In basketball, they pick 68 teams, but the lowest seed ever to win it all was #8, and that has only happened once (Villanova, 1985). If the only point of the tournament was to identify a champion, they could stop at 32, and be practically certain of omitting no one with a serious chance.

      The converse, is that if they started releasing interim rankings late in the season, almost all of the debate would be about lower-seeded teams that have no chance anyway. If Duke is in first place in the ACC, they’re not sweating it out as to whether they’re going to be a tourney team.

      I don’t know how to check this, but I doubt it’s very common that a team goes from “on the bubble” to national champion contender in the last month of the season. It can’t be common enough to justify having the committee re-seed 68 teams four or five extra times, just for show.

      In football, the situation is the opposite, because every team in the playoff has a very real chance of becoming the national champion, and at times the first couple of teams out would have had a significant chance too, if the field had been larger, or if the committee had weighed their resumes differently.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Have they ever said that this was the reason why the MBB committee doesn’t release interim rankings? I am not aware that it was ever considered.”

        No, it’s because it’s expensive and time-consuming and unnecessary. Only the final vote matters.

        “In football, the situation is the opposite, because every team in the playoff has a very real chance of becoming the national champion, and at times the first couple of teams out would have had a significant chance too, if the field had been larger, or if the committee had weighed their resumes differently.”

        But there’s is still no benefit to early rankings. Only the final one counts. Is ESPN so hard up for content that they demand these rankings?

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          “Have they ever said that this was the reason why the MBB committee doesn’t release interim rankings? I am not aware that it was ever considered.”

          No, it’s because it’s expensive and time-consuming and unnecessary. Only the final vote matters.

          But I don’t think there was ever a time when they considered it, and then demurred because it would “set [them] up for complaints by how teams move up and down.”

          But there’s is still no benefit to early rankings.

          By that line of reasoning, there was never a reason for the weekly AP or Coaches’ polls either, since only the final one determined who would be considered national champion (pre-BCS).

          The weekly BCS rankings should have been considered equally meaningless; although, unlike the playoff committee rankings, a bunch of people didn’t have to get into a room to figure it out.

          If the conferences had decided on a BCS-like system to determine the four playoff teams, rather than a committee, I’ve no doubt they would have continued to publish weekly rankings, and no one would have thought twice about it.

          The decision to use a committee obviously gave them pause, because there is obviously demand on people’s time that is totally unlike traditional polls. On the other hand, I think there would’ve been considerable uneasiness, if teams went into the final month of the season completely blind as to where they stood.

          That’s where the comparison to basketball comes in. In the final month of the basketball season, teams worried if they’ll make the tournament, are probably destined to be lower seeds with no serious chance of winning it. That is not the case in football.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “But I don’t think there was ever a time when they considered it, and then demurred because it would “set [them] up for complaints by how teams move up and down.””

            I never said that they did consider it. Only football would be dumb enough to do it. There’s also the difference that the NCAA runs the MBB tourney and they wouldn’t spend the money to vote 6 times when only the final vote matters.

            “By that line of reasoning, there was never a reason for the weekly AP or Coaches’ polls either, since only the final one determined who would be considered national champion (pre-BCS).”

            The AP and UPI polls were business decisions. The newspapers made more money due to having the weekly poll.

            “The weekly BCS rankings should have been considered equally meaningless; although, unlike the playoff committee rankings, a bunch of people didn’t have to get into a room to figure it out.”

            They were meaningless but it was the only way to find out what the computers thought. Fans like to know where they stand. But humans didn’t come under massive attack for their decisions and then having to explain why things changed later.

            “If the conferences had decided on a BCS-like system to determine the four playoff teams, rather than a committee, I’ve no doubt they would have continued to publish weekly rankings, and no one would have thought twice about it.”

            All the information was already public, so the BCS rankings just brought it together.

