wichita-state-mascot

Ever since the Big 12 decided to not propose to anyone after its Bachelor-esque expansion process back in the fall of last year, we have had one of the deadest periods in conference realignment news of any substance in this century. At least for the Power Five conferences, the world has entered into an era of stability. Until some combination of Texas, Oklahoma and/or Kansas decides that they no longer want to stay in the Big 12, it’s difficult to see much movement in the near future at the Power Five level.

However, the stability at the top has allowed for the non-power conferences to reassess their own long-term plans. The American Athletic Conference was the league that was most at risk in the Big 12 expansion process with Houston, Cincinnati and UConn being heavily discussed as potential invites. Now that the Big 12 has given the AAC a reprieve, the Group of Five league’s members know that they’re legitimately in this particular home for the long haul whether they like it or not. As a result, this is the first time since the AAC was formed in the wake of the collapse of the old Big East football conference that its member schools are truly looking at their respective futures within the AAC as opposed to outside of it.

Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of reports from various outlets that the AAC is interested in adding current Missouri Valley Conference school Wichita State as a non-football member*, culminating in a report from Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated from this past Saturday that the AAC and Wichita State are engaged in expansion talks with mutual interest.

(* A pet peeve of mine in conference realignment stories is when there’s a reference to “basketball-only” membership since it wrongly implies that a school is being added only for basketball. Instead, such school is being added for all sports for which the league sponsors except for football, which is why it is really a “non-football member.)

I’ll be honest: I have been a long-time skeptic of both the AAC wanting to add non-football members and Wichita State’s chances of escaping the MVC. On the AAC side, the divide between the old Big East’s football and non-football schools was a major factor in the eventual dissolution of that league and the memories of how the Catholic 7 (Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette and DePaul) split off to form the current Big East have still been fresh. From the Wichita State angle, they always seemed to be a classic fan favorite for expansion based on on-the-court performance but not a university president favorite with respect to academics and TV markets (similar to Boise State football). Interestingly, unlike most non-power conference schools, Wichita State actually didn’t have an issue with financial resources. When Shocker basketball coach Gregg Marshall was being courted by Alabama a couple of years ago, Charles Koch (most well-known with his brother David as the duo in charge of Koch Industries and arguably the most powerful and influential fundraisers for the Republican Party and conservative causes) spearheaded a group of boosters to make Marshall one of the 10 highest-paid coaches in the country. However, the stances of the AAC and MWC to not add non-football schools (at least up until apparently now) and the lack of institutional and geographic fits with the Big East, Atlantic 10 and West Coast Conference meant that the MVC was looking like Wichita State’s only realistic choice.

As a result, the AAC backing off of its stance against non-football members will end up being a Godsend for Wichita State assuming that this proposed expansion is finalized. Wichita State was going to have to start looking at initiating an FBS football program in order to find a different league… and even if they were to do that, it would have been no guarantee that they would have received an invite from the Sun Belt (much less the AAC or MWC). The fact that the Shockers are in position to be able to get into the AAC without needing to go through the extremely risky and expensive process of starting up an FBS football team is everything that the school could have possibly wished for outside of a non-football invite to a Power Five conference.

For the AAC’s part, the proposed addition of Wichita State indicates that football can no longer be the only conference realignment consideration for leagues that are outside of the Power Five world. The Group of Five leagues are earning less TV money with both football and basketball than the new Big East is with just basketball alone, which shows that a strong college basketball brand still has value in the marketplace compared to a weaker college football brand. Even if TV money isn’t taken into account, the Group of Five leagues are inherently going to be more reliant on revenue from NCAA Tournament credits (which rise when each conference member advances a round in the Big Dance) compared to the Power Five leagues since those basketball dollars are going to be a larger share for them compared to College Football Playoff dollars. Indeed, Thamel and others have pointed out that Wichita State won’t likely add much to the value of the AAC’s TV contract, but it can certainly drive a lot of conference revenue in the form of winning games in the NCAA Tournament (which earns additional credits).

So, several years after hybrid conferences were declared by the public at-large to be dead, it’s possible that those league formats could be making a comeback. The Mountain West Conference would certainly look better if it could add this year’s national runner-up Gonzaga, although the West Coast Conference is in a much stronger position to protect its membership due to the presence of BYU and the uniform institutional fit of all members being private schools in the West (similar to the Big East on the other side of the country). (Personally, I don’t believe that the WCC is poachable unless the Big East to decide to go waaaaaaay outside of its current geographic footprint.) In terms of the prospects for other recent NCAA Tournament darlings, Florida Gulf Coast has had the Shocker-esque problem of being a non-football school that’s a geographic outlier, but they could fit really well with Conference USA if that league were to entertain a hybrid membership again. Plus, FGCU is located in the Fort Myers-Naples market that is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country and a massive amount of wealth due to its significant snowbird population with little direct spectator sports competition.

Meanwhile, the single act of Wichita State leaving the MVC for the AAC can have a significant ripple effect throughout the non-football Division I conferences. When Creighton left for the new Big East in 2013, the MVC looked heavily at replenishing its membership with Illinois-Chicago (UIC) and Valparaiso from the Horizon League prior to settling upon Loyola University Chicago. My impression is that the MVC will look at both UIC and Valpo again since strengthening that league’s Chicago area presence is likely a top priority for that league’s presidents. While MVC fans might prefer to add better on-the-court options that might be located in smaller markets (such as Murray State, South Dakota State or North Dakota State), there’s a much bigger picture in play here: the MVC schools themselves cannot survive without as many tuition-paying students from the Chicago area specifically as possible. With public school budgets getting slashed and private university enrollments falling outside of the elite tier, the competition for tuition dollars is only getting tougher as the number of college students declines overall. Illinois has turned into the largest net exporter of students to out-of-state colleges of any state in the country. The three biggest beneficiaries of this net outflow from Illinois just happen to be the states of Iowa, Indiana and Missouri… which happen to form the MVC footprint along with Illinois itself. In essence, the Chicagoland area is to general student recruiting as the state of Texas is to football recruiting and the MVC schools need to keep growing their share of that pool. Therefore, the MVC gaining even a handful of extra impressions per year in the Chicago region by playing a school like UIC can be critical to, say, Drake and Evansville (much less in-state Illinois schools like Bradley, Illinois State and Southern Illinois). The MVC is going to be a one-bid league going forward if Wichita State leaves no matter who it can realistically add (e.g. adding A-10 schools such as St. Louis and Dayton is NOT realistic), so the leadership of that league is likely going to focus much more on off-the-court factors compared to on-the-court performance. That also means that it would be a bit surprising if the MVC decided to replace Wichita State with multiple schools to go up to 12 members (as keeping the membership total at 10 would maximize per school payouts of NCAA Tournament and other conference-level revenue).

If the MVC poaches from the Horizon League, that could put schools like IUPUI (from the Summit League) or Belmont (from the Ohio Valley Conference) in play as targets. It will be interesting to see just how much realignment will ultimately occur throughout the Division I ranks simply based on Wichita State being added as a non-football member to the AAC.

What impact does all of these potential moves have on the Power Five conferences? We’ll have more on that soon.

(Image from Business Insider)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Hawkeyes first in the Big Ten West.

    Like

  2. Mike says:

    Thanks for the new post!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. dreg33 says:

    Why was there never (to the best of my knowledge) an official B1G announcement with the speciific terms of the new television contract?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      dreg33,

      “Why was there never (to the best of my knowledge) an official B1G announcement with the speciific terms of the new television contract?”

      I’d guess it’s:

      1. The B10 is a private entity that likes to keep business details private. They won’t release the details because they don’t have to.

      and/or

      2. The final deal isn’t actually 100% completed yet. It doesn’t technically start until 7/1/17 so they may still be finalizing minute details. Remember, they have to get ESPN and Fox to agree on the details of how all the sharing and scheduling works, and tripartite negotiations go much slower.

      Like

  4. Would the benefits of adding a UIC outweigh the potential increase in UIC’s own ability to keep kids at home? UIC is a bit of a slumbering giant; a semi-respectable school with a med school and good facilities. If their athletics ever became even halfway decent they might see some real growth and stop some of those Chicago students from leaving the state.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      I just think even with improved athletics, continued gentrification, and higher ranked professional programs, UIC is not going to be a draw for many of those students who are more likely seeking a bucolic setting plus P5/G5 athletic atmosphere. It would be interesting to see if the increase in foreign student acceptance has had a ripple affect of “well-to-do suburban” Illinois students going to schools in neighboring states and further south (e.g. SEC, CUSA, AAC) – the well heeled out of state student serves the same function financially as a fully-sponsored foreign student.

      Like

      • I’ve long believed that a major issue in stemming the tide of students leaving the State of Illinois is that there is such a dramatic drop-off in academic reputation from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to the other in-state public schools (e.g. UIC, Illinois State, Northern Illinois, etc.). Indiana has both IU and Purdue and Iowa has both the University of Iowa and Iowa State despite being much smaller population states.

        Now, I do think someone that wants P5-type atmosphere isn’t going to find it at UIC. UIC’s peers are more along the lines of Temple as opposed to UCLA when it comes to urban public institutions. That being said, UIC’s location in the West Loop in Chicago is now turning out to be a major asset (as it has transformed from what was a down-trodden neighborhood 25 years ago into a highly gentrified area that is home to one of the best concentration of restaurants and art galleries in the country and is home to Google’s Chicago offices and will soon be the site of the world headquarters of McDonald’s). One big challenge that isn’t easily fixed is that the campus itself isn’t very aesthetically appealing with a predominance of 1960s-era Brutalist architecture (e.g. built during an age when everyone was obsessed with protection from nuclear war with the Soviet Union).

        Still, it would be great for the state of Illinois to have UIC to turn into the equivalent of say, UC-Irvine or UC-San Diego (if not UCLA). The research prowess is there and UIC is strong in STEM fields, in particular. (Note that I’ll admit that I’m biased since both of my parents went to and met at UIC while my father worked there for most of his career.) I only wish the best for UIC and it’s important for the state to have a second high quality public university option in any circumstance.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Isn’t part of the issue the number of quality private schools in IL of decent size (plus Notre Dame)? With NW, UChicago, DePaul, IIT, Bradley, etc, there are a lot of quality schools in IL that just happen to be private and are reasonably large. Outside of Notre Dame (and they are almost part of Chicago), IN and IA don’t have as much of that.

          Like

          • Wilson Roberts says:

            South Bend’s in the middle of the northern border on the Michigan/Indiana line. I, personally, have never thought of them as an Illinois school, but they do have number of alums in Chicago. Then again, so does Michigan, MSU, tOSU & Wisconsin.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            I think many think of ND as a Chicago school. About an hour drive and within the Chicago TV and radio markets.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Wilson Roberts,

            “South Bend’s in the middle of the northern border on the Michigan/Indiana line. I, personally, have never thought of them as an Illinois school, but they do have number of alums in Chicago. Then again, so does Michigan, MSU, tOSU & Wisconsin.”

            People in the area don’t think of them that way, but many ND students and alumni do if you talk to them. Especially people from out of the region. Only about 1/3 of ND students are midwesterners. Many from the east coast and elsewhere would rather be associated with Chicago than flyover country.

            Kevin,

            “I think many think of ND as a Chicago school. About an hour drive and within the Chicago TV and radio markets.”

            Exactly.

            Like

          • @Brian – Agreed. Notre Dame is definitely along with lines of a “Chicago school”, which is distinct from being an “Illinois school”. Chicagoland crosses state lines and has about as strong of a city/region identity as you can get, whereas Illinois overall has a fairly weak state identity. Very few people from the Chicago area would ever say that they’re from Illinois (at least as a first-line identifier): they’d virtually always say that they’re from Chicago as their primary identity.

            At the same time, ND specifically has always been treated as a home team in the Chicago media at the same level as or even more than Illinois, Northwestern or any other in-state school. Notre Dame is a “local school” for Chicagoans in a way that, say, Purdue and Wisconsin aren’t even though their campuses aren’t much farther from the city than South Bend.

            Like

          • Wilson Roberts says:

            Our debate seems to be more about what Alumni (including subway) like to be associated with vs. the condition that actually exists. There are more ND “bars” in Boston than Boston College and it’s not because BC fans are all at the game on Saturdays in the fall. In fact, there are more Michigan, Michigan St. & Wisconsin bars as well. That’s said, Boston is an ND city, thanks mainly to the preponderance of its very tribal Irish & Roman Catholic population — also due to the lack of any real college program outside of what BC was during Flutie or Harvard was a century ago. It’s a fairly obvious statement to say that there’s a desire to be closer to Chicago than Elkhart, Kalamazoo or (God forbid) Gary which lies directly between Chicago and South Bend. I’d like to say I live on the ocean and compared to someone living in Nebraska I practically do, but I still have to drive 20 minutes to get to a decent beach. Is Chicago more of an ND town than Boston? Absolutely, but short of Elon Musk building his first hyperloop from Chicago to South Bend, wishing and desire of alums and fans for proximity doesn’t make it so.

            Like

      • Agree with everything you said. My question though was whether accepting UIC into the MVC could inadvertently hurt the other MVC schools that desire more Chicago students by increasing UIC’s stature? In other words, would Drake and Missouri State be losing potential students to a more popular UIC? Or would just being associated with a quality Chicago school bring them more exposure and interest?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,

          “Agree with everything you said. My question though was whether accepting UIC into the MVC could inadvertently hurt the other MVC schools that desire more Chicago students by increasing UIC’s stature? In other words, would Drake and Missouri State be losing potential students to a more popular UIC? Or would just being associated with a quality Chicago school bring them more exposure and interest?”

          UIC is big enough that people in Chicago already know about it. I don’t think joining the MVC would have any significant impact on their student recruitment. There might be an impact on athletic recruitment (would a Chicagoland athlete prefer to stay local?) but I don’t think it’ll do much for regular students.

          Like

          • I don’t think it’s a matter of “knowing about” UIC, but more of a lesser version of the Flutie Effect. Right now UIC is a lousy athletic department in a conference that can’t even be described as mid-major. But if they were to join a mid-major conference and have some moderate level of success, that could entice more Chicago kids to stay home. I’m not talking about kids picking UIC over Iowa or Purdue or Missouri, but the kinds of kids that might prefer an Indiana State and MVC sports to a UIC and Horizon sports. I honestly don’t know the answer, that’s why I asked.

            Like

          • @singlewhitealcoholicseekssame – Let’s put it this way: there is such a high net outflow from Illinois as of now that UIC increasing its profile among in-state students can very easily happen simultaneously with other MVC schools increasing their own respective profiles in the state.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            singlewhitealcoholicseekssame,

            “But if they were to join a mid-major conference and have some moderate level of success, that could entice more Chicago kids to stay home. I’m not talking about kids picking UIC over Iowa or Purdue or Missouri, but the kinds of kids that might prefer an Indiana State and MVC sports to a UIC and Horizon sports.”

            I just don’t think that’s a major deciding factor for most students. I think concerns like being in Chicago versus not are much bigger factors. Many kids want to get away from home while others want to live in a big city for a while.

            “I honestly don’t know the answer, that’s why I asked.”

            I don’t either, I’m just giving my guesses.

            Like

          • For a look into the college choices for one Chicago area high school, here is the Class of 2015 college matriculation data for New Trier High School:

            http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/Administration/About/Documents/Profile_Class_of_2015/

            Note that New Trier is on Chicago’s North Shore and arguably the wealthiest and most elite open enrollment high school in the country (which is distinguished from selective admissions magnet and private schools). When the national news media (not just local) needs to write a story about a “wealthy public high school”, it often uses New Trier as a basis in the same way that there’s a disproportionate focus on Harvard in news stories about elite colleges. So, there’s going to be a bit of a skew in that this is a very high achieving and wealthy student body. On the other hand, it’s also a pretty good reflection of where students from the Chicago area choose to go when they have good grades and test scores and don’t have to worry much about financial aid. Plus, New Trier is such a large high school (over 4000 students) that it provides a substantial data set.

            Page 13 of the PDF file is pretty fascinating since it shows all of the colleges that matriculated more than 5 New Trier Class of 2015 graduates (along with comparing the matriculation of Class of 2014 graduates). It also shows the distribution of where those graduates attended depending on how many of the hardest-to-easiest level academic classes they took during their high school careers. Finally, there’s a breakdown of how many Class of 2015 grads matriculated in each of the Division I college conferences.

            Not surprisingly, the University of Illinois had the most grads (84), with Indiana (46), Michigan (38) and Northwestern (32) being the next 3 top destinations. Miami of Ohio (27) is actually next and just ahead of Iowa (23). UIC got 20 students… but so did the University of Colorado. The same number of students (9) went to Kansas and Arizona as they did to Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. None of the other in-state public universities are even listed, which meant they all matriculated fewer than 5 New Trier grads. Even taking into account that this is a wealthy school, that’s pretty shocking to me considering the names of some of the schools listed with at least 5 grads that are nowhere near the Midwest (e.g. Lewis & Clark College, Elon, Vermont). Regardless, this is some insight to the choices being made by a critical mass of students that have a lot of options both academically and financially.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “Miami of Ohio (27) is actually next and just ahead of Iowa (23).”
            That’s not surprising to me … MiamiU had a heavy Chicago contingent back in the 80’s, and I’ve gathered that it hasn’t changed much.

            Like

          • urbanleftbehind says:

            The popularity of Wisconsin versus Purdue within the greater Chicago area tends to be correlated to actual distance, where alumni settled and also dominant industry/employer. This means Wisconsin gets a lot of love North of I-88 and Purdue’s nation extends no further than mid-DuPage Count sweeping through the more affluent parts of Kane, Kendall, Will into Orland and the tied-into-“Region” South suburbs.

            Like

          • @urbanleftbehind – That’s very true. I went to high school in the Chicago South Suburbs (Homewood-Flossmoor) and we had a much larger contingent go my class end up at Purdue (along with Indiana and Iowa) compared to Wisconsin. Now, that was (gasp!) 20 years ago and I do think Wisconsin’s general academic and atmospheric reputation throughout the Chicago area and nationwide seems to have grown since that time. New Trier’s large Michigan contingent is on the very high end for Chicago area schools. While Michigan is still a popular out-of-state option for Illinois students, its sky high out-of-state tuition cost has pushed a lot of students that would have gone to Ann Arbor in my generation looking for that quintessential college town experience over to Wisconsin today. I see that where I live now in Naperville (where it’s essentially equidistant geographically between Wisconsin, Purdue and Iowa).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The report says 272 students went to B10 schools and that all 14 schools had at least 1. There were 8 B10 schools with at least 5 students that combined for 261 students, leaving 11 students to spread over the rest (NE, PU, OSU, PSU, RU, UMD).

            It’s a reminder how relatively weak the connection is between Chicago and OSU. OSU has 9400 alumni in DC/NoVA, 9100 in NYC, 7900 in eastern TX (Dallas, Austin, Houston) and 6800 in Los Angeles compared to 8600 in Chicago. For whatever reason, OSU alumni don’t go to Chicago.

            Like

          • @Brian – I do find that to be a bit strange with Ohio State being such a massive high profile Big Ten school. It’s not as if though Chicago area students don’t like heading to Ohio itself as evidenced by the large number of kids going to Miami of Ohio and even tiny Kenyon and Denison. If I were running Ohio State’s admissions office, I’d be investing quite a bit in trying to get more Chicago area students since there’s no real logical reason why they’re going to a place like Mizzou in large numbers but not OSU (where Columbia is actually farther from Chicago than Columbus). That would be a ton of low-hanging fruit for out-of-state tuition-paying students with solid academic credentials.

            Like

          • urbanleftbehind says:

            To Frank’s point, I did feel a bit of a pioneer when I decided to go to tOSU for my grad program 22 years ago. That was when it was all Michigan and ND plus IU, Iowa, MSU (north side Trixie-land) and Wiscy/Purdue depending on where you were in the suburbs. Columbus was an hour closer to where I lived (SE Side of Chicago) than the bulk of area residents. My cousins went to H.S. with Mike Tomczak, I think a large wall poster he gave to one of them piqued my interest to the point I started following their football.

            At the time, their undergrads were either content to stay in Ohio (this was the era of “The Flats”) or go directly to Sun Belt areas. The interest in the east coast and Chicago started at the turn of the current century. As far as Chicago-area students not being interested, OSU lacked the academic cache of UM/UW/IU/IA and also was known to have a bad bureaucracy and was too crowded a campus (both factors led many undergrads to stay a minumum 5 years or even more).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “@Brian – I do find that to be a bit strange with Ohio State being such a massive high profile Big Ten school. It’s not as if though Chicago area students don’t like heading to Ohio itself as evidenced by the large number of kids going to Miami of Ohio and even tiny Kenyon and Denison. If I were running Ohio State’s admissions office, I’d be investing quite a bit in trying to get more Chicago area students since there’s no real logical reason why they’re going to a place like Mizzou in large numbers but not OSU (where Columbia is actually farther from Chicago than Columbus). That would be a ton of low-hanging fruit for out-of-state tuition-paying students with solid academic credentials.”

            http://enrollmentservices.osu.edu/report.pdf

            Some OSU stats (class of 2016):
            Ohio students – 5311 (67%)
            Other US – 1726 (22%)
            Foreign – 848 (11%)

            Top US states after OH:
            1. IL
            2. NY
            3. PA
            4. CA
            5. NJ
            6. MI
            7. MD
            8. FL
            9. VA
            10. TX
            11. IN

            So OSU does get a decent number of IL students, but almost as many from NY or PA. If you’ll note, OSU seems to get a lot more interest from the east (NY, PA, NJ, MD, VA all in top 10) than the west or south. The sources of students may be changing as OSU’s reputation improves, so maybe the number from IL is rising.

            It may be that students from Chicago are less interested in attending school in a city of 2M people. They may want either a major metropolis (Chicago, NYC, LA) or a smaller town for a change of pace.

            Like

  5. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    With Navy being a football-only member of the AAC, it makes perfect sense to add a non-football member for scheduling purposes as well.

    Joining the AAC may also help Wichita State revive its once proud baseball program. Gene Stephenson was one of the giants of the game. He coached the Shockers for 35 years, winning one CWS title, finishing as runner-up three times (twice to my LSU Tigers in 91 & 93), and making seven CWS appearances between 82 and 96.

    Like

  6. urbanleftbehind says:

    Alan, I expressed the same sentiment about Wichita’s baseball program at the end of the previous posting, noting that it can go into a number of the AAC’s markets for talent as well.

    Like

  7. Stuart says:

    The problem the Horizon has in replacing Illinois-Chicago is that no schools in the footprint match the investment level or fan support of the league. IUPUI, Omaha, UMKC are all woefully underfunded and have minimal support. The league has not much to offer the Dakota schools. Belmont turned down the MVC, as did Denver, and it’s hard to see them prefer the Horizon. Other schools have football considerations, which even at FCS levels can complicate things (SF Austin, Murray, NMSU)

    I don’t see a fit at this time where the interest would be mutual. I think they are going to sit on 9 for awhile until somebody emerges, or they get raided of a couple more schools, forcing them to lower their standards simply to survive – but I don’t see that threat at this time.

    Bottom line, realignment will likely stop at Wichita State to the American, Illinois-Chicago to the MVC.

    Like

  8. NJRedman says:

    Can you go over to Holy Land of Hoops and tell these guys adding Gonzaga isn’t just an easy sure fire thing?

    BTW adding WSU as a 12th member to offset Navy is a very smart move. Long Beach State would be a great 12th school in the MWC to balance Hawaii FB.

    Like

  9. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19086433/penn-state-trustee-al-lord-quits-election-sandusky-comments

    Al Lord, the PSU trustee who was running for re-election by alumni has dropped out of the race after his comments about Sandusky’s victims became public. He claims it’s unrelated to his comments, but the election is coming up and he just dropped out.

    A Penn State University trustee who told a publication he was “running out of sympathy” for people he described as “so-called victims” of Jerry Sandusky said Wednesday he is no longer seeking a second term on the board.

    Lord, elected in 2014, has been part of a group of nine alumni-elected trustees who have clashed with other board members about how the university has responded to the scandal involving Sandusky, the school’s retired defensive football coach now in prison on a child molestation conviction.

    “I’ll continue to work with you guys,” Lord told other alumni candidates. “I’m just not sitting through any more of those meetings.”

    He released a statement several days ago to the Daily Collegian, the Penn State student newspaper, apologizing for “any pain the comment may have caused actual victims.”

    Anthony Lubrano, a fellow alumni-elected trustee and Lord ally, said Lord told him the decision not to seek another term was not related to his comments to the Chronicle.

    “Of course I’m disappointed,” said Lubrano, who deferred comment on Lord’s comments regarding Sandusky victims. “Al was the most cerebral member of the board. He’ll be missed.”

    It’s unclear whether Lord’s name will appear on board election ballots that will start going out Monday. A university spokeswoman said Wednesday that vendors will have to be alerted soon to change the ballots. The election runs through May 4.

    Lord was a strong supporter of Spanier and attended his trial. He told the Chronicle he wondered why Sandusky victims “were so prominent in trial.”

    Only one Sandusky victim testified at Spanier’s trial, a young man who said he had been abused in a team shower by Sandusky after the 2001 shower incident that Spanier and other top administrators handled.

    Two of Spanier’s former lieutenants, former university vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, struck plea deals on the eve of their trials to misdemeanor child endangerment and testified for the prosecution.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19095168/top-penn-state-board-members-ira-lubert-mark-dambly-urge-trustee-al-lord-quit

      The chair and vice-chair of the PSU BoT want Lord to resign over his comments.

      Chairman Ira Lubert and vice chairman Mark Dambly called trustee Al Lord’s comments offensive and embarrassing to the board majority, the university community and sexual assault victims.

      “We strongly condemn them,” Lubert and Dambly said in a statement sent to reporters by the university’s office of strategic communications. “Members of this board must hold themselves to a higher standard and represent our university with respect for all.”

      “Once again, we have a group of trustees stomping on our freedom of speech rights,” said alumni-elected trustee Anthony Lubrano, a Lord ally. “Al Lord made a comment that was very personal, well within his right. And I think Al should stay on the board until the conclusion of his term.”

      Like

  10. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/130860/diving-into-the-2017-fpi-projections

    ESPN put out FPI projections for every game this season.

    Favorites to win the conference:
    B12 – OU 77%
    B10 – OSU 69%
    ACC – FSU 49%
    SEC – AL 47%
    P12 – USC 34%

    B10 details:
    East – OSU 83%
    West – WI 82%
    CCG – OSU vs WI 68%

    Major OOC games:
    2. AL vs 4. FSU (Atlanta) – AL 55%
    3. OU at 1. OSU – OSU 73%

    OSU has 33% chance to go 13-0. Nobody else is above 10%.

    Chances the champ has 0 or 1 loss:
    B10 – 80%
    SEC – 47%
    ACC – 41%
    B12 – 39%
    P12 – 32%

    Like

  11. Carl says:

    Sanderson likes to have fun.

    Like

  12. vp19 says:

    Maryland is losing its national freshman women’s player of the year. Guard Destiny Slocum is transferring, probably to a school closer to her native Idaho. It’s rumored her mother is suffering from cancer. The Terps might be susceptible in the B1G next season.

    Like

  13. Wilson Roberts says:

    Go Blue!

    Like

  14. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  15. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I’m curious how the AAC decided to pursue Wichita State over Dayton and/or VCU. Either of those would have made a lot of sense, too.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Dayton was probably blocked by the Cincinnati Bearcats (Dayton might also be forever “blocked” by Xavier from the BE). VCU likely does not have the large $ benefactor that WSU does, though it provides a market link between Greenville NC and Philly.

      Like

      • @urbanleftbehind – I actually believe that it’s much more about the lack of interest from Dayton and VCU toward the AAC compared to the other way around. Note that the A-10 has unequal revenue sharing for NCAA Tournament credits where individual schools that make the Tourney receive 70% of the credits that they earn directly (with 30% going to the conference). This is a significant financial benefit for schools like Dayton and VCU that are regularly making it to the Big Dance. The upshot is that the AAC wouldn’t really raise revenue for Dayton and VCU in the way that it would clearly raise revenue for Wichita State compared to the MVC (which has equal revenue sharing for NCAA credits). The only non-P5 league that Dayton, VCU or schools like SLU would leave for is the Big East. Now, a school like UMass would love to get an AAC invite, but that’s more about getting a viable home for their FBS football program as opposed to basketball interests.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      “I’m curious how the AAC decided to pursue Wichita State over Dayton and/or VCU. Either of those would have made a lot of sense, too.”

      1. Were they interested in the AAC? I honestly don’t know if either would be interested. I also don’t know that they wouldn’t be.

      2. UC wouldn’t want Dayton in the AAC. Too much market overlap anyway.

      3. VCU only joined the A10 in 2012. They may not want to move again so soon.

      4. As I mentioned on Frank’s previous post, Wichita State adds a 6th western team so they could use an E/W split for scheduling or even have 2 game road trips (F/Su). 16 games would give you 5 home and homes in division plus 6 crossover games.

      West – SMU/UH, Tulane/Memphis, Tulsa/Wichita State
      East – UCF/USF, UConn/Temple, UC/ECU

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        “16 games would give you 5 home and homes in division plus 6 crossover games.

        West – SMU/UH, Tulane/Memphis, Tulsa/Wichita State
        East – UCF/USF, UConn/Temple, UC/ECU”
        … and 18 games would give you a divisional round robin and 8 crossover games, so 2 crossovers can be Home and Away.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Yes, obviously. Or they could play 2 more OOC games if that makes more financial sense for them. The point was to reduce travel by playing the closer schools more.

          If they add Dayton instead, it’s hard to make the split since UC and Dayton are such an obvious pair. If they add VCU then UC would have to move west and pair with Tulsa which is not particularly helpful either.

          Like

  16. Rick says:

    Go Big Red

    Like

  17. bullet says:

    The P5 has done their bit. Its time for the trickle down effect. Although there would have been more if the Big 12 had expanded. This wouldn’t have happened if the AAC schools had performed better in basketball. But they have a need.

    Like

  18. vp19 says:

    Haven’t heard much of late about Connecticut bolting the American to return to the Big East in sports other than football. Has that fallen through?

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Edsall probably connvinced the admin he could pull it off again. Also, the WSU add both strengthened their basketball SOS by 1 (or more) game. WSU would also been a midwestern public partner add to the BE alongside UConn.

      Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      UConn would have to abandon football, or very significantly downgrade football to join the Big East. There is obviously no way that any G5 league would take UConn football, without bball. Certainly UConn has zero chance of leaving football in the AAC and moving basketball to the BE. (I am ignoring all other sports, since they just follow football and basketball)

      There is just nowhere for UConn football to land, if they moved bball to a non-football league.

      The Big East has already been through the basketball/football divide. Personally, I doubt that the BE would ever take any school that has more than D2 football. They would know that any G5 type football school would always be hoping for a P5 invite.

      So, what does UConn do? Give up on all dreams of joining a P5 conference and ditch football? Hang in there with the AAC, try to build up football, and hope for an invite? They have pretty much committed to the latter.

      There is still some hope that the Big 12 will expand after all and take UConn. Of course, the favorite sentiment in Connecticut is still that the ACC will eventually realize the error of its ways and invite the Huskies/

      The addition of Wichita State will help AAC bball, so that gives UConn some comfort. The Connecticut newspapers have been very supportive of this move.

      Of course, the financial squeeze on UConn sports continues. It is a tough situation. I believe that if the day comes (in a few years) when there is another round of P5 movement and UConn is still left on the outside, they may have to reconsider the future of UConn football.

      Like

      • Nathan says:

        “So, what does UConn do? Give up on all dreams of joining a P5 conference and ditch football? Hang in there with the AAC, try to build up football, and hope for an invite? They have pretty much committed to the latter.”

        When the BigXII implodes next decade they’ll probably be in consideration for whatever conference rises out of the ashes with the BigXII schools that didn’t get a golden ticket to a P4 conference.

        The problem is that assumes that no other AAC team grows in potential over the next few years. UConn will still be at a detriment due to their location. I don’t see the K-States, Iowa Stats and the Texas Left Behinds wanting to travel up to Connecticut any time soon if they could help it. They better hope they’re better in football and basketball than the AAC Florida and Carolina schools.

        Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          I dont see that happening either, with regard to football, I could see a MAC split into 2 separate conferences by east and west, where UCONN with UMASS join with Miami-OH, Ohio U, Buffalo, perhaps Delaware, Marshall, ODU . The “west” would be NIU, Ball, WMU with the Dakotas perhaps Illinois State (who had been hoping to take NIUs spot had NIU been selected for AAC filler following another AAC’s promotion to the big 12).

          If UCONN is headed to the BE minus its football, it probably needs a midwestern public partner willing to downgrade/never had football. Oakland U in suburban Detroit. and Cleveland State, might be the only schools that fits this bill and dont overlap an existing BE school (e.g. Milwaukee, UNO, UIC, NKU, IUPUI). Memphis might actually be closer than farther in this regard, given its once-in-blue-moon football prowess.

          Like

        • David Brown says:

          I could easily see Connecticut giving up football due to economics. One school I see really benefiting from the Wichita State move is Kansas. I know the AAC is not the B10, but a real question is how much is a premiere hoops program worth (especially when KU is in the AAC)? I suspect quite a bit and when the the Land Grant ends, it will be the Jayhawks (along with Texas), getting the B10 berth, while the Oklahoma Schools( OU & OSU), getting the SEC. The other Schools will get picked up by the AAC and Mountain West. As for the Huskies? Maybe a slot in the Big East or MAC might be their best option, because not only will they be poor at football, but their best asset ( women’s basketball) will not be so great when that Coach retires.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      vp19,

      “Haven’t heard much of late about Connecticut bolting the American to return to the Big East in sports other than football. Has that fallen through?”

      I haven’t heard anything since mid-February. Both sides denied it at the time, too. The problem, of course, is football. UConn has several potential options there if the partners agree:

      1. Stay in AAC
      2. Be football-only in AAC (would AAC say yes?)
      3. Be football only in MAC (maybe with UMass to make 14 teams – would MAC say yes?)
      4. Be independent in football
      5. Drop to I-AA
      6. Drop football

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        1. Only realistic option.
        2. Zero chance that the AAC agrees.
        3. I doubt that the MAC would say yes. What does UConn football do for the MAC? I also question whether the Big East would agree, though going from the MAC to a P5 does not seem likely. This might be less threatening to the BE.
        4. This has been discussed and rejected as unrealistic by Uconn. As an independent, UConn probably could not even put together a schedule.
        5. This might work for the Big East, but UConn is not ready to give up P5 ambitions.
        6. See number 5.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          I wouldn’t put it past the MAC to say yes to that … the eastern division schools in particular would like the Eastern Exposure with a game in New England every season, it would allow Bowling Green and Toledo to be in the same division, eliminating the locked cross over game, and the 2H/2A games with both UConn and UMass would be appealing for MAC Basketball. Basically, similar to why they wanted Temple and were willing to promote UMass to get Temple/UMass. Those reasons disappear or are much weaker with only UMass (or only UConn), so they’d likely insist on the same “if one goes, the other one can go all-in or all-out after four years” clause as they had with Temple and UConn.

          It’s not a lead pipe cinch, but there would still be the same reasons for the strategy to appeal, to the eastern schools in particular.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Jersey Bernie,

          “1. Only realistic option.”

          It’s certainly the easiest and the most likely.

          “2. Zero chance that the AAC agrees.”

          Probably, but the AAC would want 12 schools in both football and MBB. If UConn leaves, who replaces them? Is there a viable new member better than UConn?

          I-A options in the AAC East footprint:
          Army – shows no interest in a conference
          Buffalo
          Marshall

          Less than 7 years in I-A:
          UMass – good geographic replacement
          ODU
          App State
          Charlotte
          GA State
          GA Southern

          The AAC would at least have to think about it.

          “3. I doubt that the MAC would say yes. What does UConn football do for the MAC? I also question whether the Big East would agree, though going from the MAC to a P5 does not seem likely. This might be less threatening to the BE.”

          It provides east coast access for recruiting students in the future. That’s important for schools based in the Great Lakes states. There’s a reason the MAC was willing to add UMass and Temple. Yes, it would require UConn to basically admit that their football will never go P5.

          “4. This has been discussed and rejected as unrealistic by Uconn. As an independent, UConn probably could not even put together a schedule.”

          Opinions can change with time. If hoops suffers too much, it might force UConn to reconsider some options they’ve rejected previously. UMass manages to make a schedule, so UConn could.

          “5. This might work for the Big East, but UConn is not ready to give up P5 ambitions.”

          Not yet, but it’s still an option no matter how unlikely at the moment. Budget issues could always make it more realistic in the future.

          “6. See number 5.”

          It’s almost unthinkable, but it is an option.

          Like

        • Stewart Levine says:

          I have to say I am surprised there hasn’t been any further rumblings for the Big East to go back to 12 – there are several other like schools (i.e., urban Catholic schools without 1-A football in the northeast or midwest) that would fit the existing profile including: Holy Cross, St. Louis, Detroit, Duquesne, Loyola (Md). Has the Big East decided that 10 is enough?

          Like

  19. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/missouri-valley-conference-needs-to-fill-voids-left-by-wichita-state-and-creighton/

    CBS suggests replacements for Wichita State.

    1. St. Louis (A10 and wants east cost access, so unlikely)
    2. Valpo (Horizon – lateral move?)
    3. Murray St (Ohio Valley founding member)
    4. Belmont (Ohio Valley)

    Like

  20. Nathan says:

    It took me a while to notice the gesture the Shocker mascot is making with his fingers. Well played Shocker, and well played Frank

    Like

  21. loki_the_bubba says:

    Another spot in the pecking order that Rice could at least aspire to is now gone. Another of the thousand cuts that are killing us.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      It is a shame about Rice. They were the biggest loser when the South west Conference ended, and they are still being neglected today. Look at the various issues at Baylor yet they are still in a Power 5 Conference, and even SMU that got the Death Penalty ended up better then the Owls?

      Like

  22. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/19131827/maryland-president-wallace-loh-says-expect-death-penalty-north-carolina-tar-heels-athletics

    UMD president Wallace Loh had some strong words about UNC’s athletic/academic scandal.

    “As president, I sit over a number of dormant volcanoes,” Loh said during a University of Maryland senate meeting Thursday, according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “One of them is an athletic scandal. It blows up, it blows up the university, its reputation, it blows up the president.

    “For the things that happened in North Carolina, it’s abysmal. I would think that this would lead to the implementation of the death penalty by the NCAA. But I’m not in charge of that.”

    UNC responded by claiming Loh has no direct knowledge of the case, but I think years of press coverage and multiple NOAs mean there’s a good chance Loh and other presidents are well aware of what happened at UNC. As he said, it’s a president’s worst nightmare and something all the presidents must have followed to some degree.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      SI: What’s the challenge of being the sixth conference in a world where there are, at least for now, five so-called power conferences?

      MA: Everybody felt that our conference was going to have a certain undercurrent of instability. That’s an accurate statement to the extent that in the early days it did, and through this whole Big 12 process, no question. But if some schools left, we’d still have a great nucleus, a great core, and now we’re aspiring to be a [Power 6]. That’s the key. We’ve beaten [Power 5 programs] in football. We have 19 wins in two years. We have 32 games of over a million viewers on ESPN platforms. That’s remarkable. Last year alone, we had a Tulsa-Ohio State game that had four million viewers, and we had a UCF-Michigan game that had two million viewers. Our championship game one year out-rated the Pac-12 championship game. And now the question is, if there’s stability in the landscape, which it looks like there is, we’ve got to try to be a P-6.