            “The decision to use a committee obviously gave them pause, because there is obviously demand on people’s time that is totally unlike traditional polls. On the other hand, I think there would’ve been considerable uneasiness, if teams went into the final month of the season completely blind as to where they stood.”

            They do it that way in all other college sports and it works just fine. It’s not like a team can do anything different because they know their ranking. You go out and try to win every game no matter what. You can’t change your schedule and you shouldn’t be able to try to win by more than points than you already are. Besides, there are plenty of other rankings out there to give you a decent idea of where you stand (AP, Coaches, all the old BCS computers, etc).

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            They do it that way in all other college sports and it works just fine.

            The difference is that, in those sports, the fields are much larger. Therefore, the teams in doubt about whether they will make the post-season, are almost surely destined to lose. Those with a serious chance aren’t sweating whether they’ll get picked.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “The difference is that, in those sports, the fields are much larger. Therefore, the teams in doubt about whether they will make the post-season, are almost surely destined to lose. Those with a serious chance aren’t sweating whether they’ll get picked.”

            So what? In what way is that relevant? Does anything change about the process based on the size of the field? Is there anything a team can do with the knowledge of early votes that they wouldn’t do without that knowledge? As I’ve pointed out, the polls and the computer rankings are always available to them anyway.

            The only purpose the CFP rankings serve is for the fans, and so far the result has been to undermine the process (see 2014 and TCU falling from 3 to 6) rather than help matters. It probably helps ESPN recoup some money but it’s bad for the sport.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Guys, this is the “entertainment” part of Entertainment and Sports Programing Network.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Guys, this is the “entertainment” part of Entertainment and Sports Programing Network.”

            I asked earlier if ESPN demanded these earlier rankings but nobody seems to know.

            Like

      • Lyle says:

        In 2011, UConn finished the Big East 9-9 and tied for 9th place. They were very much on the bubble and likely would have been left out of the big dance with an early conference tournament exit.
        Instead they won 5 games in 5 days to claim the Big East auto bid, then continued their run to the NCAA tourney title.

        Like

  76. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/baylor-public-safety-official-admits-significant-failure-over-sexual-assault-claims/

    The Baylor scandal will be featured on 60 Minutes Sports on Showtime this week.

    Senior vice president in charge of campus safety Reagan Ramsower spoke with Keteyian regarding the gang rape allegations against former Baylor players Tre’von Armsted and Shamychael Chatman in 2013. A Waco police report stated that Baylor was “contacted” about the incident but criminal charges were never filed against either player.

    Ramsower is described as a figure that often “clashed” with the Title IX office. In the report, he said the Baylor campus police (a group he oversees) had a history of burying sexual assault complaints.

    “There was a police report. I suppose it — stayed with the police department. It never came outta the police department,” Ramsower said of the allegations against Armstead and Chatman. “That was — that was a significant failure to respond by the police department. There’s no doubt about it.”

    ESPN’s Outside the Lines revealed in April that Baylor did not investigate the rape allegations against Armstead and Chatman for two years in one of a string of revelations that led to Briles’ dismissal in May.

    The 60 Minutes Sports segment includes interviews with Patty Crawford, Baylor’s first full-time Title IX coordinator who resigned claiming the school was standing in the way of her doing her job, Baylor’s interim president and four board of regents members. Additionally, a former Baylor coach tells Keteyian she is of the belief that she was forced to leave the school after reporting a number of sexual assault allegations to the athletic program.

    Like

  77. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/10/31/baylor-football-sexual-assault-art-briles-ken-starr-title-ix/93004402/

    A little more about Baylor.

    Following the release of the Pepper Hamilton report, Baylor’s faculty senate still had questions, so the university brought the firm’s attorneys back to campus in September. Asked how Baylor was doing in comparison to other schools’ handling of sexual assaults, a Pepper Hamilton attorney told the faculty that Baylor was severely behind the times, saying that while most schools were in the 1980s, Baylor was in the 1950s, according to Dwight Allman, an associate professor of political science and member of the faculty senate.