      And that’s where Wichita comes into play. My feeling was if we weren’t holding up our end of the bargain in basketball, it would be harder to claim that we were a P-6 conference.

      I think [a Power 6] is attainable. I really do. I think these schools have resources. We’ll get a better TV deal. That’s going to be key. In a few years, we’re going to be negotiating. We’ve got the ’17–’18, ’18–’19 and ’19–’20 seasons left to go, but we’ll negotiate well before that. I think our guys have done more with less already.

      He’s kidding himself if he really believes that. They are nowhere near making it a Power 6. Yes, they may get a better TV deal. But they are so far behind the P5 financially it’s laughable to think that the new deal will matter that much.

      As for touting the viewers of their games, get back to me with numbers for AAC conference games. People didn’t tune into those two games to watch Tulsa and UCF.

      2016 data:
      The AACCG pulled 2.0M. The lowest of the P5 CCGs (ACC) pulled 5.3M. The CUSACG pulled 1.0M and the MACCG pulled 1.4M. The AAC is closer to the rest of the G5 than they are to the P5.

      As for MBB, they are also well behind. They’ve averaged 3 bids over the past 4 seasons. That’s behind what a P5 conference should have. They are in line with the top mid-majors, nothing more.

      Average # of NCAA bids over the past 4 years (I didn’t check any other conferences):
      ACC – 7.0
      B10, B12 – 6.75
      Big East – 5.5
      P12 – 5.25
      SEC – 4.0
      A10 – 3.75
      AAC – 3.0

      Even if adding Wichita State gets them up to 4 per year, only the SEC is that weak among P5 conferences.

      Like

  23. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/04/11/friday-night-games-schedule-big-ten

    An SI writer wrongly claims that Friday night CFB is a good thing for the B10 and everyone else.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I don’t see a ton of improvement. I’m sure they’ll sell some new gear but then I think everything will go back to status quo. I just don’t think most people care that much about any but the best logos. I’m glad they kept the Old English “R” as to me that was the only symbol I associate with Rice anyway.

      I think the “new, clean and sharp” fonts and images are fine but will look out of date in a few years and need to be replaced yet again. Lots of schools go through those cycles for no real gain that I can see.

      I’m not convinced the owl actually looks like an owl in the full bird image but I suppose some owls may look like that. To me an owl has a larger body. The image looks more like a raptor of some sort to me.

      I think in the wordmark I would’ve tried to make the notches in the “R” and “O” be shaped like the owl’s beak or else have those serifs be owl wings (or something else) to subtly tie in the imagery to the words.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Did kind of look like a raptor or a small owl. Most of us are used to seeing owls sitting and staring. I guess the key is how recruits like the uniforms. They are an update. I did like the old English R.

        Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        It only has the slightest indication of the owl’s body (the white coming down off the neck), and the body is not in profile, so it doesn’t really have to indicate the body size … but it looks about right for a barn owl. A snow owl’s body would look bigger, but (1) Rice is a bit far south to have a snow owl as a mascot and (2) much of that is fluffier down for insulation.

        Like

  24. ccrider55 says:

    I withdraw my long term hope that the long play would be UVA and UNC to the B1G.

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.sportingnews.com/amp/ncaa-basketball/news/north-carolina-hb2-acc-championships-ncaa-boycott-unc-nc-state/rqtmr53jqdub12gtili3pwdei

    Kinda like one of the objections to UT. You have to deal with the state, not just the school.

    Like

    • Wilson Roberts says:

      “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” – Maya Angelou

      Many schools on the surface that look like great conference “fits”, and are otherwise outstanding institutions, are not, in reality, compatible with every conference. Every institution going to a new conference has hold-outs who think it’s a mistake, but I think most of the B1G feels Nebraska was a very compatible pickup. UMD may take a little longer to feel at home in the B1G, but that should eventually feel comfortable as well. Culturally, the B1G has always seemed far more palatable to fans in the Central time zone than it ever was to the those in the Southeast.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      So are they going to pull UNC and NCSU out of the NCAA too? I’m sure the NAIA would welcome them with open arms.

      I doubt this bill becomes a law, but states have passed dumber laws before.

      Serious question:
      If the state ever did force UNC and NCSU out of the ACC for this reason, would any other P5 conference add them? Obviously the P12 wouldn’t and the ACC couldn’t. They’d bring lots of value to the SEC or B10, but would those conferences tolerate a state sticking their nose in like that? I think they might be tempted to stand united with the ACC and try to force the state to back down. The B12 might be the most receptive due to their size and wanting WV to have some closer schools, but even then the solidarity among these conferences can be strong when their power is threatened.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        As a follow-up, what would happen to the ACC? Would Duke stay or follow UNC elsewhere? What about UVA? Would WF be kept with all their in-state foes gone?

        With Tobacco Road gone, would the ACC crumble or just split into North and South divisions and backfill as needed (UConn, WV, etc)?

        North – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, UConn?, WV?

        Either based on who is around – VT, UVA?, Duke?, WF?

        South – Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson

        Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/19142531/under-new-bill-north-carolina-nc-state-required-withdraw-acc-conference-boycotts-state

      They have proposed House Bill 728, filed Tuesday, which states any public state school in a conference that boycotts North Carolina would be barred from “extending any grant of media rights to the conference” and “shall immediately provide written notice to the conference that the constituent institution intends to withdraw from the conference no later than when the assignment of its media rights expire, unless the conference immediately ends the boycott.”

      So the state would respect the current GoR. Does that mean they really are unbreakable or does it mean they haven’t bothered to look into the details? What if the boycott ends before the GoR does? Do the schools still leave? Is there a penalty fee for saying you are leaving even if you end up staying?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/north-carolina-nc-state-pulled-from-acc-hb2-southeastern-conference-big-ten/1wljrcokaza5a1ftfg939xw2mv

      Sporting News’s take on what would happen to UNC, NCSU and the ACC if they were forced out of the ACC.

      North Carolina lawmakers just can’t stop themselves from introducing inane bills that could potentially hurt their largest insitutions.

      Fresh off a stinging public rebuke from pretty much everyone over the state’s controversial bathroom bill, N.C. lawmakers this week introduced another bill that, if passed, would pull North Carolina and N.C. State from the ACC if the conference removed events from the state, like it did in the wake of HB2.

      First off — that’s not going to happen. The bill is nothing more than a display put on by a group of lawmakers whose pride and public image has taken a serious beating in recent months.

      Why won’t it pass? Because both schools stand to lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars if it does.

      The bill, HB728, prohibits the schools from extending grant of media rights to the ACC — which the conference has already extended into the 2030s — and requires them to put aside money gained from those rights to use in conference termination fees. The ACC divvied out $26.2 million per school from TV revenue in the 2014-15 fiscal year, more than any other conference beside the Southeastern Conference and Big Ten. Losing out on at least that much money on an annual basis should stop the bill in its tracks.

      UNC by far has the most to gain should it get pulled from the ACC. The question now facing the Tar Heels is this: Do we want to play in the SEC or Big Ten?

      The Tar Heels certainly have enough power, money and prestige to go the independent route, but the money involved in joining another Power 5 conference should be too much for UNC to seriously consider it: Both the SEC ($32.7 million) and Big Ten ($32.4 million) divvied out, on average, over $6 million more per school than the ACC in the 2014-15 fiscal year.

      The case for joining the SEC

      [see the article to read the case for the SEC]

      The case for joining the Big Ten

      [see the article to read the case for the B10]

      Assuming N.C. State does not partner with UNC to form some sort of package deal, the most likely move for the Wolfpack is to make the jump to the AAC, since it simply doesn’t have the same pull as its North Carolina sibling to court interest from the likes of the Big Ten or SEC.

      What Happens to the ACC?

      The conference won’t need to realign either, considering North Carolina and N.C. State are permanent cross-division rivals.

      The immediate concern for the conference, however, will be to keep other conferences from poaching its remaining schools. Assuming the SEC or Big Ten secures UNC (but not N.C. State), it leaves open the possibility for those conferences to seek another ACC team order to maintain the conference’s split-division format.

      The most enticing option would likely be Georgia Tech. Atlanta is in the middle of SEC country, and bringing on the Yellow Jackets would renew several old rivalries in the conference. Atlanta’s media market is massive (ranked ninth by Nielsen), making it a huge draw for the Big Ten, even if the school wouldn’t fit geographically with its other members.

      Other schools the ACC would need to protect include Virginia, Clemson and Florida State, all of which would provide untapped media markets and competitive football/basketball teams.

      I don’t see Clemson or FSU at stake if the B10 and/or SEC are taking ACC schools (the B12 would take them, though). GT is only in play for the B10. UVA would be intriguing to both of them.

      I also think UNC and NCSU would be forced to be a pair by the state in this scenario, or at least they would both have to find equivalent homes (one in B10, one in SEC would be okay from NC’s point of view) and play each other annually.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/04/12/north-carolina-nc-state-leave-acc-boycott-championships-house-bill-728/100382142/

      Some more details.

      It calls on the two public schools in the league to “immediately” notify the conference it “intends to withdraw” if another boycott is launched and the school would be barred from re-joining the ACC for five years after the boycott ends. The bill does not impact Duke and Wake Forest, both private schools from the state in the ACC.

      So if they’re still in the ACC waiting for the GoR to expire and five years pass after the boycott, apparently they wouldn’t need to leave.

      Like

  25. jog267 says:

    Good for NC. Legislation like that is long overdue. Congress should threaten their tax exempt status, too.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      jog267,

      “Good for NC.”

      You’re welcome to believe that. I think you’ll find the majority opinion is different but that doesn’t make you wrong.

      “Legislation like that is long overdue.”

      It is? Based on what? When should it have been passed? The HB2 only passed just over a year ago. Was there some other issue before that that should have prompted this sort of legislation?

      “Congress should threaten their tax exempt status, too.”

      On what basis? Conferences shouldn’t have the right to determine where their championships are held without losing tax exempt status? Yeah, good luck with that. There is no reasonable tie between this sort of decision by the ACC and their tax exempt status.

      Like

      • jog267 says:

        This is political theatre by the NCAA and ACC,” U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson said in a statement. “If these multi-million dollar, tax-exempt organizations were interested in social change and not making a political statement, they would proceed with their marquee events in North Carolina and enact any transgender bathroom policy they wanted. This blatant political move — less than two months before the election — brings into question their tax-exempt status. This is an avenue we intend to explore.”

        Indeed. Thus legislation (and regulations) which ensure that conferences and the NCAA mind their place in the world is long overdue.

        The NCAA and ACC are tax exempt entities which exist for a purpose; that purpose is not to attempt to influence legislation or engage in political activity at any time of any kind for any reason. They should mind their own business rather than bully states or public institutions (Chief Illiniwek; the Fighting Sioux, etc.) to conform to the social mores of a cloistered and unrepresentative leadership class. The Catholic Church cannot legally do this, and taxpayer supported institutions don’t constitute a majority of its members.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          jog267,

          “”This is political theatre by the NCAA and ACC,” U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson said in a statement.”

          “If these multi-million dollar, tax-exempt organizations were interested in social change and not making a political statement, they would proceed with their marquee events in North Carolina and enact any transgender bathroom policy they wanted. This blatant political move — less than two months before the election — brings into question their tax-exempt status. This is an avenue we intend to explore.””

          Speaking of political theater. He can explore all he wants. He’ll find no legal basis for removing their TE status. As for effecting social change, all these boycotts did get NC to change their law.

          Good luck to the congressmen and senators from NC in stripping the TE status of the ACC against the wishes of those from MA, NY, PA, KY, VA, SC, GA and FL let alone all the other states with P5 schools.

          “Indeed. Thus legislation (and regulations) which ensure that conferences and the NCAA mind their place in the world is long overdue.”

          And what exactly is “their place” in the world? They are made up of voluntary members. They felt compelled to implement boycotts because the NC law violated fundamental principle the ACC and NCAA hold dear.

          “The NCAA and ACC are tax exempt entities which exist for a purpose; that purpose is not to attempt to influence legislation or engage in political activity at any time of any kind for any reason.”

          Any TE entity is free to attempt to influence legislation or politics within the bounds of the law.

          “They should mind their own business rather than bully states or public institutions (Chief Illiniwek; the Fighting Sioux, etc.) to conform to the social mores of a cloistered and unrepresentative leadership class.”

          They consider non-discrimination against their fans and athletes their business. Schools are welcome to leave if they don’t like it.

          “The Catholic Church cannot legally do this,”

          Bull. They influence legislation all the time. Open your eyes.

          “and taxpayer supported institutions don’t constitute a majority of its members.”

          So? The ACC is an entity all by itself. The makeup of its members isn’t actually relevant to its TE status.

          Like

          • jog267 says:

            Publicly funded universities should reflect and promote the social values (to the extent they promote social values at all) of those funding them; the organizations to which they belong should not be bullying taxpayers to change or alter their laws or values. Period.

            The NCAA and ACC may be legally entitled to behave as they do; but they reflect the values of their leadership which are often at odds with taxpayers who fund their member institutions. They are, in effect, using public resources to promote their own agenda.

            This is what I meant by minding their place. Congress and the state legislatures can change the law regarding tax exempt status – and other matters if that is necessary – to put them in their place.

            Two thirds of ACC members are public institutions; all are in states with GOP controlled legislatures. Should these legislatures decide that the institutions funded by their constituents must, say, eliminate race from consideration for university admission, permit open carry on campus, or any implement any other conservative policy, is the ACC the proper entity to force this change on the 5 private schools? Membership is voluntary…

            (I don’t support such policies, by the way.)

            This would, of course, be wholly inappropriate. But that was my point. Neither the ACC and NCAA has any semblance what is appropriate, seem incapable of modesty or self restraint, and are thoroughly disdainful of citizens in general and taxpayers in particular.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            jog267,

            “Publicly funded universities should reflect and promote the social values (to the extent they promote social values at all) of those funding them;”

            Who, exactly, determines what those values are? Why should they be bound to what they feel are incorrect values just because people in the state still hold them? By this line of thought, every public university in the south would’ve stayed segregated until fairly recently (and some still would be). Tyranny of the majority is something the US tries to prevent.

            “the organizations to which they belong should not be bullying taxpayers to change or alter their laws or values. Period.”

            The organizations in question didn’t say anything to taxpayers. They told the state government that their law was unacceptable to that organization. And a whole bunch of other groups told NC the same thing (NBA, NFL, individuals, etc), so it’s not like the ACC and NCAA were out on a limb.

            “The NCAA and ACC may be legally entitled to behave as they do;”

            There is no “may be” about it. They acted 100% legally.

            “but they reflect the values of their leadership which are often at odds with taxpayers who fund their member institutions.”

            Are they? Or are there just a lot of vocal complainers who like bad laws? And let’s be honest, NC taxpayers probably provide 15% or less of the funding for UNC and NCSU and none at all for the NCAA and ACC. The rest of the ACC and NCAA owe nothing to NC taxpayers.

            “They are, in effect, using public resources to promote their own agenda.”

            No, they aren’t. The membership dues are trivial.

            “This is what I meant by minding their place. Congress and the state legislatures can change the law regarding tax exempt status – and other matters if that is necessary – to put them in their place.”

            Why would they punish their own schools? Other states aren’t going to go along with such an idiotic decision. The instant they lose TE status, they also lose almost all of their donations since they can’t be written off. It’s very hard to write laws that pick out one group and will hold up to judicial scrutiny. Do you think the other conferences would let that happen nationally? Do you think the other conferences with NC schools would?

            “Two thirds of ACC members are public institutions;”

            So? Not all states think alike.

            “all are in states with GOP controlled legislatures.”

            That’s nice, but they still aren’t all the same. There are lots of red states that think NC’s law is stupid.

            “Should these legislatures decide that the institutions funded by their constituents must, say, eliminate race from consideration for university admission, permit open carry on campus, or any implement any other conservative policy, is the ACC the proper entity to force this change on the 5 private schools?”

            Nobody would force those changes on them.

            “(I don’t support such policies, by the way.)”

            Of course you don’t. Just the laws that discriminate how God intended. Would you like separate facilities for colored people back too? After all, the majority wanted those laws for a long time.

            “Neither the ACC and NCAA has any semblance what is appropriate,”

            Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean they lack a sense of what is appropriate.

            “seem incapable of modesty or self restraint,”

            Yes, they just boycott non-stop. There must have been 2 or 3 in the past 100 years. What radicals.

            “and are thoroughly disdainful of citizens in general and taxpayers in particular.”

            Citizens and taxpayers as groups aren’t their concern. The well-being of the student-athletes and their fans are.

            Like

  26. Brian says:

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/tom-hermans-texas-longhorns-will-least-well-hydrated.html

    Tom Herman has urine color charts over all the urinals at UT. Good for him in stressing proper hydration. Way too many coaches used to focus on toughness by not taking taking water breaks in the old days. I’m glad to see a coach putting player health and safety first and selling it as being a good teammate.

    Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/oral-roberts-prevented-coach-recruiting-players-tattoos.html

    The new president at Oral Roberts seems to be a real jerk.

    Oral Roberts used to be one of the nation’s better mid-major programs. Hired in 1999, a 28-year-old Scott Sutton led the Golden Eagles to 11 straight winning seasons before the program completely tanked the last two years, finishing 8-22 and dead last in the Summit League this season. So the school fired him, and you think you can understand why, right?

    Now we have a better idea as to why the program has struggled recently, and it’s not Sutton’s fault.

    Starting in 2013, new Oral Roberts president Billy Wilson told Sutton he could only sign players without tattoos, and new recruits would have to pass a “faith exam” as well, according to reports from the Tulsa World and local CBS affiliate KOTV.

    In general, it’s become clear the administration at Oral Roberts treated Sutton like crap. According to the KOTV report, Wilson sought any reason to fire Sutton, which suggests his recruiting rules may have been more about creating a losing program to make Sutton look bad than to actually stick to the school’s evangelist tradition. The report also says Wilson told Sutton to fire his brother Sean Sutton, an assistant at Oral Roberts since 2011, not only to hire a new assistant, but to hire a new head-coach-in-waiting. In other words, Wilson wanted Sutton to hire his eventual replacement in place of his brother, who was also the top assistant on his staff.

    It’s no coincidence that Sutton’s teams hit a bit drop-off once Wilson became president. The Golden Eagles went 58-70 since 2013 after winning 20-plus games in seven of the previous nine years.

    If those evangelist values are really the main values at your school, go ahead and stick with them. But don’t expect a winning product on the court if those values are the priority. And don’t fire a coach with a winning track record simply for doing as he was told.

    As it already stands, morale on campus has dipped, according to Ben Johnson of the Tulsa World. On top of that, this week’s news could have a larger negative impact on the university with advertisers wavering on their commitments.

    I wonder if all students also have to pass a faith exam and can’t have tattoos. If so, more power to ORU. If not, this is just the president being an ass. If you just don’t like the coach, you can fire him. Why try to manufacture a reason this way? It sounds like a little karmic retribution with the advertisers getting antsy, though.

    Like

    • bob sykes says:

      For an committed religious school like Oral Roberts, tests of religious belief, bans on tatoos (also banned in OT), etc., are reasonable. Students, faculty and staff freely chose that environment.

      They also ban alcohol, social dancing and profanity:

      http://handbook.oru.edu/section-2/behavior-and-conduct-regulations/

      Until the 60’s, colleges and universities had all sorts of behavior regulations. As someone who lived through the turmoil of the period, it is not clear that the elimination of those rules was a net good.

      It is not obvious that what happened at ORU is a bad thing. The pervasive corruption in college athletics everywhere is a really bad thing.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bob sykes,

        “For an committed religious school like Oral Roberts, tests of religious belief, bans on tatoos (also banned in OT), etc., are reasonable.”

        Yes, as long as they apply to everyone. That’s what I said above.

        “They also ban alcohol, social dancing and profanity:

        http://handbook.oru.edu/section-2/behavior-and-conduct-regulations/

        There is no mention of tattoos in that code of behavior. Nor do I see any details about a faith test. ORU seeks to maintain a Christian environment, but that covers a wide range of denominations (Greek Orthodox to Catholic to Baptist to LDS). Many of those people would answer differently to questions about their faith. ORU requires chapel attendance but doesn’t specify beliefs in detail. Imposing these restrictions just for the MBB team seems peculiar.

        “Until the 60’s, colleges and universities had all sorts of behavior regulations. As someone who lived through the turmoil of the period, it is not clear that the elimination of those rules was a net good.”

        Regulating behavior is quite different from imposing a faith test for only certain students. Similarly, they could require players to cover tattoos while on the court and in classes.

        “It is not obvious that what happened at ORU is a bad thing.”

        Making a coach fire his brother rather than having the AD do it? Then forcing him to hire a coach-in-waiting to replace his brother? Telling him he’s fired by text? Restricting his recruiting then firing him for not winning enough? All of that seems bad to me. If you want him out, just fire him and do it face to face.

        “The pervasive corruption in college athletics everywhere is a really bad thing.”

        Yes, but I don’t see any evidence of corruption here.

        Like

        • Bob sykes says:

          We disagree less than you think. I merely think that as long as everyone knows up front what they are getting into a college’s behavior rules are not an issue. That is not to say I would want my children at such a school.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I have no issue with them having extreme rules. I do have a problem with them only applying to the MBB team as a method of firing the coach. That and how the coach was treated are the parts that make the president seem to be a jerk.

            Like

  28. BruceMcF says:

    Buffalo is dropping four sports ~ on the men’s side soccer, swimming & diving, and baseball, accompanied by rowing on the women’s side ~ citing lack of resources in the Athletic Department, dropping them down to FBS minimum 16.

    There will be some form of subsidy-sport realignment resulting from this, as MAC soccer has five full time members and WVU to make the minimum six for the autobid. The minimum impact would be one of the affiliate members of a midwestern non-FB conferences that sponsor men’s soccer as one of their require three men’s team sports … either Eastern Illinois in the Summit or Southern Illinois – Edwardsville in the MVC … where realignment could halt there, as both are presently at seven members. Bigger impact would be the MAC dropping soccer or inviting an affiliate that would push another conference below six, like Howard University in Sunbelt soccer.

    Like

  29. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/04/13/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-ncaa-amateurism-lawsuits

    SI examines the impact Neil Gorsuch could have on NCAA athletics via cases on amateurism reaching the SC.

    Like

  30. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19157689/ncaa-division-council-passes-proposal-overhauling-college-football-recruiting-rules

    The NCAA has finally approved a major overhaul of recruiting rules as a package.

    The legislation revamps early official visits, places limits on hiring individuals associated with recruits and affects three other key areas of the football recruiting process. It also allows for a 10th full-time assistant coach, which will become effective on Jan. 9.

    With the proposal’s passage, prospects will be allowed to take official visits, paid for by the school, from April 1 of their junior year through the Sunday before the last Wednesday in June. Before the change, official visits were not allowed before Sept. 1 of a prospect’s senior year. The change in the recruiting calendar becomes effective Aug. 1 and will first affect the 2019 recruiting class.

    The early visits are designed to work in tandem with an early signing period, which was not part of the agenda this week in Indianapolis. Conference commissioners, who administer the national letter of intent, are expected to vote on a proposed mid-December early signing period at their meetings in June.

    Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who chairs the Division I Football Oversight Committee, said he expects the vote on a early signing period to pass.

    “We have every expectation that the December date would be approved at the June meeting of the Collegiate Commissioners Association,” Bowlsby said. “But I would be remiss if I didn’t say we’re going to continue to take a very close look at early signing dates. We know that approximately 70 percent of college football prospects make their decisions prior to the middle of the football season of their senior year. Those young people need to have an option available to them to terminate the recruitment process earlier than December.”

    Also part of the new legislation are strict rules that mirror what is used in college basketball for individuals associated with prospects, or IAWP. The IAWP rules are designed to prevent schools from hiring anyone associated with a prospect for noncoaching positions.

    For example, the high school coach of a prospect is not allowed to take a paid or volunteer job as an analyst or strength coach at the college recruiting that coach’s prospect. An IAWP is permitted to take a job at the same college only as a full-time, on-field coach.

    Penalties for violating the IAWP rules range from permanent ineligibility of the players involved to the suspension of a head coach or assistant. The IAWP rules are effective immediately and retroactive to include contracts signed on or after Jan. 18, 2017.

    Another important piece of the proposal reduces when coaches can conduct camps from two 15-day periods in June or July to 10 days in June. It also requires camps to take place on campus or at facilities used primarily for practice or competition by member schools.

    This rule is effective immediately

    Also bundled in the proposal is the limitation of annual scholarships to 25. This is a move to do away with oversigning and to reduce the practice of grayshirting, a tactic by which schools delay the enrollment of a prospect until the following January so his signing would technically count as part of the next class.

    The legislation limits to 25 the number of prospects whose aid is initially offered in the fall term of an academic year. Before, rules limited to 25 the number of prospects allowed to sign from Dec. 1 through May 31. This portion of the changes will affect newcomers in the 2018 signing class.

    The new rules also create an expanded summer dead period for the entire month of August and from Monday before the last Wednesday of June through July 24. This allows coaches to take a break from the recruiting trail, spend more time with their family and focus on the start of fall camp in August. This portion of the legislation doesn’t become effective until Aug. 1 and will affect the class of 2019.

    In the run up to the vote, many have been describing this package as the most sweeping reforms to recruiting ever. I don’t actually think there will be a huge change. I like adding a 10th coach, allowing spring official visits (good for northern schools) and not allowing schools to hire people just to get a recruit. It’s great for coaches to limit the period when camps can be held and expand the summer dead period so coaches can take true vacations. It’s good for the recruits to be left alone more too. I’m not sure how much the oversigning limitation will really change things. Schools are good at finding loopholes. I think a simpler rule like a cap of 25 new players on scholarship in any one year would be more effective, but maybe not.

    Like

  31. urbanleftbehind says:

    Nebraska’s in something called the NCAA Women’s Bowling championship. Playing McKendree (IL) College. Not bad environs and the uniforms help.

    Like

  32. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/04/17/college-athletes-pay-purdue-big-ten-ncaa/100553590/

    Former Purdue AD Morgan Burke says trying to give athletes more benefits would come at the expense of donations.

    Recently retired Purdue athletics director Morgan Burke has an answer for those who believe athletes in the most prominent college sports should receive greater benefits than those currently allowed under NCAA rules, including benefits other than cash:

    No, not only do athletes get enough now, there also are people involved in the college sports world – specifically donors – who think athletes get too many benefits.

    “In his opinion, student-athletes already are provided with everything that they need to be successful, which he described as the goal of financial aid to student-athletes. He said that ‘we’ [referring to schools] want to provide a level of support and services based on the time demands of participating in intercollegiate athletics and being a student that meets what student-athletes need to be successful academically and athletically.

    “MB believes that there is ‘already some tension’ where the question of giving more to student-athletes is concerned. He said that some schools ‘are creeping back into that.’ ”

    The notes next say that Burke discussed the John Purdue Club, the athletics department’s fundraising arm.

    “ … MB said that one can already see what the effect of changing the current model of student-athletics would be on this group. If the model were changed to a more professionalized version, the members of the John Purdue Club would cut back in their giving and their level of interest in intercollegiate sports. ‘They see how much we’re getting from our media contracts and that the university is taking a cut,’ MB said. They ask him, ‘why are you asking us? You’ve got money.’

    “Member [sic] of the John Purdue Club would not like the money going into athletes’ pockets beyond the cost of their attendance at Purdue. Some donors already are concerned about the level of services Purdue provides its student-athletes. MB and his colleagues have to explain why the services are appropriate. He believes that if he didn’t have those conversations, donors might act unilaterally and reduce the amount of money they give.”

    Like

  33. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/19187949/baylor-hires-first-female-president-amidst-sex-assault-scandal

    Baylor has hired a woman as their new president. I hope she works hard on changing the culture and is successful.

    Like

  34. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/19201974/martin-jarmond-hired-boston-college-eagles-athletic-director

    BC has hired OSU’s deputy AD to become their new AD. Martin Jarmond in only 37, so he becomes the youngest P5 AD. He’s also black, boosting the number of minority ADs. Perhaps he’ll be OSU’s choice to replace Gene Smith when he retires.

    Like

  35. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/19198313/indiana-hoosiers-bans-athletes-history-sexual-violence

    IU has banned athletes with a history of sexual or domestic violence from now on.

    According to the Indianapolis Star, the policy bans “any prospective student-athlete — whether a transfer student, incoming freshman, or other status — who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony involving sexual violence.” Considered under “sexual violence” are domestic violence, rape and sexual assault.

    I hope all schools follow suit.

    Like

  36. Brian says:

    Two ESPN bloggers make the case for their conference having the best roster of coaches in the nation.

    B10 case:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/142170/best-roster-of-coaches-in-america-its-in-the-big-ten

    1. Meyer
    2. Harbaugh
    3. Franklin
    4. Dantonio

    Others of note: Chryst, Fitzgerald, Ferentz
    Too soon to tell, but respected: Riley, Smith
    Exciting young bloods: Brohm, Fleck, Ash, Durkin
    Other: Allen

    ACC case:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/99186/whos-got-better-coaches-than-the-acc-nooobody

    1. Fisher
    2. Swinney
    3. Petrino

    Others of note: Cutcliffe, Richt, Fedora, Johnson, Fuente

    Like

  37. Brian says:

    http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Bolt/Why-is-there-no-spring-high-school-football-in-Ohio-52389358

    A reminder that Ohio (and most of the north) doesn’t play spring football while much of the south and west does. This makes a significant difference in player development.

    http://usatodayhss.com/2012/rules-about-spring-high-school-football-vary-nationwide

    This article discusses the vast differences in rules from state to state on this.

    Vermont schools are allowed five days of spring practice while Florida schools get 20, for instance. In California, the rules even differ between the California Interscholastic Federation’s 10 sections.

    In all, 16 states allow full-fledged, full-pad spring practices.

    Alabama is one of them. The state’s athletic association gives teams four weeks to hold up to 10 practices and play in a spring game against another school. After putting his team through a winter and early-spring conditioning program that doesn’t count against its spring allotment, Niblett uses spring practice to simulate what the team will experience come fall.

    Hal Wasson, coach at defending Class 5A Division I Texas state champion Carroll (Southlake, Texas), uses spring ball to find the identity of his team, develop the team’s depth and build mental toughness.

    Wasson, who like Niblett puts his team through a grueling winter and early-spring conditioning program before spring practice begins, typically uses 14 of the state-allotted 18 practices. His team wraps up the spring with an intrasquad game, which he says typically draws almost 4,000 fans.

    In Connecticut, schools have the option of conducting 10 days of practice toward the end of the school year or adding four days to the start of practice in August.

    The choice is easy for Connecticut High School Coaches Association president Steve Filippone, also coach at defending Class L state champion Daniel Hand (Madison, Conn.).

    “We believe wholeheartedly that the spring is the best time of year to stress fundamentals and injury mitigation,” he said. “If you’re trying to teach kids the proper technique to tackle and block while you’re trying to get ready for a game, you’re not going to put as much emphasis on it.”

    The biggest argument against spring practice is that it discourages athletes from playing multiple sports. South Carolina grants teams 21 days of spring practice – 10 in pads – but pushes it back until the end of the spring season so athletes aren’t forced to choose.

    Utah takes it a step further by prohibiting spring practice.

    “We want kids who play baseball or run track to not feel like they’re getting left behind because they look out the window and see the football team working out,” said Kevin Dustin, assistant director of the Utah High School Activities Association.

    There’s no easy answer since weather forces spring sports to start later in the north. Perhaps northern states could fit in a few practices early in spring before the weather is conducive to other sports and/or a few late in the school year.

    Like

  38. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/michigan-state-lineman-auston-robertson-charged-with-sexual-misconduct/

    MSU DL Auston Robertson has been charged with 3rd degree sexual assault (max = 15 years). This is a separate incident from the one still under investigation involving 3 players and a coach getting suspended. Unfortunately for MSU, Robertson has a history of bad behavior.

    In January 2016, he was arrested for misdemeanor battery for allegedly touching a female classmate inappropriately while at Wayne High School in October 2015. After entering into a diversionary program, the charges were cleared last month. Robertson did not sign with Michigan State until after he entered the diversionary program.

    You have to think the victim is going to try to sue MSU and/or the AD and/or Dantonio and/or anyone she can blame for letting Robertson into MSU with that history and insufficient supervision. Stories like this are why IN’s new policy is so wise.

    Like

  39. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19210781/southeastern-conference-commissioner-greg-sankey-denies-request-removed-unc-infractions-panel

    We have a timeline for the UNC case.

    Sankey’s letter also details a new timetable of completion for the oft-delayed case. UNC must respond to the latest charges by May 16. The NCAA enforcement staff then has until July 17 for its own response. Sankey wrote that his panel will hear the case in August with “anticipated” dates of Aug. 16 and 17.

    Rulings typically come weeks to months later.

    So this may be over (except the inevitable appeals) by the end of the year.

    Like

  40. Brian says:

    For the first time, it looks like a traditional B10 team will win a share of the conference title in MLAX. So far only UMD (1.5) and JHU (0.5) have won even a share of the title. With an OT win yesterday, OSU now has the tiebreaker over UMD and JHU with only 1 conference match left for each team and all at 3-1 in B10 play. OSU needs to beat 1-2 RU to clinch a share of the title. JHU and UMD face each other in their final match, so there will likely be a split title again.

    The B10 is a strong conference this year with 4 teams in the top 10 of the latest committee rankings:
    2. UMD
    5. OSU
    6. JHU
    7. PSU

    It should be a great B10 tournament and a decent shot at a national title for somebody from the B10.

    Like

  41. ccrider55 says:

    Meanwhile out west, a bit of a shake up.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/24/college-hotline-on-pac12nets-president-lydia-murphy-stephans-stepping-down-and-whats-next-for-the-networks/

    As usual, I have disagreements with some of Wilner’s assumptions and conflations. But it is covering a change that may (or may not) be significant.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I think he makes some interesting points:

      Murphy-Stephans also made some shrewd talent hires — too bad she couldn’t keep Neuheisel! — and proved an able champion of Pac-12 Olympic sports.

      And lest anyone forget: Exposure for those sports was a crucial selling point for the conference chancellors and presidents … a higher priority, in fact, than turning a substantial profit.

      In that regard, I’d argue that Murphy-Stephans’ successor must have two qualities above all:

      1) He/she must have a deep understanding of, and passion for, the Pac-12 campuses, and 2) He/she must be a champion not of the Olympic sports but of the money makers.

      It was all well and good for the Pac12Nets primary decision-makers — Murphy-Stephans, a speed skater, and Scott, a tennis player — to have backgrounds in, and inclinations for, the Olympics sports.

      But not anymore.

      As the next wave of Tier I deals and potential realignment builds on the horizon, the Pac-12 must have someone in charge of the Networks who views the world first-and-foremost through the lens of football/basketball lens.

      I can’t speak to the culture in the P12N and won’t try to. But I do think it’s important to remind people that exposure for the non-revenue sports was a key component to getting conference networks as far as the presidents are concerned. That means you can’t just look at everything from a financial perspective.

      That leads to the dichotomy of Wilner saying the next person must shift the focus to CFB/MBB. Have the presidents suddenly changed their minds? If not, then someone with a non-revenue focus might be the right match for what the presidents want from the P12N. You don’t have to be oblivious to the financial picture to support non-revenue sports.

      I agree a CFB/MBB focus would be more likely to get P12N carriage on DirecTV, but I’m not sure anyone can make it worthwhile to DirecTV at the price the P12N is demanding. I just don’t know that the demand is there for it.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I pretty much agree. However, how could they focus more on FB/MBB? They already broadcast every home FB game not taken by T1 contract, and most if not all BB. Plus multiple replays. More talking head/coaches shows?

        How exactly does T1 future negotiations relate to the network? Maybe I’m wrong, but 100% ownership to me seems to give flexibility that a partnership with an entity across the negotiating table would compromise.

        It’s not a financial bonanza but seems to serve the presidents and chancellors intent. P12N does make money (and has from the start), just not as much as BTN. SECN, ACCN, LHN are espn owned properties so I’m not including them in a conf net comparison. If the 2010 P16 had occurred (or occurs?) I’d bet the comparison to BTN would be much closer, as would T1 deals, too.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “However, how could they focus more on FB/MBB?”

          I’ve never watched the P12N, let alone looked at their programming schedule.

          “They already broadcast every home FB game not taken by T1 contract, and most if not all BB. Plus multiple replays. More talking head/coaches shows?”

          Possibly. I believe the P12N spend more time on non-revenue sports than the other conference networks, but maybe that’s just a function of them having the regional P12Ns too. Maybe he means things like scheduling (when games are played, which teams are in them, avoiding short weeks or long travel after late games, etc). Or leveraging games to get the P12N better distribution or higher fees.

          Just for a quick comparison, look at today’s TV listings:
          BTN – about 15 hours of football
          P12N – about 15 hours of non-revenue sports
          5 hours of P-12 Sports Report (4.5 hrs straight), 2 baseball games, a softball game, women’s water polo, WBB PotY show

          “How exactly does T1 future negotiations relate to the network?”

          It’s another outlet to show games, so it’s certainly relevant. If it had broader coverage maybe they could potentially put more games on it or have more leverage for scheduling the T1 games?

          “Maybe I’m wrong, but 100% ownership to me seems to give flexibility that a partnership with an entity across the negotiating table would compromise.”

          The split ownership models have worked pretty well so far.

          “It’s not a financial bonanza but seems to serve the presidents and chancellors intent.”

          Mostly, but even they have expressed some concerns about the financial gap to the B10 and SEC. If the gap gets too large, they may feel compelled to make changes to close it.

          “P12N does make money (and has from the start), just not as much as BTN. SECN, ACCN, LHN are espn owned properties so I’m not including them in a conf net comparison. If the 2010 P16 had occurred (or occurs?) I’d bet the comparison to BTN would be much closer, as would T1 deals, too.”

          Sure, but it didn’t and people still want to see the large media markets out west capitalized on to full advantage.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “It’s another outlet to show games, so it’s certainly relevant.”

            All games are shown now. Conf net gets primarily games not selected by T1

            “If it had broader coverage maybe they could potentially put more games on it or have more leverage for scheduling the T1 games?”

            Are you suggesting the conf net is competing as a T1 bidder? In the future, perhaps. But not currently, and not as a competitor to a partner. At P12N’s formation I was scoffed at when I suggested 100% ownership offered the possibility of independence from the “middle men.” Now it’s a viable proposition, just lacking a level of carriage for now?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “All games are shown now. Conf net gets primarily games not selected by T1”

            It doesn’t have to be that way. The SECN got some major games its first year to force carriage deals.

            “Are you suggesting the conf net is competing as a T1 bidder? In the future, perhaps. But not currently, and not as a competitor to a partner. At P12N’s formation I was scoffed at when I suggested 100% ownership offered the possibility of independence from the “middle men.” Now it’s a viable proposition, just lacking a level of carriage for now?”

            Remember, you’re asking me to explain what someone else meant by an offhand comment. I’m just throwing out possible explanations.

            The only real value to 100% ownership is that they have an asset they can sell while still having control over the network.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “It doesn’t have to be that way. The SECN got some major games its first year to force carriage deals.”

            As does the P12 in the T1 picking order of games that includes a few first and several second picks.

            “The only real value to 100% ownership is that they have an asset they can sell while still having control over the network.”

            Not just control. Ownership – of an entity that is probably in excess of $1B valuation. I think some underestimate the intrinsic value of ownership. tOSU isn’t selling off parts/half/all of the Horseshoe. Same at Mich and the Big House.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “The only real value to 100% ownership is that they have an asset they can sell while still having control over the network.”

            “Not just control.”

            Control is key. The B10 and SEC sold parts of their networks but maintained a level of control. The P12 still has that option.

            “Ownership – of an entity that is probably in excess of $1B valuation.”

            Valuations mean very little if nobody will actually pay that for it. Who would pay $1B to take over the P12N?

            “I think some underestimate the intrinsic value of ownership.”

            Ownership gives you control and an asset. That’s it.

            “tOSU isn’t selling off parts/half/all of the Horseshoe.”

            But they’ve sold naming rights to almost everything else. They’ve privatized all kinds of things. The B10 sold half of the BTN to Fox.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “The B10 and SEC sold parts of their networks but maintained a level of control.”

            SEC didn’t have one. SEC made a media rights deal with espn. ESPN created and owns it (the network).

            “Ownership gives you control and an asset. That’s it.”

            There is little more.

            “They’ve privatized all kinds of things.”

            But not the infrastructure.

            “The B10 sold half of the BTN to Fox.”

            Again, they didn’t sell (part of) an existing entity. They sold interest in an entity Fox would significantly invest in creating. Would BTN have happened without Fox? Kevin Weiberg said years later he wished they’d have gone without a partner.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “SEC didn’t have one. SEC made a media rights deal with espn. ESPN created and owns it (the network).”

            You know what I mean. Same with the B10. The B10 pre-emptively “sold” 50% of it to get it created.

            Now that conference networks are a known entity, the P12 could consider selling half of it if a good deal ever comes along (maybe from Google).

            “There is [a] little more.”

            It can stroke your ego, I suppose. Otherwise it’s just an asset you control.

            “But not the infrastructure.”

            Parking. Energy (HVAC/electricity). They’d consider selling buildings if they could retain control of them, but as is they sell naming rights to rooms, wings, whole buildings, etc. They also solicit donations to cover the cost of building or renovating them. If donations ever stop being enough, then we’ll see what they will privatize.

            “Would BTN have happened without Fox?”

            Only if someone else stepped in. The presidents wanted a partner to reduce the risk and BTN needed leverage to get carriage.

            “Kevin Weiberg said years later he wished they’d have gone without a partner.”

            It wasn’t his money being invested. Getting carriage was a fight as it was. Without Fox (or another partner), the BTN never gets off the ground.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “It wasn’t his money being invested. Getting carriage was a fight as it was. Without Fox (or another partner), the BTN never gets off the ground.”

            He was one of those responsible for the investment. His later statement indicates it wasn’t a choice of partner, or no network. It was a choice to partner in a new untried venture. I don’t think there was a Fox agreement when Delaney told espn “consider them rolled.” It would have happened without Fox/partner, but with a higher anxiety level. At least that’s my read.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “He was one of those responsible for the investment.”

            Yes, but it still was someone else’s money. Most people are more willing to risk the money of others than their own. That’s all I’m saying.

            “His later statement indicates it wasn’t a choice of partner, or no network. It was a choice to partner in a new untried venture. I don’t think there was a Fox agreement when Delaney told espn “consider them rolled.” It would have happened without Fox/partner, but with a higher anxiety level. At least that’s my read.”

            I agree they probably would’ve tried it. I just have zero faith it would’ve been successful. Any conference can have a network if they don’t care about making money from it. They certainly weren’t going to get the same sort of carriage fees for an untried product with no real leverage. Fox brought TV production and sports coverage knowledge to the table as well as leverage with carriers.

            Like

          • David Brown says:

            I moved from Arizona to North Carolina last month, and while I wad there was no demands in the state for Direct TV to pick up PAC-12 Network to show more Sun Devil ( ASU) or Wildcat games ( University of Arizona games). I myself had Direct TV ( instead of Cox or Dish ( both of which offer Pac-12)). When I moved, I chose Direct TV again. Why? The same reason I chose Direct TV in the first place: The NFL Sunday Ticket. If the choice is Sun Devils or Steelers, there is no way ASU ladies vollyball comes over the Steelers. Until the Pac-12 understands that showing ladies vollyball may look good ( politically speaking), the reality is most people who are sports fans, are chosing the provider that has the Sunday Ticket ( especially if they live outside the Pac-12 footprint). Of course, that requires common sense and a comprension of economics that state the NFL, BTN and SEC are going to chosen over the Pac-12 Network.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “Yes, but it still was someone else’s money.”

            Maybe I’m weird, but I am more careful with someone else’s money than my own.

            David Brown:

            I have Comcast. I didn’t have a choice to not get the SECN (not that I would make that choice) with my package when SECN started. I get all the NFL I need without Sunday ticket. I do watch soccer, v ball, gymnastics, wrestling, softball, t&f, and baseball on conf nets. They aren’t my primary source for FB/BB.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Maybe I’m weird, but I am more careful with someone else’s money than my own.”

            Some people are that way, but most aren’t.

            “I have Comcast. I didn’t have a choice to not get the SECN (not that I would make that choice) with my package when SECN started. I get all the NFL I need without Sunday ticket. I do watch soccer, v ball, gymnastics, wrestling, softball, t&f, and baseball on conf nets. They aren’t my primary source for FB/BB.”

            I was in the same situation so I dropped cable rather than pay for the SECN. I don’t watch the NFL, so that’s not a concern. I do miss ESPN for CFB and MBB games, but there are other ways to get it now like Sling.

            I would watch some of the non-revenue sports on BTN if I had it, but I wouldn’t pay for the SECN to get BTN.

            Like

        • Mike says:

          However, how could they focus more on FB/MBB?

          I’ve seen some criticism that the PTN is too focused on the Olympic sports. For example, on Football signing day the BTN and SECN did long signing day specials where the PTN didn’t.

          Like

  42. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19235179/sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-view-parts-recruiting-package-healthy

    Gee, here’s a shock. SEC commissioner Sankey is hoping the NCAA rethinks parts of their new recruiting rules package that he finds “unhealthy” for CFB (translate as the new rules hurt the SEC’s competitive advantages).

    It was made clear leading up to the vote that this was a package deal as that was the only way it could pass. It seems unlikely they’d instantly start undoing pieces of it.

    “I think there’s some good in there, and I think there’s clearly some issues we did not support as a league and don’t think are heading in the right direction at this moment,” Sankey said. “Hopefully, they will be subject to further review sooner rather than later. …”

    Rules he dislikes:
    1. Allowing official visits in spring (April through early June) when northern schools can pay to bring in southern players to look around in nice weather and they aren’t busy with HS games.

    As for the change regarding early visits, Sankey cited a member of the student leadership council who wondered why schools would want recruits making official visits outside of the regular academic schedule.

    He said the SEC proposed an amendment that would have permitted them just in April.

    “But the idea of bringing young people to visit a campus when you’re not having regular campus life is not a direction we would support,” Sankey said.

    2. The hard cap of 25 recruits per year.

    Bowl Subdivision schools would also be limited to signing 25 prospective or current players to a first-time financial aid agreement or a national letter of intent, with exceptions for current players who have been enrolled full time at the school for at least two years and those who suffer an incapacitating injury.

    Sankey said the league, which already has a signing limit for member programs, wanted to expand the time range for counting scholarships toward the current class.

    “What’s called a hard cap on signing, I don’t think that accomplishes what it’s intended to accomplish,” he said. “I think what it’s going to do is remove some opportunities that should exist. So somebody signs, isn’t eligible for some reason, the school is prohibited from replacing that scholarship with someone new, an initial counter. “

    In other words they won’t get to sign 28 kids (with all the recognition for a highly rated class), have 3 fail to qualify academically or get arrested and still have a full class in the fall. Heaven forbid they have to give a scholarship to a walk-on for a year.

    He also said he didn’t understand the addition of a 10th football assistant coach, which he called “a bit of a sweetener” in the package.

    It’s part of their plan to limit the size of non-coaching staffs going forward. They’ve said they’re looking at that now and Saban has already started complaining.

    Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://newsok.com/article/5546727

    Oklahoma passed a new law allowing universities to sue boosters whose actions result in economic losses (like getting the team busted by the NCAA).

    The measure allows a lawsuit against third parties who trigger penalties and economic losses against schools for breaking a governing body’s rules. For example, if a booster gives cash to a student athlete in violation of NCAA rules and the NCAA fines the university, a court could order the booster to pay damages to the school.

    Like

  44. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/willie-taggart-oregon-ducks-rebuild-mario-cristobal-justin-herbert-royce-freeman-042417

    OR’s new coach had a few interesting things to say about his program.

    “I was really shocked at how weak we were as a football team,” Taggart said. “Having this great facility, it’s easy to get complacent. You assume recruits are just going to come, but you’ve got to go get them.”

    [about the workout scandal]

    “We know we didn’t do anything to try to hurt our kids. We’d done [the same program] everywhere we’ve been and never had a problem,” Taggart said. “I think our guys just overworked themselves and didn’t hydrate. … They were trying to impress the new coaches.”

    [about his D]

    “We have a guy or two that can play at some positions, but not a whole [position] group that we feel comfortable with,” Taggart said.

    “It’d be easy for people to say, ‘OK, it’s a new staff, they’re trying to break these guys down’ — especially since all I kept hearing was, ‘Coach, Oregon is soft a football team, Oregon’s not tough,’” Taggart said. “It’s easy to take that story and think we’re in here trying to make them tough.

    “I can’t make them tough. You’re either tough or you’re not.”

    “I think a lot of the young men that were here, they came here for the uniforms, not to be a great football player. That fell by the wayside,” Taggart said. “We’ve got to get back to being blue collar. We’ve got to make them earn the things that they get here — and they get a lot.”

    Like

  45. Mike says:

    ESPN layoff day. Seems to be on the journalist side.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      I always assumed that Brett was the journalist who was going to the a Q&A with Frank. Maybe he’ll have time for it now.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/04/26/espn-layoffs-on-air-digital-personalities/100933556/

      About 100 people are expected to get pink slips, both on-air and digital.

      Some who are gone:
      NFL – Ed Werder, Trent Dilfer
      MLB – Jayson Stark, Jim Bowden
      NHL – Scott Burnside, Pierre LeBrun, Joe McDonald
      CFB – Jeremy Crabtree, Danny Kanell, Brett McMurphy
      Other – Jay Crawford

      “A necessary component of managing change involves constantly evaluating how we best utilize all of our resources, and that sometimes involves difficult decisions,” ESPN president John Skipper said in a memo to ESPN staffers. “. . . These decisions impact talented people who have done great work for our company. I would like to thank all of them for their efforts and their many contributions to ESPN.”

      The cuts are expected to number around 100 as ESPN deals with a decline in subscribers amidst paying billions per year in rights fees for professional and college sports. Disney’s cable networks division saw an 11% drop in operating income driven by a decline in ad and subscriber revenue at ESPN, Disney announced in its most recent quarterly report in February.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/confirmed-espn-layoffs-constantly-updated.html

        Awful Announcing has a post with a running list of everyone who has been let go.

        Others I didn’t list above but relevant to many of us:
        Brian Bennett – B10 reporter
        Austin Ward – B10 reporter
        Jesse Temple – B10/WI reporter

        The other CFB conferences took hits, too.

        The Hollywood Reporter also reported that Karl Ravech, Hannah Storm, and Ryen Russillo would not be laid off, but would see their roles “significantly reduced”.

        Sounds like ESPN is trying to focus on a few stars in each sport rather than an ensemble cast for everything. They may also be looking to find cheaper replacements to do the reporting.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      far and away the most reliable reporter on realignment issues.

      Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19250005

    The CFP isn’t expanding any time soon. It sounds like it will at least make it the full 12 years at 4 teams. I think it stays there unless some major controversies happen soon. Also no G5 playoff. Status quo reigns supreme.

    From Heather Dinich:

    There are absolutely no signs of the College Football Playoff expanding anytime soon. I have asked every member of the CFP management committee – all 10 FBS commissioners and ND AD Jack Swarbrick — if they they are still in favor of a four-team playoff and the answer was a resounding, unanimous “yes.” Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said he is “fully supportive,” Swarbrick said “yes, strongly.” Another topic you can put to rest is any notion of the Group of 5 splitting off to form its own championship. It’s an idea that is scoffed at by the sport’s decision-makers. In January, at the national title game, MWC commissioner Craig Thompson told me, “We have no traction in our league at all. I wouldn’t say ridiculous, but what’s an adjective that’s close to that?”

    Like

    • bullet says:

      And two years before they started the playoff there was no chance they would do that.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        There were lots of controversies during the BCS that had people arguing for years. The CFP hasn’t really had that. Quibbles over the #4 team just don’t seem to hold the nation’s attention very much. 2014 could’ve been an issue but OSU won it all so most people stopped worrying about it (TCU fans excepted).

        If the CFP starts to face serious controversies, then it would be more likely to change. But I’m not hearing any groundswell for change right now.

        Like

  47. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2017/04/26/big-12-revenue-tax-return-sec/100929214/

    The annual comparison of conference revenues begins. The B12 is the second P5 conference to reveal their tax returns.

    The tax return, provided to USA TODAY Sports by the conference on Wednesday, showed that distributions to its 10 member schools ranged from $28.9 million for Oklahoma to just over $28 million for West Virginia. It was the first time that West Virginia and TCU have received full shares of revenue from the conference.

    The distributions to schools included money from the conference’s reserve fund, spokesman Bob Burda said, so while its annual revenue increased, the conference ended up reporting a $3.9 million operating deficit for the year.

    That’s without Tier 3 money, obviously. SEC numbers (including T3): $39.1M – 41.9M per school

    So call that $40.5M vs $28.5M on average, or a $12M per school difference. Tier 3 covers that for UT and OU should be close, but the rest of the B12 should be trailing in total revenue.

    The conference reported that its revenue from bowl games grew to just over $114.5 million in 2016, up from $74.5 million in 2015. According to Burda, the increased bowl revenue was due to the conference having seven bowl teams during the 2015 season, including Oklahoma in the College Football Playoff semifinals and Oklahoma State in the Sugar Bowl. The Big 12’s television revenue grew by just $8 million in 2016.

    By contrast, the Southeastern Conference – so far the only other conference to release its tax records for the 2016 fiscal year – reported a nearly $110 million increase in its annual television and radio rights revenue as its SEC Network continued to take off. The SEC’s TV and radio rights revenue for fiscal 2016 — $420 million – far exceeded the Big 12’s total revenue for the year.

    That’s a problem. If the SECN is growing quickly and the B12 is basically plateaued, then the gap will grow pretty quickly. If the B10 also starts showing a growing gap when the new TV deal starts, we should start to hear some realignment rumblings again from the B12 as their GOR ages (then from the ACC if they’re in the same boat still).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      SEC growth will become more normal in a couple of years. SECN is getting up to max coverage quickly.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Yes, but if it levels off to the same growth rate as the B12 then the gap never narrows. Clearly no conference is going to grow by over $100M year after year after year.

        Like

  48. Brian says:

    https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-big-tens-toughest-college-football-schedules-2017

    Toughest overall schedules in the B10 this year:
    1. OSU
    2. MI
    3. PSU
    4. RU
    5. NE
    6. MSU
    7. UMD
    8. IA
    9. PU
    10. IN
    11. IL
    12. WI
    13. NW
    14. MN

    WI and RU are the 2 teams really out of place in terms of OOC games. You’d also like to see NW do better, but they’ve been up and down lately so you can understand the scheduling.

    Like

  49. Brian says:

    https://www.seccountry.com/lsu/nfl-draft-teams-avoid-picks-home-state-colleges

    NFL teams don’t seem to like to draft players from local power programs for some reason. Jacksonville is the only exception.

    As of the beginning of the 2016 NFL season, 10 college football teams had 29 or more players in the NFL. LSU led the bunch with 42, followed by a who’s who of the best teams college football has to offer.

    Seven of those schools lie geographically within 150 miles of an NFL team in its home state: LSU, Ohio State, Miami, Florida, Georgia, Penn State and USC. By virtue of Ohio having both the Browns and Bengals, Ohio State is within that distance of 2 NFL teams. So, if you look at those 8 examples dating back to 2000, you’ll find that only one squad hasn’t been afraid to capitalize on fan favorites.

    [see article for better version of table]

    School, NFL team, Distance, Total # drafted from that school since 2000, # drafted by that team
    Ohio State Cincinnati Bengals 106 miles 108 2
    Ohio State Cleveland Browns 143 miles 108 2
    USC San Diego Chargers* 124 miles 97 4
    Miami Miami Dolphins 15 miles 94 3
    Georgia Atlanta Falcons 72 miles 94 4
    LSU New Orleans Saints 81 miles 93 2
    Florida Jacksonville Jaguars 71 miles 92 7
    Penn State Pittsburgh Steelers 140 miles 64 3

    Like

  50. Mike says:

    One of the more interesting moves I’ve ever seen a University do.

    Purdue University said Thursday it has acquired for-profit Kaplan University to extend its reach into online and adult education, an unusual move for a public institution.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/27/purdue-acquires-for-profit-kaplan-university/?utm_term=.bb31a6401727

    Like

  51. Mike says:

    The MVC’s confirmed candidates:

    Valparaiso
    Murray State
    Nebraska – Omaha
    UW-Milwaukee


    UW-Milwaukee is engaged in discussions about joining the Missouri Valley Conference, sources confirmed to the Journal Sentinel on Wednesday.

    [snip]

    According to various reports, fellow Horizon League member Valparaiso also is under consideration, along with Murray State of the Ohio Valley Conference and Nebraska Omaha of the Summit League. Those schools have either already hosted Missouri Valley officials or are scheduled to do so.

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/uwm/2017/04/26/uwm-considering-move-missouri-valley-conference/100937130/

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Would Murray State bring its football over to the MVFC – depends if NDSU and ISU Redbirds are seen as definitive upgrades? If they dont bite I could see the alternate move of adding the other 3.

      Like

  52. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19255972

    A little CFP update. They’ve tried to eliminate 2 week gaps between the semis and NCG.

    From Heather Dinich (apparently she didn’t get laid off):

    In order to shorten the time between the semifinals and the national championship game, the CFP management committee voted on Thursday to move the title game from Jan. 13, 2025 to Jan. 6. In 2026, the game has been moved from Jan. 12 to Jan. 5. Over the next nine years, there is only one year now in which there will be a two-week gap between the semifinals and national title game and that’s in 2020 because of conflicts with contracts for events in New Orleans. “We just think it’s better this way,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock said. “Teams don’t go 16 days between games during the season.”

    Like

  53. Brian says:

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/acc-american-cafe-airport-restaurant.html

    The ACC is opening a restaurant at Piedmont Triad International Airport (Greensboro, NC).

    Will the B10 follow suit at O’Hare anytime soon?

    Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/042717aab.html

    Some OSU scheduling news that may be of interest to a few people here.

    1. OSU was scheduled to play a home and home with TCU in 2018-2019 (@TCU in 2018, @OSU in 2019). That has been changed to one neutral site game in JerryWorld in 2018 with each side getting $5M. OSU will replace TCU with Miami (OH) in 2019. This is partially due to the 2019 B10 schedule which had OSU playing road games on either side of that TCU game. Unfortunately it leaves OSU with a very weak OOC schedule in 2019 (FAU, UC, Miami (OH)).

    2. OSU added a home and home with UW in 2024-2025.

    3. The home and home series with BC has been pushed back from 2023-24 to 2026-27

    Upcoming home and homes:

    Oklahoma (2016 and 2017)
    Oregon (2020 and 2021)
    Notre Dame (2022 and 2023)
    Texas (2022 and 2023)
    Washington (2024 and 2025)
    Boston College (2026 and 2027)

    4. OSU also had games against BGSU and Tulsa in 2020 and 2021 respectively.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/Ohio-State-Buckeyes-football-will-play-TCU-at-ATT-Stadium-in-201-52514223

      Some notes from OSU:

      “The Dallas Cowboys and AT&T Stadium reached out to TCU about moving their 2018 home game with Ohio State to Arlington,” Jarmond said. “They approached us and originally we weren’t interested. They came back again and came back again and we entertained it. Mutually, we agreed it would be good to go there.

      “We are thrilled to return to a site that has such wonderful memories for all Buckeye fans.”

      * The 2019 home game with TCU will be replaced as OSU will host Miami (Ohio) on Sept. 21, 2019. Jarmond did not hesitate to “lessen” the nonconference schedule that season because OSU faces potentially three stiff Big Ten crossover games with Wisconsin, Northwestern and Nebraska that year.

      * The Big Ten TV deal which begins this year and will include games televised on Fox and ESPN platforms along with the Big Ten Network is still being finalized. The Big Ten has promised to have start times for the first three weekends in 2017 and the homecoming games set by May 31.

      * Ohio State typically plays guarantees of $1.2 million for “stand-alone” contracts for single home games. OSU will play Oregon State, a Pac-12 opponent, $1.7 million for such a game in 2018.

      * Jarmond laid out his primary objectives in scheduling.

      “We do this for two reasons – to win the Big Ten and have a chance to get into the (CFB Playoff) four at the end of the year,” he said.

      * He said he has historically looked for schools in areas where there are OSU alums and/or a recruiting base for OSU’s football program. He mentioned how Georgia and Tennessee could be attractive teams that meet those criteria. However, he said schools like Alabama and Clemson – neither of which in recruiting hotbeds – may not be as attractive.

      He said OSU has tried to work a deal with UCLA but the years needed for home games for each school have not matched up.

      * Jarmond said it is ambitious for OSU to play Texas and Notre Dame in the same two seasons (2022-23). But the Texas series was signed first and then the opportunity presented itself to get ND and OSU jumped at that chance.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.frogsowar.com/2017/4/27/15457788/tcu-announces-winner-take-all-game-with-ohio-state-in-2018-series-with-purdue

      From a TCU blog:

      Many Frog fans (including this one) were looking forward to hosting a tier one powerhouse like Ohio State at The Carter, as well as the opportunity to travel to one of the more iconic college football stadiums in two years. That being said, TCU has historically performed well at Jerryworld, posting a 2-1 record with wins over Oregon State and BYU and the lone loss coming to LSU in the dreadful 2013 opener.

      TCU also announced an unusually scheduled home-and-home series with Purdue, with the Frogs traveling to Ross-Ade Stadium in 2019, and the Boilermakers coming to The Carter in 2029. Yes, you read that right; this year’s senior class will be in their 30s by the time they see TCU play Purdue in Fort Worth.

      I’m sure TCU’s AD thought the money was worth it, but the fans must be a little disappointed not to get an OOC like OSU at home for once. Visiting OSU is nice, but few fans can afford the trip. The AD said at the time that $3M for the LSU game at Arlington was by far the most TCU had ever made from a game, so getting $5M has to be an improvement over the home and home for them. Now they get $5M plus a home and home with PU and still get to play OSU close to home.

      That 10-year gap in the PU series begs for the second game to be bought out, but PU is too cheap to do that. I wonder if TCU factored that in when agreeing to the series.

      As for OSU, this is the first neutral site OOC game since the old kickoff classics. It’s certainly the first big payday neutral site game. I guess OSU gets what it wants with $5M for a road game in Dallas (good for recruiting and local alumni) plus another home game. That’s more money and an easier OOC schedule in 2019 designed to balance the tougher B10 schedule.

      2019:
      FAU
      UC
      @ IN
      Miami (OH)
      @ NE
      MSU
      bye
      @NW
      WI
      bye
      UMD
      @RU
      PSU
      @MI

      The bye weeks are well placed, but PSU then @MI is a very tough finish. That’s where the SEC schedule of a I-AA before the final rivalry would help. @IN, TCU, @NE, MSU would’ve been really tough too. Switching to Miami (OH) makes it much more tolerable.

      Like

  55. Brian says:

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2017/04/which-conferences-meet-most-often-during-2017-regular-season/

    How often will each conference play the others in OOC games in 2017?

    Following are the seven most-frequent matchups between FBS conferences in 2017. Of these, the SEC and C-USA are both listed three times, meaning their scheduling efforts are the most concentrated.

    To illustrate, the 14 SEC members are slated to play 56 non-conference games in 2017. Of these, 26 (or 46%) are scheduled against opponents from the ACC, C-USA or Sun Belt. Beyond that, 14 (or 25%) are vs. FCS schools. That leaves just 16 (or 29%) opponents from the other six FBS leagues and Independents.

    The only conference not mentioned is the Big 12, with only 10 members playing three non-league games each it had lower totals across the board.

    The rarest matchups in 2017 are the following six combos, all with only one meeting each: ACC-Pac-12, Big 12-Mountain West, Big 12-Sun Belt, Pac-12-MAC, SEC-American, and SEC-MAC.

    The only matchup you won’t see at all in the 2017 regular season is a Conference USA team playing a Mountain West member.

    Most common:
    10 – P12 vs MWC, SEC vs SB
    9 – ACC vs SEC, B10 vs MAC
    7 – CUSA vs AAC, CUSA vs MAC, CUSA vs SEC

    Like

  56. FLP_NDRox says:

    With the new round of lay-offs at ESPN, is it time to reopen the discussion of a Sports rights bubble? I mean from here it looks ready to burst. Cable subscriptions are continuing to decrease. More kids are never hooking up in the first place. ESPN is cutting known folks to try to keep up.

    On the one hand the B1G is in a great spot because they can move their production online. On the other, all that money coming in from non-fans is drying up. What do you all think the future will hold?

    Like

  57. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-nfl-draft-picks-by-college-team-sec-lsu-alabama-ohio-state-lead-the-way/

    1st round draft breakdown by conference and school.

    SEC – 12
    B10 – 7
    P12 – 6
    ACC – 4
    B12 – 1
    AAC – 1
    MAC – 1

    Alabama: 4
    LSU: 3
    Ohio State: 3
    Clemson: 2
    Michigan: 2
    Stanford: 2
    Wisconsin: 2
    14 school with 1

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-nfl-draft-picks-high-school-recruiting-star-rankings-for-first-round-selections/

    By stars:
    5* – 10
    4* – 12
    3* – 6
    2* – 2
    NR – 2

    Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19265734/leonard-fournette-christian-mccaffrey-start-trend-skipping-bowl-game-nfl-draft

    Unsurprisingly, the NFL couldn’t have cared less about players skipping their final bowl games as Fournette and McCaffrey both went in the top 8 last night. Going forward, how much impact will that have? Will people with 1st round projections pretty much all skip their bowls if they aren’t at least a NY6 game? Will people lower down (2nd and 3rd round) skip too? Will people skip any non-CFP game? Would they even skip a CFP game?

    “The reality is that the NFL doesn’t care,” one Power 5 college assistant coach said. “At the end of the day, it’s about taking the best player, and they don’t see that as a big negative the way a college coach sees it.”

    Another Power 5 head coach summed it up this way: “For players who are going in the first round? This is just a start.”

    Indeed, it does not seem advisable for most draft-eligible players to skip bowl games. In fact, bowl games might mean more for those players who have third- or fourth-round grades — another high-profile game on tape to prove how valuable they could be to a team.

    But for players who are near certainties to go in the first round, there is a real understanding this could start becoming commonplace. How did we get to this point, where college coaches are now preparing for more players to follow a similar path? The dynamics of the game have changed so dramatically over the last decade, leaving clear warning signs along the way.

    “When I was playing, I just never thought about it as a business the way these players do now,” one Power 5 assistant said. “I really can see both sides. As a college coach, I’d ask them why they want to abandon their teammates. But I also know how much of a business the NFL is.”

    Already, postseason coverage has been tilted heavily toward the College Football Playoff teams. The other bowl games rely not only on marquee teams, but marquee players to promote their matchups. The Hyundai Sun Bowl last December, for example, featured No. 2 overall pick Mitchell Trubisky and No. 3 overall pick Solomon Thomas (on the same team as McCaffrey by the way).

    What happens when surefire first-round picks start deciding bowl games just aren’t worth it anymore?

    “I can envision a time where you’re a first-round talent, your team went 9-3 and is going to play at the Belk Bowl and his agent says, ‘You don’t need to play,'” a Power 5 assistant said. “It’s not going to hurt you. You’re guaranteed right now if you don’t play another game, $15 million and now you’re going to go play in a meaningless bowl game?”

    Welcome to the slippery slope. On the bright side, maybe most bowls can go back to being more like exhibitions with a nice vacation as a reward for the players instead of business trips and being considered as important.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I hope (and think) it won’t expand much. 1: Both McCaffrey and Fournuette had injuries that cost them playing time this year. 2: Many other sure high picks didn’t skip (including McCaffrey’s teammate that went five picks earlier). 3: Coaches are, and have been in the past, protective of their reputation and have reduced load and protected players in the past. Some even limiting/eliminating full contact practice throughout the season for some skill players. 4: and probably the biggest thing is the whole topic is talking head sports show time filler that everyone and their uncle can weigh in on with absolutely nothing except worthless opinion on the line. (The slimmed down espn “talent” rejoices…)

      Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “I hope (and think) it won’t expand much.”

        Obviously I hope the same thing.

        “1: Both McCaffrey and Fournuette had injuries that cost them playing time this year.”

        Yes. I think the first impact will be fewer players returning for an extra year. But most players are beat up by bowl time and starting to think about their future.

        “2: Many other sure high picks didn’t skip (including McCaffrey’s teammate that went five picks earlier).”

        True, but there also wasn’t the evidence that it wouldn’t hurt your draft status. Now that star players know that, will they change their behavior?

        “3: Coaches are, and have been in the past, protective of their reputation and have reduced load and protected players in the past. Some even limiting/eliminating full contact practice throughout the season for some skill players.”

        Yes, but they can’t prevent the injuries like Jaylen Smith and Jake Butt got. Seeing those guys drop in the draft and lose millions (partially compensated by insurance) has to sink in a little.

        “4: and probably the biggest thing is the whole topic is talking head sports show time filler that everyone and their uncle can weigh in on with absolutely nothing except worthless opinion on the line.”

        That’s only true as long as it’s 1 or 2 players. If 20 players opt to sit out of bowls one year, then it’s a real issue.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          ” If 20 players opt to sit out of bowls one year, then it’s a real issue.”

          An issue that talking about won’t effect.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “An issue that talking about won’t effect.”

            True. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about. On rare occasions talk leads to action that does change things.

            I’d be fine with devaluing bowls back to the exhibitions they used to be.

            Like

    • rtung says:

      I think the QBs will play.

      Leadership and all that, and their biggest asset is their brain.
      Probably the O-line as well.
      Receivers don’t get hit much and would be the last skill group to sit out.
      I certainly see top RBs starting to sit out non-major bowl games.

      Like

  59. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/story/_/id/19273930/chicago-bears-draft-three-five-players-fbs-level

    Frank,

    How do the Bears or their fans explain this draft?

    1. Trade away a bunch of picks to move up 1 spot (from a team not looking for a QB) to take an underwhelming college QB

    2. With 3 of your 4 remaining picks, take I-AA players
    Round 2: Shaheen (TE) – Ashland
    Round 4: Cohen (RB) – NC A&T – only 5’6″ tall
    Round 5: Morgan (OL) – Kutztown

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Frank’s drinking to forget…or to get in a frame of mind to understand.

      Like

    • anthony london says:

      Brian,

      the McCaskeys are one of the worst ownership groups in pro-sports. This becomes even more tragic whey you realize that Papa Bear himself really helped professional football become the nfl…

      This organization fired Lovie Smith after a ten win season.
      This organization hired a coach from canada that will not be named.
      This organization hired a fresh faced GM from New Orleans with no experience or maturity. That GM got fleeced by John Lynch and prepared the way for the rookie 49er gm to become executive of the year.

      I’m so disgusted with this draft, I don’ t know what to do… I got together with my boys at a bar last night and while we bemoaning the draft, 3 men we didn’t know asked if they could join us so that they could vent their frustrations… Before long, the whole bar joined in, it was like karaoke for “Bears” complaints… It was crazy, and the bears are gonna raise ticket prices this year…

      A horrible, horrible draft.

      Like

    • frug says:

      Ryan Pace spends the whole run up to the draft repeating that the Bears will take the best player available regardless of position then trades three picks to move up one spot and take a guy at #2 who would have been a stretch from a BPA standpoint at #20.

      The rest of the draft consists of 2 D-II players, a 5’6” FCS back and an injury plagued player who end last year with a broken leg.

      The only explanation I can give

      Like

  60. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-nfl-draft-picks-by-college-sec-michigan-set-records-alabama-impresses/

    Draftees by conference:

    SEC – 53 (23 on day 3)
    ACC – 42 (31 on day 3)
    P12 – 36
    B10 – 35
    AAC – 15
    B12 – 14
    MAC – 13

    Notes:
    1. That’s a record low for the B12 (old record was 17).
    2. 53 is the third best draft ever for the SEC (2013 – 63, 2015 – 54). It looks like the SEC is on a 2 year cycle.
    3. As I said elsewhere, I think you’re seeing the effect of OSU, PSU and WI all returning so many starters for next season.

    By school:
    MI – 11
    AL – 10
    Miami – 9
    LSU, UF, Utah – 8
    OSU – 7
    TN, NC, Clemson – 6

    IA – 4
    WI – 3
    MSU, NW – 2
    IN, IL, MN, NE, PSU, PU – 1
    UMD, RU – 0

    Like

  61. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2017-nfl-draft-nearly-one-third-of-early-entries-were-not-selected-this-year/

    On the down side, 28 of 95 early entrants went undrafted.

    From the B10:
    Marcus Oliver, LB, Indiana
    Devine Redding, RB, Indiana
    Garrett Sickels, DE, Penn State

    The IN guys make some sense with the coaching change and 1 being a RB. Maybe Sickels also had good personal reasons.

    Like

  62. Brian says:

    https://www.trackingfootball.com/blog/tracking-football-finds-88-2017-nfl-draft-picks-multiple-sport-athletes-high-school/

    88% of the players drafted played multiple sports in high school. The percentage was higher in rounds 1&2 (94%) and decreased every round until round 7.

    Like

  63. Brian says:

    http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/2018-nfl-mock-draft-the-way-too-early-two-round-projection-042917

    A 2018 two round mock draft.

    B10 guys:
    1st round
    8. Barkley (RB – PSU)
    11. Hubbard (DE – OSU)
    13. Lewis (DE – OSU)

    2nd round
    35. Campbell (WR – OSU)
    44. Booker (LB – OSU)
    52. Price (OG – OSU)
    54. Hurst (DL – MI)

    Like

  64. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/kentuckys-new-kroger-partnership-includes-first-stadium-name-change-in-44-years/

    UK has sold the naming rights to its stadium. They’re the first SEC team to do so but only the third I-A school in KY to do it.

    Like

  65. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/01/nfl-draft-big-12-georgia

    Does this poor draft reflect on the future of the B12 or is it just an artifact of UT being down?

    Draftees per school in 2017:
    SEC 3.8
    ACC 3.1
    Pac-12 3.0
    Big Ten 2.5
    Big 12 1.4

    No matter how the numbers get sliced, this is a glaring indictment of the Big 12. The question is whether it’s an indictment of the league overall or the league this year. Remember, the Big 12 averaged 2.6 draftees per team last year, 2.5 in ’15 and 1.6 in ’14. If the numbers jump closer to the other leagues next season, perhaps alarm bells aren’t necessary. But if they stay down, that could make it nearly impossible for Big 12 teams to recruit against SEC teams coming from the east and Pac-12 teams coming from the west.

    Every recruit wants to know how a school will prepare him for the NFL, and the SEC and Pac-12 schools that recruit in Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of Big 12 territory can say with relative authority that NFL teams do not seem to like the players the Big 12 is putting out. That would further drain a talent pool that—judging by recruiting rankings—is already shallower than the pools in the other Power 5 leagues.

    What don’t NFL teams like about the Big 12? Only the offenses and the defenses. Going into last season, the Air Raid and Art Briles offenses had proliferated so thoroughly that many NFL coaches and scouts viewed the Big 12 as a league playing an entirely different sport. Last season, Kansas State had the only offense that didn’t come off either the Hal Mumme/Mike Leach tree or the Briles tree. (Yes, Briles worked with Leach at Texas Tech. No, those offenses are not the same. But they do drive NFL personnel people nuts for the same reasons.)

    NFL types especially hate the offensive line play because players rarely operate out of three-point stances and even though the teams pass quite frequently, players don’t have to hone many of the pass-protection skills they’ll need in the NFL. Much of the time, the linemen block a simple run play and the quarterback decides whether to hand off or throw after the snap. When the Texans took Baylor center Kyle Fuller with the 25th pick of the seventh round, they made him the first and only Big 12 offensive lineman selected in this draft.

    Meanwhile, the league had only two receivers (Oklahoma’s Dede Westbrook by Jacksonville in the fourth round and West Virginia’s Shelton Gibson by Philadelphia in the fifth) selected. For a conference that flings the ball all over the yard, that should be fairly shocking. But NFL teams have gotten wise to the fact that receivers in those offenses run a much more limited route tree than receivers in other offenses.

    Obviously these things go in cycles and UT has been down lately, but the B12 needs to increase these numbers. Perhaps Herman is the guy to get them back to the top. But the B12 needs others to step up as well.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Well if Texas had 11 like Michigan, the Big 12 would have been at 2.4 per school, basically the same as the Big 10.

      That said, there probably is something to the offensive and defensive lines. There is a different type of play and different type of player. On the other hand, every conference is moving to more and more of that.

      Like

  66. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/01/power-conference-american-athletic-plans-big-push-on-idea/101166998/

    The AAC is making a push to be considered the sixth power conference.

    The American Athletic Conference wants to be considered a power conference and released a strategic plan on Monday designed to help it improve its stature.

    The plan sets goals for athletics, academics, health and safety, marketing and for bringing in more revenue.

    Among the plan’s stated goals is to “maintain a Power 6 narrative.”

    There are currently five power conferences — the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12. They generate the most revenue, are guaranteed top football bowl bids and have been granted some autonomy by the NCAA to establish rules.

    The AAC is part of next lower tier, known as the Group of Five.

    There is no mention of expansion in the AAC’s strategic plan. The conference recently added Wichita State, giving it 12 members for both football and basketball.

    Good luck getting everyone to acknowledge that, AAC. That would mean giving the AAC increased voting power as well as vastly increasing the CFP money they get. Nobody outside the AAC wants either of those things for the AAC. Besides, what are the metrics showing that the AAC belongs?
    Is the Orange Bowl going to take the AAC champ rather than ND/B10 #2/SEC #2? Would any other NY6 bowl want the AAC champ locked in? Shouldn’t the AAC at least be the G5 representative several years in a row before making this sort of claim?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://theamerican.org/news/2017/5/1/GEN_0501173329.aspx

      Here’s an article from the AAC’s website.

      It contains this link to the strategic plan: http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/theamerican.sidearmsports.com/documents/2017/5/1/AACStrategyGuide_WEB_FINAL.pdf

      It’s a 24 page pdf, but many pages are essentially blank.