    Pepper Hamilton’s “findings of fact” reported that Baylor’s efforts to comply with Title IX were “slow, ad hoc and hindered by a lack of institutional support;” that the student conduct processes were “wholly inadequate” to respond under Title IX; that the university failed to “consistently support complainants” with interim measures; that the school in some cases “failed to take action to identify and eliminate a potential hostile environment.”

    In some cases, the report noted, administrators discouraged complainants from reporting.

    “I think we’ve been presented with enough of the findings to have a sense of the fact that we have a problem,” Allman told USA TODAY Sports in mid-October. “At the same time, I think the institutional response has been appropriate to what has been presented to us by Pepper Hamilton.”

    Crawford was hired as the school’s Title IX coordinator in November 2014, more than three years after the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a memo in part advising schools that they should have a coordinator.

    She resigned in early October, saying on CBS This Morning that Baylor officials undermined her efforts to investigate sexual assault complaints and that Baylor was more concerned with its brand than protecting students.

    “I think her accusations are unfair and also untrue,” said interim president David Garland told USA TODAY Sports.

    Seay, who served as a spokesperson for a petition this spring that drew attention to Baylor’s problems addressing sexual violence, is involved with a network of men and women who say they are aware of around 100 people who were allegedly assaulted at Baylor.

    Several of those reported their cases after Crawford was hired, Seay said, and it’s clear to her Baylor’s response had improved. But she believes what Crawford has said.

    It’s a long article with a lot more to say.

    Like

  78. Richard says:

    First CFP rankings out: http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings

    B10 and SEC take 10 of the top 13 slots (5 each).

    The Pac really needs Washington to win their conference to have a shot (I think the Huskies are definitely in if they end up undefeated).

    ACC needs a 1 or 0 loss Clemson/Louisville as conference champ.

    B12 needs help. Either Baylor or WVU have to win out (which I don’t see happening anyway) and they need a major upset or several in a CCG, most likely so that some conference crowns a 2-or-mre loss champ.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Barring some pretty big upsets, the 4 teams are very likely to be Clemson, Washington, and the winners of the SEC and B10.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        No real surprises in that sense. I wonder if any chaos will happen in November to muddy the picture.

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Barring some pretty big upsets, the 4 teams are very likely to be Clemson, Washington, and the winners of the SEC and B10.

        Washington ends with @Cal, USC, Arizona State, @Washington State. Football Outsiders has the Huskies’ win probabilities at 87%, 75%, 96%, and 86%. Those are highly likely wins individually, but the probability of them going 12–0 is only 54%.

        Clemson’s probability of going 12–0 is at 75%, and because of their superior schedule, they can probably absorb a loss (as long as it’s not in the CCG) and still make the playoff. I am not positive that 12–1 Washington gets in.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Marc Shepherd,

          “Washington ends with @Cal, USC, Arizona State, @Washington State. Football Outsiders has the Huskies’ win probabilities at 87%, 75%, 96%, and 86%. Those are highly likely wins individually, but the probability of them going 12–0 is only 54%.

          Clemson’s probability of going 12–0 is at 75%, and because of their superior schedule, they can probably absorb a loss (as long as it’s not in the CCG) and still make the playoff. I am not positive that 12–1 Washington gets in.”

          Let’s consider the likely scenarios:

          1. All chalk
          The ACC, B10 and SEC champs are in at 13-0 or 12-1. 12-1 UW would be compared to the B12 champ (11-1 or 10-2 most likely) and any 11-1 runners-up.

          Being a P5 champ would be a big advantage in that comparison. Any of the runners-up would have to be clearly superior to UW. UW’s resume would probably be better than the B12’s champ, too.

          2. Some upsets happen
          The bigger problem for UW might be if AL, Clemson or MI get upset and then are in that comparison as a runner up. Still, being a champ is a big edge.