      They’re also trying to start the hashtag: #AMERICANPOW6R

      Here are some of their annual football goals:
      * CFP contender
      * 1 top 10 team
      * NY6 bowl
      * 2-4 top 25 teams
      * 7-8 bowl teams
      * Bowl record above 0.500
      * 0.500 record vs P5 teams
      * TV ratings “in range of” P5 conferences
      * Contenders for major player awards (Heisman, etc)
      * Occasional appearance of ESPN’s College GameDay on their campuses

      How many of those goals did they meet last season?
      #1 no
      #2 no
      #3 no
      #4 no
      #5 yes (7)
      #6 no (2-5)
      #7 no (8-11)
      #8 no (AACCG got 2.1M – the 3 B12 regular games that day averaged slightly more and the 4 P5 CCGs destroyed it with a low of 5.3M)
      #9 no
      #10 no* (they went to Army-Navy but Navy hosted in Baltimore and not on campus; Temple has hosted once – may be only time an AAC school has)

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Maybe they are laying the groundwork for a potential combination of B12/AAC hopefully maintaining P5 status if/when UT/OU leave?

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The biggest questions with Big XII schools going to the AAC is who would be they be? Plus Who would remain in a Power 5 Conference? Who would go Mountain West? Who might get left out? My call. Under almost any scenario ( short of the Big XII not breaking up), West Virginia is obvious AAC because of how close it is to Eastern schools like Temple and Cincinnati, and the fact they sell out each week. TCU goes as well because of their SMU rivalry.
        Beyond that, I sm picking Texas and Kansas for the Big 10, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for the SEC. Texas Tech and Baylor for the MWC, and Iowa State and Kansas State left out.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “Maybe they are laying the groundwork for a potential combination of B12/AAC hopefully maintaining P5 status if/when UT/OU leave?”

        I just don’t see how that works.

        What the AAC is lacking is elite teams with elite players. OU and UT are the B12 programs that best fit that description consistently. Maybe TCU now.

        W% ranking since 2000:
        B12 – 3. OU, 5 TCU, 9. UT, 21. WV, 26, 31, 32, 76, 97, 107
        AAC – 29, 41, 46, 48, 56, 57, 71, 81, 88, 94, 110, 111

        The B12 has 4 top 25 programs. The AAC has 0. All the P5 conferences have at least 3 (P12) with a max of 5 (ACC, SEC). If UT and OU leave the B12, TCU and WV are the only top 25 programs available with OkSU just outside. Would adding TCU and WV boost the AAC or would the AAC pull TCU and WV down? Would TCU and WV be willing to go? Would the AAC be willing and able to drop their worst programs to up their average.

        There is a lot of dead weight at the bottom of the AAC that really hurts them. The B10 also has a weak bottom and yet 6 B10 schools are ahead of the entire AAC and the B10 has more schools to help carry that dead weight. The B12 is the weakest of the P5 conferences but it has little dead weight.

        I just don’t see any way for them to pick up many solid programs. It’s hard to predict what would happen if OU and UT left. Who goes with them as partners (if anyone)? Do the little brothers go with them? Does KU? Who would want the rest? Would there be massive realignment of the G5 into more regional conferences or would they continue to have massive overlap (AAC, CUSA and SB especially). Would the MWC push further east than maybe TT? Would the MAC want anyone beyond maybe ISU?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “What the AAC is lacking is elite teams with elite players.”

          They are lacking P5 designation, which B12 has. I’d think they’d try to arrange to keep a “grandfathered” P5 status as long as possible, perhaps by negotiating an earlier than ’24 realignment. Benefits rest of B12 and improves AAC members.

          Not saying it will happen, but seems far more likely than simply elevating a 6th conf after decades of working the other direction.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “They are lacking P5 designation, which B12 has.”

            They are also lacking elite programs which the B12 also has.

            “I’d think they’d try to arrange to keep a “grandfathered” P5 status as long as possible, perhaps by negotiating an earlier than ’24 realignment.”

            I think the others learned from grandfathering the BE into the BCS that it’s a bad plan long term. Besides, that might protect the B12 minus OU and UT for a few years but not if the AAC adds a few B12 teams. If 2/3 of the new conference isn’t former B12 members I don’t think grandfathering applies.

            If OU and UT aren’t in the conference, why would the P4 want to share the money and power with a bunch of middle of the road or worse programs? Under the BCS they developed metrics to determine which conferences deserved AQ status.

            http://bleacherreport.com/articles/537751

            There are three metrics by which the BCS evaluates every FBS conference to determine whether or not it will have an automatic bid to the BCS bowls.

            First off, the BCS has stated that no current conference will lose its AQ (Automatic Qualifying) BCS bid before the 2013 season. Secondly, the BCS has limited the number of AQ conferences to no more than seven and no less than five.

            The three metrics evaluated over the final BCS standings are:

            1) Points for number of teams in the Top 25 BCS standings.

            2) Highest ranking team in the final BCS standings.

            3) Average computer rankings of every conference team.

            To automatically qualify, a conference must score 50 percent of the value of the top team in Metric 1 and finish in the top six among all conferences in both Metrics 2 and 3.

            A conference can petition for inclusion if they finish seventh in either Metric 2 or 3, while also finishing at least fifth in the other and maintaining a 33 percent value in the first metric.

            Let’s assume they make a small adjustment to a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, and then replace the BCS standings with the CFP standings.

            #1 – Top 25 points
            Finishing 25th in the BCS is not the same as finishing first. Here is the breakdown of points awarded:

            Top six finish: 4 points
            Top 12 finish: 3 points
            Top 18 finish: 2 points
            Top 25 finish: 1 point

            Additionally, small conferences with less than 10 members will be given a plus-25 percent bonus, while conferences with 10 or 11 members will be given a plus-12.5 percent bonus.

            So far the B10 leads with 40 points over 3 years of the CFP.
            B10 – 100%
            SEC – 90%
            P12 – 85%
            B12 – 84.3%
            ACC – 77.5%
            AAC – 15%

            #2 – Highest ranked team
            SEC – 1.33
            ACC – 2
            B10 – 3.33
            P12 – 4
            B12 – 5.33
            AAC – 26.33* (unranked in 2014 so I gave them #37 based on the highest team in the Massey composite)

            #3 – Average computer ranking
            This is for 2016 only:
            SEC – 39.8
            ACC – 40.7
            P12 – 45.5
            B12 – 51.2
            B10 – 51.4
            AAC – 69.0

            Those results don’t work for the AAC, nor do I think they’d work for the rest of the B12 long term or a combination of the AAC and B12. The AAC was a distant 6th in every category with the gap between #1 and #5 much less than the gap from #5 to #6.

            “Benefits rest of B12 and improves AAC members.”

            I think the best the other B12 members can hope for is to cling to the current B12 as long as possible to maximize their money while they can. They can’t keep OU and UT from leaving, but they can hope for a negotiated exit fee or a maximum number of years of big paydays. Besides, UT and OU might not leave or might not be allowed to without taking some of them along.

            Would the other B12 members benefit more from working with the AAC or the MWC? I think some would prefer to look west while others would look east. That sort of divide is enough to scuttle a deal.

            “Not saying it will happen, but seems far more likely than simply elevating a 6th conf after decades of working the other direction”

            If you set the bar at 0.00001% then many things seem more likely. I don’t think there’s any realistic way the P5 ever becomes the P6 again while there is some chance it becomes the P4.

            Like

        • Bob syeks says:

          ISU is B1G quality academically. They would try for the B1G.

          Like

        • vp19 says:

          In the event of a Big 12 implosion, its weakest members (Iowa State and Kansas State) would sink no lower than the AAC. Both have decades of big-time heritage and clearly are on a higher rung in enrollment or facilities than nearly all members of the MAC or Mountain West.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “In the event of a Big 12 implosion, its weakest members (Iowa State and Kansas State) would sink no lower than the AAC. Both have decades of big-time heritage and clearly are on a higher rung in enrollment or facilities than nearly all members of the MAC or Mountain West.”

            I don’t see the AAC as clearly above the MWC. Yes, the MWC has lost most of its elite teams (TCU, Utah, BYU). Yes, most western schools are a little smaller. I have no basis for comparing the quality of facilities.

            Size:
            Over 50k:
            AAC – 1 (UCF – 68k)
            MWC – 0

            40-50k:
            AAC – 3
            MWC – 0

            30-40k:
            AAC – 2
            MWC – 3

            20-30k:
            AAC – 2
            MWC – 6

            Under 20k:
            AAC – 4
            MWC – 3

            Average:
            AAC – 29,000
            MWC – 24,000

            That’s not a huge difference, especially since UCF accounts for almost all of it (AAC averages about 24,500 without UCF).

            Average division rankings by Sagarin
            2016:
            AAC – 11.5
            MWC – 14

            2015:
            AAC – 11.5
            MWC – 14

            2014:
            AAC – 15
            MWC – 14

            The AAC has been better, but not by a lot.

            My question is whether ISU or KSU might prefer the travel in the MWC enough to go there (or even the MAC for ISU) instead. I’m not questioning that the G5 conferences would want them, but at that level the cost of travel can eat up the advantages pretty quickly.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            If the Big 12 implodes, the remaining members aren’t going to be absorbed by a mid-major conference. It is going to be the opposite. The Big 12 name still carries more weight than the AAC (or whomever).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Scarlet_Lutefisk,

            “If the Big 12 implodes, the remaining members aren’t going to be absorbed by a mid-major conference. It is going to be the opposite. The Big 12 name still carries more weight than the AAC (or whomever).”

            In general, I agree. But the B12 may not work that way for these reasons.

            1. It depends on how many remaining members there are and who they are.

            Say the P16 happened with UT, TT, OU and OkSU, plus KU joining the B10 (no idea who would be #16). That leaves ISU, KSU, BU, TCU and WV. Those 5 teams aren’t enough to really keep the B12 brand going. They’ll own the name but it will be greatly devalued (like the BE now). At that point WV might consider a better fit closer to home, leaving 4 schools. Would that really be the B12 remnants taking in AAC and/or MWC teams at that point or would it be the AAC and MWC expanding?

            If only 2 B12 schools leave, then clearly the B12 would try to reload from the AAC, MWC and independents. It may or may not stay a power conference, but it would be the B12 existing.

            2. We don’t know if the remnants are unified in their goals beyond making maximum money.

            Do some schools want to look west for new members while others want to look east? Do they disagree on how to weight different sports, different regions, academics and other aspects of candidates? It’s possible they can’t agree quickly enough to prevent complete disintegration.

            3. The remnants may carry less weight than you think.

            ISU is weak athletically and brings a tiny fan base and no major metro areas. Only 6 of their games were on TV last year, 4 on FS1 and 1 on ESPNU. Their only ESPN game was against OU.

            KSU is not as weak athletically but is poor academically and brings a small fan base and no major metro areas. They only had 8 games on TV last year, and again OU was their only ESPN-level game. They made ESPN2 twice (UT, Baylor).

            TCU has been good at CFB and is in a major market but has a tiny fan base due to its size. They had 3 broadcast games plus 2 ESPN games (BU, WV, OU, SMU on Friday night and AR).

            BU has its scandal and brings religious issues for some conferences in addition to a history of weak athletics. But at least it’s in TX. It still only made major networks with the right opponents.

            WV has rabid support from a small state and is solid athletically but is academically mediocre and lacks a major market in addition to being geographically isolated. They were similar to BU in terms of TV opportunities.

            If these are your best TV properties, they’re looking at an FS1 type of deal that wouldn’t pay much. At some point, there just isn’t much value.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Note that many of the “tiny fan bases” are relative to P5 norms. If you look at those schools versus the schools that the most attractive of the AAC and MWC would be leaving behind, then it seems to me that for AAC and MWC invitees, the grass would STILL look greener on the other side of the fence.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “Note that many of the “tiny fan bases” are relative to P5 norms. If you look at those schools versus the schools that the most attractive of the AAC and MWC would be leaving behind, then it seems to me that for AAC and MWC invitees, the grass would STILL look greener on the other side of the fence.”

            Maybe. There isn’t good data on fanbase size, but I’ll use what exists:

            https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

            Nate Silver estimated fan base sizes from Google search data and other things in 2011.

            B10 for comparison: #1, 2, 3, 12, 15, 18, 20, 27, 28, 32, 44, 46, 54, 58
            B12 – 5, 19, 29, 33, 40, 41, 52, 60, 65, 85

            But the top ones are the ones most likely to leave for other P5 conferences. So let’s break it down a little.

            Most desirable members – 5. UT, 19. OU, 40. KU
            Little brothers with a decent shot to tag along – 33. TT, 41. OkSU
            Might be wanted somewhere – 29. WV, 65. TCU
            Least desirable – 52. ISU, 60. KSU, 85. BU

            AAC – 47, 53, 55, 68, 70, 78, 80, 81, 97, 105, 111, 112
            MWC – 57, 72, 74, 76, 77, 83, 87, 90, 94, 102, 119, 120

            The B12 fan bases would certainly help, but they wouldn’t convince the TV networks to suddenly start paying big money which was my point. If you’re best game is #52 ISU vs #60 KSU, only a small channel wants you.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            That confirms my sense of the matter.

            I was only considering which direction the sh!t would roll, not a Big12 that loses four or five of its most popular schools and reloads from the AAC & MWC would take a big paycut after the realignment.

            Say that Texas, OU are joined by Kansas, OkState & TTech on the way out the door.

            Sorting the balance: #29 WVU, #52 ISU, #60 KSU, #64 TCU, #80 Baylor.

            Pool the three together:

            |29| B12#1, AAC#1, B12#2, AAC#2, AAC#3, MWC#1, B12#3, B12#4 |64|
            |68| AAC#4, AAC#5, AAC#6, MWC#2, MWC#3, MWC#4, MWC#5, AAC#6 |78|
            |80| AAC#7, AAC#8, MWC#6, B12#5, MWC#7, MWC#8, MWC#9, AAC#9 |97|
            |102| MWC#10, AAC#10, AAC#11, AAC#12, MWC#11, MWC#12 |112|

            With names, that is:

            |29| WVU, UConn, ISU, USF, UCF, Boise, KSU, TCU |64|
            |68| ECU, UC, Wyoming, Hawaii, Fresno State, SDSU, Navy |78|
            |80| Memphis, Temple, Air Force, Baylor, Colorado State, Nevada, New Mexico, SMU |97|
            |102| UNLV, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, Utah State, San Jose State |120|

            4 out of those 5 hypothetical “B12 leftovers” are in the top eight of that pool … and only one in the bottom half. I think that those “B12 leftovers” would be in a position to form the two divisions they want to form out of that pool.

            And, of course, even more if there are fewer than five that make a getaway. Any of Texas Tech, Ok. State and/or Kansas failing to find a lifeboat to the new “P4” would only strengthen their hand.

            Also strengthening their hand would be if the departures are sequential, rather than in a rush, because then the first refills would be based on a stronger initial line-up, before the balance of the life boat seats are sorted out.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “I was only considering which direction the sh!t would roll, not a Big12 that loses four or five of its most popular schools and reloads from the AAC & MWC would take a big paycut after the realignment.”

            And I don’t disagree that the B12 remnants could reload with AAC/MWC schools.

            The questions are:
            1. Would those B12 schools all want to stay together or would they have separate agendas?

            Without the full P5 payday, does WV want to keep playing the B12 remnants? Would the remnants fight over adding AAC versus MWC schools?

            2. Would some AAC/MWC schools say no due to travel concerns or poor fits?

            Unless it’s a huge pay increase the extra travel might lead to a loss in net revenue.

            3. Is there any way this would be considered a P5 conference?

            I don’t know if the bottom half of the B12 justifies grandfathering in the new conference, especially if they end up as the minority of the conference (5 of 12, for example).

            “With names, that is:

            |29| WVU, UConn, ISU, USF, UCF, Boise, KSU, TCU |64|
            |68| ECU, UC, Wyoming, Hawaii, Fresno State, SDSU, Navy |78|
            |80| Memphis, Temple, Air Force, Baylor, Colorado State, Nevada, New Mexico, SMU |97|
            |102| UNLV, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, Utah State, San Jose State |120|

            4 out of those 5 hypothetical “B12 leftovers” are in the top eight of that pool … and only one in the bottom half. I think that those “B12 leftovers” would be in a position to form the two divisions they want to form out of that pool.”

            It all comes down to what TV will pay them. Putting UConn and WY in the same conference is a lot of travel (not to mention HI for football). Can they get paid enough to extend from CT to FL to CA to WY and be profitable?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “It all comes down to what TV will pay them. Putting UConn and WY in the same conference is a lot of travel (not to mention HI for football). Can they get paid enough to extend from CT to FL to CA to WY and be profitable?”

            I don’t reckon it just fills up from top of that list to bottom to get to 11, then Baylor … Boise is enough of an island, they don’t need to add Hawaii as well to the Western Division.

            In a twelve team East/West divisional structure, you’ve got one or two cross-division games a year. Creating balanced divisions with team sports and going to mostly divisional play could substantially cut team sport traveling costs … and they would still have enough clout when they form the conference to get affiliates to balance divisions in subsidy sports as needed.

            East: WVU, UConn, USF, UCF … maybe two of UC, ECU, Temple
            West: ISU, Boise, TCU, KSU … maybe two of [Navy/WSU], Memphis, Air Force, Colorado State, Houston

            Like

  67. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/02/10-fbs-teams-easiest-non-conference-schedules-2017/101178712/

    This is a bit of a surprise. A list of the 10 easiest OOC schedules for P5 teams includes 4 P12 teams (also 4 SEC and 2 B12).

    1. UW
    2. CO
    3. KU
    4. AZ
    5. Baylor
    6. MO
    7. MS
    8. AR
    9. OrSU
    10. MsSU

    Some of those schools make sense because they’ve been bad for a while (CO, KU). Others have no good excuse (UW, BU, etc).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      “I think the Big 12 is in trouble and I think this is something we’ve been able to detect for some time,” said radio and TV personality Paul Finebaum on a recent weekly radio show. “I don’t think the Big 12 as we know it will still be in existence in five years. There are schools in the Big 12 that have looked to get out, and I think, continue to look to get out. They can deny it all they want, but they don’t have the what the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and what the ACC are going to have, and that’s their own network — which is critical in this world of exploding television reality. I don’t know how you can survive like that.”

      Finebaum said he knows for a fact that Oklahoma wants out of the Big 12.

      I don’t think that’s new information.

      Texas – the school with its own “we’re not sharing” TV network, the main motivation for the four schools that left the Big 12, and Oklahoma were in serious talks with the Pac 10 at the time. With CU in and Utah set to join, OU and Texas were prepared to take Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and other Texas schools with them to the West Coast to help form “The Pac 16.” They wanted to leave CU out and include Baylor. Utah also would have been out.

      It was reportedly within about 30 minutes of going down. It was all up to the Longhorns. One of our staff members had a friend in the Oklahoma Athletic Department. He called the university. “What are you guys going to do?” he asked. The friend replied, “Whatever Texas does.”

      Meanwhile, the MW was keeping Boise State on hold in case this happened. The reason? If those four schools departed the Big 12, the MW was looking at adding Kansas State and Iowa State and who knows who else instead. The Mountain West was in a position to add multiple big name schools and try to become a “power” conference. We were on pins and needles.

      In the end, it didn’t happen. Texas decided to stay and the Pac 12 promised to “never believe a word they say ever again.” The MW added Boise State, and ultimately Utah State, Fresno State and Nevada.

      That’s a little more inside info than I recall hearing before. The MWC targeted KSU and ISU? That’s interesting. I’m presuming they figured KU would have a better offer.

      So if UT and OU left now, I assume the AAC would also consider those 2 schools. Which way would ISU and KSU go? And what are the chances that the ACC might add WV and UConn if the B12 crumbled? You have to assume the B10 and/or SEC gained some schools, so the ACC may feel obligated to keep up and those 2 schools fit their footprint. Would the P12 take anyone?

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Why would the ACC consider UConn and WV. The ACC rather strongly rejected WV for academic reasons. Has that changed?

        UConn might make more sense, but the ACC does not seem all that interested in UConn. It has been long rumored that BC has an unofficial monopoly on New England. Beyond that UConn football is really a dumpster fire now, with a very uncertain chance of improvement. Would the football schools, (FSU, Clemson) accept such a low level football program?

        At least WV has some football history and quality.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Jersey Bernie,

          “Why would the ACC consider UConn and WV.”

          It assumes the B10 and/or SEC have expanded to 16+ with the cream of the B12. In that scenario the ACC may feel the need to keep up in terms of size. If so, their expansion options are limited. Most of the B12 is too far away, but WV is close to their footprint and would fit well with UL and Pitt among others while bring some CFB power. UConn is inside their footprint, brings another MBB power and could increase their penetration into the Boston and NYC markets.

          “The ACC rather strongly rejected WV for academic reasons. Has that changed?”

          They also took UL. There is little academic separation between those two.

          “UConn might make more sense, but the ACC does not seem all that interested in UConn. It has been long rumored that BC has an unofficial monopoly on New England. Beyond that UConn football is really a dumpster fire now, with a very uncertain chance of improvement. Would the football schools, (FSU, Clemson) accept such a low level football program?”

          If they feel pressure to expand, UConn’s acceptability may change. How many realistic candidates would the ACC have above UConn?

          As for the football schools, this would also give them a chance to redo the divisions potentially.

          “At least WV has some football history and quality.”

          Which is why they make a good pair. UConn has better academics while WV helps CFB. Both are solid in MBB with UConn having an elite recent history.

          Like

  68. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19302845/judge-margaret-taylor-calls-south-florida-bulls-coach-charlie-strong-player-arrests

    A judge calls out Charlie Strong after 2 of his players were arrested for violent felonies over the span of a couple of months. I’m all for that sentiment, but Strong has only been there since December and these players aren’t his recruits. It seems a bit early to blame him for their behavior.

    “Coach Strong, if you are listening, in the last couple of months there have been two arrests of your players for very violent felonies. This court, and I’m sure I’m not alone, questions whether you have control over your players. It’s fairly clear you do not have control of them off the field, and I guess only time will tell whether you have control over them on the field.

    “I would implore you to think long and hard about whether being head coach at USF is a good fit for you before any other members of this community have to suffer at the hands of one of your players.”

    Like

  69. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/03/conference-races-college-football-spring-practice/101236382/

    A look at all the conference races after spring practice.

    ACC

    Favorite: Florida State. You can’t go wrong between FSU and Clemson, but the Seminoles hold a slight advantage coming out of the spring. Now, about that opener with Alabama …

    Dark horse: Miami (Fla.). There’s a clear issue in experience at quarterback. Mark Richt and the Hurricanes still look like the early favorite in the Coastal Division.

    Bringing up the rear: Virginia. Bronco Mendenhall’s rebuild is underway in Charlottesville. Don’t expect any major breakthrough in 2017.

    Big 12

    Favorite: Oklahoma. The Sooners will begin the summer in the Big 12 driver’s seat even if it hasn’t been a pretty month-plus for Bob Stoops and OU.

    Dark horse: Oklahoma State. It might seem strange to call Oklahoma State a sleeper, but the loaded and explosive Cowboys are still flying under the radar.

    Bringing up the rear: Kansas. Last year’s win against Texas proved that all is not lost in Lawrence. That’s not to say the Jayhawks don’t seem destined to bring up the rear in the conference standings.

    Big Ten

    Favorite: Ohio State. An influx of early enrollees this spring helped Urban Meyer and OSU begin the process of solidifying a depth chart ravaged by departures for the NFL.

    Dark horse: Wisconsin. A smooth schedule, improved quarterback play and the program’s annual consistency point toward a potential banner year for the Badgers.

    Bringing up the rear: Rutgers. The long road back continues. It wasn’t a pretty spring for the Scarlet Knights.

    Pac-12

    Favorite: Southern California. Let the hype machine roll for Sam Darnold and the Trojans.

    Dark horse: UCLA. Meanwhile, the Bruins’ own star quarterback, Josh Rosen, seemed healthy and ready to hit his stride during the spring.

    Bringing up the rear: California. The Golden Bears won’t be terrible, but someone’s got to finish last.

    SEC

    Favorite: Alabama. Surprised? It’s the same old story in Tuscaloosa.

    Dark horse: Georgia. In this case, teams such as LSU and Auburn don’t qualify for the dark-horse label. After going 8-5 in 2016, Georgia definitely qualifies.

    Bringing up the rear: Mississippi and Vanderbilt. The talent’s there, but how will the Rebels respond to the program’s self-imposed bowl ban? And while Vanderbilt is experienced, can Derek Mason lead the Commodores back into bowl play?

    Like

  70. Brian says:

    http://www.ajc.com/sports/baseball/braves-attendance-suntrust-park-just-above-last-year-average/BY0PRh4YtD5nl8lgUBmHGP/

    A new stadium isn’t everything.

    The Braves got 2 sellouts to open the season but since then they’re averaging almost exactly what they did at Turner Field last year (25,160 vs 25,017 in 2016).

    Like

    • hankcarf says:

      I have a friend, a former life-long Braves fan, who dropped them because he was so mad about them leaving for the suburbs. It could be he’s not alone.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The traffic clusterfuck doesn’t help either. I’ve heard people claiming how much better they’ve handled it after the first couple of games. I think these numbers explain why. It should be a lot easier to handle less than 2/3 of the traffic.

        Maybe when I-85 opens back up some people will be less scared of the traffic and give it a try. Deep down I don’t think the Braves really care because the new stadium gives them new revenue streams (they own the surrounding parking, and rent space to stores and restaurants) and that was the whole point. This whole thing was a reaction to the bad TV deal they signed years ago and can’t get out of.

        Like

      • Bob syeks says:

        Bostonians weep for him.

        Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      This could be a Wisconsin v. Purdue type situation, I wonder if the Braves sort of replace fans from south of the Cobb County with more Tennesseans who might be willing to make a drive like Nebraska-based fans of the KC Royals do.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        There is some of that trade off.

        http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/braves-ticket-buyers/

        That map shows ticket sales from 2012 to give you an idea of where the fans live. The stadium didn’t really move far enough to reduce the drive for most of the northern fans. I-285 is so jammed at rush hour that getting downtown wasn’t much harder than getting to the new location. Plus, the fans may live in those areas but many of them work in town so the move didn’t help at all.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      Team is terrible. Braves had trouble drawing when they were good.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        True, but most major cities can fill a brand new ballpark for a year just out of fan curiosity despite having a bad team. I think the Braves overestimated their fan base.

        Like

  71. Mike says:

    This is a pretty bold prediction.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s not too bold. That’s when their TV deal and GOR ends. Many people have speculated they’d be gone by then at the latest.

      Like

  72. Brian says:

    Richard Deitsch had Jim Miller (guy who wrote the book on ESPN) on his podcast and Miller says he doesn’t believe the ACCN will ever go beyond digital according to this tweet from an FSU blogger.

    Ira Schoffel‏Verified account @IraSchoffel May 2

    Ira Schoffel Retweeted Richard Deitsch

    Notable: Jim Miller, who literally wrote the book on ESPN, says he doesn’t think ESPN will go through with an ACC channel beyond digital.

    You can listen to the podcast here:
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/si-media-podcast-with-richard-deitsch/id997819235?mt=2#episodeGuid=gid%3A%2F%2Fart19-episode-locator%2FV0%2FcuJN5fyUrkh30fCMZ3EvSi81oC1TX-CCcpqkf44-Arw

    Like

  73. Brian says:

    https://apnews.com/541de26ccb9c45f193f548991aa27f68

    Shocking news for Illini fans – your AD has been unprofitable. IL lost $6.2M in 2016.

    He said Illinois generated $91.6 million in revenue in 2016 while spending $97.8 million. In the Big Ten that year, 14 other departments generated an average of $113 million while spending $109 million.

    “Our biggest source of untapped revenue right now is you see 20,000 empty seats in our football stadium and 5,000 empty seats in the basketball arena and that represents ticket revenue, concessions, parking, private donations, merchandise,” Whitman said. “There’s probably $10 to $15 million in revenue per year that we’re leaving on the table by not having the success that we need in those two priority spots.”

    Like

  74. Brian says:

    http://www.omaha.com/uno/reports-missouri-valley-likely-to-add-valparaiso-as-sole-addition/article_d192fe1e-2f8e-11e7-8aa9-c39ca1fa12b2.html

    It looks like Valparaiso will replace Wichita State in the MVC with no further expansion of the MVC.

    That would leave a hole in the Horizon league as they’d drop to 9 members.

    Like

  75. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19288912/how-grad-transfers-become-college-football-free-agents

    Grad transfers are CFB’s free agents and their numbers are growing rapidly.

    Notable 2017 graduate transfers

    QB Brandon Harris: LSU to North Carolina
    RB Stanton Truitt: Auburn to North Carolina
    OL Cam Dillard: Florida to North Carolina
    OL Khaliel Rodgers: USC to North Carolina
    QB Max Browne: USC to Pitt
    TE Matt Flanagan: Rutgers to Pitt
    CB Dee Delaney: Citadel to Miami
    QB Thomas Sirk: Duke to East Carolina
    CB Devin Butler: Notre Dame to Syracuse
    CB Jordan Martin: Toledo to Syracuse
    CB Cedric Jiles: Mississippi State to Wake Forest
    OT Evan Lisle: Ohio State to Duke
    WR James Clark: Ohio State to Virginia Tech
    WR Jalen Brown: Oregon to Northwestern
    DB Josh Okonye: Wake Forest to Purdue
    LB T.J. McCollum: Western Kentucky to Purdue
    WR Corey Holmes: Notre Dame to Purdue
    DB Shaq Wiggins: Louisville to Tennessee
    RB Gus Edwards: Miami to Rutgers
    OL Wilson Bell: Florida State to Auburn
    OL Casey Dunn: Jacksonville State to Auburn
    OL Christian Daimler: Oklahoma to Texas A&M
    QB Kyle Bolin: Louisville to Rutgers
    DL Scott Pagano: Clemson to Oregon
    DB Adrian Baker: Clemson to Oklahoma State
    OL Aaron Cochran: Cal to Oklahoma State
    WR Jeff Badet: Kentucky to Oklahoma
    OL Dwayne Johnson: Nebraska to Texas Tech
    OL Zach Hannon: Nebraska to Kansas
    OL David Dawson: Michigan to Iowa State

    That’s just the notable ones (mostly P5 to P5).

    Like

  76. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/142275/signs-point-to-2017-being-big-tens-highest-scoring-season-on-record

    Signs point to this potentially being the highest scoring year in the B10 ever.

    Like

  77. Brian says:

    http://www.ncaa.com/news/volleyball-men/article/2017-05-06/2017-mens-volleyball-championship-ohio-state-takes-title

    OSU repeats as MVB national champions, adding to the B10’s total titles for the year.

    Meanwhile UMD swept the lacrosse tournaments again (although OSU’s men made them work for it). Both Terps teams are ranked #1 so hopefully the B10 can bring home some more hardware.

    Eventually an old B10 member will win a B10 lacrosse title.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Been 42 years since the Terp men have won an NCAA lacrosse title. Heck, I was a sophomore at College Park that spring.

      Both Maryland teams have been seeded #1 in their respective tournaments.

      Like

  78. wscsuperfan says:

    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/05/the_sec_network_is_still_the_k.html

    SEC Network valued four times as much as Big Ten Network

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Some tidbits:

      The SEC Network is valued at $4.692 billion — a slight dip from its 2015 valuation of $4.77 billion — while the Big Ten Network is at $1.142 billion and Pac-12 Networks lags behind at $305 million. In 2015, SNL Kagan valued the Big Ten Network at $1.59 billion.

      The SEC Network’s lofty valuation is despite losing eight million subscribers in the last two years, according to SNL Kagan estimates. Most industry experts have assessed SEC Network at 70 million subscribers — the estimates pegged it at 69.1 million in Aug. 2015 — but SNL Kagan end-of-2016 data put it at 61.4 million subscribers.

      The SEC Network’s average monthly subscriber fee is $0.74, according to SNL Kagan’s most recent data, a good chunk more than the Big Ten ($0.43) and Pac-12 ($0.27). That average monthly subscriber fee, which takes into account in-market and out-of-market prices, makes the SEC Network the fifth-most expensive sports network for consumers behind ESPN ($7.21), NFL Network ($1.39), FS1 ($1.15) and ESPN2 ($0.90).

      Based on subscriber number and fee estimates, the SEC Network is generating approximately $545 million off subscriber fees alone — more than NBC Sports, MLB Network and NBA TV. That doesn’t take into account the revenue generated through SEC Network’s placement on over-the-top platforms Sling TV, DirecTV Now and the recently launched Hulu Live TV. SEC Network recently announced it would soon be available in Mexico which should boost revenue albeit potentially minimally.

      What will be interesting is whether the SEC Network can improve upon its $1.30 in-market subscription fee in future carriage negotiations with cable providers. If it can do that — and it is believed to be well within the realm of possibilities — that could further push the SEC Network ahead of its conference TV competition.

      Like

  79. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/08/power-five-tv-rights-deals-amazon-google

    Andy Staples looks into the future of CFB TV deals and the potential importance of Silicon Valley.

    The easy hot take given these circumstances is that the sports media rights bubble will pop, and the money college leagues make from selling the broadcast rights to football and basketball will peak just before the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 deals expire in the middle of the next decade. The revenue that has fueled huge coaching salaries, a facilities arms race and angst over the size of the cut the majority of the labor force receives will slow or fall. Power 5 athletic directors will have to—gasp—manage money responsibly instead of simply relying on the next media rights bump to cover any overspending.

    The reality is more complicated and less certain. Like newspapers before them, ESPN and Fox will grapple with disruption to their business model and ultimately may have to remake themselves if they want to continue to thrive in the new media landscape. But reflexively forecasting doom assumes television networks are the only entities that will bid on sports rights in the future*. That is almost certainly not going to be the case. “I really see a time when there are going to be a lot of players in the marketplace and there are going to be a lot of distribution methods,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. “The unknown is how much is it all worth? I don’t think there’s anyone who legitimately knows what it’s going to be worth.”

    Or these companies might kick the tires on sports rights and decide they don’t need them. Remember, they’re already wildly successful without live sports. This is the gamble Delany took when the Big Ten opted for six-year deals for its Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. “There’s no doubt we’re in a disruptive environment,” Delany said. “There definitely is money and interest on the sideline. It really hasn’t emerged very much yet, but I’m sure that there is—whether it’s Apple or Google or Hulu or any number of companies.”

    Delany is betting that demand for Big Ten football will be so valuable that the revenue from the next deals will outpace these deals. But he also has a hedge; the Big Ten Network’s deal with Fox runs until 2032. On the other end of the spectrum is the ACC, which allowed ESPN to lock up its rights until 2036 in return for getting a conference network that is scheduled to launch in 2019. “If you go shorter, you take out a little more risk,” Delany said. “But you also have a little more upside.”

    The Big 12 may have strife within its ranks, but its media rights deals actually are among the best in the space considering the quality of the football offerings. Bowlsby said each of the 10 schools will receive close to $40 million a year by the end of the contract, and that doesn’t include the Tier 3 deals that each school has made individually. (The Longhorn Network partnership between Texas and ESPN is the most lucrative example.) Every school in the Big 12 makes more off its third-tier deal than each school in the Pac-12 makes off the league owned-and-operated Pac-12 Network. The underwhelming performance of the Pac-12 Network continues to be a sore spot, but Scott said it isn’t reason to panic. “There’s anxiety in our conference, but I think it’s more about the future,” Scott said. “We’re reading about the success of the SEC Network and the Big Ten’s new TV deal. There’s fear of might we fall behind in the future. But sitting here today, we’re in great shape.”

    That anxiety about the future isn’t limited to the Pac-12. Every league is feeling it as the cable networks hemorrhage subscribers. An industry that has become accustomed to economic growth now has to grapple with the very real possibility of flat revenue or less revenue in the near future. Of course, the possibility is just as real that some deep-pocketed newcomers could swoop in from Silicon Valley and keep the money flowing. “We could be right, or we could be wrong,” Delany said. “History will tell us.”

    In a separate piece at the bottom, Staples said this:

    It’s fun to poke fun at the Big 12 for being completely dysfunctional most of the time, but the demise of the league is not a fait accompli. If the football product gets better toward the end of this media rights deal, the Big 12 will look like a more attractive conference home than the Pac-12 will.

    Really? Yes, the B12 payout per school is higher right now. But isn’t the instability of the B12 a factor in how attractive the conference is as a home? How much money is it worth to know that no school is seriously considering leaving your conference? How big would the gap have to get to persuade any P12 members to go join the B12? And this is completely ignoring the academic and cultural differences which is unwise for conference realignment discussions.

    Like

  80. Brian says:

    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/05/how_espns_struggles_could_dera.html

    How ESPN’s problems could hurt CFB.

    The major question is what happens when ESPN and other TV networks decide they don’t want to keep upping the ante each time a rights deal comes up for renewal?

    Could cord-cutting and other issues eventually negatively impact the more powerful Power 5 conferences? In theory, absolutely.

    If ESPN continues to lose subscribers at its current rate, it might have no choice but to pass on expensive college rights given its billions of dollars of overhead for NFL and NBA media rights. The company has already made small cost-saving measures like last week’s layoffs, but if it wants to save significant money, it’ll have to reevaluate its right-securing process. Live sports television has long been considered the antidote to cord-cutting, but any time even a non-sports fan drops cable, ESPN feels it.

    If ESPN isn’t as interested or as aggressive as it has been, it lowers the demand and likely reduces the cost of the rights.

    The Big Ten should be an interesting bellwether for an evolving market. When it agreed to a deal in 2016, media observers believed ESPN might not bid on the rights given its shrinking distribution. ESPN ultimately decided to pay an average of $190 million annually but for a lesser package after reportedly bidding low on the initial package that went to FOX. Given the way the industry has changed so quickly, ESPN could be in a significantly different place, for better or worse, when the Big Ten’s rights come up for bidding again.

    Adam Gajo, the sports business analyst for SNL Kagan, doesn’t expect demand to crater, though.

    “Growth may slow a bit, depending on a number of factors, but the values will continue to grow, especially for top tier programming like the Power 5 conference rights,” Gajo said. “As the rights continue to increase, they may continue to be shared by multiple networks.”

    If not the Big Ten, the SEC could be in the most stable position. It is already generating huge money from TV — the league listed $420 million in revenue from TV, radio rights in its 2016 filings — and can always bank on a large, passionate fanbase wanting its product. The league’s deal with CBS runs out after the 2023 season and the SEC should certainly be able to get more than $55 million annually for its weekly game of the week.

    The downside for the SEC is that it doesn’t own a stake in its network — ESPN maintains 100 percent ownership — and instead agreed to split revenue at a rate believed to be less than 50-50 for the conference and its members. The SEC is the Power 5 conference most tied to ESPN given it leveraged ESPN’s distribution model for massive early success rather than maintain ownership but that is still far more beneficial than detrimental at this point. The SEC Network is the strongest of the three conference networks — its average subscriber cost is more than three times the Pac-12’s — and as long as it keeps showing football games, that doesn’t figure to change.

    “Even in the midst of cord-cutting, we’ve seen progression in revenue,” said SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. “I think there’s actually more good news there than there is anything that’s problematic for us.”

    The SEC Network has lost millions of subscribers but is still the clear king of conference TV networks.

    Another important factor to consider is that as the market evolves, new potential distributors will pop up. Twitter and Amazon have both shown an interest in live sports programming, signing deals to stream some of NFL’s Thursday Night Football package. It’s certainly conceivable that a digital operation like Amazon or YouTube could make a play for college sports rights if ESPN and other traditional companies shy away. Thus far only smaller conferences like CUSA have opted for non-traditional partnerships, largely out of necessity, though if the money and platform is good enough, eventually bigger conferences could be enticed.

    The passion for college sports, and subsequent strong viewership, will always make it attractive to rights-holders. It’s properties like college football that earn companies significant money through both subscription and advertising revenue. Even if ESPN, FS1 and other companies continue to see significant subscriber losses, the market for college media rights isn’t going to suddenly evaporate.

    “One theory out there is there is a sports bubble that is about to burst for properties, but I don’t see that as being the case,” said Dan Shevchik, vice president of Sports Media Advisors. “Maybe there is greater margin pressure for people who distribute the content.”

    Like

  81. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19339267/collegiate-commissioners-association-approves-early-signing-period-football

    The early signing period is official.

    The first early signing period for Division I will run from Dec. 20 to Dec. 22, 2017, coinciding with the first three days of the midyear junior college signing period.

    Spring official visits were also approved and will start on 4/1/2018.

    Like

  82. vp19 says:

    Don’t write off Maryland women’s basketball despite losing two stars to the WNBA and having guard Destiny Slocum transfer (to Oregon State, it turns out). The Terrapins signed a star Florida guard who decommitted from Illinois after it changed coaches, are getting a Greek player at midyear who had been the leading scorer at the U. of Florida, and coach Brenda Frese is confident some of the understudies will step up in 2017-2018. Read this interview with her on the state of the program from Testudo Times: http://www.testudotimes.com/maryland-terps-womens-basketball/2017/5/4/15518938/offseason-transfers-wnba-signings-commits-schedule

    Like

  83. Brian says:

    It’s official. Valpo to the MVC. How many more dominoes will fall?

    Like

  84. Brian says:

    http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-would-the-big-ten-welcome-ou/article/5548411

    Would the B10 accept OU?

    But contrary to what I wrote the other day, getting to the Big Ten might not be as difficult as thought.

    A Big Ten professor who follows college football wrote me to dispute the accepted dogma that the Big Ten would only consider members of the Association of American Universities, an elite academic organization.

    He pointed out not only Michigan State’s admission to the Big Ten in 1953 (11 years before the Spartans were granted AAU membership), but the Big Ten’s frequent interest in adding Notre Dame, which also is not an AAU member.

    Nebraska was an AAU member when granted Big Ten membership in 2010 but was voted out of the organization in 2011, based mainly on competitive research financing and the share of faculty in the National Academies. The Big Ten professor said Big Ten presidents knew in 2010 that Nebraska was in danger of losing its AAU membership, and then Nebraska-chancellor Harvey Perlman admitted his school had known for a decade that its AAU status was in peril.

    Adding MSU over 60 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion in my opinion. This is a very different time with very different presidents. ND would a good example except that ND is an elite undergraduate school that lacks the research to make the AAU. That’s not OU at all. The NE comparison is the only one that is on point to me.

    My professor source asks a solid question. Why would the Big Ten vote in a Nebraska it knew was headed out of the AAU but not an OU that has made significant academic strides over the last quarter century and long has had designs of its own on AAU membership?

    1. Being in and getting voted out for technicalities (med school location, how to count ag research and faculty) is quite different from never getting in. That said, I’m guessing that getting in 100 years ago was easier than it is now.

    2. Yes OU is improving, but so is the competition. Lots of schools have designs on making the AAU. That doesn’t mean they ever will. Lots of athletes have designs on playing professionally, too.

    But are there other impediments should the Sooners seek Big Ten membership?

    Of course.

    Well, a partner is mandatory, preferably from this part of the country. And that means either Texas or Kansas (both of which are AAU members, by the way). Either would fulfill the Big Ten’s apparent requirements of new markets. Either, with OU, would provide an easy divisional break, with the Sooners and either Texas or KU joining Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern. And OU in a Big Ten West would help balance what is clearly an inequity, with the Big Ten East currently a far-superior football division.

    All good points. And I think that if UT is the partner then it’s an obvious yes.

    If KU is the potential partner, then it’s debatable:

    1. Would that pair increase revenue per school?

    Probably, but not by much as both are medium to small states (and split states at that). They are big brands in the two major sports, though, which can boost Tier 1 deals.

    2. Would that pair hurt the B10’s academic brand?

    A little bit, maybe, but not enough to have a noticeable impact I don’t think. KU is a little above NE and OU is a little below them. On the other hand, there were rumors that the presidents told Delany not to come to them with a school as academically weak as NE ever again.

    3. Would that pair solve a problem the B10 has?

    UMD and RU added good demographics. NE added a football brand at a time when the B10 was down. The B10 isn’t really lacking for football brands now, but one could argue you could never have too many of them. Certainly getting better divisional brand balance would be nice. A MBB brand could be helpful as the national title drought is getting pretty long. Neither state is large, but OK is growing faster than the midwest and OU provides some reach into Dallas. Maybe that’s worth it. If it’s considered as part of a strategy to eventually add UT, then certainly the presidents would accept.

    4. Is it worth playing the other B10 schools less often to add them?

    There is no right or wrong answer to this, but I think growing to 16 is problematic in a divisional structure. 7+2 scheduling means you only play crossover teams once every 4 years. I’d suggest dropping divisions entirely (lock 3 and rotate 6 -> playing everyone every other year) if you change the NCAA rules for a CCG. Pods don’t work well for those 16 teams.

    5. Would the opportunity cost be too high?

    If you take OU and KU, you are essentially done expanding. Is it worth losing any shot at the ACC schools? If UT came available later, are you willing to go beyond 16?

    In a nutshell, I just don’t know how the presidents would vote. I think it would be close.

    A friend in the business has been telling me for years that OU and Texas appeal to the Big Ten and its networks, because they would more easily provide night games late in the season.

    Reasonable, I guess.

    Going into the Big Ten with Kansas would cause the Sooners immediate problems. They would be given a nine-game conference schedule and be left with two traditional nonconference opponents in OSU and Texas.

    No way would the Sooners want to end their Dallas tradition with Texas, and no way could the Sooners end Bedlam. Getting the legislature to sign off on a move to the Big Ten would be difficult enough, much less if it came with the demise of Bedlam.

    Going into the Big Ten with Texas would cause less stress.

    Good points.

    The Big Ten would not be as beneficial for OU football as membership in the Big 12, the SEC or the Pac-12. The Sooners don’t recruit in Big Ten territory. Never have to any extent. The Big Ten’s bowl games, centered in California and Florida, would be problematic. A conference championship game in Indianapolis has little appeal compared to JerryWorld in Arlington.

    The B10 used to play multiple bowls in TX and could do so again, not that OU aspires to the lesser bowls anyway. Since the B12 lost the Cotton Bowl as their top bowl, I don’t think this matters much. The CCG could rotate through JerryWorld as well as Indy. The B10 has quickly moved MBB to DC and NYC. Certainly they’d love to get CFB in Dallas.

    But the academic prestige that comes with the Big Ten transforms a university. I’ve written before about Nebraska’s increased status, even without AAU membership. OU in the Big Ten would cause wild celebration in the academic centers of campus.

    Yes, the faculty would certainly support it.

    My Big Ten professor says that OU and Nebraska are “virtually identical” academically. I don’t know if that’s true. But the professor said that if Big Ten presidents “view Nebraska, with their level of academics, as someone with whom they wish to associate, I cannot imagine why Oklahoma would not be a school that they would welcome.”

    If you ignore their pasts, OU and NE may be nearly equal. But the past influences reputation and NE has the edge there.

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Good points on all of possibilities. I am not sure i believe that the presidents said “don’t bring us another school with such weak academics” If they had reservations they wouldn’t be so cavalier. They would have rejected NE so I think that statement may be a bit overblown. i like OU and UT but struggle to think they fit culturally mostly due to geography. However, the same can be said Rutgers and Maryland but at least there you can point to all the B1G alums and huge east coast markets with strong recruiting grounds.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Kevin,

        “I am not sure i believe that the presidents said “don’t bring us another school with such weak academics” If they had reservations they wouldn’t be so cavalier. They would have rejected NE so I think that statement may be a bit overblown.”

        As I said, it’s a rumor. It could also be one of those statements that’s true up until they see who the candidate actually is. I don’t think there any absolutes in realignment.

        “i like OU and UT but struggle to think they fit culturally mostly due to geography.”

        True, but the same is true for the eastern schools. OU fits with NE and UT fits with OU. Besides, they’re valuable. Money covers up a lot of warts.

        “However, the same can be said Rutgers and Maryland but at least there you can point to all the B1G alums and huge east coast markets with strong recruiting grounds.”

        Texas has big markets and excellent recruiting grounds, too. As for alumni, the #4 location for OSU alumni outside of Ohio is eastern Texas (Dallas, Austin, Houston) with 7940. That’s after DC/NoVA (9400), NYC (9200) and Chicago (8600). I’m guessing many of the western schools also have many alumni in Texas.

        Like

  85. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/09/espn-layoffs-media-rights-bubble-college-sports

    This article was also in the print version of SI. It’s about the rights fee bubble bursting and how that will change college sports going forward.

    I dispute the central premise. Rights may plateau in value, but they aren’t going to suddenly lose 50% of their value. P5 conferences will find a way to make money from digital rights as cable loses ground.

    But then came the great migration away from cable and toward digital. ESPN is in 12 million fewer homes than it was in 2011, and the entire cable bundle is unraveling. A switch to a so-called à la carte model—pay only for what you want to watch—will further erode subscription-fee revenue. It could also mark the death of conference networks. “It was a nice model,” says Frank Hawkins, principal of Scalar Media Partners, a Manhattan sports and media consulting firm, “but it isn’t going to last.”

    The future front in the cable-digital war is a likely reduction in rights fees. For all but the most premium content, prices are likely to drop. One lawyer present for the negotiations chuckles when he recalls ESPN’s most recent NBA contract. “If that deal was being done today, it would look much different…. We’re talking 30%-less different.” That deal, mind you, was made 16 months ago.

    In a world of fragmented viewership, professional leagues will try to make up the decline in revenue in other ways. That means finding new partners. (Amazon, Twitter and Verizon have all made recent deals to stream NFL games.) Leagues can—and will—reduce labor costs (that is, player salaries) when revenues fall. They can tinker with ticket pricing. They can attempt to penetrate new markets, as the NBA has in China and India.

    College athletics, though, is different. For one, there are no player salaries to slash. Cutting an unprofitable program is complicated by Title IX legislation.

    Before declaring college sports Armageddon, to use the locution of Alabama football coach Nick Saban—he of the extension that will see him make $11.125 million this year—let’s hold up and level-set. Truly premium content—like SEC football—will always attract an audience. Like their pro sports counterparts, college sports can offset some cable-revenue declines by making deals with digital suitors. And colleges can turn to student fees and donors to help make up losses. Plus, the athletic directors have time to figure it out: Most cable deals don’t lapse until the middle of the next decade, and the NCAA’s March Madness contract with Turner/CBS runs through 2032. (After the ESPN news broke, Swofford reassured his ADs that he had spoken with ESPN president John Skipper and plans for the 2019 launch of the ACC Network would continue.)

    Still, the college sports landscape will look different. The divide between the schools from the Power 5 conferences and the rest will widen. Nameplates, not 43-inch monitors, will festoon lockers. There will be fewer $600,000 strength coaches. Football players will have to nap in their dorm rooms. “The athletic department of tomorrow,” says Hawkins, “could go through what Bristol is going through today.”

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Yeah, i don’t believe we will see a big drop in rights fees. I think they may slow a bit but content has always been king. I don’t think cord cutting will continue at this pace either. There is probably a floor of people that want or need cable.

      There is a reason we had over 100 million cable households at one point. People like their TV but they are watching it differently now. It’s not like people are buying 60″ flat screens to watch re-runs on Netflix. People want live sports. Do they want to pay $150 per month to their cable company for internet and TV?

      Wages in the country haven’t kept pace and people now have internet bills/cell phone bills and TV bills and are looking for ways to trim costs and TV has become the lower hanging fruit. Internet prices at $50-60 per month seems very steep. 20 years ago it was essentially free with dial up. Cell phone bills were closer to $40 per month as there was no data plan requirement and cable was $35/mo.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        I see a significant drop in rights fees. ESPN was subsidized by non-sports fans as much or more than big sports fans. Skinny Bundles and a la carte are going to kill rights fees.

        I’ve been saying it’s a bubble for half a decade. Wasn’t hard. If anyone ever tells you “can’t” lose money on a deal you know its a bubble, and many of you have told me over the years that live sports are DVR proof and cord-cutting proof.

        Live sports aren’t. There’s a 130 people with pink-slips from the WWL to testify to that.

        Sure, you can say that streaming can make up for it, but that requires a lot of assumptions I’m not making. First, it assumes that internet speed and reliability will significantly increase in the next decade, especially outside major metro areas, to levels good enough to maintain a consistent, minimally buffering, 4k/30fps/HDR to make streaming comparable to the ATSC 3.0 that will be standard by then. Considering how the established companies are dragging their feet to upgrade the network, let’s just say I have my doubts. And since TVs will be using internet bandwidth in ATSC 3.0, I have even more doubts. Secondly you assume that cord-cutters will pay for the Sports. I’m old enough to remember Pay-per-View. The only sports folks have been willing to watch on pay-per-view are rasslin’, boxing (kind of), and Nebraska football. I’m sure Netflix and Amazon remember that as well as I do. You can ask the 130 how well ESPN3 does, not well enough to save their jobs. I think you also well over estimate how much people will pay. I liked ESPN, but I don’t miss it. I sure as hell won’t pay $10/mo for the garbage ESPN has on most of the time now. I wouldn’t pay $12 or even $6 a year for BTN. $12/yr might be my upper limit for any single non-movie channel currently on cable. There are a lot more people like me out there who’ll not subsidize these rights fees anymore.

        The good news for the Big Ten, and the SEC, is that there will be another round of consolidation and that the biggest followings will get the largest share of the smaller pie. This is what will probably shake Texas loose. Depending on the next decade, it may even shake loose Tobacco Road and maybe even ND.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          If they don’t block my VPN, I’d pay $2/month for BTN. That’d be $14/yr, for August-February.

          Like

        • urbanleftbehind says:

          It will devolve back to the CFA (SEC, ACC) v. Big10Pac10 split of the mid-80s. The Big12s deemed worthy will scatter to both camps.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          FLP_NDRox,

          “I see a significant drop in rights fees.”

          It’s hard for me to picture. ESPN is still highly profitable. I think they will trim their less desirable properties first.

          “ESPN was subsidized by non-sports fans as much or more than big sports fans. Skinny Bundles and a la carte are going to kill rights fees.”

          But hardcore sports fans would be willing to pay a lot more than $7/month for ESPN. If/when things go a la carte, prices for the best channels will jump. People pay $10-15 for a movie ticket all the time and that’s maybe 2 hours of entertainment.

          “I’ve been saying it’s a bubble for half a decade.”

          Some people have been saying that for decades and they haven’t been shown to be right yet.

          “If anyone ever tells you “can’t” lose money on a deal you know its a bubble, and many of you have told me over the years that live sports are DVR proof and cord-cutting proof.”

          TV ratings have held up quite well, at least for the top games which is where all the money is.

          “There’s a 130 people with pink-slips from the WWL to testify to that.”

          No, they testify to ESPN wasting tons of money on a giant new studio and talking heads among other things. They also testify to Disney’s bottom line being dependent on ESPN making ridiculous levels of profit to cover the other divisions.

          “First, it assumes that internet speed and reliability will significantly increase in the next decade, especially outside major metro areas, to levels good enough to maintain a consistent, minimally buffering, 4k/30fps/HDR to make streaming comparable to the ATSC 3.0 that will be standard by then.”

          It has improved every decade and we still always complain that it isn’t good enough. That will always be true with communication infrastructure.

          “Secondly you assume that cord-cutters will pay for the Sports.”

          We assume that some will. To assume otherwise is foolish.

          “The only sports folks have been willing to watch on pay-per-view are rasslin’, boxing (kind of), and Nebraska football.”

          http://newsok.com/article/5442378

          Not true. I believe many B12 schools have used PPV over the years.

          Fox Sports Oklahoma has announced Oklahoma’s football season opener vs. Akron on Sept. 5 [2015] will be made available via pay-per-view.

          The game is being televised on a pay-per-view basis because it was not selected for over-the-air broadcast or cable television coverage. It will be available on a dedicated pay-per-view channel on participating Oklahoma program providers, and nationwide via participating satellite and Telco distributors. Pricing will vary by distributor.

          Viewers outside the state of Oklahoma can purchase a live stream of the pay-per-view broadcast on SoonerSports.tv. The online pay-per-view price is $54.99.

          “You can ask the 130 how well ESPN3 does, not well enough to save their jobs.”

          ESPN hasn’t tried to maximize revenue from ESPN3. They use it to drive ESPN subscriptions and develop their streaming capabilities instead.

          “I wouldn’t pay $12 or even $6 a year for BTN. $12/yr might be my upper limit for any single non-movie channel currently on cable. There are a lot more people like me out there who’ll not subsidize these rights fees anymore.”

          And millions of B10 fans readily would pay that much and more without even blinking. Just because you won’t pay for any entertainment ($12 for up to 8760 hours of entertainment is your cap) doesn’t mean others are so cheap.

          “The good news for the Big Ten, and the SEC, is that there will be another round of consolidation and that the biggest followings will get the largest share of the smaller pie. This is what will probably shake Texas loose. Depending on the next decade, it may even shake loose Tobacco Road and maybe even ND.”

          ND can’t go anywhere but the ACC for almost 20 years. Even then, I think it’ll be hard to ever convince their alumni to fully join a conference.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Wow, you are optimistic. I hope you’re holding Disney stock.

            > But hardcore sports fans would be willing to pay a lot more than $7/month for ESPN. If/when things go a la carte, prices for the best channels will jump. People pay $10-15 for a movie ticket all the time and that’s maybe 2 hours of entertainment.

            Lol. You think you’re getting ESPN for less than netflix? No. No no no. Back in 2015, Michael Nathanson crunched the numbers, and his estimate for ESPN/month?

            $36.30 a month.

            $435.60 a year.

            People are straight up NOT going to pay that. Maybe you might with all your Disney stock, but not the rest of us. And really, who needs ESPN? According to USAToday at the time of the estimate the only fans groups that “needed” ESPN are Tennis and College Sports fans.

            http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/07/espn-ala-carte-price-unbundle-unbundling-price-per-month-hbo

            That well is going to go dry when a la carte and skinny bundles hit. ESPN may hang on with a Disney bundle, estimates of that may be able to get that group under $20/month, but ESPN sure aren’t going to be printing money anymore.

            > > 4k/30fps/HDR to make streaming comparable to the ATSC 3.0

            Sorry, ATSC 3.0 is looking like its going to be 4k/*120*fps/HDR so another 4 times the data. I hope you are right and everyone will have streaming that good. I don’t have any reason to think it’ll happen, though.

            I really don’t know why you assume big cable won’t eat into the rights fees/profits by charging outrageous fees for priority or even just regular traffic to streaming sites they don’t own given the Trump FCC smokesignals.

            > We assume that some will. To assume otherwise is foolish.

            No, you are assuming *enough* will. I don’t know why you make that assumption. Considering the rate of cord cutting, and how sports is supposed to be the major thing stopping it, I really would love to year why you think you’ll find enough fans to generate 2013 or so levels of income.

            > Not true. I believe many B12 schools have used PPV over the years.

            Successfully to the point of being like a broadcast rights deal? The fact that I couldn’t find a non-Nebraska story on a quick google makes me doubtful.

            > Fox Sports Oklahoma has announced Oklahoma’s football season opener vs. Akron on Sept. 5 [2015] will be made available via pay-per-view.

            $55 for the Akron game?!? Yeah. Let’s see how much they make from that.

            > millions of B10 fans readily would pay that much and more without even blinking. Just because you won’t pay for any entertainment ($12 for up to 8760 hours of entertainment is your cap) doesn’t mean others are so cheap.

            Let’s see… ESPN is estimated to cost 5x what we are paying for it now if offered a la carte. Assuming BTN’s price increase is only that much, and that we are “in footprint”, That’s $5/mo for games so bad ESPN and Fox didn’t want them? “Millions” will pay that. Yeah, OK. My gut says the price will be more like $7-10. Good luck with that.

            And even if they do, what makes you think enough will buy it to keep the same income rolling in, much less increased income like we’ve been seeing in the last decade?

            Also, I’m not really paying for all those hours, I’m only paying for the games and shows I watch…which will never exceed 36.3hrs/wk. Over $1/hr and probably well over that is not worth it to me given the games on ESPN.

            > ND can’t go anywhere but the ACC for almost 20 years. Even then, I think it’ll be hard to ever convince their alumni to fully join a conference.

            No kidding. I’m a ND alum. I’m already upset the Hockey Team is going B1G to bail you out while Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota get their stuff together. I don’t think the rights bubble bursting will shake ND loose. I’m almost wondering/hping if it will encourage more teams to go independent by establishing another CFA type association that the broadcasters will encourage to have more flexible scheduling to maintain interesting match-ups throughout the season especially for good G5 teams or the leftovers of the BXII/ACC wreckage if their conference goes belly-up. I doubt it, but apparently we can still dream.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            FLP_NDRox,

            “Lol. You think you’re getting ESPN for less than netflix?”

            Right now? Yes, I do. Every expert says so. I wasn’t giving an a la carte price for ESPN.

            “Back in 2015, Michael Nathanson crunched the numbers, and his estimate for ESPN/month?

            $36.30 a month.”

            I can’t argue his analysis because it isn’t available online without a subscription. His price is based entirely on his number for the reach of ESPN now and in the a la carte future. Without knowing how he estimated that 16.8% of households would pay for ESPN, there’s nothing to debate. He could be off by 10 percentage points either way or be entirely correct for all we know.

            However, his price is also based on ESPN getting exactly the same revenue it does now. ESPN should be able to cut some costs if they only reach 1/6 of the people. Their programming would shift away from casual fans and focus more on what diehard fans want. That’s probably more games, replays and analysis with fewer talking heads. They could reduce the diversity of sports they have and focus on the moneymakers.

            That said, plenty of people are used to paying $70-150 per month for cable. As long as the total doesn’t go up, many people will keep paying for ESPN. I could also see them moving to a PPV model as an additional revenue stream.

            “People are straight up NOT going to pay that.”

            Some will. It’s still cheap entertainment. If you watch an average of 1 hour a day , you’re paying $1.20 an hour. That’s cheaper than almost any entertainment option out there.

            Let’s remember that HBONow costs $15 per month and has over 2M subscribers already. The number tripled in 2016 and their goal is 10M. Regular HBO has 49M subscribers at varying prices.

            “And really, who needs ESPN? According to USAToday at the time of the estimate the only fans groups that “needed” ESPN are Tennis and College Sports fans.”

            Anyone who insists on watching live games that ESPN has needs ESPN. Monday Night Football will push some NFL fans to get it. Many CFB and MBB need it. NBA fans would absolutely need it (you skipped them in your list). Maybe some other niche fans would need it. Others will just want it. Probably a lot of gambling addicts would need it.

            And remember, a lot of niche sports networks might die in the a la carte world. That would bring more value back to ESPN as the source for all the sports coverage.

            “That well is going to go dry when a la carte and skinny bundles hit. ESPN may hang on with a Disney bundle, estimates of that may be able to get that group under $20/month, but ESPN sure aren’t going to be printing money anymore.”

            Skinny bundles and some a la carte options already exist and ESPN is still fine.

            “I hope you are right and everyone will have streaming that good.”

            Millions of people stream their entertainment now. We’ll find some way to endure in the future.

            “I really don’t know why you assume big cable won’t eat into the rights fees/profits by charging outrageous fees for priority or even just regular traffic to streaming sites they don’t own given the Trump FCC smokesignals.”

            1. It’s still illegal as of now and no president and his policies lasts forever.
            2. Why assume ESPN would be hit any harder than any other entertainment source for this? If the pain is spread across all channels/sources then it’s not really a factor. It’ll be just another fee to be accounted for in the fine print.

            “No, you are assuming *enough* will.”

            Since I’m not throwing out a price, there is no such thing as “enough” people.

            “I don’t know why you make that assumption. Considering the rate of cord cutting, and how sports is supposed to be the major thing stopping it, I really would love to year why you think you’ll find enough fans to generate 2013 or so levels of income.”

            http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2017/03/how-espns-rising-carriage-fees-offset-its-subscriber-losses/

            Because math is good. ESPN is increasing their carriage rate faster than they’re losing subscribers.

            Here’s where Clay Travis’ narrative falls a bit flat: while ESPN has lost 14.5% of its subscribers in six years, its monthly carriage fee has increased 58.4% in that same span.

            In their current deal with Tim Warner cable, ESPN’s fee rises 6.5% per year.

            It is extremely difficult to suggest that ESPN is failing when its two biggest channels are expected to earn more than $8.8 billion in carriage fees alone in 2017 — an increase from an estimated $8.5 billion earned by those two channels in 2016.

            “$55 for the Akron game?!? Yeah. Let’s see how much they make from that.”

            I don’t know, but they’ve done a PPV game almost every season under Stoops so they aren’t losing money on it. They are all cupcake games that nobody watches on regular TV anyway, but if they can make a profit off those then imagine what a real game might make.

            “Let’s see… ESPN is estimated to cost 5x what we are paying for it now if offered a la carte. Assuming BTN’s price increase is only that much, and that we are “in footprint”, That’s $5/mo for games so bad ESPN and Fox didn’t want them? “Millions” will pay that. Yeah, OK. My gut says the price will be more like $7-10. Good luck with that.”

            Your analyst up above said ESPN would keep 16.8% reach at $36/month. Assume BTN can keep 16.8% of its current subscribers and that’s roughly 10 million people. So yes, millions. BTN only has to keep a little more than 3% to reach millions.

            “Also, I’m not really paying for all those hours, I’m only paying for the games and shows I watch…which will never exceed 36.3hrs/wk.”

            You are paying for all of them if you subscribe. You can only cherrypick under a PPV scenario.

            I agree you’re unlikely to watch more than 36 hours a week, but you don’t need to. 36 hours per month still makes it $1/hour. Even at 14 hours a month (4 x 3:30 hour CFB games) it’s only about $2.50 an hour. That’s still cheap. It’s like a $9 PPV price per game.

            “Over $1/hr and probably well over that is not worth it to me given the games on ESPN.”

            That’s you.

            “I’m already upset the Hockey Team is going B1G to bail you out while Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota get their stuff together.”

            The B10 put 3 teams into the NCAA tournament this year, including 4-seed MN. It doesn’t need to be bailed out.

            “I don’t think the rights bubble bursting will shake ND loose. I’m almost wondering/hping if it will encourage more teams to go independent by establishing another CFA type association that the broadcasters will encourage to have more flexible scheduling to maintain interesting match-ups throughout the season especially for good G5 teams or the leftovers of the BXII/ACC wreckage if their conference goes belly-up. I doubt it, but apparently we can still dream.”

            I don’t see independence as viable for many. Scheduling is too difficult these days. What I could see are football-only conferences forming to maximize revenues for the top brands.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Guess you don’t/wouldn’t mind missing CFP and NY6 games, or most of the other bowl games.

            http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/11/espn-reaches-12-year-agreement-for-new-college-football-playoff/

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Ccrider55: Yeah, I have been. It’s easier to swallow beer prices watching those games elsewhere than my cable bill. Not that I bothered last year.

            Brian:

            Anecdotes prove nothing. You’re paying $7/mo now. That will go up in the future. In the a la carte world most expect is coming it’s going to go up a lot more. Maybe 1 in 6 households will contain a sports fan willing to pay $36/mo. I’d actually believe that, but I’d be surprised if it was much more. HBO go is competing with Netflix, Amazon, and ppv movies. It’s still cheaper than Blockbuster, so it’s not a comparison. You’re right I missed about the NBA. Im not a fan and mostly flipped into TNT. Sports rating have declined the last year or so. What I’ve learned is that once you drop it’s easier than I thought to go without.

            The reason I think ESPN/live sports is going to be a problem streaming is twofold. Since ESPN is the big dog they have the most to lose and the biggest target for the isps. Also that frame rate isn’t designed for scripted programming, it’s designed for sports. Movies will stream at 24/fps as they have for nearly a century. Scripted TV can go at 30 as it has since analog. But sports in blur reducing hyper realistic 120fps is going to be a game changer. But streaming it requires 4 times more data than TV and 5 times more than movies. If you think ISPs are mad at Netflix, wait til they see UHD sports streams in 5yrs.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            FLP_NDRox,

            “Anecdotes prove nothing.”

            But yours do?

            “You’re paying $7/mo now.”

            I’m not, but people with ESPN are.

            “That will go up in the future.”

            Obviously.

            “In the a la carte world most expect is coming it’s going to go up a lot more.”

            But from a higher base than it’s at now. The longer a la carte takes to get here, the smaller that price jump.

            “Maybe 1 in 6 households will contain a sports fan willing to pay $36/mo. I’d actually believe that, but I’d be surprised if it was much more.”

            Your own expert says it doesn’t need to be more to match revenue. And even he would admit to a margin of error in his calculations.

            “HBO go is competing with Netflix, Amazon, and ppv movies. It’s still cheaper than Blockbuster, so it’s not a comparison.”

            Of course it’s a comparison as it’s the most expensive solo option out there.

            “You’re right I missed about the NBA. Im not a fan and mostly flipped into TNT.”

            That’s a major sport and a desirable demographic, so It’s kind of important for the discussion.

            “Sports rating have declined the last year or so.”

            It was a mixed bag. Some things were up, others were down. There’s no clear long term trend.

            “The reason I think ESPN/live sports is going to be a problem streaming is twofold. Since ESPN is the big dog they have the most to lose and the biggest target for the isps.”

            It doesn’t have to be ESPN leading the way. Other companies could pay just as much for the rights. Several Silicon valley companies could quadruple the price of B10 rights out of petty cash and barely notice.

            “Also that frame rate isn’t designed for scripted programming, it’s designed for sports. Movies will stream at 24/fps as they have for nearly a century. Scripted TV can go at 30 as it has since analog. But sports in blur reducing hyper realistic 120fps is going to be a game changer. But streaming it requires 4 times more data than TV and 5 times more than movies. If you think ISPs are mad at Netflix, wait til they see UHD sports streams in 5yrs.”

            Then maybe they won’t stream at 120 fps all the time. Plenty of people stream games now and seem happy with it. Maybe 120fps will cost a premium.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            http://www.techhive.com/article/3195776/streaming-services/this-is-how-the-bloated-tv-bundle-collapses.html

            The channels are turning on one another. Discovery thinks they can throw together a sports-free bundle for $10/mo. ” [TV bundle]’s being ripped apart by an intertwined set of forces, including a steady decline in pay-TV bundle participants, the escalating cost of sports in TV bundles, and frustration from non-sports TV networks that feel hemmed in by the current system.”

            Like

  86. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-big-12-isnt-breaking-up-but-perception-of-the-league-continues-to-sink/

    Dennis Dodd says the B12’s reputation is sinking nationally. They need wins on and off the field to turn things around.

    Actually, the astonishing thing is how far the Big 12 has sunk in terms of perception, talent and … winning. We can debate everything from revenue to recruiting, but what can’t be argued is image.

    The Big 12’s is not good at the moment. Type the words “Big 12” on Twitter and mostly vitriol is shot back. What was once celebrated is now defended.

    It is the first league to miss the three-year old College Football Playoff twice. It is the only Power Five league not to win a CFP game.

    Perception has become reality in a parallel universe. The Big 12 could have countered the bad draft news with the fact it was coming off a 2016 season that produced two Heisman finalists and three teams ranked in the top 18 of the final AP Top 25 for a fourth consecutive season.

    It didn’t, …

    Conference realignment — as well as a talent exodus — has conspired against the Big 12 lately. Start with the fractionalization of the conference’s recruiting hub in the state of Texas.

    The loss of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M in realignment meant 170 native Texas recruits have matriculated to those four schools in the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC since 2011.

    That’s the equivalent of almost seven Texas-only recruiting classes that could have ended up in the Big 12. Make no mistake, the Big 12’s strength revolves around state of Texas recruiting.

    “The [recruiting] hole in the fence in the state of Texas is real,” said Barton Simmons, director of scouting for 247Sports.

    Twenty-one years ago, the reason the league was assembled in the first place — the power of Texas and Oklahoma — is part of the reason it is struggling now.

    According to the 247Sports Composite rankings, Oklahoma hasn’t signed a top-10 recruit from the state of Texas in four years. Herman signed Texas’ “worst” recruiting class since rankings were established in 1990. Herman called it a “transitional” year in recruiting after his class finished 26th.

    Baylor and TCU have risen up in recent years, but the relative strength of the Big 12 is based on the fortunes of Texas and Oklahoma.

    “A problem is that Texas needs to be good,” Longhorns coach Tom Herman said. “It’s not the problem.”

    The draft, though, has reflected a dramatic slide in Big 12 fortunes. In 2011, the league “slipped” to having three picks in the top 10. That number shrunk to two in the first round each in 2014 and 2015.

    After getting three first-rounders in 2016, the Big 12 sunk to one player taken in the top 47 — Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes.

    No, it’s not college football’s job to be a farm league. But the truth is that’s how many teams and conferences measure their success. It’s no coincidence the SEC continues to be the dominant league. It led college football with the most draft picks (53) for the 10th straight year and set a record for most drafted in the first two rounds (21).

    The 2017 draft isn’t necessarily the problem for the Big 12. It’s 16- and 17-year-old future recruits forming a perception of the Big 12 in a series of down draft years.

    “There’s something to that,” Simmons said. “It’s less a disadvantage to the Big 12 and more an advantage to other conferences. … There’s a lot of negative noise around the Big 12. It’s a lot of little things that make up the big picture.”

    Stoops has won 10 Big 12 titles and continues to land top recruiting classes while producing NFL players — at least four each year since 2004. Since 2005, OU has averaged almost 5 ½ draftees per year.

    From 2005-15, Oklahoma had the fourth-most players drafted (63). Texas tied for 10th in that span with 46. But that included 2014, a year in which no Longhorn was taken for the first time in 77 years.

    Texas is off to a great start recruiting the Class of 2018, according to 247Sports. Based on projections, the Big 12 could have at least five first-round picks next year.

    “The talent issue is easily correctable if Texas gets back,” Simmons said.

    With all the negativity, there is open conversation about how long the Big 12 will last and whether schools like Kansas and Kansas State will remain in a major conference. The only certainty is that whatever college football looks like in the next decade, Texas and Oklahoma will be just fine.

    By 2020, Texas could be nearing $60 million in annual media rights revenue given Big 12, Longhorn Network, CFP and NCAA Tournament income. Oklahoma will be close to that figure thanks to an agreement with Fox Sports Southwest for its third-tier rights.

    Either school probably won’t leave anytime soon given that revenue windfall and a Big 12 binding grant of rights. But the biggest reason is competition itself.

    But the decision to leave for Texas and Oklahoma may be inevitable. The consolidation of power — outside the Big 12 — continues.

    I think the concerns are overblown. UT will return to glory sooner or later and magically things will seem to be all better.

    Like

  87. z33k says:

    Given Disney/ESPN’s problems with cable subscriber numbers and costs…, why is ESPN so gung-ho about building an ACC Network?

    Like what possible reason could they have for being all in on that? It’s nowhere near as guaranteed of working as the SEC Network was a few years ago before “cord cutting” became a thing.

    Just doesn’t seem prudent to rush into a new network when your main networks have each lost 10 million subscribers and you have billions in guaranteed rights over the next couple of years and are decreasing employment…

    Like

    • Brian says:

      z33k,

      “Given Disney/ESPN’s problems with cable subscriber numbers and costs…, why is ESPN so gung-ho about building an ACC Network?”

      It’s a good question and I’m not sure they are excited about it. Some experts have speculated it will only be a digital channel and never on cable/satellite. That could be helpful to them as a way to grow their streaming division.

      “Like what possible reason could they have for being all in on that? It’s nowhere near as guaranteed of working as the SEC Network was a few years ago before “cord cutting” became a thing.”

      I think they are contractually obligated to either form the network or pay the ACC more money. They could still choose to pay off the ACC rather than start the network by 2019.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        Yeah, I’m just struggling to believe that anybody is enthusiastic about launching a cable network right now.

        We’re seeing many cable channels face dramatic restructuring in terms of content and reduction of costs due to cord cutting. Many cable channels will probably end up cut out of bundles in the near future as more slim/OTT offerings are developed.

        After seeing AT&T dig in on DirecTV/Pac-12 Networks, it’s hard to see how Comcast/Charter/AT&T etc. will be enthusiastic about adding the ACC Network to that mix. At least the Big Ten Network and SEC Network had a chance to build up a following/subs/ad rates over a period of time, whereas an ACC Network would be entering the fray as all the major networks (especially ESPN and its group) are facing losses in the millions of subscribers range every year for the foreseeable future.

        At some point, these things will stabilize I’d imagine, but this just doesn’t seem like a good time to launch any sort of “major” cable offering.

        Like

  88. Brian says:

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-nonresident-enrollment-20170509-story.html

    The University of California system is about to set a limit for the number of out-of-state/international students enrolled at each campus. CA residents are mad that their children are kept out for financial reasons while faculty decry any barrier to getting the best students.

    Under the proposal, UC would restrict the percentage of nonresident students to 18% at five of its nine undergraduate campuses. UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Irvine — whose proportion of nonresident students exceeds 18% — would be allowed to keep, but not increase, those higher percentages.

    The new plan is a retreat from the proposal for a 20% systemwide cap on nonresident students that university officials presented to the UC Board of Regents in March. The cap, which would have been the first of it its kind, drew so much dissension from faculty and lawmakers that it was pulled from action and a vote was delayed until this month.

    UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein called the revised policy a “consensus decision” reached after extensive discussions. Should the regents approve the policy at their May 18 meeting in San Francisco, lawmakers likely would release $18.5 million in state funding to help enroll an additional 2,500 California undergraduates for the 2017-18 school year.

    Last fall, nonresident students numbered 34,673 — 16.5% of the system’s 210,170 undergraduates. Their proportion varies widely by campus, ranging from 24.4% at UC Berkeley to less than 1% at UC Merced, the system’s youngest and smallest university.

    Campuses are eager to enroll students from other states and countries for both the diversity and extra tuition dollars they bring. They pay about $27,000 more in annual tuition than Californians — money that UC officials say has helped campuses recruit and retain faculty, add courses to reduce the overall class sizes and purchase library materials, instructional equipment and technology. The nonresident revenue also has boosted financial aid for Californians by an average $700 per student, Klein said.

    As campuses scrambled to find extra money to offset deep state funding cuts after the 2008 recession, many actively recruited students from outside the state. Between 2007 and 2016, UC quadrupled its nonresident students. Even so, that percentage is lower than the average 27.9% for the 62 members of the elite Assn. of American Universities.

    The number of California resident students increased by 10% during that time.

    But the rapid growth in nonresident students, especially at flagships UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego, sparked a backlash from California families and lawmakers who believed they were squeezing out local children. A highly critical state audit last year concluded that UC had hurt California students by admitting too many nonresidents, although UC President Janet Napolitano labeled the findings “unfair and unwarranted.”

    “I would have liked to have gone back to 10% but I’m not sure that’s realistic,” McCarthy said. “This is a compromise in the middle.”

    Under an agreement between Napolitano and the state, UC enrolled an additional 7,400 Californians last fall — the largest single-year expansion since World War II — and officials hope to enroll an additional 5,000 over the next two years, in exchange for more state funding.

    The revised proposal would allow UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside and UC Merced to increase nonresident students up to 18% of undergraduates on their campuses. The other four campuses that exceeded that limit last fall — UC Berkeley at 24.4%, UC San Diego at 22.9%, UCLA at 22.8% and UC Irvine at 18.9% — would be allowed to keep but not increase the higher percentages of nonresidents they are expected to enroll in the 2017-18 academic year.

    The revised proposal reiterates that every eligible California student will be offered a spot on at least one UC campus and that nonresident undergraduates are “in addition to rather than in place of” Californians.

    I wonder if other states with high levels of non-resident students will follow suit?

    Like

    • bob sykes says:

      It will get interesting if they start limiting foreign graduate enrollments. Right now, nationwide an absolute majority of the students enrolled in STEM graduate programs are foreign nationals. In the non-elite schools, the majority reaches the 75% level. These foreign graduate students are fully supported on stipends (including tuition and fees) paid for by externally sourced research contracts (mostly US government). The great majority of the graduates return home with cutting edge American science and technology, and greatly enhance the capabilities of their home countries. The rise of China is in part due to this training.

      The kicker here is that foreign graduate students are not really replacing American graduate students. Most Americans with a BS are not interested in graduate school (only about 10 to 15% of BSCE holders in my personal experience), and much of our university research would shut down without the foreigners.

      Like

  89. z33k says:

    Rights fees will probably change significantly in the future depending on the premium value of the content.

    What I mean by that is that even within the Power 5, we should start seeing broader ranges in the rights fees for national TV contracts.

    Before, the conferences moved in relative lockstep, most moved upward at a similar pace with the next Power 5 leapfrogging the earlier announced rights values.

    That era is probably over.

    What does this mean for us? It probably means that down the road, we will see significant rationalization of the Power 5…; that especially applies to the Big 12, which has by far the most “deadweight” in its grouping.

    Texas/Oklahoma bring nearly all the value to that contract (along with a bit for Kansas basketball), a conference setup like that just won’t work that well in the future. You can’t justify paying a premium for a TV contract that only provides a few marquee games.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      So of the Pac/B1G/ACC and SEC who could get relegated? On this blog, the consensus has tended to focus on Wake and BC, but are the 2nd public schools of states who excel at neither FB/MBB fair game?

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        As quickly as the realignment has been going, no SEC, PAC-12, or B1G school is getting kicked out; too much support in the B1G and SEC, PAC is defended by geography.

        Outside the next 25years the schools that have to worry are those that don’t have a big following. So basically everyone but Texas, Oklahoma, UNC, FSU, and maybe Clemson (smaller split state), Miami and Duke (private schools reliant on success who may squander it), Kansas (great basketball may Trump rancid football).

        Like

      • Brian says:

        urbanleftbehind,

        “So of the Pac/B1G/ACC and SEC who could get relegated? On this blog, the consensus has tended to focus on Wake and BC, but are the 2nd public schools of states who excel at neither FB/MBB fair game”

        I think relegation would be an act of desperation and very unlikely to ever happen. Remember than many second schools are controlled by the same board of regents as the top dog and state politicians will apply pressure to keep schools in the big leagues.

        Presidents will be leery of setting a precedent that could come back to bite them in the future. They also view the other schools as colleagues so I think it will be hard for them to kick someone out. Besides, I think most conferences would require a supermajority to kick someone out so the bottom tier of schools can band together to protect each other.

        Ignoring that reality, who brings the least value to the P5 conferences:
        ACC – BC, WF, NCSU
        B10 – PU, NW (they’re better than IL but too small to drive cable subscriptions)
        B12 – Baylor, OkSU, KSU, TCU
        P12 – WSU, OrSU
        SEC – Vandy, MsSU, AR, SC

        Like

    • TheB1GTerp says:

      I’ve been keeping up with it. I think the major problem in the long run for ESPN is not so much the cord cutting because I believe with youtube TV, Hulu Live TV, sling TV, and DirectTVNnow all have ESPN in their basic service. So they look a lot like cable packages used to look early on. As these streaming services get more and more viewers and there is competition for content, the price of ESPN will rise on them. Right now we are in a market correction and change in medium.

      Some people seem to think people are cord cutting because of ESPN. Maybe some are. I have cord cut, but I get all my sports via the internet now. I have ZERO interest in the majority of most channels save for Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul, Curb your Enthusiasm, The Americans, and a few others I can all get online for less than what cable offers for now. It’s even cheaper if I am willing to wait until the entire seasons comes on a streaming service and binge all my favorite shows during the summer months for my sports off season and cancel right after for less than a full year of streaming service. Sooner or later streaming services will catch on to people like me and start wanting full year contracts.

      Just like Fox could bully carriers into taking BTN in NYC, because without it you would not get YES, FS1, FS2, FX, FXX, FoxNews, or Fox, ESPN has done so with forcing people to take A&E, Lifetime and all the Disney channels. So early on the streaming services seem to only have ESPN, but I’m sure they will morph into more of what cable looks like than what Netflix looks like. It’s weird because we pay a lot for Netflix and its entire library of crap, but a lot of people only watch a few shows. Often we have to pay for crap we don’t want, in order to get what we do want.

      I think what happened to MTV happened to ESPN. MTV had done well with “Real World” and ESPN did well with “Pardon the Interruption” and both networks spiralled into putting on too many shows, and fewer videos and fewer sports. So I think the moves of ESPN by letting Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, older analysts/broadcasters, is removing a lot of the crap content and getting ready to provide more live sports. So ESPN can vastly improve its ratings I believe by getting back to its roots and putting more sports on TV and a few good sportscasters like SVP at the right time and bring in revenue with good shows. There was too much overlap before.

      They definitely are over paying for the NFL and NBA, because those numbers were based on the subscribers they thought they’d have from cable subscribers. The thing is I think people are still watching sports and live sports at that. The correction I think needs to occur in a few places.

      #1 ESPN will have to start charging more to the online streaming services of youtube TV, hulu Live TV, sling TV, and Direct TV now. They aren’t getting a huge amount because the subscriber bases are such in flux, I can’t imagine negotiating a fair deal. So this is what I mean when I say cord-cutters are ahead of the wave. I think people are getting ESPN and live streaming TV cheaper because the networks have yet to get a solid number from them to negotiate a good deal for them. As these streaming services war consolidate, I think we’ll have a better picture of exactly who’s streaming, who has satellite, and who has cable and they all will be about the same relatively priced.

      #2 If the first happens in a timely manner, then we’ll see if there really are fewer people willing to watch live sports. I would think there would be the same if not more based on a growing population. If not then the next round of negotiations with the NFL, NBA, NCAA, NHL and MLB will be interesting. The sports will sell to the highest bidder. We’ve already seen where twitter is willing to pay for Thursday night football and we know facebook is entering the arena.

      In the end getting back to the point, ESPN’s days of being the undisputed leader in sports are over. I think they’ll be at the top or near the top because they own the content (and have the reputation of having the content) and can offer it to streaming services. Who knows who could emerge as the leader. However, what seems clear to me is that many other mediums are bidding to acquire live sports content. Which is unbelievably valuable. So for the power 5, the B1G & SEC, I don’t see the B1G product being less valuable, I believe that the content will be delivered from different mediums, who will pay.

      P.S. ESPN is under contract to deliver the ACC network on cable and with the advent of video libraries, there is no reason to have ESPN Classic on the broadcast when you could put that on your website and charge for a streaming digital library of older games. So I see that as the most likely channel already in the carriage to be transitioned for the ACC. Too little too late for the ACC though.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      z33k,

      “Rights fees will probably change significantly in the future depending on the premium value of the content.

      What I mean by that is that even within the Power 5, we should start seeing broader ranges in the rights fees for national TV contracts.

      Before, the conferences moved in relative lockstep, most moved upward at a similar pace with the next Power 5 leapfrogging the earlier announced rights values.

      That era is probably over.

      What does this mean for us? It probably means that down the road, we will see significant rationalization of the Power 5…; that especially applies to the Big 12, which has by far the most “deadweight” in its grouping.”

      I think we’re already seeing this as the B10 and SEC start to create a financial gap to everyone else. Parts of the B12 can keep up (UT, OU, …) and others can’t. The ACC and P12 are lagging.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        Yeah, I think the 2020s contracts will probably really show just how separated the groupings are now.

        The key question in all of this I guess is, what kinds of changes will happen (especially with respect to Big 12 and ACC).

        I can see ACC holding together if ESPN commits to that, especially with ND partially in the mix there, but Big 12 is harder.

        I guess a lot of it comes down to what happens to Texas and the LHN in the long run.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          z33k,

          “Yeah, I think the 2020s contracts will probably really show just how separated the groupings are now.

          The key question in all of this I guess is, what kinds of changes will happen (especially with respect to Big 12 and ACC).

          I can see ACC holding together if ESPN commits to that, especially with ND partially in the mix there, but Big 12 is harder.

          I guess a lot of it comes down to what happens to Texas and the LHN in the long run.”

          There are 2 obvious time frames for large-scale changes.

          New TV deals start times:
          B10 ESPN/Fox – 2023
          P12 ESPN/Fox – 2024
          SEC CBS – 2024
          B12 ESPN/Fox – 2025

          Texas LHN – 2031
          B10 BTN – 2032
          SEC ESPN/SECN – 2034
          ACC ESPN/ACCN – 2036

          If the B10 and SEC take another step forward and the B12 and P12 don’t (and the ACC can’t), the financial gaps could get quite large.

          The SEC’s CBS deal is pretty small ($55M per year) since it’s only for 1 game per week, and after expansion the value stayed the same since the SEC wanted to eliminate the exclusive window instead. Still, those games average around a 4.0 every year so the value should increase. If it doubles to $110M per year, that would be about $3.9M more per school. Add in the SECN’s continual growth and that’s a decent jump.

          It’s harder to predict what will happen with the B10’s rights since it’s a more comprehensive package and split over multiple networks. I wouldn’t expect the large jump the current deal represents compared to before ($10M per year), but even a continuation from the current deal would be tough for the others to match. By the end of this deal, the B10 should be near $55-60M per school per year. If the next deal just grows from there, only the SEC is likely to keep up.

          The B10 has first shot at a new deal, so that will be the first chance to see if there are new players in the rights game or how the change in cable usage impacts rights fees. Will Silicon Valley try to get into the college sports business (Apple, Google, Twitter, etc)? Will ESPN and Fox still want to pay a lot for B10 games? Whatever the outcome, they’ll set the bar for everyone to match. If they get a good deal, discontent may start to brew in the ACC, B12 and/or the P12. The SEC will be fine, but the P12 could feel pressure to find new revenue. Meanwhile, the B12’s GOR would be about to end and they’d have an idea of what companies are willing to offer them. With the LHN’s deal nearing its end as well, UT will be compelled to think about its future.

          UT will have to decide how to balance the future of the B12 with the LHN. Do they look for a short B12 TV deal to get them to 2031 when the LHN deal ends? Do they look to leave the B12 and accept modifications to the LHN? Do they look to expand the B12 to improve the TV deal? Do they consider a B12N starting in 2031 if people are still interested by then?

          The B12 will potentially face turmoil in 2023-2025 but then should be okay until at least 2031. The P12 may face grumbling in 2022-2024 but their only chance at significant improvement is the P16 with UT and friends. Can they convince UT that is the right choice for them?

          The ACC may also face grumbling, but the GOR means everyone’s probably stuck there until 2034 or later.

          I’m curious if there will be any rumors of forming a football-only Airplane Conference with the best of those 3 conferences. They can stay as is for the other sports.

          UW, OR, USC, UT, OU, Miami, FSU, Clemson

          Play only 6 conference games (out of 7 possible) so there’s plenty of room to keep regional rivalries and add cupcakes, and take the ND deal from the ACC. There’s no CCG, but they wouldn’t need it for SOS purposes. Or they could grow it to 12 teams to get the CCG money. They could even use the last 4 spots for relegation purposes. The core 8 are permanent members but the other 4 could be used to keep the best from the 3 root conferences always in the Airplane Conference.

          Like

  90. urbanleftbehind says:

    I think a certain milestone has been reached within the Recent Comments section.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      And then I went and blew it.

      Sorry.

      I greatly prefer it when other people are busy on here, though.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Your thorough content is always appreciated, don’t take it wrong.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          No offense taken.

          But I really do prefer it when this doesn’t seem like an echo chamber for me. First I feel bad since it’s Frank’s blog and second I don’t need the internet to discuss topics with myself. There just haven’t been a lot of relevant topics lately that we haven’t already discussed to death.

          Like

  91. Brian says:

    http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/2017-ncaa-academic-progress-rate-football-apr-rankings-by-conference

    2017 football APR scores by conference.

    Why does this matter? The schools have to reach a certain threshold – 930 for four years, 940 for two years – to avoid penalties, and the higher the rating, the better the chance to go bowling if a football team doesn’t get to six wins.

    It’s the tie-breaker. If there aren’t enough bowl eligible teams, and slots need filling, the criteria is the APR. Mississippi State and North Texas benefitted from this last year.

    Big Ten
    1. Northwestern 995 – tied for #1 nationally with AF
    2. Michigan 993
    3. Minnesota 992
    4. Wisconsin 990
    T5. Illinois 984
    T5. Maryland 984
    7. Indiana 982
    8. Nebraska 977
    9. Ohio State 975
    10. Michigan State 974
    11. Rutgers 973
    T12. Purdue 971
    T12. Iowa 971
    14. Penn State 969

    Other schools at 990+:
    Duke, Vandy – 992
    Navy – 991

    The B10 had more schools at 990+ than the rest of the nation combined.

    P5 schools below 969:

    ACC
    T8. Syracuse 968
    T8. Virginia 968
    10. Virginia Tech 967
    11. Miami 965
    12. North Carolina 959
    13. NC State 957
    14. Florida State 939

    B12
    5. Oklahoma 965
    6. TCU 955
    7. Oklahoma State 953
    8. Texas Tech 947
    9. Kansas 943
    10. West Virginia 940

    P12
    T8. Colorado 968
    T8. USC 968
    10. Washington State 964
    11. Oregon State 956
    12. Arizona 955

    SEC
    10. Arkansas 966
    11. Texas A&M 962
    12. Georgia 961
    13. LSU 959
    14. Kentucky 958

    The worst in the nation was Idaho at 927.

    Like

  92. Brian says:

    http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/preview-2017-is-wisconsin-the-best-program-with-no-national-title

    Is Wisconsin the best program that hasn’t done anything big recently?

    OR at least has made the NCG twice.

    Welcome to the best college football program that – at least in recent history – hasn’t been able to do something really, really, really big.

    Stanford is close in the discussion, and Boise State has enjoyed crazy success at a smaller level, but for more than two decades, no one has been a run like Wisconsin has, but with nothing massive to show for it at the highest of high levels.

    Ever since Barry Alvarez took one of the nation’s worst college football teams and turned it into a 1993 Big Ten champ and Rose Bowl winner, it’s been a remarkable era of consistent success, now going into the 25th season since turning the corner.

    In that time, UW has been won six Big Ten titles, with six Rose Bowls in the 22 bowl appearances for a program that went bowling just six times before Alvarez.

    Through Alvarez, through Bret Bielema, through Gary Andersen, and now through Paul Chryst, few programs that have been as consistently amazing or as successful over the last 25 years, but a whole slew of them have at least been close to winning it all.

    But there haven’t been any national titles for the Badgers, or BCS Championship appearances, or any spots so far in the College Football Playoff.

    What will it take to get over that hump?

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      The school would need to relax the admissions requirements. They would also need to move the campus 1500 miles south with greater access to more talent. Joking of course. I think they were really close to playing for a NC when they had Russell Wilson. If JJ Watt doesn’t leave early I think they make a NC that year.

      Like

  93. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/11/notre-dame-acc-announce-games-through-2037/101551448/

    ND’s ACC schedule through 2036 has been released.

    The schedule from 2026 to 2037 was announced Thursday and continues a partnership that started in 2014. The games from this fall until 2025 have already been announced.

    The Fighting Irish play Labor Day night games at Clemson in 2031 and at Virginia Tech in 2036. Notre Dame will host 30 of the games from 2026 through 2037, while 30 are on the road.

    Like

  94. Brian says:

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/paul-finebaum-says-big-12-is-the-titanic-and-the-iceberg-is-in-sight.html

    SEC provocateur Paul Finebaum doubled down on his B12 criticism this week.

    “I see the Big 12 as a complete trainwreck. The Big 12 is the Titanic, and you can see the iceberg in sight,” Finebaum said, as transcribed by The Dallas Morning News. “I love the fact that at the Big 12 meetings the other day, the athletic directors all scoffed at reports with the old Mark Twain line, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” I don’t think we’re exaggerating. You can lay out any set of facts you want and in my mind, they don’t have an answer other than being in a complete state of oblivion.

    Oen [sic] of the biggest concerns for the Big 12 has been the leadership, and Finebaum did not mince words when discussing Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby while quickly transitioning to the idea of Oklahoma wanting out of the Big 12 as quickly as possible;

    “To me, the commissioner is one of the weakest of the Power 5 college commissioners. I know they can argue they don’t have a television network by saying, ‘Look at our revenues from television.’ And that’s correct. They have some very good television deals. And we all know about the University of Texas’ deal. But I don’t see this league going anywhere. I said the other day that I thought Oklahoma was trying desperately to get out or look for a path out of the Big 12 as soon as it can, which is a number of years away, and I believe that. And I have reason to believe that. I know people think that those of us behind microphones just throw things up against the wall and see if they land or stick to something or somebody. In this case, I’m not throwing that up against the wall. I believe very strongly, based on information that I’ve been told [though he is not citing], that Oklahoma flat-out wants out of the Big 12 as soon as it can get that door open without mortgaging its entire bank account on its future.”

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19361465/oklahoma-president-david-boren-says-school-plans-leave-big-12

      OU president Boren denies that OU has plans to leave the B12 or is desperate to leave.

      Oklahoma president David Boren says the university doesn’t “have any plans to make a move” out of the Big 12 conference.

      “We’re not desperate to go anywhere else,” Boren told the Tulsa World after the school’s regents meeting Thursday. “We’re in pretty stable position with the Big 12.”

      Boren said Thursday that the league remains competitive financially. Last summer, the conference distributed $30.4 million in revenue to each of its 10 members, which ranked third among Power 5 conferences.

      “Financially, it’s not a great hardship, frankly,” Boren told the World. “What we’re getting per school is not really out of line with others.”

      Still, Boren — who led the charge that ultimately fizzled last summer for the Big 12 to consider expansion — didn’t close the door on the possibility of future realignment involving Oklahoma.

      The Big 12’s grant of rights binding the conference together expires in 2024-25. After that point, the Sooners would be free to explore other conferences without financial penalty.

      “It’s very important to always have the possibility of making a move, if we want to,” Boren said. “The question is, are you in a conference that’s going to have a chance to play for national championships and going to be in playoffs?”

      Like

  95. Brian says:

    http://cdn.fbschedules.com/helmets/2017-big-ten-helmet-schedule.pdf

    In case you want it, here’s the complete 2017 B10 schedule with helmet icons for all teams.

    Like

  96. Brian says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/11/college-hotline-spring-game-attendance-and-what-it-says-about-the-pac-12s-tv-deals/

    Jon Wilner says that spring game attendance shows why the P12 got about the best TV deal they could and that maybe the conference pushed too far trying to add regional networks with no partner for leverage.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I’m beginning to think Wilner has a vested interest in the P12N selling equity. Just kidding…kinda.

      Is tying yourself to another entity, at a supposed time time of unbundling and espn carriage reduction a good idea? I understand the rational (and advantage) ten years ago, but that may soon not be the case. P12N has unencumbered flexibility others lack, for around twenty more years.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “I’m beginning to think Wilner has a vested interest in the P12N selling equity. Just kidding…kinda.”

        I really don’t think he was being negative at all in that piece. He was telling P12 fans that their level of interest in CFB is what’s really holding the P12 back. Scott got the maximum deal possible for the P12 from ESPN/Fox considering that fan interest. He’s also saying that due to the level of fan interest, maybe the P12 should’ve aimed for just one P12N rather than a national feed plus regional feeds. While states in the south and midwest might support those for the SEC and B10, there just isn’t enough interest to get leverage over the carriers. I don’t think there any crititque of the P12N ownership model was intended. He just wants the fans to accept the facts that they don’t have as many diehards out west and that’s the root of their financial issues.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          From the startup announcement it was stated that maximizing $s was not the primary motivation or goal. In spite of that it has made money from day one. Anybody who thought it would make BTN type of money as P12 was delusional. The P16N might be in the neighborhood.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Some fans don’t care about facts like that. They want to make the most money of anybody and they like to blame everyone but themselves if it doesn’t happen. I think that’s who Wilner was talking to in that piece, explaining that it was the lack of numbers of diehard fans that were causing the problem and not Scott or the presidents.

            You can see the same thinking in ACC land where some of their fans are assuming the ACCN will be just as profitable as the SECN.

            Like

  97. Brian says:

    The Dude has had some “interesting” things to say on twitter the past few days.

    In no particular order:

    * ACC is interested in WV but the GoR has WV trapped

    * B12 has consultants telling them that a merger with the P12 would cure the problems for both conferences

    * B12 considering bundling T3 games and selling them to digital platforms (sort of like the current ACCN but with multiple providers bidding, I guess)

    * Neither OU nor UT is in contact with other conferences about moving

    * OU has no place to go. The B10 doesn’t want them, the SEC won’t also take OkSU, the ACC isn’t an option and the P12 earns even less.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Oops. I didn’t mean to embed anything. I just posted a link to his twitter page.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Dude’s twitter seems much less disfunctional than before. Probably because I tend to follow national news more than is good for my mental health.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Greg Flugaur (@flugempire) just went on a multi-tweet rant about the Dude after the Dude called him out. Flug pointed out how many times he’s been right and the Dude has been dead wrong (I’m sure there are some examples the other way, too, I’m not picking sides).

          Flugaur’s sources says OU and KU in 2024 will be the B10’s main targets (presumably because UT isn’t interested).

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            He’s convinced AAU not a requirement. Even if so, it would be advantageous. Assuming OU, KU, and my assumption is UT minus LHN are possibilities, why not wait until ’32 when LHN expires, or work a deal to end it earlier and invite the two AAU schools? The one earlier threat could be the PAC renewing the P16 offer, and deal with LHN by allowing espn P16N equity equal to the value of the LHN for the duration of that contract. KU still available (and could be paired with the white whale eventually). It’s not like the B1G hasn’t had an odd number before.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            He claims to have a Big Ten source where he gets this from. Frank also thinks the B10 would take OU and KU (see his twitter), so it’s not a crazy position. It’s possible UT has hinted to the B10 that they really aren’t interested or that the LHN is seen as an insurmountable obstacle. It’s also entirely possible he’s wrong. As I said, I’m not taking a side.

            I don’t think you can ask the B10 to wait from 2025 until 2031 to make a decision, though. There could be a huge opportunity cost to waiting that long (OU and/or KU going elsewhere) unless UT makes a promise to come then.

            There was some talk on the Dude’s feed of Disney maybe selling off ESPN so people are waiting to see how things turn out with ESPN and cable in general before dealing with UT. Maybe ESPN would sell LHN to Fox (or someone else) as a way to cut costs at some point. That could change things.

            Like

  98. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/05/12/jim-delany-big-ten-conference-20-million-bonus/101591564/

    Delany is in line to receive $20M in future bonus payments.

    The new return — which the conference provided Friday in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports — states that in July 2015, Delany “became fully eligible for future bonus payments pursuant to his employment contract.”

    As a result, the document said, the conference had to record the full amount of those future payments as an expense and a liability on the return covering its 2016 fiscal year, which ran from July 1 through June 30.

    A comparison of the Big Ten’s new expense and liability amounts to those on prior years’ returns reveals the $20 million estimate.

    In a statement provided by Traviolia, University of Minnesota president Eric Kaler — who currently chairs the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors — said: “Commissioner Delany has provided invaluable leadership for Big Ten member institutions while delivering first-in-class performance during a time of great transformation in college athletics. He has not only successfully balanced the missions of academic achievement, student-athlete development and athletic success, he has successfully developed the resources necessary to strategically position the conference for success well into the future. His compensation is market-competitive, based on an independent third-party analysis, and reflects the value and impact of his leadership.”

    He’s probably earned it, but he’s also been paid fairly well over the years.

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Not sure why they felt they need to pay him that large sum of money. He’s going to retire soon. Usually you pay someone that much to attract or retain. Not sort of a retirement gift. Certainly he’s created incredible value for the league with BTN but not sure a 20million reward was warranted.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It sounds like they’ve been part of his contract for a while, he just had to stay long enough and/or meet certain performance metrics to trigger them. I agree they were probably unnecessary, but maybe he insisted on them being included a while ago and they just started to vest now.

        Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Are those lower decks of seats collapsible/movable? LA is at present 1 of 2 remaining contenders for the 2024 Olympics. Of course track and field events may be split or moved to Pasadena, Inglewood or Carson.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        The US Olympic Committee is sticking it to the athletes, as usual. In order to “show off” LA, this year the Paralympic national championship track and field competition is in LA. Rooms are very expensive and some athletes could not even find rooms near the competition. Team USA cannot pay for athletes expenses for the National Championships, since it would show favoritism to current team members. Very few Para-athletes have sponsors, so the pay their own way.

        The Para-athletes not thrilled that TeamUSA is promoting LA at their expense.

        Last year, leading up to the Rio Paralympics, the track and field championships were in Charlotte. Rooms were quite reasonable. (Track and field is called Athletics)

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Los Angeles has made it clear that it wants the 2024 Olympics, and will not look kindly upon getting the 2028 Games as a “consolation prize.” (It’s been said that the loser for ’24, LA or Paris, will get the event in ’28.) But it could happen if IOC voters fear Trump and/or Pence could occupy the White House in 2024.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            They are about the only major cities that want the Olympics any more, and that’s probably because they already have most of the facilities and infrastructure needed to host. Citizens elsewhere (Boston, Hamburg, Budapest, …) keep telling their governments to stop wasting money on the Olympics.

            I wonder if they’ll ever move away from the 1 host city plan at some point to a more regional or national approach. Many Olympics have a few venues well away from everything else already.

            https://www.olympic.org/olympic-agenda-2020

            The IOC has responded by trying to make it easier and cheaper to bid.

            Olympic Agenda 2020 is the strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic Movement. The 40 recommendations are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that, when you put together, form a picture that shows the IOC safeguarding the uniqueness of the Olympic Games and strengthening sport in society.

            Some of the key areas addressed by Olympic Agenda 2020 are:

            – Changes to the candidature procedure, with a new philosophy to invite potential candidate cities to present a project that fits their sporting, economic, social and environmental long-term planning needs.

            – Reducing costs for bidding, by decreasing the number of presentations that are allowed and providing a significant financial contribution from the IOC.

            – Move from a sport-based to an event-based programme.

            – Strengthen the 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism by including non-discrimination of sexual orientation in the Olympic Charter.

            – Launch of an Olympic Channel to provide a platform for sports and athletes beyond the Olympic Games period, 365 days a year.

            – Adapting and further strengthening the principles of good governance and ethics to changing demands.

            – Athletes remain at the centre of all 40 of the proposals, with the protection of the clean athletes being at the heart of the IOC’s philosophy.

            An event-based program rather than sport-based?

            https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Olympic-Agenda-2020/Olympic-Agenda-2020-20-20-Recommendations.pdf

            This document details all 40 recommendations.

            Move from a sport-based to an event-based programme:
            1. Regular reviews of the programme to be based on events rather than sports, with the involvement of the International Federations, and with the following restrictions to be respected:

            * For the Games of the Olympiad: approximately 10,500 athletes, 5,000 accredited coaches
            and athletes’ support personnel, and 310 events,

            * For the Winter Games, approximately 2,900 athletes, 2,000 accredited coaches and athletes’ support personnel, and 100 events.

            2. The IOC Session to decide on the inclusion of any sport (IF) in the programme.

            3. The IOC to allow the OCOGs to make a proposal for the inclusion of one or more additional
            events on the Olympic programme for that edition of the Olympic Games.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            “– Athletes remain at the centre of all 40 of the proposals, with the protection of the clean athletes being at the heart of the IOC’s philosophy.”

            A lot of American athletes wait for this to happen. The Olympic Committee makes vast amounts of money. Some athletes get wealthy with sponsorships. Most athletes need to work full time to support their own competition. Sad state of affairs.

            I live through this since my son competed in the Paralympics in Rio last year. He finished 4th, so no medal.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I would be stunned if LA got 2024. If it doesn’t go to Europe in 2024, it would be the longest period without a European summer games. There are a lot of votes in Europe.

            Like

          • urbanleftbehind says:

            The LA city and State of California should lie down and let Paris get it – why have such a large albatross so close to the election, especially if Trump is a one-termer and the Dem is actually the incumbent in summer 2024, or if it is a California pol like Gavin Newsome or Kamala Harris running to prevent a 3rd consecutive R presidency.

            Like

  99. Brian says:

    Frank always says to think like a president and not a fan when considering expansion which is sage advice. Here we usually consider expansion from the B10’s point of view (for obvious reasons), but occasionally we look from the other side.

    We know there are several major factors in expansion decisions (academics, culture, geography, athletics and money). I want to focus on just one aspect of money here. Say you’re UT. One of the main issues in projecting money is deciding what Tier 3 model is best for you.

    1. LHN model

    No conference involved, own 0%, fixed payout, can get profit shares if there are any

    This has worked well so far for them financially (will average almost $15M per year for 20 years – started at $11M and increases 3% annually).

    2. SECN model

    Conference involved, own 0%, fixed payout, can get profit shares if there are any

    This has worked well for the SEC so far.

    3. BTN model

    Conference involved, own 50%, fixed payout, can get profit shares if there are any

    This has worked well for the B10 so far.

    4. P12N model

    Conference involved, own 100%, no fixed payout, get profit if there is any

    This hasn’t worked well for the P12N in terms of revenue so far but they do own the network.

    Annual payouts:
    LHN – $15M
    SECN – $8M+
    BTN – $7M+
    P12N – $1-1.5M

    But that doesn’t factor in ownership.

    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/05/the_sec_network_is_still_the_k.html

    SNL Kagan gave the following network valuations recently:
    SECN – $4.7B
    BTN – $1.14B
    P12N – $305M

    I’m not sure how good these numbers are, though. BTN was worth $1.59B just a year ago. How did it lose 28% of its value so quickly?

    Subscribers and price:
    SECN – 61M * $0.74 = $545M = $38.9M per school per year
    BTN – 60M * $0.43 = $310M = $22.1M
    P12N – 12M * $0.27 = $38.9M = $3.24M

    Anyway, let’s assume they’re right.

    Each B10 school owns over $40M worth of BTN right now.
    Each P12 school owns over $30M worth of P12N.
    Each SEC school owns $0 worth of SECN.
    UT owns $0 worth of LHN.

    Clearly UT would increase the value of any conference network it joined. Would the value of ownership balance the loss of payout for them? Do they see any one model as clearly superior to the others? Should they see one as preferable?

    Like

    • z33k says:

      The biggest questionmark with Texas is where is their future. They clearly want it to be possible for them to stay in a local neighborhood, but that may end up with them alone in a conference where they bring all the national value to the conference (if OU/KU leave).

      I think at some point though the main issue Texas may have to consider is: do they want to part with OU?

      It’s not really about money with Texas, they’ll be fine on money and can work something out; somebody will spot them money…, it’s a question of whether they think their “Texas conference” model is sustainable in the long run.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      People smarter than me figure network values, but I have a hard time believing SECN in just a couple years is worth 4+ times the BTN.

      “I’m not sure how good these numbers are, though. BTN was worth $1.59B just a year ago. How did it lose 28% of its value so quickly?”

      And I thought P12N was about .5B two years ago. Perhaps the model used is highly sensitive to short term commercial subscriber trends, without factoring alternative digital platforms.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        They’re basically just valuing the networks off the cash flows.

        The biggest problem with the analysis is that they’re providing far higher P/E ratios (Price/Earnings) to those SEC Network numbers, which only makes sense if you think that its cash flows will grow far faster than the Big Ten Network’s…

        That’s the only real scenario where it’s worth 4x as much.

        But that’s highly unrealistic because both networks have probably already peaked in terms of numbers of subscribers (and are declining), and it’s fairly unlikely that we’ll ever reach the point where the SEC Network is generating 4x the earnings of the BTN.

        @Brian, I think they’re factoring in cord cutting affecting the BTN. How much do they estimate BTN’s subscribers at, it can’t be 60M under SNL Kagan estimates?

        Based on the estimates and where things are going, I don’t think SEC Network is worth more than 2-2.5x more than BTN, but their estimates give greater weight to future SEC Network cash flows (in order words they think SECN will keep its revenues higher for longer).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          z33k,

          “They’re basically just valuing the networks off the cash flows.

          The biggest problem with the analysis is that they’re providing far higher P/E ratios (Price/Earnings) to those SEC Network numbers, which only makes sense if you think that its cash flows will grow far faster than the Big Ten Network’s…

          That’s the only real scenario where it’s worth 4x as much.

          But that’s highly unrealistic because both networks have probably already peaked in terms of numbers of subscribers (and are declining), and it’s fairly unlikely that we’ll ever reach the point where the SEC Network is generating 4x the earnings of the BTN.

          @Brian, I think they’re factoring in cord cutting affecting the BTN. How much do they estimate BTN’s subscribers at, it can’t be 60M under SNL Kagan estimates?”

          I couldn’t find any article that gave that number. The math requires it to be 60M for the total revenue and average cost to work out, but maybe everyone’s working from the same Nielsen estimates.

          They had the SECN down over 8M subscribers, though. BTN would have to be down a lot more than that to get a worse outlook and you’d think someone would mention BTN losing 15M+ subscribers.

          “Based on the estimates and where things are going, I don’t think SEC Network is worth more than 2-2.5x more than BTN, but their estimates give greater weight to future SEC Network cash flows (in order words they think SECN will keep its revenues higher for longer).”

          I believe there is a reasonable assumption that demand for SECN is higher in its footprint than demand for BTN is in the B10’s footprint. That means they can charge more and have fewer people drop it. That said, I won’t really buy their estimates until both networks are 5 years old and we have a better picture of what the marketplace is doing.

          Like

          • z33k says:

            Yeah, their estimates only really make sense in a scenario where the SECN is taking in around $800m per year around 2022 while the BTN is around $200m per year around 2022 (that’s in terms of profit ignoring ownership % or distributions).

            That’s really the only scenario where there’s an inflection point at which SECN is earning more than 4x the BTN in the years beyond that (since they certainly are not now) and you can justify valuing it 4x higher at present when you discount those values.

            But there’s a lot of reasons why that’s highly unrealistic.

            Like

  100. Brian says:

    http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/lacrosse-men/d1/2017

    A bad day for the B10 in MLAX.

    #6 seed JHU got crushed at home by unseeded Duke ending JHU’s 17-game home winning streak in tournament games.

    #7 seed PSU lost at home to unseeded Towson.

    Hopefully tomorrow goes better for #1 seed UMD and #3 seed OSU.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      UMD and OSU did both advance to the elite 8. JHU and PSU were the only seeded teams to lose. OSU now gets a red hot Duke team that crushed JHU 19-6 while UMD gets a vastly underseeded #8 Albany.

      Like

  101. Brian says:

    http://newsok.com/david-boren-its-in-our-interest-that-the-big-12-succeed/article/5548946

    More quotes from David Boren.

    The league’s grant of rights, which essentially locks teams into the conference at least until near the end of the deal, runs until the 2024-25 year. The Big Ten’s rights deal expires after the 2022-23 season.

    Boren said a few years before that Big Ten deal expires could begin the next wave of realignment in college athletics.

    “I’ve been thinking three or four or five years down the road if there’s any need to make a change, but I haven’t wanted us to extend our grant of rights by 20 years or something like that so that OU would have no choices,” Boren said.

    Boren didn’t quell the notion that if a conference change is made that he’d rather it be to a conference that has a high academic standing.

    “Well, let’s put it this way — the Big Ten and Pac 12 have both emphasized academics and they do have, I think, deserved stature in the academic community,” Boren said. “That’s not the only factor that should be considered obviously. I’m a football fan too—and athletic fan—and I want us in a conference that’s very competitive regularly.”

    But Boren also said he remained regretful that the Big 12 didn’t make a move to add more teams during the last major round of realignment—specifically mentioning Louisville and Rutgers as possibilities before the former landed in the ACC and the latter wound up in the Big Ten or that the Big 12 didn’t add a conference when networks were pursuing and paying big money for such projects.

    So what’s OU’s future?

    “They’re all kind of possible except the ACC really,” Boren said.

    Like

    • z33k says:

      Great quotes, and they really show that OU movement is very much on the table around 2025 (despite the official word from the Texas 10 that they’re all in for the long haul).

      Of course, you can never count out UT’s ability to hold the Big 12 together, but OU’s going to want assurances that the pay/visibility are there for the Big 12 before signing onto a new grant of rights (as they should).

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Boren is great for this board, but he turned 76 this year. Do we really think he’ll be around in 2025? I’d be interested to see who replaces him and if their thinking is more in line with Boren’s.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Mike,

        “Boren is great for this board, but he turned 76 this year. Do we really think he’ll be around in 2025?”

        Not a chance. But if he’s willing to say it, then other people are thinking it. If anything, I’d expect a new generation to be more mercenary and less beholden to Texas.

        Boren was in the state (OK) and US government from 1967-1994 when he became the president of OU. The new president is likely to be an outsider with less of a grasp of the rivalries and traditions and more focused on the bottom line.

        “I’d be interested to see who replaces him and if their thinking is more in line with Boren’s.”

        That will be key. So will the replacement for Delany in the B10.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      Some analysis of Boren

      http://newsok.com/big-12-who-ou-president-david-boren-really-put-on-notice-with-his-big-12-talk/article/5549292?custom_click=rss

      David Boren has put the Big 12 on notice.

      Get better, the Oklahoma president essentially said last week, or the Sooners will see you later.

      Just when you thought the words “conference realignment” were fading from favor, they are the talk of the town again. That’s because Boren was asked about the future of the Big 12 and OU’s future in it after a Board of Regents meeting Thursday, and as we all know, he couldn’t help talking about it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The Sooners aren’t just carrying the banner for the Big 12. They’re carrying the whole darn league.

        That isn’t sustainable. Not for OU. Not for the Big 12. That’s why Boren put the league on notice.

        But here’s the truth of the matter: while it’d be great if Oklahoma State regularly contended for a spot in the playoff and if Baylor could fix all that ails it while returning to winning ways and if TCU and West Virginia could deliver on the national-contender promise that they initially brought into the league, the school that Boren really put on notice is Texas. He didn’t call out the Longhorns by name, of course. But better football at Texas would go a long way to making a better Big 12.

        As Boren said last week, the next round of conference realignment is likely to begin around 2022-23 when the first Power 5 conference sees its current media deal run out. The end of the Big Ten’s current media-rights deal could spark movement, and while OU would face repercussions if it broke its covenant with the Big 12 then, Boren seemed to hint that those financial issues could be dealt with if they were only around for a couple years.

        I think it’s reasonable for OU to tell UT to get it together. If UT wants OU to stick around in the B12 then UT needs to carry it’s share of the weight again.

        Like

  102. Brian says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-north-carolina-academic-probe-20170510-story.html

    The NCAA finally got Deborah Crowder to testify in the UNC case.

    This shouldn’t impact the timeline with the committee hearing the case in August.

    Like

  103. ccrider55 says:

    Somebody try to defend this. I dare you.

    http://m.startribune.com/gophers-softball-snubbed-in-ncaa-seeding-will-play-in-alabama/422217093/

    3rd ranked, best record, no host, placed in same 1/8 as Fla?
    No words…

    Like

    • Brian says:

      ccrider55,

      “Somebody try to defend this. I dare you.

      3rd ranked, best record, no host, placed in same 1/8 as Fla?
      No words…”

      1. B10 softball never gets respect outside of perhaps MI (19 regular season titles in 26 years).

      2. B10 softball isn’t really that good, so MN’s record is inflated by the competition. The SEC got 13 teams into the tourney versus 6 from the B10 and 8 from the P12.

      3. MN hasn’t played a tough schedule, also inflating their record. UF was only 3.5 games behind in total record and 8 of the 16 national seeds are from the SEC. MN’s OOC schedule was also fairly soft, filled with teams that missed or barely made the tourney.

      Mowins noted that the Gophers were ranked No. 12 in the latest RPI rankings and were just 2-2 against top-25 RPI teams. The Gophers have victories over Louisiana State and California this year but haven’t beaten at top-10 RPI team.

      As Mowins noted, all of the 16 seeded teams in the NCAA tournament have at least one top-10 RPI win.

      We all know how much value NCAA committees tend to put on RPI, foolish though it may be. I’m not saying going unseeded was right, but it’s largely explainable. If you aren’t seeded than all teams are treated the same so going to UF was just bad luck based on who else made the tournament.

      Like

  104. ccrider55 says:

    Winning B1G tournament causes a dropout from the #7 pre selection ranking the same committee put out last week (according to Flugaur)?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The committee, chaired by Keisha Dunlap, from Conference USA, qualified the rankings announcement, saying it “will have no bearing on the final bracket.”

      How much time did they really spend on that bracket?

      How close were #7 – #16?

      Rather than viewing it as MN dropping, maybe other teams moved up by playing tougher teams in better conferences?

      http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/article/2017-05-06/ncaa-softball-championship-sport-committee-announces-second-top-10

      The ranking is based on the criteria used to select and seed the 64 teams for the Division I Softball Championship and include strength of schedule, Rating Percentage Index, head-to-head competition, results versus common opponents, significant wins and losses and locations of contests. Additionally, input is provided by the regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division I Softball Committee.

      Top 10 ranking (record as of games played through May 3):

      1. Florida (46-5)
      2. Florida St. (48-3-1)
      3. Arizona (47-5)
      4. Washington (38-10)
      5. Auburn (43-8)
      6. Oregon (41-6)
      7. Minnesota (48-3)
      8. Tennessee (42-8)
      9. Texas A&M (41-7)
      10. UCLA (37-12)

      10 -> 5 UCLA (went 5-1)
      NR -> 10 OU (50-8)
      NR -> 11 Utah (33-14)
      NR -> 12 MS (40-18)
      NR -> 13 LSU (41-18)
      NR -> 14 UK (36-17)
      NR -> 15 BU (43-12)
      NR -> 16 AL (42-16)

      I admit MN’s record stands out compared to those lower seeds, but I think the lack of elite games really hurt them. Not saying it’s right, but it’s like a a mid-major in hoops.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “…but it’s like a a mid-major in hoops”

        Yup. And Davidson getting left out with a single loss a few years back was a travesty, too. Seriously, eighth in any conference (unless it has 32+ members) simply shouldn’t be seeded. Included? Ok, but not seeded.

        Like

  105. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/15/notre-dame-buyout-charlie-weis/101708588/

    The total is in. Buying out Charlie Weis cost ND about $19M.

    The final tab is in: former Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis ended up receiving $18,967,960 from the university as a buyout for being fired in 2009.

    The amount of the final installment — 2,054,742 for the 2015 calendar year — was disclosed on Notre Dame’s new federal tax return, which was released Monday.

    The filing did not mention this would be the end of Weis’ payments the way the others did. Previous filings noted Weis was being paid through December 2015 as part of the termination agreement.

    Weis received a little more than $6.6 million in buyout pay from the school in 2009 and got about $2.05 million each subsequent year. In addition, he was reported by the school to have received $469,727 in 2010 from Play By Play Sports LLC, an outside multimedia and marketing rights entity that is part of Notre Dame Sports Properties.

    Like

  106. Brian says:

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/now-right-time-notre-dame-join-acc-football.html

    A little talk of ND to the ACC for football.

    Is now the right time?

    Here are the author’s reasons:
    1. The ACC is on the rise as a conference in football while ND is down, so maybe the level of competition is more acceptable to ND now.

    2. The ACCN is coming and that could be worth big money.

    http://floridastate.247sports.com/Bolt/Wilcox-projects-significant-revenue-jump-from-ACC-Network-51424858

    Florida State athletics director Stan Wilcox said the ACC’s revised television deal will deliver an increased payout of $3 million in the 2017-18 fiscal year.

    Wilcox was asked about ACC television distributions at an FSU Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday morning. A boost was expected with the July 2016 announcement of the ACC Network Extra by league commissioner John Swofford

    Revenues will jump once the “linear” ACC Network launches in the fall of 2019. Wilcox said the ACC’s projections have indicated that the distribution per school will increase by $8 million-$10 million in 2019-20, and then $10 million-$15 million in future years.

    “These are all projections,” Wilcox said. “It all depends on how well the network does. They are saying this network should have the same kind of return that the SEC Network has had in their first couple of years.”

    It might be enough of a money gap to get ND to drop their NBC deal and join the ACC.

    I just don’t see how the ACCN can make that much per year with cord cutting and lack of fan enthusiasm. The ACC has a populous footprint but they aren’t all diehards like the SEC has.

    But if those numbers are correct and it’s true that ND’s deal with NBC is so small (they already get about $6M from the ACC deal for MBB and other sports and would get some ACCN money as well), I could see ND considering a move after 2025 when their NBC deal ends. Or maybe the ACC let’s ND keep the NBC deal for a reduced share of the ESPN (money is money but it let’s ND keep their unique TV identity as a way to appease alumni) deal as a way to get them on board.

    Like

    • z33k says:

      ND should wait to see what happens to Big 12/OU/Texas and the ACCN; why rush into a “permanent” solution when you don’t know how the ACCN will turn out?

      My guess is that this is all being initiated by the ACC and ESPN to grab ND for the ACCN and their contracts. ESPN and the ACC know just how devastating cord cutting (and cable nevers) are to their strategy; they would like to have ND in the fold when ESPN goes to force Comcast/Charter/AT&T to swallow the ACCN.

      No doubt, ACC’s been told that if ND is in the conference fully, they’ll have a far easier time getting coverage in the Northeast and at better rates throughout their footprint…

      Like

      • Mike says:

        IMO – Notre Dame will wait until it knows there is a glass ceiling keeping it out of the NCG. Until then it only makes sense to stay independent.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        z33k,

        “ND should wait to see what happens to Big 12/OU/Texas and the ACCN; why rush into a “permanent” solution when you don’t know how the ACCN will turn out?”

        The B12 TV deal ends at the same time as ND’s NBC deal (2025). That’s 6 years after the ACCN is supposed to start, so they’ll have some idea of what it’s like by then. That’s the window where I would consider movement possible for ND. They’ll know what the B10 is making and will have a good idea of how the B12 will do and thus whether the B12 is likely to implode.

        “My guess is that this is all being initiated by the ACC and ESPN to grab ND for the ACCN and their contracts. ESPN and the ACC know just how devastating cord cutting (and cable nevers) are to their strategy; they would like to have ND in the fold when ESPN goes to force Comcast/Charter/AT&T to swallow the ACCN.”

        I think the rumor is exactly what it says. Of course ND is talking with the ACC about it. They aren’t saying yes to joining, but they talk about it and what the issues/obstacles are. Lots of people talk about things.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/notre-dame/2017/05/16/swarbrick-notre-dame-football-not-joining-acc-full-time/326356001/

      Jack Swarbrick flatly denies that ND is considering joining the ACC.

      Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick said the school is not considering joining the Atlantic Coast Conference as a full-time member in football, despite rumors.

      “Absolutely not true,” Swarbrick said at the ACC spring meetings Monday via the Orlando Sentinel. “We love the ACC, but we love our relationship the way it is and there hasn’t been any discussion.”

      Like

  107. Brian says:

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19393008/liberty-pay-old-dominion-13-million-play-2018-home-opener-game

    Liberty will pay ODU $1.3M to play in their home opener in 2018 as their first game as a I-A team.

    Like

  108. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/15/college-football-playoff-national-championship-game-halftime-show

    ESPN and the CFP reached an interesting compromise.

    ESPN wants to add a Super Bowl-like halftime show to the broadcast. What they’ve agreed to do is host a free concert near the stadium and show it live during halftime. The bands will still perform at the stadium and be shown on one of the megacast channels but ESPN itself will try to attract more viewers with the concert.

    Like

  109. Brian says:

    http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/05/82323/ohio-state-michigan-2017-officially-to-be-broadcasted-on-fox

    It’s official. Today Fox announced that they will air The Game this year.

    Other big games Fox announced:

    Penn State at Ohio State on Oct. 28;
    Notre Dame at Michigan State on Sept. 23;
    Oklahoma at Oklahoma State on Nov. 4; and
    Texas at USC on Sept. 16.

    Still no word on when the B10/Fox deal will be finalized.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      By omission we can probably pencil in Oklahoma at Ohio State on ABC. ABC also probably has Texas/Oklahoma, etc.

      Like

  110. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/msu/football/2017/05/16/big-ten-conference-high-schools-discuss-conflicts-friday-night-games/323881001/

    B10 and high school officials met to discuss the issue of Friday night games. They aren’t going away, so the discussion focused on how to minimize the problems.

    “I think part of this has to be the local politics, if you will,” Phillips said Monday at Big Ten headquarters. “What does it feel like in Evanston versus what does it feel like in Lincoln or feels like in Iowa City or Columbus, Ohio. And the more we can allow those schools to locally have influence over what we do on Friday nights, the better off we’ll be.”

    Administrators from a number of high school associations in the Midwest met for two hours Monday with the 12 Big Ten athletic directors, who are having their annual meetings at conference headquarters. Phillips said it was vital for the college representatives to hear the high school perspective on the impending Friday night move.

    The Big Ten’s new television agreements with ABC/ESPN and Fox stipulates the conference will play six Friday games per year over the next six seasons. MSU’s only Friday game in 2017 as part of that pact was the since-moved game against Northwestern.

    MSU athletic director Mark Hollis said moving the opener against Bowling Green requires Big Ten approval to move it to a Friday. Those MSU games, however, have not presented a conflict because Michigan high schools mostly play their games on the Thursday before Labor Day.

    “The networks are still going through that process,” Hollis said. “I’m uncertain if our Labor Day (game) is going to be Friday, but it’s obviously been what I would call a very good tradition and would like to see it continue. Just waiting to hear word on that one.”

    Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman likes the idea of his Illini playing two Friday night games this season.

    “Obviously you play at whatever time on a Saturday afternoon, you’re competing with dozens of other games,” Whitman said. “A chance to be on a national platform, I think, is great for our program.”

    Hollis said he understands that viewpoint.

    “If you remember when we were building our men’s basketball program, it was ‘Anyone, anywhere, anyplace, any time.’ It was to get that exposure,” he said. “We have so many more teams in the Big Ten that trying to find those windows that allow you to get that exposure for the whole league is important. I’m not surprised, because you always want to be on TV, you want to create those windows.

    “You understand the challenges with high school but I also think if you have that communication early on it gives the ability to create some pretty special times in those communities and high schools can adapt.”

    Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he supported the idea of Friday night football “100%.”

    “We have to be creative for our league,” Smith said. “Any time you have change of that nature, of that magnitude, there’s going to be some challenges. You just gotta fight through them.”

    Phillips cited a number of factors for why it doesn’t work for Northwestern. He added that Purdue has been working with high schools around West Lafayette to move games to Ross-Ade Stadium on the Saturday after the Boilermakers play the Bobcats in September. That, Phillips said, is one way both groups can make things work cooperatively.

    “Friday night football is beautiful,” he said, “and no one wants to disrupt that.”

    Like

  111. z33k says:

    I’m going to dissect the valuation estimates for you guys to help you understand what they mean:

    SNL Kagan valuation estimates:

    SECN – $4.7B
    BTN – $1.14B
    P12N – $305M

    Assuming 2% inflation over the operation of the networks, your cash flows have to look something like this to get to those numbers (note that I’m removing costs of operation; these numbers include payouts to schools + owners):

    Next 10 years worth of earnings to justify those estimates, accounts for roughly 80% of above valuations, remaining 20% accounted for in years beyond:

    Basic assumption: cord cutting decreases earnings over next 5 years, then stabilizes + digital/web/mobile payments outweigh cord cutting losses in subsequent 5 years:

    Basic assumption 2: cost of running network at start for SEC and Pac-12 a bit higher than Big Ten (because they’re younger networks), that number was already subtracted out to get to these “earnings” estimates for the SNL Kagan valuations.

    SECN (Disney + SEC earnings before payouts):
    2018: $450m
    2019: $435m
    2020: $420m
    2021: $410m
    2022: $405m
    2023: $415m
    2024: $425m
    2025: $440m
    2026: $460m
    2027: $485m

    BTN (Fox + Big Ten earnings before payouts/dividends):
    2018: $200m
    2019: $170m
    2020: $145m
    2021: $120m
    2022: $100m
    2023: $80m
    2024: $70m
    2025: $75m
    2026: $82m
    2027: $90m

    Pac-12N (Pac-12 earnings):
    2018: $18m
    2019: $19m
    2020: $20m
    2021: $21m
    2022: $22m
    2023: $24m
    2024: $26m
    2025: $28m
    2026: $31m
    2027: $34m

    Okay, so that’s a set of earnings that’s probably similar to how SNL Kagan got to those valuations above; Pac-12’s are a bit different because it doesn’t have wide distribution so it will be affected far less by cord cutting and might just slowly increase the entire timeframe. This should help the discussion for Brian and ccrider55.

    I make valuation estimates of businesses a lot, so I’m used to producing numbers like these.

    SNL Kagan must have used brutal cord cutting estimates for the BTN to produce that sequence of earnings, and they’re far more pessimisstic of BTN/Pac-12N’s ability to build digital revenue.

    Like

    • z33k says:

      Obviously, keep in mind that the Big Ten earns a fixed payout per year + dividend from earnings (as 49% owner).

      Latest year, the dividend split between Fox and Big Ten was around $45m (split 51-49). So that should tell you just how large the fixed payout per year is for the Big Ten (that’s at least $100m per year guaranteed).

      I’m not sure what happens to the Big Ten’s fixed payout under these SNL Kagan estimates but it sounds like they don’t think the network will be able to pay that by the mid-2020s(which sounds dubious to me but that’s what their cord cutting estimates creates).

      SNL Kagan is basically saying Fox won’t be happy with current network setup under their valuation metrics.

      Pac-12 gets to just split that payout 12 ways between its 12 members; it’ll rise from around $1.5m to $2.8m per school by 2027.

      SEC got around $100m from its network in 2015, but that will presumably rise as startup costs come off the books; either way their deal looks to put most of the payouts to Disney over time.

      My guess would be SECN payouts look like something like $160-180m per year by 2020-2025; that’s around $12m per school. Either way Disney will be making a lot of money on it under SNL Kagan estimates.

      Back to BTN, under SNL Kagan’s estimates the BTN will be losing money for FOX by the 2020s with a fixed payout to Big Ten around $120-130m per year by 2020-2025. Big Ten conference won’t be getting dividends, but each school will be getting near $9m or so per year.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        Summary:

        Disney earns $200m-300m per year for SECN over next 10 years.

        SEC takes in $100-120m per year now and around $160-180m at the end of 10 years (gradual increase) in fixed payments.

        Big Ten takes in around $100m per year now and around $120-130m at the end of 10 years (gradual increase) in fixed payments.

        Big Ten takes in an additional $23m per year now in dividends, and that will disappear by 2021 at which point the network is losing money.

        Fox takes in $23m per year now in dividends, and loses money after 2021.

        Pac-12 takes in $1.5m per year now and $2.8m per year at the end of 10 years (gradual increase).

        Like

    • Brian says:

      z33k,

      “Assuming 2% inflation over the operation of the networks, your cash flows have to look something like this to get to those numbers (note that I’m removing costs of operation; these numbers include payouts to schools + owners):

      Next 10 years worth of earnings to justify those estimates, accounts for roughly 80% of above valuations, remaining 20% accounted for in years beyond:

      Basic assumption: cord cutting decreases earnings over next 5 years, then stabilizes + digital/web/mobile payments outweigh cord cutting losses in subsequent 5 years:”

      Thanks. I’ll take your word for the numbers.

      “SNL Kagan must have used brutal cord cutting estimates for the BTN to produce that sequence of earnings, and they’re far more pessimisstic of BTN/Pac-12N’s ability to build digital revenue.”

      Yes, since the revenue drops by almost 2/3. That seems unrealistically negative to me.

      Is there any chance SNL Kagan gave a 50% valuation to BTN (how much it’s worth to Fox or the B10, not how much it’s worth to both) in their report and people are misunderstanding it? It’s just hard to grasp why the BTN would suffer that much more than the SECN.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        I don’t think it’s possible they made that mistake because of the payout structure of the BTN. If they did then they don’t understand that most of the earnings of the BTN go to the Big Ten because of the guaranteed rights fee included.

        The problem then is that the numbers become too small to work; Fox takes roughly $40+m a year from the BTN on their consolidated balance sheet (pre-tax/interest as a majority owned subsidiary); there’s no way to make that number turn into a $1bn+ valuation unless you count on that number growing rapidly (which obviously isn’t going to happen with cord cutting currently outweighing digital/web/mobile growth until cord cutting stabilizes).

        It just seems to me that they used really brutal cord cutting assumptions that negatively impact the BTN’s valuation.

        I find it hard to believe that BTN won’t be cover the Big Ten’s guaranteed rights fees by 2021.

        The only way that happens is if a “worst case scenario” comes to pass and the BTN only has around 25m subs by 2021.

        Like

  112. Jersey Bernie says:

    Hunter Woodhull from Utah, becomes first double amputee to get a D1 track scholarship. He will be going to Arkansas. He is a very nice young man. I met him and his parents at the Olympic Qualifiers in Charlotte last year. He was born with a disease that led to a double amputation of his feet when he was very young. He went on to play high school football and set a Utah state 400 meter championship on blades.

    He won two medals in Rio last year.

    Running blades are interesting. For short distances, blades are a major disadvantage compared to normal legs. At longer distances, blades actually can be an advantage. I am not sure of the reason for this, but that is what I have been told.

    http://www.teamusa.org/US-Paralympics/Features/2017/May/15/Arkansas-Bound-Hunter-Woodhall-Becomes-First-Double-Amputee-To-Earn-D1-Track-Scholarship

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Normal size heart and lungs needing to supply O2 to far less muscle mass and less byproduct (lactic acid, etc) to remove?

      Like

  113. Brian says:

    http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/shatel-rumblings-of-sooners-could-shake-big-ten-if-realignment/article_54469e07-11a3-5510-b584-df0ae0a98795.html

    Tom Shatel talks about the B10 possibly adding OU.

    Could the Sooners one day join the Big Ten? That would be the Nebraska dream.

    Boomer Sooner in the Big Ten West? Pardon us, Iowa, we’d be setting a new plate for Thanksgiving dinner.

    But as much as I’ve tried to dismiss the idea as the impossible dream in the past, Boren kept referencing the Big Ten.

    He also praised the Big Ten and Pac-12 as deserving of their “stature in the academic community.” He said the fact that Oklahoma is not a member of the Association of American Universities would not keep OU out of the Big Ten.

    Yep, he’s pretty much a conspiracy theorist’s dream.

    Look, it would be terrific to have Oklahoma back in the hood. Is this a realistic, viable option?

    It’s no secret: Oklahoma loves Texas. Not the Longhorns; the Sooners historically love recruiting the state, playing games there, hanging out there, etc. I’m having a hard time seeing OU coaches, players and fans under cold, gray skies in East Lansing, Michigan. An even harder time selling recruits in Texas, where they have entrenched talent pipelines, to play in the November cold.

    Maybe adding two to the Big Ten West, say Oklahoma and Kansas, would be more enticing. OU would play NU, KU, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Northwestern. You might be able to sell Sooner fans on that.

    One problem: As Oklahoma City columnist Berry Tramel points out, the Sooners will need to keep their series with Texas and Oklahoma State going. If those two are nonconference games, that leaves one open date with nine Big Ten games.

    Maybe Texas would want to come, too?

    Two problems: OU has dominated Big 12 football. The Sooners got a little taste of what the Big Ten would be like from Ohio State last year.

    I see Oklahoma as a fit in the SEC, especially against Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU and Alabama. But there, too, the art of winning championships just got tougher.

    Pac-12? Not a great fit but not bad. It’s a lot of travel, though that would be the case wherever the Sooners go. If they go.

    Oklahoma has a pretty good setup in the Big 12, but it’s not perfect. The Sooners don’t carry the cache of Texas in the league. Boren wanted the league to expand. How did that go?

    Just for fun, assume OU and KU join. What are the final week games?

    Givens:
    OSU/MI
    PU/IN
    IL/NW
    WI/MN
    PSU/MSU/RU/UMD

    New:
    NE/OU
    IA/KU

    What if it’s OU and UT?

    Givens:
    OSU/MI
    PU/IN
    IL/NW
    WI/MN
    PSU/MSU/RU/UMD

    New (boring choices):
    NE/OU
    IA/UT

    Outside the box thoughts:
    NE/OU
    UT/PSU
    IA/MSU
    RU/UMD

    Like

    • unproductive says:

      Your comments on final games is interesting. Before Chicago pulled out of the Big Ten, Illinois played Chicago in the season finale, and Iowa played primarily Northwestern and Nebraska in its final. When Chicago pulled out, Illinois switched its final game to Northwestern, leaving Iowa as the odd team out. Iowa pushed for Nebraska to be the replacement for Chicago, and actually voted against Michigan St. being added. Iowa and Michigan St. first played each other in 1953, and only played each other 7 times in the 50’s and 60’s. It’s not a big rivalry.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        unproductive,

        “Iowa pushed for Nebraska to be the replacement for Chicago, and actually voted against Michigan St. being added.”

        Good enough reason to dislike each other, at least in one direction.

        “Iowa and Michigan St. first played each other in 1953, and only played each other 7 times in the 50’s and 60’s. It’s not a big rivalry.”

        I know it isn’t, but they were both odd teams out. They are on similar levels as programs (MSU is up now, I’m talking in general) so it could become a pretty even series which might spice things up. MSU/WI became a bit of a rivalry that way.

        The two blue blood matchups are just so intriguing for TV that it’s hard to believe the B10 would pass up the money from those games to pair UT/IA and PSU/MSU although that would avoid divisional crossover issues.

        Like

        • unproductive says:

          MSU is kind of a funny school. From its standpoint, it’s biggest rival is Michigan, and its second (at least in football) is probably Notre Dame. When Penn St, joined, the Big Ten tried to turn the MSU-Penn St. game into the final game rivalry series (Iowa as the odd team out again!), so it created some hideous trophy that neither school really cared about. Besides, both MSU and Penn St. believe that they are on the level of, and really should be playing, Michigan and Ohio State, instead of each other. Rotating MSU, Penn St., Rutgers and Maryland as the season final (which the Big Ten is now doing, I think), probably makes the most sense.
          I agree that the Big Ten would not pass up the opportunity for more money, even at the expense of tradition or school desires. The Little Brown Jug and the Illibuck, as well as Friday night games, are proof of that.

          Like

  114. Brian says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/16/college-hotline-pac-12-finances-total-revenue-school-payouts-network-income-comps-with-secb1g-and-more/

    The P12 2015-16 financial info is out.

    *** Total Revenue

    Increased from $439 million in FY15 to $488 million in FY16.

    The jump was largely due to a $15 million bump in media rights — there’s an escalator clause in the ESPN/Fox deal — and a $27 million increase in bowl revenue (first year of combined CFP and Rose Bowl payouts).

    *** School distributions.

    The average payout in FY16 was $28.7 million per school, broken down as follows:

    Key point: That’s a gross number. Where applicable, the conference is withholding money to cover the cost of the Tier 3 (i.e., local) media rights buyback that occurred when the Pac-12 pooled all its content during negotiations with ESPN and Fox.

    In some cases, it’s a substantial amount. I spoke to Arizona officials a few weeks ago as part of my upcoming series, and the Wildcats have $1.5 million withheld annually for their Tier 3 buyback. Arizona’s net payout from the conference is actually a bit more than $27 million.

    *** Pac-12 Networks

    In FY16 — it’s fourth year of existence — the P12Nets reported $128 million in income, a 10 percent year-over-year increase.

    But multiple sources have pegged that figure [payout] in FY16 at approximately $2 million per school.

    That’s $24 million, backed out of the $128 million in income … the expense math is pretty clear. The seven-feed entity is costly.

    *** Comparisons with other Power Fives

    No surprise here: The Pac-12 lags the SEC and Big Ten in payouts. It also trails the Big 12, for reasons noted below:

    Fiscal year 2015 school distributions

    SEC: $32.7 million
    Big Ten: $32.4 million
    Pac-12: $25.1 million
    Big 12: 23.4 million

    Fiscal year 2016 school distributions

    SEC: $40.5 million
    Big Ten: $34.8 million
    Pac-12: $28.7 million
    Big 12: $28.45 million

    Notes:

    SEC figure is midpoint of confirmed range of $39.1 million to $41.9 million … Big Ten figure is for 11 continuing members … Big 12 figure is midpoint of confirmed range of $28 million to $28.9 million. Big 12 distributions do not include income from Tier 3 rights, which are owned by the schools.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      There’s a discrepancy between what USA Today (or whoever) gets from the tax returns and what the Big 12 is reporting publically. Not clear what the difference is. Big 12 reporting higher both years, $25.2 million in 2015 and $30.4 million in 2016.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It’s presumably some form of disbursement that doesn’t show up on the tax forms. Maybe bowl expenses being reimbursed or something. As long as the writers use the same source for all the leagues, the results should be consistent if not accurate (I’m guessing every league has some minor issues like that).

        Like

      • Brian says:

        http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19420865/acc-revenue-slightly-373-million

        The ACC had a revenue drop for 2015-16.

        ACC revenue dipped slightly to $373 million for the 2015-16 year, according to its federal tax return released Friday.

        There are two reasons the overall revenue decreased.

        The $403 million it earned the previous year included a $31 million exit fee payment from Maryland and a payout from its primary bowl partner, the Capital One Orange Bowl. In 2015-16, the Orange Bowl hosted the College Football Playoff semifinals, so the payout from that game did not belong to the ACC.

        Despite the decrease in 2015-16, the ACC received more revenue from its television payout, up $9 million to $226 million. It also received $85.9 million in bowl payouts, and $20.6 million from the NCAA basketball tournament (also an increase).

        The 14 full-time member schools received an average of $26.3 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, received $4.25 million. Clemson led the way among all ACC schools, receiving $27.9 million.

        SEC: $40.5 million
        Big Ten: $34.8 million
        Pac-12: $28.7 million
        Big 12: $28.45 million
        ACC: $26.3 million

        In addition, the league also paid its schools more than $13.2 million in championship reimbursements, which is not reflected in the payout figures.

        This might explain your discrepancy, bullet.

        Like

  115. Brian says:

    http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/basketball/2017/05/16/support-grows-protect-big-ten-basketball-rivalries/101751824/

    The B10 is slowly moving towards locking important rivalries (IN/PU, MI/MSU, IL/NW) in hoops. PU has been pushing this for years and the coaches and ADs are on board. There is also discussion of moving to 20 games.

    Conference expansion has forced those twice-a-year regular season showdowns into a scheduling rotation that may, or may not, include the games we cherish the most.

    Matt Painter has been a driving force behind it. Purdue’s veteran coach has brought the rest of the league’s coaches to his side. Now, the decision makers in the Big Ten Conference are drifting toward Painter’s way of thinking and are moving the process forward.

    It’s only a matter of time before it becomes reality.

    “The next step – and what we agreed to do (Tuesday) – was push that back to the scheduling folks here in the league and have them take a look at it,” Purdue athletic director Mike Bobinski said Tuesday during a break at the Big Ten Joint Group Meetings inside the league office.

    “I don’t think you can force a rivalry,” PSU athletic director Sandy Barbour said. “We don’t have one that stands out. Over time, maybe if we create one then Penn State might have a stake in something we would like to protect.

    “Purdue-Indiana, Michigan-Michigan State, Northwestern-Illinois, those make us all stronger. I’m thrilled to support that.”

    Painter has been pushing this concept for several years. It hasn’t gone unnoticed by Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany.

    “Matt is providing a lot of leadership and a lot of sound thinking,” Delany said. “We’re not ready to make any changes at this point but I can tell you the coaches had very constructive discussions on the issues of number of games as well as rivalry games.”

    Right now, it’s an 18-game regular season conference schedule. Can a 20-game season be far behind?

    “I can’t tell you how close we are but I think it’s an active discussion on that issue for sure,” Delany said.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      Sandy Barbour is partially correct on rivalries. We have no Big 10 rivalries. However we have Pitt and she needs to keep the Panthers on the schedule ( especially In football). The reality is we will never have a great rivalry with anyone in the Big 10. Dont believe me? We are the “Big Bad” in wrestling, and Ohio State and Iowa are not far behind, and even there the hate has not happened.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        David Brown,

        “Sandy Barbour is partially correct on rivalries. We have no Big 10 rivalries.”

        I don’t think that’s quite true. I agree you don’t have an all sports rival, though. Part of that is the B10 has such a long history without PSU that the other schools already established rivalries and new rivalries are harder to establish. I also think PSU’s long history as an independent impacts this. It developed a certain mindset in PSU fans that is hard to undo. PSU built their football program on being the lone superpower in the northeast and had no regular series with the other power program with an eastern fan base (ND). That left regional rivalries, and Pitt was the closest and best of PSU’s regular opponents. Before JoePa, Pitt was better than PSU.

        “However we have Pitt and she needs to keep the Panthers on the schedule ( especially In football).”

        It’s always good to preserve the big rivalries. They’ve been the greatest casualty of realignment (KU/MO, UT/TAMU, etc).

        “The reality is we will never have a great rivalry with anyone in the Big 10. Dont believe me? We are the “Big Bad” in wrestling, and Ohio State and Iowa are not far behind, and even there the hate has not happened.”

        I think PSU has or will develop some B10 rivalries in individual sports (PSU/UMD or PSU/RU in lacrosse, maybe), but an all-sports rivalry seems unlikely. I think you already have one with Iowa in wrestling based on how the staunch PSU and Iowa wrestling fans talk. There is definitely hate there. IA and PA are 2 of the best wrestling states in the nation so there are a lot of informed fans on both sides and they’ve been filling arenas for years. When the B10 schedule didn’t pair IA and PSU, the coaches agreed to meet OOC to maintain the rivalry. Sportswriters in IA call it a rivalry as do the coaches.

        I could see PSU/RU or PSU/UMD developing as rivalries in lacrosse. I’d say PSU/OSU is a rivalry in football, just not a major one for OSU (all other potential rivalries get lost in the shadow of MI).

        Like

      • BoilerTex says:

        Go visit the McAndrew board at any time and there’s an undoubtedly a thread on OSU and probably one on UM. i think you have a rival whether you know it or not.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Maryland has begun to build B1G rivalries in individual sports, some based on pre-conference history — Penn State in football, Michigan State in men’s basketball (the Terps and Spartans had some memorable NCAA tourney games), Northwestern in women’s lacrosse (they dominated the sport for several years). Others, such as Ohio State in women’s basketbal, have developed after joining the B1G. (Rutgers and to a lesser extent PSU were regular OOC foes in women’s hoops, but both programs have declined a bit in recent years.)

          Rutgers’ relative lack of big-time sports history works against it for now when the Knights face the Terps or PSU. By the end of the 2020s, that may change.

          Like

  116. Brian says:

    https://www.landof10.com/nebraska/big-ten-conference-officials-not-expect-blowback-got-moving-football-games-fridays

    Several notes from the B10 meetings:

    “The commissioner [Jim Delany] made the comment that Friday night games have been happening all across the country,” Tenopir, executive director of the Nebraska School Activities Association, told Land of 10 during Day One of the Big Ten Conference Joint Group Meetings.

    “They did not expect the blowback that the Big Ten got on Friday nights.”

    And by “blowback,” he means calls. Emails. Facebook comments. General social media hell.

    Executives from seven state athletic or activities associations within the Big Ten footprint … met with league officials for two hours at the Big Ten’s suburban Chicago headquarters Monday to explain their concerns with the conference’s decision to play football games, including intraleague matchups, on Friday nights starting this fall.

    Tenopir said Big Ten officials countered that the intent of Friday games was getting “some better prime-time coverage for some Big Ten teams that are traditionally second-tier compared to Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska.

    “They downplayed the revenue. But if television’s involved, you have to know that revenue is a portion of that.”

    “Jim Delany was very specific that this was a six-year television contract. Whatever [adjustment] there would be probably wouldn’t occur until after this six-year time period. And they’re as interested as we are in knowing how that Friday night, the 29th of September, will impact both Huskers football and high school football, volleyball, and other activities that have been competed on that particular night.”

    1. The league promises to stay away from any other weeknight football games — for now

    “… I think they also want to tackle a 14th week, in order to have two bye weeks and a 12-game season “

    Like

  117. bullet says:

    I don’t think the SEC or Big 12 are doing any regular Friday night games. The ACC and Pac 12 are mostly in places where HS football is not as big a deal.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Last year’s P5 Friday games outside of holiday weekends:

      11/11 BC @ FSU
      10/21 OR @ Cal
      10/14 Duke @ UL
      10/14 MsSU @ BYU
      10/7 Clemson @ BC
      9/30 Stanford @ UW
      9/23 TCU @ SMU
      9/23 USC @ Utah
      9/16 Baylor @ Rice
      9/16 ASU @ UTSA
      9/9 UL @ SU

      Some of those are HS football hotbeds.

      Like

  118. Zach says:

    Dumping Conference Members

    I have noted a few people talking about certain conferences dumping their least valuable members, and quite a few of you saying that will never happen. I have always been in the camp with those who don’t think anyone will get thrown out, but I saw an article today from the Kansas City Star talking about the potential for the death penalty for Baylor and/or the Big12 kicking Baylor out of the conference over the on going scandal.

    I do wonder under these circumstances you would toss out a school like Baylor. I think in the unlikely situation they get the death penalty it would be an easy move, then just replace with Cinci or BYU. Thoughts?

    http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/article151324857.html

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Brigham Young has more upside but brings more headaches, both political and geographical (a conference spanning three time zones). Cincinnati makes more sense, plus it finally gives West Virginia an eastern travel partner.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Zach,

      “I have noted a few people talking about certain conferences dumping their least valuable members, and quite a few of you saying that will never happen.”

      The only way it happens is if college sports becomes fully professional. In that case, the lesser schools couldn’t afford to keep up and would dilute the revenues too much. Then the top programs might separate out of necessity. Barring that, nobody will get dropped except for egregious problems (Temple not keeping up in sports at all, etc).

      “I have always been in the camp with those who don’t think anyone will get thrown out, but I saw an article today from the Kansas City Star talking about the potential for the death penalty for Baylor and/or the Big12 kicking Baylor out of the conference over the on going scandal.”

      The NCAA is investigating and will probably punish BU for LOIC and impermissible benefits and such, but it won’t rise to the level of the death penalty. All the rapes and failures to report are Title IX issues and legal issues, but not really covered by the NCAA bylaws directly. The NCAA could try to sneak by on the sort of charges they leveled on PSU if they go through their normal penalty procedure, but I doubt they will.

      The NCAA had a chance to rewrite their bylaws to specifically cover illegality and moral/ethical issues after PSU and they chose not to. It’s hard to punish schools for those things under vague bylaws. That’s why we won’t see the DP. Remember, SMU got busted paying players and then kept doing it and got busted again just after being told to stop. That’s what got them the DP.

      As for the B12, they have already “punished” BU by withholding 25% of their conference payout. Having done that, they have no intention of doing anything else unless things get much worse at BU. If BU gets the DP or if the feds cut off their funding for Title IX violations then the B12 might boot them. But who would they replace BU with? They don’t want to have only 9 teams, but maybe they just wait for BU to recover. And if they have to expand, do they go back to 12, or 11 with a spot for BU after they get past their issues, or stop at 10?

      “I do wonder under these circumstances you would toss out a school like Baylor. I think in the unlikely situation they get the death penalty it would be an easy move, then just replace with Cinci or BYU. Thoughts?”

      I’d think BYU would be their top choice, but they chose nobody last time they looked. Maybe it’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back and the B12 falls apart. How would the GoR be impacted? Would the B12 be violating their TV deals due to lack of inventory?

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        Brian, I agree that it would something truly extraordinary for any P5 conf to drop one or two schools. There is too much money in TV contracts to upset the apple cart.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          There is no way schools like Kansas State would vote to kick out Baylor. First the Big 10 ( which is far more prestigious and image conscious the Big XII) could have thrown out Penn State over Sandusky and did not. If Penn State did not get the SMU death penalty no one is. More importantly, in an era of “Cord Cutting” and cutbacks, I bet ESPN and for that matter Fox would not be sorry to not pay the Big XII, and see Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas go to a stronger Conference. Basically, K-STATE knows that the “Big Brother” Jayhawks would ditch them in a nanosecond for the B10 if the land grant ended because of no Baylor. In other words Baylor is safe.

          Like

  119. z33k says:

    The great irony in cord cutting is that it’s changed the incentives for TV Networks with respect to the conferences.

    In the past, only the conferences themselves had an interest in expansion to “rationalize” the sport by aggregating viewers towards the conferences with the most fans and ability to attract sports viewers.

    But now, with cord cutting, even FOX and ESPN have an incentive to favor that approach. Both have models that previously disfavored “larger” conferences (because it was always cheaper to have the conferences more diluted with more “power conferences”).

    In the future though I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. In the future, for the cable networks transitioning towards digital and trying to actually keep viewership and stabilize their sub rates and fees; it makes more sense to have larger conferences that can actually attract more viewers.

    In a sense, I’d argue that as long as FOX and ESPN are working together now (see Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 contracts); it makes more sense for them to let the Big 12 die and have OU and Texas go to conferences that they already provide for (Pac-12 or Big Ten).

    I’m not saying they’ll actively push for that outcome; but I actually think ESPN won’t step in to protect the Big 12 like they basically did with the LHN. It makes a lot more sense now to just let the Big 12 collapse and shift a small part of that $200m+ that ESPN/FOX pay towards the conferences where OU and Texas end up while dropping the remainder of the Big 12 towards AAC-like payouts.

    It’s a completely different world to what it was 5-10 years ago.

    Like

  120. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/18/satellite-camps-lsu-louisiana-michigan-texas-blocked

    Did LSU pressure SE Louisiana and Tulane to drop major out of state schools from their summer camps? UT, TAMU, AR, UH and MI were all announced as taking part in camps at one of those two schools before all being uninvited. LSU was announced as the headliner at each school instead.

    Other schools have been told not to come to a camp before (UNT told MI not to show up and OU was the headliner), but uninviting an announced headliner is a bigger deal.

    Like

  121. Brian says:

    http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/las-vegas-sportsbook-college-football-win-totals-where-are-they-wrong

    Vegas has released some win totals. CFN gives their number, too.

    B10:

    Vegas: Ohio State 10
    CFN: Ohio State 10.5

    Vegas: Penn State 9.5
    CFN: Penn State 9.5

    Vegas: Wisconsin 9.5
    CFN: Wisconsin 9.5

    Vegas: Michigan 9
    CFN: Michigan 9

    Vegas: Northwestern 7
    CFN: Northwestern 7.5

    Vegas: Iowa 6.5
    CFN: Iowa 8

    Vegas: Michigan State 6.5
    CFN: Michigan State 7.5

    Vegas: Nebraska 6
    CFN: Nebraska 8

    Vegas: Indiana 5.5
    CFN: Indiana 6

    National teams with a 9 or higher:

    SEC:
    Vegas: Alabama 10.5
    CFN: Alabama 10.5

    Vegas: LSU 9
    CFN: LSU 8.5

    Vegas: Florida 8
    CFN: Florida 9

    Vegas: Georgia 8
    CFN: Georgia 9

    ACC:
    Vegas: Florida State 9.5
    CFN: Florida State 10.5

    Vegas: Clemson 9
    CFN: Clemson 10

    Vegas: Louisville 9
    CFN: Louisville 9

    Vegas: Virginia Tech 9
    CFN: Virginia Tech 8.5

    Vegas: Miami 8.5
    CFN: Miami 9

    B12:
    Vegas: Oklahoma 9.5
    CFN: Oklahoma 9.5

    Vegas: Oklahoma State 9
    CFN: Oklahoma State 8.5

    P12:
    Vegas: USC 9.5
    CFN: USC 10.5

    Vegas: Washington 9.5
    CFN: Washington 9

    Vegas: Oregon 8
    CFN: Oregon 9

    Like

  122. Brian says:

    http://usatodayhss.com/2017/study-female-athletes-more-likely-than-males-to-report-concussion-symptoms

    Girls are much more likely than boys to report sports concussions, but large groups of both genders didn’t report them because they didn’t view it as serious.

    Like

  123. Brian says:

    Non-revenue sports update.

    Playing this weekend:

    M tennis – OSU in quarterfinals (#3 seed)
    W tennis – OSU in quarterfinals (#3 seed)

    M lacrosse – UMD & OSU in quarterfinals (#1 & #3 seeds respectively)
    W lacrosse – UMD & PSU in quarterfinals (#1 & #4 seeds respectively)

    W golf – NW, MSU, OSU, PU, MI

    W softball regionals – MN, OSU, WI, IL, MI

    Next weekend:

    M golf – IL, PU, PSU

    W rowing – OSU, MI, WI, IN, IA

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Early Saturday results:

      M tennis – OSU in quarterfinals (#3 seed)

      OSU wins 4-3 over TCU to advance to final four and face #2 seed UVA

      M lacrosse – OSU in quarterfinals (#3 seed)

      OSU wins 16-11 over Duke to advance to the final four to play the Syracuse/Towson winner

      W lacrosse – UMD in quarterfinals (#1 seed)

      UMD wins 13-12 over Stony Brook to advance to the final four and face the PSU/Princeton winner

      W golf – NW, MSU, OSU, PU, MI

      After 1 round (round 2 was rained out) of 4:
      1. NW
      2. Kent St +2
      3t. OSU +10 (relative to #1)
      3t. ASU, Stanford, Baylor
      7. SC +12
      8. UNC +13
      9t. PU +14
      9t. MI +14
      13t. MSU +16

      Way to go northern schools.

      W softball regionals – MN, OSU, WI, IL, MI

      WI and MI are 1-0

      MN won their first game then lost to AL. They need to win 3 straight including 2 over AL to advance and they’re playing in Tuscaloosa.

      IL won their first game then lost to UK. They need to win 3 straight including 2 over UK to advance and they’re playing in Lexington.

      OSU is 0-1. They need to win 4 straight including 2 over TN to advance and they’re playing in Knoxville.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Ongoing:

      W softball regionals – MN, OSU, WI, IL, MI
      OSU & IL eliminated
      MN needs to beat LT then sweep 2 games vs AL
      WI needs to sweep 2 games vs OR
      MI needs to sweep 2 games vs UW

      W tennis – OSU in quarterfinals this evening

      W golf – NW, MSU, OSU, PU, MI (final round in Monday)

      Updates for next weekend:

      M tennis – OSU in semifinals vs UVA

      M lacrosse – UMD (vs Denver) & OSU (vs Towson) in semifinals

      W lacrosse – UMD & PSU meet in semifinals

      M golf – IL, PU, PSU

      W rowing – OSU, MI, WI, IN, IA

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Updates:

      W tennis – OSU in semifinals this evening (rain delay)

      W golf – NW, MSU, OSU, PU, MI (final round in Monday)
      The top 8 teams advance to match play. Mostly through the final round:
      1. NW
      2. Stanford +13
      3t. USC, ASU +18

      7t. OSU +23

      9. SC +28
      13. PU +35
      17. MI +39
      19. MSU +48

      W softball regionals – all 5 teams eliminated

      M tennis – OSU lost in semifinals vs UVA

      Updates for next weekend:

      M lacrosse – UMD (vs Denver) & OSU (vs Towson) in semifinals

      W lacrosse – UMD & PSU meet in semifinals

      M golf – IL, PU, PSU

      W rowing – OSU, MI, WI, IN, IA

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Updates:

      W golf – NW and OSU advance to match play
      The top 8 teams advance:
      1. NW
      2. Stanford +8
      3. ASU +12
      4. OSU + 16
      5t. USC
      5t. UF
      7. Baylor
      8. Kent St

      3 northern schools advance

      W softball regionals – all 5 teams eliminated
      M tennis – OSU lost in semifinals vs UVA
      W tennis – OSU lost in semifinals vs Stanford

      Updates for next weekend:

      M lacrosse – UMD (vs Denver) & OSU (vs Towson) in semifinals
      W lacrosse – UMD & PSU meet in semifinals

      M golf – IL, PU, PSU

      W rowing – OSU, MI, WI, IN, IA

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Update:

        W golf – NW and OSU advance to match play

        OSU lost to USC.

        NW beat Kent St and is now facing USC in the semifinals.
        ASU and Stanford also advanced.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Update:

          W golf:

          NW is facing USC in the semifinals which was just called for darkness.

          1. NW +1 (thru 15)
          2. USC +1 (thru 14)
          3. USC +2 (thru 13)
          4. USC +1 (thru 12)
          5. USC +1 (thru 11)

          Stanford leads ASU 2-1 with 1 match tied thru 16 and Stanford leading the other by 1 on the 18th fairway.

          Play will resume tomorrow.

          Like

  124. Brian says:

    https://www.fanragsports.com/news/matchups-set-2017-gavitt-games/

    The Gavitt Games matchups are out.

    Nov. 13th: Minnesota at Providence
    Nov. 14th: Purdue at Marquette
    Nov. 15th: Butler at Maryland, Creighton at Northwestern, Indiana at Seton Hall
    Nov. 16th: Xavier at Wisconsin, Nebraska at St. John’s
    Nov. 17th: DePaul at Illinois

    Like

  125. Brian says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/18/college-hotline-the-pac-12-revenue-deficit-relative-to-sec-big-ten-is-real-and-its-spectacular/

    Part 1 in a series on the financial health of the public P12 schools by Jon Wilner.

    Above he gave the data for fiscal 2016. In this one he gives estimates going forward based on information from the schools and conferences. I inserted the relevant ACC information for comparison.

    Buried within the numbers are three items worth highlighting:

    1. The FY17 payments include a one-time supplemental distribution from the NCAA of approximately $850,000 per campus.

    2. Washington’s appearance in the College Football Playoff was worth approximately $450,000 to each school, according to information provided by UW.

    3. The Pac-12 Networks are expected to account for approximately $2.5 million of the conference payments.

    The bottom-line projection — the $29.5 million per-school distribution — supports the Hotline’s view that, short of a deal with DirecTV, the conference lacks a significant near-term revenue stimulant.

    Increases in distributions in coming years will likely unfold on the margins, driven by the escalator clause in the ESPN/Fox deals and new Pac-12 Networks streaming deals.

    It’s not unreasonable to envision the per-school distributions unfolding in this approximate manner (with 10 percent year-over-year increases included in the Big 12 and Pac-12 projections for FY18):

    2016 (actual)

    SEC: $40.5 million
    Big Ten: $34.8 million
    Pac-12: $28.7 million
    Big 12: $28.45 million
    (The ACC has not reported FY16.)

    [USA Today just showed them at $26.3M, but probably after Wilner wrote this]

    2017 (projected)

    SEC: $44 million
    Big Ten: $38 million
    Big 12: $34 million (per commissioner Bob Bowlsby)
    Pac-12: $29.5 million
    [ACC: $29M – using 10% bump as Wilner did]

    2018 (projected)

    SEC: $45+ million
    Big Ten: $45 million (new Tier 1 deal)
    Big 12: $37.5 million
    Pac-12: $32.5 million
    [ACC: $32M – using 10% bump as Wilner did]

    A few notes:
    * Shouldn’t FY18 SEC be more like $48.5M? That would be a 10% bump.

    * The old B10 estimate was for a jump to $44.5M for FY18. After the negotiations, that seems a little low to me. I’m estimating it more in the $46-47M range. On the other hand, the University of Iowa had it at $43.7M as of 9/30/2016 (but their FY16 estimate was $1.5M low).

    * Add in the usual caveat for bullet that the B12 number doesn’t include tier 3 money. That probably average around $8M putting the B12 on par but with greater disparity from top to bottom.

    * The ACCN should start in FY20, so the ACC may make a jump then.

    Now for the part ccrider55 will hate as always:

    In other words …

    Barring a major new revenue stream, each Pac-12 school will be $12+ million behind its SEC and Big Ten peers for the final seven years of the conference’s Tier 1 deal, which runs through 2023-24.

    The Hotline has addressed this scenario previously. But as each year passes with no Pac-12 revenue game-changers … as Pac-12 Networks distribution continues to lag … as the Big Ten’s new Tier 1 deal draws closer and as the SEC Network continues to mint money … as all those competing dynamics unfold, we get closer to the billion dollar reality.

    Seven years of a $12+ million per year deficit for Pac-12 schools equates to an $84 million per school disparity, through the current Tier 1 deal, relative to schools in the SEC and Big Ten.

    And $84 million per school for a 12-team conference is a $1 billion deficit.

    If it wasn’t for geography, I think we’d all consider the P12 vulnerable.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Brian:

      No, my problem is with Wilner.
      “…supports the Hotline’s view that, short of a deal with DirecTV, the conference lacks a significant near-term revenue stimulant.”
      Yet just a few months ago he was saying a DTV deal really wouldn’t have a very significant effect (maybe >1M per school, iirc).
      But primarily he has been single minded in his thinking that an equity sale is required. He gives almost no value to what full ownership brings, and more importantly what obligations/encumbrances that co-ownership could impose.

      I’m not smart enough to understand all the moving pieces, but if another run at P16 is somewhere in the future an independent conf network would seem to give the most flexibility. That includes the possibility of an equity sale at that time in order to consummate the deal. Hidden very long term potential through ownership that Wilner (looking at short term bottom line) either misses, or discounts.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        Well, the difference between having an equity backer (FOX or ESPN) is that the equity backer isn’t just taking a percentage of the ownership.

        They’re also giving back “guaranteed annual payments” (i.e. SECN or BTN) and providing negotiating leverage for network for carriage.

        It’s not a simple issue.

        The problem that the Pac-12 may have is that they’ve researched co-ownership (BTN) or non-ownership (SECN) and not really found an adequate accomodation.

        FOX is giving the Big Ten roughly $100m annually guaranteed as a part of the deal the Big Ten signed giving them a half the network.

        ESPN is giving SEC even higher guaranteed payments over the near/longer term than Big Ten will receive from FOX; but SEC receives no dividends, whereas the Big Ten receives roughly 49% of the after-tax profit of the BTN (around $23m in a recent year).

        So there’s all sorts of issues that have to be discussed.

        Whether you’re talking about roughly half-ownership (BTN) or non-ownership (SECN); the most important factor is the guaranteed annual payment; if that isn’t high enough, then it’s not necessarily in the Pac-12’s interest to sell that part of the ownership.

        Like

        • z33k says:

          So all of this comes down to what the offers on the table were:

          If FOX (let’s use them for this example), was only offering a flat initial fee of say $100m in order to own equity in the Pac-12N then of course it was sensible to reject that.

          If FOX was offering $100m in annual guaranteed payments for a half, then it was crazy to reject that.

          Most likely, the answer is somewhere in the middle:

          If FOX was offering $50m in annual guaranteed payments for 50% of the network, then you have a lot to discuss. That would probably boost annual Pac-12 payouts per school by roughly $3m per year versus 100% ownership over next 5-10 years, but at the same time, if coverage is above expectations (so far it’s not), then it might end up looking like a poor deal.

          If I had to guess, the annual payments offered were probably below what Pac-12 would have wanted (if they did fully explore a deal with FOX or ESPN).

          Like

          • z33k says:

            And yes, if Scott thinks a Pac-16 with Texas/OU are on the table, then owning 100% makes some sense because you can get far higher value in any deal than you would otherwise (but I think that might be negotiable after the additions of other schools; the Big Ten is getting higher guaranteed payments with Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland than the original deal 10 years ago).

            Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “No, my problem is with Wilner.”

        Well, presumably with his opinion on this issue and not him personally.

        “…supports the Hotline’s view that, short of a deal with DirecTV, the conference lacks a significant near-term revenue stimulant.”

        “Yet just a few months ago he was saying a DTV deal really wouldn’t have a very significant effect (maybe >1M per school, iirc).”

        Is he wrong? Is there any other significant source of revenue available to them? He can also be right that even a DTV deal might not be a game changer while saying it’s the only major revenue source out there for them.

        “But primarily he has been single minded in his thinking that an equity sale is required.”

        That’s not what I take from his work. I think he keeps saying that an equity sale is required if the P12 wants to keep up in revenue and he thinks they should be concerned about keeping up financially (certainly a lot of his readers think that). He isn’t pushing a sale just to sell something. He can be right that such a sale is the only way to keep up even if you disagree with him that they should try to keep up.

        “He gives almost no value to what full ownership brings,”

        Which you’ve never explained beyond the obvious. Is it unreasonable for him to disagree with you on that?

        “and more importantly what obligations/encumbrances that co-ownership could impose.”

        The BTN and SECN seem to be doing just fine with these obligations/encumbrances. What’s so onerous about co-ownership?

        “I’m not smart enough to understand all the moving pieces, but if another run at P16 is somewhere in the future an independent conf network would seem to give the most flexibility.”

        All contracts are negotiable, so I’m not sure it buys them much flexibility. LHN was still an obstacle for them, so where was the benefit?

        “That includes the possibility of an equity sale at that time in order to consummate the deal.”

        An equity sale is a crapshoot. You can never know when it has peak value. There is an opportunity cost either way.

        “Hidden very long term potential through ownership that Wilner (looking at short term bottom line) either misses, or discounts.”

        Many people don’t see much future value in the P12N, not just him. People are predicting the decline of all conference networks, so why would the P12N be immune?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Brian:

          “LHN was still an obstacle for them, so where was the benefit?”

          Future possible benefit. Non Fox affiliated allows a possible equity exchange for LHN becoming P12N/Texas until LHN contract expires. Post 2032 either Fox or espn, or both , or an alternate option, could become equity partners (assuming partnership would be desired by chancellors and presidents).

          “Many people don’t see much future value in the P12N,”

          What do they think of the OU/UT + 2 included P16N?

          “so why would the P12N be immune?”

          Not immune, but receiving 100% of after cost revenue, as opposed to 50(?)%. And not in the shadow of the Mouse, and it’s shareholders.

          Live sports will remain attractive and DVR proof. Control of the rights to that product shouldn’t be underestimated or sold long term for short term gain. How long have the SEC and ACC committed theirs?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Future possible benefit.”

            Or future possible no benefit. A partial equity sale would be hedging their bets which is often good business practice.

            “Non Fox affiliated allows a possible equity exchange for LHN becoming P12N/Texas until LHN contract expires.”

            That would also be possible with Fox affiliation if the value is there. Fox and ESPN work together a lot. They could both own a chunk of the P12N.

            “Post 2032 either Fox or espn, or both , or an alternate option, could become equity partners (assuming partnership would be desired by chancellors and presidents).”

            Again, it doesn’t have to be either/or. The P12N could sell a share to an investment firm for that matter.

            “What do they think of the OU/UT + 2 included P16N?”

            That it won’t happen. And if it does, the TV model may well have changed to the point where the P16N is largely irrelevant. Everything may be OTT or PPV by then. Look how hard it was to get LHN on in TX. P16N (national) would be a tougher sell since most of the programming is non-Texas. The regional network might be more popular depending on what it can carry and how providers bundle the channels. But LHN only makes about $0.30 per subscriber. P12N charges $0.80 in the footprint.

            http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/04/the-pac-12s-financial-future-what-a-directv-deal-would-be-worth/

            And related to something you said earlier, Wilner estimated DTV would add about $2.9M per school per year if it paid that same $0.80 as the other big carriers. That’s not game changing, but it’s also not trivial since it’s a more than 10% bump in total payout.

            “Not immune, but receiving 100% of after cost revenue, as opposed to 50(?)%. And not in the shadow of the Mouse, and it’s shareholders.”

            But partners have helped greatly increase the revenue by providing leverage worth carriers. Getting on DTV could more than double what the P12N nets the schools but they don’t have the leverage to do it. Besides, they don’t have to sell 50%. They could sell a minority share.

            “Live sports will remain attractive and DVR proof.”

            Probably. But will they be streaming proof?

            “Control of the rights to that product shouldn’t be underestimated or sold long term for short term gain.”

            That’s one opinion. I’d counter that they also shouldn’t be overestimated and that sometimes the short term gain leads to long term gain. There’s no guarantee the network’s value will grow substantially (see LHN).

            “How long have the SEC and ACC committed theirs?”

            Until 2024 and 2036 respectively. The B10’s are committed until 2032. It’s not permanent.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “That it won’t happen.”

            Don’t think they addressed that. I was being rhetorical.

            ” And if it does, the TV model may well have changed to the point where the P16N is largely irrelevant.”

            Doesn’t mater what mode of delivery, if conf net controls product of some value it will be relevant.

            “Probably. But will they be streaming proof?”

            Absolutely not. The conferences streams tons of events already…to authorized subscribers. Unless you’re talking about periscopeing live from a seat, or pirate links, control of the product is supreme.

            I realize there are many holes in many of my ideas. Partially playing devil’s advocate.

            Like

        • David Brown says:

          There is little doubt that Direct TV would give in to the Pac-12 Network IF Oklahoma and Texas were in the morning Conference. But that is not the case, nor are the odds of this happening that good. I lived in the Pac-12 footprint ( Mesa Arizona) tight next to Tempe ( hometown of ASU) and there was more interest in SEC and B10 then ASU sports. Personally speaking, ASU is my second favorite college school ( behind Penn State), but I am choosing the Steelers, Penguins, Yankees, Islanders and of course. Nittany Lions over the Sun Devils with Direct TV.

          Like

  126. Brian says:

    http://www.theherdnow.com/fox-sports-executive-vp-michael-mulvihill-on-the-rapidly-changing-landscape-of-sports-television-broadcasting/

    Colin Cowherd interviews a Fox Sports executive VP on a bunch of topics relevant to us here (cord cutting, RSNs, Fox/ESPN CFB game drafting, the future of TV, etc). It’s a 30 minute podcast.

    Like

    • largeR says:

      Thanks for posting this. It is a great interview with an extremely knowledgeable exec-wish I could edit out Cowherd. This is worth the 30 minutes.

      Like

  127. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sun-belt-announces-football-divisions-starting-in-2018-collaborative-replay-system/

    The SB announced its divisions for 2018. The winners will meet in the CCG.

    East: Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Troy

    West: Arkansas State, Louisiana, UL-Monroe, South Alabama, Texas State

    Like

  128. Brian says:

    https://www.si.com/college-football/2007/08/08/program-pecking-order-bcs-teams-hierarchy

    10 years ago, Stewart Mandel published his first BCS program pecking order list of 4 tiers of royalty.

    Kings

    Alabama
    Florida
    Florida State
    Miami
    Michigan
    Nebraska
    Notre Dame
    Ohio State
    Oklahoma
    Penn State
    Tennessee*
    Texas
    USC

    * Tennessee is the lone school in the group that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately. In the end, I figured those 100 fans in Montana still know “Rocky Top,” the checkered end zones and that Peyton Manning went there.

    Barons

    Auburn
    Clemson
    Colorado
    Georgia
    LSU*
    Texas A&M
    UCLA
    Virginia Tech
    Washington
    Wisconsin

    * While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group.

    Knights

    Arizona State
    Arkansas
    Boston College
    California
    Georgia Tech
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas State
    Maryland
    Michigan State
    Missouri
    N.C. State
    Oklahoma State
    Ole Miss
    Oregon
    Oregon State
    Pittsburgh
    Purdue
    Stanford
    Syracuse*
    South Carolina
    Texas Tech
    Virginia
    West Virginia
    Washington State

    * In normal times, Syracuse would qualify as one of the barons, but they’re just so darn bad and so irrelevant right now.

    Peasants

    Arizona
    Baylor
    Cincinnati
    Connecticut
    Duke
    Minnesota
    Indiana
    Iowa State
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Mississippi State
    North Carolina
    Northwestern
    Rutgers*
    South Florida*
    Wake Forest
    Vanderbilt

    * Rutgers is another program that could be on its way up a tier, and South Florida is here by default because it’s essentially a start-up.

    There is one school intentionally missing from the list, and that’s because I have no idea where to put it: Louisville. History-wise, the Cardinals are peasants, but the program has completely reinvented itself over the past decade and now gets mentioned with the kings and barons. For now, we’ll just say: TBD.

    https://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag#

    5 years later he updated it.

    Changes:

    Baron -> King: LSU
    King -> Baron: TN

    Knight -> Baron: OR, WV
    Baron -> Knight: CO, UW

    New Knights: Boise, BYU, TCU, Utah
    Knight -> Peasant: WSU

    New Peasants: UL, Temple

    Well, his next update is due out tomorrow. So let’s speculate. Who should move up and who should move down?

    Kings:
    This list is pretty stable, but maybe a team like Miami is vulnerable since it has no history before the 80s. Teams like ND, NE and UT haven’t done a lot lately but they have tons of history to lean on.

    Clemson might be moving up to the King level after the past few seasons, but I don’t think they’ve done enough yet.

    Barons:
    Is WV at risk? I think Auburn could drop post-Cam.

    Stanford and UL have sustained success lately. What about MSU’s run under Dantonio elevating them? Baylor might have moved up but I can’t believe they will with this scandal hanging over them. OkSU might be due for a bump, too.

    Knights:
    I think PU and IL need to drop. BC, Cal, OrSU and Syracuse too.

    Baylor, UL and NW could all move up potentially.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Though properly speaking his “peasants” should be Gentry, and the Go5 schools be included en masse as the peasantry.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Here’s the new Mandel ranking of programs Brian referenced above.

      http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-program-pecking-order-3-0-dividing-all-66-bcs-teams-into-four-tier-hierarchy-052517

      “In conclusion, if we go back and compare this list to the original we get a sense just how much — or how little — college football’s perceived hierarchy changes in the span of a decade. Here’s how it breaks down.
      •Eleven of the 13 Kings remained the same, with LSU and Clemson supplanting Tennessee and Nebraska.
      •There was more movement in and out of the Barons, with just six originals among the current 11. Oregon, Michigan State and Stanford all ascended from Knights.
      •It’s really hard to escape the realm of peasantry. Baylor, Northwestern and North Carolina were the only ones to do it.
      •All told, 16 of the 66 BCS-conference schools circa 2007 — just less than a quarter — changed tiers over the span of 10 years.

      Worth noting: Louisville was the most ascendant program of all, going from unranked (apparently out of indecision) in 2007 to Peasants in 2012 to Knights in 2017.”

      Like

      • Brian says:

        My predictions were fairly obvious and pretty accurate. I’m surprised Cal, IL and SU stayed as Knights. IL is 20-41 over the past 5 years. SU is 26-36. Cal is 22-39.

        Teams in reverse order of W% over the past 5 seasons (I know prestige isn’t just W/L):
        KU, PU, ISU, UVA, IL, CO, UK, WF, Cal, IN, BC, UMD, OrSU, WSU, AR, RU, Vandy

        That’s everyone below 0.500. All are Peasants except for UVA, IL, CO, Cal and UMD. The other peasants are AZ, Duke, MN and MsSU (0.554, 0.569, 0.569 and 0.615 respectively).

        I don’t see sufficient success to keep those 5 schools as Knights. They all had runs in the 90s or early 00s when Mandel was starting to focus on CFB, but a current recruit wouldn’t remember any of it. He dropped NE for that reason but left these teams elevated.

        Like

        • z33k says:

          Mandel’s ranking is pretty fair.

          Worth noting that the bottom 2 tiers should be much more “what have you done for me lately” than the top 2 tiers.

          Whereas a school can have a good 10-15 year period and move from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier (i.e. Northwestern) or vice-versa Boston College.

          I also agree with you on IL/SU; the reality of college football is, if you have a rough 10-15 year period and aren’t in the top 2 tiers; then you’ll probably be in the 4th.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Alan from Baton Rouge,

        •Eleven of the 13 Kings remained the same, with LSU and Clemson supplanting Tennessee and Nebraska.

        I wonder how secure LSU’s place is going forward. They had a great run from 2001-2013 averaging 10.4 wins per season, but they’ve gone 25-12 since then. If Orgeron doesn’t beat AL a few times and start LSU winning 10 games again soon, they’ll basically be where NE is now.

        •There was more movement in and out of the Barons, with just six originals among the current 11. Oregon, Michigan State and Stanford all ascended from Knights.

        Likewise, OR needs to get back to their winning ways. They’ve gone 13-12 the past 2 seasons. That’s okay if it’s just a blip, but if extends to 5+ years it will hurt them.

        Worth noting: Louisville was the most ascendant program of all, going from unranked (apparently out of indecision) in 2007 to Peasants in 2012 to Knights in 2017.”

        That’s unfair. Mandel was unsure where to put them in 2007 so he left them off his list entirely when all the other Big Eats teams were included. They’ve really gone from Peasant to Knight in 10 years, a 1 level bump like multiple schools attained.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Brian – keep in mind that over the last two seasons, LSU had to cancel two sure wins due to weather. Add those two to the total and that’s 9 wins a season during a down time. With the drama of a coaching change and excruiatingly close losses last season (last possession v. Wisconsin; last play at Auburn and v. Florida; and tied with Bama with six minutes left in the 4Q), I think LSU is doing better than most.

          That being said, I can’t wait until Nick Saban retires! There is no way Bama keeps up this kind of run without him.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            If it wasn’t for AL, LSU would look a lot better. But thanks to Saban, LSU rarely wins their own division so they also get almost no SEC titles. I’m not saying LSU can’t or won’t bounce back, but they’re trending the wrong way at the moment and 5 more years of that could put them in a precarious place for king status. That’s all. Post-Saban, LSU could go on a tear and cement their king status for a long time.

            Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          ESPN releases most of its schedule for the first three weeks of the season.

          http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2017/05/marquee-games-every-conference-bolster-espns-early-season-college-football-schedule/

          Like

          • Brian says:

            B10 games pre-selected by ABC/ESPN/…

            Week 1 Schedule
            Date Time (ET) Game Network
            Thu, Aug. 31 8 p.m. Ohio State at Indiana ESPN
            Fri, Sept. 1 9 p.m. Utah State at Wisconsin ESPN
            Sat, Sept. 2 Noon Akron at Penn State ABC
            Bowling Green at Michigan State ESPNU
            3:30 p.m. Michigan vs. Florida from Arlington, Texas ABC

            Week 2 Schedule
            Sat, Sept. 9 Noon Cincinnati at Michigan ABC or ESPN
            Iowa at Iowa State ESPN or ESPN2
            Northwestern at Duke ESPNU
            3:30 p.m. Pittsburgh at Penn State ABC
            Indiana at Virginia ACC Network Extra
            7:30 p.m. Oklahoma at Ohio State ABC

            Week 3 Schedule
            Fri, Sept. 15 7 p.m. Illinois at South Florida ESPN
            Sat, Sept. 16 3:30 p.m. Wisconsin at BYU ABC or ESPN
            North Texas at Iowa ESPN2

            Week 4 and Beyond
            Oct. 14 TBD Northwestern at Maryland TBD
            Oct. 28 TBD Michigan State at Northwestern TBD

            Like

  129. Brian says:

    http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

    Summer camp season is approaching for CFB, so I wanted to look at where schools are in recruiting right now. Camps are when a lot of top programs offer players, so more commitments and flips will start to happen. Since an early signing period will exist in December in the future, I thought it might be useful to look at where teams stand throughout the year.

    1. Miami – 17
    2. OSU – 10
    3. PSU – 13
    4. LSU – 16
    5. ND – 11
    6. NE – 11
    7. FSU – 9
    8. TN – 11
    9. Clemson – 9
    10. MI – 9

    Rest of B10:
    16. NW – 13
    17. MN – 13
    22. WI – 10
    31. UMD – 6
    40. MSU – 5
    41. IA – 6
    58. IN – 4
    69. RU – 3
    73. IL – 2
    95. PU – 1

    Obviously a lot will change as classes fill up (63. AL – 2 for example) and the top players make decisions.

    Sorted by average ranking per player:
    1. Ohio State – 96.34
    2. USC – 95.07
    3. Clemson – 93.52
    4. Alabama – 92.86
    5. Miami – 92.22
    6. Washington
    7. Florida State
    8. Penn State – 91.65
    9. Texas
    10. North Carolina

    Rest of B10:
    13. MI – 90.27
    22. NE – 88.36
    27. UMD – 87.75
    28. MSU – 87.29
    39. WI – 85.18
    42. MN – 85.00
    43. NW – 84.93
    48. IA – 84. 65
    61. IL – 83.35
    65. IN – 83.26
    77. RU – 81.47
    86. PU – 80.00

    Like

  130. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/north-carolina-gives-coach-larry-fedora-contract-extension-through-2022/

    UNC has extended Larry Fedora through 2022. Any chance this is designed to give him job security through the sanctions the NCAA is likely to hand down this fall?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/05/25/north-carolina-challenges-ncaa-findings-response-notice-allegations/102146626/

      On a related note, UNC is still fighting the charges claiming it’s purely an academic issue and thus not under NCAA jurisdiction.

      In a response made public Thursday to the NCAA’s most recent Notice of Allegations, North Carolina challenges the most serious and potentially damaging allegation, arguing that “inadequate academic oversight unrelated to the Department of Athletics” doesn’t constitute an issue within the NCAA’s jurisdiction.

      Further, the school argues that the case should not be characterized as an “extra benefit” situation because the courses were available to all students and that athletes were not treated differently from others with regard to how the courses were administered. North Carolina also accuses the NCAA’s enforcement staff of changing its theory multiple times for how the facts of the case could be shoehorned into violations of extra benefit rules.

      “The issues concerning the Courses are academic in nature, concern academic administration and lie beyond the reach of the bylaws belatedly invoked by the Staff,” the response states.

      Like

  131. Brian says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/25/espn-releases-week-1-college-football-schedule-and-prime-time-games/102145150/

    ABC/ESPN has released their schedule for Week 1 plus primetime games in weeks 2 and 3. 5 B10 teams will be shown in the opening week plus the OSU vs OU game in week 2.

    WEEK 1

    Thursday, Aug. 31

    Ohio State at Indiana, 8 p.m. (ESPN)

    Friday, Sept. 1

    Utah State at Wisconsin, 9 p.m. (ESPN)

    Saturday, Sept. 2

    Akron at Penn State, noon (ABC)
    Kent State at Clemson, noon (ESPN)
    N.C. State vs. South Carolina (in Charlotte), 3 p.m. (ESPN)
    Florida vs. Michigan (in Arlington, Texas), 3:30 p.m. (ABC)
    Appalachian State at Georgia, 6:15 p.m. (ESPN)
    Alabama vs. Florida State (in Atlanta), 8 p.m. (ABC)
    Brigham Young vs. LSU (in Houston), 9:30 p.m. (ESPN)

    Sunday, Sept. 3

    South Carolina State at Southern, 2:30 p.m. (ESPN2)
    Virginia Tech vs. West Virginia (in Landover, Md.), 7:30 p.m. (ABC)

    Monday, Sept. 4

    Georgia Tech vs. Tennessee (in Atlanta), 8 p.m. (ESPN)

    WEEK 2

    Saturday, Sept. 9

    Oklahoma at Ohio State, 7:30 p.m. (ABC)

    WEEK 3

    Saturday, Sept. 16

    Miami (Fla.) at Florida State, 8 p.m. (ABC)

    Like

  132. Nostradamus says:

    The complete first 3 weeks of the Big Ten schedule, times and networks will be announced on 5/31 as well as kickoff times for homecoming games. Night games outside of the first 3 weeks will be selected on a more typical 12 day window beyond that. Additionally it appears as one concession for granting more night games, any Big Ten controlled game on ABC (and presumably Fox) in prime-time will kickoff at 7:30 eastern.

    Like

  133. Jersey Bernie says:

    An article on why Rio should not have bid on the Olympics. Obviously, LA is in much better shape since they have facilities.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/news/rios-example-no-city-bid-host-olympics-183332226.html

    Like

    • z33k says:

      That’s the story of every Olympics for the past 40+ years. Only the US hosts have earned money on their Olympics because the infrastructure (stadiums/hotels/venues/roads/etc.) don’t need much upgrading or have other uses before/after the Olympics.

      London was a pretty good example of how to manage a relatively “low cost” Olympics with much of the infrastructure temporary and much cheaper to put together/dismantle after…

      On the other hand you have Sochi or Rio where massive sums are spent with very little in terms of real economic gains for the public.

      Like

      • Jersey Bernie says:

        It was really bad in Rio. The city was great and there were no security issues at all.

        The facilities were another issue. The Olympic village was a group of apartment buildings. Team USA shared a building with New Zealand, as I recall. No one was allowed to drink the water, or even use it to brush teeth. The lobby of the Team USA apartment building had unlimited bottled water, which was used for hand washing, etc.

        One fun thing was that no one was allowed to flush anything down the toilets. They had red bags to collect materials that otherwise would have been flushed.

        I can’t imagine what has happened to those buildings in the past 10 months or so.

        LA, London, Tokyo, etc., would be infinitely better.

        I was in Athens a few years after the 2004 Olympics. Most of the facilities were vacant and unused..What a shame.

        Like

        • z33k says:

          Yeah, the real problem is just that very few countries have sports teams and tourism levels that necessitate Olympic style infrastructure on a long-term basis.

          Of course, US cities do with our multi-billion-dollar sports teams and massive hotel room count in every major city; LA, London, Paris, Frankfurt/Berlin do as well, but beyond that? Very few countries/cities have that.

          Even China and Russia generally don’t have a need for that kind of infrastructure; look at how underused China’s 2008 venues have been for a long period of time.

          Like

    • David Brown says:

      I suspect that Paris gets the 2024 Olympics. Anyone remember how bad Obama looked begging for a Chicago Olympics? Not to mention that the fact that President Trump is more unpopular with the global organization types then Obama was ( I happen to support President Trump but it is what it is). Not to mention the IOC is not exactly Pro-American, and you see the odds of LA winning are not good. To be fair, i am not an Olympics fan ( except hockey and certain winter sports), and if I am alive in 2024 and my TV choice is the Olympics or MLB Extra Innings (especially the Yankees), baseball wins every every time.

      Like

      • z33k says:

        Whether LA gets it or not will probably have to do more with the fact that a US Olympics would be incredibly profitable for everyone involved (and especially the IOC’s top media contract owner: NBC).

        Everything’s pointing to a double vote right now: Paris in 2024 and LA in 2028; we’ll see if that still holds.

        Like

        • z33k says:

          I haven’t looked at the specific numbers, but I think a single US Olympics would be so profitable for NBC that it would probably pay for an entire Olympics cycle (2 Summer/2 Winter) alone.

          Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        You like many other Yankees fans are getting their fix from broader television and other platform options. The Yankees organization is getting a lot of crap from media types for ticket pricing (and distribution) practices that might be keeping their attendance down at YS3 despite a bit of a resurgence and a new star (Aaron Judge). Supposedly the lower revenue from ticket sales is making the bondholders for YS 3 a bit nervous as well.

        http://deadspin.com/the-yankees-are-struggling-to-put-butts-in-seats-1795556615 (pardon the sourcse

        I still think Yankees- Nittany Lions is big thing, much like Braves-Crimson Tide-LeBron era Heat, though much less bandwagon. Actually have seen a lot of Yankee-Nittany Lion bumper/backwindow salutes on the roads near Great Lakes Naval Center and Six Flags up in Lake County IL

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          There are a lot of tickets in Yankee Stadium that cost well north of $250 per game. Some go to $500 for one game. Not a lot of people are about to plunk down $700 or $800 for two tickets to a baseball game.

          I know a guy who was one of the original limited partners when Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973. (And there was nothing more limited than a limited partner of George). His interest in the Yankees is pushing $100,000,000 and he owns several minor league teams. He gave up his season tickets in the new stadium, since he did not think that the seats are worth it – and he is an owner.

          I live in North Jersey and have never seen any Penn State Yankees connection. Maybe that is more evident in the City.

          The Yankees and Rutgers have a formal relationship. Hopefully the Yankees do not terminate it since they are so embarrassed by RU.

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

          Like

  134. Brian says:

    NCAA updates:

    W Lax
    UMD beat PSU in the semifinals. They’ll face BC in the final and be a big favorite.

    M golf
    Darkness came before round 1 was fully finished,

    1. Vandy -8
    5t. IL -3
    26t. PU +10
    29. PSU +13

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Woo hoo. Both OSU and UMD won their men’s lacrosse semifinals so the B10 is guaranteed another national title.

      Men’s golf
      After 2 rounds (almost everyone’s done):
      1. UNLV -14
      3. IL -11

      27. PSU +17
      28. PU +18